Well I was out of ideas for a post, so I went to the Left Fringe for ideas.
Apparently some of the Liberals have created a guide book for fighting our soon to be President's agenda. It seems I have heard some group complain that this behavior was wrong and terrible... Where was that again? :-)
Oh well, apparently it is acceptable now that the GOP has the Presidency. Thoughts?
Apparently some of the Liberals have created a guide book for fighting our soon to be President's agenda. It seems I have heard some group complain that this behavior was wrong and terrible... Where was that again? :-)
Oh well, apparently it is acceptable now that the GOP has the Presidency. Thoughts?
70 comments:
Tee-hee. These Libs think they are the majority, simply because they are always right about everything. They are right about one thing, though, the media have (for too long held) an outsized effect on public opinion, by substantially distorting reality and truth with their leftward bias. Really. I read the Strib and find myself knowing less than I did when I started.
I hate to break it to you but they are the majority...
Don't confuse Democrats not coming out to vote for Hillary, with a personal delusion that those voters do not exist.
The Democrats offer something that many people like the idea of. A safe world where "government" is going to protect you from everything with regulations and prevent you from experiencing the negative consequences of your stupid, lazy and/or irresponsible actions by giving you money.
If you don't try hard in school, they will give you a higher minimum wage and free/subsidized insurance.
If you get knocked up, they will help pay your bills.
If you don't save or invest, they will send you checks.
If you make stupid investment / loan decisions they will go after the bank for you.
For folks who do not understand the negative costs and consequences of all this on the USA, it sounds like nirvana.
"The Democrats offer something that many people like the idea of. A safe world where "government" is going to protect you from everything with regulations and prevent you from experiencing the negative consequences of your stupid, lazy and/or irresponsible actions by giving you money."
An overly dramatic and overwrought interpretation of Liberal belief.
All of your Conservative ideals can be summed up with, "If you're poor, you're terrible at life, so suck it! I got mine."
Joel
If that were true we probably wouldn't give so much to charity.
My reality is that I think a lot of folks have academically challenged, immature, low ambition, low self discipline, criminal and/or irresponsible Parents... Therefore they end up academically challenged, immature, low ambition, criminal and /or irresponsible young people...
No "you are terrible at life, so suck it" is involved.
The question is how to help these people to become academically capable, mature, high ambition, self disciplined, law abiding and responsible? Just writing them checks and giving them services for nothing is like feeding cattle in a pen. You just get more cattle.
If a Teacher gives everyone a C or better, no matter their effort, capability, behaviors, etc. Do you they are helping the poor students?
If a Parent gives money to their spend thrift child every time they ask for it... Do you think they are helping the child?
What is your rationale for giving people money when they make bad choices... Do you really think it helping them?
Now I am happy to help support them as they work to straighten out their life. However they had better be willing to work hard at it and live within their means.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word fringe as neither of your links is to a fringe group or publication.
as for your other nonsense in your brief post I don't have the motivation to respond, as you should be able to see the differences in the Obama vs Trump situation for yourself. one example is the most honest president compared to the most corrupt. another difference Obama won by 7% while Trump lost by 2%. One tried to save the planet the other promotes policies that will lead to catastrophic climate change. One implemented a republican plan to expand access to health care the other wants to undo 100 years of progressive policies that millions of people depend on. One worked with a congress whose goal was to make him a one term president, Obama has said he will do what he can to help Trump because he wants what is best for the country.
Democrats Had a Knife, and the G.O.P. Had a Gun
You see Mother Jones as fair and balanced...
Mom sees Fox News as fair and balanced...
I see both of them as fringe / biased...
Laurie,
The simple truth is that about half the public supported Obama's policies and about half disagreed.
And now about half support Trump's policies and about half disagree.
The big question is if the Democrats will do as the GOP supposedly did. Those behaviors that the Democrats called terrible, inappropriate, anti-democratic, etc.
"The big question is if the Democrats will do as the GOP supposedly did. Those behaviors that the Democrats called terrible, inappropriate, anti-democratic, etc."
The voters have spoken, and they don't mind obstruction. So Democrats should give the voters what they want.
I think I may be about to abandon the debate, here, in favor of a "can't we all just get along" approach. What I mean is that, since almost everything Trump proposes seems to make simple common sense (ignoring the horrible motivations attributed to him by leftists) and there are no reasonable objections to the actual policies, why would Democrats obstruct?
Sean,
Sounds fine to me. I like slow steady change.
Jerry,
You are part of the half who supports Trump policies.
I know it is hard to believe but a little bit over half of American citizens see Trump's plans as anything but common sense. They see them as very damaging.
Just as you saw Obama's platform and Presidency.
Jerry's comment made me think...
Isn't it fascinating how half of Americans support Trump Policies and half Obama's.
And each group would swear that the other is irrational and going to ruin the country.
I LOVE AMERICA !!!
FYI. MP Lets All Just Get Along
Of course we are failing to find common ground there... :-)
Just venting... Those MP Moderators have blocked a dozen of my responses to Paul, Matt etc...
So you may see some of these topic in the future.
I am going to change my mind here and admit that the country is polarized. I have long thought that intelligent people could reason together and decide to govern themselves in a sensible way. I still believe that, but I understand that is not the current situation. What I would like to do is to ask those who disagree with Trump's policy choices-- i.e. the ones "on the table" right now-- to offer a rational argument as to why those policies are harmful, not before the fact or because of who champions it or even what their motivations may be, but because of a realistic assessment of whether it will solve the problem it purports to solve. Do I need an example?
The Left is going apoplectic because the new head of EPA is a "climate change denier." That is not a rational argument, it is an irrational fear of something not yet even proposed. But let us assume that, as one might reasonably suspect, the Trump administration cancels the $20+ billion dollars (and rapidly growing) being spent every year to "fight climate change." The =EPA itself= says that the effect on global climate, over the next 100 years, will be so small as to be essentially immeasurable. What is rational about spending vast sums of money to accomplish nothing? Is the irrational side of this argument willing to come over to the rational?
I think it's irrational to deny facts, which you do on a regular basis when it comes to Global Climate Change.
Joel
I think "EPA says that the effect on global climate, over the next 100 years, will be so small as to be essentially immeasurable" is a total fabrication. Where do you get these strange ideas?
EPA Climate Change
Strange ideas? I see where others have been deceived, as in your cite. I prefer facts to hype.
not how you measure?
We only have 320 million people out of the ~7000 million people on the planet
We are the richest and most advanced.
We use more power per capita than almost anyone
We are one of the biggest energy users / polluters
Should we be leading the way? Or should we setting a bad example that will doom millions of other humans so we can save a little money?
Apparently we are 4.5% of the world's population and create 16% of the greenhouse gases.
So, am I going to have to look up the IPCC report that says if EVERYBODY on the planet radically cuts the emissions of CO2, we will knock 0.2 degrees off the 100-year "crisis" temperature, or can you do it? That's less than 10% of the temperature rise predicted, by the way. Estimated "opportunity cost" of this is some $70 Trillion, about total world GDP. It makes no sense.
The problem here is that the ONLY "evidence" anybody has for catastrophic man-made global warming (and if it isn't catastrophic we'll manage, and if it isn't manmade there is nothing we can do) are the computerized climate models. We KNOW these models are wrong because the last 30 years have proven them to be so, and those familiar with the modelling techniques recognize they cannot possibly be correct. We can't even use the usual technique of taking an average of these estimates because they aren't scattered either side of the actual data; they are ALL too high. So the statistical rule at play here is "the average of errors is still an error." If the EPA, NASA and the IPCC show us the data that says there is not a problem and that moreover we cannot fix it, then WHY, in the name of all reason, are we "doing something"?
And before you start with all the OTHER observations as "proof," please be certain you define accurately what portion is a natural variation and what is caused by human activity. If the glaciers are melting, the world may be warming (and it is, we are coming out of an ice age), but that is no evidence whatsoever that humans are causing it.
the right wing has much more fringe than progressives with a much broader reach. Take pizza gate as an example. Also conservatives are much more likely to be mistaken in what they consider facts, such as 52% of republicans believe Trump won the popular vote.
Most of my news sources have a progressive slant or bias as their writing likely reflects progressive values and opinions, but they are very accurate in presenting facts and use reliable, knowledgeable sources.
Take climate change for example; the right completely dismisses all the evidence while the left tries to use all the evidence from climate science in supporting good policy. Where would you get better info on climate change and policy ideas, mother jones or fox news?
Any of those in the middle will do...
Though my normal favorites are CNN, NPR, Associated Press, Politico, USA Today, etc
Jerry, We will have to agree to disagree.
Just curious. Where do you think the fumes and heat from the 96 MILLION BARRELS / DAY the world uses is going? Not to mention the 2 MILLION SHORT TONS / DAY of coal?
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the amount of stored energy we are releasing into the environment every day. Without humans this massive amount of energy would have remained stored in the ground. However now it is combined with oxygen and heat which creates more heat and gases.
I was using this simple concept in Dad's machine shed today to warm up a frozen tractor. The Knipco heater burned maybe 1 gallon to heat up the 50 x 100 shed. Now just think of the heat created by 96,000,000 barrels...
you didn't answer my question so I will answer it with a link about how Fox news reporters were directed to raise doubts about climate science every time they reported on this:
FOXLEAKS: Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science
mother Jones is clearly more reliable when it comes to reporting on climate change.
Now I don't see humans causing the end of days through this irresponsible behavior, remember that I think Mother Nature will react when the core temperature increases enough. It may just kill a bunch of humans in the correction.
But to deny that this massive energy release is heating up the Earth seems just silly. Especially if we can do it differently and create new industries / economic development in the process. Using stored fuel just because it is there when other better options are technologically available is silly.
Laurie,
What do you see as wrong with this?
"In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
Seems factual to me. There is a lot of uncertainty in the numbers.
Does Mother Jones report that there are a lot of scientists who disagree with climate change theory?
Or do they consistently state it as fact and that anyone who disagrees is a quack?
what do you mean by a lot? are you a climate change skeptic? Why have you been trying to persuade Jerry that the evidence for climate change is strong?
Scientists Just Confirmed The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change
So if we agree that climate change is a real thing we can see that once again conservatives are badly misinformed:
Public views on climate change and climate scientists
Now did you read the PEW link?
It expressed a lot of doubt by people in whether the Climate Scientist really know what is happening or what to do about it.
I agree that human actions are warming our environment...
The questions are:
- How much extra do we want to spend today?
- Who will we take this from? (ie nothing is free)
- Note: Higher utility bills hit poor hardest. (ie regressive tax)
- What will be the good/bad impact of this?
- How much do we want to spend to adapt to a warmer world?
The Left insists it is an EMERGENCY, everyone ifs GOING TO DIE, and we should spend AS MUCH AS IT TAKES !!!
I prefer a more rational discussion.
the public is generally stupid (partially from watching fox news) and the conservatives are the dumbest of all (again from watching fox news more frequently.)
before I posted it I skim read my link all the way through to the end, where I learned that 15% of conservatives believe climate change is caused by human activity whereas 79% of liberals correctly attribute climate change to human activity.
All that proves is that they disagree...
Not which group is the stupid one... :-)
"Roughly half of adults (48%) say climate change is mostly due to human activity; roughly three-in-ten say it is due to natural causes (31%) and another fifth say there is no solid evidence of warming (20%)."
"Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found 93% of members with a Ph.D. in Earth sciences (and 87% of all members) say the Earth is warming mostly because of human behavior.5
But, in the public eye, there is considerably less consensus. Just 27% of Americans say that “almost all” climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change. Another 35% say more than half of climate scientists agree about this, while an equal share says that about fewer than half (20%) or almost no (15%) scientific experts believe that human behavior is the main contributing factor in climate change."
"Americans appear to harbor significant reservations about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding of what is happening to the Earth’s climate. One-in-three adults (33%) say climate scientists understand “very well” whether climate change is occurring, another 39% say scientists understand this “fairly well” and some 27% say scientists don’t understand this “too well” or don’t understand it at all.
Just over a quarter of the public – 28% – says climate scientists have a solid understanding of the causes of climate change. And even fewer, 19%, of adults say the same about climate scientists’ understanding of the best ways to address climate change."
"Some 39% of Americans say they trust climate scientists a lot when it comes to providing information about the causes of climate change. About a fifth of Americans (22%) hold no trust or not too much trust in information from climate scientists. Another 39% report “some” trust in climate scientists to give a full and accurate portrait of the causes of climate change.
Public trust in information from the news media, energy industry leaders and elected officials is significantly lower, however. A majority of Americans report having not too much or no trust in information from these groups about the causes of climate change."
When it comes to climate change I care what the scientists and politicians think, the dumb public not so much. Though if the public was better informed on climate change they could be more effective in influencing the dumb politicians. From my previous link:
"While reaching this so-called “consensus on consensus,” authors concluded that scientific agreement on human-caused climate change is “robust” with a range of 90 to 100 percent, depending on the question and methodology.'
Laurie,
I would be skeptical of what the scientists believe because they have a HUGE AMOUNT of MONEY that is dependent on your believing them.
I mean how much publicity and government /private funding do you think these scientists received before preaching the doomsday scenario as to the amount of publicity and government /private funding they receive now?
They went from being nobodies on college campuses to being rock stars... And the more exciting / dire their reports, the more folks like yourself listen to them... So yes they are scientists, but they are also humans who can be swayed by these things.
I don't care what scientists believe, or what the general public believes. The vast majority of it is not fact-based simply because nobody KNOWS and even those paid to work in "climate science" don't have enough information. It is impossible to say what the "weather" (that is, a snapshot of "climate") will be 100 years from now. And the vast majority of everybody buys into one simple but critical logical fallacy. They say "climate change is real" and immediately assume "catastrophic manmade" in front of it, with ZERO evidence. If you want to make an assertion like that, especially when you want to propose catastrophic economic change, do you not require HARD evidence rather than simple, faith-based assertions?
Let's try another fact: Greenhouse gasses are about 4% of the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of that. Human emissions are 4% of that, and the US puts out about 20% of that. So, if the US cuts 50% of CO2 (try living with 50% of the jobs, products, transportation, light and heat), we will have altered the composition of the atmosphere by 6.4 parts per million. The scientists project we will have a catastrophe when CO2 rises from the current 400 PPM to 800 PPM. Does anybody think our tiny 6.4 PPM, if that, is going to matter? The EPA, IPCC, and NASA do NOT. Who are you going to believe? Them or Mother Jones?
John, even anecdotal evidence is sometimes instructive, by pointing out more general truths. One biological scientist was saying, "Suppose I wanted to study the mating habits of the Rufous Hummingbird. When I apply for my government grant I will title my research, 'The effect of climate change on the mating habits of the Rufous Hummingbird' and I will get my grant. I will do my research, and the conclusion of my paper will be 'IF the climate gets warmer, we can expect the mating habits of this feisty little hummingbird to change.'" And there you have "another scientist" who supports the "theory" of /manmade/ climate change while saying no such thing. If you read the IPCC report, you will find a LOT of them like that.
Methane
Animal Agriculture is responsible for ~51% of greenhouse gas emissions, so in a way, Jerry, you are correct; our energy use is not the main culprit, and cutting it back or changing it won't make a significant difference.
Joel
Not sure of your 51% number, but methane is measured in parts per BILLION (about 1854 PPB last I saw). Allowing that its GHC is about 30 times higher, the effect of curbing 50% of it (starving most of us for protein) would be .50*.51*1854/1000000000*30 = 14 PPM of CO2 equivalent. Still not much, and the only proposals from government are to curb CO2, which as we have already learned, will not matter.
Curbing animal agriculture cuts more than just methane production. And you are grossly uninformed if you think we need animals to eat for protein. It's just not true.
Joel
Jerry,
When we evaluate risk via a Failure Mode Effect Analysis, we rate to potential failures based on:
- Severity
- Occurrence
- Detection
Given the Severity score on this potential "Failure". It can not be ignored.
The potential price to our children and grand children is far too great.
You are concerned about saving one fetus, and yet you are willing to risk billions of lives to save some money...
By the way, What is your answer?
Just curious. Where do you think the fumes and heat from the 96 MILLION BARRELS / DAY the world uses is going? Not to mention the 2 MILLION SHORT TONS / DAY of coal?
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the amount of stored energy we are releasing into the environment every day. Without humans this massive amount of energy would have remained stored in the ground. However now it is combined with oxygen and heat which creates more heat and gases.
I was using this simple concept in Dad's machine shed today to warm up a frozen tractor. The Knipco heater burned maybe 1 gallon to heat up the 50 x 100 shed. Now just think of the heat created by 96,000,000 barrels...
John, you need to understand that the world is big. REALLY big. Much bigger than all that fossil fuel burning. The IPCC and everybody else calculates CO2 just as you do, and then they measure the "heat" signature (i.e. temperature) of both the additional heat output and whatever CO2 may or may not contribute to that, on top of the natural. That heat DOES show up, it's called the "urban heat island effect" but it doesn't mean much to the global temperature. The suburbs are generally cooler by 1 or 2 degrees or more. More importantly, this effect gets measured by NASA's ground-based weather stations, because according to a recent survey, some 70% of them are no longer sited properly. As cities grew outward they swallowed up and paved over these locations, and some of them now sit next to asphalt parking lots. So when NASA quotes ground station numbers, they're inflated. Satellite measurements (also NASA) are more reliable and they show essentially no warming for the last 18 years.
So let us talk FMEA.
-- severity. Scientists more or less agree that a temperature rise of 2 degrees could easily be beneficial, with fewer cold weather deaths, increased food supply through longer growing seasons and more area available, CO2 fertilization and decreased water use. The recent post-ice-age average trend is 1 degree per 100 years. The average of the flawed computer models is about 3 degrees per century, and those estimates are continually being revised downward as the models improve. So, the severity is most likely not severe at all and may even be beneficial.
-- Probability of occurrence. We have 18 years of essential "pause" in temperature rise while CO2 increased. In the 70s we were worried about global cooling while CO2 was increasing. A rough statistical analysis of the variation in climate models, which assume that CO2 drives temperature (as real data indicates it does not), suggests at least a 95% certainty the models are wrong, and greatly overestimate actual warming.
-- detection. Well, we do have satellite global temperature data, and certainly if the world DID get warmer we could detect it. We still would not know whether the warming was manmade or not, however. More likely, we would be able to "detect" things like increased hurricanes, or droughts, or sea level rise, none of which are occurring as predicted, by the way, and then we could treat these "symptoms" individually, as they arose.
And you left out one critical element of FMEA-- the cost of prevention. Combining your first three factors would seem to warrant doing nothing, and the cost of preventing such an unlikely, mild and easily treated situation would be worthwhile only if it was tiny, which it obviously is not. More importantly, to prevent something you must know the exact cause, timing, and magnitude of that which you are trying to prevent, and the computer models tell us essentially nothing in that regard. Moreover, to /adapt/ to some potential situation is almost always cheaper because it does not require any knowledge other than direct observation of the situation, IF and WHEN it happens.
Lastly, let's remember that Al Gore's "ten years to save the planet" ended a year ago and yet here we are. It is almost as if somebody wanted to alarm the populace to make a lot of money selling worthless "carbon credits."
jerry, is this your recipe for slow-boiled frog? That's how it reads.
Joel
Joel,
Good use of the frog story. And in this case you may turn off the burner in 2020 and the stove will keep warming up for a century afterward.
Jerry
FMEA Scales
If it involves possible death, we typically are not allowed to ignore it.
So let's talk about your heat island concept... So all that heat and gases are generated in an area... This causes an immediate measurable increase in temperature... Then the heat and gases radiate / flow outward and become less easily measurable... Do you think they just disappear? If so to where?
Think of the earth as a huge constrained green house. Where again is it going?
Intro for Graphic
A Humorous Graphic
As for cost benefits... I covered that with Laurie earlier...
I agree that human actions are warming our environment...
The questions are:
- How much extra do we want to spend today?
- Who will we take this from? (ie nothing is free)
- Note: Higher utility bills hit poor hardest. (ie regressive tax)
- What will be the good/bad impact of this?
- How much do we want to spend to adapt to a warmer world?
The Left insists it is an EMERGENCY, everyone ifs GOING TO DIE, and we should spend AS MUCH AS IT TAKES !!!
I prefer a more rational discussion.
How can Climate Change Kill Humans? Let us count the ways.
Business Insider
World health Org
Go back to the FMEA analysis. If the predicted warming is not happening and will not happen, then why do we want to spend ANYTHING on prevention, and with a solution that we KNOW will not affect the problem much either way? If Climate Change is almost entirely natural, which it seems to be, then any ill effects can not be prevented. But we CAN adapt to them.
Here's an example: Your WHO document starts out saying that human CO2 will cause rapid increases in the lower atmosphere. Too bad. It is simply not happening. It doesn't exist. The models are completely wrong. Therefore, any concerning effects of this non-existent change are phantasms and fevered imaginings. I prefer a more rational approach.
Oh, and your cartoon chart is a cartoon, not a scientifically accurate document.
"Do you think they just disappear? If so to where? "--
I noted that the suburbs are 1 to 2 degrees cooler than the urban heat islands, so the heat isn't going there. Where did that heat go? The same place a bright flash of light goes. As it spreads outward, it decreases in intensity by the square of the distance. So a light bulb going on, loses 1/2 of its intensity in the 1st foot, 3/4 in the second, 7/8 in the third, 15/16 in the 4th, 31/32 in the 5th, 63/64 in the 6th, 127/128 (less than 1%) in the 7th, etc. Easy to see within 7 arbitrary units of the urban heat island, that 2 degrees of temperature is down to .02 or so. OH, except that the atmosphere extends out in THREE dimensions. so within 7 miles, the heat island is down to roughly .002 of its former self. The world is BIG.
The interesting thing about heat energy is that it does not just disappear. It either raises the temperature of something in the system or has to escape the system. (ie rediate into space)
And we know that the gases and particulates remain trapped in the system somewhere. Either in the air, on the ground or in the water...
Please feel free to remain a full fledged denier and ignore the people who are dying in the severe weather events that are increasing in severity, hopefully Trump gives it a bit more thought before doing anything drastic.
"... heat energy ... does not just disappear."
Of course not. It keeps you and I from freezing in our homes. It turns into electricity to run our computers. It melts scrap iron into steel for our cars, which are driven by the heat of combustion in the engine. And the waste heat from power plants in Florida are keeping the manatees alive in the cold of winter.
"... the gases and particulates remain trapped in the system ..."
If you are talking about CO2, you had better consider the plant life on the planet. The "greening of the Earth" is already widespread and obvious from satellites. And it is beneficial.
I will remain a denier simply because that is the only rational position in this debate. When a true believer tells you that climate change is an oncoming disaster, yet their own data conclusively proves otherwise, what does reason tell you?
You are correct that some heat is turned into work. Unfortunately most escapes into the system. A car for instance loses 60+% of that combustion energy to heat in various forms. And that heat goes out into the system /atmosphere.
And yes CO2 is a blessing and a curse. But there are many other chemicals that are emitted during the combustion process.
I am unsure if climate change will be a disaster for people in MN... But it is certainly going to be a disaster for millions / billions of people in different parts of the world. Also, I am a believer in leave the place nicer than you found it... Especially when there are so many excellent alternatives available.
We should not forget that if/when the Greenland ice sheet melts, it will likely disturb or completely cut off the gulf stream, which helps to keep Europe warm. Europe can be quite volatile when things aren't going well.
Joel
"I am unsure if climate change will be a disaster for people in MN..."
Now who is the denier? Will you deny what the IPCC, EPA and NASA are telling you, that a disaster is NOT coming, at least to a 95% certainty, and that we cannot prevent whatever temperature rise does occur? (And by the way, it's snowing.)
"We should not forget that if/when the Greenland ice sheet melts,..."
We are not forgetting anything. It is just that such a scenario is highly unlikely in our grandchildren's lifetimes, and that if it DOES occur there will be nothing we could have done to prevent it. Just because a glacier melts does not mean that humans caused it. Alaska's glaciers have been retreating for 400 years. No SUVs in 1616.
Jerry,
As usual... Please provide a source.
I am guessing you did not read the "Ways Climate Change Can Kill Humans" links I provided above. My point is that MN is high above sea level and pretty cool.
We should do pretty good as long as the severe thunderstorms and/or tornadoes don't get us.
This is an interesting website. EPA Projections Page
This one reminds me of all the flooding that occurred this year
"I am guessing you did not read the 'Ways Climate Change Can Kill Humans' links I provided above."
Sorry, I did not, but I've had my fill of one-sided propaganda based on faulty or no actual data. As for sources, I'm guessing you did not read my "not the way to measure" link above. When the EPA tells us there will be terrible consequences to global warming (similar to your link above) and then tells me that we can only avoid that fate to the tune of 1/100 of 1 degree, any rational person would suggest they are getting excited about nothing, or worse. The IPCC says something similar, buried in their voluminous report.
And your other cite, I forget which, says that temperatures are "predicted" to rise between 0.2 and 8.5 degrees. That's not a prediction, that is a blind orangutan and a dart board.
Do you mean the Official EPA site???
"Increases in average global temperatures are expected to be within the range of 0.5°F to 8.6°F by 2100, with a likely increase of at least 2.7°F for all scenarios except the one representing the most aggressive mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Except under the most aggressive mitigation scenario studied, global average temperature is expected to warm at least twice as much in the next 100 years as it has during the last 100 years.
Ground-level air temperatures are expected to continue to warm more rapidly over land than oceans.
Some parts of the world are projected to see larger temperature increases than the global average."
And since the world is slow / reluctant to react... It will likely follow the red or orange line.
And yes as always, I read your link...
It was the one that said the USA should provide a bad example for the rest of the world... Even though we are the most wealthy, powerful, technologically advanced, energy intensive country in the world.
I am interested to see how many 500 year storm events we have to have in a 10 year period until you reconsider the possibilities. Maybe it is a good time for the full tea cup story
"It was the one that said the USA should provide a bad example for the rest of the world." Well, not quite. It said that we should do something really, really stupid to set a GOOD example for the world, when we already have done so (our CO2 emissions increase was lower than almost anybody else's) and the rest of the world, notably China and India, have already said they do NOT intend to follow our example, regardless.
I am willing to consider the last ten years, in which the number of severe storms seems to have gone DOWN. storm tracker
"Do you mean the Official EPA site?" Most likely, yes. I remember what I read, not where. The problem with the rest of what you quote is it simply assumes that the models are correct, when they obviously are just plain wrong. Again, taking the average of errors does not work because the errors are not evenly distributed either side of the measured data; they are ALL WAY off to the high side, so that statistically, we are 95% certain they are wrong. Any public policy, especially radical policies, based on predictions already known to be erroneous, ought to be criminal malfeasance.
Somebody suggested that the smart thing for Trump to do would be to submit the Paris "treaty" to the Senate, as Obama refused to do. Getting 2/3 to agree would be difficult and would let him off the hook for "refusing" to honor it. Remember the Kyoto Treaty was never ratified, and lost 99-0.
And I'm still curious. If I tell you that Trump's infrastructure plan is going to cost somewhere between $50 billion and $850 billion, do you think you would vote for it? Or would you be more likely to think that the plan has not been adequately thought through, analyzed, and planned properly? I'm guessing telephone psychics could make better "predictions" than the EPA.
You are amusing. :-)
Thank you. If I can't convince you with facts and logic, at least I can tickle your funny-bone.
You did succeed !!! Ho Ho Ho !!!
You want another funny? Here is the EPA (your quote), "Except under the most aggressive mitigation scenario studied, global average temperature is expected to warm at least twice as much in the next 100 years as it has during the last 100 years."
In the last 100 years, temperatures rose 1 degree. Twice that is 2 degrees, at least by my math. Two degrees is: 1) the amount scientists think is tolerable and probably beneficial (i.e. not catastrophic), 2) The "aggressive target" set by the Paris accords, and 3) just under the wildly-inflated average of those erroneous climate models. So, let's rephrase, shall we? "If we do absolutely nothing, global average temperature is expected to warm twice as much in the next 100 years as it has during the last 100 years. And that's OK!"
Almost like they were trying to scare us into doing something just for the sake of doing something, rather than because there is a real problem for which they have a realistic solution. What will be really funny is if we ignore them.
At the risk of diverting attention when we were finally knocking down this mythical "global warming" meme, I refer back to the original topic, here. Our host seems to believe that fighting against the President's agenda is morally equivalent, regardless of which President and what agenda. Perhaps, as the manual suggests, that is true if the agenda is one of "racism, authoritarianism, and corruption."
But I must point out that Mr. Trump's agenda has not even begun, so such opposition to something not yet seen is paranoid delusional at best. On the other hand, we have had a President who ignored voter intimidation by the Black Panthers and created the Ferguson firestorm out of a bald-faced lie, Issued more Executive Orders than any other President, and did greatly questionable favors for Solyndra, unions, Congress, and Hillary. The GOP rightly (but unfortunately ineffectively) fought against those things. Let us hope that whatever Trump does is better, and that whatever these Leftist wackos do is even less effective, guaranteeing a second term.
Post a Comment