From Laurie:
links for a new topic:
How to Campaign When Nothing Is Possible
Democrats Aren’t Addressing the Biggest Challenge We Face
Pete Buttigieg had the most important answer at the Democratic debate
As the three links explain the DEMs will be able to get nothing done if they win so John should just go ahead and vote against Trump. I found the links very persuasive and depressing for contemplating the future of our country.
links for a new topic:
How to Campaign When Nothing Is Possible
Democrats Aren’t Addressing the Biggest Challenge We Face
Pete Buttigieg had the most important answer at the Democratic debate
As the three links explain the DEMs will be able to get nothing done if they win so John should just go ahead and vote against Trump. I found the links very persuasive and depressing for contemplating the future of our country.
104 comments:
I am sure I will take all those factors under consideration when I go into that voting booth.
I still hope the DEMs come back towards the Center...
OK, so let me understand this. All we need to enable those geniuses in Wash. D.C. to solve all our problems, is to scrap that silly old Constitution and substitute "noblesse oblige" by sanctimonious Democrats?
My links are about totally dysfunctional government. I can't believe the founders would approve of how our government is not working in this modern era. It (the government) is also no longer democratic.
Mitt Romney used to argue that if Barack Obama got re-elected, he would get nothing done because Senate Republicans would block him from doing things. In retrospect, he wasn't completely wrong, but the counter argument is that while Democrats can't get anything done, Republicans don't want to do anything. It's weird to me. Trump complains about rats in Baltimore but it doesn't seem to compute in his brain that he is president which means it's his job to do something. I mean this sort of happens so often, it's hardly even noticed anymore let alone commented on. We put children in cages and the president's response is that the cages will built by Obama. If our country weren't in an advanced state of failure, a president would have been less concerned with the origins of the cages than the fact that we put children in them.
The president just nominated a guy for national security advisor whose resume was immediately found to be full of false statements, something which wasn't even disputed. The President described this treatment as unfair, and much of the country will agree with him. If our leadership sees truth as unfair what hope is there for the future? Can our nation really be constructed on lies going forward?
--Hiram
--Hiram
thanks for the thoughtful comment and examples, Hiram, I agree that our country is in an advanced state of failure. I give some of the blame to Fox news and right wing talk radio (Rush and others whose names I do not know.)
"noblesse oblige": the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth
"our country is in an advanced state of failure"
So was our country in advance state of failure in 2009 when the DEMs were in control?
Or is it only failing when the GOP wins elections?
And please remember that the DEMs choose their platform and the results that come with it. As long as they:
- support allowing people to come to America without prior permission and fight to prevent their deportation
- support people receiving money and services from other tax payers while expecting nothing in return (ie improvement, no more kids, public service, etc)
- support public employee unions that reward employees based on years rather than results, and protect incompetent personnel
The DEMs will continue to have a hard time...
Hiram, Posted this link on the Socialism post.
Reagan speaking against Liberalism.
It sounds a lot like today...
The arguments against excessive government control and socialism seem pretty consistent.
By the way Laurie, the government is functioning just as it was meant to.
Parties must court voters all across the country.
Not just those who live in the big cities.
Now how will the DEMs do this?
By the way, I am so happy the DEMs took back the House...
Grid lock is so much better than one party rule. :-)
So if the dems win the presidency and the house and the senate you think if is right for them to be unable to accomplish anything because they did not win a supermajority.
You have a very warped understanding of democracy.
The President and many in his party just spent the last week pissing on American cities, and it's Dems who aren't reaching out?
Laurie,
You have blamed Trump and the GOP for many changes and they never had a super majority...
What do you think they should have done differently with their simple majority?
Sean,
Please remember that I am unhappy with the GOP in general and Trump in particular.
Now how do you see the DEMs as any different?
How do you see them reaching out to Centrist ex-country boys like me?
I hope we never achieve Democracy, especially as the Democrats see it. We are intended to be a representative republic, and it seems Republicans might be best suited to run that, just by the name. Quibble with results, effectiveness, and the uproar attendant to it, but let's steer towards the sensible center which, from the sound of the debates, is WAY off to the right of where Democrats would take us.
And way Left of where the current GOP would take us...
Especially given the disaster they just signed off on. :-(
Source 2
Source 3
about "blaming Trump and the GOP for many changes and they never had a super majority..."
the only significant legislation I can think of under Trump is the tax cut, which they must have done with a simple majority. Gridlock works well for the GOP as they don't want to accomplish anything. I will give them some credit for passing a budget bill, so they are not 100% worthless.
I would like to see an interview with Joe Manchin or some other of the most conservative democrats about what we could expect the dems to pass regarding healthcare, immigration, jobs, education etc. The dems won't pass anything, (even if they win big) that the conservative democrats don't support. That is why Obama care does not currently have a public option.
Name a conservative Democrat, or two, that are a sufficient minority to help Republicans govern. Other than Manchin, and it sounds like he may be switching parties.
Laurie,
Stopping the DEMs from:
- making it easier for uneducated foreigners to become Americans and steal jobs from our low tier workers
- giving the tax payer's money to many without expecting anything from them
- giving jobs to who?
- letting K-12 Teachers Unions screw up more kids
- making tax payers pay for free upper level educations
makes me thing the GOP is doing a wonderful job.
Why is it the DEMs want to spend other people's money?
Why do the DEMs fear hard choices?
The GOP are a bunch of far right irresponsible idiots.
I don't think even Manchin is that stupid.
I wish more dems would tell the truth about how broken our government is. It is really silly to argue about all these policies that will never be enacted even if we win the presidency, the house and the senate.
I really think you are totally missing the point I am trying to make, John, as your broken record responses make no sense and seem unrelated to my comments.
I will try one more time to explain: If the dems win we won't be - "making tax payers pay for free upper level educations." And we won't even be increasing pell grants even slightly, as even Joe Manchin might support, because a GOP filibuster will prevent even minor improvements in education or any other policy.
So was our country in advance state of failure in 2009 when the DEMs were in control?
Yes it was. Of course, then we were in a state of near economic collapse from which we have come back to a degree, but that was a sign of it. The Obama administration slowed the decline of our nation but it hardly stopped it. I think the senate's inability to even consider the Garland nomination, was perhaps the most visible sign of our national decline, up until the election of Trump.
--Hiram
Laurie,
My simple point is that it works both ways on purpose. Slow changes...
The GOP had a small majority and could make almost none of the changes that they thought would help America. Would you appreciate it if they could have:
- chopped domestic spending
- made public employee unions illegal
- eliminated the EPA and Dept of Education
- stopped accepting asylum seeks
- demanded real actions and improvements from welfare recipients
You apparently dream of a government that can change quickly to adopt the policies of the LEFT. When the LEFT over shoots and the RIGHT is in charge, do you want them making big changes the other way?
Hiram,
I agree that Garland should have been given hearings.
I am thinking the USA is still pretty incredible.
As do all those people who want to live here.
What gets lost in all of this left-right kerfuffle is that the government is no longer capable of finding SOLUTIONS to the problem that big government CAUSES trying to solve all problems for everybody. 536 people in Washington are simply not as smart, collectively, as 300 million of us and I wish they would stop trying.
I think the senate should get rid of the filibuster and both parties could pass their policies. I don't think the GOP would pass that much as their agenda is unpopular. If they did pass lots of cuts to domestic spending they would just be voted out.
I agree the filibuster gets overused, especially the "gentleman's version" so popular today. Somebody threatens filibuster and the greatest idea ever gets dropped from consideration because one side doesn't want to give the other side a "win." The argument in favor, absent the increasingly hyper-partisan environment, is that a good idea SHOULD be able to be, by consensus, worthy of a super-majority vote.
We've got too many politicians promising to "fight for us" rather than actually THINK and ACT in our collective best interest.
Jerry and Laurie,
You are at near polar opposites regarding welfare / tax policy.
How would anyone implement a "good idea" from your very different perspectives?
How do you know we could not come up with a consensus solution? Granted this form of conversation would be unlikely to come to it, but I believe it is possible. Unlike most Democrat politicians, however, Laurie often makes good sense.
Well please propose one...
You support decreasing the Federal Budget...
She supports increasing the Federal Budget...
It seems to me there is no common "great idea"...
In fact she thinks your agenda would...
"I don't think the GOP would pass that much as their agenda is unpopular. If they did pass lots of cuts to domestic spending they would just be voted out."
OK, Laurie, how would you feel about a graduated "negative income tax" replacing the highly wasteful and duplicative welfare programs we now have? I mean, a "poor" family of three costs us $63,000 and you KNOW they are not getting anything close to that, so an efficient means of getting that to them could give them MORE money and still reduce federal spending.
I have no opinion on Jerry's proposal to replace welfare programs with a negative income tax as I don't know enough about it. Off the top of my head I would hesitate to replace medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance with cash. Maybe I would favor giving cash benefits in addition to these other programs.
How could giving irresponsible people cash go wrong?
Drug and Alcohol Abuse Stats
Gambling Addiction Stats
More Stats
So are you saying that the current system prevents giving cash to irresponsible persons? I see it the other way around. Give them a check which gives them the responsibility for managing their own life and for improving their own financial situation.
Laurie, the idea would be that all means-tested welfare would be eliminated. Everybody would file a tax return. Those that made more than poverty level would pay a progressive tax rate. Those that made less would receive a government check at a progressive rate. That is, if you made no money, you would get, say, 60% of the poverty level for your family size, i.e. you would pay a "-60% tax rate." If you made, say, $10k, you would have a tax rate of say -40%, and once you got to poverty level income your tax rate would be -20%. That is, the system would reward you for your earnings rather than "cutting you off" if you got a job, as the current system tends to do. It's not a new idea. Nixon proposed it way back when.
So you dislike giving them healthcare and food, but you support giving them cash from other tax payers?
And what will you do to help the kids with irresponsible / addicted parent(s)?
"Now how do you see the DEMs as any different?
How do you see them reaching out to Centrist ex-country boys like me?"
Democrats have lots of plans for supporting rural communities. For the betetr part of the last decade, for instance, Minnesota Democrats have been pushing to invest in better broadband communications for rural parts of the state, but Republicans have stood in the way.
You're not a centrist, so there's little point in trying to reach out to you.
Every test I take drops me in the center...
Liberals call me a Conservative.
Conservatives call me a Liberal.
I am not sure how much more Centrist I could be...
So your idea of how to court the large swaths of the USA that have different policy views than yours is to give them better Broadband internet?
I am pretty sure that will not do it... :-)
"So your idea of how to court the large swaths of the USA that have different policy views than yours is to give them better Broadband internet?"
My post uses the phrase "for instance", which indicates it is one in a series of possible examples. It was not intended as an exhaustive list of Democratic policy proposals to help rural America.
And my point was that DEMs will continue losing in rural America unless they find a way to balance their more idealistic proposals with some more basic policies.
Kicking all the Moderates out of their "Big Tent" is definitely heading in the wrong direction.
Unless your goal is to make Trump look good by comparison.
I love comics... :-)
John in my view is definitely center right.
Nobody is kicking the moderates out of the tent. Plenty of moderate Democrats won House seats in November. Joe Biden is leading the 2020 race by a significant margin right now.
That's just the excuse folks like you are using to gin up a reason to vote for Trump again.
Laurie,
I keep thinking that but the tests keep plugging me in closer to center than to right. I assume it has to do with my willingness to raise taxes and cut spending.
And my willingness to support welfare etc with some more teeth in them.
Sean,
How many Pro Lifers are in the DEM tent?
An Interesting Piece
"How many Pro Lifers are in the DEM tent?"
More than pro-choicers in the GOP tent.
There are ZERO pro-choice Republicans in the House, and 2 in the Senate.
Moderate Democrats are faring a lot better than moderate Republicans. Folks like Dave Durenberger and Arne Carlson are persona non grata in the party. Anybody see Jim Ramstad at a Trump rally?
Your concern trolling on this issue is amusing.
I don't think the GOP sells itself as a "big tent" organization... :-)
538 Abortion Debate
Where is John Appelen to bemoan the loss of all the pro-choice Republicans?
Well, when the DEMs give this race away to Trump.
Don't whine to me... :-)
"I don't think the GOP sells itself as a "big tent" organization."
Before Trump, they sure did. That may be less true now.
As for my bemoaning the loss of moderate GOP politicians.
Was this not clear enough. :-)
G2A Yes the GOP is STUPID
One post. Yippee.
You have three posts addressing Democrats' views just on the front page of this blog.
Seriously, you should just have "Yakety Sax" playing as the soundtrack for all of your comments.
"Well, when the DEMs give this race away to Trump."
If you're so upset about Donald Trump, you should have listened to all of us who told you this was going to happen in 2016. You were wrong, so show some humility and don't expect the rest of us to cater to your whims this time around.
USA Today Abortion Roils Both Parties
And my most recent post attacks Trump...
What is your point?
To me the GOP plan for 2020 seems pretty clear, what is their to discuss?
And they are not complaining that "life is not fair" right now.
Where as the DEMs are fighting with each other and complaining about the rules of the game. Much more to discuss on this side.
My point is that Democrats aren't looking for your advice, just as Republicans aren't looking for mine.
You, as a Republican, enabled the rise of Donald Trump and his acolytes. You voted for him 2016. You don't get to lecture us now on how we have to cater to your tender sensibilities.
If you hate Donald Trump and want him out of office, you vote for the Democrat in 2020. Period. Then, feel free to go out and find a better Republican for 2024.
I don't hate Trump or any other politician that I know of.
And I don't think my one vote has much impact either way.
However if the DEMs want to get more votes from people like me.
It would wise if they learned some humility and listened to voters like me.
The rules of this game are very clear.
To win power, one must win both votes and regions...
Grow a spine.
Moose
I thought it was the Liberals who need to grow a spine...
They are the one's who keep crying about unfair the game is...
Boo hoo hoo !!! :-)
I mean that is how this whole post started. :-)
Yes. You're right, John. Us Liberals are the crybabies. Not sure what that has to do with moral fortitude.
Moose
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan
And the problem is that they (at least the candidates)then base moral certainty and superiority on those "things."
Moral Fortitude is an interesting concept that can apparently apply to people on the Left and Right.
Who is to say who is correct in the...
ProLife vs ProChoice topic
Or the allow asylum seekers or not topic.
Allow asylum seekers or not topic...
Jerry,
Your "I am better / smarter than you" bias is showing again.
Is our govt capable of doing anything significant to combat the climate crisis, even if the dems win bigly? No
John, you may not want the govt to do anything (which is what makes you conservative) but what about climate change? Are you still a climate change denier?
Laurie,
The unfortunate reality is that the US only has ~4% of the humans on this Earth.
The good news is that the States and Businesses are driving green changes in all the highly populated States.
The future of the human race and the Earth is mostly dependent of what happens in Asia, Africa and South America. :-(
Time for the Serenity Prayer...
God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.
Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,
This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen
Maybe time for you to convert to a religion with an after life...
This is an interesting and disturbing report.
What will American Consumers do?
"Transportation emissions decline modestly through 2025—even if the cost of owning an electric vehicle falls dramatically—as consumers continue to favor larger, higher-emitting vehicles.
Due to sustained low oil prices over the last half decade, Americans are driving more and buying larger vehicles. This trend is expected to continue through the next decade if oil prices remain below $55 per barrel. Cheaper and more plentiful electric vehicle (EV) options could counterbalance this effect, but the impact is minor. Even with the most optimistic estimates of EV battery cost declines, in 2025 these vehicles would represent just 16% of all light-duty sales and transportation emissions would fall by only 12% below 2005 levels. More moderate EV cost reductions lead to EVs capturing only 6% of total sales in 2025, putting transportation emission reductions at the low end of our potential range at just 8% below 2005 levels."
the USA contributes 15% of global emissions and as the richest country should be a leader in the global effort to combat climate change. there is no planet B.
Oh, come now. Are you really going to let me talk about the Great Climate Change Hoax again? Germany has just discovered that an electric car emits more Co2 than the equivalent diesel automobile. They have discovered that life cycle CO2 from a windmill is the same as a natural gas plant, but with more toxic waste.
The US EPA admits that cutting US admissions 30% would reduce global temperatures by 0.01 degrees over the next 100 years. The IPCC models say that if the whole world does likewise, we can be 0.37 degrees less hot, and BOTH of those projections assume the climate models are correctly predicting the "worst case scenario." The more realistic scenarios, the ones that more closely match the real data (but still are hotter than) aren't scary enough to the general public.
Biggest source of hot air is these Democrat debates, and they're loaded with Co2.
Hi Laurie,
The good news is that we can ignore Jerry's unsubstantiated opinions again.
I agree that the USA should be leading the effort.
Unfortunately the DEMs can not prioritize, therefore they will likely lose in 2020.
They want to save everyone from everything, and therefore important things will fail to be done. This is their issue, not the GOPs.
even though I am somewhat disappointed in the leading dem candidates at this point I am still hopeful that someone will emerge that can win because Trump is beyond terrible.
We can agree on the terrible part...
Lazy argumentation, just calling facts you don't like "opinions." Look up what the EPA says, what the IPCC says, what German scientists' studies say, what Germany is doing. Compare actual satellite temperatures with the model outputs for RCP 8.5. Maybe if you research these things yourself you save both of us time. I don't have to post them for you, and you don't have to pooh-pooh them, even though they are from the sources YOU trust to tell you things.
Oh, and by the way, your breath is 50,000 parts per million (bloviating politicians a bit higher, no doubt) while the atmosphere is only 400 parts per million. Another fact you will simply deny while claiming that CO2 is harmful to human life.
Sorry. Sources to be provided by those making the claims.
And noted above and here:
- the USA emits 15% of the green house gases
- the USA has 4% of the population
Sorry, obvious and widely-established facts do not need sources. Look them up unless you are afraid of the truth. "Well either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of a [massive climate swindle] in your community." -- Prof. Harold Hill
You keep insisting that all that US CO2 MUST be changing the climate. If you do the math (which, I should point out, you refuse to do), you find out that substantial reductions to US CO2 would alter the atmosphere by about 4 parts per million, while the seasonal variation is almost 5 times that.
There you go again.
Moose
Yep. May I call you a "climate denier"? Please?
Jerry,
You can call us anything you like, it is immaterial.
And you won't convince us without credible sources, facts and data...
Wait a minute. Isn't it the requirement that someone proposing a radical new theory and a radical restructuring of the global economy must provide THEIR fully convincing evidence? The theory of Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming has NEVER been even remotely proven by convincing scientific evidence, but feel free to try.
I have given you completely credible sources, facts and data. They all agree with me. What convinces you otherwise?
Jerry,
As I said, it makes little difference what old conservative people think…
Their time is severely limited and the younger people are much more open minded about many things.
Tick tick tick...
The younger people also have the most to lose from the jerrys of the world being wrong.
Moose
The younger people of this world do not have the education or experience, and lately not even the inclination, to inquire into scientific matters. They prefer politics by bumper sticker, and do not like being confused by facts. When their wind power goes out and they start shivering in the cold, while paying twice what they did for electricity and the cold keeps coming, they will eventually figure it out. Or maybe not.
Really, why are the old politicians still successfully peddling their frauds, scams and hoaxes if the young ones are so smart?
Moose, the young ones have the most to lose from me being right and not listening. What they have been indoctrinated to fear is never, ever going to happen.
I fail to see how cleaning up the planet and making our power supply cleaner and safer endangers the young ones.
Moose
"When their wind power goes out..."
Because it never goes out now.
You're a caricature.
Moose
Jerry,
Right now they are too self focused to get out to vote.
But as your generation departs they will come into their own.
I am certain that arguments will persist about tax / spend and abortion /not...
But I have faith that LGBT+ intolerance, racial intolerance and climate change denial will go the way of the dinosaurs.
This is probably a sign of things to come as the younger folks age and the country becomes more diverse.
Moose, try to keep up. We already had a bad spell of cold weather in Northern MN this year, and when the wind didn't blow, the natural gas backup power plants came on, creating a natural gas shortage and people were forced to greatly reduce the heat in their homes as a result. And in a time of "catastrophic global warming," no less. Now imagine that on a far larger scale. Even if those cockamamie computer models were right, "renewable energy" in the form of wind and solar is the completely WRONG solution. Now if you want to build nuclear breeder reactors, I'm all for it. Especially thorium breeders.
Are you talking about these short term issues?
Your causation seems a bit off.
Holy crap, you’re dense. Blackouts happen all over the place, usually during hot weather. Do try to keep up.
Moose
Be nice... He is just trying to build a case with very little to work with... :-)
No, I'm trying to avoid the catastrophe that will follow if we all go blindly into the belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. I've shown you six ways from Sunday how it cannot possibly be real, including quoting the EPA, IPCC and NASA. You can deny the real climate all you want, but what you fear is never going to happen UNLESS that fear makes you do stupid stuff like put up lots of windmills.
The the EPA, IPCC and NASA and 10 other US Agencies clearly refute your opinions.
In their published STATEMENTS, yes. In their actual data, quite the opposite. Again, the ONLY "scientific data" we have, and YOU have, supporting the theory of CAGW comes from those computer models, and you've heard of GIGO.
Yes I am always amazed by your self confidence. (ie ego, pride, etc)
The incredible ability to boldly say that all these experts are interpreting the data incorrectly because you know better.
Well I have looked at all the data and tend agree with them.
Have you, really, looked at the actual data? The satellite temperature log compared to model predictions over the last 40 years? For that matter, have you even begun to consider the HUGE variation in model results-- everything from "Oh, no, the sky is falling" to "Eh, so what"? Have you looked at actual evaluations, by the EPA and IPCC models themselves, of what happens when any of these "renewable energy" schemes is entered in, rather than assumptions? (EPA, 0.01 degrees, IPCC 0.37 degrees) or done it yourself using EPA's MAGICC calculator? Have you looked at the RAW surface data temperature compared to the "adjusted" values put out by NASA's consummate warmist Gavin Schmidt, and noticed how the "adjustments" make the past colder and the present warmer than the raw data? Have you examined the UHI effect on the surface data and found it almost completely explanatory? Have you found ANY scientific data whatsoever that proves conclusively that temperatures 50 or 100 years from now will be "catastrophic" AND that fossil fuels will be in any way responsible? Again, the ONLY predictions we have are based on those climate models, and they fail repeatedly at predicting the more extreme consequences. And even IF, I say again, those models are correct, "renewable energy" mandates are the WRONG solution-- costly, intermittent, and saving only minimal CO2.
It's not ego, pride, or anything else. It's that I am convinced entirely by the facts at my (and your, if you look) disposal. Start by being a skeptic. That should help.
Please feel free to keep telling yourself that.
I personally appreciate Judith Curry's Views
About Judith Curry and Climate Etc
She is a nice change from the CAGWers and the Deniers...
I agree with her, too, especially when she says things like, "human-caused warming is not expected to exceed the 2 degree C ‘danger’ level in the 21st century."
She pretty much says all the things I have been saying, except that I use actual numbers rather than logical and solidly evidenced statements. My only complaint is that she tends to speak in a semi-monotone. Looking forward to meeting her when she visits here.
I notice she does correct one error of mine: "Under the Obama Administration, the U.S. NDC had a goal of reducing emissions by 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Apart from considerations of feasibility and cost, it has been estimated using the EPA MAGICC model that this commitment will prevent 0.03 degrees C in warming by 2100. " I've been saying 0.01-- I'm off by 200%! The politicians pushing renewable energy mandates would seem to be off by about 100 times that.
And then she points out that YOU are wrong: "Last week, central Minnesota experienced a natural gas ‘brownout,’as Xcel Energy advised customers to
turn thermostats down to 60 degrees and avoid using hot water. Why? Because the wind wasn’t blowing during an exceptionally cold period. Utilities pair natural gas plants with wind farms, where the gas plants can be ramped up and down quickly when the wind isn’t blowing. With bitter cold temperatures and no wind, there wasn’t enough natural gas."
In short, it seems impossible that you can agree with her and disagree with me, or that you can maintain the hoax that we must "do something" radical, right now.
Jerry,
There is a huge difference between Judith and yourself...
You say that man made climate change is false and fraudulent...
She like me says that it is very real, we just do not know how bad it will get.
"Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a future threat from manmade climate
change. Manmade climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood,
but the potential magnitude is highly uncertain.
Scientists agree that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.
However, there is considerable disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the recent warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, whether warming is ‘dangerous’, and whether radically reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will improve the climate and human well being in the 21st century."
And she supports moving ahead with slow and steady preparations for the worst. Like I do.
A regional focus on adapting to the risks of climate change allows for a range of bottom-up
strategies to be integrated with other societal challenges, including growing population,
environmental degradation, poorly planned land-use and over-exploitation of natural resources.
Even if the threat from global warming turns out to be small, near-term benefits to the region can be realized in terms of reduced vulnerability to a broad range of threats, improved resource management, and improved environmental quality. Securing the common interest on local and regional scales provides a basis for the successful implementation of climate adaptation strategies and addressing near-term social justice objectives.
Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic efforts to:
• accelerate energy innovation
• build resilience to extreme events
• pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures
Each of these three efforts has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation
and adaptation. These three efforts provide the basis for a climate policy that addresses near-term
economic and social justice concerns and the longer-term goals of mitigation
As noted elsewhere... "Brown outs" happen in severe weather conditions...
That has little to do with wind turbines.
Oh, wow. Deny, deny, deny. Are those who say the opposite, that we know for certain that manmade catastrophe is coming in 5, 10 or 12 years, and that we must radically put up windmills and quit driving cars, etc., NOT perpetrating a massive fraud? The science certainly does not support such, according to Dr. Curry. Just because she says things so gently (typical of female scientists, in my experience) does not mean these "Warmists" have a scientific leg to stand on. Nor does it mean that their rabid prescriptions are in any way the sensible and pragmatic approach "independent of their benefits for climate mitigation..." Curry suggests.
And "brownouts" in this example are EXACTLY due to wind turbines being mandated rather than being installed for sensible reasons.
"slow and steady preparations" are not what is going on, and not what you are proposing at all. You believe a manmade catastrophe is coming and that we must act NOW, just like the radicals. You see uncertainty as "a moose in the fog" when, as Dr. Curry states, there won't be any moose for at least 100 years.
It is not fraud if they truly believe it. Just like you insisting that no problem exists is not fraud. It is just stubborn egotistical people voicing their beliefs.
The "brown out" apparently occurred because someone did not have the right fuel in the right place at the right time. This is easy to resolve now that they have hopefully learned from their experience.
Renewables are only at 11% and solar / wind are only a 27% of that, I would say that is pretty slow....
The politicians may truly believe, you are correct, but then why do they fly private jets to all these conferences, live in air-conditioned luxurious 10,000 sq. ft. homes, while telling us we must give up those things? Is blatant hypocrisy a form of fraud? And when can you admit that the skeptics are absolutely correct and rational, and basing their "opinions" on solid science?
MN has a renewable mandate for 25% by 2025, and we don't have that much hydro. That is very definitely rushing to perdition, long before the infrastructure can be ready, and the net result as Dr. Curry says, will do essentially nothing for the environment. So WHY?
Michael Moore a skeptic?
Post a Comment