Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
What country isn't messed up?

Except for maybe the Scandinavian countries, those are pretty nice. And maybe also Switzerland.
 
H

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
1. The burden doesn't just fall on the US.
3. It's probably less expensive than you think.
Maybe true. But I have a very cynical view of our government spending. The latest example is the earthquake in Nepal.

This quake fills the news, it seems another thousand victims are announced every day, and today surpass 6,000. Our govt spoke to the tragedy and sent $1M in aid. One million dollars. We lost 10,000 times that to bail out GM. (Lost, never to be recovered, selling GM stock at a loss.)

So whenever I see our govt focus on some issue, and debate or announce some millions of dollars to help or fight it, I compare the figure to the $10B we gave to GM, and judge how important they think the current issue really is.

But, aid to Nepal won't buy votes in the US. Did I say I was cynical?
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
It's been a while...

Nobel laureate says Mr. president, you're wrong.

And a group of French Mathematicians says the UN's crusade is pointless and costly.

I think it's worth stepping back for a moment and asking if this all just might have something to do with looking to change the fundamental order of the world. Like a global reparations thing. Recently I saw the President of the Sierra Club being asked a fairly direct answer by Sen. Cruz asking him why is it that satellite data for the past couple of decades fails to indicate a a change in the average global temperature?

 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
It's been a while...

Nobel laureate says Mr. president, you're wrong.

And a group of French Mathematicians says the UN's crusade is pointless and costly.

I think it's worth stepping back for a moment and asking if this all just might have something to do with looking to change the fundamental order of the world. Like a global reparations thing. Recently I saw the President of the Sierra Club being asked a fairly direct answer by Sen. Cruz asking him why is it that satellite data for the past couple of decades fails to indicate a a change in the average global temperature?

While I'm not a fan of the Sierra Club, in their defense, their President is not supposed to be a scientist, or even technical, he's supposed to be first and foremost a fund-raiser, and, of course, a true believer. Frankly, I can't believe that anyone could have a conversation about global warming and satellite data and not bring up the changes at the north and south poles. Perhaps this will teach the Sierra Club a lesson about who they choose as a spokesperson.

Anyway, Cruz is a young earth creationist. I doubt he would recognize good evidence if it came up and bit him on the nose.

Edit - BTW, that link to an article on French mathematicians is BS. They say human impact on the atmosphere can't be measured. Huh? WTF? Haven't they heard of CO2 measurements? Air pollution that travels around the globe? Idiots. Perhaps Cruz should move to France. It sounds like he'd be right at home there. ;-)
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
In fields like physics you've got theories that spawn equations which in turn make various predictions and then scientists go off and test these predictions with observations and measurements. If there's a disconnect then something needs to be revised and perhaps even scrapped.

I think what the scientists are saying or suggesting is that while we can make observations and measurements, if the current go to model doesn't accurately predict what's being forecast then that suggests that something is amiss. Perhaps it's the measurements, perhaps it's something that improperly weighs the CO2 contribution but whatever it is, it boils down to further work needs be done.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
In fields like physics you've got theories that spawn equations which in turn make various predictions and then scientists go off and test these predictions with observations and measurements. If there's a disconnect then something needs to be revised and perhaps even scrapped.

I think what the scientists are saying or suggesting is that while we can make observations and measurements, if the current go to model doesn't accurately predict what's being forecast then that suggests that something is amiss. Perhaps it's the measurements, perhaps it's something that improperly weighs the CO2 contribution but whatever it is, it boils down to further work needs be done.
Physics cannot accurately predict when a light bulb will "blow", but that doesn't mean we should not design cars with dual headlights.

There is a big gap between simply recognizing if something is happening and having the understanding required to accurately incorporate all variables and assess it with precision.

For the vast majority of people, the situation is considered a reality. Then there is Ted Cruz, and the French (and you?).
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
Physics cannot accurately predict when a light bulb will "blow", but that doesn't mean we should not design cars with dual headlights.
Nor can they tell when a specific atom in a radioactive isotope will undergo a transition. But given a sufficiently large sample size, they can tell the expected lifetime of a lightbulb and the half life of radioactive isotopes.

There is a big gap between simply recognizing if something is happening and having the understanding required to accurately incorporate all variables and assess it with precision.
Absolutely. It's why I say further work needs to be done. You yourself have read that people and groups have made specific predictions: there will be more hurricanes, they'll be more violent, massive heatwaves, the world will become too hot, fishes will die, terrorism is caused by this, and the list goes on. All said with a great sense of certainty.

For the vast majority of people, the situation is considered a reality. Then there is Ted Cruz, and the French (and you?).
Sure. Majority of people believe in a supreme deity, that you can petition the lord with prayer, that chiropractors are real doctors. Enough believe all sorts of things and sometimes they're driven by political ideologies.

BTW, the French will shortly be testing a newish type of fusion reactor (not a tokamak) that took almost two decades to build. It'd be wonderful if we can finally get to the point of sustained fusion.

As to me...
The model(s) need more work.
Climate has always been changing.
Sea levels go up, they go down. Plan accordingly.
I'd like to see a thorough discussion of this 97% thing that's always batted around.
What's the optimum CO2 level?
How do we account for increases in warmth generally being associated with better standards of living?
I have problems with a lot of the UN.
I'm in favor of better fuel economy, better house efficiency, self contained houses that are energy neutral, research into better batteries, solar, wind, whatever.
I have zero use for religion in politics. Founding fathers had it right.
You can't have increasing populations like economists like and countries need to take care of aging citizenry, a middle type class that will be bigger consumers and increasingly consume resources. UN says insects are a great source of food. That may be but it's also a sign of desperation. So now we're going to fvck with the natural balance too?
I think science will come up with a lot of the answers to the problems, I just don't know when.
I find it hilarious that in an age where we can have video conferencing that climate scientists and the like will travel at a great carbon footprint to some very nice locale. It's like discussing food shortages while dining at an expensively catered event.
I think the vast majority of politicians are self serving whores.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Remember that those French mathematicians are, well… French. I shouldn't have to remind people that the French, who have a long history of being an advanced culture, believe that Jerry Lewis is among the highest forms of comedy.
 
H

Hobbit

Senior Audioholic
While I'm not a fan of the Sierra Club, in their defense, their President is not supposed to be a scientist, or even technical, he's supposed to be first and foremost a fund-raiser, and, of course, a true believer. Frankly, I can't believe that anyone could have a conversation about global warming and satellite data and not bring up the changes at the north and south poles. Perhaps this will teach the Sierra Club a lesson about who they choose as a spokesperson.

Anyway, Cruz is a young earth creationist. I doubt he would recognize good evidence if it came up and bit him on the nose.

Edit - BTW, that link to an article on French mathematicians is BS. They say human impact on the atmosphere can't be measured. Huh? WTF? Haven't they heard of CO2 measurements? Air pollution that travels around the globe? Idiots. Perhaps Cruz should move to France. It sounds like he'd be right at home there. ;-)
I haven't been following this thread...and perhaps this has been said. Not only can we measure the CO2 in the air, we can measure the carbon isotopes and tell where the excess CO2 is coming from... Fossil fuels.

Cruz probably can't say isotope, he's probably an advocate of bringing back lead toys, paints, and as a gas additive too.....
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
I haven't been following this thread...and perhaps this has been said. Not only can we measure the CO2 in the air, we can measure the carbon isotopes and tell where the excess CO2 is coming from... Fossil fuels.

Cruz probably can't say isotope, he's probably an advocate of bringing back lead toys, paints, and as a gas additive too.....
You're right. Does that then mean that before fossil fuels were consumed the climate was largely static? As to the Cruz comments, are you trying out for a moderator job at CNBC?
 
H

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
the French, who have a long history of being an advanced culture, believe that Jerry Lewis is among the highest forms of comedy.
As do the Japanese... and we all know their engineering is sub-par.

Irvrobinson said:
Cruz is a young earth creationist. I doubt he would recognize good evidence if it came up and bit him on the nose
Unlike Obama, who is in Rev Wright's camp? BTW, exactly what is that camp?

I must admit I'm a bit surprised to hear a progressive, tolerant of all views, condemn and discount a person's politics because of his religious beliefs. I thought we weren't supposed to do that.
 
H

Hobbit

Senior Audioholic
You're right. Does that then mean that before fossil fuels were consumed the climate was largely static? As to the Cruz comments, are you trying out for a moderator job at CNBC?
Did I say anything about a static climate? I have no idea how you got from what I said to that? Do you work for Fox?
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
Did I say anything about a static climate? I have no idea how you got from what I said to that? Do you work for Fox?
No you didn't. Can you clarify how the elimination or diminution of fossil related CO2 would change things for the better? I make an effort to spend a bit of time at all the propaganda sites. FOX had nothing to be proud of at their turn as moderators.
 
H

Hobbit

Senior Audioholic
No you didn't. Can you clarify how the elimination or diminution of fossil related CO2 would change things for the better? I make an effort to spend a bit of time at all the propaganda sites. FOX had nothing to be proud of at their turn as moderators.
We've been down that road and it's clear there's nothing I can say, or anyone(?), that would change your opinion. It's obvious that you don't believe that CO2 is a green house gas and/or humans are putting out enough of it to have an effect. My question would be to you is how strong does the evidence need to be? What piece of evidence would change your mind?

On that same note, should we quit using a lot of our technology because it's not 100% understood? In this same vein, do we do something now or wait? There were poster children backing the use of lead toys and lead gas. IMO, I'm glad we stopped using it.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I must admit I'm a bit surprised to hear a progressive, tolerant of all views, condemn and discount a person's politics because of his religious beliefs. I thought we weren't supposed to do that.
To be clear, I am an ardent believer in religious freedom, however illogical and grounded in mythology, so long as it does not negatively impact anyone else's safety or freedom. (For example, I am opposed to exemptions from vaccinations on religious grounds. It endangers many other people.) I do not like others to impose their beliefs on me, and I try not impose my beliefs on others.

I also have true respect for the belief in a supreme being of some sort; the belief that an intelligence created the universe. Though I am a strict atheist, I respect those who believe the universe is not just a happenstance. I have seen no proof that they are wrong, though the evidence is trending against a creator, and I really do respect this view.

As for Cruz, I believe candidates for the Presidency of the US should be held to a higher standard than simply excusing every silly belief as religious freedom. Young earth creationists, those who really believe the Bible should be taken absolutely literally, and follow James Ussher's calculation for the age of the earth, who believe that all of geological history, including all fossil evidence, occurred in the last 6000 years, simply do not demonstrate the open-mindedness and power of critical analysis and reasoning that I expect in a presidential candidate, and that's all there is to it. This is not just any job. I'm not holding out for a scientific atheist, but I would like someone who isn't so hypocritical as to depend on modern pharmaceuticals and then deny the theory of evolution. Ben Carson is no better in this regard, though I suspect he is just saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected.

So, in the end, I am not judging religious views, as much as I am tempted to, I am judging a candidate's potential for good, rational decision-making.
 
Last edited:
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
Remember that those French mathematicians are, well… French. I shouldn't have to remind people that the French, who have a long history of being an advanced culture, believe that Jerry Lewis is among the highest forms of comedy.
Or this country.... where we think Jon Stewart is the News. :D
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
We've been down that road and it's clear there's nothing I can say, or anyone(?), that would change your opinion. It's obvious that you don't believe that CO2 is a green house gas and/or humans are putting out enough of it to have an effect. My question would be to you is how strong does the evidence need to be? What piece of evidence would change your mind?
It should equally be obvious to you that whatever the existing model of climate there is at the forefront, has been used to make predictions intended to frighten the world and drive policy changes involving income redistribution. It should trouble you that proponents of climate change have adjusted the numbers when it comes satellite temperature measurements to then say the model is accurate. It should trouble you that unlike in most scientific disciplines, discussions are being shut down through coercion.

I think you've also misunderstood my general position when it comes to alternative energy sources. They're just not driven by an alarmist outlook.

On that same note, should we quit using a lot of our technology because it's not 100% understood? In this same vein, do we do something now or wait? There were poster children backing the use of lead toys and lead gas. IMO, I'm glad we stopped using it.
If it's fundamentally wrong or in some degree of error, then to make long term binding policy decisions by countries is fraught with danger and consequences. I too am glad we have moved away from lead. OTOH, this has exposed Superman to greater danger.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top