The Trump Presidency

[TLDR20]

 

[R.Caerbannog]

At this point does bickering even matter? Until we figure out a way to exploit space and other natural solar resources, we need to try to conserve the resources here on earth. We need to think in the long term, I know the EPA is unpopular, but we need to be better at resource management until we can finally exploit space.

 

[racing_kitty]

Because escaping punishment for turning a river yellow with mining waste is supposed to convince me that people in the EPA have the environment's best interest at heart.

Yeah, only until it's their ass.

 

[Totentanz]

Because escaping punishment for turning a river yellow with mining waste is supposed to convince me that people in the EPA have the environment's best interest at heart.

Yeah, only until it's their ass.

Yep. I'm all for preserving the environment; it's one of the issues I lean left on. I have ZERO faith that the EPA is actually working toward the same end.

 

[Gunz]

There are 8 billion parasitic human organisms on this speck of rock reproducing exponentially so that soon there will be 10 billion parasitic human organisms on this speck of rock killing the fuck out of each other over food, living space and potable water...and you're worried about a few fucking degrees of temperature over the decades? It ain't global warming that's going to kill us. It's the motherfucker coming to steal your food.

 

[TLDR20]

There are 8 billion parasitic human organisms on this speck of rock reproducing exponentially so that soon there will be 10 billion parasitic human organisms on this speck of rock killing the fuck out of each other over food, living space and potable water...and you're worried about a few fucking degrees of temperature over the decades?

Lol they are interconnected problems. How much of the worlds population lives within areas that will be affected by sea level rise? Now imagine the refugees and immigration problems stemming from hundreds and hundreds of millions of people needing to relocate.

 

[Il Duce]

Lol they are interconnected problems. How much of the worlds population lives within areas that will be affected by sea level rise? Now imagine the refugees and immigration problems stemming from hundreds and hundreds of millions of people needing to relocate.

Also there's a lot of research and data that through elements of globalized trade, increased education for women, and access to birth control populations come under control with economic and social development.

Of course, it's scientists and researchers that put those studies together - and a lot of the time they're using computer modeling. So, probably total bullshit. Hopefully Exxon will do some research, or sponsor someone doing research enough to get to 3% of scientists agreeing on an answer. Then we'll know it's totally legit and can move out. Unless Exxon uses computer models, then we're fucked.

 

[Gunz]

Lol they are interconnected problems. How much of the worlds population lives within areas that will be affected by sea level rise? Now imagine the refugees and immigration problems stemming from hundreds and hundreds of millions of people needing to relocate.

But overpopulation is the root of all evils, the reason why our non-renewable resources will someday be exhausted, the reason for global warming, if, in fact, global warming is caused by humans and not just cyclical climate variations. It's my belief that other issues, human issues, will present more danger and are more imminent than melting icecaps and sea level rise.

 

[SpitfireV]

I trust Exxon to navigate our way out of this channel.

 

[TLDR20]

The way I think of it:

Fuck what is causing it. We have objective easy to see information that says the earth is warming up. There are easy to predict problems from this. We could plan for it, using science and professional researched ideas, or we could let partisan politics determine our future. To me, the fact that the earth is warming is indisputable. No one says it isn't. Remove the cause and tell me we shouldn't prepare for it. Tell me why we shouldn't prepare for mass immigration. Explain to me why we shouldn't try and look hard at renewable energy? At some point you have to realize that fossil fuels will go away. Why not be at the cutting edge of creating and using renewable sources? Why not spend our money on ensuring that we are at the forefront of research to ensure this? Why would we rest in what is the status quo?

Think of it purely as a defense issue. If we know, for a fact, we will run out of fossil fuel. Wouldn't be in our best interest to reduce our demand for such fuels? There is a reason the DOD is putting so much money into research, turning water into jet fuel, and responsibly using nuclear power. It is in our national security interests.

I just don't understand the push back. Because the definition is scary? Seriously, we know what is happening regardless of the cause. Why not prepare for it?

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Earth is going to do it's Earth thing with or without the evil 4x4 pickup. I'll have to go back to the Bible but I don't think the Hebrews rolled out from Egypt in Land Rovers....and it was dirty hot back then. Here is a good pic of the cycles. Looky looky predicted cool down due to weather pattern and lowered Solar activity. Then WHAMO solar activity increases (sun pattern) and in 2038 it's suppose to be another Dust Bowl type great depression heat wave like you read about!



That's right Earth has gone through these cycles for 1000's of years and it is more based on weather patterns, cycles of the Sun and Volcano eruptions then anything else. Do we hurt it? Yes! Is the 4x4 truck the devil? No. Now, I don't knock liberals if they want to drive a Prius, but I don't want them trying impose their stupid views on me by calling it science. It's not SCIENCE, because they are stuck in Step 3 from the Scientific Method (Hypothesis). Earth is crushing Step 4 (Experiment). Step 5 is the future but we don't know the results until its the past so therefore it is alot like trying to predict the weather! Build a time machine, then you'll know the 6 or 7 complete steps from the Scientific Method on Global warming, until then its voodoo at best. If my 14 year old built a Science experiment like your "Climate Scientists", stopping at Step 3...she would fail 8th Grade Science...



Speaking of scientists, Do we really need to argue about how many times the "smart people" have been wrong?



:-"

 

[TLDR20]

Earth is going to do it's Earth thing with or without the evil 4x4 pickup. I'll have to go back to the Bible but I don't think the Hebrews rolled out from Egypt in Land Rovers....and it was dirty hot back then. Here is a good pic of the cycles. Looky looky predicted cool down due to weather pattern and lowered Solar activity. Then WHAMO solar activity increases (sun pattern) and in 2038 it's suppose to be another Dust Bowl type great depression heat wave like you read about!

View attachment 17858

That's right Earth has gone through these cycles for 1000's of years and it is more based on weather patterns, cycles of the Sun and Volcano eruptions then anything else. Do we hurt it? Yes! Is the 4x4 truck the devil? No. Now, I don't knock liberals if they want to drive a Prius, but I don't want them trying impose their stupid views on me by calling it science. It's not SCIENCE, because they are stuck in Step 3 from the Scientific Method (Hypothesis). Earth is crushing Step 4 (Experiment). Step 5 is the future but we don't know the results until its the past so therefore it is alot like trying to predict the weather! Build a time machine, then you'll know the 6 or 7 complete steps from the Scientific Method on Global warming, until then its voodoo at best. If my 14 year old built a Science experiment like your "Climate Scientists", stopping at Step 3...she would fail 8th Grade Science...

View attachment 17859

Speaking of scientists, Do we really need to argue about how many times the "smart people" have been wrong?

View attachment 17857

:-"

Memes and comics are so great.

Except when they are horribly inaccurate at talking about real issues:

The earth had been suggested to be round since the ancient Greeks, and has been known to be round since the 15th century. Before there was complicated math like we have today, obviously there were different views of the world.

The heliocentric model was disproven by Copernicus in the 16th century. Again, it wasn't science but religion that had the alternative hypothesis.

The heavier and lighter body theory boils down to surface area, rather than weight.

The atom was the smallest observable unit until new methods were developed to observe the forces of others...

Seriously man, a senior in high school should have enough scientific understanding to talk about these points.

The global warming and cooling stuff isn't really related to these, but in a way it is. As technology advances we are able to both better understand the world around us, and predict the way the world may become.

 

[TLDR20]

I also think it is crazy the things we accept as factual, or scientific, and the things we do not.

999/1000 doctors say it is good to get vaccines. Most people agree and get vaccines. 999/1000 doctors say it is right to get surgery for problem appendicitis, most people get surgery for appendicitis.

The same percentage of climate experts(Ph.D level researchers) agree that the world is warming up. People tell them to fuck off.

I'm not a climate researcher. I don't know much at all about it. I do know that I trust those who have dedicated their lives to research, more than those who have an interest in keeping the status quo going.

 

[Marauder06]

I think most people will agree that the climate is changing: sea levels are rising, ice is melting, there is a gradual increase in temperatures in some locations. The differences come in the "why."

And if 99% of scientists are agreeing on the causes of climate change, or just about anything else, that's news to me.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Have to say Trump's pace is pretty impressive, I don't like the lack of PT though: Trump sets dizzying WH pace in first days

 

[SpongeBob*24]

I think most people will agree that the climate is changing: sea levels are rising, ice is melting, there is a gradual increase in temperatures in some locations. The differences come in the "why."

And if 99% of scientists are agreeing on the causes of climate change, or just about anything else, that's news to me.

They aren't, its 95% or 97% depending on which site you read.

It's been proving wrong.....it's closer to 52%.



Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

This guy gives you a good read out!

Alan Carlin
Ph.D. Economics, MIT
Senior Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Retired)
Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:

"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."

In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.

I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.

With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2."
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Carlin: "If Cook et al's paper is so far off in its classification of my paper, the next question is whether their treatment of my paper is an outlier in the quality of their analysis or is representative. Since I understand that five other skeptic paper authors whose papers were classified by Cook et al. (Idso, Morner, Scaffeta, Soon, and Shaviv) have similar concerns to date, the classification problems in Cook's paper may be more general. Further, in all six cases the effect of the misclassifications is to exaggerate Cook et al's conclusions rather than being apparently random errors due to sloppy analysis. Since their conclusions are at best no better than their data, it appears likely that Cook et al's conclusions are exaggerated as well as being unsupported by the evidence that they offer. I have not done an analysis of each of the papers Cook et al. classified, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers.

One possible explanation for this apparent pattern of misclassification into "more favorable" classifications in terms of supporting the AGW hypothesis is that Cook et al. may have reverse engineered their paper. That is, perhaps the authors started by deciding the "answer" they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist studies on the subject. They certainly had strong motivation to come up with this "answer" given the huge propaganda investment by alarmists in this particular number. So in the end they may have concluded that they needed to reclassify enough skeptic papers into "more favorable" classifications in order to reach this possibly predetermined "answer" and hoped that these misclassifications would go unnoticed by the world's press and governmental officials trumpeting their scientifically irrelevant conclusions. Obviously, whether this was actually done is known only to the authors, but I offer it as a hypothesis that might explain the apparently widespread and one-directional misclassifications of skeptic papers. Mere sloppy analysis should have resulted in a random pattern of misclassifications."

 

[Il Duce]

I think most people will agree that the climate is changing: sea levels are rising, ice is melting, there is a gradual increase in temperatures in some locations. The differences come in the "why."

And if 99% of scientists are agreeing on the causes of climate change, or just about anything else, that's news to me.

The figure I've heard cited is 97%. I always wonder too about those who doubt scientific consensus about how much faith they put into non-scientific conjecture.

'Scientist say this is how radio waves propagate - but, this dude on the internet says wizards are casting magic spells. I don't know, tough call but I'm going with the wizard - he also sells some products on his website I'd like to buy, he just seems more trustworthy.'

Experts definitely get things wrong, sometimes amateurs, skeptics and observers get things right. But I think the ratio is probably shy of 1 out of 100 in favor of the experts - and is likely highest with hard science.

I don't think doubt on climate science is crazy - though I think it's incorrect. I think certainty that climate science is wrong because...the internet...is fucking nuts.

 

[TLDR20]

I think most people will agree that the climate is changing: sea levels are rising, ice is melting, there is a gradual increase in temperatures in some locations. The differences come in the "why."

And if 99% of scientists are agreeing on the causes of climate change, or just about anything else, that's news to me.

I said nothing of the cause...

And I'll give you 970/1000

 

[Marauder06]

I said nothing of the cause...

And I'll give you 970/1000

I didn't say you did. I was explaining why some people are skeptical of the claimed science.

97% isn't 99%. It's not 52% (above) or ~70% (here) either.

 

[TLDR20]

I didn't say you did. I was explaining why some people are skeptical of the claimed science.

97% isn't 99%. It's not 52% (above) or ~70% (here) either.

That is anthropomorphic. That isn't what I am claiming. I have taken no stance on that issue.

My stance remains: the earth is clearly heating. Should we not attempt to address complications from that?