Dakguy201 I think Malcolm Kenton sadly is typical of what many higher education institutions are turning out these days. I doubt his education contained much physical science, economics or mathematics. Instead, I suspect it was heavily weighted toward the softer social sciences.
You are correct. According to his own page: Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Environmental Studies from Guilford College in NC, 2008.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidThey act like there is some giant solution to saving the earth from climate change, and that solution can only go forward if we all believe that climate change is destroying the earth. What is the giant solution, and why must we all support it in order to make it work?
It's a liberalism thing. You are not allowed to disagree with or question their beliefs. If you don't go along, you are labeled a denier, hater, or whatever tag they prefer at the moment.
The scientists would likely be believed but the politicians got involved and discovered how to make money from it. That's where things went south.
Norm
Norm48327 Euclid They act like there is some giant solution to saving the earth from climate change, and that solution can only go forward if we all believe that climate change is destroying the earth. What is the giant solution, and why must we all support it in order to make it work? It's a liberalism thing. You are not allowed to disagree with or question their beliefs. If you don't go along, you are labeled a denier, hater, or whatever tag they prefer at the moment. The scientists would likely be believed but the politicians got involved and discovered how to make money from it. That's where things went south.
Euclid They act like there is some giant solution to saving the earth from climate change, and that solution can only go forward if we all believe that climate change is destroying the earth. What is the giant solution, and why must we all support it in order to make it work?
Yes, disagreement with the climate change "scientific" consensus is not allowed. But let's say we did all agree on it some day. Then what? What is the practical reason why we must all agree with this particular conclusion? The climate is what it is. How is it affected by what people believe what it is?
I assume the answer is that the proponents of the theory planet destruction believe that there can be no way to avoid it unless we all believe it is happening. So it raises the question of what we must do to stop it, and why that depends on everyone believing that planet destruction is being caused by us.
So what exactly is the cure? Nobody ever talks about that. All they talk about is that we all must agree that the cure is necessary.
Disagreement is "allowed", in fact, in scientific communities (even among very liberal scientists) it's encouraged.
However, if your disagreement is not backed up by facts and science, you have to be prepared (and so many grumpy old guys I read don't seem to be prepared) to have your disagreement disagreed with, often with science and facts.
I'm a big fan of science. Facts. Not "belief." Facts are not liberal or conservative. They are (or should be) real, verifiable with experiment and test. Provable.
The facts around climate change meet that bar. Climate change is a real, no-kidding problem.
And I don't know where you're reading, but "the cure" is being talked about all over the place. The extremely short version: we have to develop--and switch to--energy sources that don't pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
The more the better. the sooner the better. Worldwide.
That's the cure. Simple, but hard for folks to embrace at scale.
schlimm A possible breakthrough in carbon capture from....Exxon-Mobil
A possible breakthrough in carbon capture from....Exxon-Mobil
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-climate-science-history
jcburns Disagreement is "allowed", in fact, in scientific communities (even among very liberal scientists) it's encouraged. However, if your disagreement is not backed up by facts and science, you have to be prepared (and so many grumpy old guys I read don't seem to be prepared) to have your disagreement disagreed with, often with science and facts. I'm a big fan of science. Facts. Not "belief." Facts are not liberal or conservative. They are (or should be) real, verifiable with experiment and test. Provable. The facts around climate change meet that bar. Climate change is a real, no-kidding problem. And I don't know where you're reading, but "the cure" is being talked about all over the place. The extremely short version: we have to develop--and switch to--energy sources that don't pump CO2 into the atmosphere. The more the better. the sooner the better. Worldwide. That's the cure. Simple, but hard for folks to embrace at scale.
I don’t think you have to be grumpy to question the science, and I don’t think that science has to be so indignant over being questioned. I also think that the science can be questioned without having an alternative scientific conclusion. But I agree that if one does have an alternative scientific conclusion, one must expect to have to have it questioned as well.
I ask about the cure only rhetorically because I don’t think most of the believers grasp what it entails. By placing such an intolerant emphasis on a requirement to believe in the cause, it makes it seem that expressing such belief is all that is required.
What I would like to see is a worldwide consensus timetable of CO2 emission reduction, and specifically what must be done to accomplish that, including a cost breakdown.
jcburnsAnd I don't know where you're reading, but "the cure" is being talked about all over the place. The extremely short version: we have to develop--and switch to--energy sources that don't pump CO2 into the atmosphere. The more the better. the sooner the better. Worldwide. That's the cure. Simple, but hard for folks to embrace at scale.
Let's start by getting rid of a huge source of CO2 - animals (including humans). Every breath we exhale has more CO2 in it than the air we breathe in. And we can't forget bovine flatulance (is that a problem with other animals as well?)
I know - that's absurd. But that's the point.
We can't cure climate change. We can mitigate human causes that exacerbate it (ie, reducing CO2 output by machines), but even if we were able to reduce the net generation of CO2 by human causes (other than ourselves) to zero, climate change will continue to occur.
As has already been mentioned, it is a human conceit to believe that humans are solely responsible for climate change, but that seems to be the product that "global warming" (relabelled "climate change") advocates are selling (at some profit to themselves).
Is climate change occurring? Certainly. Is mankind solely responsible for it. Absolutely not.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Well, to take care of the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plant more trees and grow more crops (not enough to provide too high an oxygen level in the air, though).
I am not sure what we can do about methane, unless we can work out a way of attaching afterburners to all wildlife and domestic animals. Can we change the human diet so that no methane is released by humans?
Johnny
Yes, that's absurd.
Now I'm thinking that the very phrase "climate change" is allowing some muddying up of the argument: we don't have to eliminate all traces of human effects on the environment.
We have to do a lot to reverse the trend. Progress in the right direction.
Because I'm fond of polar ice caps and our coastal cities.
My grandfather was a coal miner. I get the sense that some Appalachian towns have that their livelihood isn't what it once was.
If my grandfather was a buggy whip maker, his livelihood would have similarly been superceded.
And because lots of us don't live in those coal mining towns, near old smokestack industries and coal-fired plants without modern scrubbers, we forget the other part of what I remember from visiting my grandfather.
The air gets damn toxic for everyone who lives near all of that. It smells. It corrodes cars and roofs and trees and other surfaces.
We really need to move on from coal especially.
EuclidI ask about the cure only rhetorically because I don’t think most of the believers grasp what it entails. By placing such an intolerant emphasis on a requirement to believe in the cause, it makes it seem that expressing such belief is all that is required.
And it is that intolerance that furthers the resolve of the skeptics. Thus far, the scientific community hasn't said how much of the warming/change is of natural causes and how much is indeed man made; 80/20? 30/70? 90/10? They are simply requiring that we take them at their word and on faith.
Further, China is possibly the worst offender. The air in their cities is unfit to breathe withouf some form of filtration, mask or whatever. Yet, we don't hear the international community demanding they clean up their act while other nations are being forced by their politicians to tow the line or else. President Obama's saying "It is settled science" doesn't necessarily make that true. Politicians always have and agenda, and some are taking their profits straight to the bank at the expense of the proleteriat.
While I believe climate change is real, I also believe that it is chiefly another means of wealth transfer that the enviroloon community has determined can get them more government money. Climate change has been happening since the earth was formed and will continue for as long as it is in existance and whatever humans do will have no appreciable effects. History will show that it is the biggest and most expensive fraud ever perpetrated on humankind. And, if you want a second opinion I'll give you one. Al Gore is a snake oil salesman.
Looking at scientific evidence is not faith in any way, shape, or form.
It's kind of the opposite of "on faith."
China may well be the biggest offender, and yes we certainly do "hear the international community demanding they clean up their act".
But that doesn't mean we should try to burn more coal faster than the Chinese. Ever hear of leading by example?
It's science, and the President is right, it is settled science.
It's factual, real. It has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.
It's just science.
(Jeez o petes!)
"By placing such an intolerant emphasis on a requirement to believe in the cause"--?!
Such garbage, if you'll pardon me.
The requirement is to believe in facts. It's not a cause. It's not a way to profit. It's a real problem and we can make a difference. Or we can be jerks and make it worse.
Kinda that simple.
jcburns Looking at scientific evidence is not faith in any way, shape, or form. It's kind of the opposite of "on faith." China may well be the biggest offender, and yes we certainly do "hear the international community demanding they clean up their act". But that doesn't mean we should try to burn more coal faster than the Chinese. Ever hear of leading by example? It's science, and the President is right, it is settled science. It's factual, real. It has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. It's just science. (Jeez o petes!)
'scuse me while I go have a good laugh.
jcburns "By placing such an intolerant emphasis on a requirement to believe in the cause"--?! Such garbage, if you'll pardon me. The requirement is to believe in facts. It's not a cause. It's not a way to profit. It's a real problem and we can make a difference. Or we can be jerks and make it worse. Kinda that simple.
Then please explain why Al Gore is busily selling carbon credits. It's certainly not out of the generousity of his heart.
Your arguement is the same old drivel.
jcburns Yes, that's absurd. Now I'm thinking that the very phrase "climate change" is allowing some muddying up of the argument: we don't have to eliminate all traces of human effects on the environment. We have to do a lot to reverse the trend. Progress in the right direction. Because I'm fond of polar ice caps and our coastal cities. My grandfather was a coal miner. I get the sense that some Appalachian towns have that their livelihood isn't what it once was. If my grandfather was a buggy whip maker, his livelihood would have similarly been superceded. And because lots of us don't live in those coal mining towns, near old smokestack industries and coal-fired plants without modern scrubbers, we forget the other part of what I remember from visiting my grandfather. The air gets damn toxic for everyone who lives near all of that. It smells. It corrodes cars and roofs and trees and other surfaces. We really need to move on from coal especially.
There is a big difference between the toxic pollution from burning coal that was so apparent decades ago; and the new newly labeled emission called carbon dioxide. And yet the faithful are constantly using the former to exaggerate the danger of the latter.
The difference is that the traditional toxic emissions from burning coal can be cleaned up, but the emission of CO2 cannot. Oh, technically, it is possible to sequester CO2 emitted from combustion, but it is not anywhere near practical at the scale of our current energy production. So the only way to eliminate CO2 emissions is to stop burning fossil fuels, including oil, coal, gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, and natural gas; and replace those fuels with renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass.
I don’t think it is fair to say that we just have to make progress. Making progress is easy. The climate change believers have laid down markers in time after which reversing the trend of growing manmade climate change becomes impossible. After that point in time, complete destruction of the planet becomes inevitable. This dramatic end is said to be very close at hand.
So considering that this is characterized as the biggest problem the world has ever seen, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the world will end soon, and so we will have to do what we can to make progress toward stopping it. It is a radical, life or death problem that demands a radical solution. But the faith is not being promoted it in such dire terms. This is what I mean by saying that the “cure” has not been defined.
Clearly it is time to abolish science as a subject in American schools and for scientists to look into other occupations such as cab driving.
What on earth is the point of studying science or doing science if we're just going to ignore what it tells us?
It sure is gonna be tough living in the Post Factual Age.
I think Al Gore is selling carbon credits to establish the legitimacy of selling carbon credits.
I like how you paint capitalism as bad when it comes from someone you personally don't like.
I think ExxonMobil is selling and buying carbon credits because it makes them money.
I think you'd rather call me or my argument names than deal with a real problem.
jcburnsIt's science, and the President is right, it is settled science.
Exactly what is settled science? That climate change is occuring? No problem there. As noted, climate change has literally been going on since the beginning of time.
Is it that mankind is the cause? To some extent, although those making money off it would like you to believe that is closer to 100%.
People have understood that pollution is a problem for quite some time. I see barren Adirondack waterways all the time, as a result of acid rain. And much has been done to mitigate it. You can actually see in Los Angeles now, although Denver still suffers from a brown haze from time to time.
Ban carbon credits and watch the ballyhoo disappear.
News item in today's paper: Bird Fossil Hints at Once-Warm North Pole Scientists have found a fossil that suggests that 90 million years ago, the North Pole was once as warm as Florida...
Scientists have found a fossil that suggests that 90 million years ago, the North Pole was once as warm as Florida...
The cause of global, excess, accellerated, out-of-control climate change is mankind's less than far-sighted widespread use of energy produced by CO2-producing fuels.
Mankind. Humankind. us.
That is settled science. Settled, backed by facts, verifiable and verified, apolitical, significant, problematic, real.
Norm48327 'scuse me while I go have a good laugh.
Instead of being a grownup and dealing with the problem any way you can?
Okay, well, to each one's own.
Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism.
I posted this thought earlier on the thread " DOD and CSX planning for the future" but it's time to weigh in here.
-26C in here in my town in Saskatchewan...lots of snow and the air is pure as can be.
I strongly suggest for many of you to drive out to a more rural area, sit on a bench somewhere and take some deep breath's and get some air.
Miningman I strongly suggest for many of you to drive out to a more rural area, sit on a bench somewhere and take some deep breath's and get some air.
jcburns-- At -26C you don't drink the koolaid...one drinks hot chocolate!
That sounds good even at 50º F.
jcburns Norm48327 'scuse me while I go have a good laugh. Instead of being a grownup and dealing with the problem any way you can? Okay, well, to each one's own.
Well, you go ahead and be one of the sheeple. You have the temerity to infer I'm not grownup while you blindly follow the policicians and their bought and paid for academics. I prefer to weigh both sides of the equation, and in doing so I see one group profiting at the expense of another. What happens when these regulation get so severe no one can conduct business? Are we going to live in the dark to please the greenies? Not likely.
jcburns Miningman I strongly suggest for many of you to drive out to a more rural area, sit on a bench somewhere and take some deep breath's and get some air. That's probably a good idea, because whew, the amount of psuedo-reality in your post is almost suffocating. It's not a panic. It's not a religion. It's not a belief or faith. It's facts, research, and an understanding of how math works. Even if the models are as inaccurate as you say, they point in one direction--and you can say "nah, nothing there" and say it's about freedom and, well, that's just blowing smoke, in my opinion. Instead, I advocate quietly and soberly breathing in that fresh -26C air and realizing there's a global problem and moving in a direction to decrease the problem instead of continuing "socioeconomic progress" that's paid for by the health/quality of life of us and our children.
Suggestion: If you don't like what others post, don't read it. Your blood pressure may suffer otherwise.
Well Norm, you are using every single one of the buzzwords (like "sheeple") that Breitbart, Infowars, and the others use to go "la la la I can't hear you" in the face of science, facts, reality.
Congratulations, I guess?
jcburns Well Norm, you are using every single one of the buzzwords (like "sheeple") that Breitbart, Infowars, and the others use to go "la la la I can't hear you" in the face of science, facts, reality. Congratulations, I guess?
Well, I at least have followed and read both sides of the debate, not blindly followed what the politicians are telling us must be done. People of the liberal persuasion blindly follow.
Please return when you have something constructive to add to the discussion.
jcburnsThe cause of global, excess, accellerated, out-of-control climate change is mankind's less than far-sighted widespread use of energy produced by CO2-producing fuels.
As noted, the models used have known inaccuracies - yet they are treated as gospel by those with a product to sell.
Recall that Krakatoa (1883) caused a global drop in temperatures of some 1.2 degrees F for five years. With today's lack of historical perspective, the return to normal temperatures after that period would be called global warming.
The eruption of Tambora in 1815 caused the "year without summer." Crops failed, and the bicycle was invented because it became to expensive to feed horses...
The point remains - while we can point to many ways that mankind has affected the environment, it is still a human conceit to say that man's actions have cause significant climate change on a global basis.
That's not to say that there hasn't been climate change on a global basis. Only that a significant portion of that climate change would likely have occurred if we were still hunting with spears and living in caves. And we lack the historical knowledge to know otherwise.
Instead, we rely on models that may or may not be accurate. If you want hard evidence of how much scientific models can vary, take a look at your weather forecast. There are several models used, and it's rare that they match. And if there are dollars involved, it'd be hard to convince most people that the models aren't being cast to favor a desired outcome.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.