• Member Statistics

    15,738
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    DanVarner1
    Newest Member
    DanVarner1
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Yankees29

Climate Change, Today's Students, and Anything Else

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, psv88 said:

Who gets the money? Everyone with dark skin? Do only white Americans have to make the payment? 
 

This would definitely be unconstitutional anyway, as you can’t tax one ethnic group or race more than another on the basis of their race. Con law 101. 

We'd have to do a study and propose policies, honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2019 at 3:01 PM, Will - Rutgers said:

Climate science is built on the work of thousands of physicists, chemists, geologists, mathematicians, meteorologists, and other scientists who have been researching this issue for multiple decades.  These people are experts in their fields and the vast majority of them have come to the conclusion that life on Earth will be severely adversely affected by climate change, if the planet is not outright uninhabitable for humans.So far I still trust the experts.  

So, all the experts agree on climate change? Don’t think so.....
it is debatable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Torch said:

Got it.....ty

Do they all agree it is a natural cycle or caused by man? 

Did you read the link?   I’ve pasted the answer below.  Since you are the one that posted it is debatable - how about posting a link to a governmental site or major scientific organization that does not think human activity is causing/contributing to warming?

 

“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. “

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2019 at 6:25 PM, donsutherland1 said:

In the Netherlands, there is a Supreme Court ruling that orders the nation to reduce emissions:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/climate/netherlands-climate-lawsuit.html

 

These cases have been becoming more frequent, Don. Numerous other cases have initiated the process of regulatory/agency rulemaking to promulgate requirements as to GHG emissions. There have also been international efforts to stimulate gov't intervention.

https://elr.info/litigation/46/20223/foster-v-washington-department-ecology

https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/global-legal-actions

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Snowshack said:

Did you read the link?   I’ve pasted the answer below.  Since you are the one that posted it is debatable - how about posting a link to a governmental site or major scientific organization that does not think human activity is causing/contributing to warming?

 

“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. “

Ok. If your sources are (A)- correct and (B)- the period reviewed journals aren’t hand picked to accentuate your side of the debate.

If you meet that criteria, then I guess the fools like myself will be wrong, and will be in a pickle in a dozen years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Isotherm said:

 

These cases have been becoming more frequent, Don. Numerous other cases have initiated the process of regulatory/agency rulemaking to promulgate requirements as to GHG emissions. There have also been international efforts to stimulate gov't intervention.

https://elr.info/litigation/46/20223/foster-v-washington-department-ecology

https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/global-legal-actions

 

Yes. That's correct. I expect that litigation will increase in coming years. Companies that sought to undermine public understanding while possessing relevant data about risks might be at greatest exposure to costly judgments. Whether tobacco-related litigation provides insight into where things might go remains to be seen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

Yes. That's correct. I expect that litigation will increase in coming years. Companies that sought to undermine public understanding while possessing relevant data about risks might be at greatest exposure to costly judgments. Whether tobacco-related litigation provides insight into where things might go remains to be seen.

 

I concur. It has hitherto been a significant uphill battle, at least in the United States, due to most courts invoking the political question doctrine, i.e., deference to non-judicial branches of gov't, but plaintiffs are beginning to improve their arguments -- and I think a viable argument can be presented that this is absolutely not subject to that doctrine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Torch said:

Ok. If your sources are (A)- correct and (B)- the period reviewed journals aren’t hand picked to accentuate your side of the debate.

If you meet that criteria, then I guess the fools like myself will be wrong, and will be in a pickle in a dozen years.

 

What happens in a dozen years to decide the issue?  You still haven’t shared a source that supports your position.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Snowshack said:

What happens in a dozen years to decide the issue?  You still haven’t shared a source that supports your position.  

Buzz words. The “10 year” thing that the right harps on. The fact  that this issue has turned political is probably the darkest hour for our species. Future generations will look back at the greed driven inactivity towards a resolution as the biggest misstep in history.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snowshack said:

What happens in a dozen years to decide the issue?  You still haven’t shared a source that supports your position.  

So if I drop a few scientists names, that will be enough of a source?  I have a list of scientists, teachers, professors and some Mets who would argue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Buzz words. The “10 year” thing that the right harps on. 

Wasn’t it a public servant that was voted into office the person who invented that nonsensical buzz word(s)? No harping, just getting the truth out to people who would actually believe that fairy tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Torch said:

So if I drop a few scientists names, that will be enough of a source?  I have a list of scientists, teachers, professors and some Mets who would argue.

 

Yeah post a few that you find most credible.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Snowshack said:

Yeah post a few that you find most credible.    

Well, let us start with a Met. One of the most respected in the field. The obvious.

joe bastardi 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Torch said:

Well, let us start with a Met. One of the most respected in the field. The obvious.

joe bastardi 

So we’ve be got almost all of the governments of the world and almost every major scientific organization I can think of (I’ve asked you for others with contrarian views) on one side and you choose to go with JB.   

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Torch said:

Wasn’t it a public servant that was voted into office the person who invented that nonsensical buzz word(s)? No harping, just getting the truth out to people who would actually believe that fairy tale.

That was from a UN climate report.

Here's a question though: let's assume that man-made climate change is a hoax or worse. A hoax implies some form of conspiracy. What, if anything, do those perpetrating the hoax have to gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snowshack said:

So we’ve be got almost all of the governments of the world and almost every major scientific organization I can think of (I’ve asked you for others with contrarian views) on one side and you choose to go with JB.   

It's not WHO is right.  It's WHAT is right.  Reality isn't determine by a vote, and btw, the claim that 97% of scientists support(ed) AGW was false anyway.  Here's a clue to follow.  When the supporters of any issue cast the opposition with pejoratives (deniers), claim that the issue is settled, and refuse to debate, something is, shall we say, amiss.  When politicians are also jumping on the issue, then making investments in companies that seek to exploit the issue (Gore- carbon rights trading) - another indicator.  And the fact that governments are on board, gee, I wonder what they could hope to gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Minenfeld! said:

That was from a UN climate report.

Here's a question though: let's assume that man-made climate change is a hoax or worse. A hoax implies some form of conspiracy. What, if anything, do those perpetrating the hoax have to gain?

Power, control and wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yankees29 said:

Power, control and wealth.

Ah yes, the well-known spring of wealth known as academia. Average salaries for climate scientists are lower than those of oil lobbyists or their mercenary enablers. Power and control flow from the enormous profits derived from the fossil fuel industries. This isn't a controversial point. Neither is the simple fact that the science is settled on AGW. We're learning about particulars and dialing in our knowledge--not disputing the basic premise. Those that deny this deserve the pejoratives heaped upon them because they simply are deniers at this point and there is no point in debating a topic that isn't a mystery. Suggesting that scientists are seeking power and wealth may sound like a good argument at face value, but it is an insult to knowledge and simply ignores where the true wealth and power is. There's wealth in the status quo and there's money to be made enlisting yourself in its service.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Minenfeld! said:

Ah yes, the well-known spring of wealth known as academia. Average salaries for climate scientists are lower than those of oil lobbyists or their mercenary enablers. Power and control flow from the enormous profits derived from the fossil fuel industries. This isn't a controversial point. Neither is the simple fact that the science is settled on AGW. We're learning about particulars and dialing in our knowledge--not disputing the basic premise. Those that deny this deserve the pejoratives heaped upon them because they simply are deniers at this point and there is no point in debating a topic that isn't a mystery. Suggesting that scientists are seeking power and wealth may sound like a good argument at face value, but it is an insult to knowledge and simply ignores where the true wealth and power is. There's wealth in the status quo and there's money to be made enlisting yourself in its service.

See why this is a waste of time?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankees29 said:

It's not WHO is right.  It's WHAT is right.  Reality isn't determine by a vote, and btw, the claim that 97% of scientists support(ed) AGW was false anyway.  Here's a clue to follow.  When the supporters of any issue cast the opposition with pejoratives (deniers), claim that the issue is settled, and refuse to debate, something is, shall we say, amiss.  When politicians are also jumping on the issue, then making investments in companies that seek to exploit the issue (Gore- carbon rights trading) - another indicator.  And the fact that governments are on board, gee, I wonder what they could hope to gain?

Disagree.  Any research an individual does on this subject, like many others, relies on the research work and conclusions of the large entities that have the budget and expertise to draw a conclusion.    When you have those entities all on one side, as they essentially are, I have to question why you side against them.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Will - Rutgers said:

See why this is a waste of time?

At the end of the day I do not know how to convince someone that expertise is important and isn't a hoax perpetrated by someone to get one over on you. There seems to be a fundamental mindset difference between some people where they're searching for how someone is out to get them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Minenfeld! said:

At the end of the day I do not know how to convince someone that expertise is important and isn't a hoax perpetrated by someone to get one over on you. There seems to be a fundamental mindset difference between some people where they're searching for how someone is out to get them.

I wonder how ozone depletion would've been handled in this media and tech environment.  We'd probably never have quit CFCs either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snowshack said:

Disagree.  Any research an individual does on this subject, like many others, relies on the research work and conclusions of the large entities that have the budget and expertise to draw a conclusion.    When you have those entities all on one side, as they essentially are, I have to question why you side against them.

 

 

 

 

 

They're not - dig deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Minenfeld! said:

Ah yes, the well-known spring of wealth known as academia. 

The folks angling for the wealth, power, and control to which I refer are at upper levels of governments in many countries, not academia.  Their purpose is to establish laws controlling carbon emissions, establishing taxes and penalties on business and eventually individuals in order to do so.  Governments control the grant process.  Research how many scientists get awarded grants that are not in lock step with the government narrative.  You need to dig deeper and listen to "the other side".  No one is denying climate change.  The "conflict" is about what is causing it and what to do about it. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yankees29 said:

The folks angling for the wealth, power, and control to which I refer are at upper levels of governments in many countries, not academia.  Their purpose is to establish laws controlling carbon emissions, establishing taxes and penalties on business and eventually individuals in order to do so.  Governments control the grant process.  Research how many scientists get awarded grants that are not in lock step with the government narrative.  You need to dig deeper and listen to "the other side".  No one is denying climate change.  The "conflict" is about what is causing it and what to do about it. .

I'm an analyst that works at a multi-service organization that includes a school. I'm involved in our grant process. I get how it works.

You're still not grappling with the fact that wealth and power don't tend to come from bucking the status quo. Why would someone seek to use their position to establish a carbon tax when they could simply make more money--now, not having to wait for a carbon tax--by defending those that would be taxed from a carbon tax? You're applying all this skepticism to those that are seeking to challenge the status quo, but not looking at the naked reality staring you in the face.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Yankees29 said:

They're not - dig deeper.

Why would I dig to prove your point?   I’ve cited multiple sources — you don’t seem to agree with the consensus referenced on US Government sites - which major organizations disagree?   I’d have no problem considering another theory - but all I hear is that there’s no consensus about human contribution.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Snowshack said:

So we’ve be got almost all of the governments of the world and almost every major scientific organization I can think of (I’ve asked you for others with contrarian views) on one side and you choose to go with JB.   

Take a scientist, any scientist and put him against Bastardi. Pull a name out of your journals and let him go one on one with JB.

i will take my chances with JB.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.