Politics

[irishpat183]

Right. What do scientists know about anything anyway? After all, the earth is only 5,000 years old.

What scientists? Name them. And show me their proof that man is causing global warming.

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com


Even the IPCC can't get their sh*t together on this issue. There is no data. The only "data" was the bogas crap they tried to pass off as real. It's hilarious that people try and make this seem like some consenses in the scientific community...

Again, man does not cause these dramatic changes in the climate. This has been happening LOOOOONGGGG before we got here and will continue LOOOOONGGGG after we're gone.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What do you mean? Small businesses like capital gains tax being low because it's easier to get investors to take a risk on you, it's easier to sell your company, etc... as well as lots of indirect reasons. I dunno... I work in structural engineering and there are a lot of developers/finance people who have told me unequivocally that in order to make deals and build buildings it just has to be profitable with acceptable risk. When the profit margin goes down, it gets harder to make the deal, because you get closer and closer to risk outweighing reward.

Engineers, contractors, etc. all depend on people being willing to make investments and take risks... otherwise there is no work to get done. I'd rather pay a little more in income tax than risk less people being willing to invest/risk capital => shortage of work => people getting fired and businesses shutting down like what happened a couple years ago.

No no I was referring to all of the small businesses who file as individuals.I think raising the capital gains tax is absolutely insane, and I think that lowering the corporate tax while eliminating loopholes (what Romney advocated) is the best step there.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No no I was referring to all of the small businesses who file as individuals.I think raising the capital gains tax is absolutely insane, and I think that lowering the corporate tax while eliminating loopholes (what Romney advocated) is the best step there.

That's the key here. Simplification.

One of my biggest problems with Obama is that he completely disregarded the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. That's a far better starting point for reform than anything advanced by the parties themselves.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Yeah. The super wealthy think that they are entitled. They want to deregulate everything so that they can pollute as much as they want. They want to do away with unions so that they can pay people next to nothing. They also don't think that they should pay their fair share in taxes and get every tax break and loophole imaginable. They tried to buy this election, but they failed to realize that the middle class is more powerful with their vote.

Not even close to what I was getting at. If you think that the only people who feel entitled are the wealthy you're incredibly naive. Pure Liberal garbage.

 

[jason_h537]

What scientists? Name them. And show me their proof that man is causing global warming.

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com


Even the IPCC can't get their sh*t together on this issue. There is no data. The only "data" was the bogas crap they tried to pass off as real. It's hilarious that people try and make this seem like some consenses in the scientific community...

Again, man does not cause these dramatic changes in the climate. This has been happening LOOOOONGGGG before we got here and will continue LOOOOONGGGG after we're gone.

Here you go

Expert credibility in climate change

 

[In Lou I Trust]

To all the thoughtful and intellectually honest conservatives who argued in favor of Romney based on their convictions and ideals for the future of the country, it’s been a pleasure arguing with you. Keep pushing for your ideals, the country will be better off if honest people are engaging in debate.

To those who were certain that Romney would win, how about some accountability? This outcome is a triumph of evidence over opinion, and should provoke a strong reaction against all of the pundits and their followers who ignore data and promote an ideological interpretation of basic facts. It is not often that a debate on a thread like this can be resolved definitively, but this one was. You guys who came up with all kinds of anecdotal reasons why your guy would win were dead wrong. Debate is over, the evidence-based argument won. It would be nice if some of you would own up to it.

To those who spewed venom throughout the leadup to the election, who tried to provoke subtle racial hatred, who demonized the President and his supporters, who had no problem blatantly distorting words, opinions, and history: FU. You are hurting the country. This stuff comes from both sides, but in this election it was rampant on the Republican side and it was rampant from a small number of posters on this thread. It is a nice feeling to know that your distortions will be irrelevant for the next four years, and I will enjoy hearing you whine about it.

And to all, let’s get back to football. We’ve got an undefeated team that’s contending for a national championship, let’s get back to enjoying this run!

Serious? Show some humility as your candidate won. It should be easy when you're on the side of the victor. Get this ignorant garbage out of here; hatred and harsh words came from supporters of both men. We're adults in here (for the most part) and we don't need you to tell us to come in here to eat crow. Accountability? Are you serious? Move along, please. Also... go back to last night and you will see that plenty of people were humble in defeat.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Here you go

Expert credibility in climate change

Just a theory, like evolution!

 

[jason_h537]

Just a theory, like evolution!

I really hope that's sarcasm

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Here you go

Expert credibility in climate change

boom

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I really hope that's sarcasm

Yes I understand what the word theory means scientifically and I'm poking fun at the anti-science environment in this country.

 

[irishff1014]

What scientists? Name them. And show me their proof that man is causing global warming.

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com


Even the IPCC can't get their sh*t together on this issue. There is no data. The only "data" was the bogas crap they tried to pass off as real. It's hilarious that people try and make this seem like some consenses in the scientific community...

Again, man does not cause these dramatic changes in the climate. This has been happening LOOOOONGGGG before we got here and will continue LOOOOONGGGG after we're gone.

I am not saying this isn't true but i think it was cbs morning show had a guy on there the other talking about how the weather is just cycles and right now the average temp of the atlantic ocean is warm then the pacific. I tried to find his name and aclip but couldn't find anything.

 

[irishpat183]

Friends of Science | The Myths and Facts of Global Warming


And how is my stance "anti-science"...If there are scientists that agree with my stance?

Oh, I get it. Only the scientists that agree with you are credible and count.


And here's a fantastic rebuttual to your ACC garbage:

PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce | The Resilient Earth

 

[jason_h537]

Friends of Science | The Myths and Facts of Global Warming


And how is my stance "anti-science"...If there are scientists that agree with my stance?

Oh, I get it. Only the scientists that agree with you are credible and count.


And here's a fantastic rebuttual to your ACC garbage:

PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce | The Resilient Earth

So friends of science says climate change is real but they do not think it is man made, and the resilient earth is an editorial piece. So you argue an extensive study with 2 opinion pieces. You don't see the flaw there?

 

[irishpat183]

Here you go

Expert credibility in climate change

From a guy that took part in the study:

Spencer Weart, a trained physicist and historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics, is a well known climate change supporter. He has posted the following comment on the warmist leaning, Skeptical Science website:

"Although I am personally "convinced by the evidence" and am surprised at the number who are not, I have to admit that this paper should not have been published in the present form. I haven't read any other posts on this; the defects are obvious on a quick reading of the paper itself. Here's what I saw: Many scientists might have been "unconvinced by the evidence" and yet chosen not to volunteer to sign a politicized statement that "strongly dissented" from the IPCC's conclusions -- which is the only criterion the authors of the paper had. What if they weakly dissented or are just, like many scientists, shy about taking a public stand? You don't have to invoke groupthink, fear of retribution or all that."


-----



"Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature.

After all, nature does not cause change by itself, you know.

The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs."



Love it.

 

[jason_h537]

From a guy that took part in the study:

Spencer Weart, a trained physicist and historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics, is a well known climate change supporter. He has posted the following comment on the warmist leaning, Skeptical Science website:

"Although I am personally "convinced by the evidence" and am surprised at the number who are not, I have to admit that this paper should not have been published in the present form. I haven't read any other posts on this; the defects are obvious on a quick reading of the paper itself. Here's what I saw: Many scientists might have been "unconvinced by the evidence" and yet chosen not to volunteer to sign a politicized statement that "strongly dissented" from the IPCC's conclusions -- which is the only criterion the authors of the paper had. What if they weakly dissented or are just, like many scientists, shy about taking a public stand? You don't have to invoke groupthink, fear of retribution or all that."


-----



"Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature.

After all, nature does not cause change by itself, you know.

The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs."



Love it.

I feel like I am having the voter fraud debate all over again. You are entitled to believe what you want. Your personal truth, is whatever you make it. But facts are facts, they do not need you to accept or acknowledge them. The facts are that climate change is real, and man is a major contributor. Believe it or not, that's the facts. So you can quote an opinion piece if it makes you feel better, but studies, with data, and research, show otherwise.

Just a refresher, voter fraud did not happen, polls were never skewed, climate change is real, evolution is real, science and data always wins.

 

[irishpat183]

I feel like I am having the voter fraud debate all over again. You are entitled to believe what you want. Your personal truth, is whatever you make it. But facts are facts, they do not need you to accept or acknowledge them. The facts are that climate change is real, and man is a major contributor. Believe it or not, that's the facts. So you can quote an opinion piece if it makes you feel better, but studies, with data, and research, show otherwise.

They are not, facts.

There is no proof. Never has been.

Does the climate change?? Of course, it has for billions of years. Is it because of humans? Nope.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

They are not, facts.

There is no proof. Never has been.

Does the climate change?? Of course, it has for billions of years. Is it because of humans? Nope.

And that's why we think you're anti-science on this topic.

 

[irishpat183]

And that's why we think you're anti-science on this topic.

I'm not. There is just no data that supports man-made global warming. Most of the crap being thrown around has either been proven to be bias (like that ACC report) or just fake all together.


And those that don't agree are somehow "anti-science"? Or laughed at, black balled...etc.


Hey, Al Gore made a ton of money off you guys and I understand your frustration...don't take it out on me...LOL

 

[IrishJayhawk]

One point of clarification...

The word "data" is plural. So, while I think your sentence is wrong, it should read "There are just no data..."

One piece of data is a datum.

Thank you. My small dshans moment.

 

[johnnykillz]

Obama Won

Obama Won

The show is over.

Stop the bullsh!t.

We're 9-0.

Go Irish!

 

[irishpat183]

One point of clarification...

The word "data" is plural. So, while I think your sentence is wrong, it should read "There are just no data..."

One piece of data is a datum.

Thank you. My small dshans moment.

LOL...Thank you kind sir.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Just a theory, like evolution!

Don't forget gravity.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The mechanics of global warming are not really disputed. It is not up for argument that carbon dioxide is one of several greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and that these gasses are what heat our planet by trapping the energy (in the form of thermal energy) emitted by the sun. This is beyond dispute.

It is also beyond dispute that human activity has resulted in increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. All you have to do is look at Gary, Indiana from I-90 to understand that. Then think about the same thing on a massive scale in China and India while forests are beyond cut down- it is inconceivable that rising CO2 levels are not tied to human activity.

The difficulty arises in figuring out exactly HOW MUCH of an impact we have on climate and how much is natural. The environment is a complex system on a global scale, with each input impacting every other input. That makes it extremely difficult to model and impossible to replicate in a controlled environment. So there is ALWAYS going to be scientific uncertainty concerning the extent of man's impact on things like global warming.

One result of this uncertainty is that it is extremely difficult to predict the outcomes of different policies. How do you compare the impact of a tree planted in Bangladesh to a gallon of fuel consumed in Ohio? What is the cost of global warming and when will it be incurred. What would be the costs of fighting global warming with effective policies? To effectively curb global warming, would we have to pay a greater cost in the economy (which correlates to real human suffering) than we would if we did nothing? These are all reasonable questions for politicians to debate. What is not reasonable is to confuse an inability to nail down certain details with uncertainty in the general principle.

Keep it simple. It is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth. It is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human kind has significantly raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. There is plenty of room to debate the appropriate way to respond to those two facts, but to argue with the facts themselves is unscientific.

 

[autry_denson]

But I guess it's not suprising the closer we get to an election in which Obama is going to lose. Romney has already tied him in OH and with women voters. Obama is going to lose this in a landslide.

Accountability is important. When we read Irishpat's posts about climate change, in my mind it is important to note that a few days ago he asserted with total confidence that Obama was going to lose in a landslide. I'm not saying he's full of sh*t all the time, but I'm saying that when you make erroneous, intentionally provocative statements, you should be held accountable when you're shown to be wrong. What Irishpat and others so boldly predicted a few days ago does not drift into oblivion today - it matters, b/c our reputations on an anonymous internet board are based on posts, and nothing more. So my attempts to hold people accountable are not designed simply to rub it in their faces, they are designed to make it perfectly clear that you have lost some credibility. That's it.

And I respect him more for at least acknowledging that he was wrong. I also wish that the experience of being shown to be wrong on an issue that many of you felt confident about might lead people to temper their claims on other issues, and to acknowledge the complexity of some of the issues that we've been discussing. That doesn't happen as much as it should, in my opinion.

 

[IrishLax]

The mechanics of global warming are not really disputed. It is not up for argument that carbon dioxide is one of several greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and that these gasses are what heat our planet by trapping the energy (in the form of thermal energy) emitted by the sun. This is beyond dispute.

It is also beyond dispute that human activity has resulted in increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. All you have to do is look at Gary, Indiana from I-90 to understand that. Then think about the same thing on a massive scale in China and India while forests are beyond cut down- it is inconceivable that rising CO2 levels are not tied to human activity.

The difficulty arises in figuring out exactly HOW MUCH of an impact we have on climate and how much is natural. The environment is a complex system on a global scale, with each input impacting every other input. That makes it extremely difficult to model and impossible to replicate in a controlled environment. So there is ALWAYS going to be scientific uncertainty concerning the extent of man's impact on things like global warming.

One result of this uncertainty is that it is extremely difficult to predict the outcomes of different policies. How do you compare the impact of a tree planted in Bangladesh to a gallon of fuel consumed in Ohio? What is the cost of global warming and when will it be incurred. What would be the costs of fighting global warming with effective policies? To effectively curb global warming, would we have to pay a greater cost in the economy (which correlates to real human suffering) than we would if we did nothing? These are all reasonable questions for politicians to debate. What is not reasonable is to confuse an inability to nail down certain details with uncertainty in the general principle.

Keep it simple. It is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth. It is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human kind has significantly raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. There is plenty of room to debate the appropriate way to respond to those two facts, but to argue with the facts themselves is unscientific.

To take this one step further, it's extremely hard to draw the line on what measures should be taken, what their effect will be, how much of a problem climate change really is, etc. because the line between "natural" and "man made" is very blurry.

People will always point at cars, factories, etc. and CO2 emissions... but the ridiculously large cattle/livestock population on this planet produces a shitton of methane which happens to be something like 23 times more detrimental as a greenhouse gas than CO2 if I'm remembering correctly. I also remember hearing years ago that cows create more greenhouse gasses than cars. So... cows are living, natural creatures... we didn't create their species... they simply existed the same way a bird or tree exists. At the same time, we're responsible for the growth of their population to the level its currently sustained at. So how many cows would naturally exist if humans never came along? Do we have too many? To we need to cap-and-trade livestock??? Attempting to "correct" something as gargantuan and complicated as the global climate is no simple task... and it's also not necessarily the fault of big bad polluting corporations... it's almost an unavoidable circumstance that results from the continued growth of the human population.

 

[IrishinSyria]

To take this one step further, it's extremely hard to draw the line on what measures should be taken, what their effect will be, how much of a problem climate change really is, etc. because the line between "natural" and "man made" is very blurry.

People will always point at cars, factories, etc. and CO2 emissions... but the ridiculously large cattle/livestock population on this planet produces a shitton of methane which happens to be something like 23 times more detrimental as a greenhouse gas than CO2 if I'm remembering correctly. I also remember hearing years ago that cows create more greenhouse gasses than cars. So... cows are living, natural creatures... we didn't create their species... they simply existed the same way a bird or tree exists. At the same time, we're responsible for the growth of their population to the level its currently sustained at. So how many cows would naturally exist if humans never came along? Do we have too many? To we need to cap-and-trade livestock??? Attempting to "correct" something as gargantuan and complicated as the global climate is no simple task... and it's also not necessarily the fault of big bad polluting corporations... it's almost an unavoidable circumstance that results from the continued growth of the human population.

I agree with all of this. But when one half of the political system straight up denies the mechanics of climate change, it's a very difficult conversation to have. The conversation has become so poisoned by ideologues on both sides (climate change is a hoax vs we're all selfish and dooming our children) that the nation collectively pretended the issue had gone away this election season, at least until Sandy leveled the Jersey shore and a few brave pundits suggested that hey, maybe this global warming thing is something we should talk about.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Attempting to "correct" something as gargantuan and complicated as the global climate is no simple task... and it's also not necessarily the fault of big bad polluting corporations... it's almost an unavoidable circumstance that results from the continued growth of the human population.

Further adding to the problem are the international political issues. Any American policy that could substantially decrease our rate of greenhouse gas emission would invariably be a significant drag on our economy. Which, as other have noted, may very end up being worth it. The prospective costs of doing nothing range from mild to catastophic, so there's a compelling case for insuring against such disaster.

But what about China and India? Can they be convinced to put a brake on their economic growth just as they're being lifted out of poverty? I don't believe an American Congress would ever pass legislation putting American businesses at a significant disadvantage with their competitors overseas, particularly when the ultimate goal of diminishing anthropogenic climate change is dependent upon the participation of those competing countries.

 

[tadman95]

When Limbaugh was put on a Global Warming panel as an expert I figured this conversation was going no where fast.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Further adding to the problem are the international political issues. Any American policy that could substantially decrease our rate of greenhouse gas emission would invariably be a significant drag on our economy. Which, as other have noted, may very end up being worth it. The prospective costs of doing nothing range from mild to catastophic, so there's a compelling case for insuring against such disaster.

But what about China and India? Can they be convinced to put a brake on their economic growth just as they're being lifted out of poverty? I don't believe an American Congress would ever pass legislation putting American businesses at a significant disadvantage with their competitors overseas, particularly when the ultimate goal of diminishing anthropogenic climate change is dependent upon the participation of those competing countries.

It's the "tragedy of the commons" writ large. The world will never act decisively unless they see compelling evidence that they have to, and the compelling evidence can only come too late.

 

[tadman95]

Adding to the methane and cow comments above, there are vast quantities of methane trapped in the permafrost across the globe and as the permafrost thaws, vast amounts will be released.

Could be a massive event, or several.