Trump Presidency

[kmoose]

Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Cackalacky]

Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD

oh boy .... more canards. Canards everywhere! Roy Spencer Debunked
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-scientists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer-8519f36faf77#.2v2s58pe2

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/21/global-warming-contrarian-paper-unrealistic-inaccurate

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | BillMoyers.com
No one takes Spencer seriously. You shouldn't either.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I rest my case. Literally every one of the several canards in this post have been addressed over and over yet they continue to persist. CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas. Lmao. Excuse while i shit my pants.

This is nothing but butthurt elitist know-it-all tears!

 

[NorthDakota]

You are aware no one takes you seriously right?

You are afraid of the word retard. Hard to take you seriously either.

 

[Cackalacky]

You are afraid of the word retard. Hard to take you seriously either.

I am not afraid of it. People who use it derogatorialy are fucking pathetic and ignorant and I pity them. I am just trying to help you out bro.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Re: Climate change I think Whiskey had a post a while back that I think did a good job of identifying where the debate is/should be and it's not whether or not man made climate change exists at all.

Basically, it is uncontroversial that man made climate change exists: we burn carbon and cut down carbon sinks like trees and as a result more carbon sits in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect is amplified.

That part is like science 101 and really shouldn't be controversial- if you think it's wrong, you'd need to explain what makes it wrong.

The more difficult part, and the area over which there's more controversy, is identifying what sort of feedback effects there are. Things like warming water resulting in an algae die off which reduces the rate at which the ocean absorbs carbon which increases the density of carbon in the atmosphere which leads to even more warming which leads to the permafrost melting the the northern hemisphere which leads to methane emissions which in turn lead to more carbon and etc....

Obviously, there's a globe full of variables at play here and it becomes much more difficult to predict how exactly everything will effect each other. To the extent I think there's a legitimate role for climate skepticism, I think it involves looking at some of the assumptions people are making about feedback effects and subjecting them to rigorous testing. It's not enough to just say "well it's complicated"- you have to really show that there will be mitigating factors or that certain things won't play out the way people expect.

Ultimately the question shouldn't be is there man made climate change. The question(s) should be "to what extent will there be man made climate change and what responses are reasonable?"

The reasonableness of the response depends on the range of expected outcomes. If climate scientists were 90% certain that there was going to be a catastrophic temperature rise over the next 50 years leading to human extinction than it would be reasonable to ban all cars and fossil fuels ASAP and deal with the profound economic and quality of life consequences that would follow. On the other hand, if climate change was only expected to shift the temperature by like 1 degree over the course of the next century, then it might make sense to just ignore it.

I think the truth probably lies in between those two extremes. We need to think less about stopping global warming or proving it doesn't exist and more about managing risk.

 

[Bluto]

I rest my case. Literally every one of the several canards in this post have been addressed over and over yet they continue to persist. CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas. Lmao. Excuse while i shit my pants.

Look at the bright side. When the crap hits the fan it's going to be a planning, design, engineering and reconstruction bonanza (at least that's what I keep telling myself lol).

 

[Guest]

I rest my case. Literally every one of the several canards in this post have been addressed over and over yet they continue to persist. CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas. Lmao. Excuse while i shit my pants.

Some of the science behind this has been debunked. I don't have a link as it was years ago in which I came across the story, but some of the leading government climatologists were hacked several years ago and their emails showed they willingly falsified data that went into large governmental studies. When asked by reporters if the emails that were published by the hackers were legitimate, they said yes but seemed to have no concern over this. They were more upset they were hacked and their emails had come into the public, thereby damaging their agenda to push global warming. This exposure of government data manipulation is largely why the public argument shifted from 'global warming' to climate change - the government stance on warming had been severely damaged. So I would say to you, do your own research and don't trust everything a scientist publishes. The sciences in many countries have been known to be corrupted by money and privilege in almost every society that has existed and this continues to be a problem today.

Edit:
Ahh, here we go, found some references to it - NY Times and the Telegraph

The data was manipulated by leading climatologists and they tried to get out of sharing their data through FOIA requests.

LOL!

 

[NorthDakota]

I am not afraid of it. People who use it derogatorialy are fucking pathetic and ignorant and I pity them. I am just trying to help you out bro.

And I think it's fucking pathetic and ignorant to be a member of the word police. You ever consider that people probably don't want help from you? You are a snowflake.

 

[Voltaire]

I love drinking your tears.

Hillary sucks. Couldn't even pass the bar exam in DC. What a failure of a human being.

I'm genuinely curious because the "I love drinking your tears" vibe seems to be a pretty common feeling and even perhaps impetus for a lot of Trump voters. Why is that your immediate response as opposed to something more along the lines of "I know you're in strong disagreement but I think over the long run you'll see our country will be in a better place than with Hillary"? Seems more constructive if we're all ultimately part of the same team and want to preserve trust and faith in the American institutions most people can agree we want to preserve as de facto leaders of the free world.

 

[Cackalacky]

The science behind this has been debunked. I don't have a link as it was years ago in which I came across the story, but some of the leading government climatologists were hacked several years ago and their emails showed they willingly falsified data that went into large governmental studies. When asked by reporters if the emails that were published by the hackers were legitimate, they said yes but seemed to have no concern over this. They were more upset they were hacked and their emails had come into the public, thereby damaging their agenda to push global warming. This exposure of government data manipulation is largely why the public argument shifted from 'global warming' to climate change - the government stance on warming had been severely damaged. So I would say to you, do your own research and don't trust everything a scientist publishes. The sciences in many countries have been known to be corrupted by money and privilege in almost every society that has existed and this continues to be a problem today.

Thanks for playing. I apologize but i am not discussing this with you if this is what you really think. I posted a link earlier today where you can go sentence by sentence of your last two posts and everyone of your points is discussed thoroughly and completely debunked. But i doubt you will check it out.

 

[Cackalacky]

And I think it's fucking pathetic and ignorant to be a member of the word police. You ever consider that people probably don't want help from you? You are a snowflake.

Haha. Xoxo

 

[Shamrock Theories]

You are aware no one takes you seriously right?

C'mon man, don't need to remind everyone of the thread where he tried to defend "ISIS is a bigger threat than the Nazis and the Empire of Japan", where like 10 people told him he was a total moron.

Wait shit

 

[Shamrock Theories]

I'm genuinely curious because the "I love drinking your tears" vibe seems to be a pretty common feeling and even perhaps impetus for a lot of Trump voters. Why is that your immediate response as opposed to something more along the lines of "I know you're in strong disagreement but I think over the long run you'll see our country will be in a better place than with Hillary"? Seems more constructive if we're all ultimately part of the same team and want to preserve trust and faith in the American institutions most people can agree we want to preserve as de facto leaders of the free world.

He has no interest in discussion. He just enjoys delivering some "High Energy" one line zingers.

You know that guy who laughs at his own jokes? Yeah.

 

[kmoose]

oh boy .... more canards. Canards everywhere! Roy Spencer Debunked
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-scientists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer-8519f36faf77#.2v2s58pe2

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/21/global-warming-contrarian-paper-unrealistic-inaccurate

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | BillMoyers.com
No one takes Spencer seriously. You shouldn't either.

My purpose in posting that link was not to deny that the climate is changing, or even that man has an effect on it. The purpose was that Spencer points out that VERY little research is going on, to determine if anything OTHER than man can be at the root of it. I didn't see any refutation of that claim in the links you provided?

 

[NorthDakota]

I'm genuinely curious because the "I love drinking your tears" vibe seems to be a pretty common feeling and even perhaps impetus for a lot of Trump voters. Why is that your immediate response as opposed to something more along the lines of "I know you're in strong disagreement but I think over the long run you'll see our country will be in a better place than with Hillary"? Seems more constructive if we're all ultimately part of the same team and want to preserve trust and faith in the American institutions most people can agree we want to preserve as de facto leaders of the free world.

I'd say a big chunk would be the reaction coming from the media, the college campuses, cities, etc regarding the election. I was not offered counseling in 2012 in school. I don't recall any large demonstrations. I don't recall meltdowns like we saw from Rachel Maddow and the like(probably some sad guys on fox if I went and looked).

If you'd like, I could go grab people's facebook statuses from the morning after the election. In 2012, I recall my newsfeed being crap like "Four more years of this shit" or maybe a tacky joke about a n****r in the white house. 2016, these clowns lost their minds, calling everyone racist, sexist, and other names. There were articles on websites telling people to not speak to their family or friends until they apologized for voting for Donald.

I don't disagree with your point that it is more constructive to handle it in the more gracious way.

 

[NorthDakota]

C'mon man, don't need to remind everyone of the thread where he tried to defend "ISIS is a bigger threat than the Nazis and the Empire of Japan", where like 10 people told him he was a total moron.

Wait shit

Aren't you the tard who said Trump was going to start throwing nukes around like penny stock?

wait...shit

 

[Cackalacky]

My purpose in posting that link was not to deny that the climate is changing, or even that man has an effect on it. The purpose was that Spencer points out that VERY little research is going on, to determine if anything OTHER than man can be at the root of it. I didn't see any refutation of that claim in the links you provided?

I dont know that to be true. I would highly doubt it is the case and i dont trust Spencer as he is not antrustworthy source on anything climate related. If so the reason it is not is because the debate of true source and the mechanics is all but done. The next step is to decide on how best to handle or mitigate our predicament. People who are deniers such as Spencer are just sowing doubts while everyone else has moved on. I posted what I posted as i said. You shouldnt waste your time googling for denial articles. Spencer is irrelevant. Further this is not a topic that will be best discussed using the top searches on Goooooogle. But the lay persons dont have access to journals so its no wonder they dont understand and have to rely on misinformation via hot takes and myths that would ultimately be a full time debunking job for thousands of scientists because its harder to rebut constantly reappearing low energy hot takes than to take the time to discuss the mass flow of glacial ice over the last 45 years.

I took my opportunity on IE to try and correct some of that to no avail and i am not wasting any more energy on it.

 

[kmoose]

I dont know that to be true. I would highly doubt it is the case and i dont trust Spencer as he is not antrustworthy source on anything climate related. If so the reason it is not is because the debate of true source and the mechanics is all but done. The next step is to decide on how best to handle or mitigate our predicament. People who are deniers such as Spencer are just sowing doubts while everyone else has moved on. I posted what I posted as i said. You shouldnt waste your time googling for denial articles. Spencer is irrelevant. Further this is not a topic that will be best discussed using the top searches on Goooooogle. But the lay persons dont have access to journals so its no wonder they dont understand and have to rely on misinformation via hot takes and myths that would ultimately be a full time debunking job for thousands of scientists because its harder to rebut constantly reappearing low energy hot takes than to take the time to discuss the mass flow of glacial ice over the last 45 years.

I took my opportunity on IE to try and correct some of that to no avail and i am not wasting any more energy on it.

I think we get it:

You're the only one on IE who has done the research and can understand the science and logic behind Climate Change, and anyone who questions any part of it just is too dumb to accept your obviously superior opinion on the subject. I'll see myself out, thanks.

 

[drayer54]

I'm a pretty solid republican, but am disappointed that science became politicized. It's not all oil and gas, I've met many in that industry, some in high positions, who acknowledge climate change as a man-made reality or at least enhanced by man. Science isn't really a debate, as it is supported by evidence and facts.

Nuclear science, atmospheric makeup, and oceanography aren't really opinion based things.

Taking care of our environment should be a common goal. I understand people will disagree as to how much we should sacrifice to get there, and that is fair.

But the whole is climate change real thing to me is silly. Of course, it is. Am I willing to give fracking for it? No. Am I willing to move past unregulated dirt burning for it? Absolutely.

I think it started when Al Gore's face was next to it and the presenter so it had a partisan birth and never outgrew it.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think we get it:

You're the only one on IE who has done the research and can understand the science and logic behind Climate Change, and anyone who questions any part of it just is too dumb to accept your obviously superior opinion on the subject. I'll see myself out, thanks.

Because this is exactly what I meant. Lol. Geez.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm a pretty solid republican, but am disappointed that science became politicized. It's not all oil and gas, I've met many in that industry, some in high positions, who acknowledge climate change as a man-made reality or at least enhanced by man. Science isn't really a debate, as it is supported by evidence and facts.

Nuclear science, atmospheric makeup, and oceanography aren't really opinion based things.

Taking care of our environment should be a common goal. I understand people will disagree as to how much we should sacrifice to get there, and that is fair.

But the whole is climate change real thing to me is silly. Of course, it is. Am I willing to give fracking for it? No. Am I willing to move past unregulated dirt burning for it? Absolutely.

I think it started when Al Gore's face was next to it and the presenter so it had a partisan birth and never outgrew it.

Good post.

Unless I've missed something though, fracking is responsible for a reduction in GHG emissions during the Obama administration. The rise of natural gas has made the US a cleaner energy producer because it is decimating the abhorrent use of coal. Contrary to what Trump ran on, coal is dying mostly because fracked natural gas is putting it out of business.

The problem with the Trump administration, and the Republican establishment in general, is that they will likely dismantle the gentle push from the federal government to facilitate solar and electric vehicles. It's not they have carbon taxes to undo, the measures they could gut could, and I emphasis could, surrender our global lead in 21st century energy technology and game-changers like the batteries and cars at Tesla.

I would hope that all Americans want us to sprint to the finish line of being 1) energy independent (Canada and maybe Mexico not included), 2) solar being cost competitive in energy production, 3) American electric cars dominating new car sales around the globe, etc.

Does an EPA director who defies accepted science, and a Secretary of State being Exxon-Mobile's CEO say loud and clear that this administration is serious about closing the book on 20th century energy and winning the race to dominate 21st energy? I guess we'll see.

On Rex Tillerson, Trump's rumored Sec of State pick....does this sound like a guy who is on the same page as Trump?

"In this global market, the nationality of the resource is of little relevance. Energy made in America is not as important as energy simply made wherever it is most economic."

"This has important implications for policymaking. Trade barriers, punitive taxes, artificial subsidies and other market manipulations may appear to some to be in the interest of U.S. energy security. But to the extent they inhibit development and diversification of global economic energy supply, they clearly are not. A more effective means of strengthening U.S. energy security is by facilitating free trade and investment, promoting stable fiscal, tax and regulatory systems, strengthening partnerships between producing and consuming countries and taking other steps that expand and fortify a global free market for energy."

"Today a similar debate is taking place regarding energy security: Should the United States seek so-called energy independence in an elusive effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the economy, or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement, seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy? Like the Council's founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater international engagement."

In this talk in 2007 he repeatedly refers to exciting Exxon projects in, you guessed it, Russia.

A Conversation on Energy Security - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[Buster Bluth]

Because this is exactly what I meant. Lol. Geez.

kmoose has this defense mechanism in which he flips a troll switch. It's weird coming from someone who is clearly intelligent.

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kyT1tJ929Mg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Booslum31]

Climate has been changing on earth for millions of years...why are we assuming we have something to do with it in the patch of like 150 years? Just sayin'...or askin'.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Climate has been changing on earth for millions of years...why are we assuming we have something to do with it in the patch of like 150 years? Just sayin'...or askin'.

Basically because we can observe the cause and understand the mechanism. Nobody is arguing that there's a static climate that would never change but for anthropogenic reasons. The argument is that human actions are contributing to and exacerbating the change to a dangerous degree.

 

[drayer54]

Good post.

Unless I've missed something though, fracking is responsible for a reduction in GHG emissions during the Obama administration. The rise of natural gas has made the US a cleaner energy producer because it is decimating the abhorrent use of coal. Contrary to what Trump ran on, coal is dying mostly because fracked natural gas is putting it out of business.

The problem with the Trump administration, and the Republican establishment in general, is that they will likely dismantle the gentle push from the federal government to facilitate solar and electric vehicles. It's not they have carbon taxes to undo, the measures they could gut could, and I emphasis could, surrender our global lead in 21st century energy technology and game-changers like the batteries and cars at Tesla.

I would hope that all Americans want us to sprint to the finish line of being 1) energy independent (Canada and maybe Mexico not included), 2) solar being cost competitive in energy production, 3) American electric cars dominating new car sales around the globe, etc.

Does an EPA director who defies accepted science, and a Secretary of State being Exxon-Mobile's CEO say loud and clear that this administration is serious about closing the book on 20th century energy and winning the race to dominate 21st energy? I guess we'll see.

On Rex Tillerson, Trump's rumored Sec of State pick....does this sound like a guy who is on the same page as Trump?

"In this global market, the nationality of the resource is of little relevance. Energy made in America is not as important as energy simply made wherever it is most economic."

"This has important implications for policymaking. Trade barriers, punitive taxes, artificial subsidies and other market manipulations may appear to some to be in the interest of U.S. energy security. But to the extent they inhibit development and diversification of global economic energy supply, they clearly are not. A more effective means of strengthening U.S. energy security is by facilitating free trade and investment, promoting stable fiscal, tax and regulatory systems, strengthening partnerships between producing and consuming countries and taking other steps that expand and fortify a global free market for energy."

"Today a similar debate is taking place regarding energy security: Should the United States seek so-called energy independence in an elusive effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the economy, or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement, seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy? Like the Council's founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater international engagement."

In this talk in 2007 he repeatedly refers to exciting Exxon projects in, you guessed it, Russia.

A Conversation on Energy Security - Council on Foreign Relations

1) Coal. Coal is on it's death bed and isn't coming back. Cheap gas hurt it. Subsidized wind hurt it a whole lot (Production Tax Credit made wind generators able to sell power at $0/MW, which has been a knife in the side of nuclear and coal). EPA requirements have hurt coal. Individual State RPS goals have hurt coal. Most utilities are planning a phase-out of coal. Trump may open the floodgates on one or two of those knives, but the rest have stuck and it will still bleed to death. The caveat is coal liquefaction and the ability to export coal to energy-poor nations. That could help.

2) Energy Independence is oceanside property in Western Nebraska. If you believe in it, Omaha Investors New Capital will happily sell it to you!
It's been a sham goal of every politician since the embargo and it isn't a realistic or possible thing in a world where oil prices are linked to Saudi impulses, rock throwing in sand countries, and rig counts and West Texas. North America itself, is effectively independent anyways based on supply or capable of it. Price wise, good luck achieving this goal and for whatever reason, we are always going to support the Saudi's, even if they try to kill American frackers.

3) Rex has said a lot of things. He even referenced (correctly) that carbon taxes are effective! However, getting cheap energy anywhere is an OK goal because it brings lights and widgets to energy poor areas and American gas pumps without draining the Permian Basin. I think the prevailing goal of the administration is going to be delivering American gas to Europe. The exporting of oil and gas is about to get a green light, it's just a matter of how economical it is going to be. I haven't made up my mind about Rex yet.

4) Teslas, Panels, and Wind Turbines. I think that consumer demand will keep Tesla's and electrics moving. I think gas prices have more impact on their demand than the administration. Getting infrastructure for charging them would have been better with a democrat pushing it, but Hillary would have been more gridlock and no promise anything would have happened year 1, 2,3, or certainly 4. PTC expiring will likely slow the wind industry, but solar is effectively profitable now without a subsidy. Energy is shifting into a service industry and DER oriented in a lot of areas. I think that keeps renewables moving. The market will likely keep everything moving as it has been. Electricity markets have the most to move with PTC's expiring, Nuclear and Coal coming off the grid- unless subsidized, and a rapid shift in the merchant power plant business model with low prices.

We shall see!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think this terribly unfair. If people would listen and respond rather than just dismissing out of hand we might all learn something we didnt before. Yet it seems we all just crave confirmation bias because it makes our world view palatable.

Agreed. I would think we all bring different experiences and knowledge based on our education and careers. For instance, if I wanted more info on the country's most advanced highway/ transportation infrastructure system, the first guy I'd want to talk with is Buster.

The issue, IMO, is that in one hour on here the conversation could go anywhere from the best turf system for football to economic policies to healthcare and here's how it goes:

1) state opinion/ argument
2) define why
3) dismiss/ laugh at anyone who disagrees
4) anyone who disagrees is intellectually inferior to Buster

No matter who's in the discussion or what the topic is, Buster is always the smartest guy in the room.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

Lovely Fox News interview today. Can't make this stuff up.

Mr Trump also said in the interview he did not need daily intelligence briefings.
"I'm a smart person, I don't need to be told the same thing in the same way for eight years."

Elsewhere in the interview, he said:
"no one really knows" if climate change is real and a decision on the Paris treaty will come quickly

TRUMP: I'm a 'smart person,' don't need intelligence briefings every day.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Lovely Fox News interview today. Can't make this stuff up.

Mr Trump also said in the interview he did not need daily intelligence briefings.
"I'm a smart person, I don't need to be told the same thing in the same way for eight years."

Elsewhere in the interview, he said:
"no one really knows" if climate change is real and a decision on the Paris treaty will come quickly

TRUMP: I'm a 'smart person,' don't need intelligence briefings every day.

That's flat out scary. Unless the president is Nostradamus, he/ she needs to start every morning with a cup of coffee and the PDB. No questions asked.