fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
The 2018 UN Climate Report
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
Some pages useful for understanding denialist arguments and responses to those arguments:
Climate myths:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
In the 70's, was there a consensus that the Earth was cooling?
No, there was no such "consensus" at all. It was a minority opinion.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Are we heading for a New ice age?
https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Climate myths:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
In the 70's, was there a consensus that the Earth was cooling?
No, there was no such "consensus" at all. It was a minority opinion.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Are we heading for a New ice age?
https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Last edited:
Certainly, my opinions on gun control have changed significantly, in large part from discussion with other members of this board. There have been some refinements in most of my other positions over the years, though it's hard to recall how much change was from this site versus other sources.
The version of the Galileo story you are using is as much myth as reality. However, I agree that we need keep self-interested politicians, government agency careerists, and all the folks with money at the table from swaying scientific truth. The difference is who we see as the self-interested politicians (those who take corporate money and represent corporate interests instead of voter interests), government agency careerists (those with more interest in maintaining their budgets and not rocking the boat), and folks with money at the table (the coal and oil industries). Who does that leave us with? The actual scientists. We should trust their evaluations, because they are seeking the objective truth. Instead, you are falling for the political exploitation of the truth-deniers.
I don't recall anyone trying to shut down your opinions. Criticism is what keeps our opinions sharp.
There has always been a state of some sort since before we separated from the monkeys. Sometimes we call it a tribe, sometimes a congregation, sometimes a king, sometimes a congress or parliament. However, that you think atheists/agnostics all push for greater governmental regulation only shows your lack of knowledge. Ayn Rand, chief prophet of the school of no state regulation, was an atheist. The ire between atheists who advocate for more social justice and those who say such concerns are unimportant is so great and conflict-laden it is sometimes called The Great Divide.
Religion in medieval times was the servitor of the state, and they spent most of that era trying to get out from under the thumbs of the various local rulers.
Government is a tool, and like any other tool, it can be useful or not in application to a particular problem. Railing against government is like railing against hammers.
I'm guessing that what you see in common in Hegel, Marx, and Rousseau is some notion of human societal progress. If so, I don't believe that is necessarily the case, and it certainly doesn't happen without fighting for it.
We will always want more data, but that shouldn't stop us from acting on the data we do have and the 20+ years of accurate predictions we have made from it.
Al Gore (Sr.), the coal magnate, is dead. Al Gore (Jr.), the former vice-president and current climate activist, has made his money in media, technology, and green companies.
The real fossil energy cartel members are the ones currently working in the fossil fuel industry, not the children or great-grandchildren of those who used to, but are now dead.
Red
Well-Known Member
Greenland ice sheet melting at fastest rate in 350 years:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/sc...t-is-melting-at-its-fastest-rate-in-350-years
"The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster today than at any point in the last 350 years, according to a new study published in the journal Nature. The research is the first continuous, multi-century analysis of melting and runoff on the ice sheet, one of the largest drivers of sea level rise globally.
Lead by glaciologist and climate scientist Luke Trusel of Rowan University, a team of U.S. and European researchers analyzed more than three centuries of melt patterns in ice cores from western Greenland. They then linked this historical data to modern observations of melting and runoff across the entire ice sheet, creating a timeline dating back to 1650.
"From a historical perspective, today's melt rates are off the charts," Sarah Das, a glaciologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and co-author of the new study, said in a statement
"We found a 50 percent increase in total ice sheet meltwater runoff versus the start of the industrial era, and a 30 percent increase since the 20th century alone"....
.......The Greenland ice sheet is the largest single contributor to global sea level rise today, adding 72 cubic miles of meltwater to the world's oceans every year. The ice sheet has the potential to raise global sea levels by 23 feet if it melts in its entirety."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/sc...t-is-melting-at-its-fastest-rate-in-350-years
"The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster today than at any point in the last 350 years, according to a new study published in the journal Nature. The research is the first continuous, multi-century analysis of melting and runoff on the ice sheet, one of the largest drivers of sea level rise globally.
Lead by glaciologist and climate scientist Luke Trusel of Rowan University, a team of U.S. and European researchers analyzed more than three centuries of melt patterns in ice cores from western Greenland. They then linked this historical data to modern observations of melting and runoff across the entire ice sheet, creating a timeline dating back to 1650.
"From a historical perspective, today's melt rates are off the charts," Sarah Das, a glaciologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and co-author of the new study, said in a statement
"We found a 50 percent increase in total ice sheet meltwater runoff versus the start of the industrial era, and a 30 percent increase since the 20th century alone"....
.......The Greenland ice sheet is the largest single contributor to global sea level rise today, adding 72 cubic miles of meltwater to the world's oceans every year. The ice sheet has the potential to raise global sea levels by 23 feet if it melts in its entirety."
@OB: I know nothing of how or why the Gore's divested(?) the coal loot, but Al Gore is using the residual "carbon credits" allowed by the UN climate accords like a cash cow. Selling unused historical "emission" production as a shield for future polluters. That's the way the agreements are written. Does nothing substantial to actually end the burning.
human activity in burning fossil fuels is still gonna climb in places of "protected" use, like China and India and Brazil.... and is likely inconsequential anyway on the scale of "natural" burning ongoing..... like the way we are burning our grasslands and forests..... which is on the same scale as purposed energy consumption. But far exceeded by methane oxidation in the atmosphere from geologic and ocean/soil/animal emissions. I don't think 1 billion cows fart as much as 7 billion humans necessarily.... but nobody even calculates mosquito respiration, either. Have you ever found anyone estimating total oxygen demand and respiration, yet. Don't get me wrong. I hope nobody ever cares to take such a hard look at the way things are.... though I don't fear DDT as much as I abhor bureaucrats. I still don't think stopping the heavy breathing of globalists is a high ideal for mankind.
What is clear is that our "solution" to the climate change hoax is useless drivel that benefits the likes of Al Gore and many if not all of the pushers for the new laws, and the carbon tax is gonna supplant national influence in global governance with a whole new level of fascism.
So, in my opinion, you are insanely mistaken to support the "solution" whatever the problem really is....on political grounds.
and the last twenty years of climate prediction, while getting better, is not really impressive enough to be the basis of a new human belief system or government action. Not yet.
human activity in burning fossil fuels is still gonna climb in places of "protected" use, like China and India and Brazil.... and is likely inconsequential anyway on the scale of "natural" burning ongoing..... like the way we are burning our grasslands and forests..... which is on the same scale as purposed energy consumption. But far exceeded by methane oxidation in the atmosphere from geologic and ocean/soil/animal emissions. I don't think 1 billion cows fart as much as 7 billion humans necessarily.... but nobody even calculates mosquito respiration, either. Have you ever found anyone estimating total oxygen demand and respiration, yet. Don't get me wrong. I hope nobody ever cares to take such a hard look at the way things are.... though I don't fear DDT as much as I abhor bureaucrats. I still don't think stopping the heavy breathing of globalists is a high ideal for mankind.
What is clear is that our "solution" to the climate change hoax is useless drivel that benefits the likes of Al Gore and many if not all of the pushers for the new laws, and the carbon tax is gonna supplant national influence in global governance with a whole new level of fascism.
So, in my opinion, you are insanely mistaken to support the "solution" whatever the problem really is....on political grounds.
and the last twenty years of climate prediction, while getting better, is not really impressive enough to be the basis of a new human belief system or government action. Not yet.
still, OB, human belief systems will always be the excuse for human incivility towards other humans. The genius of our original Constitution as laid out or intended by our founding fathers, was the deliberate design to limit the power of government, and elevate the power of ordinary people over their government.
Today, the UN is largely run by representatives selected by corporate interests from around the world, many of them beholden to the same grand international corporates. That's why it acts, and looks.... fascist, in my view. There are no elected representatives from any member country. It is an absolute takeover of human politics by people with the ideals and morals of fascism, including the notion of various "final solutions" to the human "overpopulation" problem. We have never had a more murderous prospective government in all human history, as the sort Bill Gates deems necessary to solve the population crisis.
I, on the other hand, believe we have a lot of technological and infrastructural capacities to sustain a substantial increase in human population, and the need to do so in order to gain the higher ground as a civilization competent to explore and settle our interstellar neighborhood within the Milky Way galaxy.
I'm all for pulling the rug out from underfoot the doomsayer elites who want to return Mother Earth to the "pristine" status of one very large global hunting grounds for the amusement of our wealthy elites.
How are our current elitists significantly different from the royalist elites who with their hounds prowled the Kings' Forests of two hundred years ago. They pay poor wages to the huddled masses encamped around their palatial halls, and have little intellect beyond indulgent habits.
Today, the UN is largely run by representatives selected by corporate interests from around the world, many of them beholden to the same grand international corporates. That's why it acts, and looks.... fascist, in my view. There are no elected representatives from any member country. It is an absolute takeover of human politics by people with the ideals and morals of fascism, including the notion of various "final solutions" to the human "overpopulation" problem. We have never had a more murderous prospective government in all human history, as the sort Bill Gates deems necessary to solve the population crisis.
I, on the other hand, believe we have a lot of technological and infrastructural capacities to sustain a substantial increase in human population, and the need to do so in order to gain the higher ground as a civilization competent to explore and settle our interstellar neighborhood within the Milky Way galaxy.
I'm all for pulling the rug out from underfoot the doomsayer elites who want to return Mother Earth to the "pristine" status of one very large global hunting grounds for the amusement of our wealthy elites.
How are our current elitists significantly different from the royalist elites who with their hounds prowled the Kings' Forests of two hundred years ago. They pay poor wages to the huddled masses encamped around their palatial halls, and have little intellect beyond indulgent habits.
I don't let politics interfere with the survival of our civilization.
What would it take for it to be impressive enough, for you?
The intention of our founding fathers was to keep the power of ordinary people in check by allowing to directly elect only one-half of one branch of government (the House of Representatives). The Senate, the President, and the SCOTUS were all appointed/elected in other ways. The founding fathers feared the effects of ordinary people have more power than government.
Babes entire charm is not knowing when to stop. He learns that now and he’s ignore worthy
LOL.
Our founders laid their lives on the line to get loose of the British Establishment and every American supporter in the Revolution hated and resented the excesses and crimes of that "elite". It is true that the intellectual leadership of the American Revolution were well-educated in the classic tradition and could hold their own in civil discourse with anyone, and dine in all the "First Circles" of society, so no they were not "rednect" or "rube" sorts of folks.
But the soldiers who fought on the ground, including Washington, were people who loved their "rights" as they had hoped the British overlords would recognize them.... the same as the rights of British subjects in England and other places in the Commonwealth. But the Bristish overlords denied those established rights under the Magna Carta to the Americans.
And that is why they fought.
Sure..... our Constitutional system is not a pure "democracy", and democracy is to be feared as much as any tyrant. Democracy is, after all, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. And Liberty is a well-armed sheep.
The Senate was supposed to directly represent State (as in the founding 13 "states"
in the Federal government. The House was supposed to directly represent the populace in some manner proportionate to population. The President or Executive Branch was elected to carry out the admistration of the governance, and the Supreme Court was supposed to be an arbiter or regulator that could keep the governance in line with the Constitution.
D
Deleted member 5000
Guest
My man, even my socialist history teacher friends would laugh. I. Just.. hell carry on wtf has happened
D
Deleted member 5000
Guest
One brow please speak no more about the founders, it's obvious whether you disagree or not that you haven't read a word of theirs. Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Madison, Sam Adams, get to reading.. you're in for a shock.
Last edited by a moderator:
May I suggest you watch the "Adam Ruins Everything" clip on George Washington and his army? Much of the Continental Army consisted of the drafted, criminals being punished, etc.
Pre-revolutionary Americans were British citizens, with the same rights as every other British citizen.
Quote by Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, on the dangers of democracy. Did you intend to support my point?
Agreed, and all exactly in line with what I said.
I'm sorry your history teacher is so uninformed.
Am I? Perhaps you are confusing liberty (a state of citizen freedom) with democracy (a method of governmental power attainment). Not all democracies have liberty, and not all liberalistic countries are democracies.
https://www.ranker.com/list/founding-fathers-anti-democracy-quotes/melissa-sartore
Note the Father of the Constitution (aka James Madison) is listed twice, and that members of the first two political parties (Federalists and Democratic-Republicans) are on the list.
D
Deleted member 5000
Guest
No dude liberty gets no authority from government, government gets consent from the people. Liberty > government you believe the opposite provide one quote from any founder that doesn't agree with this. Your ideology is what they crossed a great body of water to prove wrong.
You are in charge of your life, no one else. They were they first to declare this, that you are your own King, your own priest. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness triumphs anything else, everything is legal as long as it doesn't interfere with others same right
You are in charge of your life, no one else. They were they first to declare this, that you are your own King, your own priest. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness triumphs anything else, everything is legal as long as it doesn't interfere with others same right
Last edited by a moderator:
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Truth. Cant argue. Can be annoyed but cant argue.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
You aren't pragmatic. It will come with time.