# Climate Change Discussion/ split from What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?



## Earl Weiss (Dec 4, 2018)

*Admin Note:  This thread was split from a discussion in the TKD forum.  Please keep it polite and respectful, as you've done so far, and stay out of politics.*



DaveB said:


> That's a fine sentiment until it becomes a defence against reality. Climate change comes to mind.
> 
> .



Interesting example but not one I would use due to difference in ease of testing.    Move X can be tested to accomplish Y purpose.   Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering  anew ice age.    Climate change is a a fact . Been changing since earth existed.   Modeling reasons is another story.    Similar to trying to model Physiology with physics. not always so easy.   Like the earth, the Body is not a simple thing to model.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 4, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering  anew ice age./QUOTE]
> 
> 1070's???? I thought your name was Earl Weiss, not Connor McCloud...


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 4, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Interesting example but not one I would use due to difference in ease of testing.    Move X can be tested to accomplish Y purpose.   Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering  anew ice age.    Climate change is a a fact . Been changing since earth existed.   Modeling reasons is another story.    Similar to trying to model Physiology with physics. not always so easy.   Like the earth, the Body is not a simple thing to model.


The 1970s hype about a possible ice age was primarily articles in the popular media. The majority of peer-reviewed scientific articles went the other way. (From 1965 to 1979, 42 papers predicted global warming while only 7 predicted global cooling.) The overall scientific consensus was that climate was not understood well enough to accurately model and predict.

Five decades later we have a lot more research on the matter and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that we are in a period of rapid warming, that the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and that the consequences over the upcoming decades are likely to be severe.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?


----------



## DaveB (Dec 4, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Interesting example but not one I would use due to difference in ease of testing.    Move X can be tested to accomplish Y purpose.   Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering  anew ice age.    Climate change is a a fact . Been changing since earth existed.   Modeling reasons is another story.    Similar to trying to model Physiology with physics. not always so easy.   Like the earth, the Body is not a simple thing to model.



That's the beauty of science. It's a process of building a picture of reality by continual refinement. Accepting mistakes as a means of discarding incorrect paths to get closer and closer to the truth.

The 1970s were 40+ years ago. That's a lot of refining time. Perhaps if people (ie government and industry) had acted on those first warnings we wouldn't now only be able to discuss damage limitation.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 4, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The 1970s hype about a possible ice age was primarily articles in the popular media. The majority of peer-reviewed scientific articles went the other way. (From 1965 to 1979, 42 papers predicted global warming while only 7 predicted global cooling.) The overall scientific consensus was that climate was not understood well enough to accurately model and predict.
> 
> Five decades later we have a lot more research on the matter and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that we are in a period of rapid warming, that the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and that the consequences over the upcoming decades are likely to be severe.
> 
> What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?


We are actually in the middle of an ice age right now, but we are in a phase of ice recession, which fluctuates on a timescale of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

Within the current warmer period of ice recession, we are also experiencing rapid warming (with significant contributions from human activity) on a scale fast enough to create serious problems for many species, without a chance to adapt to a changing climate.

The thing is, being in an ice age on the larger scale, while experiencing a warming trend significant enough to pose a threat to all species currently living in this planet is in no way inconsistent.  But media like Feaux News and those who watch it (both civilians and politicians alike), who wish to silence real science, will try to spin that kind of thing into self-serving nonsense.  Liars deceiving the uninformed and the gullible and the deliberately ignorant.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 4, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Within the current warmer period of ice recession, we are also experiencing rapid warming (with significant contributions from human activity) on a scale *fast enough* to create serious problems for many species, *without a chance to adapt to a changing climate*.



I bolded what I think is an important point. Every so often I see people speculating on the idea that a warmer global climate might be okay or even desirable. In the abstract, that's probably correct. The problem is the transition - for humans we've built our coastal cities and our agricultural resources around the climate we have now. For other species, they've spend tens of thousands of years adapting to the current climate. Now we have changes happening in decades that normally would take centuries or millennia and no one is ready to adapt that quickly.

(Kind of getting away from the subject of TKD forms, though.  )


----------



## DaveB (Dec 4, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I bolded what I think is an important point. Every so often I see people speculating on the idea that a warmer global climate might be okay or even desirable. In the abstract, that's probably correct. The problem is the transition - for humans we've built our coastal cities and our agricultural resources around the climate we have now. For other species, they've spend tens of thousands of years adapting to the current climate. Now we have changes happening in decades that normally would take centuries or millennia and no one is ready to adapt that quickly.
> 
> (Kind of getting away from the subject of TKD forms, though.  )



The link is people making excuses to ignore information that doesn't confirm their current way of doing things.

Training culture, especially around traditional elements like forms, are a lot like climate change in this regard.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 5, 2018)

DaveB said:


> That's the beauty of science. It's a process of building a picture of reality by continual refinement. Accepting mistakes as a means of discarding incorrect paths to get closer and closer to the truth.
> 
> .


Yes, they  can be really good at explaining why they were wrong then but of course are correct now.  Same with economists, ad weathermen

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 5, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Yes, they  can be really good at explaining why they were wrong then but of course are correct now.  Same with economists, ad weathermen
> 
> Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling


The short answer is we do not really know. One thing is certain, we have the ability to gather exponentially more data globally and atmospherically. It will take time (decades) to figure out more accurately what all this data means and how it fits together. The one argument I do agree with is that man , and our affects on the planet, are a factor. Big or small I have no idea. The best thing we should get from "crying wolf" about global warming is to do a better job at our jobs and forcing ALL economic powers (petroleum for example) to operate cleaner. 
The historical cycle I find most interesting is the cataclysm effect. The repeated world ender such as a massive volcano(s) or meteor strike that ends nearly all life every million years or so. The true balancing of nature. Who knows if mankind will even survive or come out as the dominant species. Of course it does the currant version of mankind little good to take such a long term view of things. 
And I am a creationist. Go figure.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 5, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> The short answer is we do not really know. One thing is certain, we have the ability to gather exponentially more data globally and atmospherically. It will take time (decades) to figure out more accurately what all this data means and how it fits together. The one argument I do agree with is that man , and our affects on the planet, are a factor. Big or small I have no idea. The best thing we should get from "crying wolf" about global warming is to do a better job at our jobs and forcing ALL economic powers (petroleum for example) to operate cleaner.
> The historical cycle I find most interesting is the cataclysm effect. The repeated world ender such as a massive volcano(s) or meteor strike that ends nearly all life every million years or so. The true balancing of nature. Who knows if mankind will even survive or come out as the dominant species. Of course it does the currant version of mankind little good to take such a long term view of things.
> And I am a creationist. Go figure.


I do not believe it will take decades to figure out.  The geologic evidence is quite clear, pointing to a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide beginning with the start of the industrial revolution when the burning of coal and oil on a large scale really took off.  The geologic record tracks this very clearly, the scientific community is not confused about it. The effects of the carbon dioxide are known and there is a lot of evidence.  It will not take decades to sort through it.  It is well understood, right now.

In terms of cataclysmic mass extinctions such as supermassive volcanic eruptions or giant meteorites, they are far far more rare than every million years or so.  Geologic evidence has uncovered four or five of them, the last one being 65.5 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct.  Good evidence indicates both volcanic activity and a giant meteor in that case.  Prior to that, the cataclysmic events are separated by some hundreds of millions of years, my memory is slipping on just how long, but it would be easy to look up.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 5, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Yes, they  can be really good at explaining why they were wrong then but of course are correct now.  Same with economists, ad weathermen
> 
> Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling


That is some funny stuff.  The Heartland Institute worked in the 1990s with Phillip Morris to try and deny the health risks of second hand smoke and to try and prevent smoking bans.

This information is easy to find.  Looks like the Heartland Institute is on the wrong side, yet again.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 6, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Yes, they  can be really good at explaining why they were wrong then but of course are correct now.  Same with economists, ad weathermen
> 
> Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling



Your absolutely, America is indeed full of fools that would rather make a quick buck than safe guards the planet.

When Mr Ferera gets a job at NASA I might be more inclined to listen to him.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## skribs (Dec 6, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> The diamond block can be middle or low.
> 
> Diamond Middle Block (the students left arm is a little low in this picture...)
> View attachment 21929
> ...



The fact it has a specific name hints at its importance to me.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 6, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I do not believe it will take decades to figure out.  The geologic evidence is quite clear, pointing to a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide beginning with the start of the industrial revolution when the burning of coal and oil on a large scale really took off.  The geologic record tracks this very clearly, the scientific community is not confused about it. The effects of the carbon dioxide are known and there is a lot of evidence.  It will not take decades to sort through it.  It is well understood, right now.
> 
> In terms of cataclysmic mass extinctions such as supermassive volcanic eruptions or giant meteorites, they are far far more rare than every million years or so.  Geologic evidence has uncovered four or five of them, the last one being 65.5 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct.  Good evidence indicates both volcanic activity and a giant meteor in that case.  Prior to that, the cataclysmic events are separated by some hundreds of millions of years, my memory is slipping on just how long, but it would be easy to look up.


We just had the 4th warmest September (tied with 2017)since 1880. We just had the coolest October since 1912. The CO2 levels cannot be argued. Like I said earlier, we just don't know yet. All this is a marathon, not a sprint. In earth term that is millions of years.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 6, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> We just had the 4th warmest September (tied with 2017)since 1880. We just had the coolest October since 1912. The CO2 levels cannot be argued. Like I said earlier, we just don't know yet. All this is a marathon, not a sprint. In earth term that is millions of years.


I agree with what you are saying, with the exception of not knowing.  We do know.

Unless I am missing something in your message?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 7, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I agree with what you are saying, with the exception of not knowing.  We do know.
> 
> Unless I am missing something in your message?


According to ice shelf recordings of the last 2000 years, which is as far back as they could go, CO2 did not start going up appreciably until about 1750. Then it started really taking off. Still hardly enough time to understand what is really going on. A lot of people are up in arms about information gathered in the last 50-100 years. While we are able to gather greatly more pertinent information today, it still takes time. A lot of time to understand what is going on.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 7, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> According to ice shelf recordings of the last 2000 years, which is as far back as they could go, CO2 did not start going up appreciably until about 1750. Then it started really taking off. Still hardly enough time to understand what is really going on. A lot of people are up in arms about information gathered in the last 50-100 years. While we are able to gather greatly more pertinent information today, it still takes time. A lot of time to understand what is going on.


Ok, I am clear on what you are saying and I do disagree in that there is a good understanding of what is going on, at least in terms of it being quite bad.  If anything, the lack of understanding is revealed where a bad prediction turns out to be not as bad as it actually is. The science is good and clear in that the effects of greenhouse gasses like methane and carbon dioxide on the atmosphere and how it is affecting the global climate is not a mystery, not by a long margin.  The gains they are making in their understanding reveals the problem to be worse than previously thought.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> According to ice shelf recordings of the last 2000 years, which is as far back as they could go, CO2 did not start going up appreciably until about 1750. Then it started really taking off. Still hardly enough time to understand what is really going on. A lot of people are up in arms about information gathered in the last 50-100 years. While we are able to gather greatly more pertinent information today, it still takes time. A lot of time to understand what is going on.



I could not find video on line  but John Stossel had a show with scientists pointing  out that the graph Al Gore used in the Inconvenient Spoof, when they moved the lines closer together, showed increasing temps preceded the CO2 rise.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 8, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I could not find video on line  but John Stossel had a show with scientists pointing  out that the graph Al Gore used in the Inconvenient Spoof, when they moved the lines closer together, showed increasing temps preceded the CO2 rise.


Again I direct you to the NASA website linked above.

There are many many many many more scientists than the two John Stossell paid, representing many many independent groups of scientists who are quoted confirming the reality of climate change.

Furthermore the website lists far more pieces of evidence than I was aware of before i looked.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I could not find video on line  but John Stossel had a show with scientists pointing  out that the graph Al Gore used in the Inconvenient Spoof, when they moved the lines closer together, showed increasing temps preceded the CO2 rise.


JOHN STOSSEL???  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I am clear on what you are saying and I do disagree in that there is a good understanding of what is going on, at least in terms of it being quite bad.  If anything, the lack of understanding is revealed where a bad prediction turns out to be not as bad as it actually is. The science is good and clear in that the effects of greenhouse gasses like methane and carbon dioxide on the atmosphere and how it is affecting the global climate is not a mystery, not by a long margin.  The gains they are making in their understanding reveals the problem to be worse than previously thought.


Previously? There is no previously. That is my point, we now have this tremendous amount of data that has to coalesce. So much data that it is what is triggering the alarmist reaction. Yes, we need to acknowledge the data and respond in a responsible manner. What exactly that is we do not know yet. Close to throwing darts blindfolded. There are certainly corrections that should be made. Adding catalytic converters to cars in the '70,s for example. The lower level atmosphere has been improved. Efforts like these should be stronger in Asia. 
Methane? Man is the top predator. There are fewer animals globally than they were 200 years ago. Studies of the atmosphere over the largest stock yards in the U.S. and China report no differences. We will figure it out in time.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Previously? There is no previously. That is my point, we now have this tremendous amount of data that has to coalesce. So much data that it is what is triggering the alarmist reaction. Yes, we need to acknowledge the data and respond in a responsible manner. What exactly that is we do not know yet. Close to throwing darts blindfolded. There are certainly corrections that should be made. Adding catalytic converters to cars in the '70,s for example. The lower level atmosphere has been improved. Efforts like these should be stronger in Asia.
> Methane? Man is the top predator. There are fewer animals globally than they were 200 years ago. Studies of the atmosphere over the largest stock yards in the U.S. and China report no differences. We will figure it out in time.


Previously, meaning based on the collected data there are dire predictions of, for example, how long it might take for a particular piece of ice shelf to disappear.  After predicting perhaps 50-100 years, that particular ice shelf suddenly slips into the ocean just a couple years later because what was not understood was how much melting is actually happening under the ice, creating a slick platform and causing it to suddenly slip into the ocean.

So, based on the data the scientists make dire predictions, which then prove to be not nearly dire enough.

The truth turns out to be much worse than previously thought.

This stuff is well understood.  The more that is uncovered, the worse it proves to be.  But overall, the science of it is well understood.  There is no need to sit back and pretending we don’t know what it means.  Even if the full magnitude of the problem is still being revealed, we do know with certainty that it is very bad.  What will NOT be revealed is that this is all needless hysteria.  It will NOT be revealed that this is not a real and serious problem.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Previously, meaning based on the collected data there are dire predictions of, for example, how long it might take for a particular piece of ice shelf to disappear.  After predicting perhaps 50-100 years, that particular ice shelf suddenly slips into the ocean just a couple years later because what was not understood was how much melting is actually happening under the ice, creating a slick platform and causing it to suddenly slip into the ocean.
> 
> So, based on the data the scientists make dire predictions, which then prove to be not nearly dire enough.
> 
> ...


Relevant link:  The scientist who predicted ice-sheet collapse — 50 years ago

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-03-alarming-polar-ice-sheets.amp

Short-term changes in Antarctica's ice shelves are key to predicting their long-term fate

In just a few years, Antarctic 'ice loss' tripled - Futurity

For starters.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Previously, meaning based on the collected data there are dire predictions of, for example, how long it might take for a particular piece of ice shelf to disappear.  After predicting perhaps 50-100 years, that particular ice shelf suddenly slips into the ocean just a couple years later because what was not understood was how much melting is actually happening under the ice, creating a slick platform and causing it to suddenly slip into the ocean.
> 
> So, based on the data the scientists make dire predictions, which then prove to be not nearly dire enough.
> 
> ...


I mix-used a term here.  Ice shelf is already floating on the ocean.  So if ice shelf melts/collapses it does not really contribute to rise in sea level, but it is indicative of warming in the ocean which causes it to collapse.  However, ice shelf acts as a buttress to keep the landed ice sheets from sliding into the ocean, which would contribute to sea level rise.  When ice shelf collapses, it makes it easier for landed ice sheets to slip.

So when I said ice shelf above in my previous post, I should have said ice sheet.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Previously, meaning based on the collected data there are dire predictions of, for example, how long it might take for a particular piece of ice shelf to disappear.  After predicting perhaps 50-100 years, that particular ice shelf suddenly slips into the ocean just a couple years later because what was not understood was how much melting is actually happening under the ice, creating a slick platform and causing it to suddenly slip into the ocean.
> 
> So, based on the data the scientists make dire predictions, which then prove to be not nearly dire enough.
> 
> ...


It should NOT be hysteria, period. How is a fatalist view doing any good? Again, (and again) much of this IS new information. Reading and listening to only one news conduit does no good, other than to feed your own hysteria.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> It should NOT be hysteria, period. How is a fatalist view doing any good? Again, (and again) much of this IS new information. Reading and listening to only one news conduit does no good, other than to feed your own hysteria.


It is new data to, say, 250 years ago before we had an awareness of the issue.

I’m sorry, but the science is well established.  If you don’t want to believe that, then you are choosing to reject real science.

I’m not taking my information from any news media.  I actually read college text books for personal interest.  It is easy to find this information in online scientific websites and journals.  This is not politically driven propaganda.  This is science.

Another link to an interview with Dr. David Barber,  specialist in sea ice and climate change at the University of Manitoba.  Near the end of the interview he discusses how the sheet ice in Greenland is melting about 600% faster than current models had predicted, which were based on the climate changing effects of CO2 and what we currently understood (interview was in February 2017) about climate change.

Greenland Ice Sheet Melting 600 Percent Faster Than Predicted by Current Models | naked capitalism

The thing is, ice sheets in places like Antarctica can be drilled to a depth that recovers ice layers deposited tens of thousands of years ago, and older.  Analysis of that ice gives us a real window into climate conditions from that era which can be compared to current conditions.  This enables scientists to see a long-term picture of what climate was, what it is, and track how and how quickly it changed and when those changes happened.  This is real stuff.

Since you mentioned news conduits, I need to ask:  what is your source for news?


----------



## DaveB (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> It should NOT be hysteria, period. How is a fatalist view doing any good? Again, (and again) much of this IS new information. Reading and listening to only one news conduit does no good, other than to feed your own hysteria.



Where are you getting this, "nobody knows angle",? I'm pretty sure it's not from Climatologists.

Let's say that we keep ignoring the information from the scientists, and they are right, we end up with irreversible problems.

But if we make the recommend changes, invest in newer energy tech and low emission manufacturing, what exactly is the downside?

The petrochemical industries are the only people with the money and expertise to lead in green tech so it need not cost jobs or drop share prices. 
It will take effort, and perhaps  dip in disposable cash as the companies invest rather than just reap rewards. But I can't see what the benefits of this dithering is?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Where are you getting this, "nobody knows angle",? I'm pretty sure it's not from Climatologists.
> 
> Let's say that we keep ignoring the information from the scientists, and they are right, we end up with irreversible problems.
> 
> ...


Let’s say we, as non-specialists who have not actually studied the climate, choose to reject the information given to us by the climatologists, those educated specialists who have actually studied the issue, because we think somehow that we know better...

Wait a minute.  That makes no sense at all.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Let’s say we, as non-specialists who have not actually studied the climate, choose to reject the information given to us by the climatologists, those educated specialists who have actually studied the issue, because we think somehow that we know better...
> 
> Wait a minute.  That makes no sense at all.



We should start this trend in the rest of our lives.

- as your lawyer I advise you to say nothing and you'll be fine!
- Your honour I wish to make a statement!

- we've found a small tumour in your brain, it's easily removable so long as we act now.
- Actually I think I'll wait: there was a doctor on tv who said symptoms like mine could actually mean my brain is working better.

- The architect said this was a load bearing wall, but I think he's being paid by the Chinese to keep my decor in the 80s so I'm going to knock it through anyway.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Where are you getting this, "nobody knows angle",? I'm pretty sure it's not from Climatologists.
> 
> Let's say that we keep ignoring the information from the scientists, and they are right, we end up with irreversible problems.
> 
> ...


ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear. 
I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> It is new data to, say, 250 years ago before we had an awareness of the issue.
> 
> I’m sorry, but the science is well established.  If you don’t want to believe that, then you are choosing to reject real science.
> 
> ...



My business is in control and automation. I am an electrical engineer by trade and education (2 Masters degrees). Frankly, I hate flexing my intelligent muscles this way. It is in my nature to question everything. My job which is figuring out ways to solve complex manufacturing and process problems requires it. I work in a diverse mix of environments, all of which have environmental impacts. It is part of my job to understand how and if what decisions I make have an environmental, along with an economic impact. I have to know more than a laypersons understanding. Frankly your "naked capitalism" says it all about your leftist viewpoint. 
I am going to stop here because this is going off the rails and this is not what this forum is about. 
I apologize if I have offended anyone.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> My business is in control and automation. I am an electrical engineer by trade and education (2 Masters degrees). Frankly, I hate flexing my intelligent muscles this way. It is in my nature to question everything. My job which is figuring out ways to solve complex manufacturing and process problems requires it. I work in a diverse mix of environments, all of which have environmental impacts. It is part of my job to understand how and if what decisions I make have an environmental, along with an economic impact. I have to know more than a laypersons understanding. Frankly your "naked capitalism" says it all about your leftist viewpoint.
> I am going to stop here because this is going off the rails and this is not what this forum is about.
> I apologize if I have offended anyone.


With your level of education this is all the more surprising that you are unwilling to accept that the science on this is quite solid.  This notion that we don’t know what it all means, well yes, we do.

As for my politics, it was never my intention to bring that into the discussion because the science speaks for itself.  Political discussion is not allowed on Martialtalk and I don’t intend to violate that rule.  I will leave off with an observation: from what I have seen, liberal-leaning folks tend to hold with the scientists more often, and conservative-leaning folks seem to want to reject the science.  I won’t pretend to understand what that is all about, though I do have some suspicions.  But I guess then that it would not be surprising if a liberal news source would report on some real science, while a conservative one would not, and might even try to discredit the science.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> So the prediction was way wrong. Welcome to science.


Is that your takeaway from what I said?  Wow.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. *Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear. *
> I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.


So regarding what is happening with the climate, what other information streams should have a say on what is actually happening?  The petroleum industry, perhaps?

As  for the rest of what you say, I haven’t seen anyone say we need to just shut everything down and give up all we have built.  Why would you assume someone is putting forth that as the answer?   I just don’t get the extremism in that kind of argument.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Is that your takeaway from what I said?  Wow.


Yep.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> My business is in control and automation. I am an electrical engineer by trade and education (2 Masters degrees). Frankly, I hate flexing my intelligent muscles this way. It is in my nature to question everything. My job which is figuring out ways to solve complex manufacturing and process problems requires it. I work in a diverse mix of environments, all of which have environmental impacts. It is part of my job to understand how and if what decisions I make have an environmental, along with an economic impact. I have to know more than a laypersons understanding. Frankly your "naked capitalism" says it all about your leftist viewpoint.
> I am going to stop here because this is going off the rails and this is not what this forum is about.
> I apologize if I have offended anyone.




So what do you do when the manager with a degree in accounting tells the CEO that your recommendations are unnecessary wastes of money and the stuff you said to replace because it's going to fail imminently, is good for another 10 years?


----------



## DaveB (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear.
> I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.



Did you not see the part.where 200 scientific bodies around the world signed in support of the scientific consensus on climate change?

How many sources do you require?

NASA has more than just climatologists by it's self. Although again the logic of listening to economists being paid by the oil industry instead of the scientists who study the field escapes me. It seems like a good way to muddy the waters without any real benefit.

And as was pointed out, who suggested such immediate extremes? If ever such suggestions are necessary it willnknly be because of the inaction and lethargy of world governments.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Let’s say we, as non-specialists who have not actually studied the climate, choose to reject the information given to us by the climatologists, those educated specialists who have actually studied the issue, because we think somehow that we know better...
> 
> Wait a minute.  That makes no sense at all.


When was that ever said? I never said don't listen to climatologist. I said don't listen to only climatologist. One of the biggest mistakes I have made in the past is passionately thinking my idea was the only way to a solution. I am become wise enough to listen to other ideas and opinions.


DaveB said:


> So what do you do when the manager with a degree in accounting tells the CEO that your recommendations are unnecessary wastes of money and the stuff you said to replace because it's going to fail imminently, is good for another 10 years?


The bean counter's standard input. How do they know much about life cycle? Automotive line changes are forced by product changes so the life cycle is not really an issue as it is a known quantity. Process environments like WTP/WWTP are planned, very long term cycles. Then 5 years down the road the city population has grown 25% faster than planned. That can get very involved.  I seldom get involved with internal politics but do provide a lot of data to justify projects. Surprisingly the CEO usually doesn't have as much swing vote at the capital project level in most larger operations. It takes an average of 3 years to plan most of our larger projects. They are unavoidable with our standard clientele but we shy away from the emergency, short term projects. The crystal ball thing is real.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 10, 2018)

DaveB said:


> So what do you do when the manager with a degree in accounting tells the CEO that your recommendations are unnecessary wastes of money and the stuff you said to replace because it's going to fail imminently, is good for another 10 years?


I am curious of this is personal and present experience? Are you currently in this situation? I would love to hear the details if that is the case.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 10, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> So regarding what is happening with the climate, what other information streams should have a say on what is actually happening?  The petroleum industry, perhaps?
> 
> As  for the rest of what you say, I haven’t seen anyone say we need to just shut everything down and give up all we have built.  Why would you assume someone is putting forth that as the answer?   I just don’t get the extremism in that kind of argument.


This is not meant to stir the pot. I found it a very interesting article in a weekly cattlemen's memo email. 5 Deadly Diseases Emerging from Global Warming
I have seen several times where we have received cattle from or shipped cattle to other states and they get sick. It always surprises me how a distance of say <1000 miles can have such affects but I know it is real. It is certainly believable there are unknown bacteria in ice that is 1000's of years old.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> This is not meant to stir the pot. I found it a very interesting article in a weekly cattlemen's memo email. 5 Deadly Diseases Emerging from Global Warming
> I have seen several times where we have received cattle from or shipped cattle to other states and they get sick. It always surprises me how a distance of say <1000 miles can have such affects but I know it is real. It is certainly believable there are unknown bacteria in ice that is 1000's of years old.


Good catch.  Very interesting and potentially terrifying.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 10, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Good catch.  Very interesting and potentially terrifying.


Rub some dirt on it and you will be fine.
I have never lost a cow to sickness. Treatment works in all cases if done responsibility. I hope the same is true for humans. Exposure is one of the best ways to a good, strong immune system.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Rub some dirt on it and you will be fine.
> I have never lost a cow to sickness. Treatment works in all cases if done responsibility. I hope the same is true for humans. Exposure is one of the best ways to a good, strong immune system.


Depends on what it is.  It can be one of the best ways for a lot of people to die.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> When was that ever said? I never said don't listen to climatologist. I said don't listen to only climatologist. One of the biggest mistakes I have made in the past is passionately thinking my idea was the only way to a solution. I *am become wise enough to listen to other ideas and opinions.*
> 
> .


Again I need to ask:  who else has a relevant opinion on what is actually happening with the climate, other than the scientists who study it and it’s interconnected components?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Did you not see the part.where 200 scientific bodies around the world signed in support of the scientific consensus on climate change?
> 
> How many sources do you require?
> 
> ...


Regarding the bolded portion, I unfortunately had my father use the same debate point on me during my parents visit for thanksgiving.  I determined to not have such discussions during their stay, by mom brought it up so there we were.

My dad suddenly made the jump to “what do you want me to do, live in a cave??”

I’m sitting there thinking, “holy ****, how did we get to living in a cave?”  I just wanted a governmental administration that acknowledges the problem for what it is and makes a commitment to working on solutions and not determining to bring back more coal jobs.

I believe it is a tactic used to try and portray those concerned about the climate as extremist and unreasonable.  It’s utter nonsense.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 10, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Again I need to ask:  who else has a relevant opinion on what is actually happening with the climate, other than the scientists who study it and it’s interconnected components?


It needs to be a collective of science, engineering, economic, and financial minds. Why financial? The snail darter has cost Tennessee billions of dollars (just one of many examples). Ever heard of a snail darter? After over-reaction, they are now an infestation that is costing big dollars. When you get only one opinion working on a problem that is, well a problem. Information will be missed or misused.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> It needs to be a collective of science, engineering, economic, and financial minds. Why financial? The snail darter has cost Tennessee billions of dollars (just one of many examples). Ever heard of a snail darter? After over-reaction, they are now an infestation that is costing big dollars. When you get only one opinion working on a problem that is, well a problem. Information will be missed or misused.


Financials are part of reality, but that has nothing to do with the climate.  Regardless of the financials, the climate is what it is.  Economists have nothing to say about what is actually happening to the climate.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

A further comment on the issue of financials:  rising sea level will not halt because we object to the cost of it.  The cost is irrelevant to what is happening.  And as expensive as it may be to try and solve these problems, I can guarantee that it will be far far far more expensive and disruptive if we ignore it and then try to fix it once it reaches catastrophic levels.  Imagine the cost of moving all the inhabitants of New York City to Ohio, as the coastal cities become submerged.  Now factor in the cost of moving every other coastal city in the world.  Looking to save a few bucks?  Ignoring or refusing to deal with the realities of climate change ain’t the way to do it.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 10, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Financials are part of reality, but that has nothing to do with the climate.  Regardless of the financials, the climate is what it is.  Economists have nothing to say about what is actually happening to the climate.


Agree, but they will all have a large say in how we deal with the problems.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Agree, but they will all have a large say in how we deal with the problems.


They do.  But that does not stop the seas from rising.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 10, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> They do.  But that does not stop the seas from rising.


What would you wish to happen? You can be irrational all you want but there will be a process, multiple process, legal, environmental, political, ethical. Sadly, money will drive a big part of the change. With the population growing exponentially at larger and larger powers each year I don't know if we can "fix" the problem. The top predator gets what it wants.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> What would you wish to happen? You can be irrational all you want but there will be a process, multiple process, legal, environmental, political, ethical. Sadly, money will drive a big part of the change. With the population growing exponentially at larger and larger powers each year I don't know if we can "fix" the problem. The top predator gets what it wants.


Where exactly, was I being irrational?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Previously? There is no previously. That is my point, we now have this tremendous amount of data that has to coalesce. So much data that it is what is triggering the alarmist reaction. Yes, we need to acknowledge the data and respond in a responsible manner. What exactly that is we do not know yet. Close to throwing darts blindfolded. There are certainly corrections that should be made. Adding catalytic converters to cars in the '70,s for example. The lower level atmosphere has been improved. Efforts like these should be stronger in Asia.
> Methane? Man is the top predator. There are fewer animals globally than they were 200 years ago. Studies of the atmosphere over the largest stock yards in the U.S. and China report no differences. We will figure it out in time.


Time we do not have. Global warming is not linear. It is self-accelerating. As snow pack and glaciers melt, that adds to the warming, because those are reflective features that reduce the amount of solar energy that heats the ground. So warmer climate reduces snow pack which speeds the warming climate which melts the snow pack faster.

All the while, things humanity does that contribute are not reducing (amount of paved land, deforestation, CO2 emissions, etc.).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear.
> I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.


Wait, what???
Who do you think is the voice needed to balance the bias of climatologists?? They are the people who study the issue, the only ones who really understand it. They are _precisely_ the place to get information on the climate. And getting that information is _precisely_ what leads to an informed opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> When was that ever said? I never said don't listen to climatologist. I said don't listen to only climatologist. One of the biggest mistakes I have made in the past is passionately thinking my idea was the only way to a solution. I am become wise enough to listen to other ideas and opinions.


I'm sorry, but that's like saying "don't just listen to accountants and bookkeepers about how to do your accounting". I guess a mathematician might have some input on the math, or a manager might have input on how the money is best spent, but that's not really accounting, is it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> It needs to be a collective of science, engineering, economic, and financial minds. Why financial? The snail darter has cost Tennessee billions of dollars (just one of many examples). Ever heard of a snail darter? After over-reaction, they are now an infestation that is costing big dollars. When you get only one opinion working on a problem that is, well a problem. Information will be missed or misused.


The solution should - scientists aren't very good at crafting useful solutions on their own. But those other voices aren't useful in the identification of the problem, nor in predicting future climate effects (meaning effects upon the climate). Economists and engineers really don't have much useful input in identifying the cause.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The solution should - scientists aren't very good at crafting useful solutions on their own. But those other voices aren't useful in the identification of the problem, nor in predicting future climate effects (meaning effects upon the climate). Economists and engineers really don't have much useful input in identifying the cause.


Climatologist will not have useful input on how design and construct effective measures to offset any damage we have done. Nor will scientist give much of a care as to how the measures are paid for. These are huge hurdles to be jumped. 
For sake of argument lets say the global temperature increase is purely due to increased CO2 caused by human and warm blooded animal input. This is not a "flip a switch" solution. We cannot say "just stop what we are doing". Unless you want to step back your life style a couple hundred years. And kill off a very large portion of human and warm blooded animals. I know this sound extreme, and it is. But if the demand for the product producing 
CO2 goes away (cars for example) the emissions will decrease. The flip side of this of course is creating a practical vehicle with little or no CO2 emissions. This is where financial & political entities come into the equation.  
You touch on the point I am trying to make when you say scientists are not good at crafting solutions on their own. I would argue that engineers can very much help in identifying the cause.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Where exactly, was I being irrational?


Your's is the "I want it fixed and I want it now" voice. Not rational.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Climatologist will not have useful input on how design and construct effective measures to offset any damage we have done. Nor will scientist give much of a care as to how the measures are paid for. These are huge hurdles to be jumped.


Yes. That's part of what I said.


> For sake of argument lets say the global temperature increase is purely due to increased CO2 caused by human and warm blooded animal input. This is not a "flip a switch" solution. We cannot say "just stop what we are doing". Unless you want to step back your life style a couple hundred years. And kill off a very large portion of human and warm blooded animals. I know this sound extreme, and it is. But if the demand for the product producing
> CO2 goes away (cars for example) the emissions will decrease. The flip side of this of course is creating a practical vehicle with little or no CO2 emissions. This is where financial & political entities come into the equation.
> You touch on the point I am trying to make when you say scientists are not good at crafting solutions on their own. I would argue that engineers can very much help in identifying the cause.


Engineers (unless they train as climatologists, in which case they become part of the population "climatologists") aren't going to understand the climate models sufficiently to analyze the inputs. It's like asking an electrical engineer to analyze the problem with a combustion engine. They might be able to find it, but only if it's in the electrical system, and they won't (unless educated on engines) know what the interaction of that electricity is with the other components. They will be a necessary component in any solutions (IMO, that's something engineers tend to do better than anyone else - craft solutions). So, perhaps I should clarify my earlier point. Engineers should be consulted - by the climatologists - when there's a question about something the climatologists cannot directly measure, themselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Your's is the "I want it fixed and I want it now" voice. Not rational.


I don't recall seeing anything in his posts that said it had to be fixed now. Waiting to START fixing, though, makes the fixing more difficult, more costly, and possibly less effective.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Your's is the "I want it fixed and I want it now" voice. Not rational.


Show me what Ive said that is irrational.  Show me where I’ve said anything at all in line with your accusation.  I’ve said it is a real problem that we need to be working on, and we need a government committed to that course of action.  We need a government that does not deny the science, and does not try to reverse the progresses that we have made, a government that does not believe that burning more coal is the solution, which is an insane notion.

It is a big problem that will not go away, and avoiding facing it will only make it worse.  But fixing it, if possible, will take a tremendous effort and a long time.  That is simply seeing the problem for what it is; that is accepting reality.

I’ve said nothing irrational, and I challenge you to support your claim.

You know you cannot back up that accusation.
So instead you resort to casting me as an extremist.  Which you know is a lie.  So, are you a liar?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Your's is the "I want it fixed and I want it now" voice. Not rational.


I don't see anything in any of FC's posts which indicates that he expects global warming can be instantly fixed.

I'd guess his position is pretty much in line with mine, to wit:

I want society and government to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon which is likely to cause dire consequences and to devote substantial resources into doing whatever we can to mitigate those consequences. (And yes, economists and engineers are likely to have useful input into plans for how we can most effectively use those resources for maximum effect.)

What we actually have, particularly in the United States, is an active disinformation campaign pushing the ideas that: global warming isn't real, it's media scaremongering, it's a deliberate hoax by either scientists wanting funding or liberals wanting increased government control (or both), it is real but has nothing to do with human activity, global temperatures are actually dropping, it might be real but wouldn't actually be a bad thing, it might be real but we don't have evidence enough to decide so we shouldn't do anything about it, etc, etc.

These aren't conspiracy theorists chatting on the fringes. These are public statements from the policy makers who should be working to find solutions.

I welcome debate on the best ways to address the problem, but we can't get to that point if all the energy has to go into persuading people that there actually _is_ a problem to be solved.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear.
> I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.



I realise that this was a while back, but I wanted to come back on the idea of green tech as a political buzz word.

I personally have seen wind turbines and solar panels and can attest to the fact that they do exist. I've also seen early model wave power devices.

Now given that I'm sure you've seen some off these things too, how do you dismiss them and their development and the development of other high efficiency low waste techniques and technologies as a political buzz word?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 11, 2018)

DaveB said:


> I realise that this was a while back, but I wanted to come back on the idea of green tech as a political buzz word.
> 
> I personally have seen wind turbines and solar panels and can attest to the fact that they do exist. I've also seen early model wave power devices.
> 
> Now given that I'm sure you've seen some off these things too, how do you dismiss them and their development and the development of other high efficiency low waste techniques and technologies as a political buzz word?


I’ve got solar panels on my house and I drove an electric car for a few years until the expiration of the lease coincided with a financial reality that forced us to give it up.

They exist, they are good things, they need to become much more widespread.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

DaveB said:


> I realise that this was a while back, but I wanted to come back on the idea of green tech as a political buzz word.
> 
> I personally have seen wind turbines and solar panels and can attest to the fact that they do exist. I've also seen early model wave power devices.
> 
> Now given that I'm sure you've seen some off these things too, how do you dismiss them and their development and the development of other high efficiency low waste techniques and technologies as a political buzz word?


I don't dismiss them at all. Turbines are incredibly efficient where the is ample flat land. Of course that is not the case everywhere. The downside is they take up a very big footprint when you compare the energy generated with water generation. There have been way too many documented stories of wasted millions during the Obama administration and the green energy movement. 
I am very intrigued by the wave energy model. Makes a lot of sense. It does ring of trying to tame mother nature which I think cannot fully be accomplished. So there will be some mishaps as we figure out the technology.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I am curious of this is personal and present experience? Are you currently in this situation? I would love to hear the details if that is the case.


My post was a generic example of a common workplace scenario, ie people without expertise weighing in counter to the people with expertise.

My engineer buddy never stops complaining about it and in my own field I have similar issues.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't see anything in any of FC's posts which indicates that he expects global warming can be instantly fixed.
> 
> I'd guess his position is pretty much in line with mine, to wit:
> 
> ...





Tony Dismukes said:


> What we actually have, particularly in the United States, is an active disinformation campaign pushing the ideas that: global warming isn't real, it's media scaremongering, it's a deliberate hoax by either scientists wanting funding or liberals wanting increased government control (or both), it is real but has nothing to do with human activity, global temperatures are actually dropping, it might be real but wouldn't actually be a bad thing, it might be real but we don't have evidence enough to decide so we shouldn't do anything about it, etc, etc.


All of your explanations are real and actual arguments being thrown out there. 
*It is media scaremongering on both sides of the argument. 
*Whether it is a hoax or not some scientific bodies have already been caught with their hand in the cookie jar making claims that have been proven unfounded.
*Liberal always want increased government control. Have you ever spent significant time in a Socialist economy? I have and it just sucks. 
*Of course it has to do with humans; we are the main consumer of, everything. 
*Global temperatures are dropping if you look at the long term models. We are in a mini-ice age. That said I am certain we have milder winters in middle TN. It is freaky how easy it is to see the line of weather that goes just north of us. We seem to be in an unending loop of temperatures the drop below freezing but don't stay that way long enough for a hard freeze. TN weather is literally from the 20's to the 70's in the same week frequently. I am more inclined to believe the shift in the earth's axis has more to do with our weather. It is a physical shift that seems more inline with how the weather patterns flow. It is a shift of only around 200 miles which is exactly how our weather patterns seem to have shifted. We do not get the jet stream effect as much now either. 
*I have no clue if it is a bad thing.
*I have no clue if it is real. We don't know if we should or can do anything about it. But we do need to try.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

DaveB said:


> My post was a generic example of a common workplace scenario, ie people without expertise weighing in counter to the people with expertise.
> 
> My engineer buddy never stops complaining about it and in my own field I have similar issues.


Yea, it is real and can be quite frustrating.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> All of your explanations are real and actual arguments being thrown out there.
> *It is media scaremongering on both sides of the argument.
> *Whether it is a hoax or not some scientific bodies have already been caught with their hand in the cookie jar making claims that have been proven unfounded.
> *Liberal always want increased government control. Have you ever spent significant time in a Socialist economy? I have and it just sucks.
> ...


Reporting on the actual consensus of the scientific community is not scaremongering.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Reporting on the actual consensus of the scientific community is not scaremongering.


So you don't think there is grandstanding on both "sides"? That is just being naïve.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> *Whether it is a hoax or not some scientific bodies have already been caught with their hand in the cookie jar making claims that have been proven unfounded.


Not true.  Those accusations were investigated and found to be baseless.

You can read about it on numerous websites.  Here is one:
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy



> *Liberal always want increased government control. Have you ever spent significant time in a Socialist economy? I have and it just sucks.



This opening statement is simply nonsense, followed by scaremongering of your own.  Believe it or not, we live in a society that has governmental control over many aspects of it.  The Postal Service, roads, police forces, libraries, military, etc. come to mind.  Playing the socialism card is pretty weak.  Nobody is advocating a move to actual socialism.



> *Global temperatures are dropping if you look at the long term models. We are in a mini-ice age. That said I am certain we have milder winters in middle TN. It is freaky how easy it is to see the line of weather that goes just north of us. We seem to be in an unending loop of temperatures the drop below freezing but don't stay that way long enough for a hard freeze. TN weather is literally from the 20's to the 70's in the same week frequently. I am more inclined to believe the shift in the earth's axis has more to do with our weather. It is a physical shift that seems more inline with how the weather patterns flow. It is a shift of only around 200 miles which is exactly how our weather patterns seem to have shifted. We do not get the jet stream effect as much now either.



I thought I already discussed this.  Yes, we are in the middle of an ice age.  But it cycles on periods of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.  We are in a period of ice recession.  If it is getting colder, that would take tens of thousands of years, or more.  
The anthropogenic climate change we are seeing, while in the middle of this ice recession period, is happening over the period of decades.  Average global temperature is rising, right now, at rates that will very directly affect us.  Meaning you and me as well as the generations to come.  We already see extreme weather patterns like Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy, causing billions of dollars in damage.  Think it’s cheaper to ignore the problem?  We are already paying the cost of it.


> *I have no clue if it is a bad thing.
> *I have no clue if it is real. We don't know if we should or can do anything about it. *But we do need to try*.



Regarding the bolded part, thanks for that much, at least.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Not true.  Those accusations were investigated and found to be baseless.
> 
> You can read about it on numerous websites.  Here is one:
> Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
> ...


You view of freedoms and control is very different from mine. I will ask again, have you ever spent time in a socialist government ran country? I am certain it would change your thinking.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> So you don't think there is grandstanding on both "sides"? That is just being naïve.


No, I do not.

From what I have seen, it seems to me that the news outlets that lean conservative tend to deny the climate science.  If you can point me to a conservative-leaning news source that accepts the climate science and champions the need to take action, please do.  I would like to be wrong about that.

At the same time, liberal-leaning outlets tend to champion the climate science, and stand in line with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

This is what I see.  

I wonder why these divisions are so clear. 

Why do the conservative outlets stand in opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> You view of freedoms and control is very different from mine. I will ask again, have you ever spent time in a socialist government ran country? I am certain it would change your thinking.


I have.  I was an exchange studen in Croatia, when it was still part of Yugoslavia.  

But this is just another distraction tactic.  Please point out to me who and where folks are saying we out to become full-fledged Socialist, in the US., especially in regards to dealing with the climate problem.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> No, I do not.
> 
> From what I have seen, it seems to me that the news outlets that lean conservative tend to deny the climate science.  If you can point me to a conservative-leaning news source that accepts the climate science and champions the need to take action, please do.  I would like to be wrong about that.
> 
> ...


I am tapping out. You have only one view.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 11, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> There have been way too many documented stories of wasted millions during the Obama administration and the green energy movement.
> I.


Name 2.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I am tapping out. You have only one view.


How many views should a person have if only one thing is true?

It is very disappointing to see you leave the discussion right after you are asked to support your statements.


dvcochran said:


> I don't dismiss them at all. Turbines are incredibly efficient where the is ample flat land. Of course that is not the case everywhere. The downside is they take up a very big footprint when you compare the energy generated with water generation. There have been way too many documented stories of wasted millions during the Obama administration and the green energy movement.
> I am very intrigued by the wave energy model. Makes a lot of sense. It does ring of trying to tame mother nature which I think cannot fully be accomplished. So there will be some mishaps as we figure out the technology.



So why call green tech a political buzz word?

Why not advocate investment and job creation in these technologies, including the retraining of people from coal and oil etc?


----------



## DaveB (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> *Liberal always want increased government control. Have you ever spent significant time in a Socialist economy? I have and it just sucks.



Is this it then? The real reason for the "doubt". Fear of government "control"?

Yet we are in this mess precisely because governments around the world have been unwilling to exert control over the corporations that pollute the world. 

Left to these companies, they will simply adjust their business models to sell us inflatable rafts and other post apocalypse survival gear; to profit off the end of the world. Fixing global problems just isn't in their wheel house.

I've never understood how you are more free when corporations are in control than a government that is accountable to the people?

Nor can I grasp how the idea of any sort of impingement or curtailment of current freedoms is seen as too great a cost to help your fellow man?

For example you keep straw manning the argument by suggesting people who believe the science want everyone to stop driving immediately etc. We don't, but given the choice between driving and irreversible climate change and all that comes with it, I would stop driving. 

Incidentally, there's a reason you keep leaping to extreme ideas that nobody has suggested. If you can frame the opposition as unreasonable then you don't need to listen to them and then you don't have to face the things about the opposition that scare you, like losing cars, eating less meat and letting government make more rules. It's not unique to you or even to a political side. But it is something we should consider in ourselves. 

I'm afraid of the planet dying, so it's easy for me to dismiss deniers as stupid, but that's not true: you clearly aren't stupid. One of the advantages of forum discussion is that words are permanent and easy to review, so when our biases twist them we can compare our view of the argument with the actual argument.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 12, 2018)

DaveB said:


> My post was a generic example of a common workplace scenario, ie people without expertise weighing in counter to the people with expertise.
> 
> My engineer buddy never stops complaining about it and in my own field I have similar issues.





dvcochran said:


> Yea, it is real and can be quite frustrating.



Ok, can you not see a comparison between this common issue in engineering, where specialist expertise is countered by people who have non...

...and your view that the information about the conditon of the global climate should be weighed in on by people who do not study climate science and have done no research themselves?

Because to me that is exactly same thing and it is equally frustrating.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I don't dismiss them at all. Turbines are incredibly efficient where the is ample flat land. Of course that is not the case everywhere. The downside is they take up a very big footprint when you compare the energy generated with water generation. There have been way too many documented stories of wasted millions during the Obama administration and the green energy movement.
> I am very intrigued by the wave energy model. Makes a lot of sense. It does ring of trying to tame mother nature which I think cannot fully be accomplished. So there will be some mishaps as we figure out the technology.


Wave energy conversion technology has nothing to do with taming nature. It just makes use of the kinetic energy of waves. As for waste, we've not had any scarcity if that under any recent administration. The budget is set by Congress, not the President, though the President has some influence on the process.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I am very intrigued by the wave energy model. Makes a lot of sense. It does ring of trying to tame mother nature which I think cannot fully be accomplished. So there will be some mishaps as we figure out the technology.


There have been plenty of mishaps as we have figured out our current widespread technologies as well, some with pretty disastrous results.  

Deep water Horizon
Exxon Valdez
Fukushima
Three Mile Island
Chernobyl
Upper Big Branch Coal Mine explosion in West Virginia

Just a few that come readily to mind.  We’ve hardly had a clean history with the technology we’ve been using so far.  Mishaps will be part of any technology.  Just because something new isn’t flawless right out of the box is no reason to refuse to begin using it while we work to improve it, if it offers better alternative to what we already have.


----------



## Buka (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I don't dismiss them at all. Turbines are incredibly efficient where the is ample flat land. Of course that is not the case everywhere. The downside is they take up a very big footprint when you compare the energy generated with water generation. There have been way too many documented stories of wasted millions during the Obama administration and the green energy movement.
> I am very intrigued by the wave energy model. Makes a lot of sense. It does ring of trying to tame mother nature which I think cannot fully be accomplished. So there will be some mishaps as we figure out the technology.



Flat land is certainly easier. But not necessary....




 
Taken from my porch.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

Buka said:


> Flat land is certainly easier. But not necessary....
> 
> View attachment 21954
> Taken from my porch.


Well yea, but they are at the peak of a hill line. What is on each side of the hill?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> There have been plenty of mishaps as we have figured out our current widespread technologies as well, some with pretty disastrous results.
> 
> Deep water Horizon
> Exxon Valdez
> ...


Curious list. It is ridiculous to make that argument given how much longer oil/coal, nuclear, & hydro have been around. 
Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
This link supports my point that this in not just a scientific solution. Runaway socialism and liberalism can be more disastrous than any of than accidents you listed.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Wave energy conversion technology has nothing to do with taming nature. It just makes use of the kinetic energy of waves. As for waste, we've not had any scarcity if that under any recent administration. The budget is set by Congress, not the President, though the President has some influence on the process.


Ask anyone from New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. There are some amazing articles that logically document that it was "impossible" for the levy's to fail. The old civil engineering rule of calculating the maximum then multiplying by three wasn't even close to the actual calculated energies during the hurricane. We are and will continue to get smarter but I guess I am too cynical to think we can beat on our chest and tame mother nature. That said, I am excited to see where wind and wave and nuclear energy go. Although I think seeing 100 windmills in close proximity ruins the landscape.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Curious list. It is ridiculous to make that argument given how much longer oil/coal, nuclear, & hydro have been around.
> Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
> This link supports my point that this in not just a scientific solution. Runaway socialism and liberalism can be more disastrous than any of than accidents you listed.


Are you still trying to make the issue about Socialism?  And Liberalism?  That tired old distraction? 

Here is a clue:  climate change doesn’t give a rat’s *** about the  specter of Socialism.  Anthropogenic climate change is real.  It knows no political distinctions.

And let’s see...you don’t actually need to worry about the Socialism issue because nobody is actually suggesting that the US needs to become a Socialist State in order to deal with it.  I guess if Liberalism give you nightmares, well we are here to stay so for you it may be a real problem.

But then again, you know that Socialism isn’t a problem.  Because I already told you this in an earlier post.

So maybe you can actually discuss the issue and stop throwing out weak distractions.

Now for my list of energy disasters...I was merely pointing out that our current energy technology comes with plenty of very very costly and damaging problems and catastrophes, so arguing that we cannot implement renewable energy resources on the basis that they are as yet imperfect, is a very flawed argument.

But I think you actually understand this already and simply choose to attempt distractions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Curious list. It is ridiculous to make that argument given how much longer oil/coal, nuclear, & hydro have been around.
> Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
> This link supports my point that this in not just a scientific solution. Runaway socialism and liberalism can be more disastrous than any of than accidents you listed.


Two problems in that post, DV. 

That’s not a disaster caused by green technology. It could be called (and perhaps properly) an economic disaster, but that seem to be overstating the issue from what little I know.
Your second sentence is a flagrant statement of position without any support given, and a false comparison, at best.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Ask anyone from New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. There are some amazing articles that logically document that it was "impossible" for the levy's to fail. The old civil engineering rule of calculating the maximum then multiplying by three wasn't even close to the actual calculated energies during the hurricane. We are and will continue to get smarter but I guess I am too cynical to think we can beat on our chest and tame mother nature. That said, I am excited to see where wind and wave and nuclear energy go. Although I think seeing 100 windmills in close proximity ruins the landscape.


What has a hurricane to do with your comment about taming nature? Or wave tech?


----------



## Buka (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Well yea, but they are at the peak of a hill line. What is on each side of the hill?



Uh.....wait for it.....hillside!

Not much level land here. All volcanic land. They build those things where the best wind blows. We got some big wind.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 12, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Ok, can you not see a comparison between this common issue in engineering, where specialist expertise is countered by people who have non...
> 
> ...and your view that the information about the conditon of the global climate should be weighed in on by people who do not study climate science and have done no research themselves?
> 
> Because to me that is exactly same thing and it is equally frustrating.


Bumping this post up.  I would like to see a response from @dvcochran


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 12, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> No, I do not.
> 
> From what I have seen, it seems to me that the news outlets that lean conservative tend to deny the climate science.  If you can point me to a conservative-leaning news source that accepts the climate science and champions the need to take action, please do.  I would like to be wrong about that.
> 
> ...


Bumping this post up also, would like to see a response from @dvcochran


----------



## DaveB (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Ask anyone from New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. There are some amazing articles that logically document that it was "impossible" for the levy's to fail. The old civil engineering rule of calculating the maximum then multiplying by three wasn't even close to the actual calculated energies during the hurricane. We are and will continue to get smarter but I guess I am too cynical to think we can beat on our chest and tame mother nature. That said, I am excited to see where wind and wave and nuclear energy go. Although I think seeing 100 windmills in close proximity ruins the landscape.



As does the landscape being underwater.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Curious list. It is ridiculous to make that argument given how much longer oil/coal, nuclear, & hydro have been around.
> Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
> This link supports my point that this in not just a scientific solution. Runaway socialism and liberalism can be more disastrous than any of than accidents you listed.


Anything done badly is dangerous. 

Allowing irrational fear to rule you is more dangerous.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Well yea, but they are at the peak of a hill line. What is on each side of the hill?



@Buka lives on Hawaii. Their flat land is all vertical.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Two problems in that post, DV.
> 
> That’s not a disaster caused by green technology. It could be called (and perhaps properly) an economic disaster, but that seem to be overstating the issue from what little I know.
> Your second sentence is a flagrant statement of position without any support given, and a false comparison, at best.


I disagree. The overselling of  a technology is the basis for the problem in Germany. Wind power is a great thing. But don't kid yourself. At the current tech it is not a replacement for oil/coal, or hydro. It doesn't even subsidize very well yet. Ok, go ahead and pile on some more.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Are you still trying to make the issue about Socialism?  And Liberalism?  That tired old distraction?
> 
> Here is a clue:  climate change doesn’t give a rat’s *** about the  specter of Socialism.  Anthropogenic climate change is real.  It knows no political distinctions.
> 
> ...





Flying Crane said:


> And let’s see...you don’t actually need to worry about the Socialism issue because nobody is actually suggesting that the US needs to become a Socialist State in order to deal with it. I guess if Liberalism give you nightmares, well we are here to stay so for you it may be a real problem.


Hmm, hmm, who is the current conservative POTUS? Likewise conservatives are here to stay, clearly in much greater numbers. 


Flying Crane said:


> But then again, you know that Socialism isn’t a problem. Because I already told you this in an earlier post.


 You obviously do not know that socialism is a problem. Study a little. You saying, anything, in an earlier post means very little. 

I have been discussing the bigger picture of the issue. You refuse to get past crying about how it is happening to offer anything in the way of a solution. I have been trying to explain how complex the solution is. If in fact there is one than humans can mitigate. I have more faith in mother nature blowing another big volcano or meteor strike.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Anything done badly is dangerous.
> 
> Allowing irrational fear to rule you is more dangerous.


Because the comment is so much so, it feels rather stupid responding. How does any thinking person get "irrational fear" out of anything I have said. Oh wait, a thinking person....


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Bumping this post up also, would like to see a response from @dvcochran


I do not know what "bumping a post up is". Enlighten me.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

Buka said:


> Uh.....wait for it.....hillside!
> 
> Not much level land here. All volcanic land. They build those things where the best wind blows. We got some big wind.


I guess I fat fingered the line. Oh wait!, your on an island where the wind blows, all the freaking time. Hmm, good place for a windmill.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 12, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> What has a hurricane to do with your comment about taming nature? Or wave tech?


Ocean Wave Energy | BOEM


----------



## elder999 (Dec 12, 2018)

elder999 said:


> Name 2.


Bumping this up as well, because @dvcochran likely doesn't have an answer that will satisfy me, particularly since this was the happier part of my field....


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I disagree. The overselling of  a technology is the basis for the problem in Germany. Wind power is a great thing. But don't kid yourself. At the current tech it is not a replacement for oil/coal, or hydro. It doesn't even subsidize very well yet. Ok, go ahead and pile on some more.


That overselling is not an issue with the tech, though. It’s a policy issue. Policy about technology isn’t the technology’s fault. 

You are correct that the current “green” tech can’t yet replace fossil and nuclear. That’s a valid argument, and I wonder why you went through all those other things before going to it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Ocean Wave Energy | BOEM


Stop being condescending. I know what the hell it is, so postin a link to an explanation of what it is is unrelated to the question. How is it “taming nature”, and how is a comment about a hurricane related to either of those?


----------



## DaveB (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I disagree. The overselling of  a technology is the basis for the problem in Germany. Wind power is a great thing. But don't kid yourself. At the current tech it is not a replacement for oil/coal, or hydro. It doesn't even subsidize very well yet. Ok, go ahead and pile on some more.


So then it is another instance of the problem of misinformation. 

Unless you can explain how socialist policy makers are more prone to investing in solutions that won't solve the issue they are trying to solve?


----------



## DaveB (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Hmm, hmm, who is the current conservative POTUS? Likewise conservatives are here to stay, clearly in much greater numbers.
> You obviously do not know that socialism is a problem. Study a little. You saying, anything, in an earlier post means very little.
> 
> I have been discussing the bigger picture of the issue. You refuse to get past crying about how it is happening to offer anything in the way of a solution. I have been trying to explain how complex the solution is. If in fact there is one than humans can mitigate. I have more faith in mother nature blowing another big volcano or meteor strike.



Come on now, the discussion is there for everyone to see. You started off claiming that the very issue of climate change was in debate.

Without ever conceding that you were wrong, you seem to have switched track now to want to talk about solutions to the problem that "we don't know if it's a problem".

But nobody ever pretended to have full answers to the problem of climate change. The closest we previously came to that topic was to refute the wild leaps to extremism that you made in order to straw man the opposition in this discussion.  

Your still straw manning the discussion with this constant attempt to frame solution ideas as socialist. Where in reality anything that can actually be called a solution will be some combination of scientific/engineering invention and governmental regulation regarding manufacturing processes, farming and waste management. 

Now I know regulation will make you think "socialism" and start reaching for the holy water, but conservatives make laws too. And for once, the one thing that should not be partisan and actually isn't for most of the rest of the planet, is the survival of the planet.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Because the comment is so much so, it feels rather stupid responding. How does any thinking person get "irrational fear" out of anything I have said. Oh wait, a thinking person....



Irrational fear of socialism, yes, definitely.

You sat (past tense as you seem to have quietly conceded defeat) in opposition to the scientific consensus with a still unexplained need to consider non expert sources as your only defence. 

Now, as the layers of your position are stripped away you lash out with insults while your interlocutors have remained pretty civil.

That's a pretty clear sign of an emotional response, not a rational one.

The thing you must remember is that though we like to think otherwise we humans are emotional beings first. Our rationality is usually a justification for what we already feel. Hence the need to seek out sources that agree with our feelings and trust those while ignoring 98% of published peer reviewed research on a topic.
Hence our justifications for conquest, slavery, genocide etc.

Until we are able to honestly engage with our underlying emotions we can never hope to overcome our own biases and act in a genuinely rational way.

I've admitted my fear to you. I fear my son will live in poverty on a slowly dying world, as our livable landmass is reduced and our ecosystem collapse. 

Now my mad max visions might be over the top, but catastrophic irreversible damage to the world is still closer to the scientific consensus than "we'll be fine, its just weather". And peer reviewed science based on measurable evidence is the closest we get to unbiased fact.

So that leads me to think we should do something about the problem. What do we do?

We do whatever the scientific consensus is. If that is a drastic change like a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use then we move towards it as quickly as is possible. Both through changes in behaviour and through implementation of our best technological solutions as and when we get them.

And yes that may involve ordering private companies to retool towards the effort. It was ok in ww2 it should be ok now.

We work out the knock on effects of each change as best we can and we legislate as best we can to prevent harm. Then we take action, ideally as one United human species to save our one and only home world.

I don't really see what is socialist about fixing a global scale crisis.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Irrational fear of socialism, yes, definitely.
> 
> You sat (past tense as you seem to have quietly conceded defeat) in opposition to the scientific consensus with a still unexplained need to consider non expert sources as your only defence.
> 
> ...


I'll even point out that there are a lot of companies trying to find a capitalist, privatized way to contribute to the solution. Tesla is an example. How much are any of them helping? I don't yet know. Are some of them doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Probably. Are some of them doing it only because they see a chance for profit (perhaps driven by subsidies)? Probably. We actually need both of those types of companies to get where we need to on this. And, yep, we need government to regulate to both support the change and prevent those who would take advantage of the higher cost of the change by NOT changing, so they can make more money.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Irrational fear of socialism, yes, definitely.
> 
> You sat (past tense as you seem to have quietly conceded defeat) in opposition to the scientific consensus with a still unexplained need to consider non expert sources as your only defence.


Even after I said I was tapping out I continued to answer post, so if you missed something that is on you. Apparently I said something to move you enough to respond.
I have never, never, said the science is wrong. I have said we do not know all that it means. You set within paper walls feeding off only what you are wanting to hear, never challenging the difficult questions. Blind Lemmings following each other.



> Now, as the layers of your position are stripped away you lash out with insults while your interlocutors have remained pretty civil.


Thin skinned much? My position is what it always was. All the information  from our discussion has been targeted at what we know with the short term information we have. I never, never said we should do nothing. I have said, repeatedly, what we do next is much more complex than you are willing to admit. It is irrational to think otherwise they way you are.



> That's a pretty clear sign of an emotional response, not a rational one.
> 
> The thing you must remember is that though we like to think otherwise we humans are emotional beings first. Our rationality is usually a justification for what we already feel. Hence the need to seek out sources that agree with our feelings and trust those while ignoring 98% of published peer reviewed research on a topic.
> Hence our justifications for conquest, slavery, genocide etc.


You are pretty good if you can diagnose me from a few posts. So how is that rational?
 My business used to also deal with service calls and break downs. The call would come in something similar to "Ahh! the line is down! Sometimes this actually meant a real loss of over $10,000/minute just in material cost. My best trait, and what has made my business successful is I never panic. Dozens of people would literally be standing over me asking "when, when when, I never get emotional and just do the work. In high level meetings involving millions of dollars I never get emotional. I cannot or I may miss something. I learned early on that emotion and passion, while they have their place, can really get you in trouble, especially when you are unable to apply realism and understand everything that is influencing a problem. You, apparently cannot do this. So go ahead and try to set on high and quote some ridiculous percentage. It is irrational to be incapable of stepping back and acknowledging the answers to the very complex topic are incredibly multi-faceted. It will not be a science only solution.
We have a 24 year old son. Of course I want him to go up in a better environment.
One consistent theme I see with the liberal mindset is that they often have never learned just because you want something doesn't mean you get it. You have to do the work.
So you try to say I am not rational. I say you certainly are not a realist.



> So that leads me to think we should do something about the problem. What do we do?
> 
> We do whatever the scientific consensus is. If that is a drastic change like a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use then we move towards it as quickly as is possible. Both through changes in behaviour and through implementation of our best technological solutions as and when we get them.
> 
> And yes that may involve ordering private companies to retool towards the effort. It was ok in ww2 it should be ok now.


I guess you are referring to how a great many U.S. companies started building war machines for WW2? The big difference was we already had the resources and the technology. We knew we could, and already had built the machines. We knew the how.
We don't have the tech yet to make such a simple as statement as "go out and retool". We don't yet have the known constants that we can build off of. That is why I previously said mistakes and likely disasters will occur as we advance our knowledge. Realist, not irrational.
I have never, never said do nothing or that nothing can be done. I have simply tried to be a voice of reason. As to your WW2 reference, it would not at all surprise me if the greatest solutions will be industrious instead of scientific. Science may be the what but not the how.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'll even point out that there are a lot of companies trying to find a capitalist, privatized way to contribute to the solution. Tesla is an example. How much are any of them helping? I don't yet know. Are some of them doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Probably. Are some of them doing it only because they see a chance for profit (perhaps driven by subsidies)? Probably. We actually need both of those types of companies to get where we need to on this. And, yep, we need government to regulate to both support the change and prevent those who would take advantage of the higher cost of the change by NOT changing, so they can make more money.


Government involvement in its current state means lobbyist influence. This is heavily true on both party sides. Let the innovators and industry leaders do what they do best. The control limits should be there in a balanced economic approach so that what happened in Germany doesn't happen again. It is a excellent example to the point I have been trying to make. Regulating and supporting innovation are two very, very different things.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Come on now, the discussion is there for everyone to see. You started off claiming that the very issue of climate change was in debate.
> 
> Without ever conceding that you were wrong, you seem to have switched track now to want to talk about solutions to the problem that "we don't know if it's a problem".
> 
> ...





DaveB said:


> Your still straw manning the discussion with this constant attempt to frame solution ideas as socialist. Where in reality anything that can actually be called a solution will be some combination of scientific/engineering invention and governmental regulation regarding manufacturing processes, farming and waste management.


 Gee. I never heard that before. Try to keep up.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Stop being condescending. I know what the hell it is, so postin a link to an explanation of what it is is unrelated to the question. How is it “taming nature”, and how is a comment about a hurricane related to either of those?


Ok, putting the cookies on the bottom shelf. The tech uses the ocean. Nature has proven time and again the ocean is difficult to predict and control. I do not understand how the connection cannot be made. Think of all the boats that have sank, dams and levy's that have broken, and structures demolished by the forces of water. Not to mention the lives lost. 
I hope we do make strides with the tech. If free energy if we can figure out how to harness it safely and effectively.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> You set within paper walls feeding off only what you are wanting to hear, never challenging the difficult questions. Blind Lemmings following each other.


Where the heck do you get that notion?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

Isn't it amazing how like minded we can be about certain things (MA) yet see other things so differently?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Government involvement in its current state means lobbyist influence. This is heavily true on both party sides. Let the innovators and industry leaders do what they do best. The control limits should be there in a balanced economic approach so that what happened in Germany doesn't happen again. It is a excellent example to the point I have been trying to make. Regulating and supporting innovation are two very, very different things.


I'd love to let the innovators do what they do best. Unfortunately that also means the unprincipled people who don't care (and yes, there are some of those) also get to do whatever they want. We have plenty of examples from history to show that some businesses cannot be trusted to do what is right. Government's job is to restrict that as best they can.

As for supporting innovation, that's something government can do. The track record on it is pretty mixed, largely because of two factors, I think: the lobbying you referred to, and lawmakers putting together laws with too little information/understanding. It is and will be flawed, but it can be beneficial.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Ok, putting the cookies on the bottom shelf. The tech uses the ocean. Nature has proven time and again the ocean is difficult to predict and control. I do not understand how the connection cannot be made. Think of all the boats that have sank, dams and levy's that have broken, and structures demolished by the forces of water. Not to mention the lives lost.
> I hope we do make strides with the tech. If free energy if we can figure out how to harness it safely and effectively.


Yes, it uses the ocean, but it doesn't attempt to control or tame it. Every structure everywhere is subject to nature. We deal with it. Some of it is at higher risk than other areas. You're an engineer - you know all that becomes part of the evaluation and mitigation of risk in both design and deployment.

You're being either purposely obtuse, or just condescending. Either way, you're usually better than that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Isn't it amazing how like minded we can be about certain things (MA) yet see other things so differently?


What amazes me is when normally-rational people resort to name-calling and strawmen. "Blind lemmings"???? And that you do it without trying to make any rational argument in there...


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, it uses the ocean, but it doesn't attempt to control or tame it. Every structure everywhere is subject to nature. We deal with it. Some of it is at higher risk than other areas. You're an engineer - you know all that becomes part of the evaluation and mitigation of risk in both design and deployment.
> 
> You're being either purposely obtuse, or just condescending. Either way, you're usually better than that.


I have sat back and gathered data based on the responses. If I decide to push back is with equal effort. If I an not as tactful as so would wish I apologize. It is the realist in me.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'd love to let the innovators do what they do best. Unfortunately that also means the unprincipled people who don't care (and yes, there are some of those) also get to do whatever they want. We have plenty of examples from history to show that some businesses cannot be trusted to do what is right. Government's job is to restrict that as best they can.
> 
> As for supporting innovation, that's something government can do. The track record on it is pretty mixed, largely because of two factors, I think: the lobbying you referred to, and lawmakers putting together laws with too little information/understanding. It is and will be flawed, but it can be beneficial.


Agree, but the lawmakers are a part of government. Lobbyist are the insidious misinformation givers used by government too often as facts. Another flaw in our system that has to be fixed. 
I have been saying this whole time there may be too little understanding to start making broad range decisions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I have sat back and gathered data based on the responses. If I decide to push back is with equal effort. If I an not as tactful as so would wish I apologize. It is the realist in me.


You seem to be having an entirely different discussion than I am, DV. Several responses you've given don't seem to be related to the post you quote. You referred to taming nature, and I commented that it wasn't taming nature. In response you referred to Katrina, and I asked how that was related. So you posted a link explaining wave energy tech as if I'd asked what it was. So I asked again what that had to do with taming nature or hurricanes. Only then did you get around to explaining that you were saying the equipment would be at risk, as if that was something that wouldn't have been thought of.

Condescension (cookies on the low shelf) isn't pushing back. You can do better.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Hmm, hmm, who is the current conservative POTUS? Likewise conservatives are here to stay, clearly in much greater numbers.
> You obviously do not know that socialism is a problem. Study a little. You saying, anything, in an earlier post means very little.
> 
> I have been discussing the bigger picture of the issue. You refuse to get past crying about how it is happening to offer anything in the way of a solution. I have been trying to explain how complex the solution is. If in fact there is one than humans can mitigate. I have more faith in mother nature blowing another big volcano or meteor strike.


Mis-post


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Agree, but the lawmakers are a part of government. Lobbyist are the insidious misinformation givers used by government too often as facts. Another flaw in our system that has to be fixed.
> I have been saying this whole time there may be too little understanding to start making broad range decisions.


You seem to be conflating two sides of the issue. There's pretty strong understanding of what is happening (global warming with a human-caused element), and conceptually what needs to happen (reduce emission of greenhouse gasses to reduce the human element). How that gets done is not a single, sweeping solution. It's probably several thousand solutions - some large and some small. We know enough to get started, while we figure out the rest. Simple things like restricting emissions goes a long way - and some of that simply requires government, because individual consumers drive businesses to do things that are counter to our collective needs.

For that latter point, fuel economy is an easy example. We can (and do) make cars that get more than 40MPG. Many people prefer to buy vehicles that get 20 or less. For some of those people, that's actually a proper decision (can't haul construction goods in a hatchback). But I know several couples with a single child or no children who choose enormous cars (some of which are just plain more fun to own). Why? It's a cycle. Consumers like SUV's, so manufacturers make them. They've made them, so they market them. They want to sell more, so they market them as family vehicles, sport vehicles, etc. Now more consumers want them. Now, increase CAFE standards (for those outside the US, that's regulated requirements that include fuel economy requirements for new vehicles), and manufacturers make more fuel-efficient cars. Since they've made more of them, they want to sell them, so they market them. Turns out, what's marketed well, sells better, which can help contribute to the overall solution.

Nobody I'm aware of is asking for a single, sweeping reform that fixes everything at once. What we want is progress in the right direction, rather than regression toward the practices that led to the current situation.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I do not know what "bumping a post up is". Enlighten me.


Bringing it back to the top of the discussion so it isn’t forgotten.

I would definitely like to see your answers to the questions in those two posts.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Hmm, hmm, who is the current conservative POTUS? Likewise conservatives are here to stay, clearly in much greater numbers.
> You obviously do not know that socialism is a problem. Study a little. You saying, anything, in an earlier post means very little.
> 
> I have been discussing the bigger picture of the issue. You refuse to get past crying about how it is happening to offer anything in the way of a solution. I have been trying to explain how complex the solution is. If in fact there is one than humans can mitigate. I have more faith in mother nature blowing another big volcano or meteor strike.


All you’ve done is throw up distractions and smokescreens.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You seem to be conflating two sides of the issue. There's pretty strong understanding of what is happening (global warming with a human-caused element), and conceptually what needs to happen (reduce emission of greenhouse gasses to reduce the human element). How that gets done is not a single, sweeping solution. It's probably several thousand solutions - some large and some small. We know enough to get started, while we figure out the rest. Simple things like restricting emissions goes a long way - and some of that simply requires government, because individual consumers drive businesses to do things that are counter to our collective needs.
> 
> For that latter point, fuel economy is an easy example. We can (and do) make cars that get more than 40MPG. Many people prefer to buy vehicles that get 20 or less. For some of those people, that's actually a proper decision (can't haul construction goods in a hatchback). But I know several couples with a single child or no children who choose enormous cars (some of which are just plain more fun to own). Why? It's a cycle. Consumers like SUV's, so manufacturers make them. They've made them, so they market them. They want to sell more, so they market them as family vehicles, sport vehicles, etc. Now more consumers want them. Now, increase CAFE standards (for those outside the US, that's regulated requirements that include fuel economy requirements for new vehicles), and manufacturers make more fuel-efficient cars. Since they've made more of them, they want to sell them, so they market them. Turns out, what's marketed well, sells better, which can help contribute to the overall solution.
> 
> Nobody I'm aware of is asking for a single, sweeping reform that fixes everything at once. What we want is progress in the right direction, rather than regression toward the practices that led to the current situation.


Finally, someone talks about solutions. Good post.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You seem to be having an entirely different discussion than I am, DV. Several responses you've given don't seem to be related to the post you quote. You referred to taming nature, and I commented that it wasn't taming nature. In response you referred to Katrina, and I asked how that was related. So you posted a link explaining wave energy tech as if I'd asked what it was. So I asked again what that had to do with taming nature or hurricanes. Only then did you get around to explaining that you were saying the equipment would be at risk, as if that was something that wouldn't have been thought of.
> 
> Condescension (cookies on the low shelf) isn't pushing back. You can do better.


With your aloof replies one could only assume you did not understand much about the tech. It is rather obvious but your responses did seem that way.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Consumers like SUV's, so manufacturers make them.



Mmmmmm... no, I don't think so. 
Government standards for fuel economy and safety were drastically increased, but since trucks, at the time, were considered work vehicles, many of the rules didn't apply, or were relaxed somewhat. In much the same way that things like seatbelt laws are not applied to school buses. So manufacturers started pushing trucks as every day drivers because they could make them cheaper and make more profit.
They didn't make trucks/SUVs because people loved them. They marketed the crap out of them and convinced people that they wanted them. CAFE standards, to this day, are far more lax when applied to the big trucks and SUVs that the manufacturers are, still, marketing the crap out of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> With your aloof replies one could only assume you did not understand much about the tech. It is rather obvious but your responses did seem that way.


What in my posts made it seem I didn't know what the tech was?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mmmmmm... no, I don't think so.
> Government standards for fuel economy and safety were drastically increased, but since trucks, at the time, were considered work vehicles, many of the rules didn't apply, or were relaxed somewhat. In much the same way that things like seatbelt laws are not applied to school buses. So manufacturers started pushing trucks as every day drivers because they could make them cheaper and make more profit.
> They didn't make trucks/SUVs because people loved them. They marketed the crap out of them and convinced people that they wanted them. CAFE standards, to this day, are far more lax when applied to the big trucks and SUVs that the manufacturers are, still, marketing the crap out of.


I did put the cycle in the wrong order, you are correct. Before they started pushing them in marketing, the typical "big" vehicle was a station wagon, which was actually getting more compact and efficient. And most people were driving smaller cars.


----------



## Buka (Dec 13, 2018)

Climate change. Yesterday it was on the other side of the house.

Hey, just lightening up the thread.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> What in my posts made it seem I didn't know what the tech was?


It seemed you were implying a hurricane could not affect something that uses the ocean or is adjacent to the it. Did you mean something else?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mmmmmm... no, I don't think so.
> Government standards for fuel economy and safety were drastically increased, but since trucks, at the time, were considered work vehicles, many of the rules didn't apply, or were relaxed somewhat. In much the same way that things like seatbelt laws are not applied to school buses. So manufacturers started pushing trucks as every day drivers because they could make them cheaper and make more profit.
> They didn't make trucks/SUVs because people loved them. They marketed the crap out of them and convinced people that they wanted them. CAFE standards, to this day, are far more lax when applied to the big trucks and SUVs that the manufacturers are, still, marketing the crap out of.


Have they leveled the standards for trucks and SUV's now that the consumer market is so much greater?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> It seemed you were implying a hurricane could not affect something that uses the ocean or is adjacent to the it. Did you mean something else?


Yes. I was asking why you were saying the wave tech was "taming" nature. You referred to Katrina, which made no sense to me, so I asked why you were talking about hurricanes. If you'd just responded the first time with "putting stuff in the ocean puts it at risk of things like hurricanes" we could have gotten back on track right away. I still feel like the term "taming" is misused there, but so long as we both know what you mean, we can skip that pedantic point and get on with discussion of things that actually matter.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 13, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mmmmmm... no, I don't think so.
> Government standards for fuel economy and safety were drastically increased, but since trucks, at the time, were considered work vehicles, many of the rules didn't apply, or were relaxed somewhat. In much the same way that things like seatbelt laws are not applied to school buses. So manufacturers started pushing trucks as every day drivers because they could make them cheaper and make more profit.
> They didn't make trucks/SUVs because people loved them. They marketed the crap out of them and convinced people that they wanted them. *CAFE standards, to this day, are far more lax when applied to the big trucks and SUVs that the manufacturers are, still, marketing the crap out of.*





dvcochran said:


> Have they leveled the standards for trucks and SUV's now that the consumer market is so much greater?



I've highlighted the part you apparently missed the first time you read my post.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Yes. I was asking why you were saying the wave tech was "taming" nature. You referred to Katrina, which made no sense to me, so I asked why you were talking about hurricanes. If you'd just responded the first time with "putting stuff in the ocean puts it at risk of things like hurricanes" we could have gotten back on track right away. I still feel like the term "taming" is misused there, but so long as we both know what you mean, we can skip that pedantic point and get on with discussion of things that actually matter.


Sorry. Just assumed it was obvious.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've highlighted the part you apparently missed the first time you read my post.


Yea, I was distracted by work. That was rather obvious wasn't it. 
If seems to be a weak and confusing standard. The mileage requirements seem pretty straight forward for all size vehicles as it is based on their footprint. It appears it is only enforced at the fleet level. Also confusing is fuel economy target vs. the published fuel economy. What is the point of a target if you are not required to hit it, at least some of the time? Leave it to the EPA to make a convoluted mess.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 13, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> No, I do not.
> 
> From what I have seen, it seems to me that the news outlets that lean conservative tend to deny the climate science.  If you can point me to a conservative-leaning news source that accepts the climate science and champions the need to take action, please do.  I would like to be wrong about that.
> 
> ...


Still hoping for an answer to this.  Do you have something to say, or do we let the record show that you will not answer the question?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 13, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Ok, can you not see a comparison between this common issue in engineering, where specialist expertise is countered by people who have non...
> 
> ...and your view that the information about the conditon of the global climate should be weighed in on by people who do not study climate science and have done no research themselves?
> 
> Because to me that is exactly same thing and it is equally frustrating.


Still hoping for an answer to this as well, from @dvcochran.  

Is there an answer coming, or does the record again show that you won’t answer the question?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 13, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Still hoping for an answer to this as well, from @dvcochran.
> 
> Is there an answer coming, or does the record again show that you won’t answer the question?


Anxious much? I get two inquiries two minutes apart. Sad.  You will not win this debate. At the best, we are going to agree to disagree. I really don't care whether we do not.  
I have answered time and again. I guess you just are not hearing it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Sorry. Just assumed it was obvious.


I think it was the word “taming” (I’d probably choose “harnessing”) that threw me off.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 13, 2018)

[QUOTE="dvcochran, post: 1939959
I have answered time and again. I guess you just are not hearing it.[/QUOTE]
Nope, you have not.  The record speaks for itself.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think it was the word “taming” (I’d probably choose “harnessing”) that threw me off.


Ah, the old semantics trap.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You seem to be having an entirely different discussion than I am, DV. Several responses you've given don't seem to be related to the post you quote. You referred to taming nature, and I commented that it wasn't taming nature. In response you referred to Katrina, and I asked how that was related. So you posted a link explaining wave energy tech as if I'd asked what it was. So I asked again what that had to do with taming nature or hurricanes. Only then did you get around to explaining that you were saying the equipment would be at risk, as if that was something that wouldn't have been thought of.
> 
> Condescension (cookies on the low shelf) isn't pushing back. You can do better.


I’m not sure he can do better.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 14, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Ah, the old semantics trap.



Words have meanings. It's probably a good idea to make sure that what you say and what you mean match.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Ah, the old semantics trap.


We fell into something I warn about when training on communication.



> You think I heard what you said. I think you said what I heard. We might both be wrong.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Thin skinned much? My position is what it always was. All the information  from our discussion has been targeted at what we know with the short term information we have. I never, never said we should do nothing. I have said, repeatedly, what we do next is much more complex than you are willing to admit. It is irrational to think otherwise they way you are.



how do you know what any of us believe about the complexity of this?  Nobody has put forth a comprehensive plan to fix anthropogenic climate change, so I don't see how you can in good faith, make such statements.

and since you keep fixating on the relatively short term during which climate data has been collected, what would you propose as the next course of action?  Do you suggest we ought to collect data for another 50-100 years before we can consider implementing any mitigating policies?  I am genuinely curious about this.  I hope you can bring yourself to answer this question,  unlike like the previous specific questions that were put to you by myself and a couple other members.



> My business used to also deal with service calls and break downs. The call would come in something similar to "Ahh! the line is down! Sometimes this actually meant a real loss of over $10,000/minute just in material cost. My best trait, and what has made my business successful is I never panic. Dozens of people would literally be standing over me asking "when, when when, I never get emotional and just do the work. In high level meetings involving millions of dollars I never get emotional. I cannot or I may miss something. I learned early on that emotion and passion, while they have their place, can really get you in trouble, especially when you are unable to apply realism and understand everything that is influencing a problem.



how is this in any way remarkable?  these are not special characteristics that you claim.  Most people who are reasonably decent in their occupations can make similar claims.  Do you believe that you are remarkable for this?



> One consistent theme I see with the liberal mindset is that they often have never learned just because you want something doesn't mean you get it. You have to do the work.



why do you keep trying to turn this into a political debate?  we are discussing anthropogenic climate change and you keep trying to turn it into a Conservative vs. Liberal issue.  why do you keep doing that?  and understand that political discussion is not allowed on Martialtalk.  So why do you keep doing that?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 14, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Words have meanings. It's probably a good idea to make sure that what you say and what you mean match.


One of the realities of written communications. I feel certain I did say what I meant. Some people reading it obviously took it a different way. Perspective and all. Had the conversation taken place in person I sure if would have gone differently.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 14, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mmmmmm... no, I don't think so.
> Government standards for fuel economy and safety were drastically increased, but since trucks, at the time, were considered work vehicles, many of the rules didn't apply, or were relaxed somewhat. In much the same way that things like seatbelt laws are not applied to school buses. So manufacturers started pushing trucks as every day drivers because they could make them cheaper and make more profit.
> They didn't make trucks/SUVs because people loved them. They marketed the crap out of them and convinced people that they wanted them. CAFE standards, to this day, are far more lax when applied to the big trucks and SUVs that the manufacturers are, still, marketing the crap out of.





dvcochran said:


> Have they leveled the standards for trucks and SUV's now that the consumer market is so much greater?



it is the difference in standards that is a major drive for GM to be eliminating their sedans in the coming years.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 14, 2018)

i really hate the climate change debate.  i personally am all for global warming.  you see i live in an area of the world that has freezing temperatures more than half the year and a 50 or even a 40 degree winter would be wonderful.

but honestly the debate, in my view has a few flaws.

what is the optimal temperature for the planet?
we assume the optimal temperature is what we have now,, why ?  wouldnt plant life and crops grow better if the planet had a little more carbon dioxide in the air and was a little warmer?
it is proven science that the climate has had fluxuations far greater then the fractional deviation we have seen in the last 50 years.  
what model has been accurate in predicting the future deviation?....none 
we have made the assumption that all hell will break loose if the global temperature increases a single degree.  where is the scientific data that shows the impact of such an increase?
the issue as i see it is that i have yet to see actual scientific data and explanations to back up the claims made by the dooms day predictions.  the bigger problem is that we do not have a single accurate model to forecast future deviation even for a short time and this unreliability magnifies as you move forward in time. (envision a plane in boston aimed at sanfrancisco ..one degree off course will end up in washington state)  if you try to predict out 50 years the error compounded will make it impossible to measure any positive or negative effects of what we do today.   *without the ability to predict and measure, we cannot know if our actions for prevention is actually working.  *how are you going to solve a problem when you cant even measure the effects of your actions?
on top of all that China and India have over a *billion people* that are an emerging market.  how are you going to convince them that they need to stay a third world country so you all can have your i-phones and SUV vehicles to drive to work each day and live in a heated and air conditioned home?  the global fossil fuel demand is projected to be 40% higher in 2035 then it was in 2010.  India and China are non-OEDC countries that will undoubtedly burn coal for their energy needs.  anything we do in the US and UK will be like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i really hate the climate change debate.  i personally am all for global warming.  you see i live in an area of the world that has freezing temperatures more than half the year and a 50 or even a 40 degree winter would be wonderful.
> 
> but honestly the debate, in my view has a few flaws.
> 
> ...


There is no "optimal temperature" for the planet. For existing species, however, there's an optimal range. Species need time to change and adapt. Every species has either adapted to the climate in its location, or has migrated to a climate that matches its needs (the latter is very rare). It takes thousands of years for species to adapt to changes. So the issue is the speed of the changes we're experiencing.

And no, it's not impossible to predict with some realistic accuracy. The precision is low, but we know some things that will have impact in the necessary direction. There are complex models that have proven predictive capability for the complex system in question.

There are real questions about how to convince others to participate. But that's not a reasonable argument for not trying to solve the issue. There's a very real risk of mass extinctions, which would affect (and ultimately could potentially include) humans. We can't dismiss solutions because we think others won''t like them - we have to find solutions (there won't be one, but many) and work toward implementation where we can, while we work to make it feasible for others. It almost certainly requires some changes in first-world countries. We (US and Europe, especially the former) are higher consumers per capita by far than any second-world country. So real changes on our part, though it's a smaller population, actually has a real impact.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> There is no "optimal temperature" for the planet. For existing species, however, there's an optimal range. Species need time to change and adapt. Every species has either adapted to the climate in its location, or has migrated to a climate that matches its needs (the latter is very rare). It takes thousands of years for species to adapt to changes. So the issue is the speed of the changes we're experiencing.
> 
> And no, it's not impossible to predict with some realistic accuracy. The precision is low, but we know some things that will have impact in the necessary direction. There are complex models that have proven predictive capability for the complex system in question.
> 
> There are real questions about how to convince others to participate. But that's not a reasonable argument for not trying to solve the issue. There's a very real risk of mass extinctions, which would affect (and ultimately could potentially include) humans. We can't dismiss solutions because we think others won''t like them - we have to find solutions (there won't be one, but many) and work toward implementation where we can, while we work to make it feasible for others. It almost certainly requires some changes in first-world countries. We (US and Europe, especially the former) are higher consumers per capita by far than any second-world country. So real changes on our part, though it's a smaller population, actually has a real impact.


Yeah, and some things are a no-brainers, like improving gas mileage in cars, and increasing use of renewable energy sources and reducing to (ideally) eliminating use of fossil fuels.  There is no scenario to suggest those would not be good ideas.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 15, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> it is the difference in standards that is a major drive for GM to be eliminating their sedans in the coming years.


I sounds like there is potential for GM to eliminate everything in the coming years. It would be very sad to see it happen.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 15, 2018)

elder999 said:


> Bumping this up as well, because @dvcochran likely doesn't have an answer that will satisfy me, particularly since this was the happier part of my field....


Three whole pages later, and still no reply.....not a "semantic trap,"..........
......just a lack of factual data one.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> There's a very real risk of mass extinctions, which would affect (and ultimately could potentially include) humans.


  i think thats a bit of a stretch for a 1 dg F change globally over a 100 year time period. 



gpseymour said:


> There are real questions about how to convince others to participate. But that's not a reasonable argument for not trying to solve the issue.


 its not so much about convincing as it is about magnitude.  its a very complex subject matter and i really dont think many people can grasp the size of it.  (which btw is the reason politicians can hijack the conversation and use it for their ulterior motives)   people will suggest as has been done here in the thread that we "cut back" on our usage or use alternate sources.  that is not going to work.  here is a good challenge, for those who subscribe to this ....you care about climate change?  turn your computer off and stop using it,  stop using your cell phone, microwave oven, the heat or AC in your home  are you going to stop traveling to work every day???  No , no one will do that.  now think about the BILLIONS of people who are living in impoverished countries.  they are not going to stop trying to feed their families and not dying. which BTW is a real problem, the average life expectancy in poor countries is in their 50"s and we are talking about BILLIONS of people that are increasing the demand. add to that the increase in population that will grow to 9.7 billion people by 2050.   i mean just to keep up with the increased demand in the US over the next 30 years we would need a solar panel the size of the state of Montana.  the Ford motor company has projected automobile sales over the next 50 years in the US to hit levels that will be unmanagable for our current infrastructure of road systems.
as a global problem we have gone past the point of critical mass and the increase cannot be balanced by "conservation".   



gpseymour said:


> And no, it's not impossible to predict with some realistic accuracy. The precision is low, but we know some things that will have impact in the necessary direction. There are complex models that have proven predictive capability for the complex system in question.


we will have to disagree on this one.  while politicians would like to say "the science is in"  every source i have looked at says the models do not work.  perhaps its getting better or perhaps there are "corrections"   I.E  fudging the figures to get the data to show what they need to show in order to get their funding next year.
science with Governmental intervention is not science.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think thats a bit of a stretch for a 1 dg F change globally over a 100 year time period.


Not really. There's ample evidence the rate of change is increasing. A change of a couple of degrees rapidly alters the rate of melting, which drastically alters some parts of the ecosystem. It's also altering weather patterns and generating more severe extremes. The actual number seems small, but that's only a tiny part of what's happening. To be specific with the number helps, though. It's a bit more than 1.33 degrees (as of 2008), and more than half of that (.72 degrees) has been since 1970 (again, as of 2008, so 60% of the change in 40% of the time).

This graph makes it easier to see how it's accelerated:









> its not so much about convincing as it is about magnitude.  its a very complex subject matter and i really dont think many people can grasp the size of it.  (which btw is the reason politicians can hijack the conversation and use it for their ulterior motives)   people will suggest as has been done here in the thread that we "cut back" on our usage or use alternate sources.  that is not going to work.  here is a good challenge, for those who subscribe to this ....you care about climate change?  turn your computer off and stop using it,  stop using your cell phone, microwave oven, the heat or AC in your home  are you going to stop traveling to work every day???  No , no one will do that.  now think about the BILLIONS of people who are living in impoverished countries.  they are not going to stop trying to feed their families and not dying. which BTW is a real problem, the average life expectancy in poor countries is in their 50"s and we are talking about BILLIONS of people that are increasing the demand. add to that the increase in population that will grow to 9.7 billion people by 2050.   i mean just to keep up with the increased demand in the US over the next 30 years we would need a solar panel the size of the state of Montana.  the Ford motor company has projected automobile sales over the next 50 years in the US to hit levels that will be unmanagable for our current infrastructure of road systems.
> as a global problem we have gone past the point of critical mass and the increase cannot be balanced by "conservation".


While you are correct about the magnitude and complexity of the issue, conservation is absolutely part of the solution. And it's one part we can begin immediately - it doesn't take much engineering to start some parts of this. We don't need a complete solution before we start - indeed, we cannot afford to wait for anything approaching a complete solution. If we slow the rate of acceleration, we buy a little time. If we slow the actual rate of change, we buy more. What we're buying time for is finding a complex set of actions that will - as a whole - lead to a solution.



> we will have to disagree on this one.  while politicians would like to say "the science is in"  every source i have looked at says the models do not work.  perhaps its getting better or perhaps there are "corrections"   I.E  fudging the figures to get the data to show what they need to show in order to get their funding next year.
> science with Governmental intervention is not science.


The models do not give precise answers. But the models have made predictions that are quite correct, though the precision was off. They predicted the acceleration of ice/snow melt. That has occurred, though faster than expected. They predicted the increased storm activity, which has actually been (as I understand it) about what they predicted. Are there areas they cannot yet predict? Yes. But the major predictions appear to mostly be going in the right direction, though with less precision than we'd like. That does present a complication: we can't yet accurately predict the magnitude of impact from various approaches to solving the problem. If anything, that argues for taking action more quickly, so we can start to get better input (the short-term results of some of those actions) to improve understanding and, thereby, the models.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 15, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> . There have been way too many documented stories of wasted millions during the Obama administration and the green energy movement..



NAME TWO!!


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 15, 2018)

Scientists who have actual integrity will always concede that there are parts of the issue that are not fully understood.  This is the nature of science: it is a process of discovery and understanding.

People who have an agenda to push or who simply lack integrity  like to take a hold of that admitted uncertainty and inflate it and twist it into a message that the science is uncertain.  This is a blatant lie, it is the opposite of what the scientists have been telling us for decades now.  

The science is in.  Anthropogenic climate change is real and it is already causing expensive and catastrophic changes in our climate.  Every new layer of understanding that we gain shows it to be worse than we previously thought.  We are already living the reality of it in the manifestations of more extreme weather patterns and it will continue to get worse, and the rate of deterioration is accelerating.  The science around this is overwhelmingly accepted, within the scientific community.

The complexity of the issue in terms of how or if it can be fixed is another matter.  Yes it is vastly complex.  Yes it will be terribly expensive.  But as l stated earlier, climate change will not stop just because we object to how expensive it is, or how complicated it will be to correct it.   And again, how expensive and complicated will it be to move every coastal city in the world farther inland when the begin to become submerged?  That ain’t gonna be cheap.

Whether or not we have already crossed a point-of-no-return, I don’t know but I too suspect it may be possible.  However, I don’t see that as a reason to throw up our hands and decide to do nothing about it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 15, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think thats a bit of a stretch for a 1 dg F change globally over a 100 year time period.
> 
> 
> its not so much about convincing as it is about magnitude.  its a very complex subject matter and i really dont think many people can grasp the size of it.  (which btw is the reason politicians can hijack the conversation and use it for their ulterior motives)   people will suggest as has been done here in the thread that we "cut back" on our usage or use alternate sources.  that is not going to work.  here is a good challenge, for those who subscribe to this ....you care about climate change?  turn your computer off and stop using it,  stop using your cell phone, microwave oven, the heat or AC in your home  are you going to stop traveling to work every day???  No , no one will do that.  now think about the BILLIONS of people who are living in impoverished countries.  they are not going to stop trying to feed their families and not dying. which BTW is a real problem, the average life expectancy in poor countries is in their 50"s and we are talking about BILLIONS of people that are increasing the demand. add to that the increase in population that will grow to 9.7 billion people by 2050.   i mean just to keep up with the increased demand in the US over the next 30 years we would need a solar panel the size of the state of Montana.  the Ford motor company has projected automobile sales over the next 50 years in the US to hit levels that will be unmanagable for our current infrastructure of road systems.
> ...


We are not talking about one degree Fahrenheit.  We are talking more like 3-6 degrees Celsius.  That is an average global increase, which can manifest as much more extreme than that in various locations.  In some places the average temp may actually drop, while in others it may go up significantly beyond the average change.  This is climate change.  It does not mean that everywhere just gets a little bit warmer.  It means that we see more extremes.

This is plenty of change to cause serious disruptions in regions all over the globe.  On such a quick timescale, the species of plants, animals, and microbes that have been accustomed to live in a particular region are unable to adapt nor relocate.  So they die.

And humans are part of that web.  We absolutely will be affected by it.  We will suffer for it, as a species.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 15, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> We are not talking about one degree Fahrenheit. We are talking more like 3-6 degrees Celsius.


ok so what your saying is that the global temp increased 3.0 to 6.0 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years?  am i understanding that correctly?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 15, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> ok so what your saying is that the global temp increased 3.0 to 6.0 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years?  am i understanding that correctly?


No, I’m saying it is projected to make that change in the next century or so.  I’ll look up some figures to double-check that.

If I recall, it seems the Paris climate accord was hoping to hold it to about 2-3 Celsius, but I think that is seen as unlikely.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 15, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> ok so what your saying is that the global temp increased 3.0 to 6.0 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years?  am i understanding that correctly?


to better answer your questions, here is some information from NOAA: Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

some pertinent portions taken from that website:

first, to your point of one degree Fahrenheit in the last century, NOAA says: 

*Change over time*
_Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. Since 1901, the planet’s surface has warmed by 0.7–0.9° Celsius (1.3–1.6° Fahrenheit) per century, but the rate of warming has nearly doubled since 1975 to 1.5–1.8° Celsius (2.7–3.2° Fahrenheit) per century, according to the international State of the Climate in 2017 report. 
_
as far as predicting the average temperature increase in the next century, NOAA says (bolded by me):

_By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows. This similarity in temperatures regardless of total emissions is a short-term phenomenon: it reflects the tremendous inertia of Earth's vast oceans. The high heat capacity of water means that ocean temperature doesn't react instantly to the increased heat being trapped by greenhouse gases. *By 2030, however, the heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases begins to overcome the oceans' thermal inertia, and projected temperature pathways begin to diverge, with unchecked carbon dioxide emissions likely leading to several additional degrees of warming by the end of the century.*_

and keep in mind, when they are talking about degrees, they mean degrees Celsius, not degrees Fahrenheit. One degree Celsius is 9/5 of one degree Fahrenheit.  So an increase in one degree Celsius is nearly double the increase in one degree Fahrenheit.  so the way I read this is that by 2020 we can expect an increase of 0.5 degree C over the 1986-2005 average, but by the end of the century it could be "several additional degrees of warming" which is where I came up with 3-6 degrees Celsius.  It could be more, as "several" is somewhat open to interpretation.

another interesting piece from the NOAA website:

_From 1900 to 1980 a new temperature record was set on average every 13.5 years; however, since 1981 it has increased to every 3 years.
_
I hope this information is useful.  I recommend reading the full content of the web page for a more complete understanding.  I simply grabbed the bits that spoke most directly to the particular issue of the rate of average global temperature increase for the past century, as well as for the projected next century.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 15, 2018)

elder999 said:


> NAME TWO!!


$36.2M in FOIA lawsuits.
$114M in travel alone doubling any other president.
I can go on and on.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 15, 2018)

elder999 said:


> NAME TWO!!


Had to add Obamacare.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> $36.2M in FOIA lawsuits.
> $114M in travel alone doubling any other president.
> I can go on and on.


The FOIA lawsuit costs, as I understand it, are the cost of the government dealing with those lawsuits. The government doesn't have control over what suits happen, except in how opaque they are. There is some strong evidence that Obama's administration was more likely to refuse an FOIA request, though I don't know if that's because they were being more secretive or because FOIA requests filed were less normal. I can't find a ready source that indicates (clearly) one way or the other, so my default for now is that it's probably a mix of both. Given the number of those requests that came from news media, it seems quite likely they (the administration) should be held to account for at least part of that amount. In spite of that, it's interesting to note that the current rate of FOIA lawsuits is more than 25% higher than at any point in the previous administration.

Travel expenses have slowly escalated with each administration ($124M for Bush, $134M for Obama), apparently due to a combination of increasing cost of security (more equipment involved) and inflation. Numbers are incomplete on the current administration (don't yet have costs on things like Secret Service details for travel), but the numbers known so far seem to put the current First Family's travel costs out of line with past presidents (and when those other costs are known, it will almost certainly be more so).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Had to add Obamacare.


Whether that was a good or bad thing appears to depend who you are. Most polls show the majority of Americans don't want it to go away.

Now, talk about the roll-out, and there are certainly examples there. I think much was wasted in the implementation of the program, though I favor its existence (as a jumping-off point to controlling skyrocketing medical costs).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

Just thought I'd share - apparently Darrin Bell has been following our discussion...


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> $36.2M in FOIA lawsuits.
> $114M in travel alone doubling any other president.
> I can go on and on.





dvcochran said:


> Had to add Obamacare.



Judicial Watch puts Obama's eight year travel spending at $97 million, so we can apparently count on you making stuff up, but I'm pretty certain none of those has anything to do with global warming, "the green movement," or alternative (non-fossil) energy.

You seem to have difficulty staying on point. Did you attend public school?In Arkansas, perhaps?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










Florida, maybe?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







Just so you remember what you said:



dvcochran said:


> . There have been way too many documented stories of wasted millions during the Obama administration and the green energy movement..



Now. Name two. I'm not even positing that there weren't any-just that you don't really know anything about the subject, @dvcochran


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> Judicial Watch puts Obama's eight year travel spending at $97 million, so we can apparently count on you making stuff up, but I'm pretty certain none of those has anything to do with global warming, "the green movement," or alternative (non-fossil) energy.
> 
> You seem to have difficulty staying on point. Did you attend public school?In Arkansas, perhaps?
> 
> ...


I believe Judicialwatch has a long history of making false and unsubstantiated claims on all manner of things.  They’ve certainly tried to paint climate science as fraudulent and gone after climate scientists.  Those accusations were, of course, investigated and deemed to have no merit.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I believe Judicialwatch has a long history of making false and unsubstantiated claims on all manner of things.  They’ve certainly tried to paint climate science as fraudulent and gone after climate scientists.  Those accusations were, of course, investigated and deemed to have no merit.


(Shh...using a so-called "right wing" source can be confounding....pretty sure the real figure is north of that, but less than the $114 million claimed by some...it depends upon what figures in. Air Force One supposedly costs $80000 a minute. Do official overseas trips count? IT's not relevant to climate change, anyway.....)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> Judicial Watch puts Obama's eight year travel spending at $97 million, so we can apparently count on you making stuff up, but I'm pretty certain none of those has anything to do with global warming, "the green movement," or alternative (non-fossil) energy.


I'm unclear whether that includes the so-called auxiliary costs (Secret Service, etc.) the sources I found yesterday all had figures similar to what was posted earlier.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> (Shh...using a so-called "right wing" source can be confounding....pretty sure the real figure is north of that, but less than the $114 million claimed by some...it depends upon what figures in. Air Force One supposedly costs $80000 a minute. Do official overseas trips count? IT's not relevant to climate change, anyway.....)


Technically, all Presidential trips are considered "official" - it was deemed long ago that the President is never off-duty. And the costs seem really high when we just look at the numbers, but we have to figure several things that are entirely out of the President's control: cost of Secret Service (including "advancing" the destination), cost of operating AF1, etc. Any of us could make the same trips on a chartered Gulf Stream with 8 of our closest friends and spend only a fraction what it costs for Presidential travel - most of which is not within Presidential control.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> Judicial Watch puts Obama's eight year travel spending at $97 million, so we can apparently count on you making stuff up, but I'm pretty certain none of those has anything to do with global warming, "the green movement," or alternative (non-fossil) energy.
> 
> You seem to have difficulty staying on point. Did you attend public school?In Arkansas, perhaps?
> 
> ...


Personal attack much? If you had actually been reading this thread instead of throwing out your cheap punches you would already know my lengthy education and what kind of work I do. Like I said to one of the other posters, you are not going to win this argument literally, figuratively, morally, or any other way. The best we can do is agree to disagree. 
Your very petty stab of where I attended school and specifically calling out a particular states speaks volumes to the kind of person you apparently are to everyone reading this thread. Good job.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Whether that was a good or bad thing appears to depend who you are. Most polls show the majority of Americans don't want it to go away.
> 
> Now, talk about the roll-out, and there are certainly examples there. I think much was wasted in the implementation of the program, though I favor its existence (as a jumping-off point to controlling skyrocketing medical costs).


I agree medical costs have to be curtailed. But they have increased at a faster pace since 2009. And the end users, the doctors and medical professionals have suffered along with everyone else. The approach makes no sense to me. Instead of using the proven supply and demand model, the pharmacy and medical suppliers (hospitals, insurance, equipment, etc....)have heavily played the lobbyist and political lever to make a monster as bad as the IRS. I am not sure anyone actually knows what it cost to take a patients blood pressure, let alone to open heart surgery. Way too many double cost standards. It kind of seem to me the thinking heads feel that if they can get a big enough bucket of money through enforcement (socialism) it will work. Simply not true in  a free country.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Personal attack much? If you had actually been reading this thread instead of throwing out your cheap punches you would already know my lengthy education and what kind of work I do. Like I said to one of the other posters, you are not going to win this argument literally, figuratively, morally, or any other way. The best we can do is agree to disagree.
> Your very petty stab of where I attended school and specifically calling out a particular states speaks volumes to the kind of person you apparently are to everyone reading this thread. Good job.



You still haven't answered my question....prove my point much?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> According to ice shelf recordings of the last 2000 years, which is as far back as they could go, CO2 did not start going up appreciably until about 1750. Then it started really taking off. Still hardly enough time to understand what is really going on. A lot of people are up in arms about information gathered in the last 50-100 years. While we are able to gather greatly more pertinent information today, it still takes time. A lot of time to understand what is going on.


What book did you get that out of? One from the sixties, no doubt, due to underfunding of your public school, or perhaps "quality" homeschooling...





As I've posted elsewhere, many times in these discussions:

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or D) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about *420,000 years.*

The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature,is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods.

You can see a lot about it here, because we don't just "disagree," or "agree to disagree":

I'm* right*, and you're *wrong*.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And, er....everyone here knows who I am, and what I've done for my career. You should have a look, and start basing scientific arguments on scientific facts, instead of ....whatever it is you're basing them upon.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> (Shh...using a so-called "right wing" source can be confounding....pretty sure the real figure is north of that, but less than the $114 million claimed by some...it depends upon what figures in. Air Force One supposedly costs $80000 a minute. Do official overseas trips count? IT's not relevant to climate change, anyway.....)


Oh yeah, it’s a complete straw man even on a good day.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Whether that was a good or bad thing appears to depend who you are. Most polls show the majority of Americans don't want it to go away.
> 
> Now, talk about the roll-out, and there are certainly examples there. I think much was wasted in the implementation of the program, though I favor its existence (as a jumping-off point to controlling skyrocketing medical costs).


I was laid-off last year and lost my benefits.  For a few months I had to pay full price for medical insurance for myself, my wife, and our 5-year old son because the income I had already earned (and no longer had due to the lay-off) was high enough that I did not qualify for the discounts.  Once the new year began, I qualified for discounts, paying about 1/3 of what I was paying before the first of the year.  

I love Obamacare because we would not be able to afford insurance at all while we re-tool and figure out new careers.

At the same time I hate it because it does not go far enough in making insurance affordable and accessible and it is still a lot of money.

Obamacare was intended to be more than it is.  Getting it through congress cut away a lot of what would have made it much better.  But that discussion strays much farther into Politics than we are supposed to go, so I’ll leave that alone.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Personal attack much? If you had actually been reading this thread instead of throwing out your cheap punches you would already know my lengthy education and what kind of work I do. Like I said to one of the other posters, you are not going to win this argument literally, figuratively, morally, or any other way. The best we can do is agree to disagree.
> Your very petty stab of where I attended school and specifically calling out a particular states speaks volumes to the kind of person you apparently are to everyone reading this thread. Good job.


Who comes on the Internet and tries to “win” an argument??


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I agree medical costs have to be curtailed. But they have increased at a faster pace since 2009. And the end users, the doctors and medical professionals have suffered along with everyone else. The approach makes no sense to me. Instead of using the proven supply and demand model, the pharmacy and medical suppliers (hospitals, insurance, equipment, etc....)have heavily played the lobbyist and political lever to make a monster as bad as the IRS. I am not sure anyone actually knows what it cost to take a patients blood pressure, let alone to open heart surgery. Way too many double cost standards. It kind of seem to me the thinking heads feel that if they can get a big enough bucket of money through enforcement (socialism) it will work. Simply not true in  a free country.


We've tried the supply and demand model. Unfortunately, it has led to the US having the highest health care costs in the world, without getting commensurate results (we rank well down among the most developed countries). Countries that use regulation to control costs (either via single-payer, government production of generics, or other means) seem to be getting better value than us. I've yet to see a recommendation using the supply and demand model that seems to have much promise.

I agree ACA hasn't been a resounding success. However, it's also not true that everyone has suffered. Many people have benefited from it. The biggest issue at present is that the two parties (we REALLY need a competitive 3rd party) seem to spend most of their energy around the topic on blocking each other, rather than trying to craft solutions together. The first step away from the old model was bound to be problematic. As would any other start-over solution.

And I've recently seen some articles that seem to contradict my previous understanding about rising health care costs under the ACA:
Everyone Agrees Obamacare Prices Have Been Rising Rapidly. But Everyone Is Wrong.
See for Yourself If Obamacare Increased Health Care Costs
Here's What's Happened to Health Care Costs in America in the Obama Years

Interesting reads, though there seems to be some conflicting calculations among them.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> We've tried the supply and demand model. Unfortunately, it has led to the US having the highest health care costs in the world, without getting commensurate results (we rank well down among the most developed countries). Countries that use regulation to control costs (either via single-payer, government production of generics, or other means) seem to be getting better value than us. I've yet to see a recommendation using the supply and demand model that seems to have much promise.
> 
> I agree ACA hasn't been a resounding success. However, it's also not true that everyone has suffered. Many people have benefited from it. The biggest issue at present is that the two parties (we REALLY need a competitive 3rd party) seem to spend most of their energy around the topic on blocking each other, rather than trying to craft solutions together. The first step away from the old model was bound to be problematic. As would any other start-over solution.
> 
> ...



All of which has nothing to do with global warming....


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> All of which has nothing to do with global warming....


Yeah, one participant in this thread has repeatedly thrown up distractions and smokescreens.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> All of which has nothing to do with global warming....


Agreed. But thread swerves are nothing new on MT...as this entire thread is evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

@elder999  - I'm curious what you found funny in all those posts....


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> If you had actually been reading this thread instead of throwing out your cheap punches you would already know my lengthy education and what kind of work I do.



Oh. I was wrong. Not everyone here knows about my career.

You don't.

For the record, as I've posted elsewhere since 2005, after earning a B.A. in religious studies and M.Ed from Marist College, at age 16. ,I went on to earn degrees in mechanical and nuclear engineering, a master's in nuclear engineering and a PhD. in applied physics at Stanford .I spent 12 years working at Los Alamos National Lab, working on things I've mostly only talked around......I also lost on JEOPARDY!-that's me, in the corner....you can see my introduction from this forum, from back in 2005, here

All of which is as relevant to this discussion as your education and career, that is to say,beyond our interest in the subject and willingness and ability to comprehend others' data,  _not at all._

However, when you insult green technology as a waste of time and money, you insult me. After leaving Los Alamos and the work associated with it, I worked for two multinational utilities based in the U.S. Both invested heavily in alternative energy: wind, photovoltaic solar and thermal solar. I started my career in commercial nuclear power, and I've run coal, wind photovoltaic and thermal solar installations. In the last case, I actually built and ran one, so it's a subject I know more than a little about. For the record, you can read what little I posted about it, here.

Utilities are notoriously risk averse, yet they are happily building photovoltaic and wind installations.

Why?

Well, wind is free fuel(BTW, you're just wrong with the whole flat land thing, *again*. There are hills all over the country with wind turbines on them or on top of them), and with solar, the fuel falls from the sky for free. Neither requires a lot of people to run and maintain.

In short, they're profitable.



gpseymour said:


> @elder999  - I'm curious what you found funny in all those posts....



That they are as relevant to a discussion on climate change as a tuba is to a shark....


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> We've tried the supply and demand model. Unfortunately, it has led to the US having the highest health care costs in the world, without getting commensurate results (we rank well down among the most developed countries). Countries that use regulation to control costs (either via single-payer, government production of generics, or other means) seem to be getting better value than us. I've yet to see a recommendation using the supply and demand model that seems to have much promise.
> 
> I agree ACA hasn't been a resounding success. However, it's also not true that everyone has suffered. Many people have benefited from it. The biggest issue at present is that the two parties (we REALLY need a competitive 3rd party) seem to spend most of their energy around the topic on blocking each other, rather than trying to craft solutions together. The first step away from the old model was bound to be problematic. As would any other start-over solution.
> 
> ...


Resoundingly agree with needing a third Party. Been saying it for years.
For my family and my piers, our healthcare cost have doubled, some tripled. What is left of middle income is taking the worst hit in history. A government incentive to not get married, have children and accept making less money to that a person can capitalize from government aid is wrong on so many levels. Just one of the by-products of Obamacare. Another was a reduce in wage increase for most employees 2 years in a row. 
I agree, the first attempt at something of this scale was bound to have wrinkles. But we seriously have the cart before the horse. If we can fix the decision making model (3 Party system) much of our challenging issues will fix themselves.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> What book did you get that out of? One from the sixties, no doubt, due to underfunding of your public school, or perhaps "quality" homeschooling...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is just hilarious. I am right, and you are wrong. What are you 12 years old?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> That is just hilarious. I am right, and you are wrong. What are you 12 years old?


Yeah, no. I'm nearly sixty. 
Facts are facts, though, and I'm right 
Prove me wrong. Use facts


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, no. I'm nearly sixty.
> Facts are facts, though, and I'm right
> Prove me wrong. Use facts




Oh, and name two. Still waiting.....
.....'cause, you know......
... I'm right, and you're wrong


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

elder999 said:


> That they are as relevant to a discussion on climate change as a tuba is to a shark....


Accurate, but an odd reaction in a thread that is, itself, a major swerve from another thread. That kind of side conversation occurs rather regularly on MT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Resoundingly agree with needing a third Party. Been saying it for years.
> For my family and my piers, our healthcare cost have doubled, some tripled. What is left of middle income is taking the worst hit in history. A government incentive to not get married, have children and accept making less money to that a person can capitalize from government aid is wrong on so many levels. Just one of the by-products of Obamacare. Another was a reduce in wage increase for most employees 2 years in a row.
> I agree, the first attempt at something of this scale was bound to have wrinkles. But we seriously have the cart before the horse. If we can fix the decision making model (3 Party system) much of our challenging issues will fix themselves.


I wholeheartedly agree that a third party would be a great step. As a vocal moderate, I often find both parties’ stances frustrating. 

But I think you and I may we’ll have wandered into what would be deemed political discussion, which would violate TOS. If you’re interested in continuing, PM me.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Accurate, but an odd reaction in a thread that is, itself, a major swerve from another thread. That kind of side conversation occurs rather regularly on MT.





gpseymour said:


> I wholeheartedly agree that a third party would be a great step. As a vocal moderate, I often find both parties’ stances frustrating.
> 
> But I think you and I may we’ll have wandered into what would be deemed political discussion, which would violate TOS. If you’re interested in continuing, PM me.



And that's why I'm laughing.....political posts to a scientific question? Really?

Want a picture of everything that's wrong with America? Start there

And @dvcochran, still waiting for you to NAME TWO???


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> That is just hilarious. I am right, and you are wrong. What are you 12 years old?


Because I think it's too important to the planet to allow anyone to nod and agree with your wrongly hilarious nonsense..,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2018)

elder999 said:


> Because I think it's too important to the planet to allow anyone to nod and agree with your wrongly hilarious nonsense..,


You and I agree more often than not, but you’re acting like the arbiter of what’s valid for this thread. Your addresses to both me and DV come across a more than a little condescending.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You and I agree more often than not, but you’re acting like the arbiter of what’s valid for this thread. Your addresses to both me and DV come across a more than a little condescending.


What, in the name of Buddha's beard, do Obamacare, FOIA suits, and travel have to do with climate change?
I'll wait  , just like I'm waiting for dv to "name two." 
As for dv, well, if he wouldn't post inaccurate, misleading , easily disproven and patently false ( you know, @dvcochran : WRONG) information like "they can only go back 2000 years in the ice shelf," I might show a little bit more respect

Nearly 14 years later, my rule hasn't changed.

Post stupid ****, get stupid treatment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2018)

elder999 said:


> What, in the name of Buddha's beard, do Obamacare, FOIA suits, and travel have to do with climate change?
> I'll wait  , just like I'm waiting for dv to "name two."
> As for dv, well, if he wouldn't post inaccurate, misleading , easily disproven and patently false ( you know, @dvcochran : WRONG) information like "they can only go back 2000 years in the ice shelf," I might show a little bit more respect
> 
> ...


And what did climate change have to do with TKD forms? Swerves are quite normal - you’ve been on here more than long enough to be aware of that. You object this time because you don’t like the swerve. Tough. It’s a public forum.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And what did climate change have to do with TKD forms? Swerves are quite normal - you’ve been on here more than long enough to be aware of that. You object this time because you don’t like the swerve. Tough. It’s a public forum.



I've been guilty of thread drift a few times myself, but the admin. specifically said to not get political.

More to the point, I asked a specific question, and got political gobbledygook for an answer.....if some find my responses to gobbledygook disrespectful, well, I'm sorry, and don't take it personally.... it's not you: I don't even know you. 

I have no respect for your non-answers and falsehoods.....or any other errant nonsense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2018)

elder999 said:


> I've been guilty of thread drift a few times myself, but the admin. specifically said to not get political.
> 
> More to the point, I asked a specific question, and got political gobbledygook for an answer.....if some find my responses to gobbledygook disrespectful, well, I'm sorry, and don't take it personally.... I have no respect for your non-answers.....or any other errant nonsense.


What non-answers did I provide?

As for the political, we acknowledged that. We had a brief, amicable exchange, and moved one. That’s probably why no admins stepped in.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> What non-answers did I provide?
> 
> As for the political, we acknowledged that. We had a brief, amicable exchange, and moved one. That’s probably why no admins stepped in.


Other than rating your posts as "funny," how have I disrespected them?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2018)

elder999 said:


> Other than rating your posts as "funny," how have I disrespected them?


You don’t consider mocking to be disrespectful?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You don’t consider mocking to be disrespectful?


I don't consider a smiley face that says, "This made me laugh" mocking.

Trust me, I have not yet begun to mock!


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And what did climate change have to do with TKD forms? Swerves are quite normal - you’ve been on here more than long enough to be aware of that. You object this time because you don’t like the swerve. Tough. It’s a public forum.


In this case though, I do not believe it was thread drift.  Rather, political nonsense was put forth as somehow being an answer in a discussion on the science of climate change.  That isn’t thread drift.  That is gobbly-gook


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2018)

elder999 said:


> I don't consider a smiley face that says, "This made me laugh" mocking.
> 
> Trust me, I have not yet begun to mock!


So, openly laughing at a serious comment isn’t mocking. Not sure what could be, then.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> In this case though, I do not believe it was thread drift.  Rather, political nonsense was put forth as somehow being an answer in a discussion on the science of climate change.  That isn’t thread drift.  That is gobbly-gook


In any case, it did yield a brief discussion that was mature and congenial. However it started, the thread drifted to that topic.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> So, openly laughing at a serious comment isn’t mocking. Not sure what could be, then.



No. I laughed at its irrelevancy 

Irrelevancy makes me laugh. Lots of odd things do, like porn......


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> In any case, it did yield a brief discussion that was mature and congenial. However it started, the thread drifted to that topic.


Yeah.  But it was originally put up as a distraction.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah.  But it was originally put up as a distraction.


Many times, there’s good discussion to be had, even where it was meant as a distraction.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Many times, there’s good discussion to be had, even where it was meant as a distraction.


See post 62 by @Tony Dismukes.  He is correct, there is an active campaign of misinformation on the climate change issue in a deliberate attempt to discredit the science.  Distraction from the issue is a common and widespread tactic used in that campaign.  

This is not just internet banter.  Climate change is an important issue and I do not feel inclined to give a pass to anybody who is either actively participating in the misinformation campaign, or is (perhaps) unwittingly passing along and regurgitating the message of that campaign.  When I see false and misleading statements about climate change, or the common tactics of distraction and smokescreens, I feel it ought to be called out.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 17, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> That is just hilarious. I am right, and you are wrong. What are you 12 years old?



You see it doesn't take long for the veneer of "reasonable debate" to fall away when views are based on fears instead of facts.

Elder posted a detailed explanation of science and DV replies by fixating on a single, not incorrect line, and mocking it.

No counter point. No questions. No acquiescence. Just a poor attempt at deflection away from that which he cannot argue with. 

This is your brain on politics people.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 18, 2018)

elder999 said:


> What book did you get that out of? One from the sixties, no doubt, due to underfunding of your public school, or perhaps "quality" homeschooling...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Apparently, my embedded link doesn't work. If you're interested in the Vostok ice core (you know, the one that goes back 420000 years, much further back than the mere 2000 someone else cited incorrectly (wrongly?) as the limit) you can find some of that info here :Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

and here: Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

and here:The Vostok Ice Core | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> See post 62 by @Tony Dismukes.  He is correct, there is an active campaign of misinformation on the climate change issue in a deliberate attempt to discredit the science.  Distraction from the issue is a common and widespread tactic used in that campaign.
> 
> This is not just internet banter.  Climate change is an important issue and I do not feel inclined to give a pass to anybody who is either actively participating in the misinformation campaign, or is (perhaps) unwittingly passing along and regurgitating the message of that campaign.  When I see false and misleading statements about climate change, or the common tactics of distraction and smokescreens, I feel it ought to be called out.


Discussing and clarifying those pieces of incorrect information is part of the solution to stopping their spread. And sometimes those bits also involve other important issues that affect the climate change problem.


----------

