May 23, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
"should we not also put politicians in the dock for failing to heed scientific predictions of a natural catastrophe?"
I would say yes, for failure to warn the pubic of a possible catastrophe if they can be proven to know about it.
I think it's amazing what all politicians can get away with. It appears that they cannot be put on the dock for lying, for memory lapses when convenient, or for feigning confusion about what the meaning of 'is' is.
But it appears that they can be put on the dock for embezzlement, theft, and inappropriate sexual conduct.
"The wedge psychology is straightforward: First give people a ready excuse to deny the science they don’t like; second, emphasize how it threatens our world view or comfort zone, be it religious, economic, or life-style. Using the wedge of doubt, the Discovery Institute in Seattle scraps modern science in favor of “intelligent design” to explain how the planet works. And the wedge is the weapon of choice for the forces arrayed against acknowledging and countering global warming."
Funny how some supposed non-religious, "critical thinkers" have so much in common with the likes of the Discovery Institute (and the tobacco industry.) And some of them don't even bother to make a reasoned argument based on anything like data or facts at all (aside from the ones that are drawn from a website that creates them out of thin air.)
See what I mean?
So is there any criteria you would accept as being a legitimate prompt for increasing intervention? Didn't think so.
After civilization collapses, we can sue the oil companies-- that's the libertarian way.
The icecaps are shrinking, despite denialists waving short snippets of bumpiness in the trends and claiming that those bumps and dips prove that ice caps are growing. Don't believe me? Do your homework. If you don't care to, let me know and I can provide you with the links.
So to summarize, there are no criteria that would allow you to agree to increased intervention. Thanks for the clarification.
Oh goodie, we now know that crises never actually exist-- they are merely fabrications of the government for their own self-perpetuation. All the data and science and natural properties of chemicals are nothing more than examples of such fabrications, machinations of the man behind the curtain.
So, just lie back, read another Ayn Rand novel, don't worry, be happy.
Is science even legal in Kansas?
It's also interesting that given how much of a government propaganda campaign global warming supposedly is, it was hardly even mentioned in the presidential election, much less debated.
Case in point.
Lincoln's status as our only known Vampire Hunter President was the elephant in the room.
What deep supernatural secret was Teddy Roosevelt hiding? Bigfoot hunting in Yellowstone?
That had the distinct look of an intellectual white flag (whether intended or not.)
This isn't Europe. No jury in America would convict, much less sentence a scientist for not predicting an earthquake. Nor would we convict a politician for not believing junk science.
One one hand I agree with your comment as you place your faith in the "people" who are the peers on the jury.
However, given the anti-science climate in many parts of this country, especially that forwarded by The Guv (aka, the Statehouse Bully), I can see trials and possibly imprisonment as a result. The politicians, on the other hand will not be tried as they can't be tried for legislative action they've taken.
Seems the burden of proof should be on those claiming a government conspiracy. But that's just me.
In the meantime, the "government" was pretending the whole topic of global warming doesn't even exist during the last election. What does that indicate? Mostly that the political/economic resistance to dealing with it is considerable. It most certainly doesn't provide any proof of a conspiracy. Still waiting for proof of such.
You put a link to a Wikipedia article and declare checkmate? What's your point?
So now (failed) legislation to deal with a real problem is a "conspiracy."
Stick to checkers.
I've now conceded that admin isn't interested in enforcing the unenforceable "shunning" rule. But it'll be interesting to see how long it takes LO to go running to admin to complain about my violating that rule with respect to his posts.
If you don't respond to his posts directly, but do it the way you've been doing it here, it's not a violation.
He responds directly to my posts fairly frequently. But if I were to do the same to him, he'd likely complain to admin-- that's what he's done in the past, anyway.
Have you asked him to stop?
If you have, and he continues, complain to them yourself.
I've done all the above.
Anyway, I don't really care all that much other than not wanting LO to whining to admin again that I'm "harrassing" him.
Then don't respond to his posts.
jafs is correct. As long as you don't respond to L1 directly he doesn't have a leg to stand on as you're simply discussing his posts with another entity. So, in my opinion, you're fine.
You'll find that the mods now respond to and favor L1 and others of his/her ilk as well as people like HWSNBN as it adds to conflict on the board. They easily allow people back after they've been banned. It also appears that they don't read the forums, but respond only to "suggest removal" links. They also don't respond to complaints about outright racist comments and threats. I complained about a threat I saw and essentially was told to "prove it".
It's simply poor management if you ask me.
The argument as I understand it is why do we not punish our politicians for not heeding the warnings of our scientists regarding climate change given that an over zealous Italian prosecutor is punishing Italian scientists for not providing warning of earthquakes.
I argue that our politicians and the rest of us are addressing the challenges of climate change. Renewable energy is a reality. Hybrid and electric vehicle are becoming more common. Many changes in our daily routines have been adopted that address the cause of climate change. Reductions in the generation of carbon have at a national level been reduced to 1992 levels. Could we go faster? Maybe?
I also argue that politicians have to balance the clamor of the many advocates of issues ranging from climate change to joblessness. They have to do so within the framework of our political system. They are not free to take a purely scientific approach and force compliance with draconian notions of immediate solutions held by elements of the scientific community.
It is time to move beyond the shrill voice of warning to a more reasoned voice seeking a prioritized approach to the recognized challenge. The scientist certainly has a strong contribution to make to that discussion but in the end the resolution must be left to the political system and each of us. It is no longer a debate about climate change it is now a debate as to how much we do and how fast we do it.
But the longer we wait to take effective action, the more draconian the measures will need to be, and the less effective they'll likely be.
Sure, the politics of getting 7 billion people on the same page is extremely difficult. Either we can or we can't. If we can't, we'll just be another in a long list of maladaptive species.
Moderate, that was a moderate and nicely done post.
As a course of action it'd ensure worldwide disaster, but it'd make for nice, pleasant conversation at the local coffee shop.
Not sure I agree with your premise about more and less. Since we have not directly done this before some planetary mechanism may kick in and mitigate the problem - no promises but the CO2 level has been higher and we did come back. It has been warmer on the planet and if it is not reversible we can adapt to that. There may be a lot less of us but the species may survive.
It is all about change. You adapt (evolve) or you die. Evolution is slow. Politics is faster. Advocates are never satisfied with the pace.
The point remains that yelling about it has about run its course. We have done a lot. The next step is some form of carbon mechanism that does not punish people for the past. We are all in this boat and whatever mechanism we adopt must recognize that and balance the pain. Adjudicating pain is a slow process. .
We have good understanding of the mechanisms of carbon reabsorption as part of the natural carbon cycle, and the bottom line is that if we cut down immediately it will take centuries to get back to pre-industrial levels of atmospheric carbon. And "geoengineering" schemes to re-sequester the carbon all have their significant collateral damages that don't make them realistic economically and ecologically speaking.
We are becoming more and more familiar with the other planetary mechanisms: they are called climate change, ocean acidification, increased frequency, duration and coverage by extreme weather events. In other words, it is the planet's response to increased atmospheric GHG that we are worried about, and the longer we wait, the more "mitigating" the planet will dish out.
Is it true that we have cut carbon emissions back to '92 levels? And, if so, is it a significant reduction?
No answer. I will see if I can find my source again - it was not FOX.
Looks to me like it's not at all clear that carbon emissions are back to '92 levels. First of all, atmospheric CO2 continues to zig-zag up, with 2010, the latest report of the global carbon project, showing an additional 2.36ppm added to the atmosphere, and a 4% growth in emissions by the US after the 2008 drop caused by the financial crisis (check out Global Carbon Project for details).
Additionally while there has been some reports that show that US emissions have dropped, most notably here:
...if you read the comments section, there is considerable controversy whether the downward trend is anything more than a blip, with overall upward emissions headed back up again unless some major low carbon policies are implemented. Either way, the graph shows current emissions above '92 levels.
Which addresses your advice to chill in your comment below. There is a real opportunity to address the carbon issue through increased economic activity, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. If our states and federal government set in place policies that reward improved energy efficiency in our buildings, appliances and manufacturing processes, this will create a bunch of new jobs as new structures/processes that are more efficient are built and existing ones are retrofitted. On the energy production end, by reducing demand through energy efficiency, the need for new fossil fuel powered energy plants is greatly reduced and additional capacity where it is needed can come in the form of renewables. Hence the nature of a successful transition away from fossil fuels toward renewables in a way that pays for itself as it goes. This kind of transition is far from the top down, heavy handed approach that you have proposed in the past, George, and yet it becomes harder and harder to pursue the longer we put it off. Does that make sense now?
Well sir, in my engineering pursuits we could allow for the known unknowns. It is the unknown unknowns that get you ... or help you.
And yes we are going to get mitigated. That is the price of being human. I would suggest that all of you have done your jobs and now need to allow the rest of us to do so. If we chose not to that is our choice. Fighting the populace will only lead to a heart attack.
"but the CO2 level has been higher and we did come back."
That's just plain wrong. We are living in wholly unique circumstances. Never before have their been 7 billion people on the planet, and pretty much all of them depend on the current climate patterns remaining almost exactly as they are. Even seemingly modest changes in those patterns can result in famine, floods and major dislocations in population. And on our current path, we will NOT see modest changes.
And while the moderation you call for may sound reasonable to you, what you're calling for is almost certainly inadequate. Inadequate to the point of disastrous on an unimaginable scale.
It is not wrong the CO2 levels were higher although your argument about numbers is also accurate.
Why do we not reduce our numbers by not replacing ourselves? We are the drivers on carbon why do we need seven billion of us?
Probably because just like you, most of those 7 billion aren't in any hurry to check out, and they think they have just as much right to have kids as the next person.
Well that is as stupid as some of the alternatives offered by the advocates. If we are serious population reduction must be a major component of our efforts
No argument from me on that (I've done my part.) But should we start up the ovens again? Who goes in first? Are you volunteering yourself and a few family members?
It seems all your solutions are short term. WE just do not replace ourselves (one child per) and nature will take care of the rest - over time.
What are you talking about? I haven't proposed a single solution in this entire thread. You're the one who's proposing a reduction in population. And while in the long term, that certainly is a major part of a truly sustainable solution, but it's NOT a short-term solution.
Sorry bozo. I get carried away with the general solutions offered by advocates and respond as if all advocates support those solutions. What are your solutions?
"It is not wrong the CO2 levels were higher"
To set the record straight, in the human era CO2 levels have never been higher. There has been a leveling off of CO2 emissions in the US, but even a leveling off of emissions leads to a steady increase in atmospheric CO2. In addition, atmospheric CO2 is a global phenomenon, not a national one.
yep, yep, yep. Point is the planet had a mechanism to return from higher CO2 levels once - could there not be such a mechanism in our future - if we stop making it worse?
Of course the planet has homeostatic mechanisms that will decrease atmospheric carbon, just as it has in the past. Trouble is that it will take millenia for those mechanisms to re-sequester that released carbon, which for the planet is perfectly acceptable. It is human civilization, built alongside oceans, dependent on raising food in areas that will be susceptible to droughts and floods, etc. that will have the trouble adapting rapidly enough to avoid foundational cataclysms that could likely undermine everything we do.
Boom Boom Boom. If water levels rise we will have to abandon our lower coasts. If climate changes we will have to move to where we can grow crops and survive. Currently cold and dry place may well become temperate. We can evolve. We probably will have to change how we interact with the planet. That just may be a good thing.
It's taken decades and even centuries to establish the societies and infrastructure that support us all. That can't just be picked up overnight and moved, for reasons that ought to be obvious to you. There will be no mass relocation and "evolution" without hundreds of millions if not billions of people suffering miserably, and likely dying off by similar numbers.
The planet will be just fine with global warming. It is not going to explode o vaporize or crack in two. It is the organisms on the planet and the civilizations that they have built that will be in trouble.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
If I go to see a scryer, and my future is incorrectly predicted because of a defective crystal ball or whatever, can I sue to get my money back?
Or can I just go and steal it back? Oh wait, that won't work, because the scyer will see me coming a month away.
"Opinion: Imprison politicians for failing to heed science?"
Did this bother nobody else? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how do you even conceive an idea like that? Politicians are elected by American citizens, not science. To imprison am elected official for doing his constitutional duty of representing his electorate is an invitation to war. If the electorate is for coal mining and fewer regulations, his job is to lobby for more coal mining and less regulation.
A thought process could lead to the idea that we subvert the constitution based on scientific theories seems foreign to the America I know.
Now if your representative is evil and built a weather machine that made hurricanes to wipe out competing states, I think he could be impeached then held criminally liable and would probably get a thousand life sentences.
Is this post an Emily Litella routine?
Gilda Radner Nevermind
Tell me Bozo, what do consider more supreme, the constitution or science?
In what regard?
What do you consider more supreme, the constitution or science? Pick whatever regard you want.
They are two completely different things. We could make gravity unconstitutional, but we wouldn't all float off into space upon ratification of that amendment, would we?
Likewise, you can abuse the constitution to deny the fact of global warming, but that won't stop the hurricanes or the droughts or the rise in sea levels.
Physical reality pays no heed to political constructs.
Gravity is a scientific theory. If I drop an anvil on you, and you are injured, would it be against your principles to convict me based on the inference that I knew what would happen, based on the theory of gravity?
What if I denied the existence of gravity; would that make me less culpable?
Doug and Bozo see:
JAFS, Doug and Bozo
I should have said 1996 for the comparative year and our emissions have been pretty flat despite population growth of about 20%. There is an argument that the decline is driven by our economy – which may be true but the decline is also true. See http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
For population impact see:
Emissions were dangerously high in 1990 and 1996. Per capita emissions are still greater than any other country on the planet, and with every developing country increasing their carbon output, especially India and China, it's a rather meaningless milestone. It's like a drunk decreasing his consumption of vodka from 5 pints a day to 4 and 3/4.
Not true anymore. New data. We are #5 per capita.
Actually, we are #12:
But those countries are not very important, considering that if you take all 11 nations with greater per capita emissions that us, combine their collective emissions and we still emit 6.5 times more than that total. Furthermore, folks are eager to point out that China now emits more carbon than the US, but they neglect that per person, we emit 4.64 metric tons of carbon per year while China emits only 1.57 metric tons, or 3 times as much for every man, woman and child. We head up per capita emissions compared to every major industrialized country in the world.
Yep. But you are back to alarms and not solutions. The only one I have heard you offer is carbon taxes. Any other weapons in the quiver?
I didn't bring up the per capita argument, but it was you who said that we weren't as bad as we are in terms of personal energy consumption when compared to the rest of the world. Furthermore, so many people and even the the official US reason for not moving ahead with carbon reduction strategies is because they point to China and say that they are emitting more than we are, like that somehow gets us off the hook. Sometimes you have to get people's attention with an alarm in order for them to even consider solutions.
I've given you other options, including aggressive energy efficiency measures which are far and away the most cost effective investment individuals and businesses can spend their money on, cogeneration, improvements in grids and managing grids, distributed energy production networks that are locally owned and managed, etc. I've given you the Princeton carbon mitigation wedge scenarios site, before--did you check it out? If not, here it is again:
I'd be interested in hearing which of those scenarios you'd prefer.
I will also point out that China has a portion of the population just as emission intense as we are. It also has a major population component that is living in the 1700s. Should we go there?
The chart in your link shows not that we have "reduced" our emissions to '96 levels, but rather that the emissions increased for many years, then decreased in 2008, and have then started to increase again. It's true that current levels are at about the same level as in '96.
Looks pretty clear that increasing emissions each year is the pattern, with a slight anomaly, almost certainly due to the financial mess.
Also, there is the very good question about what levels of emissions are acceptable - if '96 levels are too high, then keeping the level there isn't helpful.
Could not agree more. But... We have not seen a 20% increase in emmissions while we have had a 20% population increase. We are bending the curve downward. I want credit.
I have asked the advocates on here how much is enough and received no answer. I guess one could argue a return to the 60's before the curve took off. I have seen no rational solution as to how to do that.
I would also argue that leveling the increase is a lot better than continued rapid growth.
Ok. We seem to be bending the curve downward a bit.
And, yes, leveling is better than rapid growth, but if it still results in the destruction of the environment,...
I have also asked how much is enough, and haven't gotten an answer - I think it's a good question, and needs to be answered.
I beg your pardon: in past comments, I gave you several scenarios, including the wedges proposal that lets you "build your own" way to reducing enough carbon to make a difference. Go back and do your homework, or do you need me to give you the links all over again?
Leonard, if we put all the tobacco executives in the slammer where are you going to get your cigarettes?
"The Italian precedent begs the obverse question: If we can put scientists in the dock for failing to predict a natural catastrophe, should we not also put politicians in the dock for failing to heed scientific predictions of a natural catastrophe?"
It's a damn good thing the American judicial system is not bound by "precedents" in an Italian court.
We don't operate gulags in this country, Comrade Krishtalka; people are not sent to prison unless they are convicted of a criminal offense. What part of the US Code have our politicians violated? I searched Westlaw and found nothing for "listen to scientists".
Faulty premise, faulty conclusion, and a fundamental misuse of the phrase "begs the question". A shining example of KU's professorial class. Rock Chalk Jayhawks!
Looks like yet another Emily Litella moment
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·