In 2014, the Swedish national government spent 5.2 billion Swedish krona (£419 million/$547 million), a number that has more than doubled to 12.6 billion krona (£1 billion/$1.3 billion) for the planned 2020 budget.
“The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year,” Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers’ Association, said....
....The wasteful spending poll results come as many Swedish municipal governments face financial hardship or even bankruptcy due to a lack of money to support recently arrived migrants who have largely remained out of the labour force.
An estimated 90 per cent of migrants who came to the country during the height of the 2015 migrant crisis and received permanent residency are unemployed.
Almost sounds like the US on the latter part when sanctuary cities/counties are running a budget deficit supporting illegals.
Which US city is running a deficit by supporting “illegals”. You know what I am going to do now, because this is how my brain works, I am going to look for facts to support your argument.
In 2014, the Swedish national government spent 5.2 billion Swedish krona (£419 million/$547 million), a number that has more than doubled to 12.6 billion krona (£1 billion/$1.3 billion) for the planned 2020 budget.
“The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year,” Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers’ Association, said....
....The wasteful spending poll results come as many Swedish municipal governments face financial hardship or even bankruptcy due to a lack of money to support recently arrived migrants who have largely remained out of the labour force.
An estimated 90 per cent of migrants who came to the country during the height of the 2015 migrant crisis and received permanent residency are unemployed.
Almost sounds like the US on the latter part when sanctuary cities/counties are running a budget deficit supporting illegals.
Which US city is running a deficit by supporting “illegals”. You know what I am going to do now, because this is how my brain works, I am going to look for facts to support your argument.
Montgomery County I know someone that sits on the board in Montgomery County, he has said they are in a tough spot. Their school system is also busting at the seems, demands for added bi-lingual staff.
In 2014, the Swedish national government spent 5.2 billion Swedish krona (£419 million/$547 million), a number that has more than doubled to 12.6 billion krona (£1 billion/$1.3 billion) for the planned 2020 budget.
“The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year,” Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers’ Association, said....
....The wasteful spending poll results come as many Swedish municipal governments face financial hardship or even bankruptcy due to a lack of money to support recently arrived migrants who have largely remained out of the labour force.
An estimated 90 per cent of migrants who came to the country during the height of the 2015 migrant crisis and received permanent residency are unemployed.
Almost sounds like the US on the latter part when sanctuary cities/counties are running a budget deficit supporting illegals.
Which US city is running a deficit by supporting “illegals”. You know what I am going to do now, because this is how my brain works, I am going to look for facts to support your argument.
Montgomery County I know someone that sits on the board in Montgomery County, he has said they are in a tough spot. Their school system is also busting at the seems, demands for added bi-lingual staff.
Thanks. I didn’t not see anything that mentioned that the sanctuary cities in Montgomery county are the reason for the deficit. I saw the Breitbart article....why read that tripe?
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:46 pm
A hallmark of today’s Democrat is the complete inability to debate ideas that are considered antithetical to their philosophy. I don’t even know who Spencer is, but TLD’s response to the post is a great reflection of the crisis afflicting the Democrats.
Exactly...you don't even know who Spencer is.
Exactly but yet again exactly opposite what your takeaway is.
I am far more interested in ideas and much less in people. TDS’ reply is an immediate pivot to the person rather than the idea.
TLD’s reply seems to imply an immediate disregard of anything this ‘Spencer’ has to offer. This is what we call “cancel culture”. It’s an insidious devaluation of the human and all of the complexity of same.
TDS is a similar construct.
"we call"
You choose to be ignorant, you choose to ignore other's points and questions.
Got it.
Your posts are a clear reminder why you were susceptible to TDS. And I’ll stray from my self-imposed rule to focus only on the idea and not the person (not you per se but those like you).
I have generally found that TDS manifests itself most glaringly in people who are most often adding personal insults to those who refuse to go along with the echo chamber. If I were a psychologist, this would be an area I’d study. It’s fascinating. If you go through the posts on this board, you’d find that the people quick to lob personal insults (such as ‘ignorant’ in the post above) are loudly anti-Trump. I’m not sure if the cause and effect are interchangeable, perhaps Trump’s character compels this behavior?, but yet there it is, always.
My characterization of you as ‘always being incorrect’ could also be perceived as an insult and I regret that. My real point is you do seem to be unable to see beyond the lens of Trump on almost every issue, causing you to miss the basket nearly every post.
Again, you actually ignore what I wrote...I haven't mentioned Trump in this discussion.
That's your fixation.
Here's the thing, you actually claim to be ignorant, as if that's a good thing.
Perhaps you are correct that those who dislike Trump vehemently (as I indeed do) do not think being ignorant is a good thing.
BTW, you ignored my question about what assets you think the US government owns that could be borrowed against or liquidated.
Your answer?
In 2014, the Swedish national government spent 5.2 billion Swedish krona (£419 million/$547 million), a number that has more than doubled to 12.6 billion krona (£1 billion/$1.3 billion) for the planned 2020 budget.
“The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year,” Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers’ Association, said....
....The wasteful spending poll results come as many Swedish municipal governments face financial hardship or even bankruptcy due to a lack of money to support recently arrived migrants who have largely remained out of the labour force.
An estimated 90 percent of migrants who came to the country during the height of the 2015 migrant crisis and received permanent residency are unemployed.
Almost sounds like the US on the latter part when sanctuary cities/counties are running a budget deficit supporting illegals.
That is interesting. My question would be why would it be reasonable to believe that a change in anything that has taken decades to happen would correct itself 6 years? Is the money well spent? I do not know. Could it be used in another capacity, as is what your quotes is suggesting, that is a distinct possibility. But this issue did not happen over night and will not be corrected over night.
In 2014, the Swedish national government spent 5.2 billion Swedish krona (£419 million/$547 million), a number that has more than doubled to 12.6 billion krona (£1 billion/$1.3 billion) for the planned 2020 budget.
“The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year,” Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers’ Association, said....
....The wasteful spending poll results come as many Swedish municipal governments face financial hardship or even bankruptcy due to a lack of money to support recently arrived migrants who have largely remained out of the labour force.
An estimated 90 per cent of migrants who came to the country during the height of the 2015 migrant crisis and received permanent residency are unemployed.
Almost sounds like the US on the latter part when sanctuary cities/counties are running a budget deficit supporting illegals.
Which US city is running a deficit by supporting “illegals”. You know what I am going to do now, because this is how my brain works, I am going to look for facts to support your argument.
Montgomery County I know someone that sits on the board in Montgomery County, he has said they are in a tough spot. Their school system is also busting at the seems, demands for added bi-lingual staff.
Thanks. I didn’t not see anything that mentioned that the sanctuary cities in Montgomery county are the reason for the deficit. I saw the Breitbart article....why read that tripe?
Do you actually believe the public relations people are going to knowingly allow staff to say that? You are much smarter than that. Hell, look what happened when Nancy found out her people were talking out of turn...they got a whupin' from her.
The Breitbart article had references and quoted comments from Sweden....but just dismiss that which you do not want to believe.
In 2014, the Swedish national government spent 5.2 billion Swedish krona (£419 million/$547 million), a number that has more than doubled to 12.6 billion krona (£1 billion/$1.3 billion) for the planned 2020 budget.
“The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year,” Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers’ Association, said....
....The wasteful spending poll results come as many Swedish municipal governments face financial hardship or even bankruptcy due to a lack of money to support recently arrived migrants who have largely remained out of the labour force.
An estimated 90 percent of migrants who came to the country during the height of the 2015 migrant crisis and received permanent residency are unemployed.
Almost sounds like the US on the latter part when sanctuary cities/counties are running a budget deficit supporting illegals.
That is interesting. My question would be why would it be reasonable to believe that a change in anything that has taken decades to happen would correct itself 6 years? Is the money well spent? I do not know. Could it be used in another capacity, as is what your quotes is suggesting, that is a distinct possibility. But this issue did not happen over night and will not be corrected over night.
No argument Bart. Point being, at least on this thread we have been saying for years that all we ever see and hear about is that we need money, we have to join and stay part of the climate accord, we must act, we are gonna be under water in x-years, the sky is falling....and yet the money just seems to vanish. The article eludes to this.
Then when two scientists differ, we merely discount the one as a crazy fool, to make us feel better. No one is arguing things can not be done and to to be good stewards...its the constant barrage of we need your money, we must tax you to save your life......scare tactics.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:46 pm
A hallmark of today’s Democrat is the complete inability to debate ideas that are considered antithetical to their philosophy. I don’t even know who Spencer is, but TLD’s response to the post is a great reflection of the crisis afflicting the Democrats.
Exactly...you don't even know who Spencer is.
Exactly but yet again exactly opposite what your takeaway is.
I am far more interested in ideas and much less in people. TDS’ reply is an immediate pivot to the person rather than the idea.
TLD’s reply seems to imply an immediate disregard of anything this ‘Spencer’ has to offer. This is what we call “cancel culture”. It’s an insidious devaluation of the human and all of the complexity of same.
TDS is a similar construct.
He is in the climate change denial business. It pays well.
Renegades and iconoclasts are often correct. I don’t know him nor his positions, but my beliefs on global warming are that the book is not finished, so hear out those who disagree; they could be correct in the end.
What have you read much about Roy Spencer? “Could be correct”. You could lose all your money in the stock market next year too. That COULD happen.
Predicting weather and even climate is likely a fool's game...
In 2014, the Swedish national government spent 5.2 billion Swedish krona (£419 million/$547 million), a number that has more than doubled to 12.6 billion krona (£1 billion/$1.3 billion) for the planned 2020 budget.
“The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year,” Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers’ Association, said....
....The wasteful spending poll results come as many Swedish municipal governments face financial hardship or even bankruptcy due to a lack of money to support recently arrived migrants who have largely remained out of the labour force.
An estimated 90 per cent of migrants who came to the country during the height of the 2015 migrant crisis and received permanent residency are unemployed.
Almost sounds like the US on the latter part when sanctuary cities/counties are running a budget deficit supporting illegals.
Which US city is running a deficit by supporting “illegals”. You know what I am going to do now, because this is how my brain works, I am going to look for facts to support your argument.
Montgomery County I know someone that sits on the board in Montgomery County, he has said they are in a tough spot. Their school system is also busting at the seems, demands for added bi-lingual staff.
Thanks. I didn’t not see anything that mentioned that the sanctuary cities in Montgomery county are the reason for the deficit. I saw the Breitbart article....why read that tripe?
Do you actually believe the public relations people are going to knowingly allow staff to say that? You are much smarter than that. Hell, look what happened when Nancy found out her people were talking out of turn...they got a whupin' from her.
The Breitbart article had references and quoted comments from Sweden....but just dismiss that which you do not want to believe.
The point is Breitbart in general. Of all the places to get information, Breitbart would be low on MY list.
In 2014, the Swedish national government spent 5.2 billion Swedish krona (£419 million/$547 million), a number that has more than doubled to 12.6 billion krona (£1 billion/$1.3 billion) for the planned 2020 budget.
“The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year,” Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers’ Association, said....
....The wasteful spending poll results come as many Swedish municipal governments face financial hardship or even bankruptcy due to a lack of money to support recently arrived migrants who have largely remained out of the labour force.
An estimated 90 percent of migrants who came to the country during the height of the 2015 migrant crisis and received permanent residency are unemployed.
Almost sounds like the US on the latter part when sanctuary cities/counties are running a budget deficit supporting illegals.
That is interesting. My question would be why would it be reasonable to believe that a change in anything that has taken decades to happen would correct itself 6 years? Is the money well spent? I do not know. Could it be used in another capacity, as is what your quotes is suggesting, that is a distinct possibility. But this issue did not happen over night and will not be corrected over night.
No argument Bart. Point being, at least on this thread we have been saying for years that all we ever see and hear about is that we need money, we have to join and stay part of the climate accord, we must act, we are gonna be under water in x-years, the sky is falling....and yet the money just seems to vanish. The article eludes to this.
Then when two scientists differ, we merely discount the one as a crazy fool, to make us feel better. No one is arguing things can not be done and to to be good stewards...its the constant barrage of we need your money, we must tax you to save your life......scare tactics.
It’s 3 scientists to 97. Not two different scientists.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:46 pm
A hallmark of today’s Democrat is the complete inability to debate ideas that are considered antithetical to their philosophy. I don’t even know who Spencer is, but TLD’s response to the post is a great reflection of the crisis afflicting the Democrats.
Exactly...you don't even know who Spencer is.
Exactly but yet again exactly opposite what your takeaway is.
I am far more interested in ideas and much less in people. TDS’ reply is an immediate pivot to the person rather than the idea.
TLD’s reply seems to imply an immediate disregard of anything this ‘Spencer’ has to offer. This is what we call “cancel culture”. It’s an insidious devaluation of the human and all of the complexity of same.
TDS is a similar construct.
"we call"
You choose to be ignorant, you choose to ignore other's points and questions.
Got it.
Your posts are a clear reminder why you were susceptible to TDS. And I’ll stray from my self-imposed rule to focus only on the idea and not the person (not you per se but those like you).
I have generally found that TDS manifests itself most glaringly in people who are most often adding personal insults to those who refuse to go along with the echo chamber. If I were a psychologist, this would be an area I’d study. It’s fascinating. If you go through the posts on this board, you’d find that the people quick to lob personal insults (such as ‘ignorant’ in the post above) are loudly anti-Trump. I’m not sure if the cause and effect are interchangeable, perhaps Trump’s character compels this behavior?, but yet there it is, always.
My characterization of you as ‘always being incorrect’ could also be perceived as an insult and I regret that. My real point is you do seem to be unable to see beyond the lens of Trump on almost every issue, causing you to miss the basket nearly every post.
Again, you actually ignore what I wrote...I haven't mentioned Trump in this discussion.
That's your fixation.
Here's the thing, you actually claim to be ignorant, as if that's a good thing.
Perhaps you are correct that those who dislike Trump vehemently (as I indeed do) do not think being ignorant is a good thing.
BTW, you ignored my question about what assets you think the US government owns that could be borrowed against or liquidated.
Your answer?
I don't claim to be ignorant of everything; I also don't claim to be an expert at everything (an affliction commonly seen on online boards).
The below will help understand that the US is not defenseless in figuring out it's debt of $23 trillion since it has a positive net worth of over $150 trillion.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:46 pm
A hallmark of today’s Democrat is the complete inability to debate ideas that are considered antithetical to their philosophy. I don’t even know who Spencer is, but TLD’s response to the post is a great reflection of the crisis afflicting the Democrats.
Exactly...you don't even know who Spencer is.
Exactly but yet again exactly opposite what your takeaway is.
I am far more interested in ideas and much less in people. TDS’ reply is an immediate pivot to the person rather than the idea.
TLD’s reply seems to imply an immediate disregard of anything this ‘Spencer’ has to offer. This is what we call “cancel culture”. It’s an insidious devaluation of the human and all of the complexity of same.
TDS is a similar construct.
"we call"
You choose to be ignorant, you choose to ignore other's points and questions.
Got it.
Your posts are a clear reminder why you were susceptible to TDS. And I’ll stray from my self-imposed rule to focus only on the idea and not the person (not you per se but those like you).
I have generally found that TDS manifests itself most glaringly in people who are most often adding personal insults to those who refuse to go along with the echo chamber. If I were a psychologist, this would be an area I’d study. It’s fascinating. If you go through the posts on this board, you’d find that the people quick to lob personal insults (such as ‘ignorant’ in the post above) are loudly anti-Trump. I’m not sure if the cause and effect are interchangeable, perhaps Trump’s character compels this behavior?, but yet there it is, always.
My characterization of you as ‘always being incorrect’ could also be perceived as an insult and I regret that. My real point is you do seem to be unable to see beyond the lens of Trump on almost every issue, causing you to miss the basket nearly every post.
Again, you actually ignore what I wrote...I haven't mentioned Trump in this discussion.
That's your fixation.
Here's the thing, you actually claim to be ignorant, as if that's a good thing.
Perhaps you are correct that those who dislike Trump vehemently (as I indeed do) do not think being ignorant is a good thing.
BTW, you ignored my question about what assets you think the US government owns that could be borrowed against or liquidated.
Your answer?
I don't claim to be ignorant of everything; I also don't claim to be an expert at everything (an affliction commonly seen on online boards).
The below will help understand that the US is not defenseless in figuring out it's debt of $23 trillion since it has a positive net worth of over $150 trillion.
I am still not sure who said the USA won’t ever find a solution. Could you link the post?
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:38 am
by Bart
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:18 pmhttp://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/ Some more far right wing propaganda from the good doctor. he took time off from stoning bad Christians to post this. To those of you FLP folks who are naïve and uneducated scroll down to the comments.
Thanks for this. Interesting stuff. I would have a couple of questions looking at the data.
First, can we agree that fire fighting in 1974 is not as it is currently? Is it possible that our methods/technology have improved since 1974 so the total acreage burned would be lessened? A more interesting data point in comparison would be rate at which the fire was consuming acreage. While not a perfect proxy, there are non, due to improved fire fighting technology/techniques it would make sense that a area with more dead loss in the bush the greater that dead loss would be consumed with fire. So while the total area may be less, what is the rate of fire consumption.
One could conclude from Dr Spencer's graph that the 74 devastation was from increased dead loss during the preceding 10 or so years where average rain fall was decreased while average temperature was increased. Makes sense.
It also is interesting that the Tmax line also increases during this time (why no best fit line here I do not know)during the same time frame. The
interesting question to me would there be an increased dead mass. It could be a distinct possibility that the increased precipitation seen was not enough to overcome the stress induced loss due to increased temperatures? The opposite could also be true that the increased rain fall was enough to over come this but it is a small amount over the entire rainy season. To me this is an important question to be answered.
If I had a major quibble here it would be that Dr Spencer seems to want a cause/effect on a year by year basis. It would make sense to me that accumulation of dead loss in the proceeding years has an additive effect and the years from 1959 to the big burn in 74 were predominantly above average. I highly doubt that the Aussies sweep the floor of the outback to remove dead loss and it accumulates over time.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:48 am
by Bart
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:54 am
Then when two scientists differ, we merely discount the one as a crazy fool, to make us feel better. No one is arguing things can not be done and to to be good stewards...its the constant barrage of we need your money, we must tax you to save your life......scare tactics.
I will agree and disagree with you here. I agree in the sense that the politicization of this has mucked up a really interesting and important question.
Where I disagree is the notion that it is an even split. (when 2 scientists disagree). There is a an overwhelmingly large consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring. While that majority agree a few do not and that is ok as it causes those in the majority to continue to refine their positions and support their conclusions (same with the minority). This is how science is supposed to work, imho.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:54 am
Then when two scientists differ, we merely discount the one as a crazy fool, to make us feel better. No one is arguing things can not be done and to to be good stewards...its the constant barrage of we need your money, we must tax you to save your life......scare tactics.
I will agree and disagree with you here. I agree in the sense that the politicization of this has mucked up a really interesting and important question.
Where I disagree is the notion that it is an even split. (when 2 scientists disagree). There is a an overwhelmingly large consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring. While that majority agree a few do not and that is ok as it causes those in the majority to continue to refine their positions and support their conclusions (same with the minority). This is how science is supposed to work, imho.
I have no idea why this is political other than lobbying efforts. Not that different from big tobacco. All one has to do is look out the window at all the cars on the road and count the number of people on the planet in 2020 versus 1920. To think man does not contribute to what is a simple feedback model makes no sense to me. I don’t have an answer. Many folks answer is basically God will take care of it.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:46 pm
A hallmark of today’s Democrat is the complete inability to debate ideas that are considered antithetical to their philosophy. I don’t even know who Spencer is, but TLD’s response to the post is a great reflection of the crisis afflicting the Democrats.
Exactly...you don't even know who Spencer is.
Exactly but yet again exactly opposite what your takeaway is.
I am far more interested in ideas and much less in people. TDS’ reply is an immediate pivot to the person rather than the idea.
TLD’s reply seems to imply an immediate disregard of anything this ‘Spencer’ has to offer. This is what we call “cancel culture”. It’s an insidious devaluation of the human and all of the complexity of same.
TDS is a similar construct.
"we call"
You choose to be ignorant, you choose to ignore other's points and questions.
Got it.
Your posts are a clear reminder why you were susceptible to TDS. And I’ll stray from my self-imposed rule to focus only on the idea and not the person (not you per se but those like you).
I have generally found that TDS manifests itself most glaringly in people who are most often adding personal insults to those who refuse to go along with the echo chamber. If I were a psychologist, this would be an area I’d study. It’s fascinating. If you go through the posts on this board, you’d find that the people quick to lob personal insults (such as ‘ignorant’ in the post above) are loudly anti-Trump. I’m not sure if the cause and effect are interchangeable, perhaps Trump’s character compels this behavior?, but yet there it is, always.
My characterization of you as ‘always being incorrect’ could also be perceived as an insult and I regret that. My real point is you do seem to be unable to see beyond the lens of Trump on almost every issue, causing you to miss the basket nearly every post.
Again, you actually ignore what I wrote...I haven't mentioned Trump in this discussion.
That's your fixation.
Here's the thing, you actually claim to be ignorant, as if that's a good thing.
Perhaps you are correct that those who dislike Trump vehemently (as I indeed do) do not think being ignorant is a good thing.
BTW, you ignored my question about what assets you think the US government owns that could be borrowed against or liquidated.
Your answer?
I don't claim to be ignorant of everything; I also don't claim to be an expert at everything (an affliction commonly seen on online boards).
The below will help understand that the US is not defenseless in figuring out it's debt of $23 trillion since it has a positive net worth of over $150 trillion.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:54 am
Then when two scientists differ, we merely discount the one as a crazy fool, to make us feel better. No one is arguing things can not be done and to to be good stewards...its the constant barrage of we need your money, we must tax you to save your life......scare tactics.
I will agree and disagree with you here. I agree in the sense that the politicization of this has mucked up a really interesting and important question.
Where I disagree is the notion that it is an even split. (when 2 scientists disagree). There is a an overwhelmingly large consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring. While that majority agree a few do not and that is ok as it causes those in the majority to continue to refine their positions and support their conclusions (same with the minority). This is how science is supposed to work, imho.
I have no idea why this is political other than lobbying efforts. Not that different from big tobacco. All one has to do is look out the window at all the cars on the road and count the number of people on the planet in 2020 versus 1920. To think man does not contribute to what is a simple feedback model makes no sense to me. I don’t have an answer. Many folks answer is basically God will take care of it.
I guess I can see how it is not political. The science aside, you are asking people to alter large segments of their lives, asking the government to spend large amounts of money and having wild claims thrown about by both sides and not expect it to become political?
Care to explain what you mean by simple feedback model?
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:54 am
Then when two scientists differ, we merely discount the one as a crazy fool, to make us feel better. No one is arguing things can not be done and to to be good stewards...its the constant barrage of we need your money, we must tax you to save your life......scare tactics.
I will agree and disagree with you here. I agree in the sense that the politicization of this has mucked up a really interesting and important question.
Where I disagree is the notion that it is an even split. (when 2 scientists disagree). There is a an overwhelmingly large consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring. While that majority agree a few do not and that is ok as it causes those in the majority to continue to refine their positions and support their conclusions (same with the minority). This is how science is supposed to work, imho.
I have no idea why this is political other than lobbying efforts. Not that different from big tobacco. All one has to do is look out the window at all the cars on the road and count the number of people on the planet in 2020 versus 1920. To think man does not contribute to what is a simple feedback model makes no sense to me. I don’t have an answer. Many folks answer is basically God will take care of it.
I guess I can see how it is not political. The science aside, you are asking people to alter large segments of their lives, asking the government to spend large amounts of money and having wild claims thrown about by both sides and not expect it to become political?
Care to explain what you mean by simple feedback model?
The science shouldn’t be political. What to do about it is a different story.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:54 am
Then when two scientists differ, we merely discount the one as a crazy fool, to make us feel better. No one is arguing things can not be done and to to be good stewards...its the constant barrage of we need your money, we must tax you to save your life......scare tactics.
I will agree and disagree with you here. I agree in the sense that the politicization of this has mucked up a really interesting and important question.
Where I disagree is the notion that it is an even split. (when 2 scientists disagree). There is a an overwhelmingly large consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring. While that majority agree a few do not and that is ok as it causes those in the majority to continue to refine their positions and support their conclusions (same with the minority). This is how science is supposed to work, imho.
I have no idea why this is political other than lobbying efforts. Not that different from big tobacco. All one has to do is look out the window at all the cars on the road and count the number of people on the planet in 2020 versus 1920. To think man does not contribute to what is a simple feedback model makes no sense to me. I don’t have an answer. Many folks answer is basically God will take care of it.
I guess I can see how it is not political. The science aside, you are asking people to alter large segments of their lives, asking the government to spend large amounts of money and having wild claims thrown about by both sides and not expect it to become political?
Care to explain what you mean by simple feedback model?
The science shouldn’t be political. What to do about it is a different story.
That is the entire point.....there have not been any substantive, tangible ideas that can be measured to prove their worth. Sure....LEED buildings, and things like the Montreal Protocol make us feel good and provide 'some' sense of accomplishment in doing good, but most of those items are just money makers and lobbying success stories.
