Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[carpedm9587]

No prob

I figured.

Figures lie, and liars figure! But the fact is he's calling for everybody else to downsize or minimize their carbon footprint, while he's living in... do you see what you're doing? You're doing your best to justify his living in a 10,000 sq ft home, and buying an 8.7MILLION dollar home in California....

I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm trying to look at the data you provided and see if it a) valid and b) leads to the conclusion you suggested (more on that below).

Maybe not a hypocrit, but a hypocrite for sure!

It would be very easy to hate you

So, there's some hypocrisy there, but he's not a hypocrite.

Yes. Look, I know there is a tendency to binary thinking, but a person who has occasionally lied is not, to me, a liar. A person who does not live 100% up to their ideals is not, for me, a hyporitE!

If I use those words in those ways, every human being on the planet is a hypocrite, a liar, a thief, and a cheater. When everyone fits the category, the category has relatively little meaning. I do not think in terms of "absolutes" in that way. Someone who has lied to me is not necessarily a liar. I reserve that term for someone who has lied to me to the point that I have lost trust and no longer believe what they say. My son once lied to me. We talked about it, I told him he had eroded my trust, and he had to deal with the consequence. He has not (to my knowledge) since, so I don't call him a "liar." On the other hand, Trump lies to me almost 65% of the time, and has made it known (in his book) that he considers lying a viable strategy for achieving his desired ends in a negotiation. Ergo - I consider Mr. Trump a liar. Frankly, he essentially applied the label to himself.

Are you a climate preacher on the preaching circuit?

If you were a climate preacher, this might be a perception or PR problem.

Hmmmm... you're adding "100%", which I didn't claim.

Read carefully, CP. The 100% was preceded by "even if," as in, "even if I were to take your position to the greatest extreme it could be taken, it still wouldn't do X."

I never EVER said anything "negated the science", did I? You're doing 'that thing'! And my POINT this entire discussion as been EXACTLY that --- Gore is a really poor "front man", and the reason many skeptics can't buy "the science".

On this front, I have to plead guilty In the course of our exchange, I lost site of the beginning where you called him a fraud and in it for himself and made the discussion about climate change itself. I think I mixed the discussion Sparko and I were having with the one you and I were having. Either way - you are right to call me on it.

I have mixed feelings about Gore. As with Clinton, if a figure is polarizing, they are not usually a good choice for spokesperson. However, I don't have the impression anyone "elected" Gore to that role. It is a mantle he assumed on himself (as far as I can tell). So I'm not sure what can be done about it.

[Zymologist]

It's straitjacket not straight-jacket. Um, not like I would know that from personal experience or something. That's just silly.

Yeah, but spelled that way the joke doesn't work.

[carpedm9587]

see? both sides use this "technique" - you can't falsify AGW with this unless we wait another 50 years. And the AGW people keep "adjusting" the data! If the data proves them wrong they will accuse the deniers of using selective data or something like you just did.

Show me a study, Sparko, that incorporates global data for the entirety of the available measurement interval, and shows global warming is NOT occuring. Then I will question global warming. What people do is show data for North America for X years, or for the globe from 1992-2006 (I'm making up numbers here to make a point). In other words, they cherry pick data to make their point. BOTH sides do it, but climatologists on BOTH sides don't, at least as far as I can tell. Pundits do. Sometimes meteorologists do. But the only climatologists I have ever seen cherry-pick data are those trying to make the case that global warming is not occurring. They have to - because when you look at ALL the data, it is simply too evident that it is!

Like this study from nasa showing the Antarctic ice is growing? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses
or https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#660bfa852892 ?

The AGW proponents just handwave that away as not important and those are just single data points, what matters is the global temperature: https://www.snopes.com/does-arctic-i...limate-change/

Actually - I'm not going to handwave it away as unimportant. I have seen that study. First, it is one of several studies, and all of the others (as far as I know) say it is shrinking. So the study is an outlier (but one the right has DEFINITELY glommed onto - it is ALL over the climate denier websites. Interestingly, NO mention of all of the other studies on those sites). Second, it IS a single data point in the "global warming" discussion: it is ONE continent (there are seven of them), and one timespan (1992-2001, and 2001-2008). It is a BIG continent - it has a lot of ice - and it is 16 years - but it is not the globe and it is not for the entirety of the measuring period. So climate deniers that point to it are, IMO, doing exactly what I have been talking about - cherry picking. The correct approach to such a study is to:

• Validate it. Explain how it is possible to have such an outlier. Did they screw something up in their measurements? Is there methodology sound? Are the other studies all wrong? Can it be replicated?
• Incorporate it. If it is validated, what does the study tell us about climate change? Can the phenomenon fit into a general pattern of global warming, or does it refute the concept completely?

As far as I can tell, neither has yet been done, so we don't KNOW what this study tells us, except that for a few years (16), the Antarctic ice sheet may have seen net gain in ice mass.

First you have to prove that the CO2 levels have increased the earth's temperature and that it is man-made.

That has been adequately proven, IMO. We have net CO2 statistics pre-industrial age, we have human CO2 output statistics, we have CO2 increase statistics, and the difference between the two is straightforward to determine. The numbers align amazingly well. The net gain in CO2 in the atmosphere is unarguably a result of human activity.

We also have all of the science that tells us what happens when greenhouse gases (like CO2) build up in the atmosphere. I would no more deny that reality than I would deny that air expands when it is heated, that objects on earth fall due to the force of gravity, or that Trump will lie to me at least once in his next speech.

(sorry - I just couldn't resist that last one...)

I am saying that the AGW people have made up their minds and nothing shown to them will convince them otherwise. I have been watching this for what, 40 years now? and where I live I don't see much difference in summer or winter. I have some hot summers and some cooler ones. I have some warmer winters and some colder ones. The average is the same. I have not seen any coastal cities drown, or any other predictions made by AGW proponents 20 or 30 years ago come true.

Then I think you perhaps have not been watching the news, Sparko. We have measurable rises in sea level that are contributing to a global increase in incidents of coastal flooding. We have worldwide increases in the frequency and severity of droughts, floods, and storms in general, all predicted by global warming models. We have measurable shifts in ecosystem locations. I don't know if you happen to be living in a place that has seen little net change, but we here in VT have seen significant climate change (not just weather change). If the trend continues, a major industry that used to be synonymous with Vermont (maple syrup) will no longer exist here in 20-30 years. It has already, in only 30 years, shifted about 100 miles north, reduced its length by 50%, and shifted its occurence 2 full weeks sooner in the season. We are seeing the same thing in the fall. Our foliage season used to peak in late September. Now it peaks in mid-October almost every year.

The evidence for what is happening on our planet is all around us. And the most recent evidence suggests that the pace is accelerating at a rate not initially predicted.

[Sparko]

Off track comment coming up:

If I use those words in those ways, every human being on the planet is a hypocrite, a liar, a thief, and a cheater.

[Sparko]

Show me a study, Sparko, that incorporates global data for the entirety of the available measurement interval, and shows global warming is NOT occuring. Then I will question global warming. What people do is show data for North America for X years, or for the globe from 1992-2006 (I'm making up numbers here to make a point). In other words, they cherry pick data to make their point. BOTH sides do it, but climatologists on BOTH sides don't, at least as far as I can tell. Pundits do. Sometimes meteorologists do. But the only climatologists I have ever seen cherry-pick data are those trying to make the case that global warming is not occurring. They have to - because when you look at ALL the data, it is simply too evident that it is!



Actually - I'm not going to handwave it away as unimportant. I have seen that study. First, it is one of several studies, and all of the others (as far as I know) say it is shrinking. So the study is an outlier (but one the right has DEFINITELY glommed onto - it is ALL over the climate denier websites. Interestingly, NO mention of all of the other studies on those sites). Second, it IS a single data point in the "global warming" discussion: it is ONE continent (there are seven of them), and one timespan (1992-2001, and 2001-2008). It is a BIG continent - it has a lot of ice - and it is 16 years - but it is not the globe and it is not for the entirety of the measuring period. So climate deniers that point to it are, IMO, doing exactly what I have been talking about - cherry picking. The correct approach to such a study is to:

Gah! You keep saying "I am not going to" and then you go right ahead and do it!!

Did you read the studies? It was not a single data point for a single year. You just read the snopes link and regurgitated it, didn't you?

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

That is data going back to 1992.

The other study about the arctic went back to 1979.


And YOU were the one who brought it up as a way to falsify AGW, and now you are saying it is just one continent so it is not important! You are doing EXACTLY what I said AGW proponents do. Make everything fit your world view no matter what the evidence says.

That has been adequately proven, IMO. We have net CO2 statistics pre-industrial age, we have human CO2 output statistics, we have CO2 increase statistics, and the difference between the two is straightforward to determine. The numbers align amazingly well. The net gain in CO2 in the atmosphere is unarguably a result of human activity.

We also have all of the science that tells us what happens when greenhouse gases (like CO2) build up in the atmosphere. I would no more deny that reality than I would deny that air expands when it is heated, that objects on earth fall due to the force of gravity, or that Trump will lie to me at least once in his next speech.

(sorry - I just couldn't resist that last one...)

there you go again, just dismissing any question of something being true or not and accepting the view that you already hold. Volcanoes can dump more CO2 in the atmosphere than mankind can in a year in a single eruption. Forest fires add C02, etc. So do animals and every other breathing thing on earth. Can co2 raise temperatures? maybe, but has it been proven that it does to such a degree as the AGW claim? If so why hasn't any of their predictions come true? Why isn't Miami under water yet?

Then I think you perhaps have not been watching the news, Sparko. We have measurable rises in sea level that are contributing to a global increase in incidents of coastal flooding. We have worldwide increases in the frequency and severity of droughts, floods, and storms in general, all predicted by global warming models. We have measurable shifts in ecosystem locations. I don't know if you happen to be living in a place that has seen little net change, but we here in VT have seen significant climate change (not just weather change). If the trend continues, a major industry that used to be synonymous with Vermont (maple syrup) will no longer exist here in 20-30 years. It has already, in only 30 years, shifted about 100 miles north, reduced its length by 50%, and shifted its occurence 2 full weeks sooner in the season. We are seeing the same thing in the fall. Our foliage season used to peak in late September. Now it peaks in mid-October almost every year.

The evidence for what is happening on our planet is all around us. And the most recent evidence suggests that the pace is accelerating at a rate not initially predicted.

That's just weather, carpe. right? weather isn't climate.

And climates do change over time, heck the Earth used to be a lot warmer in the past, and a lot colder. The climate does and will continue to change. Nobody disputes that. Just AGW. Man-made Global warming.

[Leonhard]

Volcanoes can dump more CO2 in the atmosphere than mankind can in a year in a single eruption.

That seems to be a bit of a myth. We emit two orders of magnitude more CO2 than the combined output of all the volcanoes in the world, averaged over time. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-08-13/29320

see? both sides use this "technique" - you can't falsify AGW with this unless we wait another 50 years. And the AGW people keep "adjusting" the data! If the data proves them wrong they will accuse the deniers of using selective data or something like you just did.

I'm actually looking into the adjustments. I'm trying to write a computer program to go over all the raw GHCN US data, and some of the Ocean data, and try to understand what kind of changes they made, and whether if I apply those kinds of changes (myself - not their programs but just what they describe in their reports - i.e no hand tuning just stuff like removing double counted temps, controlling for ungridded data, Time of Observation bias (which even climate dissenter Anthony Watts adjusts for), instrument location change, various weird glitches, etc... etc...) whether I get the same thing. Its after all this talk with Mountain Man.

The programs aren't that complex, its just handling all the stuff like temps with varied lengths, gaps, and stuff that is a bit tricky so I'll need some time.

Besides the whole file of raw data is like 2.8gb, so it'll take a bit to debug if I run it on the whole thing. Especially if I try to write my own version of that pair-wise homogenization program they're doing.

It takes a while though. The data sets are huge and have various small ideosyncracies.

[carpedm9587]

Gah! You keep saying "I am not going to" and then you go right ahead and do it!!

No- I didn't. You need to read the rest of the post.

Did you read the studies? It was not a single data point for a single year. You just read the snopes link and regurgitated it, didn't you?

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

That is data going back to 1992.

The other study about the arctic went back to 1979.

I read the first study - not the second. I never went to Snopes at all - I'm not sure where you got that. I also searched for references to the study, and found it consistently referenced on climate-denier and right-wing sites with no reference to the other studies that had different results. You omited (in your description) that the second part of the study extended to 2008 with a slightly lower ice growth rate. You also omitted the section where they talked about the phenomenon being very likely transient - and that the rate of growth on the western and eatern shields, if they continue to slow at the current rate, will be outweighed by the loss in the eastern sheet, and the entire system is projected to continue to net loss.

And YOU were the one who brought it up as a way to falsify AGW, and now you are saying it is just one continent so it is not important! You are doing EXACTLY what I said AGW proponents do. Make everything fit your world view no matter what the evidence says.

Since I have not done this - I reject the suggestion. At no point did I say the study should be ignored. Nor did I say it proves global warming. I also won't accept that it disproves anything because you have, again, taken a segment of the globe (not the entire globe) and a select number of years (not the entire range of measurement), and a single (or two) outlier studies and are trying to use it/them to argue your point. I won't accept this kind of cherry picking as valid, either for OR against the propostion. I also won't reject the study. As I clearly said, it needs to be a) validated, and then b) incorporated. It is not clear to me either has been done at this point.

there you go again, just dismissing any question of something being true or not and accepting the view that you already hold. Volcanoes can dump more CO2 in the atmosphere than mankind can in a year in a single eruption. Forest fires add C02, etc. So do animals and every other breathing thing on earth. Can co2 raise temperatures? maybe, but has it been proven that it does to such a degree as the AGW claim? If so why hasn't any of their predictions come true? Why isn't Miami under water yet?

Your fact about volcanoes is false (I will let Leon's post provide the link). Forest fires add CO2 to the degree that they burn trees (it's the trees that harbor the CO2). Regrowing trees reverses the effect. The net contribution of folliage in the world comes close to balancing. I say "close" because there is a slight net increase in CO2 due to loss of forrest - which is predominantly a human activity and goes into the "human activity" column.

Umm... maybe because Miami is an average of 6.56 feet avbove sea level, and sea level rise is currently occuring at an average rate of 3.2 mm per year. Assuming that pace continues unchanged (which is apparently not a valid assumption - it is projected to increase), it would take 600 years for the ocean to rise the 6.5 feet that would put most of Miami in the water. That doesn't mean effects will not be seen sooner, and Miami is taing it seriously enough to take significant steps now. Just another 30-40 years is projected to put major areas of miami at significantly greater risk, especially at times of hurricanes, when the ocean rise magnifies storm surge.

That's just weather, carpe. right? weather isn't climate.

I'm assuming from your "wink" that any response is likely to fall on deaf ears, but manybe someone else will read. First - none of the examples I gave you are about "weather." A single incidence of coastal flooding is "weather." And measurable increase in coastal across the globe over time is "climate." A single drought, a single flood, or a single storm is "weather." A pattern of increased frequency and severity across the globe is "climate." A single warm fall in Vermont is weather. A 30+ year pattern of temperature shift, tree ecosystems (specifically maples) shifting north, shortening of the sugaring season, and shift of that season by 2-3 weeks is an indication of climate change. It is not sufficent to "prove" global warming, because it is one location (Vermont) for one defined period (30 years). When added to the rest of the data points, however, the entire picture is conclusive because the vast bulk of the data points in the same direction: global warming.

And climates do change over time, heck the Earth used to be a lot warmer in the past, and a lot colder. The climate does and will continue to change. Nobody disputes that. Just AGW. Man-made Global warming.

I don't know of a single climatologist that has ever denied that climate changes without us. The claim is that the current climate change is being significantly impacted/enhanced by us, largely due to our CO2 emissions. The numbers are actually very startling. There is about 750 gigatons (GT) of CO2 circulating naturally through the ecology. Trees give it up in the fall, reabsorb in the spring. Oceans give it up in the evaporation process, and reabsorb it (just dawns on me I have no idea about the process oceans use to reabsorb CO2 - I'll have to chase rthat down). By comparison, the 29GT we emit annually seems small potatoes. The problem is, the normal carbon cycle is pretty close to fixed. It oscillates a bit over time, but not dramatically. Those oscillations have historially created ice ages and warm spells, but over periods measured in thousands and tens of thousands of years. Generally, they stay relatively stable within a decade, century, or even a single millenuim.

The problem is that our 29GT per year is cumulative - it happens year after year. Nature is believed to be able to absorb about 40% of it, leaving the rest in the atmosphere. That means we are adding over 17GT every year to the atmosphere's carbon load. That also means that in 43 years, we can double the carbon load of the atmosphere. THAT is significant. The science tells us that our impact in the past 120 years (since the dawn of the industrial age) has been the equivalent of what it would take nature 5-20 thousand years to do.

There is a reasonable summary here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/hum...-emissions.htm

It's designed to be easily understood - but the math is backed up by the vast majority of studies that have been done. Our impact is substantial.

[Sparko]

ok carpe I am done arguing with you while you keep basically proving my initial point that proponents of AGW will take any evidence as evidence for AGW or just dismiss anything contrary as transient (weather not climate!) thus making it unfalsifiable. Pretty much what you keep doing.

[carpedm9587]

ok carpe I am done arguing with you while you keep basically proving my initial point that proponents of AGW will take any evidence as evidence for AGW or just dismiss anything contrary as transient (weather not climate!) thus making it unfalsifiable. Pretty much what you keep doing.

No - I don't. What I AM doing is resisting your attempt to cherry pick data to disprove an essentially proven position. Sparko, it's like watching someone run around a flooding town pointing to the few buildings that are still not in the water screaming, "see - this building is not in the water. It's NOT flooding." The amount of data you have to ignore in order to accept the position that global warming is not happening and humans are not having a major impact on it is enormous. It defies the imagination.

I do not think that votes determine truth - by any stretch of the imagination - but do you seriously think that all but TWO countries in the world are being led by people so easily dupped into a con that they are devoting resources to join the global fight to address this issue? Or is it possible that ONE of those countries is now being led by a man who is himself highly subject to conspiracy theories, and has fallen for what I believde to be the TRUE con - that humanity is not affecting climate and we should simply continue with business as usual.

The situation in Vermont does not "prove" human-affected global warming (even though it is climate-related). The situation in Antarctic does not disprove human-affected global warming (even though it is climate-related). The increase in the ocean levels does not prove human-affected global warming. The increased CO2 levels does not prove human-affected global warming. Vermont points towards warming. Antarctica (that one study) points towards not warming. Ocean levels point towards warming. CO2 levels point towards warming. When you look across the breadth of all of the available data points, you have a handful pointing towards "not warming" and the overwhelming VAST majority of them pointing towards warming. THAT is what shows global warming to be real. THAT is what you have to address to disprove it.

But you cannot. The data simply does not support that position. It only does if you carefully select out the "no warming" data points, and ignore the rest. THAT is what the fossil fuels industry has been doing, and the right (generally) has bought into it. The data is real - and it can be used to create doubt, because the industry is trying to protect itself.

I don't need to ignore the "no warming" data points. I can accept them. They are simply drowned out by the rest of the data.

[Sparko]

No - I don't. What I AM doing is resisting your attempt to cherry pick data to disprove an essentially proven position. Sparko, it's like watching someone run around a flooding town pointing to the few buildings that are still not in the water screaming, "see - this building is not in the water. It's NOT flooding." The amount of data you have to ignore in order to accept the position that global warming is not happening and humans are not having a major impact on it is enormous. It defies the imagination.

dude, YOU gave me the list on how to falsify AGW. When I provided both proofs you asked for, you just handwaved it away with "single data points" and "it's just one continent" (but it was both poles) and so on. Exactly as I said. And now you want to accuse ME of cherry picking? wow.

I even gave you the link to the snopes response on how they would dismiss the data and then you basically used the very same excuses word for word! I am not making this up.

So thank you for playing but you just proved what I said in the first place, it is unfalsifiable.

[carpedm9587]

dude, YOU gave me the list on how to falsify AGW. When I provided both proofs you asked for, you just handwaved it away with "single data points" and "it's just one continent" (but it was both poles) and so on. Exactly as I said. And now you want to accuse ME of cherry picking? wow.

I DID provide you with the list. You DIDN'T provide me with what the list requires.

I even gave you the link to the snopes response on how they would dismiss the data and then you basically used the very same excuses word for word! I am not making this up.

Since I never went to Snopes at all, word-for-word seems a bit of a stretch. What I cited to you was from the study itself. Perhaps Snopes also cited the study?

So thank you for playing but you just proved what I said in the first place, it is unfalsifiable.

Actually it's not. There is a difference between "unfalsifiable" and "unfalsified." Unfalsifiable, in scientific terms, is a reference to a proposition for which there is no possible test to prove it wrong. To show that a claim is unfalsifiable, you do not need to show that is false; you need to show that there are no possible experiments that could be done to show it to be false. String theory is, so far, unfalsifiable, because no one has provided/defined a means to test the theory.

Human-impacted climate change is falsifiable - all you need to do is provide the data I asked for at global, untime-bound levels. Your problem is, that data that meets those criteria all pretty much points to the reality of climate change, so it remains unfalsified, but not unfalsifiable.

[Starlight]

Much of the conservative message is a backwards looking, "we liked it when" and "our country is being ruined with these changes." Progressives, on the other hand, embrace change and continually look for places to explore and ideas to try. Sometimes the experiments work, and sometimes they don't. The latter creates a degree of chaos and CAN be harmful.

Under normal circumstances, the former SHOULD be a check on the latter. Progressives should be hauling conservatives (usually kicking and screaming) into new ideas, enriching the world. Conservatives should be an anchor on progressives (who are usually kicking and screaming), to keep them from running off half-cocked on the next half-baked scheme. In a well-balanced system, progressives are the engine for renewal and revitalization and conservatives are the engine for stability: a check on de-stabilizing changes.

I have been thinking - I disagree with this perspective with regard to US politics insofar as I observe that all the changes introduced at the federal level by progressives in the post-war period have been good changes that have stood the test of time, whereas all the actions taken by conservatives (who are not really anti-change as I discussed in a previous post, and as you will see from the lists that follow) have been bad changes. One side has consistently been right and the other consistently wrong.

So let's consider what progressives have done in the US post-war at the federal level either themselves or through exerting enough pressure to force conservative administrations to comply (e.g. clean air act under Nixon): Civil rights act / desegregation; voting rights act; strong unions; clean air and clean water acts; seatbelts in cars; medicare; medicaid; social security, etc.

What have conservative policies done? War on Drugs; Tough on Crime; Wall St deregulation; Torture program; Iraq war; Trickle-down-economics / Massive tax cuts; Union-busting etc.

The progressive policies have been successful across the board, while the conservatives policies have failed across the board. It seems totally naive to me to try and be any sort of centrist given that history.

One dynamic I see that causes me the most concern is this "anti-government" theme. Government is continually painted as "they" and then villified. That government is "us" has been lost. We elect them. Any of "us" can be them, we simply have to step up to the plate: locally, regionally, or nationally. We can change government by changing who we vote for, or by getting into the mix and becoming part of our governing body. They is us. They is accountable to us.

If we continue to elect people who are taking big money from big donors and have said they will not cooperate with (or see as enemies) the "other side," why are we complaining about the results? We are electing for people that will vote for what their donors want (not us), and we are electing people dedicated to the proposition that government should be ineffective and inefficient (because it takes working together to make it work).

The problem is not them - the problem is us.

Yep. I see a big difference in how Americans view their own government versus how people in my country view our government. My country ranks as the least corrupt in the world. I see the government as my servant - I am the equivalent of the Pharaoh sitting on the throne and the government is my slave and if it doesn't feed me good enough grapes fast enough for my liking, I will take action against it. Whereas Americans seem to see their government as a highway bandit you should steer clear of or as a totalitarian regime that is likely to bust down their door and steal away their family at any moment. I don't really understand how Americans can see their government as so out of their control, given they have a democracy.

I think it's of primary importance that Americans clean up their government and de-corrupt politics. That means voting in candidates that have pledged to take no money from big donors - like Justice Democrats. It means passing a constitutional amendment to give congress the power to pass anti-corruption laws (they keep being struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional on free-speech groups because 'money = speech') - like Wolf PAC is pushing for. And it means getting more Democrat-appointed judges on the Supreme Court because the court keeps ruling down party lines on corruption cases and keeps ruling 5-4 to overturn the anti-corruption laws (IMO the corruption cases are 90% of the main reason to prefer Democrat-appointed SC judges over Republican ones, because corruption is just so ridiculously damaging to the rest of your political system).

[Leonhard]

So thank you for playing but you just proved what I said in the first place, it is unfalsifiable.

I disagree, whether the Earth is getting warmer or cooler over time is very much falsifiable, if we saw a world wide systematic drop in temperature over long enough period then the chance that this could be explained by anything other than the Earth getting colder would fall to zero, and that explanation would win out. Whether cause is primarily the CO2 + Water Vapor Feedback Cycle or something else, is also falsifiable, though the science here is very simple and basic so that's unlikely, it would require a complete overhaul of our understanding of heat radiation or a fundamental revolution in how weather systems work globally. Whether humans are the greatest producers of carbon dioxide, that's just a matter of counting up sources and see who is outputting more.

[carpedm9587]

I have been thinking - I disagree with this perspective with regard to US politics insofar as I observe that all the changes introduced at the federal level by progressives in the post-war period have been good changes that have stood the test of time, whereas all the actions taken by conservatives (who are not really anti-change as I discussed in a previous post, and as you will see from the lists that follow) have been bad changes. One side has consistently been right and the other consistently wrong.

So let's consider what progressives have done in the US post-war at the federal level either themselves or through exerting enough pressure to force conservative administrations to comply (e.g. clean air act under Nixon): Civil rights act / desegregation; voting rights act; strong unions; clean air and clean water acts; seatbelts in cars; medicare; medicaid; social security, etc.

What have conservative policies done? War on Drugs; Tough on Crime; Wall St deregulation; Torture program; Iraq war; Trickle-down-economics / Massive tax cuts; Union-busting etc.

The progressive policies have been successful across the board, while the conservatives policies have failed across the board. It seems totally naive to me to try and be any sort of centrist given that history.

So let me start with my first response. I have a radar that is tuned to superlatives. In my experience, as soon as they come out, there is an VERY high probability that something is amiss. As an aside, you will note that Trump speaks extensively in superlatives. He's regularly describing himself as the greatest, in the entire history of, the best, the only one, nobody is more, etc., etc. etc. Superlatives are a bad habit to break. I'm still breaking the habit myself. I have to go back and edit out at least one superlative in every post, and I'll bet I've missed several.

So when you tell me "all conservative accomplishments" and "all progressive accomoplishments," my "superlative radar" (as in I have the BEST radar since the beginning of time... ) goes off big time. Very seldom do I encounter a superlative that is true, especially about things related to people and groups.

One problem is your use of "good." As a value judgment, it is relative. Conservatives would not see the acceptance of gay marriage as "good." Progressives do. On the other hand, many (most) would not see tax cuts (massive or otherwise) as "bad." They have their reasons (much as I disagree with them) for wanting these and see them as good. So right away your split is a little suspect: it depends on who is defining "good" and "bad."

Second, I am always leary of a claim that one side is "all good" and the other side "all bad." I look at your list of progressive accomplishments and I see some dubious eggs. Yes, initially unions served a very important function in securing employee rights and protecting employees against a tyrannical workplace. Then many unions became corrupt power centers, leveraging their power to do some pretty horrendous things. I have had several encounters with unions in my life, and each one has left me scratching my head. I had a union member in a class I was teaching, who very much wanted to learn and participate in the various activities of the class. Unfortunately, some of them involved take-home work and he was prohibited from doing it by union rules (over time) and was even required to file a grievance against me if I required it. He was in the odd, apologetic position of wanting to do the work, but scared of the consequences to him if he broke ranks with the union, for the sake of a single class he WANTED to take. I taught another class of ONLY union members, and a new employee approached me over lunch and began sharing with me the bizarre world in which he worked. He was actually approached by union reps because he was working too hard! He was a go-getter and wanted to advance, but his performance was putting others to shame and WAY exceeded the union-negotiated output requirements. He was told they would arrange to get him fired if he continued. Now I know (and have said) that examples are not arguments, so this does not, by any means, prove unions have become bad. But these (and other) experiences, my examination of the history of unions, and some of the other union actions I have knowledge of, leave me with some real questionmarks about whether what started out as a good thing is still good.

I also don't think you can show that progressive policies have been "a success across the board." If that were true, we would not have such a broad, disenfranchised, working class in the U.S. The progressive move to embrace globalization is, IMO, the right move. But the execution has been deeply flawed, leaving MANY out in the cold and (partially) creating the backlash we are seeing today. Neither do I think you can show conservative policies have been a universal failure.

So I have a challenge for you. Tell me about at least ONE progressive initiative that was either not a good idea - or simply failed, and about at least ONE conservative initiative that was a good idea and successful. They are out there if you look for them.

[firstfloor]

You're ready to wear it?

It is now very clear that Capitalism is not going to solve this problem. The change is coming. It is Socialism. Democracy in the workplace.