Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[carpedm9587]

I have to disagree. None of us is perfect. That lack of perfection doesn't make us "evil" or "bad." It just makes us human. I don't "need Jesus" to save me from my humanity.

But perhaps this is a topic for a different thread.

[Cow Poke]

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.

you wish

[Starlight]

I have a radar that is tuned to superlatives.

The use of them tends to be a personal stylistic quirk on my part. If you read anything deeper into them I would say you are probably over-reading it.

I also have a radar which often goes off when reading your posts, but mine goes off when people try too hard to find 'middle ground' or find the 'truth in both sides' or be centrist for the sake of centrism. I'll grant I have a scientific background and I am used to a hypothesis being true or false, and fuzzy 'there's truth to both the true and false positions' tends to get in the way. But if you turn to the history of politics you actually find it does tend to be quite black and white in retrospect. On the issue of slavery, there wasn't value in the views of both sides, or a reasonable middle ground. With Democracy vs Monarchy the same. With women getting the vote, the same. etc.

More generally speaking, if you take a person from an asylum and also a university professor and ask them about truth, then the truth isn't found by taking a centrist position between their views, and doing both-sides-have-value-ism. The fact of the matter is that if a person is intelligent and well-educated and thoughtful and experienced and has a reasonably unbiased worldview that isn't being affected by religious quirks, then they are more likely to be consistently right across issues, than a person who is lacking intelligence, education, knowledge etc and who gets their views from a holy book. It's not that each of them is going to be right half the time or that the truth is going to lie halfway between them. It's that there are clear reasons why one is likely to be right in general and one is likely to be wrong in general.

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.

Trump's use of language in general, superlatives and otherwise, is something books could be written about. It doesn't make language itself bad because he misuses it.

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 well, let's phrase it as a challenge:

1. I challenge you to come up with things that progressives post-WWII have enacted (as progressives because they wanted to, rather than due to political pressure from conservatives) at the federal level that were popular among progressives at the time, but which turned out to be bad to a sufficient extent that today a large majority of people (progressives included) would not agree with those policies and be against them.

2. I challenge you to do the same for conservatives and good policies. Tell me some things the conservatives have enacted (or progressive policies they cancelled/undid) that today would have widespread acceptance/praise across the board.

My contention is that those two categories of "progressives doing things that turned out bad" and "conservatives doing things that turned out good" are almost entirely empty or perhaps even entirely empty. Whereas the categories of "progressives doing things that turned out well" and "conservatives doing things that turned out badly" are very large categories containing many things (as are the in-betweens of "progressives/conservatives doing things that turned out average").

Conservatives would not see the acceptance of gay marriage as "good." Progressives do.

It is clear from the polling data that gay marriage is gaining increasing acceptance (Pew noted that as of 2017 more Republicans support same sex marriage than oppose). It seems to be following roughly the same trend as acceptance of interracial marriage, and it seems to me likely it will eventually become an all-but universally accepted. I omitted that from my list however because (1) it was not enacted at the federal level, it came through the courts (although you could arguably conservative attempts to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage or things like DOMA in the category of conservative policies that in hindsight proved to be bad ideas), (2) there is not yet sufficiently close to universal acceptance of it to describe it as a policy that both sides of the spectrum can agree was a good idea.

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.

Um... that is my challenge to you. I am saying that I cannot think of any / am not aware of any. Sure at a very local level there are probably plenty as people on both sides of the spectrum come up with plenty of ideas both good and bad and try them out. But at a US federal level?

The only one I am aware of in the history of your country is prohibition, and I think it's likely historically arguable to blame that mistake on progressives (though I will readily admit to knowing very little about that era in US history), as conservatives typically like to pass restrictions on alcohol as much as progressives do. But that predates my post-WWII specified period (which is partly given because the social and political dynamics of the country were very different prior to that period and is a nice clear cut-off in terms of where the 'modern political era' in the Western world started, and partly because my knowledge of US politics is pretty limited prior to that).

[firstfloor]

you wish

We are the 99%.

[Tassman]

Gore is a fraud, all out for himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700780.html

So, the question remains, why Evangelicals are so opposed to the notion of human-caused climate change, when the vast majority of climatologists accept it as certain and that the consequences will be so catastrophic for us and future generations. Why?

[Cow Poke]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700780.html

So, the question remains, why Evangelicals are so opposed to the notion of human-caused climate change, when the vast majority of climatologists accept it as certain and that the consequences will be so catastrophic for us and future generations. Why?

Gore is a fearmonger. You may bow at his feet all you want.

[seer]

We are the 99%.

But a lot of the 99% (like me) don't think like you.

[firstfloor]

But a lot of the 99% (like me) don't think like you.

We truly are a diverse 99% but neither of us are earning our profits in foreign tax havens or using our vast wealth to influence the political system, engage in gerrymandering or play games in the military/industrial complex or the health/industrial complex, etc., etc. In more ways than you might imagine, we are on the same team.

[Sparko]

IMG_3001.JPG

[seer]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25789[/ATTACH]

Well, I'm sitting home with a bone racking flu, and according to the weather guys we are experiencing a Bomb Cyclone, with blizzard conditions. With wind chill of -20 over the next two days. I wish Trump left this global warming thing alone...

[Mountain Man]

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 12 warmest years on record (2003, 2006, and 2007 tie as 10th warmest).

© Copyright Original Source

It seems you are not conversant with the facts. I posted this in another thread:

NASA has deliberately corrupted the historical temperature record, and they've been doing it for years. They are not a reliable source.

Source: American Thinker

The NASA/GISS temperature record is not actually a record of recorded temperatures. It is simply the most recent version of NASA's adjustments to older adjustments. It is not thermometer readings. It is models all the way down.

In 2012, I wrote an American Thinker article on the status of global warming at the time. I used the latest available NASA/GISS data to do that analysis, which was the version NASA had on its website on April 30, 2012 (Land-Ocean Temperature Index [LOTI]).

At that time, the data from 1880 through 2011 showed a warming trend of 0.59 degrees Celsius per century.

What is that warming trend using the latest data from NASA's website (December 30, 2017), using those same exact years (1880-2011)? The answer is 0.66˚ C.

How did warming accelerate if we are looking at the very same years?

Apparently, the Earth is getting warmer faster than it was five and a half years ago, but not because of actual recorded thermometer readings in those last five and a half years. It is getting warmer faster because NASA adjusted the data to show faster warming.

When you go to the NASA website, you can download temperature anomalies "1880-present." But those data change every month. NASA adjusts it. You cannot find any older versions. NASA makes available only its most recent version. And NASA does not explain how it adjusts the data. You must simply trust it.

I still have the data from 2012 only because I downloaded them to a spreadsheet and kept that spreadsheet.

[...]

And I have no idea how much adjusting NASA did before April 2012. For all I know, the entire "warming trend" is simply one big "adjustment trend."

I wrote of NASA's "rubber ruler" in 2012. NASA changes the temperature "record," going back to 1880, every month. In just one month in 2012, August to September, 60% of NASA's temperature record changed. How did temperature readings in August of 2012 cause 60% of the temperatures from 1880 to 2011 to change? Anthony Watts says NASA is violating the Data Quality Act.

How does one validate a climate model using temperature observations, if those "observations" were themselves adjusted using models? Real science means using the scientific method, which means using physical measurements to test a hypothesis.

The simple explanation is that NASA is reversing that method. It apparently uses the global warming hypothesis to adjust physical measurements. That is not science. It is the opposite of science.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...an_update.html

© Copyright Original Source

And it's not just NASA:

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...d-study-finds/

© Copyright Original Source

From the study itself:

[Sparko]

Well, I'm sitting home with a bone racking flu, and according to the weather guys we are experiencing a Bomb Cyclone, with blizzard conditions. With wind chill of -20 over the next two days. I wish Trump left this global warming thing alone...

I guess you are getting tired of winning?

[One Bad Pig]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25789[/ATTACH]

Doesn't look much like a heat wave out West, either (looking at you, toastie).

[carpedm9587]

The use of them tends to be a personal stylistic quirk on my part. If you read anything deeper into them I would say you are probably over-reading it.

I also have a radar which often goes off when reading your posts, but mine goes off when people try too hard to find 'middle ground' or find the 'truth in both sides' or be centrist for the sake of centrism. I'll grant I have a scientific background and I am used to a hypothesis being true or false, and fuzzy 'there's truth to both the true and false positions' tends to get in the way. But if you turn to the history of politics you actually find it does tend to be quite black and white in retrospect. On the issue of slavery, there wasn't value in the views of both sides, or a reasonable middle ground. With Democracy vs Monarchy the same. With women getting the vote, the same. etc.

More generally speaking, if you take a person from an asylum and also a university professor and ask them about truth, then the truth isn't found by taking a centrist position between their views, and doing both-sides-have-value-ism. The fact of the matter is that if a person is intelligent and well-educated and thoughtful and experienced and has a reasonably unbiased worldview that isn't being affected by religious quirks, then they are more likely to be consistently right across issues, than a person who is lacking intelligence, education, knowledge etc and who gets their views from a holy book. It's not that each of them is going to be right half the time or that the truth is going to lie halfway between them. It's that there are clear reasons why one is likely to be right in general and one is likely to be wrong in general.

I don't take "position X" because I'm centrist. I am centrist because the breadth of my positions spans the political spectrum, averaging somewere left of center. But I am more left on social issues and more right on fiscal ones. On any given position, I make every effort to at least understand the other side, so I can try to understand what the underlying issues are. That doesn't mean I don't have a position or am shy about articulating it. Trytng to understand the right's motivation for their stance on the 2nd Amendement doesn't mean I don't want better, more consistent gun control. Trying to understand the left's position on abortion doesn't stop me from seeing abortion as the killing of a child and wanting to do everything (ethically) in my power to end the practice. I simply feel we have too many people writing off the opposing viewpoint as "enemies" and "they" and "other" in this country. I prefer the model of the "loyal opposition."

Trump's use of language in general, superlatives and otherwise, is something books could be written about. It doesn't make language itself bad because he misuses it.

Very well, let's phrase it as a challenge:

1. I challenge you to come up with things that progressives post-WWII have enacted (as progressives because they wanted to, rather than due to political pressure from conservatives) at the federal level that were popular among progressives at the time, but which turned out to be bad to a sufficient extent that today a large majority of people (progressives included) would not agree with those policies and be against them.

2. I challenge you to do the same for conservatives and good policies. Tell me some things the conservatives have enacted (or progressive policies they cancelled/undid) that today would have widespread acceptance/praise across the board.

My contention is that those two categories of "progressives doing things that turned out bad" and "conservatives doing things that turned out good" are almost entirely empty or perhaps even entirely empty. Whereas the categories of "progressives doing things that turned out well" and "conservatives doing things that turned out badly" are very large categories containing many things (as are the in-betweens of "progressives/conservatives doing things that turned out average").

It is clear from the polling data that gay marriage is gaining increasing acceptance (Pew noted that as of 2017 more Republicans support same sex marriage than oppose). It seems to be following roughly the same trend as acceptance of interracial marriage, and it seems to me likely it will eventually become an all-but universally accepted. I omitted that from my list however because (1) it was not enacted at the federal level, it came through the courts (although you could arguably conservative attempts to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage or things like DOMA in the category of conservative policies that in hindsight proved to be bad ideas), (2) there is not yet sufficiently close to universal acceptance of it to describe it as a policy that both sides of the spectrum can agree was a good idea.

Um... that is my challenge to you. I am saying that I cannot think of any / am not aware of any. Sure at a very local level there are probably plenty as people on both sides of the spectrum come up with plenty of ideas both good and bad and try them out. But at a US federal level?

The only one I am aware of in the history of your country is prohibition, and I think it's likely historically arguable to blame that mistake on progressives (though I will readily admit to knowing very little about that era in US history), as conservatives typically like to pass restrictions on alcohol as much as progressives do. But that predates my post-WWII specified period (which is partly given because the social and political dynamics of the country were very different prior to that period and is a nice clear cut-off in terms of where the 'modern political era' in the Western world started, and partly because my knowledge of US politics is pretty limited prior to that).

Conservatism: I think we can credit conservativism for a significant amount of the focus on protecting freedom of speech. There is a strong tendency, in the left, to attempt to isolate and shut down language that is deemed inappropriate, as it pushes forward greater awareness of ways in which our language NEEDS to change. It is unfortunate that the right is doing this protecting in the context of defending the right to speak of some very hateful people, but that is the true exercise of a country's commitment to freedom of expression. It is easy to listen to something you agree with or have no opinion on. But to truly defend freedom of speech, you have to defend the right of the person who is standing up and saying the most vile things you can imagine. Contend with them - dispute what they say - but do not prohibit their right to say it.

Progressives: I find, in general, that progressives rush to implement government programs without considering the "Cobra Effect," often creating programs without adequate protections against co-dependence, ooutright fraud, a sense of entitlement, or creating a poverty "trap." Where the right seems to constantly harp on the abuses of these programs, essentially denying that there actually ARE people in need, I find the left does the reverse: focusing on the people in need and ignoring/denying (or protecting against) the abuses.

Neither of these is 100% clean, because both sides have contributed to the problems/benefits associated with both issues. That is part of my point. Absolutes are simply not justified.

[seer]

I guess you are getting tired of winning?

I hate you!