Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The Climate Scare: Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious
Collapse
X
-
Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI made sure not to buy any coastal properties in the first place. Both my houses are high enough above sea level that they won't be endangered until I'm long gone.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo the big plan to save the world is to come up with a plan?
Pretty much the whole point of it is that each country individually comes up with a plan for what they are going to do that meets certain basic criteria, and these plans are shared internationally. Then the scientists can crunch the numbers from all the plans and answer questions like "if everyone follows their proposed plans, what's the level of global warming going to be?" and work out if the plans all need to be stepped up a notch or if they're good enough. And also work out if any country's plan is particularly silly, highly improbable, not actually being followed by them, or far less than their fair share. Then the diplomats meet at regular intervals to decide what they're going to do about countries that aren't pulling their weight, pat themselves on the back if everyone's doing great, or panic if the data shows that countries as a whole aren't following their own plans and/or the scientific data shows that the combined plans even if implemented don't stop global warming by a sufficient amount.
The Paris Agreement is often called a 'framework' because it sets up this basic "each country write a public plan and then everyone meets regularly" framework. It doesn't itself particularly commit any given country to any particular level of achievement.
So what the US could have done, rather than spitting the dummy at the Paris Agreement as a whole, they could have just said "our own country's plan is to do nothing ourselves" and submitted that as their country's plan and then attended the international meetings and bullied other countries into doing more while continuing to choose to do nothing themselves and in general being too big and powerful for the other countries to respond with economic sanctions on the US for its failure to do its fair share. That would have, loosely speaking, complied with the Paris Agreement framework. Instead the US has gone the route of "we hate science, we hate the planet, we hate all other countries, waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, we're out of here!" and chosen to fully abdicate any international leadership and discussion role whatsoever in the ongoing meetings between the 197 countries who have chosen to agree to the Paris framework. Presumably over time certain countries will emerge as diplomatic leaders within this process, and take on increased international leadership roles, and since the US isn't there it won't be the US."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI'm talking about claims like AOC's "12 years" and predictions which have already failed to pan out like "all arctic ice will be gone by 2013" or "all glaciers will be gone in 5 years" or the like. That's not decades, and if people believe such claims, they should be getting out from under coastal properties ASAP before their property value dwindles to nothing because it's all underwater.
One such example is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is a huge mass of ice in Antarctica that is on a downhill slope into the ocean, and it contains enough total ice to significantly raise sea levels. If it were to start slipping off into the ocean and melting, then there would be nothing that could be done to stop it moving, and scientists have put a lot of effort into trying to estimate exactly what it would take to trigger the process by which the whole thing began to slide off into the sea. It wouldn't do so instantly and once it started sliding off would take decades to fully slide off and melt. So the sea levels would not suddenly rise in 12 years times. Rather, the idea is that if sufficient action is not taken within the 12 year window, then irreversible processes are triggered that will have negative effects on human civilizations for decades after that.
So AOC's "12 year" reference is not a prediction that "you will be able to see disaster has happened in 12 years and 1 day when you wake up and look out the window and find your house is now underwater", it's "the scientists are telling us that if we don't take action within the next 12 years, a number of irreversible processes are likely to be triggered which will have negative effects over the decades to follow, and at that point it will be too late for us to act to prevent them". Now that prediction could still be wrong - we might get to 12 years from now and the scientists might say "actually, none of the irreversible processes we were worried about are showing any signs of having been triggered, we now calculate there's another 20 years to act to stop them being triggered" - but its not something the average person will be able to see with their own eyes in 12 years time as to whether or not it has occurred (well, you might be able to see pictures of massive cracks in key antarctic ice sheets or something, but looking out your window won't tell you anything).
So serious sea level rise isn't forecasted to occur on day one after the 12 years is up, it will begin to slowly occur at a tiny rate per year about then and continue to occur for decades after that. So the timeframe for selling sea-adjacent property isn't 12 years, its decades - although its value and insurableness may begin to rapid diminish if after 12 years scientists are able to confirm that one of the irreversible gradual-sea-level-rise triggers have been hit and supply a fairly exact time period for when the house will be under water."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostWe will survive (as long as we don't nuke ourselves). We were here 100,000 years ago when the seas were 10 meters higher and it was as warm or warmer than now. Our culture will have to change, our cities will have to move.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostWhy only post-1970? Humans have been using fossil fuels and burning down forests for far, far longer.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
jimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIm not ignoring it tassman. I just think you statement about our survival is over the top. And what youve quoted isnt contrary to what I said. What evidence do you have that says humanity will not survive AGW?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou have two houses? You are one of the rich people that the liberals are coming to lynch and take your money! Good thing you are already in the hills or I would tell you to run for them!
When I changed jobs a few years back it made more economic sense to buy a second house than to rent a room/flat/house near where I was working.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIt's depressing that what the Paris Agreement does is news to you.
Pretty much the whole point of it is that each country individually comes up with a plan for what they are going to do that meets certain basic criteria, and these plans are shared internationally. Then the scientists can crunch the numbers from all the plans and answer questions like "if everyone follows their proposed plans, what's the level of global warming going to be?" and work out if the plans all need to be stepped up a notch or if they're good enough. And also work out if any country's plan is particularly silly, highly improbable, not actually being followed by them, or far less than their fair share. Then the diplomats meet at regular intervals to decide what they're going to do about countries that aren't pulling their weight, pat themselves on the back if everyone's doing great, or panic if the data shows that countries as a whole aren't following their own plans and/or the scientific data shows that the combined plans even if implemented don't stop global warming by a sufficient amount.
The Paris Agreement is often called a 'framework' because it sets up this basic "each country write a public plan and then everyone meets regularly" framework. It doesn't itself particularly commit any given country to any particular level of achievement.
So what the US could have done, rather than spitting the dummy at the Paris Agreement as a whole, they could have just said "our own country's plan is to do nothing ourselves" and submitted that as their country's plan and then attended the international meetings and bullied other countries into doing more while continuing to choose to do nothing themselves and in general being too big and powerful for the other countries to respond with economic sanctions on the US for its failure to do its fair share. That would have, loosely speaking, complied with the Paris Agreement framework. Instead the US has gone the route of "we hate science, we hate the planet, we hate all other countries, waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, we're out of here!" and chosen to fully abdicate any international leadership and discussion role whatsoever in the ongoing meetings between the 197 countries who have chosen to agree to the Paris framework. Presumably over time certain countries will emerge as diplomatic leaders within this process, and take on increased international leadership roles, and since the US isn't there it won't be the US.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo yes, the great plan is to come up with a plan.
It wasn't like America was being asked to do anything unreasonable. It wasn't like liberals were setting some sort of ideological proposal for people living in hobbit holes. It was pretty much: "Please write a plan, any plan, that you feel is appropriate for your country". Even that was too much for Trump. Probably because he's incapable of writing."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 04:03 AM
|
23 responses
111 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 12:19 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 12:51 PM
|
97 responses
518 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 09:31 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:47 AM
|
5 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by mossrose
Yesterday, 12:18 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:36 AM
|
5 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 07:37 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-11-2024, 07:25 AM
|
57 responses
261 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 04:28 PM
|
Comment