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.
See more
See less

Climate change denier appointed head of NOAA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Climate change denier appointed head of NOAA.
    Climate Change is a huge subject with a ton of nuance. You know that so you should admit that.

    So calling someone a "denier" is worthless. What part does he "deny"? All of it? Some of it? A tiny bit? There's nothing in your OP

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      At the end of the day, all you're saying is, "Only trust the experts that happen to agree with me, and not the ones who don't."

      No - that simply isn't true. But I recognize you do not have the capacity to understand why nor the temperament to recognize and accept your limitations in that regard.
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-15-2020, 09:37 AM.
      He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

      "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Ronson View Post
        Climate Change is a huge subject with a ton of nuance. You know that so you should admit that.

        So calling someone a "denier" is worthless. What part does he "deny"? All of it? Some of it? A tiny bit? There's nothing in your OP
        I do admit that. Nevertheless, this particular scientist is not denying implications of the data that have any significant nuance to them, he is denying elements that are in the forefront of the research and for which the data is nearly* incontrovertible - specifically that the massive rise in atmospheric CO2 has human origin and that the measured rise is sufficient to be the major contributor to the warming in the latter half of the 20th and the 21st centuries. And so it is fairly easy to recognize that he is off the rails with his conclusions. As such, he is simply not qualified to head a scientific organization that is dealing with any aspect of climate science.

        *science is not a mechanism that allows for perfect knowledge.
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-15-2020, 09:40 AM.
        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          At the end of the day, all you're saying is, "Only trust the experts that happen to agree with me, and not the ones who don't."

          No, that would describe youeself and the other climate change deniers here, MM. We trust in the 97% of scientists who all agree that climate change is a fact and that it is mainly driven by human activity. You on the other hand only trust the 3%, who agree with you.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Federal Regulations Have Made Western Wildfires Worse
            Controlled, prescribed burns can stop wildfires from spreading. Too bad they are effectively prohibited by rules like the Clean Air Act.

            ...But the regulatory requirements one must meet before starting a controlled burn are complex and lengthy. According to Jonathan Wood, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation and an adjunct fellow with the Property and Environment Research Center, the National Environmental Policy Act requires "a couple-thousand-page document analyzing every single conceivable impact to the environment that the plan might have." This is a public process, Wood adds, that "often results in litigation." There's even more paperwork when the controlled burn might overlap with areas designated as critical habitat for an endangered species.

            "What you'll often find," Wood says, "is that there are projects which have been extremely well-vetted, which have been years in the work, there will be a 5,000-page document, which no one could conceivably ever read because it's so long and complicated, but then the project will still get put on hold for an indefinite period of time, because some special interest group filed a lawsuit." So much time is spent considering the ramifications of an action; little is spent considering the impact of doing nothing.

            The Clean Air Act of 1990 creates another obstacle. The law treat the smoke from a controlled, prescribed burn as a pollutant that must be analyzed and permitted before the burn can be done. The smoke from a wildfire is not similarly scrutinized. But needless to say, the environmental impact of a multi-state wildfire is much larger than that of a smaller controlled burn.

            https://reason.com/2020/09/14/wester...ent-are-eased/
            Yeah, forgot about the Clean Air Act. But I keep hearing about our Governor being pressured and taking on blame about the fires. Well...if he could go overboard with COVOD 19 restrictions with just GUIDELINES from the CDC, I wonder what he could do.with actual Federal laws and regs.
            Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              I believe you are probably correct in that, though i would need to research just how much impact they would have had on fires of this magnitude. I have heard it said that the native Indians had ways of helping to control them as well. Environmental groups and big business alike are often not good at recognizing the balance between human intervention and respect for nature required to properly manage and respect the environment around us.
              We (California) have been sniping at each other about fire control for decades. Some good, stringent rules have come out such as banning shale for roofs, requiring clearances around individual and groups of houses, etc. But not allowing the removal of dead trees etc kind of defeats the overall impact on an ecology that was BUILT over centuries for sweeping fires.

              Only solution, maybe, is to stop the population growth that drives urban expansions into the same areas so prone by nature to have those conflagrations.
              Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                No - that simply isn't true.
                It is absolutely true. Like it or not, David Legates is a legitimate expert, the exact sort of person you insist we should be listening to, but because he's not saying what you want, you tell us to discount his scientific opinion. It's hypocritical at best.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                  We (California) have been sniping at each other about fire control for decades. Some good, stringent rules have come out such as banning shale for roofs, requiring clearances around individual and groups of houses, etc. But not allowing the removal of dead trees etc kind of defeats the overall impact on an ecology that was BUILT over centuries for sweeping fires.

                  Only solution, maybe, is to stop the population growth that drives urban expansions into the same areas so prone by nature to have those conflagrations.
                  It's not entirely different from people who build in the known path of lava flows in Hawaii, or beach condo's and hotels in the eastern and south eastern and gulf coasts where hurricanes regularly land. We like to build where its pretty and fun, even if there are dangers involved.

                  I do think that after the 2017/18 fires and this fiasco (which is in fact creating haze and smoke significant enough to smell here in Maryland) it is time for the government of California to tell the special interest elements that can't see the forest for the trees to go take a hike and enact some practical and prudent measures that allow for the efficient and prudent proactive clearing of deadwood and scruff to accommodate the human population with minimal impact otherwise.
                  He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                  "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    It is absolutely true. Like it or not, David Legates is a legitimate expert, the exact sort of person you insist we should be listening to, but because he's not saying what you want, you tell us to discount his scientific opinion. It's hypocritical at best.
                    MM - your anti-science ignorance is legendary. But it is impossible to get you to face that fact. Legates is a outlier, he has a degree, he has done some legitimate research, but he is off the rails and displays a clear bias, which bottom line means he simply is not qualified to head a scientific organization.
                    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      MM - your anti-science ignorance is legendary. But it is impossible to get you to face that fact. Legates is a outlier, he has a degree, he has done some legitimate research, but he is off the rails and displays a clear bias, which bottom line means he simply is not qualified to head a scientific organization.
                      Not to mention that he has been handsomely paid by ideological and corporate climate deniers for his views which seems to be the case for most of the 3% of deniers.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        I do admit that. Nevertheless, this particular scientist is not denying implications of the data that have any significant nuance to them, he is denying elements that are in the forefront of the research and for which the data is nearly* incontrovertible - specifically that the massive rise in atmospheric CO2 has human origin and that the measured rise is sufficient to be the major contributor to the warming in the latter half of the 20th and the 21st centuries. And so it is fairly easy to recognize that he is off the rails with his conclusions. As such, he is simply not qualified to head a scientific organization that is dealing with any aspect of climate science.

                        *science is not a mechanism that allows for perfect knowledge.
                        You have some in here claiming he doesn't deny climate change, yet you're claiming he does. Maybe you should present examples specifically of what he denies and why he's wrong so we can get some handle on what you're referring to and why he should be classified as a "denier." Right now, throwing around words like "denier' and ignorance" just sounds more like religious fervor to some dogmatic belief.
                        "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          You have some in here claiming he doesn't deny climate change, yet you're claiming he does. Maybe you should present examples specifically of what he denies and why he's wrong so we can get some handle on what you're referring to and why he should be classified as a "denier." Right now, throwing around words like "denier' and ignorance" just sounds more like religious fervor to some dogmatic belief.
                          I believe Legates position is that climate change is not due in most part by human activity and therefore we should do nothing to reverrse it and should let nature take its course. Btw, this just out, 2 main glaciers in the Antarctic are coming apart and could raise the sea level by 10 feet. We also have 5 ongoing hurricanes crossing the Atlantic right now along with hurricane Sally about to hit Alabama which I believe is a new record for simultaneous hurricanes.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            You have some in here claiming he doesn't deny climate change, yet you're claiming he does. Maybe you should present examples specifically of what he denies and why he's wrong so we can get some handle on what you're referring to and why he should be classified as a "denier." Right now, throwing around words like "denier' and ignorance" just sounds more like religious fervor to some dogmatic belief.
                            He denies that the rise in CO2 is the primary contributor to the warming in the latter half of the 20th century and the 21st century - as I just said. As I quoted from him in post #5

                            Source: previously posted text

                            Legates has published research papers, opinion editorials, and spoken openly in opposition to the consensus scientific opinion on climate change. More recently, he has been known for his skepticism toward the anthropogenic cause of the observed global warming patterns and the severity of its consequences at the local geographical scale.[5]

                            Legates is a signer of the Oregon Petition, which stated: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth".[13]

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            So he signed that petition, which means he agrees with that statement. That statement is simply false from a data and physics standpoint. The monotonic rise in CO2 to current levels can only have one source when all known sources and sinks are taken into account - and that is mankind. And the physics wrt what that much CO2 in the atmosphere will do to global temperatures is also well established. We are also learning that the precipitous rise in temperatures spurred by anthropogenic CO2 is creating additional sources of greenhouse gasses which is creating unexpected feedbacks which ACCELERATE (not diminish) the effect - specifically the melting of permafrost which releases trapped methane and other greenhouse hydrocarbons along with CO2 and the unexpected but accelerating melting of large ice sheets which reduces the planetary albedo.

                            He also has financial ties to the fossil fuel industry - which is ALWAYS a bad sign when it comes to climate research. The fossil fuel industry has funded research of the sort the Tobacco industry funded to try to thwart efforts to label cigarette smoke and smoking as a leading cause of heart disease and lung cancer:

                            Source: above

                            Legates was formerly Delaware’s state climatologist, a position from which he he stepped down in 2011. He had come under pressure from then-Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D), because of his fossil fuel industry-funded research casting doubt on the science showing that burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels is the main factor behind heating the planet and would lead to dangerous effects such as sea level rise and extreme weather events.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Of course we don't know for sure if he just has some sort of internalized objection to the idea mankind is the chief cause that made the fossil industry want to fund him or if he just realized there was money to be made bending his research to suit their needs. But either way, it's "Tobacco Science" as it were. It is not reality and does not reflect conclusions actual unbiased research will derive from the data.

                            As for him 'not denying climate change', one needs to read that statement a little more closely. He doen't deny the 'possibility' humans have affected the climate. This statement simply doesn't get him 'off the hook' wrt to his outlier position. It's just a patronizing statement that allows people that don't understand the science to believe 'climate change denier' may not be a reasonable description of his position. The fact is, the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere year of year has no other potential outcome than significant global temperature rise decade over decade.
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-15-2020, 12:11 PM.
                            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              well then, what are you complaining about?
                              You're the ones screeching global warming.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                No, that would describe youeself and the other climate change deniers here, MM. We trust in the 97% of scientists who all agree that climate change is a fact and that it is mainly driven by human activity. You on the other hand only trust the 3%, who agree with you.
                                That 97 percent nonsense has been long debunked.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X