Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[barton]

How important is the climate change threat?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/business/jpmorgan-climate-crisis-inequality/index.html

JP Morgan is putting $2.5 trillion into it.

A trillion here,  a trillion there,  pretty soon you're talking real money.   

Topsoil restoration will take massive investment, too.  No-till farming,  "green manure, " etc.

It might be useful to pay attention to scientists who actually look at all aspects of climate change and have one warning to people like you and Josh:
 “Stop us­ing the worst-case sce­nario for cli­mate warm­ing as the most likely out­come.” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

That has nothing to do with JPMs plans,  or the farm article.  Studies of soil loss are not done by the IPCC.  I know one of the researchers at the University of Nebraska who contributed to the current estimate. 

And scientists present multiple warming scenarios.  If a shlock media outlet picks only the worst to report,  that's sensation mongering,  and not something I've supported here.

When I post here,  I don't select the most dire scenario, and so am not really in need of your "warning."

 A recent report of reputable climate scientists has pointed out that most estimates of where we'd be in 2020, made a couple decades ago,  were actually overly conservative.   Rates of pack ice and glacier melt,  methane rise,  fire incidence, habitat loss,  etc were worse than initially expected.   There seems to be an accelerated effect due to positive feedback.

A secret report?

Not really.   First one I read was in Sci Am a few years ago....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

More recently,  a book was written on the trend of overly conservative projections, discussed here....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/the-real-reason-some-scientists-downplay-the-risks-of-climate-change

However,  in terms of predicting the mean global temperature increase, the models have been pretty accurate....


https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/12/4/20991315/climate-change-prediction-models-accurate

So,  accurate on temps,  too conservative on the effects of that temperature rise average.   If that distinction isn't clear,  you can reread the articles.   Googling "permafrost melting" is another possible way to see how feedback effects come into play,  where you have ancient bogs thawing and releasing methane and carbon both.   The general term "cryosphere" is handy in further understanding of how melting surfaces generally increase Earths absorption of heat.  Ice is like a mirror,  reflecting heat back into space.  When it's melted,  the resulting open land,  or bog,  or ocean,  all become vastly better heat sinks.

All of which misses the point.


Surging sea levels are inundating the coasts.”

“Hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming fiercer and more frequent.”

“Climate change will be an economic disaster.”

You’ve heard all this presented as fact. But according to science,  all of these statements are profoundly misleading.

That’s from the Amazon ad touting a new book by Steve Koonin, a the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cist and chief sci­en­tist of the Obama En­ergy De­partment.

In an advance reading by Holman Jenkins of the WSJ ­Koonin’s  point is what  the
plain, rec­og­nized, con­sensus  sci­ence says about cli­mate change:
It won’t be cat­astrophic.
It’s un­likely to be in­flu­enced in a ma­jor way by pol­icy ac­tions.
The costs will be large in re­la­tion to everything ex­cept the fu­ture, richer econ­omy that will eas­ily pay for them.

That underscores the priority of growing our economy to meet those demands.

Maybe you should put it in your reading list.

I might,  but be aware Steve Koonin has no training or work experience in atmospheric physics, climatology,  or earth sciences.   He taught theoretical physics decades ago,  then went to work for BP.  And he was paid by Trump administration to "red team" at the EPA, organized to attack the scientific consensus on GW.   His projections on the "minor" consequences of a NINE DEGREE F.  rise in mean global temperature are considered laughably ludicrous by scientists with actual expertise in the field.  His understanding of positive feedback cycles and tipping points appears to be dim.   His knowledge of agricultural effects,  nonexistent.   So,  to recap:  paid shill for a petroleum company and Trump hatchet man against science,  but sure,  I'm salivatin' to be reading his new book.   

[REDSTATEWARD]

How important is the climate change threat?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/business/jpmorgan-climate-crisis-inequality/index.html

JP Morgan is putting $2.5 trillion into it.

A trillion here,  a trillion there,  pretty soon you're talking real money.   

Topsoil restoration will take massive investment, too.  No-till farming,  "green manure, " etc.

It might be useful to pay attention to scientists who actually look at all aspects of climate change and have one warning to people like you and Josh:
 “Stop us­ing the worst-case sce­nario for cli­mate warm­ing as the most likely out­come.” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

That has nothing to do with JPMs plans,  or the farm article.  Studies of soil loss are not done by the IPCC.  I know one of the researchers at the University of Nebraska who contributed to the current estimate. 

And scientists present multiple warming scenarios.  If a shlock media outlet picks only the worst to report,  that's sensation mongering,  and not something I've supported here.

When I post here,  I don't select the most dire scenario, and so am not really in need of your "warning."

 A recent report of reputable climate scientists has pointed out that most estimates of where we'd be in 2020, made a couple decades ago,  were actually overly conservative.   Rates of pack ice and glacier melt,  methane rise,  fire incidence, habitat loss,  etc were worse than initially expected.   There seems to be an accelerated effect due to positive feedback.

A secret report?

Not really.   First one I read was in Sci Am a few years ago....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

More recently,  a book was written on the trend of overly conservative projections, discussed here....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/the-real-reason-some-scientists-downplay-the-risks-of-climate-change

However,  in terms of predicting the mean global temperature increase, the models have been pretty accurate....


https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/12/4/20991315/climate-change-prediction-models-accurate

So,  accurate on temps,  too conservative on the effects of that temperature rise average.   If that distinction isn't clear,  you can reread the articles.   Googling "permafrost melting" is another possible way to see how feedback effects come into play,  where you have ancient bogs thawing and releasing methane and carbon both.   The general term "cryosphere" is handy in further understanding of how melting surfaces generally increase Earths absorption of heat.  Ice is like a mirror,  reflecting heat back into space.  When it's melted,  the resulting open land,  or bog,  or ocean,  all become vastly better heat sinks.

All of which misses the point.


Surging sea levels are inundating the coasts.”

“Hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming fiercer and more frequent.”

“Climate change will be an economic disaster.”

You’ve heard all this presented as fact. But according to science,  all of these statements are profoundly misleading.

That’s from the Amazon ad touting a new book by Steve Koonin, a the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cist and chief sci­en­tist of the Obama En­ergy De­partment.

In an advance reading by Holman Jenkins of the WSJ ­Koonin’s  point is what  the
plain, rec­og­nized, con­sensus  sci­ence says about cli­mate change:
It won’t be cat­astrophic.
It’s un­likely to be in­flu­enced in a ma­jor way by pol­icy ac­tions.
The costs will be large in re­la­tion to everything ex­cept the fu­ture, richer econ­omy that will eas­ily pay for them.

That underscores the priority of growing our economy to meet those demands.

Maybe you should put it in your reading list.

I might,  but be aware Steve Koonin has no training or work experience in atmospheric physics, climatology,  or earth sciences. 

These are criteria YOU choose to discuss climate change?
Actually you dismiss Koonin only because anybody who has a differing  view must be a climate change
 “ denier”.
You are not interested in honest discussions with anyone other than those who agree with you.

[facilitatorn]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/04/15/jim-jordan-dr-anthony-fauci-heated-exchange-hearing-vpx.cnn


Let's go!!!!

Over the fucking ledge...

Gym Jordan and his Pedo caucus seem extra twitchy about a lot of things these days. Not a good look for them, with all the flop sweat.

Maybe someone someone got around to telling Gym that WhatsApp isn’t really private.

Auntie Maxine put the colicky child in his place right quick before it turned into the scene from Airplane.

[Hamilton Samuels]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/04/15/jim-jordan-dr-anthony-fauci-heated-exchange-hearing-vpx.cnn


Let's go!!!!

john Boehner calls Jim Jordan a political terrorist.

He elaborates: "I just never saw a guy who spent more time tearing things apart ― never building anything, never putting anything together."


True. What has Jim Jordan ever done for the people of Ohio? Or the people of the United States?

Zilch.

Zip.

Nada.

Jim Jordan is all about Jim Jordan.

And what else has the former Speaker said of this putz?

Breaking the ice, I mention some news of the day—that Trey Gowdy appears likely to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The previous chairman, Jason Chaffetz, had abruptly announced his resignation from Congress; House conservatives had hoped that Jim Jordan, a senior member on the committee, might pursue the chairmanship. Boehner grins. “Gowdy—that’s my guy, even though he doesn’t know how to dress,” he says. Then Boehner leans back in his chair. “Fuck Jordan. Fuck Chaffetz. They’re both assholes.”

“Fuck Jordan. Fuck Chaffetz. They’re both assholes.”

...His problems with Jordan, the founding chairman of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, run much deeper. To Boehner and his allies, Jordan was the antagonist in the story of his speakership—an embodiment of the brinkmanship and betrayal that roiled the House Republican majority and made Boehner’s life miserable. Although he would tell me in later conversations that he holds no grudges against anyone, today Boehner unloads on his fellow Ohioan. “Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner says. “A terrorist. A legislative terrorist.”

Just clarifying who you're rooting for, kid. An asshole political terrorist.

 Have at it.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Scientific American magazine announced Monday that it would stop using the term "climate change" in articles about man-made global warming and substitute "climate emergency" instead.

"Journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here," Scientific American senior editor Mark Fischetti said in a Monday post about the magazine's decision.

To make his point, Fischetti pointed to the mounting number of weather-related disasters that most scientists agree stem from climate change.

"A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas," Fischetti wrote. "These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change."

The oldest continuously published magazine in the U.S., Scientific American is not alone it its decision to highlight what it sees as an emergency requiring immediate action. It joined the Columbia Journalism Review, the Nation, the Guardian, Noticias Telemundo, Al Jazeera, Japan's Asahi Shimbun and Italy's La Repubblica in releasing a statement about the change in language.

"The planet is heating up way too fast. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here," the statement said, adding, "Why 'emergency'? Because words matter. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately."


https://news.yahoo.com/citing-grave-threat-scientific-american-replacing-climate-change-with-climate-emergency-181629578.html


Red is, as usual, out of step with reality.

He's the Jim Jordan of the forum.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/breakthrough-infections-covid-vaccines-cdc/index.html

5800 fully vaccinated folks have caught COVID-19 subsequent to their vaccinations.

74 of them have died.

[kidcarter8]

I am very very surprised Fauci has not resigned

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/breakthrough-infections-covid-vaccines-cdc/index.html

5800 fully vaccinated folks have caught COVID-19 subsequent to their vaccinations.

74 of them have died.

77 million have been vaccinated.
The effective rate of the combined 3 vaccines is.99992468

[josh]

I am very very surprised Fauci has not resigned

He probably did it just to spite you.

[josh]

Yesterday a white man in Minnesota assaulted a retail worker, rammed into a police car, hit a cop in the head with a HAMMER, then drove off with the cop STILL ATTACHED to his vehicle. Was he shot? NO. Was he tased? NO. What a stark contrast to Daunte Wright...

[josh]

Okay, so proper word choice matters a ton, sometimes. This is one of those times.

But other than that, I agree with the sentiment, 100%.

[kidcarter8]

I guess Mac knows someone who has defended the killing.

Must hang with Boogie on Twitter

[facilitatorn]

Your asshole is showing again, you pasty worthless fuck.

[josh]

This is not the only place with such problems. I hope that they manage to not lose any more police to this crap.

https://www.valleycentral.com/news/state-news/texas-police-officer-shot-multiple-times-during-traffic-stop-wednesday-morning-4th-in-last-three-weeks

[bambu.]

This is not the only place with such problems. I hope that they manage to not lose any more police to this crap.

https://www.valleycentral.com/news/state-news/texas-police-officer-shot-multiple-times-during-traffic-stop-wednesday-morning-4th-in-last-three-weeks

The idea of police officers walking up to the windows of cars in traffic stops is floored.
Leaves the officers wide open to this sort of thing, gunned down by occupants.

There should always be 2 officers in every police car.
Both should get out of the car at traffic stops.
All occupants of cars at traffic stops should have to get out the cars, hands in air, move to the gutter side of the road. One officer to have a machine gun trained on them.
Problem solved. No officers shot.