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

[Yankguy1]

Another mass shooting.  This in Indy. 

[josh]

Another mass shooting.  This in Indy.

When the news describes it as "the deadliest since 10 were killed on March 22nd," you know we are having too many of them.

I suspect FedEx may rethink the "no cell phones on the floor" rule.

And I cannot imagine the agony of waiting at the nearby hotel to find out if your loved one is okay or not.

[LarryBnDC]

When Pat Robertson says we have a policing problem...

[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. 

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.

A false imputation you create by only quoting the first line of my post.   In fact,  I go on to specifically address the bad science of his 9 deg.  temp increase scenario,  and also that he was hired by Trump NOT to have an honest inquiry but rather to boost a conclusion that scientists reject, and to attack the data from an ideological basis rather than a scientific one. 

And as plenty of reputable people have pointed out,  you can't be the pointman for scientific objectivity on climatology when you work for BP.   Or a "red team" put together by Trump.   I'm done.   You can stop pretending you know anything about science or its methodological basis.   

[barton]

When Pat Robertson says we have a policing problem...

[Oi!]

Real scientists take down Steve Koonin's bad science...

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/06/koonins-case-for-yet-another-review-of-climate-science/

[barton]

When he doesn't have the Right pulling his strings,  GW Bush seems like a pretty smart and humane sort of guy.   His thoughts on immigrants seem heartfelt and sensible...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/16/george-w-bush-immigration-portraits-out-of-many-one/

[barton]

“There are people who have been looking for any reason to get their hands on all of the ballots. Now they’ve gotten their chance — and we don’t know what they’re going to do with it,” said Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D), whose office is in charge of state elections. Hobbs said she is examining possible legal options to stop the process...   

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/arizona-recount-cyber-ninjas/2021/04/16/b3cbbf08-996e-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819_story.html

[kidcarter8]

When the news describes it as "the deadliest since 10 were killed on March 22nd," you know we are having too many of them.


The ever stupid "news"

[Hamilton Samuels]

Another mass shooting.  This in Indy.

The USA is getting back to normal.

[Hamilton Samuels]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/548649-biden-hits-59-percent-approval-rating-in-pew-poll

A majority of Americans — 59 percent — approve of President Biden's handling of his job as he approaches 100 days in office, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Friday.

The poll found Biden's job approval is up 5 percentage points from 54 percent in March, while 39 percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of his work thus far.

Biden's 59 percent approval rating is 20 percentage points higher than that of former President Trump's in a Pew poll from April 2017 and is similar to the approval ratings of former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush in April of their first terms.

Killin' it.

[facilitatorn]

When the news describes it as "the deadliest since 10 were killed on March 22nd," you know we are having too many of them.


The ever stupid "news"

That constantly proves you wrong about everything.

No wonder you’ve abandoned reality for republicanism with all its ugliness and pro-rape positions.

[LarryBnDC]

When the news describes it as "the deadliest since 10 were killed on March 22nd," you know we are having too many of them.


The ever stupid "news"

That constantly proves you wrong about everything.

No wonder you’ve abandoned reality for republicanism with all its ugliness and pro-rape positions.

True believer...

[REDSTATEWARD]

A false imputation you create by only quoting the first line of my post.   In fact,  I go on to specifically address the bad science of his 9 deg.  temp increase scenario,  and also that he was hired by Trump NOT to have an honest inquiry but rather to boost a conclusion that scientists reject, and to attack the data from an ideological basis rather than a scientific one. 

And as plenty of reputable people have pointed out,  you can't be the pointman for scientific objectivity on climatology when you work for BP.   Or a "red team" put together by Trump.   I'm done.   You can stop pretending you know anything about science or its methodological basis.

So the scientist you diss worked for BP?( what that has to with his bonafides speaks to your biases not his credentials)
But he also worked for Obama.
You can bow out but that hardly ends any intellectual debate on the complexities of climate change.

[Hamilton Samuels]

A potential Chauvin mistrial would provoke quite the reaction among those who do not understand the law and how it is supposed to work.

Better be careful, prosecutors!

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/548445-judge-warns-of-mistrial-in-chauvin-case-if-prosecution-witness-even