Yeah so global warming huh...

[onejayhawk]

It takes two to tango.

J

[Hornsby]

Kind of a shocking friday news dump...maybe it's because Trump is on his way to the Far east...anyway, the Government has to, by law, issue a National Climate Assessment. Shockingly, it claims that climate change is almost entirely driven by humans.

It's shocking in it's scope, and the dire future that it's predicting...

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the document reports. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

“I think this report is basically the most comprehensive climate science report in the world right now,” said Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers who is an expert on sea-level rise and served as one of the report’s lead authors.

It affirms that the United States is already experiencing more extreme heat and rainfall events and more large wildfires in the West, that more than 25 coastal U.S. cities are already experiencing more flooding, and that seas could rise by between 1 and 4 feet by the year 2100, and perhaps even more than that if Antarctica proves to be unstable, as is feared. The report says that a rise of over eight feet is “physically possible” with high levels of greenhouse-gas emissions but that there’s no way right now to predict how likely it is to happen.

When it comes to rapidly escalating levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the report states, “there is no climate analog for this century at any time in at least the last 50 million years.”

Most striking, perhaps, the report warns of the unpredictable — changes that scientists cannot foresee that could involve tipping points or fast changes in the climate system. These could switch the climate into “new states that are very different from those experienced in the recent past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/03/trump-administration-releases-report-finds-no-convincing-alternative-explanation-for-climate-change/?utm_term=.a6275582715f&wpisrc=al_news__alert-hse--alert-national&wpmk=1

[Sour Masher]

In the day to day insanity of this admin, it is easy to forget this issue, which in the long term matters more than all of the others combined. My hope is that reporters ask him and all his reps about this every day until he admits how it is not a hoax and america needs to join the rest of the world in doing something about it. We can't wait three years for this guy to go away to address this issue. Every moment that goes by pushes our planet into territory more and more inhospitable to us. Brazille melodramatically said the DNC had a cancer growing in it. We are currently a virus to our planet and we need to stop the fever we are causing from turning our world into a much harsher one for us to survive and thrive in.

[onejayhawk]

If you cut to the basics, all the Trump administration has done is said that carbon footprint is not within its mandate. It is a view that is well supported by the science.

A virus on the planet? Isn't that a bit over the top?

J

[Sour Masher]

If you cut to the basics, all the Trump administration has done is said that carbon footprint is not within its mandate. It is a view that is well supported by the science.

A virus on the planet? Isn't that a bit over the top?

J

I'm unclear on your response. You are saying that science supports the fact that the environment isn't a major issue for Trump's voters? That is an odd usage and evocation of science on this issue. It doesn't take much science to confirm the fact that Trump did not campaign on doing anything useful on the environment. I concede that point. I'd argue, however, that most of his voters are more indifferent, due to ignorance on this issue, than antagonistic.

Trump has been antagonistic. He is trying to undercut the EPA from the top down. He has censored and defunded scientists working on environmental issues. He has used his bully pulpit to spread dangerous lies about this issue. Instead of moving us forward on this issue, he is setting us back. To suggest that all Trump has done is prioritize other things is completely false. He has actively abdicated America's responsibilities to its people and to the world on environmental issues. We should be a world leader on ensuring our people are safe from pollutants (which kills and harms more Americans than terrorists, guns, and just about every other external force combined; where are his anger tweets about all the deaths pollution causes?), and that our impact on the planet changes so that we do not continue to march toward a world inhospitable to human life.

And, no, I don't think the virus/fever analogy is over the top; I think it is quiet apt. One might argue, that like a virus, we will adapt and survive the fever, but it would be much better for us, our host, and everything else on the planet if we simply did what we are capable of doing, which is to adapt our behavior so we are no longer rapidly raising the planet's temperature.

[onejayhawk]

That is the gist of it. A wait and see attitude is well backed by the science. Even without some of the temperature issues of earliest records, the maximum rate of warming that anyone is ascribing is under .12°/decade. That is manageable for at least the next century or two. Incremental change is usually the easiest to manage.

If you compare man to a virus, then we will disagree. Not all changes to the environment are good, but neither are all bad. Ultimately, the environment is Humanity's to use. It is right to use good judgement. It is wrong to say all choices are bad.

J

[Sour Masher]

That is the gist of it. A wait and see attitude is well backed by the science. Even without some of the temperature issues of earliest records, the maximum rate of warming that anyone is ascribing is under .12°/decade. That is manageable for at least the next century or two. Incremental change is usually the easiest to manage.

If you compare man to a virus, then we will disagree. Not all changes to the environment are good, but neither are all bad. Ultimately, the environment is Humanity's to use. It is right to use good judgement. It is wrong to say all choices are bad.

J

We seem to be typing past each. The gist I got from you was that you were suggesting Trump's voters didn't vote him in to office so that he could address this issue. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in not suggesting you were evoking science to support his position that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese, and that we should join Syria as the only country on the planet to not take a step in the right direction on dealing with this issue (because it isn't a big deal and we can't do much about it anyway). Now that it is clear that you are talking about science supporting these positions, I feel comfortable saying you are unequivocally wrong about that.

I suspect we won't see eye to eye on this, but since you didn't like my virus analogy, maybe you will find this one more acceptable--global warming is like slow moving train. It may not be accelerating fast, but it takes massive effort and energy to even slow it down, let alone stop, or reverse it. That takes time, and by the time you may feel it appropriate to try to start slowing that train down, it will be far too late--we won't have time to slow it enough before it devastates us. Even these small changes already are devastating us. They cause more violent weather fluctuations. How many storms of the century will have to hit the US before folks who continue to deny the impact of even slightly warmer weather and waters will admit it is a problem?

But that is probably a dead end, so I'll go back to how factually wrong your statement is that all Trump has done is put our carbon footprint on the back burner as not a pressing issue. Again, that is not an accurate statement. He is not waiting and seeing, as you say. He is actively undermining current efforts. He is silencing current cries to action. He is purposefully underplaying what science tells us is happening, deflating our sense of urgency on this issue, so we won't oppose actions that may lead to short term financial gains, even as they lead to long term damage to both our environment, and our economy.

That dead end out of the way, perhaps we can come to a consensus on how bad Trump's policies are for the environment, global warming aside. I suspect this too is a dead end, but I'd love a fact-based defense of what Trump and Pruitt and his admin as a whole are doing with the EPA. I concede there is evidence that Dems didn't get the regulations right with banking and housing, but how can anyone justify rolling back regulations that hold companies accountable for pollution, that allow protected lands to be developed to the long term detriment of our environment and people, to limit the amount of financial penalty companies face when the fruits of their negligence comes to bear in the form of disease and death, etc?

Please explain to me how Trump is anything but wrong in spending so, so much time focusing on foreign terrorists and drug use and confederate statues put up by clansmen in the early 20th century, when pollution kills many more people than terrorists, more than tobacco, more than alcohol, more than car accidents, guns, malnutrition. Statistically, pollution is the biggest threat to you and me and everyone else right now, but instead of doing more to combat it, he is doing more to allow it, in all its forms.

Here is a link to how bad pollution is world wide;
in case you don't care about world-wide stats,
it also gets into how developed nations like the U.S are also very much affected.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsand...laria-combined

And just for fun, here is a link to statements Trump has made about global warming. I only include this, because you imply that Trump is acting based on science, when he clearly has no clue about how science or the environment works: https://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-...-warming-hoax/

Here are some of Trump's tweets about this. Note that he is using local, specific examples of when it was cold to "prove" his position that global warming is a hoax. Also note that these tweets all combat the notion that it is getting hotter, despite the newer position of his reps that Trump simply thinks global warming is natural, not human-made. Even granting him that point, which these tweets refute, the link Hornsby made highlights how blind to science Trump is.

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
3:15 PM - Nov 6, 2012
12,737 12,737 Replies 104,436 104,436 Retweets 66,942 66,942 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!
11:13 AM - Dec 6, 2013
443 443 Replies 4,351 4,351 Retweets 3,102 3,102 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?
7:48 PM - Jan 25, 2014
542 542 Replies 2,186 2,186 Retweets 1,174 1,174 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!
2:27 AM - Jan 29, 2014
251 251 Replies 801 801 Retweets 785 785 likes

[onejayhawk]

Trump voters are hard to figure out. I know a couple and they are in a bizarre state. It is sufficient for the moment to say that they back Trump pulling out of Paris and largely grounding the EPA. Trump has said, in esssense, that carbon footprint is not he business of his administration. That is a reasonable position, based solely on science.

As to the virus analogy, the Earth is not sick and Man is not making it sick. Pollution will not make the world sick, however it makes Man's home less liveable, hence it should be regulated. This is something Trump actively supports in public. In practice it comes down to the details. Carbon footprint does not rate the same concern and the EPA is actively trying to ignore it.

J

[TranaGreg]

Sour Masher, you've run up against the 1J we all know & love ... the one that makes a claim that's contrary to popular opinion, states it as fact, and provides no evidence to support it (if called on it, deflect) ... thereby seeming to put the onus on any other party with a contrasting position to have to defend it. It's okay, few here actually pay attention anymore.

Trump voters are hard to figure out. I know a couple and they are in a bizarre state. It is sufficient for the moment to say that they back Trump pulling out of Paris and largely grounding the EPA. Trump has said, in esssense, that carbon footprint is not he business of his administration. That is a reasonable position, based solely on science...

obviously, no it's not ... but it's okay, I still really enjoy most of his recipes & food updates.

[swampdragon]

Sour Masher, you've run up against the 1J we all know & love ... the one that makes a claim that's contrary to popular opinion, states it as fact, and provides no evidence to support it (if called on it, deflect) ... thereby seeming to put the onus on any other party with a contrasting position to have to defend it. It's okay, few here actually pay attention anymore.



obviously, no it's not ... but it's okay, I still really enjoy most of his recipes & food updates.

this made my day - and you are right - all of us have had this discussion too many times

(by the way OJ is a Trump voter- so to refer to them as of he is not is just plain inacurate)

[Sour Masher]

Sour Masher, you've run up against the 1J we all know & love ... the one that makes a claim that's contrary to popular opinion, states it as fact, and provides no evidence to support it (if called on it, deflect) ... thereby seeming to put the onus on any other party with a contrasting position to have to defend it. It's okay, few here actually pay attention anymore.



obviously, no it's not ... but it's okay, I still really enjoy most of his recipes & food updates.

Thanks for the heads up....it is a surprisingly infuriating technique, and it is good for me to recognize it and just back away.

I did hope that in shifting the conversation away from "carbon footprint" to general pollution, we could find common ground, but that part of my post was ignored. I still can't find anyone, even deregulating advocates, admit they are for dangerous contaminants in the water we drink and air we breath, and would love to hear a defense of policies that make it more likely that people will suffer and die due to exposure to industrial pollution. But that is actually sort of outside the scope of this thread anyway.

[swampdragon]

Thanks for the heads up....it is a surprisingly infuriating technique, and it is good for me to recognize it and just back away.

I did hope that in shifting the conversation away from "carbon footprint" to general pollution, we could find common ground, but that part of my post was ignored. I still can't find anyone, even deregulating advocates, admit they are for dangerous contaminants in the water we drink and air we breath, and would love to hear a defense of policies that make it more likely that people will suffer and die due to exposure to industrial pollution. But that is actually sort of outside the scope of this thread anyway.

They are not for dangerous contaminants - they just dont believe that scientific proof for it exists - or maybe they just dont care

[TranaGreg]

They are not for dangerous contaminants - they just dont believe that scientific proof for it exists - or maybe they just dont care

well, if the free market were truly free we could choose from which water supplier we wanted & those with the bad contaminants would just go out of business. or their customers would just die off. or both.

think of it as the water supply version of the nra's "if only everyone were trained to return fire" argument.

[onejayhawk]

obviously, no it's not ... but it's okay, I still really enjoy most of his recipes & food updates.

It is true, but only if you talk to all the scientists. The problem is that the press listens to the doomsday cult.

Has anyone seen a comprehensive study on what an additional degree by 2100 would mean? There are none, because it is not a catastrophic event. What you see are studies far higher rises, because they are catastrophic. Yet the first is in line with existing trends. You need to invent a flex point to get higher warming.

If you want an easily verifiable fact, find the simple average temperature rise for the last 120 by decades and project that for the next 82 years. A rise of 1° C is right on line. Continuing as we have been is very doable. You have to find a way to distort the experience curve up to get serious problems.

J

[onejayhawk]

Thanks for the heads up....it is a surprisingly infuriating technique, and it is good for me to recognize it and just back away.

I did hope that in shifting the conversation away from "carbon footprint" to general pollution, we could find common ground, but that part of my post was ignored. I still can't find anyone, even deregulating advocates, admit they are for dangerous contaminants in the water we drink and air we breath, and would love to hear a defense of policies that make it more likely that people will suffer and die due to exposure to industrial pollution. But that is actually sort of outside the scope of this thread anyway.

General pollution is a much more serious problem. It is important to keep the commonly believed nonsense separate from the cold facts of environmental poison. Carbon footprint and pollution are two essentially non-overlapping areas.

J