If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
If the alarmists are to be believed, we're already past the point of no return. I mean, unless you couldn't believe them THEN. But, when it comes to giving "drop dead dates" the alarmists always move the dates back and, in that sense, never play with the same dates twice. Obviously.
Last edited by iam416; October 11, 2018, 12:30 PM.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Right. So they correctly identified a trend and its cause, and, like all of the most solid of peer-reviewed science, the findings have been replicated multiple times in multiple settings. An incorrect projection of a trend's velocity negates only part of the research, and not all of it. Especially since one group's projections have no bearing on the multiple replications of the existing trend. Throwing out a non-perfect bit of heavily-replicated scholarship because it's not perfect is, of course, unjustified. A person in your position who fails to understand that is either purposefully myopic or ought to be very thankful that this isn't a meritocracy.
So, again, you either lack the conceptual understanding to comment intelligently, or you are choosing to comment from a position of willful ignorance.
none of the computer models are accurate. they aren't even close to accurate. surprising for a bunch of scientists who, as you say, have identified a trend and have replicated it multiple times in multiple settings cant seem to predict shit.
......... I'd rather capitalism moderate itself, in order to extend its own life and protect the economy from bad ideas coming from the fringes on both sides......
A thoughtful take in the context of Global Warming. I've heard it before in other contexts and it resonates with me.
The problem is that from both a economic and political standpoint, it's not going to happen in our lives..... or probably ever.
Look, this is a terrible place to debate the impact of climate change, whether it exists or not and if it does exist what it's impact on the weather is. The most important reason for that is that there is insufficient subject matter expertise on either side of the debate here in this forum. Like, talent and Kapture, I don't trust the studies - not the science per se but the studies - and there's been some very good posts and links here to explain why that is so - Dog humping in parks promotes a rape culture there, for example. The science is pretty good; conclusions from it may not be.
My personal view is that carbon emissions are harmful on many levels for a myriad of well documented scientific reasons. It's not impossible to curb them on a global scale with some type of uniformly applied carbon tax. There's plenty of decent economic science that supports that and avoids the pitfall of discussing whether or not global warming is (a) a cause for concern or (b) is associated with global climate change and all that entails. But those opposed or in favor of any kind of carbon emissions control when this comes up for discussion, almost immediately go on the attack mode in defense of their disparate positions.
I also believe that global warming is real. It is indisputable it is happening. I also think global warning, whatever the cause, is affecting surface and atmospheric weather patterns that are supportive of more severe drought, cyclones and hurricanes. Certain groups will assert it has little to do with carbon emissions and will not likely be reversed by reducing them. The science saying it will reduce them and all will be well if we do is a bit squirrely, IMO. This same group will also assert that it is economic suicide for the US to embrace a position that it will cooperate in global efforts toward carbon emission control of any type when the worst offenders of carbon emissions are two emerging economic powerhouses - China and India. I actually agree with this. That does not mean however that I don't think carbon emissions are harmful.
I think it is a mistake to ignore the potential global consequences of uncontrolled release of carbon gases into the atmosphere over the long term. What should be done about it and how urgent it is to do something, is another matter entirely. I think it is one of those quandaries of two choices: pay me a little now or pay me a whole lot latter. These are not good options for a politically polarized world occupied by mostly self-serving interests. The default position in this circumstance is to simply kick the can down the road.
Last edited by Jeff Buchanan; October 11, 2018, 02:24 PM.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.
You wish. You keep on coming after me, and have very little in response save for sneering. If you had any facts to help you, you'd have used them. But you do not. You aren't stupid though. You post as if most of the rest of us are, though. Which may be true.
Jeff, the important thing to keep in mind about capitalism is that it has changed in your lifetime, and can and will continue to. Capitalism is not an on/off switch. Change doesn't mean a wild swing from robber baron to Robin Hood. Much of the rest of the world is changing, or further along the line in grappling with the real economic sacrifice that will entail. As long as politicians pretend there are no consequences either way, that's going to be difficult. If ever a politician were willing to state clearly that there's no way to have your cake and eat it too, that would be an intresting story to follow. That could be what happens in Canada next year. Voters told their politicians in the '15 election that they would accept a carbon tax, and since then at the provincial level have elected premiers who reject the carbon tax. At some point, if adults are entrusted with adult-level information on this topic, we could get an indication of what's possible in this world.
Last edited by Jeff Buchanan; October 11, 2018, 04:51 PM.
Reason: I changed the costs of global warming to the costs and benefits of global warming are hugely speculative. That's what you meant, right. You should have in case you didn't fucktard.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Tweet
Comment