OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
The one that shows CO2 levels fluctuating between 180 and 300 ppm for the past 400,000 years before spiking to 380 over the last 65 years. When I saw it, I wondered how climate change deniers explained it, but I didn’t think I knew any. livinincali, are you saying that “we” aren’t sure that man caused this spike, or that that spike didn’t cause climate change, or that there is no climate change, or something else?[/quote]

There’s certainly more CO2 in the air caused by man but it’s effects on the climate are not completely understood. Yeah sure we know what happens when you pump CO2 into a box and those climate models probably used that as a model, but those models haven’t accurately predicted the warming that would occur. Something more complex is happening that the scientists haven’t figured out yet. CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. 300 parts per million is 0.03%. Maybe changing that to 0.04% isn’t going to have that big of an impact on the climate after all. Of course every time it’s a little hotter than usual or a hurricane hits New York we can blame it on climate change. Then hopefully we can get the people to support a new tax or a new ban on something.

To go back to what it was in the previous millions of years would require us to pretty much completely stop using fossil fuels. So you have a choice, reduce fossil fuel usage significantly and lower the standard of living for all of us. Or replace it with a different technology and understand that you aren’t going to be able to do it with wind and solar. We could probably do it with fast breeder Thorium nuclear reactors. The dream would be solving the mysteries of recovering net positive energy from fusion. Wind and solar might have a place where it makes sense but it’s never going to be more than 10-20% of total power generation without some sort of storage technology break through

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]
There’s certainly more CO2 in the air caused by man but it’s effects on the climate are not completely understood.
[/quote]
“Completely understood” is not a reasonable standard for most things. Certainly not for climate change.
[quote=livinincali]

Yeah sure we know what happens when you pump CO2 into a box and those climate models probably used that as a model, but those models haven’t accurately predicted the warming that would occur.
[/quote]
Depends on your definition of accurate. Some of the problems with the model turned out to be problems with the data:
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/hoax.asp

[quote=livinincali]
Of course every time it’s a little hotter than usual or a hurricane hits New York we can blame it on climate change. Then hopefully we can get the people to support a new tax or a new ban on something.
[/quote]
Only a person who was truly uninformed (scientifically) would point to a single weather event as evidence for (or against) man-caused global warming. You obviously see that and agree with it. But to point to those uninformed people (and their opinions) as evidence we don’t need to do anything (which, I could be wrong, but you seem to be obliquely implying with your sarcasm here) is an invalid argument.

[quote=livinincali]
To go back to what it was in the previous millions of years would require us to pretty much completely stop using fossil fuels. So you have a choice, reduce fossil fuel usage significantly and lower the standard of living for all of us. Or replace it with a different technology and understand that you aren’t going to be able to do it with wind and solar. We could probably do it with fast breeder Thorium nuclear reactors. The dream would be solving the mysteries of recovering net positive energy from fusion. Wind and solar might have a place where it makes sense but it’s never going to be more than 10-20% of total power generation without some sort of storage technology break through

[/quote]
I agree with that paragraph. Yes, to significantly reduce fossil fuel usage without alternative energy sources to replace them would be extremely (possibly disastrously) costly in many ways. But not as costly as catastrophic global warming. So it’s obviously very important to understand global warming and its causes, because if we’re wrong about it in either direction, it’s going to cost us dearly.

This is not an issue on which we can afford to have an agenda other than understanding as best we can global warming and its causes and its consequences.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=utcsox][quote=svelte]I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be![/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/politics/marco-rubio-campaign-weighs-getting-out/index.html

I think Rubio is on fume now. CNN released this extremely damaging report late this afternoon that his advisers are recommending him to drop out before 3/15 so he won’t get embarrassed at his home state. We will see what happen tomorrow. I think his campaign is about to collapse.[/quote]

I think Rubio’s biggest issue is the Big Money donors aren’t too impressed with him. I mean, if I was a completely loaded Republican, at this point I’d be tempted to just let Trump or Cruz win the nomination and sink my cash into competitive Senate races. Or maybe even cross my fingers for a brokered convention, where backroom influence goes a long ways.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
Depends on your definition of accurate. Some of the problems with the model turned out to be problems with the data:
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/hoax.asp
[/quote]

There seem to be problems with the data in general. There’s evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That’s something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it’s fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

[quote=zk]

I agree with that paragraph. Yes, to significantly reduce fossil fuel usage without alternative energy sources to replace them would be extremely (possibly disastrously) costly in many ways. But not as costly as catastrophic global warming. So it’s obviously very important to understand global warming and its causes, because if we’re wrong about it in either direction, it’s going to cost us dearly.

This is not an issue on which we can afford to have an agenda other than understanding as best we can global warming and its causes and its consequences.[/quote]

To what lengths are you willing to go to prevent or reduce CO2 emission. It seems like you’d have to being willing to go to war in order to force major global reductions in fossil fuel usage.

[FlyerInHi]

Rubio is not so much a problem.
A young Latino guy, whoever he is, will just not gain traction with the Republican base.
That narrative is just fantasy on the part of the big money establishment.

BTW, I listened Rubio him speak Spanish (I need to keep from forgetting the Spanish I studied so I watch Univision). I kinda like the Cuban accent where they don’t really pronounce the s at the end. Cruz, on the other hand, never gives interviews in Spanish.
Jeb speaks Spanish really well. Hard to price, but I have a feeling the base didn’t like Jeb because of the Hispanic connection in his family. People don’t trust him to come down hard on immigration.

[bearishgurl]

Case in point re: the relationship between Trump and Cruz:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4791439545001/donald-trump-talks-lead-in-michigan-polls-primary-odds/?intcmp=hpbt1#sp=show-clips

At 5:15, Trump is asked why he’s still “attacking” Rubio when Rubio doesn’t appear to be a “threat” to his campaign in FL. Why is he not attacking Cruz, who is coming up right behind him in the FL polls?

Trump deflects the question to re-remind them about Rubio’s lagging behind in the FL polls and his absence record in the Senate and there’s a rumor that he may be dropping out, blah, blah, blah. He doesn’t even mention Cruz.

Why? I don’t think he CARES if Cruz wins FL … or not … as the two are “one and the same.”

They just haven’t announced it …. yet.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

There seem to be problems with the data in general. There’s evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That’s something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it’s fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/
[/quote]
One guy claims NASA modified data, and, naturally, the right-wing noise machine was all over it. Not peer-reviewed. Not convincing. Tin-foil-hat stuff.

[quote=livinincali]

To what lengths are you willing to go to prevent or reduce CO2 emission. It seems like you’d have to being willing to go to war in order to force major global reductions in fossil fuel usage.
[/quote]

What lengths? I don’t know. That’s a separate issue. As long as there are people in power denying climate change, we can’t even get to that question.

[bearishgurl]

I think Trump and Cruz made a backroom deal to force Rubio out after he loses his home state of FL in the primaries next week. They want Rubio’s voter base added to their own SINGLE campaign when they start campaigning together.

[FlyerInHi]

Rubio might do well to get out before a humiliating defeat in FL
He’s still young, his future is bright with the party establishment.

BG, I doubt trump and Cruz cooked up a deal very far in advance. Back then, trump was being written off by everyone. Maybe the relationship evolved as trump’s support strengthened.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=zk][quote=livinincali]

There seem to be problems with the data in general. There’s evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That’s something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it’s fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/
[/quote]
One guy claims NASA modified data, and, naturally, the right-wing noise machine was all over it. Not peer-reviewed. Not convincing. Tin-foil-hat stuff.

[/quote]

Yeah, I mean, in science you always need to be skeptical of any one individual data point. Science is littered with studies that were never reproducible for one reason or another.

But when ALL the data points in the same direction, it makes a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty strong case, even if there’s always cause to keep looking closer.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Rubio might do well to get out before a humiliating defeat in FL
He’s still young, his future is bright with the party establishment.

BG, I doubt trump and Cruz cooked up a deal very far in advance. Back then, trump was being written off by everyone. Maybe the relationship evolved as trump’s support strengthened.[/quote]

Eh, I’m not sure how humiliating that would be. Plenty of candidates lose the nomination one cycle and come back later to win it.

[FlyerInHi]

Even if the science is not 100% that global warming is bad, what’s wrong with conserving carbon resources? After all, they are non-renewal and the more we save now, the more we will bank for the future.

I’m always amazed that some people want to save money (an unlimited renewal resource), but they want to burn up carbon fuels (non-renewal resources) as fast as we can get it out of the ground. I mean, think about it from a scientific standpoint.

[livinincali]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

Yeah, I mean, in science you always need to be skeptical of any one individual data point. Science is littered with studies that were never reproducible for one reason or another.

But when ALL the data points in the same direction, it makes a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty strong case, even if there’s always cause to keep looking closer.[/quote]

Have you actually looked at some of the stuff the skeptics have produced. This guy went back into old studies and shows how newer studies actually lower the past temperatures to make if look like there’s a larger warming tend then there really is. The past temperatures didn’t change. There’s no reason to adjust them unless you are trying to make you CO2 model work out when it isn’t working out.

http://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

He provides links to the actual older studies so I don’t think he’s just making this stuff up, but who knows. Climate change/global warming is becoming a religion or belief system. Not believing in climate change is blasphemous. I want real science not people with agendas screwing with the data to fit their models to keep the grant money rolling in.

We should put some significant effort into Thorium nuclear. It’s clearly the best option in the short term. I agree that we shouldn’t just use more oil for the sake of using more oil, but oil based products are really hard to beat for travel purposes. Electric cars can be good for commuting, but considering most people are going to be plugging them in when they get home from work it’s getting it’s electricity from a fossil fuel power plant somewhere. Public transportation is good as well but the west coast just isn’t that well designed for public transport.

The bottom line is there’s a huge economic investment that has to happen to do any of this and in most cases it will hit the lower middle class and poorest the worst. A new car payment, a new gas tax, higher electricity prices all hit them harder than it would hit me or you.

[livinincali]

[quote=bearishgurl]I think Trump and Cruz made a backroom deal to force Rubio out after he loses his home state of FL in the primaries next week. They want Rubio’s voter base added to their own SINGLE campaign when they start campaigning together.[/quote]

I really don’t see Trump picking Cruz as a running mate. It could happen to make sure the hard right shows up at the polls, but you don’t have to fear the hard right voting for Clinton or Sanders.

Surprisingly Sanders actually won Michigan which is a little outside of his local sphere of influence. I still think Clinton has the nomination won especially with the Super delegate situation the democrats use in the nomination process. It’s probably up to the FBI and Attorney General to keep her from being the democratic candidate although I don’t know that the FBI is going to be done with the case by the end of July. It could get rather ugly down the stretch if she’s the nominee but also recommended for prosecution.

[spdrun]

Of course, that cough could end up being more than just a winter flu.

[Author]

Posts