Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[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 Not peer-reviewed.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.
Participant[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.
Participant[quote=livinincali] Unfortunately we don’t really understand man’s influence on the climate. Is it a lot, a little, negligible. [/quote]
I saw this chart the other day:
I can’t figure out how to load the chart. It’s the one on this page:http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
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?
Participantdup
Participant[quote=flu]We need more moderates in our government. This extremism really has to stop, on both sides.[/quote]
Concur.
ParticipantMaybe an Evan Bayh type. He’s “president-shaped,” as Stephen Colbert hilariously called Mitt Romney.
That’s my guess.
My wish would be Elizabeth Warren.
Participant[quote flu]
I never thought I’d agree with you ever on politics. But I agree with you.[/quote]
I don’t think we’re as far apart as you think, flu. Because I’m passionate about my disgust with the religious right’s social agenda (and about the religious right’s place in politics in general) and passionate about my amazement (o.k., anger) that the right-wing noise machine has snowed as many people as it has, I probably come across as a flaming liberal. Just because I think the right-wing noise machine is shamelessly and viciously manipulating people using their emotions doesn’t mean I disagree with all conservative viewpoints. My positions are spread across the spectrum, depending on the particular issue. If you add them all up and average them, I’m fairly middle-of-the-road. Or maybe middle-of-the-road as it was defined before the right wing lurched even further right. Although the financial crisis of ’08 has moved me towards the left on banking regulation issues.
[quote flu]
My concern at this point isn’t so much about the white house next term. My concern is the GOP loses not only the white house, but the Senate too. I don’t like our government when one party dominates, and it concerns me more that with Hillary at the helm, and with the justice appointments (I’d settle for moderates), we need some sort of checks and balances in Congress.
[/quote]
Then again, maybe we’re not that close, as one of my bigger concerns about a Cruz presidency is the prospect of super-conservative supreme court appointments. I’d be ecstatic with moderates if he were president, but I don’t think we’d get anything close to that.
While I agree that it’s a bit dangerous to have one party dominate (either one), I think that some cooperation (a lot more than the republicans have shown over the last 7 years) would be better than just saying no.
[quote flu]
I think a Trump/Cruz or a Cruz/Trump ticket is coming though. Trump + anyone else would alienate all the Cruz voters. And a Cruz+ anyone else would alienate all the trump voters. Cruz+Trump or Trump+Cruz, people would probably get behind. And trump and cruz is smart enough to realize this. The Democrats might really have a big problem at hand if this happens.
[/quote]
I don’t think Trump/Cruz would win. I think Cruz/Trump might have a shot, but I think Cruz/somebody reasonable would be the republicans’ best shot. We’ll see.
[quote flu]
Contrast this with a Hillary/Bernie ticket. Bernie has some good ideas for the well being of people, BUT all his thinking is way to extreme for a leader of the U.S. It’s best he serves in an advisory role, where some of his radical thinking can trickle through our system and get adopted piece-wise.
[/quote]
I agree that Bernie’s stuff can’t get done right now. Maybe in 10 or 20 years. I understand that younger people have always leaned more left than older people, but I think that’s more prevalent now than ever. Kids these days have pretty radically left ideas, especially on social issues.
[quote flu]
A Hillary/Bernie ticket would destroy the Democrat’s chances, so that isn’t going to happen. Hillary better pick someone else, preferably a no-name person. Which then begs the question… I wonder who Hillary’s running mate will be?
[/quote]
I think you’re right; she won’t pick Bernie, and it will be very interesting to see who she picks. I’m thinking it will be the safest possible person. A white man, for sure. Someone experienced. Someone who doesn’t make a lot of gaffes. Sort of a democrat version of Mitt Romney.
Participant[quote=flu]
I smell a Trump/Cruz ticket or Cruz/Trump ticket. Then we’re really screwed.[/quote]
Yikes.
Great quote from Louis C.K.:
“If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him.”
And Cruz: Too obstructionist even for the “party of no.” Ouch.
Hillary is too much in Wall Street’s pocket, and she’s too focus-group driven, and her vision for the country seems somewhat fuzzy. Her honesty takes more hits than it should, in my opinion. She doesn’t seem any less honest than your average politician. Which is to say, pretty dishonest. And the right-wing attacks on her regarding the Benghazi situation are nonsense. She’s tough, brilliant, and has tons of stamina. Would she be a great president? Probably not. A good one? I’d say there’s a good chance of that. A disaster? Probably not.
Trump would be a disaster, it seems to me.
And Cruz would be a huge step backward. I predict that by as soon as 2020, and 2024 at the latest, profoundly conservative politicians like Cruz will be dinosaurs. Especially if Cruz wins in 2016 and the younger Americans get energized by their disgust for him and what he stands for.
ParticipantI was wondering how Cruz, a senator, was considered an outsider, so I googled it. It looks like, if he’s an outsider at all, he’s an outsider mainly because nobody in the establishment likes him.
Outsider. Pariah. Whatever.
Interesting article in Slate, with the headline:
“Harvard-Educated Lawyer Who’s Worked for Every Branch of Government Runs for President as Outsider”
CBS news ran this article, with the hard-hitting headline:
“Ted Cruz, Washington outsider and proud”
The first two paragraphs:
Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz is glad he isn’t a part of the nation’s political elite.
“You may have heard I’m not exactly the most popular person with congressional leadership,” the cheerful Texas senator said Friday to a group of conservative business leaders.
The third paragraph explains why (he claims) he’s not well-liked. Turns out he’s an obstructionist douchebag:
Cruz, the first major Republican to officially declare his candidacy for the White House, said that because of his role in the 2013 government shutdown over Obamacare he wasn’t well-liked among the party’s heads. And as a result, campaign donations dried up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-washington-outsider-and-proud/
It appears the republicans now have two gigantic assholes from which to choose. One who’s basically a fascist, and one who wants to take his ball and go home when he doesn’t like the way the game is going. At least Trump would almost certainly lose in November. Cruz apparently has a real shot at winning the general election:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
We live in very scary times.
Participantdup
ParticipantFrom December 11:
[quote=zk]I wonder if part of the GOP’s anti-Trump strategy is to encourage (behind the scenes, of course) most of the candidates to stay in the race. That will reduce the chances of Trump winning on the first ballot, after which the establishment can relatively easily install their favorite candidate. I don’t know much about the political parties or their workings, so this scenario could be totally far-fetched. I’d be interested to hear other opinions on it.
[/quote]
From the L.A. times today:
The Hail Mary pass would abandon their old plan — a failed attempt to coalesce around a single anti-Trump candidate — in favor of a new tactic that would involve keeping each of his three remaining competitors alive in hopes of preventing Trump from obtaining a majority of convention delegates needed to secure the nomination.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-republican-party-fracture-20160303-story.html
I guess it’s not far-fetched at all. They shoulda done it before Bush and Carson and the rest of them dropped out. We’ll see if they’re too late.
If they succeed, the anger among Trump voters could be spectacular.
Christie, from the same article:
“If people don’t believe in democracy, they should come out and say that,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a former presidential candidate now backing Trump, said during a news conference. “But the fact is, we’ve had 15 contests and Donald Trump has won 10 of them. The people of the Republican Party who vote in primaries have the right to pick the nominee.”
He scoffed at efforts to choose a nominee at the convention.
“You want to see the party break up? That’s when you’ll see the party have a big problem.”
The republicans have been stoking this irrational fear and anger for decades, and when it turns on them (on their establishment candidates), they’re all, “this isn’t right!” “What’s wrong with these people, voting for an irrational fear-and-angermonger?” It’s kind of funny to me. They did it to themselves, and it serves them right.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]IMHO, in a Clinton v. Trump v. Rubio/Cruz: Clinton wins in a Reaganesuqe electoral landslide as Trump/RubioCruz splits the Repub votes and Clinton takes all expect for probably Texas.
[/quote]
You’re probably right. But a lot of people really don’t like Hillary.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Or like Drumpf, are they just a bully at heart wishing they could throw money and their ‘weight’ around?[/quote]
Kind of living vicariously through him. Interesting. Another thing he seems to have read well.
Participantdup
-
AuthorPosts
