sycasey;842851724 said:

---

I would absolutely love for our leaders to take more meaningful action on climate change.



So it appears there are other people (conservatives and moderates) who need convincing. That's why there are arguments like this.

---

So maybe we are now down to deniers and other people who need convincing?? Probably right. But what still has not been addressed, if one believes in GW totally, should he/she make any deal, even if it is a bad deal? My strong perception is that the dictates of the Paris Accord were badly versed with respect to America in relation to China/India for instance.

OdontoBear66;842851729 said:

---

My strong perception is that the dictates of the Paris Accord were badly versed with respect to America in relation to China/India for instance.

---

I have yet to see a strong case made for this. On the one hand, the Paris Accord is a toothless document that accomplished nothing, and on the other hand it is a "bad deal" for America that will hurt our economy. Which is it?

OdontoBear66;842851729 said:

---

So maybe we are now down to deniers and other people who need convincing?? Probably right. But what still has not been addressed, if one believes in GW totally, should he/she make any deal, even if it is a bad deal? My strong perception is that the dictates of the Paris Accord were badly versed with respect to America in relation to China/India for instance.

---

What is it about non binding agreements that trouble you so?

Cal88;842851691 said:

---

Are you a tax policy expert, or are you not a tax policy expert?

---

I am not a tax policy expert. I'm wanting to know what's wrong with a carbon tax. It's a chance for you to explain your view to me.

sycasey;842851732 said:

---

I have yet to see a strong case made for this. On the one hand, the Paris Accord is a toothless document that accomplished nothing, and on the other hand it is a "bad deal" for America that will hurt our economy. Which is it?

---

Both.

calbear93;842851727 said:

---

I would say that the deniers have made up their minds, and if the survival of our planet depends on convincing them, we are screwed.

And I believe the solution has to be a bottoms-up and top-down process. I would have expected people to push Obama and Kerry to require other countries do what was necessary to avoid disaster instead of doing what was expedient. I understand they were negotiating, but our environment isn't subject to the terms of the negotiation. And it would require all of us to do what is necessary as well. I just don't see anyone really acting as if they believe what they say. They just want to do enough to see good without any basis that the incremental steps makes a bit of difference. For such data driven discussion, shouldn't the solution be data driven as well?

---

The deniers are the party in control of the three branches of government and most of the state houses. Nothing is going to be done unless this changes-.unless you can point me to the Republican agenda for climate change.

GB54;842851745 said:

---

The deniers are the party in control of the three branches of government and most of the state houses. Nothing is going to be done unless this changes-.unless you can point me to the Republican agenda for climate change.

---

I'm sorry, but you think talking about it here will convince Trump, Pruitt and Congress? Do you think anything will convince Trump? You are preaching to the choir for the most part here and if you think convincing Cal88 is the best use of your resources for something that is that important to you, you may want to reconsider your resource allocation. How about finding a way to win an election and convincing those who are elected from your side to do what is needed and not what is easy to achieve but doesn't solve the problem? Let me know if you or anyone else has convinced anyone to take a different position on this board based on all these postings.

calbear93;842851746 said:

---

I'm sorry, but you think talking about it here will convince Trump, Pruitt and Congress? Do you think anything will convince Trump? You are preaching to the choir for the most part here and if you think convincing Cal88 is the best use of your resources for something that is that important to you, you may want to reconsider your resource allocation. How about finding a way to win an election and convincing those who are elected from your side to do what is needed and not what is easy to achieve but doesn't solve the problem? Let me know if you or anyone else has convinced anyone to take a different position on this board based on all these postings.

---

But I thought that was my point- there is no reaching across the aisles here, no middle ground.Democrats have to win elections all across the country

Why are there so many people that want to believe the exagerators? Have you seen any evidence in your lifetime that there is any noticeable environmental warming? Even if there were, what makes you think it is human caused? The environment on the planet has never been stable and the earth if a big place. Changes are what drive natural selection. You adapt, migrate, or die. Why should we impose an undue negative impact on our economy in response to dubious "scientific evidence"?

GB54;842851745 said:

---

The deniers are the party in control of the three branches of government and most of the state houses. Nothing is going to be done unless this changes-.unless you can point me to the Republican agenda for climate change.

---

calbear93;842851738 said:

---

Both.

---

And that doesn't make sense. It's like saying something is both hot and cold.

GB54;842851751 said:

---

But I thought that was my point- there is no reaching across the aisles here, no middle ground.Democrats have to win elections all across the country

---

It's becoming increasingly clear that Sebastabear was right.

Sebastabear;842851385 said:

---

this position is just one of a series of cascading excuses to do nothing.

---

80Bear;842851757 said:

---

Why are there so many people that want to believe the exagerators? Have you seen any evidence in your lifetime that there is any noticeable environmental warming? Even if there were, what makes you think it is human caused? The environment on the planet has never been stable and the earth if a big place. Changes are what drive natural selection. You adapt, migrate, or die. Why should we impose an undue negative impact on our economy in response to dubious "scientific evidence"?

---

Because the evidence is not dubious?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

80Bear;842851757 said:

---

Why are there so many people that want to believe the exagerators? Have you seen any evidence in your lifetime that there is any noticeable environmental warming? Even if there were, what makes you think it is human caused? The environment on the planet has never been stable and the earth if a big place. Changes are what drive natural selection. You adapt, migrate, or die. Why should we impose an undue negative impact on our economy in response to dubious "scientific evidence"?

---

Well it depends what you put your faith in- the majority of scientists or the party of Trump.

The economic issue is bogus. The developed countries- US and Europe- have the biggest economies ,the most environmental regulations and the highest quality of life. Also you are not figuring on what the economic costs of future warming might be.

sycasey;842851732 said:

---

I have yet to see a strong case made for this. On the one hand, the Paris Accord is a toothless document that accomplished nothing, and on the other hand it is a "bad deal" for America that will hurt our economy. Which is it?

---

sycasey, please read. I said nothing about the economy. You implied that. I said it was a bad deal. How can we even have a discussion if you and others put words and thoughts you wish in one's mouth.

Taxing carbon in the US and allowing coal usage growth in China and India at a high scale through 2030 is absurd if you are a believer. There is ONE earth, not one in America and one in China, and one in India.

GB54;842851751 said:

---

But I thought that was my point- there is no reaching across the aisles here, no middle ground.Democrats have to win elections all across the country

---

I believe that there are tons of Independents and less Conservative Republicans who are believers, but have different forms of questioning such as mine. I think it is an issue that is close to making it. But by making arbitrary arguments and calling names is not gonna help your cause with those wavering. This is exactly why Hillary lost the election. Quietly sat a lot of people on the fence, and near the end they were fell the wrong way to please you I would guess.

Denialists are doubling down on their propaganda here, using their favorite tools: gross misrepresentation and amateur hour pseudoscience (I feel bad dignifying it even with that pejorative).

Examples of the latter are generously provided by the resident pseudoscientist, Cal88. With all the talk from denialists about how vast and complex the climate system is and therefore they expect that science's understanding of even the nature of the problem cannot be reliable, we should be surprised to see Cal88's demonstration. After all, if the subject is so complex that huge models fueled by vast datasets and constructed by actual professional scientists can't be relied upon to pierce the issue, how has Cal88 deluded himself into believing that he can have a better understanding of the nature of the problem with X number of hours burned cherry-picking random charts and graphs off the interwebz (which are themselves probably just regurgitations of the pseudoscience produced by more dedicated denialists)?

Let's go over this again: scientists are experts about science (particularly the area they specialize in). If you are a qualified Earth sciences professional, I welcome* your interpretation of the data regardless of how your interpretation shapes your conclusion. If you're not a qualified Earth sciences professional but believe you have the key to this enormous problem, I invite you to present your findings in a peer-reviewed publication. If you're just some random who thinks your scientific opinion deserves to in any way shape or form compete with those of actual scientists and you want to illustrate your paradigm breaking faux-insight with tiny cherry-picked excerpts of other people's research, I think you should take a walk.

*Unless you're being directly subsidized by the industries whose financial interests are directly tied to sabotaging climate science. We don't need the integrity annihilating testimony of industry shills like we got in the Big Tobacco 'debate'

Now for a fine example of gross misrepresentation, this one from Bear Goggles (post #441 of this thread, talking about the red-team proposal with a link to an op-ed written by 3 climate scientists who scorned the red-team idea):

Quote:

---

Its rather telling to me that some prominent climate scientists are unwilling to participate because they view the exchange of ideas as "dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science." If the "settled science" is so clear and compelling, it seems to me that they could explain why that is and answer questions from the other side.

Anyone who characterizes any challenge to their views as "dangerous" is discrediting themselves. I submit that that type of approach is "dangerous" - particularly in academic institutions.

---

Except the climate scientists being cited wrote nothing of the sort. They didn't say they view "the exchange of ideas" or "any challenge to their views" as dangerous. They were very clear in what their problem with the proposal was: its tacit repudiation of peer-reviewed science and the funneling of what should be a purely scientific process into a tribal/political one. In this case, the attack against peer-reviewed science (the basis of modern scientific research) is coupled with an attack on the integrity of climate scientists as a group, claiming that they are systemically biased and have made their process illegitimate. There are never the bullshit suggestions claimed by Bear Goggles, that they "characterize any challenge to their views as dangerous". The scientific method of investigating the nature of these phenomena is not aided by replacing peer-review with an arbitrary adversarial process that for some reason assigns equal weight to two sides of a debate where nearly all qualified scientists have already registered their opinion in favor of one side. It's not aided by supplementing the true process with the garbage one either, because it erodes public confidence in both the process of and the conclusions of real science and [intentionally] promotes confusion in climate science.

OdontoBear66;842851775 said:

---

I believe that there are tons of Independents and less Conservative Republicans who are believers, but have different forms of questioning such as mine. I think it is an issue that is close to making it. But by making arbitrary arguments and calling names is not gonna help your cause with those wavering. This is exactly why Hillary lost the election. Quietly sat a lot of people on the fence, and near the end they were fell the wrong way to please you I would guess.

---

I think you're deluding yourself- what legislation or alternate initiatives have come out of your moderate wing. Who is your standard bearer in Congress? The fact is there is nowhere to go to with your party on this issue- from the President down. So, yes, namecalling is appropriate. Trump set the agenda and there has been nary a peep in protest. Frankly, it's hard for me to take you seriously on this issue.

OdontoBear66;842851693 said:

---

Agreed maybe, but embellishment of cause with usage of everything that does not 100% agree with the Paris Accord are "deniers" helps very little too. I think if you check back you will see the name calling is coming from the other direction more. Besides this was but a question, but a rather stinging one.

---

Timeline:
- Cal88 posts repeatedly presents evidence (some of which is cherry-picked or fake) to try to discredit the position that the majority of climate scientists hold.
- He is asked if he is a climate scientist. I think it's legitimate to ask someone taking such a strong contrary position for his credentials. A legitimate answer might be no I'm not but here are my areas of expertise/knowledge.

- It is strongly implied by Cal88 or another poster that measures such as carbon tax would have harmful effects on the economy. (Not you Odonto, I know you take the unfair deal angle).
- Someone replies asking what's wrong with a carbon tax.
- Cal88 asks if they are a tax expert.

Do you see the difference? The poster asking what's wrong with a carbon tax made no sweeping claims contrary to what the majority scientific or economic point of view is across the world. So being a tax expert really is not relevant. More of a non sequitur.

OdontoBear66;842851775 said:

---

I believe that there are tons of Independents and less Conservative Republicans who are believers, but have different forms of questioning such as mine. I think it is an issue that is close to making it. But by making arbitrary arguments and calling names is not gonna help your cause with those wavering. This is exactly why Hillary lost the election. Quietly sat a lot of people on the fence, and near the end they were fell the wrong way to please you I would guess.

---

You could argue Hillary lost the election because Trump made arbitrary arguments and called people names. People either fell for his scam or, even worse, understood what kind of person he is and voted for him anyway.

There are certainly a lot of things that could have gone differently to swing the election but I highly doubt it has much to do with the conservatives in this country fighting back against name-calling and arbitrary arguments (whatever that is) because these weren't one-sided by any stretch. You're a smart guy and you read all these political threads. Do you think the nsme-calling is one-sided?

As for arbitrary arguments, I think many of us are still waiting for you to tell us what exactly you objected to in the Paris accord and what you would have liked to have seen from this non-binding agreement. Based on your more recent posts on this topic, it would appear you were in favor or a stronger posture where we would force China and India to reduce CO2 emissions faster/sooner than the commitments they made in Paris. On the other hand that would be anything but a moderate stance so I'm left wondering how to reconcile your self-avowed moderation with a quite extreme position.

Unit2Sucks;842851782 said:

---

You could argue Hillary lost the election because Trump made arbitrary arguments and called people names. People either fell for his scam or, even worse, understood what kind of person he is and voted for him anyway.

---

Well you got the latter right for sure. But the idea that he ran on a scam could only be pushed by a hopelessly pathetic left. If your side can't beat a guy who is a scammer, then you really need to re-examine your strategy and change it significantly.

Has that happened yet with the left and the Democrats? Nope.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/democrats-slogan-trump-other-guys-2018-elections-dccc-criticism-a7828071.html

OdontoBear66;842851774 said:

---

sycasey, please read. I said nothing about the economy. You implied that. I said it was a bad deal. How can we even have a discussion if you and others put words and thoughts you wish in one's mouth.

Taxing carbon in the US and allowing coal usage growth in China and India at a high scale through 2030 is absurd if you are a believer. There is ONE earth, not one in America and one in China, and one in India.

---

If it's a "bad deal" then surely that means there would be a negative impact to the country as a whole. You're right that I assumed that means an economic impact (and Cal88 among others have either stated or implied that there would be), but okay:

What negative impacts do you think the Paris agreement would have had for the U.S.? Specifically how would that have happened?

Strykur;842851783 said:

---

Well you got the latter right for sure. But the idea that he ran on a scam could only be pushed by a hopelessly pathetic left. If your side can't beat a guy who is a scammer, then you really need to re-examine your strategy and change it significantly.

Has that happened yet with the left and the Democrats? Nope.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/democrats-slogan-trump-other-guys-2018-elections-dccc-criticism-a7828071.html

---

Democratic electoral strategy is entirely separate from the question of whether or not Trump is scamming people. I can name at least one big example where he did.

Trump said he would make no cuts to Medicaid:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/23/15862312/trump-medicaid-promise

The Republican health care bill (which Trump championed and pushed for) makes large cuts to Medicaid.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/gop-health-care-bill-would-lower-medicaid-spending-by-35-percent-in-2036-cbo.html

Sounds like a scam to me. Said he wouldn't do something then immediately went back on it after getting elected.

sycasey;842851791 said:

---

Democratic electoral strategy is entirely separate from the question of whether or not Trump is scamming people. I can name at least one big example where he did.

Trump said he would make no cuts to Medicaid:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/23/15862312/trump-medicaid-promise

The Republican health care bill (which Trump championed and pushed for) makes large cuts to Medicaid.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/gop-health-care-bill-would-lower-medicaid-spending-by-35-percent-in-2036-cbo.html

Sounds like a scam to me. Said he wouldn't do something then immediately went back on it after getting elected.

---

Not to mention the ridiculous premise that a campaign founded on lies and fraud must necessarily be easily beaten by opposition that isn't hopelessly pathetic. As though lies, fraud and scam weren't effective means of waging war for the public opinion.

sycasey;842851791 said:

---

Democratic electoral strategy is entirely separate from the question of whether or not Trump is scamming people. I can name at least one big example where he did.

Trump said he would make no cuts to Medicaid:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/23/15862312/trump-medicaid-promise

The Republican health care bill (which Trump championed and pushed for) makes large cuts to Medicaid.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/gop-health-care-bill-would-lower-medicaid-spending-by-35-percent-in-2036-cbo.html

Sounds like a scam to me. Said he wouldn't do something then immediately went back on it after getting elected.

---

Here's another:

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump remarked that once in the White House, he'd never see his golf courses again because "I want to stay in the White House and work my ass off."



In reality, Trump has spent 35 days at a golf property since taking office, according to NBC News. That amounts to more than 21 percent of his 164 days as president so far.

The New York Times also previously found that as of April, Trump had spent much more time at the golf course than his predecessors. By April 28, Trump had spent 19 days at the golf course. In comparison, Barack Obama had spent one day at the same point in his presidency, George W. Bush had spent zero, and Bill Clinton had spent five.

It's good for everyone, even the president, to take some time off every once in a while. You don't want anyone at an important job to be exhausted or drained, and multiple studies suggest that vacations and breaks from work are good for productivity.



What makes Trump's outings remarkable is that they're just another example of how he's lied and bullshitted to the American people. Consider this video from NBC News editor Bradd Jaffy, in which Trump repeatedly insisted that he would not take time off during his presidency taking shots at Obama for golfing, in his view, so much:

"There won't be time to go on vacations," Trump said on MSNBC. "There won't be time to go golfing all the time." At another point, he said, "You need leadership. You can't fly to Hawaii to play golf."

Trump has so far broken that promise to the American people.



Meanwhile, his legislative promises have fallen apart too. Trump spent much of the campaign contrasting himself with traditional Republicans by saying he'd take a much more compassionate view on health care, promising he would "take care of everybody," and vowing not to cut Medicaid. Instead, the health care bill that Senate Republicans proposed and that Trump supports would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cut 22 million people from the insurance rolls and slash Medicaid by $772 billion over 10 years.

This is the kind of stuff Trump could spend his time as president "working [his] ass off" to fix. Instead, it looks like he's taking a lot of time off.

OneKeg;842851781 said:

---

Timeline:
- Cal88 posts repeatedly presents evidence (some of which is cherry-picked or fake) to try to discredit the position that the majority of climate scientists hold.
- He is asked if he is a climate scientist. I think it's legitimate to ask someone taking such a strong contrary position for his credentials. A legitimate answer might be no I'm not but here are my areas of expertise/knowledge.

- It is strongly implied by Cal88 or another poster that measures such as carbon tax would have harmful effects on the economy. (Not you Odonto, I know you take the unfair deal angle).
- Someone replies asking what's wrong with a carbon tax.
- Cal88 asks if they are a tax expert.

Do you see the difference? The poster asking what's wrong with a carbon tax made no sweeping claims contrary to what the majority scientific or economic point of view is across the world. So being a tax expert really is not relevant. More of a non sequitur.

---

See? Even the Russians hire Cal grads!

In case anyone forgets, the topic is Climate Change - whether or not the earth is getting warmer and whether or not humans are the primary cause.

oski003;842851798 said:

---

In case anyone forgets, the topic is Climate Change - whether or not the earth is getting warmer and whether or not humans are the primary cause.

---

I thought we might start talking about burritos.

Guys - you are way too into the weeds on Trump's promises.

The primary scam in his campaign is that he said he wanted to be president to help this country. If anyone believed that at the time, they got scammed. If you still genuinely believe Trump is motivated first and foremost by the spirit of public service to this country, then I wish you the best of luck, you are going to need it in this world.

sycasey;842851763 said:

---

Because the evidence is not dubious?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

---

First, the climate science group is a very small subset of those working at NASA and many very prominent NASA people have come out against the climate science group.

Second, NASA's temperature data keeps changing. The NASA temperature record has record has been manipulated several times in the last 15 years to make the past cooler in order to accentuate the apparent increase in temperature. Essentially, a few key true believers in powerful positions decided the data didn't suit their narrative so they simply changed it. That's not science.

Third, there is tons of misinformation on that website. Sea ice extent is stable. The rate of sea level rise is roughly the same it's been for many decades. Extreme weather events are actually decreasing in number and intensity.

Fourth, the MSM is completely on board the CAGW train. It's been a long time since news reporting was balanced and .

Making Trump the posterboy for anti-CAGW makes for good politics but it is not a fair representation of those who hold that position. Those not in the CAGW camp have been increasing long before Trump was even a candidate.

Unit2Sucks;842851805 said:

---

Guys - you are way too into the weeds on Trump's promises.

The primary scam in his campaign is that he said he wanted to be president to help this country. If anyone believed that at the time, they got scammed. If you still genuinely believe Trump is motivated first and foremost by the spirit of public service to this country, then I wish you the best of luck, you are going to need it in this world.

---

This is it

hbbear;842851806 said:

---

First, the climate science group is a very small subset of those working at NASA and many very prominent NASA people have come out against the climate science group.

Second, NASA's temperature data keeps changing. The NASA temperature record has record has been manipulated several times in the last 15 years to make the past cooler in order to accentuate the apparent increase in temperature. Essentially, a few key true believers in powerful positions decided the data didn't suit their narrative so they simply changed it. That's not science.

Third, there is tons of misinformation on that website. Sea ice extent is stable. The rate of sea level rise is roughly the same it's been for many decades. Extreme weather events are actually decreasing in number and intensity.

Fourth, the MSM is completely on board the CAGW train. It's been a long time since news reporting was balanced and .

Making Trump the posterboy for anti-CAGW makes for good politics but it is not a fair representation of those who hold that position. Those not in the CAGW camp have been increasing long before Trump was even a candidate.

---

This is all substantiated by.........?

sycasey;842851784 said:

---

If it's a "bad deal" then surely that means there would be a negative impact to the country as a whole. You're right that I assumed that means an economic impact (and Cal88 among others have either stated or implied that there would be), but okay:

What negative impacts do you think the Paris agreement would have had for the U.S.? Specifically how would that have happened?

---

Washington Post, June 1, 2017...The US leaving the Paris Accord not only hurts from a cutting emissions standpoint, but also financial and technological. The US is 20% of that. China and India did not have to comply as it would hold back their pace of development. Their coal usage would peak and decline at 2030 or before. China would be slowing coal consumption by that date and India would delay adding new coal plants then or before. The US was to contribute $3B to a Green Climate Fund for smaller countries. China at the same time would contribute $20M.

So add that to a carbon tax in the US and I would suggest someone was negotiating a bad deal. And as you and others make demands as to my position (none of which involves whether or not there is GW), why don't you present why what the US negotiated under Obama was such a great deal for "us".

Unit2Sucks;842851805 said:

---

Guys - you are way too into the weeds on Trump's promises.

The primary scam in his campaign is that he said he wanted to be president to help this country. If anyone believed that at the time, they got scammed. If you still genuinely believe Trump is motivated first and foremost by the spirit of public service to this country, then I wish you the best of luck, you are going to need it in this world.

---

I agree with that, but I still think it's useful to point out where he lied about specific things that can affect people's lives directly . . . like on health care.

OdontoBear66;842851809 said:

---

Washington Post, June 1, 2017...The US leaving the Paris Accord not only hurts from a cutting emissions standpoint, but also financial and technological. The US is 20% of that. China and India did not have to comply as it would hold back their pace of development. Their coal usage would peak and decline at 2030 or before. China would be slowing coal consumption by that date and India would delay adding new coal plants then or before. The US was to contribute $3B to a Green Climate Fund for smaller countries. China at the same time would contribute $20M.

So add that to a carbon tax in the US and I would suggest someone was negotiating a bad deal. And as you and others make demands as to my position (none of which involves whether or not there is GW), why don't you present why what the US negotiated under Obama was such a great deal for "us".

---

None of that tells me how the US would be HARMED, economically or otherwise. So we reduce our coal output more than China and pay more into a global fund. How does that harm us?

The benefit seems obvious, if you believe climate change is real: every country agreed to reduce their carbon emissions. That should help with combating climate change.

hbbear;842851806 said:

---

First, the climate science group is a very small subset of those working at NASA and many very prominent NASA people have come out against the climate science group.

Second, NASA's temperature data keeps changing. The NASA temperature record has record has been manipulated several times in the last 15 years to make the past cooler in order to accentuate the apparent increase in temperature. Essentially, a few key true believers in powerful positions decided the data didn't suit their narrative so they simply changed it. That's not science.

Third, there is tons of misinformation on that website. Sea ice extent is stable. The rate of sea level rise is roughly the same it's been for many decades. Extreme weather events are actually decreasing in number and intensity.

Fourth, the MSM is completely on board the CAGW train. It's been a long time since news reporting was balanced and .

Making Trump the posterboy for anti-CAGW makes for good politics but it is not a fair representation of those who hold that position. Those not in the CAGW camp have been increasing long before Trump was even a candidate.

---

Lots of assertions, no evidence. If you want to say you know more than NASA, you'd better bring more.