http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/world/europe/pope-francis-steps-up-campaign-on-climate-change-to-conservatives-alarm.html?referrer=

F Duke, I'm throwing my lot in with Papa.

bearister;842488447 said:

---

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/world/europe/pope-francis-steps-up-campaign-on-climate-change-to-conservatives-alarm.html?referrer=

F Duke, I'm throwing my lot in with Papa.

---

That's a riot - the Pope, having been vilified as representing the weak, superstitious 18th century thinkers, is suddenly embraced as the leader of modern scientific intelligentsia.

What's the carbon footprint of Al Gore's lifestyle?

FCBear;842488462 said:

---

What's the carbon footprint of Al Gore's lifestyle?

---

Dude is sequestering carbon, big time, in his waist.

GivemTheAxe;842488443 said:

---

A lot of this has to do with the quality of Human leadership and its fragmented nature.

It is difficult to get people to react to a particular problem when:
one segment of the leadership says that the problem is only imaginary being supported to steal your money.
another segment of the leadership says that maybe there is a problem but it is not as serious as being made out to be.
a third segment of the leadership says that the problem might be serious but there is little that can be done to solve the problem any way.

Under these circumstances humans with poor leadership react to a problem only when problem has become a crisis and they can see for themselves that the problem is real and must be addressed.

---

But in a democracy, part of leadership is to serve all constituencies, which is why it's less effective in dealing with problems-real or imagined- that occur in the future, the location and magnitude unknown. This is a unique problem in human history and also a global one.

Rushinbear;842488461 said:

---

That's a riot - the Pope, having been vilified as representing the weak, superstitious 18th century thinkers, is suddenly embraced as the leader of modern scientific intelligentsia.

---

The current Pope is actually pretty progressive, as Popes go.

sycasey;842488469 said:

---

, as Popes go.

---

My point.

Rushinbear;842488471 said:

---

My point.

---

Your point is what?

This pope is constrained by the mistakes of past office holders? Environmental activists should not applaud and endorse his attempt to "evolve" the hierarchy?

:hammer

Rushinbear;842488471 said:

---

My point.

---

I don't think that is a point, actually.

Rushinbear;842488461 said:

---

That's a riot - the Pope, having been vilified as representing the weak, superstitious 18th century thinkers, is suddenly embraced as the leader of modern scientific intelligentsia.

---

The Vatican has a science office (and has had one for some time now.)
It is quite up to date on all scientific matters including global warming.

sycasey;842488481 said:

---

I don't think that is a point, actually.

---

Naw, to be brutally honest, I have devolved into snide remarks about the liberal/progressive Left, generally. I have read numerous castigations of religion, broadly, and Christianity, specifically, as the product of superstition and ignorance, some of it on this board. I took your remark as a case in point, saw what appeared to be a slight on your part and fired away.

The fact is, I'm tired of this argument. It is clear that neither side will persuade the other to move a muscle, although I had hoped that we might have a rational discussion with each side acknowledging the other when actual evidence was presented. There have been some posters who have open minds to both sides and I applaud that. And, I felt that I had held up my end, but when I presented evidence and asked specific questions of an evidentiary nature, only a few responded in kind. The majority simply engaged in ad hominem attacks and changed the subject, rather than admit that there might be something to my point.

The few who responded in kind made points I was sensitive to, but to respond too much further was getting to be burdensome, in the environment that so many others created. I grew up believing that silence equals consent, but applying that premise to the barrage of nonsensical posters had to end. Just know that being outnumbered in a disagreement doesn't make the majority right.

In fact, I have set out my position on our planet's challenges in a variety of posts in this and prior threads. I believe we should be good stewards of the planet, but to use the issues, real and imagined, to further a larger political agenda is criminal. Especially when the benefactors of that agenda are among the worst offenders. I was challenged by the question, ok smarty pants, what have you done to be a good steward and my response citing some significant efforts was met with silence. At the same time, there was even admission by people on the other side that, ashamedly, they had done nothing.

Again, we should do what is possible to take better care of our planet, but not act so precipitously that we make things worse, do nothing to help, bankrupt ourselves, and/or become a tool for the tyrannical takeover of our country and, ultimately, the world.

And, that's it.

dajo9, refuting Newsmax with Media Matters isn't an upgrade in credibility. I'm not taking sides, I'm just sick of my FB newsfeed being full of garbage news from agenda "journalists" on both the left and right. We're Cal, aren't we better than this?

BeachyBear;842488504 said:

---

dajo9, refuting Newsmax with Media Matters isn't an upgrade in credibility. I'm not taking sides, I'm just sick of my FB newsfeed being full of garbage news from agenda "journalists" on both the left and right. We're Cal, aren't we better than this?

---

Amen.

wifeisafurd;842488388 said:

---

I don't want to get involved in the other back and forth, but I would like to clarify what I read in the IPCC UN report, admittedly some time ago in connection with work. Their conclusions were not different scenarios. They concluded (and note I am not saying I or any poster agree or concluded):

1) There is global warming
2) Its irreversible and material
3) The predicted impact is over a big temperature range because there are a lot of variables such the earth's sensitivity which is not well defined, how much we use chemicals that impact global warming, which is not that well known in developing countries, etc.

What people may be calling scenarios likely is this range of temperature change based on using different assumptions. But its not different scenarios and its doomsday (or at least depressing) reading.

---

Against my better judgment I'm posting to make two points.

1. I've seen this with the global warming debate in exactly the same way I've seen it with the evolution debate. There is the conversation between the scientists and the public and there is the conversation between scientists. There is a general consensus among scientists about the broad conclusion. They try to get that across to the public. But science is always challenging itself to try and get a more perfect answer. So one scientist who believes in man made causes to global warming may look at another who has the same conclusion and say "you are wrong on your model on global warming" - meaning that while we agree on the main point, we may disagree about degree, or how it is happening, etc. The portion of the public that wants to find a scientific source for their belief jumps on it. This is how Stephen Jay Gould became an unwitting poster child for anti-Darwinists.

2. Nothing is going to be done about the problem. It is too hard to fix. What will happen is that we will reach crisis point when everyone realizes something must be done and we will pump things into the atmosphere to try and rebalance the chemical makeup and we will either kill or save the planet.

Rushinbear;842488461 said:

---

That's a riot - the Pope, having been vilified as representing the weak, superstitious 18th century thinkers, is suddenly embraced as the leader of modern scientific intelligentsia.

---

You will be getting a late night visit from this crew:

Sounds about right. I like your take.

Rushinbear;842488500 said:

---

Naw, to be brutally honest, I have devolved into snide remarks about the liberal/progressive Left, generally. I have read numerous castigations of religion, broadly, and Christianity, specifically, as the product of superstition and ignorance, some of it on this board. I took your remark as a case in point, saw what appeared to be a slight on your part and fired away.

The fact is, I'm tired of this argument. It is clear that neither side will persuade the other to move a muscle, although I had hoped that we might have a rational discussion with each side acknowledging the other when actual evidence was presented. There have been some posters who have open minds to both sides and I applaud that. And, I felt that I had held up my end, but when I presented evidence and asked specific questions of an evidentiary nature, only a few responded in kind. The majority simply engaged in ad hominem attacks and changed the subject, rather than admit that there might be something to my point.

The few who responded in kind made points I was sensitive to, but to respond too much further was getting to be burdensome, in the environment that so many others created. I grew up believing that silence equals consent, but applying that premise to the barrage of nonsensical posters had to end. Just know that being outnumbered in a disagreement doesn't make the majority right.

In fact, I have set out my position on our planet's challenges in a variety of posts in this and prior threads. I believe we should be good stewards of the planet, but to use the issues, real and imagined, to further a larger political agenda is criminal. Especially when the benefactors of that agenda are among the worst offenders. I was challenged by the question, ok smarty pants, what have you done to be a good steward and my response citing some significant efforts was met with silence. At the same time, there was even admission by people on the other side that, ashamedly, they had done nothing.

Again, we should do what is possible to take better care of our planet, but not act so precipitously that we make things worse, do nothing to help, bankrupt ourselves, and/or become a tool for the tyrannical takeover of our country and, ultimately, the world.

And, that's it.

---

You explain your position well. I disagree and have disagreed with your arguments. I hope that we all will take better care of our planet. but I am concerned that the thoughts in your closing comments will be used by many policiticians to simply do nothing. That is what has happened so far.

BTW IMO the tyranical takeover of our country is happening now, thanks to Citizens United and the unlimited amount of cash that is swamping the democratic process intended by the Founders of our Country. (But that is a discussion for another thread.)

68great;842488545 said:

---

You explain your position well. I disagree and have disagreed with your arguments. I hope that we all will take better care of our planet. but I am concerned that the thoughts in your closing comments will be used by many policiticians to simply do nothing. That is what has happened so far.

BTW IMO the tyranical takeover of our country is happening now, thanks to Citizens United and the unlimited amount of cash that is swamping the democratic process intended by the Founders of our Country. (But that is a discussion for another thread.)

---

Thank you. The question for pols is what to do? There is insanity at both ends of the spectrum. And, the consequences of doing the wrong thing are potentially catastrophic. I've know a lot of pols on both sides (of the same coin, maybe), having been one myself, and some of them do take their responsibility seriously. Hence my paraphrase of the faulty proscription, Don't just do something, stand there.

As to tyranny, you drop a bomb and then withdraw from the field? Unless you believe that the vast corporate conspiracy is ruling the country/world through invisible marionette strings, that side is not in power. And, what of the vast corporate conspiracy on the other side, led by Soros and his sympathizers and foundations, to foment "radical transformation"? The threat of tyranny comes by way of those in a position to tyrannize.

Now, there being a statement on each side, would be the time to say "But that is a discussion for another thread."

Rushlimbear - it's really hard to feel sorry for you when you started a thread based on an intentionally misleading interpretation. I agree that there is insanity at both ends of the spectrum, but I think you may be closer than you realize to the extreme.

Rushinbear;842488562 said:

---

Thank you. The question for pols is what to do? There is insanity at both ends of the spectrum. And, the consequences of doing the wrong thing are potentially catastrophic. I've know a lot of pols on both sides (of the same coin, maybe), having been one myself, and some of them do take their responsibility seriously. Hence my paraphrase of the faulty proscription, Don't just do something, stand there.

As to tyranny, you drop a bomb and then withdraw from the field? Unless you believe that the vast corporate conspiracy is ruling the country/world through invisible marionette strings, that side is not in power. And, what of the vast corporate conspiracy on the other side, led by Soros and his sympathizers and foundations, to foment "radical transformation"? The threat of tyranny comes by way of those in a position to tyrannize.

Now, there being a statement on each side, would be the time to say "But that is a discussion for another thread."

---

You don't believe big business controls the country/world? Easy to understand why you are a denier then. But it's Soros and the liberals that do control the world? Wow! Mind boggling!

Rushinbear;842488562 said:

---

Thank you. The question for pols is what to do? There is insanity at both ends of the spectrum. And, the consequences of doing the wrong thing are potentially catastrophic. I've know a lot of pols on both sides (of the same coin, maybe), having been one myself, and some of them do take their responsibility seriously. Hence my paraphrase of the faulty proscription, Don't just do something, stand there.

As to tyranny, you drop a bomb and then withdraw from the field? Unless you believe that the vast corporate conspiracy is ruling the country/world through invisible marionette strings, that side is not in power. And, what of the vast corporate conspiracy on the other side, led by Soros and his sympathizers and foundations, to foment "radical transformation"? The threat of tyranny comes by way of those in a position to tyrannize.

Now, there being a statement on each side, would be the time to say "But that is a discussion for another thread."

---

I added my statement about Citizens United because you closed with the statement:"but not act so precipitously that we make things worse, do nothing to help, bankrupt ourselves, and/or[U] become a tool for the tyrannical takeover of our country and, ultimately, the world[/U]".

So I was responding to your statement about a tyrannical takeover of our country. IMO that take over has already begun and global warming activists are not the people wielding that tyrannical power.

You say I was "dropping a bomb and withdrawing from the field". I say I was merely firing back at a new attack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/california-greenhouse-gas-cuts_n_7171580.html

jyamada;842488569 said:

---

You don't believe big business controls the country/world? Easy to understand why you are a denier then. But it's Soros and the liberals that do control the world? Wow! Mind boggling!

---

No, I think both sides have elements of control insanity. Tyranny is the cruel and arbitrary rule of a ruler. That's Soros, his followers and the current Administration. Those big businesses you refer to may be out to control the economy and to despoil the planet and welfare of the people, but do not rule. You may believe differently, but that's what I meant by tyranny. It is the use of the state to perpetuate oneself in power. The US Constitution is the best design yet to keep would-be tyrants in check. It's not perfect, but it has worked pretty well until people who feel constrained by it do what is in the best interest of themselves and against the people. Now, it's being pulled and stretched as never before (except maybe the New Deal period).

Some in big business have tried to get away with actions that are not in the interest of the people and there have been times when the Republicans (moreso than Dems) have been unable to stop them and have taken money (moreso than the Dems, perhaps) to look the other way or to protect them. But, near as I can tell, big business doesn't aspire to form a party and get elected (I know - don't waste your time - you'll say they don't need to). It doesn't aspire to salt the voter rolls with newcomers. Etc.

I'm hoping we can rid ourselves of both elements, but we're in a race before our way of life is distorted beyond recovery. I'm that concerned. It would take 50 years. I guess this opinion does not come as a surprise. My wife just says, "Why don't you just say 'a pox on both their houses?'"

68great;842488592 said:

---

I added my statement about Citizens United because you closed with the statement:"but not act so precipitously that we make things worse, do nothing to help, bankrupt ourselves, and/or[U] become a tool for the tyrannical takeover of our country and, ultimately, the world[/U]".

So I was responding to your statement about a tyrannical takeover of our country. IMO that take over has already begun and global warming activists are not the people wielding that tyrannical power.

You say I was "dropping a bomb and withdrawing from the field". I say I was merely firing back at a new attack.

---

Fair enough.

bearister;842488595 said:

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/california-greenhouse-gas-cuts_n_7171580.html

---

Interesting. Is he challenging the private sector to do it or does he think he can do it through govt regs and taxes or a combination?

Two things - first, I read with amusement that the order is 40% of 1990 levels - where are we now with regard to 1990 levels. Second, I am reminded that a good part of California was desert and was despoiled through the overuse of water and other resources to change the environment over the decades, so it will be interesting to monitor the extent to which this can be done while keeping some semblance of the new normal.

I note that it is an XO and it is Jerry Brown who has done it. I wonder how long he'll be in office to make it happen versus being able to say, after the fact, that his predecessor(s) have failed while he wouldn't have (if he's still alive). I do think that the ag interests can do much better, having seen their irrigation "systems". If they turned the FL water management districts lose on those guys (and everyone else), you'd have your water back in months (and former desert would revert). Those guys are brutal.

Rushinbear;842488600 said:

---

Interesting. Is he challenging the private sector to do it or does he think he can do it through govt regs and taxes or a combination?

Two things - first, I read with amusement that the order is 40% of 1990 levels - where are we now with regard to 1990 levels. Second, I am reminded that a good part of California was desert and was despoiled through the overuse of water and other resources to change the environment over the decades, so it will be interesting to monitor the extent to which this can be done while keeping some semblance of the new normal.

I note that it is an XO and it is Jerry Brown who has done it. I wonder how long he'll be in office to make it happen versus being able to say, after the fact, that his predecessor(s) have failed while he wouldn't have (if he's still alive). I do think that the ag interests can do much better, having seen their irrigation "systems". If they turned the FL water management districts lose on those guys (and everyone else), you'd have your water back in months (and former desert would revert). Those guys are brutal.

---

There already are regulations and a cap and trade system in effect which will mean 1-5 billion in revenue over the next years. Brown is just updating the timetable. I see this as more a revenue than an environmental initiative.

Rushinbear;842488596 said:

---

Some in big business have tried to get away with actions that are not in the interest of the people and there have been times when the Republicans (moreso than Dems) have been unable to stop them and have taken money (moreso than the Dems, perhaps) to look the other way or to protect them. But, near as I can tell, big business doesn't aspire to form a party and get elected (I know - don't waste your time - you'll say they don't need to). It doesn't aspire to salt the voter rolls with newcomers. Etc.

---

Where "big business" attempts to influence the political system is in monetary donations. They donate to both sides, so in that sense the party distinctions are somewhat irrelevant. Based on behavior, it appears to me that the Republican side is more susceptible to said influence, but the influence is felt everywhere.

You'll probably say that other interest groups, like labor unions, etc., also put money into the system. Yes, that is true, they all do. But I'm pretty sure those contributions are dwarfed by those that come from big business.

That's why a decision like Citizens United is important. It removed yet another cap on how much money could be spent in political campaigns. My stance is that there is no greater corrupting influence than money, and we've got more of it in our politics than ever before.

sycasey;842488615 said:

---

Where "big business" attempts to influence the political system is in monetary donations. They donate to both sides, so in that sense the party distinctions are somewhat irrelevant. Based on behavior, it appears to me that the Republican side is more susceptible to said influence, but the influence is felt everywhere.

You'll probably say that other interest groups, like labor unions, etc., also put money into the system. Yes, that is true, they all do. But I'm pretty sure those contributions are dwarfed by those that come from big business.

That's why a decision like Citizens United is important. It removed yet another cap on how much money could be spent in political campaigns. My stance is that there is no greater corrupting influence than money, and we've got more of it in our politics than ever before.

---

And, so Hillary ends up with $2.5 billion.

BeachyBear;842488504 said:

---

dajo9, refuting Newsmax with Media Matters isn't an upgrade in credibility. I'm not taking sides, I'm just sick of my FB newsfeed being full of garbage news from agenda "journalists" on both the left and right. We're Cal, aren't we better than this?

---

Actually, no. Partisanship does not equal dishonesty. The Media Matters link used quotes from the study's author to prove the dishonesty of the Newsmax article. if you want to have a substantive comment please show me the dishonesty in the media Matters article.

GB54;842488602 said:

---

I see this as more a revenue than an environmental initiative.

---

Yeah, I was just gonna say, where is that money going? Into the GF I bet. Like transportation money, school money, etc.

Rushinbear;842488596 said:

---

No, I think both sides have elements of control insanity. Tyranny is the cruel and arbitrary rule of a ruler. That's Soros, his followers and the current Administration. Those big businesses you refer to may be out to control the economy and to despoil the planet and welfare of the people, but do not rule. You may believe differently, but that's what I meant by tyranny. It is the use of the state to perpetuate oneself in power. The US Constitution is the best design yet to keep would-be tyrants in check. It's not perfect, but it has worked pretty well until people who feel constrained by it do what is in the best interest of themselves and against the people. Now, it's being pulled and stretched as never before (except maybe the New Deal period).

Some in big business have tried to get away with actions that are not in the interest of the people and there have been times when the Republicans (moreso than Dems) have been unable to stop them and have taken money (moreso than the Dems, perhaps) to look the other way or to protect them. But, near as I can tell, big business doesn't aspire to form a party and get elected (I know - don't waste your time - you'll say they don't need to). It doesn't aspire to salt the voter rolls with newcomers. Etc.

I'm hoping we can rid ourselves of both elements, but we're in a race before our way of life is distorted beyond recovery. I'm that concerned. It would take 50 years. I guess this opinion does not come as a surprise. My wife just says, "Why don't you just say 'a pox on both their houses?'"

---

I can agree with somethings you say but not with others.
I would disagree that tyranny is limited to a particular ruler. There have been many aristocracies that can be just as oppressive as a single ruler. IMO BIG Money is turning the US into a Plutocracy. The rich don't have to be in power if they control those who are. That is has long been the fear of the common man: see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".
I agree that Big Money is in control of both parties (we might disagree on who is more to blame). Big Money selects the candidates and gets what it wants done.

I disagree with your comments that one party is "salting the voter role with newcomers" if what you mean is that non-citizens are voting. There is so little evidence of voter fraud that it is a truly ludicrous claim.

If what you mean is that one party will get the support of the new voters, i agree with you. But that is the fault of the other party which has made the new voters pariahs in that party.

Finally, i wish that we could say "a pox on both your houses". But we can't since we all live in the same house.

Rushinbear;842488617 said:

---

And, so Hillary ends up with $2.5 billion.

---

The money is obscene on both sides. This is why I applaud insurrection whether it is the tea party or operation Wall Street because they are the only people who promote change. Left to their own, the Republicans and Democrats are only interested in bribery and self perpetuation of the oligarchy. Up the revolution

Rushinbear;842488617 said:

---

And, so Hillary ends up with $2.5 billion.

---

Sadly, that is what's needed to run a campaign these days. Some countries tightly restrict the amount of money that can be spent in a political campaign, but we opened Pandora's Box a long while ago (in the name of "free speech," which IMO is a terrible argument). Not sure how we're going to fix this problem now.

Rushinbear;842488619 said:

---

Yeah, I was just gonna say, where is that money going? Into the GF I bet. Like transportation money, school money, etc.

---

Sadly nothing to education. The train to nowhere, green community initiatives, etc

sycasey;842488615 said:

---

Where "big business" attempts to influence the political system is in monetary donations. They donate to both sides, so in that sense the party distinctions are somewhat irrelevant. Based on behavior, it appears to me that the Republican side is more susceptible to said influence, but the influence is felt everywhere.

You'll probably say that other interest groups, like labor unions, etc., also put money into the system. Yes, that is true, they all do. But I'm pretty sure those contributions are dwarfed by those that come from big business.

That's why a decision like Citizens United is important. It removed yet another cap on how much money could be spent in political campaigns. My stance is that there is no greater corrupting influence than money, and we've got more of it in our politics than ever before.

---

It's amazing to me when people don't recognize the dominance of corporate money in our politics. I feel like my party, the Democratic Party, is overrun by corporate interests. But at least there is a side to the Democratic Party that is resistant to that. In my view the Republican Party operates for the benefits of those corporate interests.

One can look at the donations or at the revolving door of jobs provided by big business to politicians or the huge corporate lobbying that takes place on a daily basis. It is by far the number one influence in our politics.