Unit2Sucks;842851635 said:

---

OneKeg - thank you for that reminder about Muller. Now I remember why he looked and sounded so familiar! Like you I also took an honors physics lower division class (although not from him) and decided once was enough so I reverted to the normal track to fill out my Physics prereqs. It was a long time ago but I do remembering having enjoyed his class even if not realizing it was the same guy.

---

Nice U2S! One oddity as an aside: names are a bit confusing as he is Richard A. Muller and there was a Richard S. Muller in the Engineering department at the time, and I've seen people get them confused. While I'm sure Richard S. was also no slouch, for those that had the opportunity to learn from him, Richard A. Muller was one unforgettable professor, in my opinion.

I was a glutton for punishment and continued on to H7B and H7C (with professors other than Muller). Not quite as intensely hard actually, though still plenty tough. Maybe they were by nature not as hard, or maybe Muller just intentionally made it more challenging. I was a Physics major so I took a lot more upper division Physics classes too, but I am more proud of the B+ I got in H7A than I am of any grade I got at Cal.

OdontoBear66;842851646 said:

---

Very interesting. I enjoy so many of your posts GB54, agree or disagree, but this is not cool. The red states don't agree so "F" them. With cr*p like that how do you expect anyone to exert compassion for the future of Mama Earth? Don't like my opinion, screw you. Not cool. I prefer to learn more about GW prior to giving up major, and I mean major, economic giveaways in the way of carbon taxes by the US vs. the likes of China and India. So I will withhold a "back atcha".

I still wait for one person to suggest why we, the USA, should so position ourselves with economic penalties vs. the rest of the world for the most part. We have made monumental strides in improving so much in our environment in our consciousness (look at LA from the 405 on any day compared to 1990, etc.). We are aware and becoming more aware by the day and making the right moves. Fiscal penalties, suspect.

---

What's wrong w a carbon tax?

OdontoBear66;842851646 said:

---

Very interesting. I enjoy so many of your posts GB54, agree or disagree, but this is not cool. The red states don't agree so "F" them. With cr*p like that how do you expect anyone to exert compassion for the future of Mama Earth? Don't like my opinion, screw you. Not cool. I prefer to learn more about GW prior to giving up major, and I mean major, economic giveaways in the way of carbon taxes by the US vs. the likes of China and India. So I will withhold a "back atcha".

I still wait for one person to suggest why we, the USA, should so position ourselves with economic penalties vs. the rest of the world for the most part. We have made monumental strides in improving so much in our environment in our consciousness (look at LA from the 405 on any day compared to 1990, etc.). We are aware and becoming more aware by the day and making the right moves. Fiscal penalties, suspect.

---

Same reason that we have always (well, for the last 100 years) positioned ourselves with economic penalties vs. the rest of the world by being the "world's policemen": Because we lead. I don't mind paying a little extra in taxes to be "the good guys". Somebody has to do it.

NVBear78;842851644 said:

---

Great that some here are now providing a chance to look deeper into this question. Appreciate this info and will be doing more reading.

---

More reading sounds great. Let me know if I'm wrong on the Dark Matter hypothesis - I'm a bit rusty and despite having studied Physics (but not much Astrophysics), I don't do it for a living.

I am 99% sure that you and I will not agree on much politically and I won't try to convince you of anything truly political here - though I also won't call you a snowflake! :p

But I would submit this. In the Muller video Cal88 cites, which is from prior to the exhaustive study he led, Muller rightly states one conclusion about the fudged data from a few specific climate scientists - "Quite frankly as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won't believe any more. You're not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards." I think you and I would both agree with that.

But in some serious irony, Cal88 ends up being guilty much the same way the data-fudging culprits were. He only depcits Muller's video from when he first found the fudged data and became a skeptic. He leaves out the conclusion Muller drew later after exhaustive research and accounting for confounding factors that in fact "...global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." And Cal88 leaves all this out while just posting the old Muller video, which has the fun label "Climategate." He then says that Muller is saying all this despite being a "warmist" - but Muller wasn't a "warmist" at the time. He became one later, albeit a measured one, after his exhaustive research led him to his "warmist" conclusion.

So based on all this, shouldn't you be just as skeptical of anything Cal88 posts from now on as Muller is of the data-fudgers?. I mean when he posts fake Time magazine covers, or chooses specifically the US in the 1930s as a basis for comparison, do you think that just warrants adding a conservative high-five and +1? Posting data is mostly good, but then the Muller's data-fudgers were also just "posting data."

I linked the whole op-ed article by Muller but only quoted part. Oski003 pointed out that Muller says that this is the best hypothesis, it raises the bar for any other hypothesis to match, it does not prove causality, skepticism is ok. And Muller himself is skeptical of some of the most alarmist climate change claims (e.g. that Katrina was caused by climate change). Which is right on. But the fact remains that Muller is stating that almost entirely human-driven climate change based on greenhouse gas emissions is our best current fit. That should be the starting point of the discussion - it's not "settled" like gravity is settled (and even gravity is not settled entirely, read more about Dark Matter, Dark Energy and some different models for gravity proposed by a minority), but it's a baseline best hypothesis that many still deny. Let's start from there and we can have legitimate discussion and disagreements on what to do about it and where the data can be made more conclusive of falsifiable.

This is not a hoax.

OneKeg;842851662 said:

---

More reading sounds great. Let me know if I'm wrong on the Dark Matter hypothesis - I'm a bit rusty and despite having studied Physics (but not much Astrophysics), I don't do it for a living.

I am 99% sure that you and I will not agree on much politically and I won't try to convince you of anything truly political here - though I also won't call you a snowflake! :p

But I would submit this. In the Muller video Cal88 cites, which is from prior to the exhaustive study he led, Muller rightly states one conclusion about the fudged data from a few specific climate scientists - "Quite frankly as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won't believe any more. You're not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards." I think you and I would both agree with that.

But in some serious irony, Cal88 ends up being guilty much the same way the data-fudging culprits were. He only depcits Muller's video from when he first found the fudged data and became a skeptic. He leaves out the conclusion Muller drew later after exhaustive research and accounting for confounding factors that in fact "...global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." And Cal88 leaves all this out while just posting the old Muller video, which has the fun label "Climategate." He then says that Muller is saying all this despite being a "warmist" - but Muller wasn't a "warmist" at the time. He became one later, albeit a measured one, after his exhaustive research led him to his "warmist" conclusion.

So based on all this, shouldn't you be just as skeptical of anything Cal88 posts from now on as Muller is of the data-fudgers?. I mean when he posts fake Time magazine covers, or chooses specifically the US in the 1930s as a basis for comparison, do you think that just warrants adding a conservative high-five and +1? Posting data is mostly good, but then the Muller's data-fudgers were also just "posting data."

I linked the whole op-ed article by Muller but only quoted part. Oski003 pointed out that Muller says that this is the best hypothesis, it raises the bar for any other hypothesis to match, it does not prove causality, skepticism is ok. And Muller himself is skeptical of some of the most alarmist climate change claims (e.g. that Katrina was caused by climate change). Which is right on. But the fact remains that Muller is stating that almost entirely human-driven climate change based on greenhouse gas emissions is our best current fit. That should be the starting point of the discussion - it's not "settled" like gravity is settled (and even gravity is not settled entirely, read more about Dark Matter, Dark Energy and some different models for gravity proposed by a minority), but it's a baseline best hypothesis that many still deny. Let's start from there and we can have legitimate discussion and disagreements on what to do about it and where the data can be made more conclusive of falsifiable.

This is not a hoax.

---

Moreover, if Cal88 found Muller compelling previously, why wouldn't he do so now?

GB54;842851648 said:

---

Wait, I thought you believed in personal responsibility. If the federal government is not going to do anything it is incumbent on local government states to protect their citizens. If some are willing to take this responsibility and others are not, then those that are willing to step up will have better outcomes. California is spending a lot of effort and money on climate change. Why should these other "welfare queens" get a free ride? Some of these states-in the height of arrogance- even refuse to allow local communities to develop local plans. Believe me, letting them drown is the height of "moderation."

---

Well one good reason is we have a Constitution in the US that gives significant rights to the states.

We negotiate (or give away) in international situations (think Iran deal for one, Paris Accord almost for two)

drizzlybears brother;842851653 said:

---

Does that mean you are a climate scientist or are not a climate scientist?

---

Cal88 is not a climate scientist, he is a propagandist. On many different topics Cal88 has located and is ready to produce substantial propaganda most of which has kernels of truth but which ultimately is incomplete, deceptive, or cherrypicked. The propaganda tends to align with a pro-Putin, anti-American strength view of the world, whether by accident or by willful conscience I can't say.

There are many reasons Cal88 should not have credibility. Posting fake Time magazine covers. Cherrypicking data to argue from. For me, it is that frequently he says things regarding economics which are just plain wrong. He does not correct himself or even defend himself. He goes on to the next bit of propaganda. If I know I can't trust him in an area I know about (economics) then why would I trust him on different areas. And I'm not talking about trust in terms of having a disagreement. I trust Odonto and BearGoggles even though I almost always disagree with them. I am talking about trust from the point of view that he is working at the practice of deception - a propagandist.

OneKeg;842851642 said:

---

Reasonable skepticism is ok in my book. Do you apply the the same skepticism to the proposition put forth by some conservatives in this thread that taking some of the actions suggested by climate scientists or signing treaties would actually lead to significant impoverishment? That seems far less settled to me.

---

I just thought this point needed to be highlighted more. The deniers accuse the scientific consensus of being "alarmist," yet then turn around and in the same breath predict economic ruin from carbon taxing. Is that not also alarmist? Specifically what evidence is there that this would happen?

OdontoBear66;842851668 said:

---

Well one good reason is we have a Constitution in the US that gives significant rights to the states.

We negotiate (or give away) in international situations (think Iran deal for one, Paris Accord almost for two)

---

True, but what is the constitutional right to do nothing. In the post Paris world where the federal government doesn't act, then the states will act to protect its citizens as they should.,It's already happening- California has a climate policy, the US doesn't. California has passed AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. California is hosting an international meeting on climate change, the US is not. It's obvious that those with solutions will be better prepared than the deniers. The passivity of the deniers will cost them particularly those in the line of fire. One would think someone like you who in other threads is always arguing that people should take responsibility for their health would appreciate this

Of course, the laggards will probably be bailed out since disaster relief is one of our biggest boondoggles and welfare programs-not just in red states either.

sycasey;842851676 said:

---

I just thought this point needed to be highlighted more. The deniers accuse the scientific consensus of being "alarmist," yet then turn around and in the same breath predict economic ruin from carbon taxing. Is that not also alarmist? Specifically what evidence is there that this would happen?

---

It's a canard- has California's economy been destroyed by passing global warming legislation or Europe's? If they just said that it was Presidential overeach, I'd agree. Because it was, which is why it had no lasting power.

OdontoBear66;842851646 said:

---

Very interesting. I enjoy so many of your posts GB54, agree or disagree, but this is not cool. The red states don't agree so "F" them. With cr*p like that how do you expect anyone to exert compassion for the future of Mama Earth? Don't like my opinion, screw you. Not cool. I prefer to learn more about GW prior to giving up major, and I mean major, economic giveaways in the way of carbon taxes by the US vs. the likes of China and India. So I will withhold a "back atcha".

I still wait for one person to suggest why we, the USA, should so position ourselves with economic penalties vs. the rest of the world for the most part. We have made monumental strides in improving so much in our environment in our consciousness (look at LA from the 405 on any day compared to 1990, etc.). We are aware and becoming more aware by the day and making the right moves. Fiscal penalties, suspect.

---

Answer: surrender of sovereignty to One World Order (or, I'm smarter than you, so I get to tell you how to live).

drizzlybears brother;842851658 said:

---

What's wrong w a carbon tax?

---

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

Cal88;842851691 said:

---

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

---

In all fairness, this kind of statement does not move the debate forward. Can you address the allegations regarding your misrepresentation of Muller and the fake Time cover?

oski003;842851692 said:

---

In all fairness, this kind of statement does not move the debate forward. Can you address the allegations regarding your misrepresentation of Muller and the fake Time cover?

---

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.

Maybe we should go back to the last time someone called Cal88 on the fact that he posted the fake Time cover to see what his response was. It's like ground hog day, invariably the next time we have a thread on climate change (almost all of which are started by skeptics), Cal88 will be back at square one with his misinformation campaign.

Eastern Oregon Bear;842851655 said:

---

That Time magazine cover is a fake. Here's Time's comments about that photoshopped forgery:

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming

So, if that was faked, what can we believe of the rest of it? We're not dealing with honest people.

---

I used that graphic above because of the highlighted text showing that scientists in the 1970s attributed global cooling (which was the scientific consensus in the 1970s) to "air pollution", more so than for the magazine cover on the right.

If you want a sample of real Time Magazine "new ice age" covers from that era, I'll give you one:



I could line up entire pages of this board with other 1970s magazines and articles talking about the impending ice age.

Nimoy chimes in, for the trekkies on this board. It's popular science/vulgarisation, but no different from the alarmist fare we get today, and it features climate scientists from the era (some of whom have become warmists since IIRC):

[video=youtube;1kGB5MMIAVA][/video]


We now know that the scientific consensus on global cooling of that era, which was very much similar to the current scientific consensus about global warming, was laughably wrong. The cooling period from 1949-78 was
(a) due to natural causes and
(b) a transitory period, part of the normal climate cycle.

They were actually starting to mount a global policy platform to restrict industrial output in order to save the planet from the coming ice age, when the climate turned 180 degrees and it started to warm up in the next two decades, at a rate and amplitude that were similar to the last era of warming observed in 1930s-40s. So now, we need to aggressively plan for drastic controls on the economy through forced industrial curbs and a wide range of taxation schemes across every conceivable facet of human activity, so that the planet can survive (insert picture of thin, lonely polar bear precariously balanced on a floating chunk of ice).


I will address other points raised earlier over the weekend (Muller etc).

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.

---

Both sides need to focus on substance. If Cal88 can't make a rational response regarding Muller and the Time cover, he's lost his argument.

Edited to add that I am glad that he is addressing this

Unit2Sucks;842851694 said:

---

Maybe we should go back to the last time someone called Cal88 on the fact that he posted the fake Time cover to see what his response was. It's like ground hog day, invariably the next time we have a thread on climate change (almost all of which are started by skeptics), Cal88 will be back at square one with his misinformation campaign.

---

The only difference between this post and the many masterpieces from dajo is that you didn't mention Russia. :p

Cal88;842851696 said:

---

I used that graphic above because of the highlighted text showing that scientists in the 1970s attributed global cooling (which was the scientific consensus in the 1970s) to "air pollution", more so than for the magazine cover on the right.

---

A quick Google search easily refutes the idea that "The Coming Ice Age" was ever anywhere near the same "scientific consensus" that we currently have about global warming and/or climate change. It was a brief media-driven hysteria that was NOT based on any kind of scientific consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Quote:

---

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

---

http://www.snopes.com/the-coming-ice-age/

Quote:

---

This article, and much of the media coverage in its vein, overstated the level of scientific concern regarding on global cooling and its effects from that time period, a point graciously conceded by the author of the 1975 Newsweek article in a 2014 story he wrote for Inside Science

---

I just also want to note for some of our other conservative or moderate posters that most of what Cal88 says is also easily refuted in such a manner. All you have to do is a quick Google search and you can find evidence for why his posts are either wrong or misleading. If you point out one falsehood to him, there is no mea culpa, he just moves on to another one. Then ask yourselves why you should continue to take this person seriously.

Cal88;842851691 said:

---

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

---

Hey, you guys are the ones predicting economic ruin from government policies intended to address climate change (like carbon taxes). Where's the evidence for this?

Cal88;842851700 said:

---

The only difference between this post and the many masterpieces from dajo is that you didn't mention Russia. :p

---

That's because dajo and I differ on your motivations. He thinks you're a shill for Russia whereas I think you are a garden variety conspiracy theorist.

GB54;842851680 said:

---

It's a canard- has California's economy been destroyed by passing global warming legislation or Europe's? If they just said that it was Presidential overeach, I'd agree. Because it was, which is why it had no lasting power.

---

I understand why Obama didn't send the Paris Agreement to Congress: because he knew that McConnell was absolutely going to oppose whatever he wanted to do for political reasons (not policy reasons). If you want more evidence for that, check out how long he held that Supreme Court seat open despite Obama's pick of a moderate judge (Merrick Garland) who had in the past been praised by Republicans.

That said, I'm of the mind that he should have just sent it to them anyway, just to get everyone on record as having voted against a modest climate treaty, one that all of our allies had already signed on to.

sycasey;842851708 said:

---

I understand why Obama didn't send the Paris Agreement to Congress: because he knew that McConnell was absolutely going to oppose whatever he wanted to do for political reasons (not policy reasons). If you want more evidence for that, check out how long he held that Supreme Court seat open despite Obama's pick of a moderate judge (Merrick Garland) who had in the past been praised by Republicans.

That said, I'm of the mind that he should have just sent it to them anyway, just to get everyone on record as having voted against a modest climate treaty, one that all of our allies had already signed on to.

---

He did it for legacy reasons and what you said but for those reasons it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Likewise he had no power to dictate to the states how to cut emissions- this was also a mistake and likely contributed to Clinton's loss.

GB54;842851709 said:

---

He did it for legacy reasons and what you said but for those reasons it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Likewise he had no power to dictate to the states how to cut emissions- this was also a mistake and likely contributed to Clinton's loss.

---

I doubt it had much to do with Clinton's loss.

Part of this is also that Obama thinks longer-term, meaning that even if Republicans decided to pull out of the agreement later, by that time it would have been in effect for a little while and public opinion would have had time to gradually move further to his side. Republicans got their near-term tactical win, but if it's about winning "hearts and minds" on climate change, then I'd say Obama has won that battle.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-americans-support-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/05/post-abc-poll-nearly-6-in-10-oppose-trump-scrapping-paris-agreement/?utm_term=.9621b602a8de

I'd say the same thing about Obamacare. Republicans got tactical benefits from opposing it, but given how much more unpopular their "replacement" is it looks like they are losing the long game.

Cal88;842851696 said:

---

I used that graphic above because of the highlighted text showing that scientists in the 1970s attributed global cooling (which was the scientific consensus in the 1970s) to "air pollution", more so than for the magazine cover on the right.

If you want a sample of real Time Magazine "new ice age" covers from that era, I'll give you one:



I could line up entire pages of this board with other 1970s magazines and articles talking about the impending ice age.

Nimoy chimes in, for the trekkies on this board. It's popular science/vulgarisation, but no different from the alarmist fare we get today, and it features climate scientists from the era (some of whom have become warmists since IIRC):

[video=youtube;1kGB5MMIAVA][/video]


We now know that the scientific consensus on global cooling of that era, which was very much similar to the current scientific consensus about global warming, was laughably wrong. The cooling period from 1949-78 was
(a) due to natural causes and
(b) a transitory period, part of the normal climate cycle.

They were actually starting to mount a global policy platform to restrict industrial output in order to save the planet from the coming ice age, when the climate turned 180 degrees and it started to warm up in the next two decades, at a rate and amplitude that were similar to the last era of warming observed in 1930s-40s. So now, we need to aggressively plan for drastic controls on the economy through forced industrial curbs and a wide range of taxation schemes across every conceivable facet of human activity, so that the planet can survive (insert picture of thin, lonely polar bear precariously balanced on a floating chunk of ice).


I will address other points raised earlier over the weekend (Muller etc).

---

The first two Time covers are about the energy crisis and the third one is about a weather-related cold snap.

What's the phrase of the day? fake news

sycasey;842851708 said:

---

I understand why Obama didn't send the Paris Agreement to Congress: because he knew that McConnell was absolutely going to oppose whatever he wanted to do for political reasons (not policy reasons). If you want more evidence for that, check out how long he held that Supreme Court seat open despite Obama's pick of a moderate judge (Merrick Garland) who had in the past been praised by Republicans.

That said, I'm of the mind that he should have just sent it to them anyway, just to get everyone on record as having voted against a modest climate treaty, one that all of our allies had already signed on to.

---

Sycasey - as someone who is in agreement with you on the seriousness of global warming and the firm belief that human beings are the most significant cause of the greenhouse gases causing GW, why were we OK with the Paris Accord? Whether we sign on to that pretty much nothing agreement wouldn't seem to have done much to forestall us crossing the 2 degree threshold. I understand that it is better than nothing but so is what we would do even without it. It seemed more symbolic than anything, with more burden on US to make everyone feel good without accomplishing much. It seems like arguing that two buckets of water to fight a blazing forest fire is better than one. If the extra bucket of water will cause people to suffer more without much additional benefit, I would not be for it. The forest is going to burn down either way. If we want to save it, let's (meaning China, India and Russia as well) actually do everything we need to save the forest instead of talking about who is evil for not wanting that second bucket of water. What is the point of focusing on whether Cal88 agrees with you or not? Should you be working within your own party that something like the Paris Accord is insufficient? If we are serious and all these other countries are serious, let's not just add the second bucket. China doesn't need excuses on why they are taking half measures when half measure won't cut it. And honestly, why are you OK with people in California who complained about us getting out of Paris Accord still living as if their current lifestyle is sustainable for the environment? Why are we not protesting against that? Wouldn't that be more meaningful than arguing with Cal88? That is why this seems like mental masturbation without a climax. It doesn't seem like what is being argued is a solution either way. Sorry if I am mistaken, and I will gladly admit my mistake if someone showed me that the path forward drawn by the Paris Accord or the lifestyle knowingly led by even the true believers like us reflect the reality of the dangers we speak of? If not, we are debating something that won't change the result. Shouldn't you demand from the government but also from yourself and others that we do everything (not some token feel-good actions that deludes us into thinking we are entitled to be sanctimonious)? I don't agree with Cal88 but I also think those belittling him haven't done crap to demonstrate they actually believe it. Stop wasting time on this board day after day and wasting valuable productive resources but instead speak on this in a forum that may actually make a difference. I am really concerned about our kids' future, but I do feel that maybe things may not be as bad as I read it would be since those who are setting the alarms are not living as if those alarms are real. The actions and beliefs do not seem to align, and no one in power has set a proposal that seems to address the problem that has been laid out.

dajo9;842851713 said:

---

The first two Time covers are about the energy crisis and the third one is about a weather-related cold snap.

What's the phrase of the day? fake news

---

As I said . . .

sycasey;842851703 said:

---

If you point out one falsehood to him, there is no mea culpa, he just moves on to another one.

---

sycasey;842851710 said:

---

I doubt it had much to do with Clinton's loss.

Part of this is also that Obama thinks longer-term, meaning that even if Republicans decided to pull out of the agreement later, by that time it would have been in effect for a little while and public opinion would have had time to gradually move further to his side. Republicans got their near-term tactical win, but if it's about winning "hearts and minds" on climate change, then I'd say Obama has won that battle.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-americans-support-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/05/post-abc-poll-nearly-6-in-10-oppose-trump-scrapping-paris-agreement/?utm_term=.9621b602a8de

I'd say the same thing about Obamacare. Republicans got tactical benefits from opposing it, but given how much more unpopular their "replacement" is it looks like they are losing the long game.

---

Well if his strategy was to do half ass things- health care, climate change- in the hopes that a retrograde bunch of trogdolytes will do worse things when they come to power, yes, that could be considered long term

calbear93;842851714 said:

---

I understand that it is better than nothing but so is what we would do even without it.

---

This statement makes no sense to me. If it's better than nothing, why would you then argue (in the same sentence) that we would be about the same without it?

You have about 20 questions for me and none for the climate-change deniers. Why is that? Where are their proposals? This merry-go-round makes me think that Sebastabear was correct:

Sebastabear;842851385 said:

---

I think the problem I have with those now critiquing the solution as too expensive is that this position is just one of a series of cascading excuses to do nothing. To wit:

1. Climate change is not occurring. It's all a fake issue created by the Chinese or George Soros or the scientific illuminati whatever boogeyman those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry want to trot out. Let's put out press releases and mock the science every time a snowflake falls in DC in January. When disproven move to...

2. It's happening but it's totally natural and not man made. Create many ridiculous charts going back to the Jurassic era and publish them as proof that the earth has been hot before and this will all be fine. Ignore the fact that those changes occurred over 10s of millions of years and that humans could not have suvvived in that climate. When disproven move to...

3. It's happening and it's man made, but it's not that severe. When every polar bear on the planet dies and Mavericks relocates to Finland move to...

4. It's happening, it's man made and it's severe, but it's probably too expensive to fix and the Chinese and the Indians will just cheat anyway. When it occurs to folks that there in no fallback planet for the fragile ecosystem of the earth (and the 7 billion plus humans using its resources) move to...

5. It's happening, it's man made, it's a freaking disaster and would be worth any economic sacrifice to fix, but it's too late. Oh well. See you all on the other side.

Some folks never make it beyond step 1 and some start at one of the positions on this list and stay there because of deeply held beliefs. But there are a lot of incredibly cynical individuals who will happily migrate from one position to the next as their prior position becomes untenable. For them it's all about ensuring that we keep the status quo because that status quo is putting money in their pockets and them in power.

I consider myself to be a conservative on many issues. In my humble opinion, there is nothing conservative about risking the fate of the planet and the human race on the hope that we can dramatically modify the planet's climate and hope everything just works out somehow. That's not even radical. That's just crazy.

---

GB54;842851719 said:

---

Well if his strategy was to do half ass things- health care, climate change- in the hopes that a retrograde bunch of trogdolytes will do worse things when they come to power, yes, that could be considered long term

---

I don't think he had to "hope" about the latter. It was pretty much guaranteed with this bunch of Republicans.

Not sure if doing "half ass" things was a "strategy." Health care was what it was because Republicans obstructed en masse and there were still conservative Democrats (like Joe Lieberman) whose votes were therefore necessary. The bill had to be watered down to appease them.

Climate action was similarly "half ass" because of unprecedented Republican obstruction. Now, if you think that Obama should have gone harder after them in an effort whip up public support, then I can partially agree with that. But it's also possible that this obstruction was happening because the public wasn't fully ready for the changes.

sycasey;842851720 said:

---

This statement makes no sense to me. If it's better than nothing, why would you then argue (in the same sentence) that we would be about the same without it?

You have about 20 questions for me and none for the climate-change deniers. Why is that? Where are their proposals? This merry-go-round makes me think that Sebastabear was correct:

---

Because the Paris Accord is like the second bucket of water to fight a forest fire. It doesn't change the result. Yes, it's better than one bucket of water or no water at all, but it is still pointless. And the reason I didn't address the denier is that it is pointless as well. If they don't agree with the problem that seems so obvious, we can't discuss the solution. I am addressing those who believe in GW whether they actually also believed that he Paris Accord was a solution. If not, why do it instead of demanding that our leaders actually do something meaningful.

calbear93;842851722 said:

---

Because the Paris Accord is like the second bucket of water to fight a forest fire. It doesn't change the result. Yes, it's better than one bucket of water or no water at all, but it is still pointless. And the reason I didn't address the denier is that it is pointless as well. If they don't agree with the problem that seems so obvious, we can't discuss the solution. I am addressing those who believe in GW whether they actually also believed that he Paris Accord was a solution. If not, why do it instead of demanding that our leaders actually do something meaningful.

---

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

Problem is, the opposition isn't coming from me, my political party, my state, or my Congressional district. Which leader should I demand it from? Jerry Brown, Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, or Barbara Lee? Last I checked they are already all calling for stronger action. Democrats and liberals are not generally the reason stronger action hasn't been taken on climate change.

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

sycasey;842851721 said:

---

I don't think he had to "hope" about the latter. It was pretty much guaranteed with this bunch of Republicans.

Not sure if doing "half ass" things was a "strategy." Health care was what it was because Republicans obstructed en masse and there were still conservative Democrats (like Joe Lieberman) whose votes were therefore necessary. The bill had to be watered down to appease them.

Climate action was similarly "half ass" because of unprecedented Republican obstruction. Now, if you think that Obama should have gone harder after them in an effort whip up public support, then I can partially agree with that. But it's also possible that this obstruction was happening because the public wasn't fully ready for the changes.

---

Presidents lead. Obama won a "change" election just like Trump did. He had a mandate. It makes no sense to say you can't do things because of Republicans which was only his stupid vanity-"I'm going to reach across the aisle"- which he dropped when there was nobody across the aisle.It makes no sense to do a major entitlement like health care unless it pays off at the ballot box for decades. The reverse was true; Obama did half assed things and lost elections for his party all over the country. The country wasn't ready for social security, medicare or civil rights but we had Presidents who were.

sycasey;842851724 said:

---

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

Problem is, the opposition isn't coming from me, my political party, my state, or my Congressional district. Which leader should I demand it from? Jerry Brown, Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, or Barbara Lee? Last I checked they are already all calling for stronger action. Democrats and liberals are not generally the reason stronger action hasn't been taken on climate change.

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

---

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?

GB54;842851725 said:

---

Presidents lead. Obama won a "change" election just like Trump did. He had a mandate. It makes no sense to say you can't do things because of Republicans which was only his stupid vanity-"I'm going to reach across the aisle"- which he dropped when there was nobody across the aisle.It makes no sense to do a major entitlement like health care unless it pays off at the ballot box for decades. The reverse was true; Obama did half assed things and lost elections for his party all over the country. The country wasn't ready for social security, medicare or civil rights but we had Presidents who were.

---

I don't agree with all of this, but I do agree that Obama should have pushed for more right after his first election. He missed his chance there. Was too slow to recognize the level of opposition he'd be facing.