UN report: Effects of climate change even more severe than we thought

41,418 Views | 502 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by bearister
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IPCC report: Effects of climate change even more severe, sooner than we thought - Axios


https://www.axios.com/un-climate-report-global-warming-faster-ipcc-003e9e0b-ae85-4298-ad0c-09fe163b74f4.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah, we are up the creek. It does not take a genius to see that.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't worry, the rich Democrat private plane Martha Vineyard type people will solve it by taxing the middle class.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:

Yeah, we are up the creek. It does not take a genius to see that.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"In 2015, Pew Research asked American adults, of varying religious faith traditions, their view on climate change. They were divided into four groups: those who believe climate change is caused by human activity, those who believe it's being caused by natural phenomenon, those who believe there's no solid evidence the Earth is getting warmer, and those who aren't sure.

Of white evangelicals surveyed, 37 percent said they believe there's no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer this is higher than all other religious groups polled."

religionunplugged.com
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Moot points......The greatest polluters, China and India, will not stop using fossil furls; nor will they contribute one penny for mitigation. Therefore, even if every American wrote a check for 100,000 it would not make a particle of difference.....Besides, the liberal elites who push the alternative fuels, do not for ON E SECOND believe what they are saying....They jet around the globe in their private jets ALL THE TIME....Please see John Kerry. TOTAL SCAM...
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Moot points....
reassuring lyrics (if not strictly applicable) from still living 93-year old former uc santa cruz maths prof tom lehrer..
Quote:

And we will all go together when we go
What a comforting fact that is to know
Universal bereavement
An inspiring achievement
Yes, we all will go together when we go
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cool, now I can stop hearing you complain about it, give me my cheap coal burnt electricity.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John Kerry took his private jet to claim his award for climate change excellence. Can't believe God made these types of people. what would Darwin say about these types???
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goggles: Exactly..Actually, nuclear energy has never been safer. We are sitting on an abundance of oil and gas reserves, and, we are going to junk all that so we can be dependent on the sun and wind??????As bush would say, "not prudent.'
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).


The trade deficit between the US and China is 37 billion; the US and India 24 billion. If you want to curb Chinese and Indian emissions consume less products from there

Of course none of this happens because economic policy is driven by growth and consumption not climate
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).


The trade deficit between the US and China is 37 billion; the US and India 24 billion. If you want to curb Chinese and Indian emissions consume less products from there

Of course none of this happens because economic policy is driven by growth and consumption not climate
Tell me more - how do you propose we force/cause people across the world to consume less products from China and India? Tariffs? Boycotts? Sanctions?

Is any current policy designed to that end? Or are we just enacting regulations on our self that will have no effect?


smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
> Walk on your tip toes, don't tie no bows
> Better say away from those that carry around a fire hose
> Keep a clean nose, watch the plainclothes
> You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Migration to other parts of the world due to climate change? Kids ae in cages but the left don't care anymore after Trump left office.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.

There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.

The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.

Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)

During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.

PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here in New Jersey this summer I've been through two tornado warnings and now a hurricane off the coast. We get thunder storms regularly in the afternoon like Florida. Another abnormal season. Another round of people with their head in the sand.
American Vermin
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

Don't worry, the rich Democrat private plane Martha Vineyard type people will solve it by taxing the middle class.
Hey,
Trump and the GOP increased my Federal taxes by 50%
because:
I lived in California (and lost $22K in deductions)
I was single (widower)
Over 70
And they (Paul Ryan et al) lied and actually raised the tax rates on Adjusted Gross Income (discovered when analyzing my tax returns (and tax tables), before and after)


I've always wondered why California Conservatives never seem to complain about the FEDs using California tax dollars to subsidize 'red' states that refuse to tax their population to pay for state government..

I don't want to pay the bills for Republican governors in other states with my Federal Taxes on my California income.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149 said:

BearForce2 said:

Don't worry, the rich Democrat private plane Martha Vineyard type people will solve it by taxing the middle class.
Hey,
Trump and the GOP increased my Federal taxes by 50%
because:
I lived in California (and lost $22K in deductions)
I was single (widower)
Over 70
And they (Paul Ryan et al) lied and actually raised the tax rates on Adjusted Gross Income (discovered when analyzing my tax returns (and tax tables), before and after)


I've always wondered why California Conservatives never seem to complain about the FEDs using California tax dollars to subsidize 'red' states that refuse to tax their population to pay for state government..

I don't want to pay the bills for Republican governors in other states with my Federal Taxes on my California income.

Why are you opposed to paying your "fair share"? Isn't that what the dems want? Do you think your taxes would be lower if AOC and Bernie had their way?

And for the record, California is no longer a donor state. So you don't need to worry about your tax dollars subsidizing other states.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-longer-pays-more-to-Washington-than-15243861.php
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.

There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.

The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.

Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)

During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.

PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Classic post.

Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.

Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.

So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.

I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.

There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.

The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.

Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)

During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.

PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Classic post.

Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.

Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.

So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.

I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.

My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.

To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:

"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."

Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?

Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:

You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?

You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?

Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?

You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?

You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.

Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"

So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.

And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
Even after these so-called great cuts and increased Chinese emissions, our greenhouse emissions are still around double China's per capita. We're the largest emitter per capita among all large nations. We're also the 2nd largest emitter total behind China. Our 330 million people emit nearly twice as much greenhouse gas as India's 1.37 billion. We've put more CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution than any other nation including the whole EU, and double what China's put out. And one of our two ruling parties is still publicly denialist. We have no moral authority to criticize anyone.

China isn't even supposed to be reducing emissions yet by the terms of the Paris Agreement, which we just rejoined this year. They have until 2030 to begin reducing CO2 emissions and until then are even permitted rising emissions so long as they are building clean energy capacity as well.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

Don't worry, the rich Democrat private plane Martha Vineyard type people will solve it by taxing the middle class.


Actually, it's more like this:
Whatever class you are, wherever you are, they are going to dox your address, invade your home, and take everything you have!

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.

There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.

The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.

Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)

During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.

PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Classic post.

Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.

Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.

So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.

I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.

My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.

To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:

"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."

Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?

Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:

You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?

You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?

Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?

You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?

You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.

Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"

So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.

And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.

If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.

As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.

I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
Even after these so-called great cuts and increased Chinese emissions, our greenhouse emissions are still around double China's per capita. We're the largest emitter per capita among all large nations. We're also the 2nd largest emitter total behind China. Our 330 million people emit nearly twice as much greenhouse gas as India's 1.37 billion. We've put more CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution than any other nation including the whole EU, and double what China's put out. And one of our two ruling parties is still publicly denialist. We have no moral authority to criticize anyone.

China isn't even supposed to be reducing emissions yet by the terms of the Paris Agreement, which we just rejoined this year. They have until 2030 to begin reducing CO2 emissions and until then are even permitted rising emissions so long as they are building clean energy capacity as well.
That is my point. It is a bad/stupid deal that solves nothing while imposing disproportionate costs.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.

There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.

The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.

Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)

During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.

PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Classic post.

Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.

Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.

So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.

I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.

My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.

To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:

"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."

Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?

Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:

You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?

You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?

Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?

You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?

You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.

Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"

So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.

And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.

If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.

As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.

I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.

And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.

To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

kal kommie said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
Even after these so-called great cuts and increased Chinese emissions, our greenhouse emissions are still around double China's per capita. We're the largest emitter per capita among all large nations. We're also the 2nd largest emitter total behind China. Our 330 million people emit nearly twice as much greenhouse gas as India's 1.37 billion. We've put more CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution than any other nation including the whole EU, and double what China's put out. And one of our two ruling parties is still publicly denialist. We have no moral authority to criticize anyone.

China isn't even supposed to be reducing emissions yet by the terms of the Paris Agreement, which we just rejoined this year. They have until 2030 to begin reducing CO2 emissions and until then are even permitted rising emissions so long as they are building clean energy capacity as well.
That is my point. It is a bad/stupid deal that solves nothing while imposing disproportionate costs.
If the Paris targets are met, warming could be limited to 2 above pre-industrial at 2050. So far national pledges are short of targets and warming would be expected to exceed 2 but if just the current national pledges were met it would still accomplish a significant reduction in warming compared to no action even if it would not "solve the problem" in a binary sense. The only way the Paris Agreement "solves nothing" is if the key participants fail to implement it.

Moreover, if the commitments in the agreement are faithfully executed by the US and China, it would represent a landmark achievement because both the US and China have never entered into any international agreement with binding targets. Successfully meeting the national pledges would be an enormous first step in building the trust that would be required to make any more decisive action happen. It should go without saying that if a plan for modest cooperation couldn't succeed, more decisive cooperation would be even less possible.

As far as the costs go, these are the costs that are required to limit the extent of warming. In what sense are they "disproportionate"? Disproportionate to the benefits (harm reduction) of lower warming? What does your cost-benefit analysis look like on that?

If you don't support the Paris Agreement, what international action are you willing to support? Are you even on board with the scientific consensus regarding climate change? If so what would be your plan to tackle it?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.

There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.

The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.

Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)

During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.

PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Classic post.

Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.

Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.

So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.

I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.

My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.

To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:

"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."

Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?

Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:

You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?

You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?

Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?

You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?

You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.

Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"

So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.

And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.

If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.

As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.

I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.

And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.

To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
So what do you propose? You obviously don't understand how modeling of complex systems works so what "balanced approach" do you favor? Would you do nothing at this point? Your statement about "locking in increasing pollution" is non-sensical - nothing prevents China/India from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords. The rest of the world (including the US) intends to do so.

By the way, enough with the victim card. Pretending that ever criticism of your poor arguments is an ad hominem attack might fly in your bubble but it's pretty transparent here.

Unless you tell us otherwise, it appears you would do absolutely nothing on any front until some point in the future where we have perfect information. That's indistinguishable from the people in our country advocating for increasing our carbon emissions and ignoring the threat of climate change.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.

There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.

The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.

Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)

During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.

PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Classic post.

Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.

Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.

So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.

I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.

My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.

To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:

"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."

Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?

Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:

You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?

You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?

Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?

You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?

You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.

Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"

So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.

And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.

If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.

As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.

I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.

And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.

To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
So what do you propose? You obviously don't understand how modeling of complex systems works so what "balanced approach" do you favor? Would you do nothing at this point? Your statement about "locking in increasing pollution" is non-sensical - nothing prevents China/India from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords. The rest of the world (including the US) intends to do so.

By the way, enough with the victim card. Pretending that ever criticism of your poor arguments is an ad hominem attack might fly in your bubble but it's pretty transparent here.

Unless you tell us otherwise, it appears you would do absolutely nothing on any front until some point in the future where we have perfect information. That's indistinguishable from the people in our country advocating for increasing our carbon emissions and ignoring the threat of climate change.


You make the statement that nothing prevents China from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords.

Just for clarification. They did not agree to reduce emissions at all. They agreed to continue to increase their emissions but to cap these increases. They are being paid by the USA to do so via this international agreement. It seems wrong on its face but, then again, the USA pollutes more per Capita than they do.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
I will ignore for the moment the fact that you don't appear to understand how models work. Do you think there is a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? Do you think climate change is problematic? If not, I'm not sure there is any point to having a discussion. If you do agree, we can move on to the next part.

If you're here, this means you agree that man-made climate change is a problem and that we should take action. You've asserted that US action in and of itself isn't enough and that we would have to address international emissions, and specifically India and China. I don't think anyone who understands climate change disagrees with this assertion. In fact, there was this little thing called the Paris Climate Accords where just about every nation in the world, save a few shiethole countries (including for a short period of time the US), agreed to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to address climate change. Is the agreement strong enough? Does it go far enough? Will it work? Many people don't think so. Naming and shaming isn't the best mechanism for ensuring compliance but it is better than what anti-science denialists have been preaching. Unfortunately there is one significant group of people in this country who are doing everything in their power to ensure that climate change continues or accelerates. In fact, a thread recently started about Hugh Hewitt's backup host (Kurt Schlichter - seems like a real peach) who professed his desire to increase our carbon emissions. Why? Only conservatives in this country who promote this garbage can answer that question.

We've spent the last few dozen years listening to people like you tell us that the climate isn't changing, that if it is changing it's not anthropogenic and that if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and that if there is something we can do about it we still can't make China and India do something about it. It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions.

If I'm wrong when I say "people like you" and that you believe climate change is real and problematic and that we can do something about it but the biggest problem is countries outside the US - then I think we can have a very productive conversation. I would happily change "people like you" to say "people who you vote for and support" if it makes you feel better. But I think we should be clear before wasting our time attempting to have a discussion if it's not in good faith and with a mutual understanding of where we currently are.

I'm happy to throw my cards on the table. Much like with water usage in California, I think it's not enough for us to cut back. We need to address this globally. The Paris Climate Accord is a start but it's not enough. I agree that China, as the world's largest emitter, needs to cut back. Perhaps that policy can be combined with conservatives desires to reduce outsourced production. Perhaps we can combine the green new deal with more emissions friendly production in the US in order to help China cut back on their emissions. There are lots of things we can do to address the situation and we should consider all of them. The biggest problem we face in this country is people you vote for who are trying to reset the conversation at step one by pretending to deny that climate change is even a problem.
That was a lot of assumptions and words addressing something I did not say. I said the IPCC's models and reports are crap, with a clear political agenda. History has proven that to be a fact. Making policy based on crap produces crappy policy.

There is no doubt that man impacts climate. We just don't know how in any quantifiable sense. Yet people like you want to pretend these things are known so that you can scream "science" and impose policies that will literally have zero effect. The US doesn't need to be part of the accords to reduce emissions - we've done that in any event beyond what was promised in the Accords. And certainly there is no reason we should be paying for China (of all countries) or India to reduce theirs.

The funny thing is, you acknowledge that I'm right. Agreements like the Paris Accords did nothing because they allowed China and India to continue increasing their emissions on a massive scale for decades.

Your reference to California water is interesting since it again highlights a climate change fallacy. There have always been droughts in California. The primary problem isn't climate change. The problem is that California has not built any water storage capacity since 1970s. In our wet years, we fail to capture much of the water.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rains-expose-a-new-water-problem-in-california-storage-1488835216

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/)

During that time, the population has increased from around 20M to 39M. Yet people blame the shortage on climate change - not the fact that there are twice as many people using the same water (or perhaps less due to climate change). And many of those same people oppose any water storage project and even desalinization projects.

PS - In a moment of reflection, if you have any, I suggest you reread the post I replied to. Notice how much sanctimonious word salad you invested in impugning my motives, simply because I might have different beliefs (or policy preferences) than you. And you felt perfectly comfortable making a lot of really negative assumptions about me with literally no basis. It may seem like a great rhetorical device, largely by distracting from an actual discussion. but it is lazy and sad and a big part of the problem today. Mostly, it shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs. The more you go down the ad hominem path, the more clear it becomes your arguments are weak. Notably, you did not defend the accuracy of the IPCC's reports and predictions - the central claim I actually made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/07/03/how-politics-divides-friends/
Classic post.

Other than my assumption that you don't understand how models work, which based on your replies is quite clear, my post is filled with questions but very few assumptions about you. Let me address one point about the IPCC models - you say that they are politically driven but that is a bit of a tautology. What do you think it means to say that choosing to address climate change is part of a "political agenda"? I genuinely don't understand your point. You either believe that climate change matters and should be addressed or you do not. Do you think there is a worldwide political agenda to do something about climate change even though there is nothing to do? What on earth would drive that agenda? We know what is driving the climate change denialism agenda - money. There are a lot of people with money who don't want to take any economic risk in the short term by addressing climate change, notably any threat to the fossil fuel industry. If you think there is some long-standing agenda that is supported by money on the other side, I would love to hear it.

Setting that aside, I'm heartened to read that you largely agree with what most people (outside of US conservative politicians) that climate change is real, that it's man-made and that it can be addressed. We both agree that merely reducing US emissions is not enough. You seemed to misunderstand my analogy to water usage in California, but then you largely reinforce my argument there. If there is someone who is making improper assumptions, it's clearly you.

So here we are. We agree that something needs to be done on a global scale. We agree that the Paris Climate Accords, in and of themselves, are not enough. Because climate change is a serious issue, we need to do more. The fact that our models are improving but not perfect, is largely irrelevant. What would you do if your cardiologist said not to worry about your cholesterol because he didn't have enough information to tell you on which day you would die? We know enough to take action.

I will also address the irony of your last paragraph. If there is anyone prone to "sanctimonious word salad" between the two of us, it's the type of person who would write "sanctimonious word salad." Your failure to read and understand my post is evidence enough that you are the one "impugning my motives" and "shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs." But please, tell me more about ad hominem attacks while making them and lecture me about the "moment of reflection" I so badly need. I was hopeful that in your year away from the forum following your months of awful takes on COVID, you would have received some clarity. It could have even served as your "moment of reflection" but alas here we are.

My cardiologist has a way to actually accurately test my cholesterol and prescribe medication that actually works. So your analogy is inapposite.

To correct your analogy, what if you went to a doctor and he said the following:

"I think you may have high cholesterol, you have some indirect symptoms, but can't be sure because I have no real way to measure it accurately. And if it is high, I'm not sure if the cause is genetic, lifestyle, or some combination of factors beyond our control or that I don't fully understand. But I'm going to prescribe this medication that has some pretty significant side effects/costs, is ineffective in any material way, but it shows (or at least makes it look like) I care. Oh, and by the way, I have a financial interest in that prescription. Here's your prescription."

Would you take the medication? Would you think the doctor was competent or trustworthy? Would you trust other advice from that doctor simply because other doctors say the same thing, again with a financial and/or political interest to do so?

Yes, you just ask questions, none of which have very negative or cynical assumptions embedded. In the spirit of your question asking, I have a few questions for you:

You and other liberals advocate policies that I don't like. Why do you hate your country?

You support and defend liars and hypocrites like Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome, Ralph Northam, Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc. You don't join me in condemning these people. Why do you lack integrity and support lying?

Some on the left advocate for communism and support Venezuela/Cuba socialism - systems that have killed millions of people and denied basic human rights. Why do you align yourself with such people? Why do you hate democracy?

You are in favor of the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Why are you in favor of the rape and subjugation of Afghani women? Why are you a misogynist?

You don't see it or simply won't admit it, but many of your posts and conclusions are underpinned by very cynical and negative assumptions of people, and then challenge them to defend something they never said or something they don't stand for. You literally look for the very worst explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with you - ignoring many plausible good faith reasons.

Example from above: "It's pretty clear people like you know the answer you want which is to do nothing and don't care about the facts or the questions. If I'm wrong when I say "people like you . . . [then you must agree with me]"

So you define anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or evil. That is truly childish. Sadly, too many people engage in that bad faith "dialogue" because they cannot address the actual merits of the argument.

And again, notably, you continue to do that here, without ever addressing my original point - that the models have never been accurate in their predictions. I'll wait for your explanation as to why the same people who have been wrong so many times should be believed this time. And don't tell me "I don't understand the models." It is indisputable they've been wrong - VERY wrong.
The models have long predicted that greenhouse emissions would lead to climate change. Everyone (aside from a small bit vocal minority in this country consistently almost entirely of conservatives) understands that and has acknowledged for over a decade that action was needed. The models have improved with each generation.

If you somehow think there is an argument to be made that we shouldn't do anything because the models aren't "accurate" then I would ask why you would take medication when your doctor can't tell you precisely when you will die from complications resulting from high cholesterol. You don't need your doctor to accurately predict how and when you will suffer from high cholesterol for you to take action now. The fact that the medication works is similar to reducing greenhouse emissions. We know it will work.

As for all of your other stuff, it's sad to see you play the victim card. Woe is BG, a poor misunderstood conservative. Maybe you should go find a safe place away from message boards where people might interpret your words reasonably.

I am a bit confused though. Are you now saying you don't support any action to address climate change because of the models or because of China and India or because Republicans oppose action and you don't feel required to disagree with the politicians you support because I haven't called for Pelosi's resignation for eating ice cream. Or is it from having dinner outdoors?
We finally agree. You are confused. I would say more than a bit.

And no - it I don't oppose "any action" to address climate change - once again you make an allegation based partly as an ad hominin attack and partly to distract.

To repeat (in another attempt to allay your confusion). I just don't think the people making the flawed models - and their alarmist historically false and wildly inaccurate predictions - should be the people making policy. I support a balanced approach, with analysis of costs and benefits, where we don't enter into agreements like the Paris Accords that literally don't help (and arguably make things worse by locking in increasing pollution from China and India).
So what do you propose? You obviously don't understand how modeling of complex systems works so what "balanced approach" do you favor? Would you do nothing at this point? Your statement about "locking in increasing pollution" is non-sensical - nothing prevents China/India from reducing their emissions more than they've agreed to in the Paris Accords. The rest of the world (including the US) intends to do so.

By the way, enough with the victim card. Pretending that ever criticism of your poor arguments is an ad hominem attack might fly in your bubble but it's pretty transparent here.

Unless you tell us otherwise, it appears you would do absolutely nothing on any front until some point in the future where we have perfect information. That's indistinguishable from the people in our country advocating for increasing our carbon emissions and ignoring the threat of climate change.
This is the second or third time you claimed I don't understand modeling, without: (i) any explanation of that claim; and (ii) without answering the question posed, to wit, why are the models always horribly wrong. It is not even argument - its just verbal flatulence.

Unlike you, I will directly engage and answer the question. I would support international agreements that do not uniquely disadvantage our country and economy. As Oski003 pointed out, the US signing an agreement to reduce emission by a little while China is expressly permitted to increase its emissions by A LOT MORE, makes no sense. I don't support unilateral disarmament. So that also means not tolerating bad faith actions (like China dumping on the solar panel market)

I support transitioning to more natural gas, solar, nuclear, and wind (though I'm pretty skeptical of wind) even if that means governmental subsidies (which I typically would oppose). That means having the US remaining energy independent, which has a lot of environmental and political benefits. I strongly support spending money on the energy grid - it is one of the greatest needs But those policies need to be balanced by a cost-benefit analysis that is not predicated on alarmist crappy studies produced by people/organizations who have a 40+ year history of being VERY wrong.

I also think the US should be spending time and money developing strategies to mitigate and live with the climate change that is predicted by the models. That is not because I believe the models - but because I think it makes sense to consider all contingencies. This also reflects my belief that there is nothing we can do (short of war) to get China, India, and other polluters to make material changes. The climate has always changed and people will need to adapt. There is also a non-zero chance that a new technology is discovered to counteract climate change.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of the things I learned at Berkeley is you can't control the world but you can control yourself. I don't hold myself to China's standards. I like to think I hold myself to a higher standard than the Chinese dictatorship. I think leadership towards a common good will yield a positive benefit in the long run. Do Americans have what it takes to suffer a short term hardship for a long term good?
American Vermin
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

One of the things I learned at Berkeley is you can't control the world but you can control yourself. I don't hold myself to China's standards. I like to think I hold myself to a higher standard. I think leadership towards a common good will yield a positive benefit on the long run. Do Americans have what it takes to suffer a short term hardship for a long term good?


1/2 do. Don't know where that leaves us.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

One of the things I learned at Berkeley is you can't control the world but you can control yourself. I don't hold myself to China's standards. I like to think I hold myself to a higher standard. I think leadership towards a common good will yield a positive benefit on the long run. Do Americans have what it takes to suffer a short term hardship for a long term good?


1/2 do. Don't know where that leaves us.
.

The older generations, as a group, have ridden a 70 year wave of good fortune bequeathed to them by the generations that sacrificed before them and the generations after them which are saddled with debt. Their self-absorption and selfishness knows no bounds.
American Vermin
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

One of the things I learned at Berkeley is you can't control the world but you can control yourself. I don't hold myself to China's standards. I like to think I hold myself to a higher standard. I think leadership towards a common good will yield a positive benefit on the long run. Do Americans have what it takes to suffer a short term hardship for a long term good?


1/2 do. Don't know where that leaves us.
.

The older generations, as a group, have ridden a 70 year wave of good fortune bequeathed to them by the generations that sacrificed before them and the generations after them which are saddled with debt. Their self-absorption and selfishness knows no bounds.


I giggle myself to sleep every night thinking about the total tuition cost of my 4 year Cal education ($2,550) and the cost of the 2 bedroom furnished apartment I lived in on Benvenue Avenue for 6 years ($300/month) after I graduated.


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.