Will the United States again respect Science?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fuck that.

Trump's aligning the United States with Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Turkey, and Yemen in opposition to all the advanced democracies on earth

What the hell are you talking about? Link?

If you delight in Trump's having joined with Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Turkey, and Yemen as pariahs from the world community in the Paris Accord, I'm afraid that his alignment with those nations will be short-lived. You can hold as an article of faith that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax if that is what your blind faith dictates, but progress is in the offing:

Major Companies Call on Biden to Act on Climate Change
Utilities, banks and car makers signed a statement urging the President-elect
and Congress to enact ambitious climate policy

Major Companies Call on Biden to Act on Climate Change

Utilities, banks and car makers signed a statement urging the president-elect and Congress to enact ambitious climate policy

www.scientificamerican.com

If you delight in Trump's having joined with Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Turkey, and Yemen as pariahs from the world community in the Paris Accord,

If they aren't stupid enough to damage their economy for
zero actual gain.....why wouldn't we want to join them?

You never explained, how do I benefit by reducing my CO2 emissions in Chicago
if I freeze to death in the winter?

Or how many trillions we need to spend to make sure climate never ever changes?

You're not afraid to answer for some reason, are you?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

At least the pendulum swing the other way should be a little less bat shit.

Reality has a way of demanding attention.

We do not have the luxury of entertaining Trump's crackpot notion that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax.

Not a Chinese hoax. Most certainly a UN hoax. Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I recognize that the ideological basis for your denialism encompasses irrelevant dogma but, yes, humans have had a severe impact upon climate via the emission of industrial greenhouse gases during the last century-and-a-half, and the disastrous consequences are what are undeniable. It is the responsibility of humankind to undo the harm it has done, your gods and your "AOC" having no bearing upon that global commitment.

Again, I have far more confidence in the world's climatologists and all the nations that respect their acumen than I do in a pack of ideologues who rather align with Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Turkey, and Yemen.

You must get a kick out of repeating yourself. Either that or you really love typing those countries out consistently.

You can believe whoever you want to believe. Because this is America, I can do the same. Just keep the practice of your beliefs to yourself. If you want to go everywhere on public transportation or use an electric scooter, fine with me. If you want to put solar panels on your roof and erect a windmill, fine with me, but don't insist others do the same.

 

[WEATHER53]

I still have the Daily Times article from 1975 that stated the then “Weather Bureau” research concluded Coastal Highway in OC Md would be under 2 feet of water at every high tide
Will take a picture and post
Scaring us into submission over theoretical worst case scenarios portrayed as most likely is not new

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I still have the Daily Times article from 1975 that stated the then “Weather Bureau” research concluded Coastal Highway in OC Md would be under 2 feet of water at every high tide
Will take a picture and post
Scaring us into submission over theoretical worst case scenarios portrayed as most likely is not new

The global warming people don't like to talk about their past predictions because every one of them were wrong, just like the ones today will be wrong in the future.

FLASHBACK: ABC News Warns NYC Will Be Under Water by 2015 Due to Global Warming and Polar Bears Will Fall From Sky | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Seven years ago ABC News warned viewers that New York City will be under water by 2015 due to global warming.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[schmidlap]

You never explained, how do I benefit by reducing my CO2 emissions in Chicago
if I freeze to death in the winter?

Or how many trillions we need to spend to make sure climate never ever changes?

You're not afraid to answer for some reason, are you?

Your questions - some of them fatuous with their fake objectives of "making sure climate never ever changes" - are properly directed to your elected representatives charged with dealing with your personal concerns.

Ideological dogma prevents some from accepting the science, but those who are trusted with carrying out actual, practical responsibilities based upon empirical data cannot indulge in such frippery.

Just one example, national security. Advocating lax national security to satisfy ideological dogma is self-destructive.

The Defense Department Inspector General's annual list of challenges for the military in the coming year features a newcomer: the long-term threat to installations and operations from climate change.

Under the heading "Strengthening Resiliency to Non‑Traditional Threats," the 101-page report focuses on the impact to the Defense Department of "pandemics [and] extreme weather events, and the national security implications of a changing environment."

"Rising sea levels, extreme weather such as flooding, wildfires, or hurricanes, and a melting Arctic will require the DoD to consider the security, readiness, and financial implications of these non‑traditional threats," according to the report, issued Nov. 19.

25 Nov 2020
Military.com

Climate Change, Terrorism Top List of Challenges Facing US Military

The list is a departure from last year's, which did not list challenges specific to the climate or environment.

www.military.com

Urban and agricultural planning, conservation, commerce, etc., etc., etc. - the challenge is a comprehensive one.

 

[schmidlap]

Not a Chinese hoax. Most certainly a UN hoax. Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

The ideologically based paranoia that fantasizes about some vast global conspiracy contrived by scientists and advanced democratic nations just to piss off the planet's fossil fuel behemoths (both capitalistic and nationally-owned) is a doozie, although exhibiting the same symptoms as "fixed" democratic elections that demand the coordinated nefarious complicity of governors, secretaries of state, county clerks, poll supervisors, tabulators, auditors, and judges of both political parties.

Paranoia inevitably metastasizes until even your most trusted Hostess Twinkies® become highly suspect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never explained, how do I benefit by reducing my CO2 emissions in Chicago
if I freeze to death in the winter?

Or how many trillions we need to spend to make sure climate never ever changes?

You're not afraid to answer for some reason, are you?

Your questions - some of them fatuous with their fake objectives of "making sure climate never ever changes" - are properly directed to your elected representatives charged with dealing with your personal concerns.

Ideological dogma prevents some from accepting the science, but those who are trusted with carrying out actual, practical responsibilities based upon empirical data cannot indulge in such frippery.

Just one example, national security. Advocating lax national security to satisfy ideological dogma is self-destructive.

The Defense Department Inspector General's annual list of challenges for the military in the coming year features a newcomer: the long-term threat to installations and operations from climate change.

Under the heading "Strengthening Resiliency to Non‑Traditional Threats," the 101-page report focuses on the impact to the Defense Department of "pandemics [and] extreme weather events, and the national security implications of a changing environment."

"Rising sea levels, extreme weather such as flooding, wildfires, or hurricanes, and a melting Arctic will require the DoD to consider the security, readiness, and financial implications of these non‑traditional threats," according to the report, issued Nov. 19.

25 Nov 2020
Military.com

Climate Change, Terrorism Top List of Challenges Facing US Military

The list is a departure from last year's, which did not list challenges specific to the climate or environment.

www.military.com

Urban and agricultural planning, conservation, commerce, etc., etc., etc. - the challenge is a comprehensive one.

Your questions - some of them fatuous with their fake objectives of "making sure climate never ever changes" -

You're whining about climate change, not me.

Do you want us to spend money to stop releasing CO2 or not?
What should Chicagoans use to heat their homes in winter? Be specific.

"Rising sea levels, extreme weather such as flooding, wildfires, or hurricanes, and a melting Arctic will require the DoD to consider the security, readiness, and financial implications of these non‑traditional threats,"

Of course, there were no floods, fires or hurricanes before we started burning fossil fuels.
I wonder how much more the military wants to spend to fix these "new" problems?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You never explained, how do I benefit by reducing my CO2 emissions in Chicago
if I freeze to death in the winter?

Or how many trillions we need to spend to make sure climate never ever changes?

You're not afraid to answer for some reason, are you?

Your questions - some of them fatuous with their fake objectives of "making sure climate never ever changes" - are properly directed to your elected representatives charged with dealing with your personal concerns.

Ideological dogma prevents some from accepting the science, but those who are trusted with carrying out actual, practical responsibilities based upon empirical data cannot indulge in such frippery.

Just one example, national security. Advocating lax national security to satisfy ideological dogma is self-destructive.

The Defense Department Inspector General's annual list of challenges for the military in the coming year features a newcomer: the long-term threat to installations and operations from climate change.

Under the heading "Strengthening Resiliency to Non‑Traditional Threats," the 101-page report focuses on the impact to the Defense Department of "pandemics [and] extreme weather events, and the national security implications of a changing environment."

"Rising sea levels, extreme weather such as flooding, wildfires, or hurricanes, and a melting Arctic will require the DoD to consider the security, readiness, and financial implications of these non‑traditional threats," according to the report, issued Nov. 19.

25 Nov 2020
Military.com

Climate Change, Terrorism Top List of Challenges Facing US Military

The list is a departure from last year's, which did not list challenges specific to the climate or environment.

www.military.com

Urban and agricultural planning, conservation, commerce, etc., etc., etc. - the challenge is a comprehensive one.

Your questions - some of them fatuous with their fake objectives of "making sure climate never ever changes" -

You're whining about climate change, not me.

Do you want us to spend money to stop releasing CO2 or not?
What should Chicagoans use to heat their homes in winter? Be specific.

"Rising sea levels, extreme weather such as flooding, wildfires, or hurricanes, and a melting Arctic will require the DoD to consider the security, readiness, and financial implications of these non‑traditional threats,"

Of course, there were no floods, fires or hurricanes before we started burning fossil fuels.
I wonder how much more the military wants to spend to fix these "new" problems?

There were plenty of floods fires and hurricanes before AND AFTER we burned fossil fuels. There wasn't as much property damage or deaths because no one lived in the affected areas.

 

[schmidlap]

... Of course, there were no floods, fires or hurricanes before we started burning fossil fuels.

Your pretense is deranged, of course. Why do you make such foolish claims?

In addition to abandoning the pariah nations who do not join in the global quest to honestly confront anthropogenic climate change, the enlightened perspective the U.S. will again share with the international community recovers some of its previously high esteem that had been so seriously damaged.

An ideological cult is hysterical because its object of devotion has been toppled by the American People, and progress is in the offing!

The U.S. voted out a climate denier, and world leaders jumped for joy

Outside U.S. borders, world leaders were celebrating for a different reason — they were welcoming the election of a president who actually believes in climate change.

On Twitter, presidents and prime ministers from across the globe welcomed Biden with pointed mentions of climate change. "Congratulations to Joe Biden on his election as President of the United States," wrote Boris Johnson, prime minister of the United Kingdom. "I look forward to working together on our shared priorities, from climate change to trade and security." Frank Bainimarama, the prime minister of Fiji — a South Pacific nation facing rising sea levels and dying coral reefs — chimed in: "Now, more than ever, we need the USA at the helm of these multilateral efforts (and back in the #ParisAgreement — ASAP!)."

Part of the international reaction is a result of Biden's promise that he will rejoin the Paris Agreement on his first day in the White House, putting the U.S. back in the landmark accords that encourage all member countries to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. President Trump began the process of pulling the U.S. out of the agreement back in 2017, but thanks to bureaucratic red tape, the move wasn't finalized until last Wednesday, the day after the presidential election.

It's also a reflection of how world governments have begun to take the threat of global warming more seriously. "Over the last four years, climate change has just rocketed to the top of foreign policy agendas for many of our allies around the world," said Nat Keohane, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. That's because, he said, "the impacts of climate change on everyday life are becoming impossible to ignore."

The U.S. voted out a climate denier, and world leaders jumped for joy

World leaders celebrated the election of a politician who actually believes in climate change

www.salon.com

 

[schmidlap]

There were plenty of floods fires and hurricanes before AND AFTER we burned fossil fuels. There wasn't as much property damage or deaths because no one lived in the affected areas.

Why do you suppose the international community, guided by the best scientific minds, does not share your pretense?

Empirical data confirms rising annual temperatures, the consequent increase in severe weather events occurring with greater frequency, rapidly rising sea levels, and worsening draughts with unprecedented forest fires and devastating crop losses - all consistent with climatological forecasts?

NASA, the Pentagon, U.S. business consortiums, etc., etc., etc. must deal with the reality, not follow the ideological dogma that deniers appear to share.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The dangers claimed by the unaware alarmists are just as foolish as the claims 40 years ago that global cooling was going to starve the world in a deep freeze. It was hogwash then. It's hogwash now.

 

[schmidlap]

Why have science deniers festered in the U.S. until now?

US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds​

Out of 23 big countries, only Saudi Arabia and Indonesia had higher proportion of doubters

The US is a hotbed of climate science denial when compared with other countries, with international polling finding a significant number of Americans do not believe human-driven climate change is occurring.

A total of 13% of Americans polled in a 23-country survey conducted by the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project agreed with the statement that the climate is changing “but human activity is not responsible at all”. A further 5% said the climate was not changing.

Only Saudi Arabia (16%) and Indonesia (18%) had a higher proportion of people doubtful of manmade climate change.

Americans were also more likely than any other western country polled to say they did not know whether the climate was changing or people were responsible – a total of 13% said this.

But despite these views, the great majority of US citizens do accept the science of climate change, with nearly four in 10 saying human activity was at least partly responsible, potentially with other factors, and a further third taking the stronger view that human activity is the dominant cause.

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that people are causing climate change through the exponential increase of greenhouse gas emissions over the years. Global emissions are still rising, and the last four years have been the hottest since records began.

US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds

Out of 23 countries, only Saudi Arabia and Indonesia had higher proportion of doubters

www.theguardian.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Of course, there were no floods, fires or hurricanes before we started burning fossil fuels.

Your pretense is deranged, of course. Why do you make such foolish claims?

In addition to abandoning the pariah nations who do not join in the global quest to honestly confront anthropogenic climate change, the enlightened perspective the U.S. will again share with the international community recovers some of its previously high esteem that had been so seriously damaged.

An ideological cult is hysterical because its object of devotion has been toppled by the American People, and progress is in the offing!

The U.S. voted out a climate denier, and world leaders jumped for joy

Outside U.S. borders, world leaders were celebrating for a different reason — they were welcoming the election of a president who actually believes in climate change.

On Twitter, presidents and prime ministers from across the globe welcomed Biden with pointed mentions of climate change. "Congratulations to Joe Biden on his election as President of the United States," wrote Boris Johnson, prime minister of the United Kingdom. "I look forward to working together on our shared priorities, from climate change to trade and security." Frank Bainimarama, the prime minister of Fiji — a South Pacific nation facing rising sea levels and dying coral reefs — chimed in: "Now, more than ever, we need the USA at the helm of these multilateral efforts (and back in the #ParisAgreement — ASAP!)."

Part of the international reaction is a result of Biden's promise that he will rejoin the Paris Agreement on his first day in the White House, putting the U.S. back in the landmark accords that encourage all member countries to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. President Trump began the process of pulling the U.S. out of the agreement back in 2017, but thanks to bureaucratic red tape, the move wasn't finalized until last Wednesday, the day after the presidential election.

It's also a reflection of how world governments have begun to take the threat of global warming more seriously. "Over the last four years, climate change has just rocketed to the top of foreign policy agendas for many of our allies around the world," said Nat Keohane, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. That's because, he said, "the impacts of climate change on everyday life are becoming impossible to ignore."

The U.S. voted out a climate denier, and world leaders jumped for joy

World leaders celebrated the election of a politician who actually believes in climate change

www.salon.com

Your pretense is deranged, of course. Why do you make such foolish claims?

To highlight the stupidity of the AGW doomers.

Outside U.S. borders, world leaders were celebrating for a different reason — they were welcoming the election of a president who actually believes in climate change.

To paraphrase my parents, "If every other country in the world jumped off a cliff, would you?"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never explained, how do I benefit by reducing my CO2 emissions in Chicago
if I freeze to death in the winter?

Or how many trillions we need to spend to make sure climate never ever changes?

You're not afraid to answer for some reason, are you?

Your questions - some of them fatuous with their fake objectives of "making sure climate never ever changes" - are properly directed to your elected representatives charged with dealing with your personal concerns.

Ideological dogma prevents some from accepting the science, but those who are trusted with carrying out actual, practical responsibilities based upon empirical data cannot indulge in such frippery.

Just one example, national security. Advocating lax national security to satisfy ideological dogma is self-destructive.

The Defense Department Inspector General's annual list of challenges for the military in the coming year features a newcomer: the long-term threat to installations and operations from climate change.

Under the heading "Strengthening Resiliency to Non‑Traditional Threats," the 101-page report focuses on the impact to the Defense Department of "pandemics [and] extreme weather events, and the national security implications of a changing environment."

"Rising sea levels, extreme weather such as flooding, wildfires, or hurricanes, and a melting Arctic will require the DoD to consider the security, readiness, and financial implications of these non‑traditional threats," according to the report, issued Nov. 19.

25 Nov 2020
Military.com

Climate Change, Terrorism Top List of Challenges Facing US Military

The list is a departure from last year's, which did not list challenges specific to the climate or environment.

www.military.com

Urban and agricultural planning, conservation, commerce, etc., etc., etc. - the challenge is a comprehensive one.

Do you want us to spend money to stop releasing CO2 or not?
What should Chicagoans use to heat their homes in winter? Be specific.

Or run away........

 

[schmidlap]

To highlight the stupidity of the AGW doomers.

To paraphrase my parents, "If every other country in the world jumped off a cliff, would you?"

I can only conclude that the inability to accept the consensus of intelligent folks eminently qualified to ascertain the truth in any discipline is an emotional, and not an intellectual phenomenon. Surely, those ignorant in the realm of climatology claiming superior acumen to the plethora of individuals who have devoted their lives to that discipline, in science that is always subject to revision based upon the analysis of superior data, and one where breakthroughs that supersede convention are celebrated, would be asinine in the extreme.

The apostates from knowledge exhibit an emotional response, as their inability to present credible empirical data for their aberrant notions confirms.

A joined ideological characteristic is the denial of public health experts and immunologists concerning Covid-19. Rejecting their sensible preventive measures - social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing, avoiding large public gatherings, etc. - cannot be challenged on an intellectual basis, but, again, the opponents of such prophylactic measures are emotionally driven, and impervious to any empirical, analytical, rational approach.

Further, I suspect that those who refuse to bring their cognitive faculties and the need for evidence that is essential for ascertaining the truth to these their faith-based convictions extends to a cultish devotion that, irrationally and illogically, conjures up a vast, outlandish conspiracy in which the nation's governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general, county clerks, poll supervisors, vote tabulators and auditors, and judges across the land, of both political parties, are all in cahoots in some bizarre, clandestine, coordinated scheme to thwart the democracy they are defending.

It is all nutty stuff for objective, reasonable folks, but the true believer is only motivated by emotion, and utterly impervious to logic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To highlight the stupidity of the AGW doomers.

To paraphrase my parents, "If every other country in the world jumped off a cliff, would you?"

I can only conclude that the inability to accept the consensus of intelligent folks eminently qualified to ascertain the truth in any discipline is an emotional, and not an intellectual phenomenon. Surely, those ignorant in the realm of climatology claiming superior acumen to the plethora of individuals who have devoted their lives to that discipline, in science that is always subject to revision based upon the analysis of superior data, and one where breakthroughs that supersede convention are celebrated, would be asinine in the extreme.

The apostates from knowledge exhibit an emotional response, as their inability to present credible empirical data for their aberrant notions confirms.

A joined ideological characteristic is the denial of public health experts and immunologists concerning Covid-19. Rejecting their sensible preventive measures - social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing, avoiding large public gatherings, etc. - cannot be challenged on an intellectual basis, but, again, the opponents of such prophylactic measures are emotionally driven, and impervious to any empirical, analytical, rational approach.

Further, I suspect that those who refuse to bring their cognitive faculties and the need for evidence that is essential for ascertaining the truth to these their faith-based convictions extends to a cultish devotion that, irrationally and illogically, conjures up a vast, outlandish conspiracy in which the nation's governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general, county clerks, poll supervisors, vote tabulators and auditors, and judges across the land, of both political parties, are all in cahoots in some bizarre, clandestine, coordinated scheme to thwart the democracy they are defending.

It is all nutty stuff for objective, reasonable folks, but the true believer is only motivated by emotion, and utterly impervious to logic.

Still no word on the number of trillions we need to spend?

Maybe a simpler question won't stump you?

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

 

[schmidlap]

Still no word on the number of trillions we need to spend?

I don't pretend to be able to indicate precisely how much the nation should invest in its future as the era of fossil fuels finally winds down. Not relying upon dogmatic beliefs, I recognize that informed scrutiny by those who possess such skills is essential, and subject to revised estimates based upon evolving data.

If true believers have figures they wish to pull out of their butts, they can, of course, but I'll still have a preference for knowledgable folks making such determinations predicated upon serious analysis.

No doubt, there were those who brayed that whale oil would be needed forever, and advised investing heavily in harpoons.

Maybe a simpler question won't stump you?

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

Again, I don't pretend to be able to divine energy consumption needs, given the ongoing development of more efficient technologies, nor do I possess the expertise or the voluminous data that is needed to makes such forecasts. My pretending to have intelligent answers in such esoteric matters would be as silly as a reality-tv entertainer offering the injection of disinfectants as the cure for a pandemic. Crackpot stuff, indeed!

I realize that you also lack the acumen to offer an intelligent response to your questions, of course, and I doubt whether you are capable of respecting those who have the qualifications, but perhaps you might offer your ideas concerning just one significant aspect of nuclear power production - What do you plan to do with all the radioactive nuclear waste you will accumulate? Nuclear waste management is problematic, as the ongoing debates among nuclear scientists and engineers attests. What would you dictate?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't pretend to be able to indicate precisely how much the nation should invest in its future as the era of fossil fuels finally winds down. Not relying upon dogmatic beliefs, I recognize that informed scrutiny by those who possess such skills is essential, and subject to revised estimates based upon evolving data.

That's his (and my) point. There is no end. It's a bottomless pit and there isn't enough money in this country to fill it. No matter what we do or how much we spend, it will never be enough and drain this entire country. Nor are there any metrics by environmentalists to say what they'd be happy with. And even if they created such goals, never be able to tell us how much it will cost us to get there.

 

[schmidlap]

...There is no end. It's a bottomless pit and there isn't enough money in this country to fill it.

Your analysis is noted.

It may be largely influenced by ideological dogma, but thorough analysis of pertinent data by those who are qualified to accrue and study it will ascertain the accuracy of your opinion.