They shouldn't be totally conflated, but really, nothing? You don't think that racism plays (and has played) a role in determining immigration policy?
Racism has definitely plaid into immigration policy. Not just now, and not just here, but throughout history and the world.
That said, though I personally favor a liberal immigration policy, there are plenty of reasonable people who disagree with me for reasons aside from the race of potential migrants.
But all this is besides the point. Sessions v. Dimaya was not decided based on immigration policy, but on principles of constitutional law and criminal law. The case turned on whether vague statutes should be read in a way that best favors a criminal defendant, so as to avoid the exercise of arbitrary power by the state. Justices Alito, Thomas, and sometimes CJ Roberts have a history of siding with the state in these matters. Justice Gorsuch, like Scalia before him, typically interprets vague statutes with the benefit being given to the plaintiff (consistent with the principles underlying the Rule of Lenity). The liberal justices (other than Breyer in some cases) tend to agree.
If my job funding depended on scaring people I'd come up with some great world-ending scenarios too...
I'm personally uncomfortable with assuming bad faith on the part of so many. There seems to at least be a consensus on the existence of anthropomorphic climate change, with some varied views on the severity of it.
I'm sure that self interest on the part of climate scientists has some effect on the margins. I know one person who went into climate science with the express purpose of proving the existence of anthropomorphic climate change, so there could be some confirmation bias as well. However, I really, really doubt that its enough to lead so many climate scientists (I hear 97%, which is really an overwhelming number) to completely fabricate their findings.
@BallpointMan Oh man. Since the industrial revolution? How about the Cambrian? The Cretaceous? The Ice Age? We have never even seen a mass extinction event in our recorded history. We only have the barest of influence on our planet if you ignore earth's entire history. It is known fact that more species have died than have existed in the narrow band of history that you seem to give such impetus to.
Gorsuch should know better--Supreme Court Justices must always avoid even the *hint* of being political. The spokespeople for that group may claim that they chose the venue because "it is a nice hotel and a new venue for us" but we all know that they chose it because it has the name "Trump" on it. They are hoping to appear as if they have the blessing of the sitting POTUS by holding their conference in a hotel bearing his name.
I find this thinking to be flawed for a number of reasons. First, TFAS has had events at Trump hotels a couple times over the last 30 years or so. It is not knew. Second, the idea that a Supreme Court Justice cannot speak at a venue where the owner may be a party in a case before the Court one day would preclude any speech at a venue where there is a dispute under the National Labor Relations Act (which essentially means all of them).
Finally, there is a difference between being political and ideological. Justice Breyer speaks for the American Constitution Society every year. Ginsburg and Sotomayor have spoken to them as well. Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch have all spoken at Federalist Society events. This is very different from attending a fundraiser, or speaking about an electoral candidate, which got Justice Ginsburg in trouble last year.
If my job funding depended on scaring people I'd come up with some great world-ending scenarios too...
I'm personally uncomfortable with assuming bad faith on the part of so many. There seems to at least be a consensus on the existence of anthropomorphic climate change, with some varied views on the severity of it.
I'm sure that self interest on the part of climate scientists has some effect on the margins. I know one person who went into climate science with the express purpose of proving the existence of anthropomorphic climate change, so there could be some confirmation bias as well. However, I really, really doubt that its enough to lead so many climate scientists (I hear 97%, which is really an overwhelming number) to completely fabricate their findings.
Climate science is fledgling though which means it's more subject to abrupt change than the more established sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc...). Back in the 70's it was supposed to be a new ice age that would kill us all. The hole in the ozone layer was supposed to kill us all too. Incidentally, they found the hole in the ozone layer at the same time they were ABLE to detect a hole in the ozone layer. That means it may have always been there for all they know. It's still there today too but since we're all still alive you don't hear anything about it anymore. Remember after Katrina how we were going to be devastated by killer hurricanes every year after that? I remember all the dire warnings and prophecies, except it didn't happen.
This so-called climate science is more like a religion. It's a lot like listening to the late-night televangelists preach about doomsday and then tell you where to send your check...
No one is saying the earth isn't a dangerous place to live for us and we can all pour one out for extinct species that came before us. That doesn't mean we should crap in our own bed.
What scientists say is that the effects we are seeing now are not what is expected and we've definitely had an effect. Things like bomb cyclones, extreme temperatures, and wild weather events are what we are getting. There are a million examples, jeez look at air quality in china or whatever you want. So you don't want to be bullied into paying more gas. Well I'd like to have my cake and eat it and not worry about any consequences. Do things sometimes go too far? Maybe. That doesn't mean that there isn't a real issue underneath this all.
I'm not holding my breath for Fox "News" to do the right thing, are you? Hannity made 36 Million dollar salary last year, he can go to any lawyer he wants to he went to Trump's fixer for a reason.
No one is saying the earth isn't a dangerous place to live for us and we can all pour one out for extinct species that came before us. That doesn't mean we should crap in our own bed.
What scientists say is that the effects we are seeing now are not what is expected and we've definitely had an effect. Things like bomb cyclones, extreme temperatures, and wild weather events are what we are getting. There are a million examples, jeez look at air quality in china or whatever you want. So you don't want to be bullied into paying more gas. Well I'd like to have my cake and eat it and not worry about any consequences. Do things sometimes go too far? Maybe. That doesn't mean that there isn't a real issue underneath this all.
Scientists can't possibly know 'what to expect'. That's arrogantly assuming they know all of the variables in the equation which is ludicrous when it involves the climate of an entire planet! The best part of this so-called science is that it's so all-encompassing that it would be nearly impossible to prove whether any policy change makes a difference without at least 50-100 years of data. How convenient that the people who crusade for these changes will not be around to see the results.
London is no longer a shithole like it used to be. Lake Erie has been cleaned up. Smog isn't as big an issue in the western world as it used to be. When's the last time you heard about acid rain? Things have gotten better without such drastic measures as called for the UN. The biggest mistake the democrats could do is latch on to this. When policies like that start hitting real people In the pocketbooks they're not going to care about some theoretical planetsaving BS.
Nuclear physics and environmental biology are not climatology. Climatology is based on computer modeling, not on empirical data. How good are the weather forecasts in your region? They're pretty pathetic here...
Edit: just out of curiosity, what do you think the extinction rates were when the glaciers advanced over all of that landmass? What about when it receded? Niche species come and go and always have. More adaptable lifeforms stick around longer. Our short lifespans don't allow us to get our heads around that concept. We are part of nature. Volcanoes, comets, the sun and asteroids are also part of nature. Guess what? Compared to those things we're not even the biggest determiner of the fate of this planet. The best thing humans can do for life on this planet is to figure out how to get off of it and extend it beyond the life of our star. Going back to the stone age won't advance that goal...
Two points:
A - Environmental Biology does look at the effect that a changing climate has on the biology of the region. So while they arent climatologists, they are related. Additionally - I didnt cite those people because they study climatology. It was to point out that the assertion that science which is driven primarily through universities is *NOT* contingent on finding data to back up false assertions.
B - My guess? Super low. Glaciers advance really, really slowly across landmasses. I'm betting those species had plenty of time to adapt to their changing climate. Unlike current day - when the climate is shifting so fast that models currently expect New York City to have the climate of Miami by 2100 (Assuming it's not half underwater). No one is arguing that humans do more damage to the climate of the planet than an asteroid would. However, we have the foresight and scientific ability to mitigate the damage we do.
@BallpointMan Oh man. Since the industrial revolution? How about the Cambrian? The Cretaceous? The Ice Age? We have never even seen a mass extinction event in our recorded history. We only have the barest of influence on our planet if you ignore earth's entire history. It is known fact that more species have died than have existed in the narrow band of history that you seem to give such impetus to.
Err. Wait -you think my argument is that more species have gone extinct in the last two hundred years than in the history of the world? That's absurd.
I've been speaking in rate of extinctions. Extinction events usually happen due to a confluence of cataclysms that cause a shift in climate faster than species can adapt to. Note the articles I posted all point to a RAPIDLY increasing rate of extinction. What do you think is causing that?
Scientists can't possibly know 'what to expect'. That's arrogantly assuming they know all of the variables in the equation which is ludicrous when it involves the climate of an entire planet! The best part of this so-called science is that it's so all-encompassing that it would be nearly impossible to prove whether any policy change makes a difference without at least 50-100 years of data. How convenient that the people who crusade for these changes will not be around to see the results.
London is no longer a shithole like it used to be. Lake Erie has been cleaned up. Smog isn't as big an issue in the western world as it used to be. When's the last time you heard about acid rain? Things have gotten better without such drastic measures as called for the UN. The biggest mistake the democrats could do is latch on to this. When policies like that start hitting real people In the pocketbooks they're not going to care about some theoretical planetsaving BS.
You are inadvertently making the point for addressing climate change over and over.
Why did smog go away from London. Do you know? Why did Acid Rain cease to be as big of a deal. Do you know? It's due to those pesky environmental regulations that governments realized they needed to put in place to keep people's quality of life stable. It wasnt some fickle climate that no one can ever predict or understand.
Those are great examples of exactly what we need to do now - only on a larger scale.
First, TFAS has had events at Trump hotels a couple times over the last 30 years or so. It is not knew. Second, the idea that a Supreme Court Justice cannot speak at a venue where the owner may be a party in a case before the Court one day would preclude any speech at a venue where there is a dispute under the National Labor Relations Act (which essentially means all of them).
Trump wasn't the President those other times. Now he is the President, and he didn't take proper ethical steps to isolate that role from his business interests. Any event held at one of his properties now, especially by a group with clear political interests, stinks of both politics and corruption. The organizers are putting money into Trump's pocket, and we all know that he tends to operate on a transactional basis. The whole thing is a bad look, and Gorsuch should have stayed away.
I don't find it surprising that humans could be responsible for a world-wide shift in temperatures. Humans have done crazier things by complete accident.
We have a much more powerful impact on the planet than we did when we were chucking spears at wooly mammoths. We've created entire islands, diverted rivers, carved holes through mountains, wiped out entire forests and ecosystems through deforestation and erosion or even just basic pollution, and mercury levels in fish have spiked for the sole reason that humans have been leaking mercury into their water supply. We've dramatically slashed the worldwide fish population, lit up the planet with electric lights enough that you can literally see us from space, wiped out entire species, and created entire species. Most of those changes weren't even intentional--just like climate change.
We already know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that's one of its physical properties. We already know that carbon dioxide is at its highest levels in thousands of years, and we already know that humans are emitting more carbon dioxide than we ever have in human history. We already know that global temperatures are their highest levels in thousands of years. We already know that global temperatures have never spiked as quickly as they have over the past several decades. And we're already seeing unusually strong natural disasters just a few years after the increased global temperatures just happened to coincide with the rapid melting of glaciers and ice floes that introduced large amounts of cold water into weather systems. And we already know that sudden changes in weather systems trigger chaotic behavior in those systems. None of that is theoretical.
Is it really so implausible that our millennia-high levels of known greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the millennia-high temperatures that occurred at the exact same time?
@semiticgod It's entirely plausible but it isn't provable. On the micro-scale we are devastating the planet in some ways and I won't even try to defend it. The Aral Sea is almost completely gone just so the Russians/Soviets could grow crops in regions that they had no business growing crops in. The Colorado River doesn't even make it to the Pacific anymore because of the US diverting water to the plains and Mexico doesn't have any say in it. Ditto with China screwing the Vietnamese out of the Mekong River so they can have cheap electric power. All of those problems are short-sighted human problems. We're also great at devastating our ecosystems by not controlling the introduction of non-native species (both animals and plants) and some of those introductions were even intentional on the advice of scientists that should have known better.
It's when I get preached at that I'm destroying the planet and need to feel guilty about keeping my house at 70F instead of 65F and should pay $5/gallon for gas and also pay a carbon tax that I call BS. If I wanted to feel guilty all the time I'd start going to church again...
@Balrog99 this seems an odd argument to me. Proving anything to the degree of certainty you appear to require is going to be difficult, but how much evidence do you need before you take policy action?
I think in another post you referred to weather forecasts suggesting they are not very reliable. Sure there are still deficiencies, but it amazes me how accurately computer models can predict something as apparently chaotic as the weather so far ahead. If a forecast said that a hurricane was predicted to cross your city in a week's time would you really propose doing nothing to prepare for it on the grounds that the prediction might be wrong?
You've already said that you accept the evidence that the climate is changing - and that evidence is strong, see for instance this graph of global temperatures. As @semiticgod referred to it's the speed at which things are changing that is so concerning. Information from things like ice cores gives us an accurate picture of the climate over many thousands of years and this speed of change has never occurred before. Evidence over millions of years is weaker, but things like a review of the fossil record and analysis of sedimentary rocks suggests that the current rapid climate change has never been the norm.
The mechanism by which carbon dioxide influences temperature is also now well understood. The area that still needs more work is what mitigating factors apply - for instance the capacity of the sea to absorb carbon dioxide. However, those are just mitigating factors - they may change the rate of climate change, but they won't stop it happening entirely. And given the above graph of global temperatures the evidence seems to me to be absolutely compelling that, if we do nothing, the world will change very significantly within my lifetime.
While I can appreciate the annoyance, I also don't think in principle that it's wrong to ask people to pay the true cost for what they consume. There's an ongoing argument about the extent to which oil companies should pay for pollution for instance, but I doubt if you believe that a company should be totally free to spread pollution without cost to themselves. The production of carbon dioxide is an analogous situation - it's a byproduct of fossil fuel use which has high future costs, the question is should we contribute to those costs or leave them all to the future?
How you react to the current evidence is also crucial. Even if you take the position that the link between carbon dioxide and climate change is unproven that still means you accept there is the possibility of a link. Given the importance of the issue, the precautionary principle would suggest that we should follow policies that will reduce the harm if there is indeed a link. To end on a more optimistic note, such a policy direction would not be particularly difficult. There is far more energy in natural systems (like wind, sunshine and tides) than humans could make use of in the foreseeable future and the costs of getting energy from those systems is already competitive with fossil fuels. More research is needed in finding good ways to store that energy on a small scale, but the prospects for doing that are good - we just need to do it quickly enough to mitigate the worst effects of the temperature increases already under way.
@BallpointMan Oh man. Since the industrial revolution? How about the Cambrian? The Cretaceous? The Ice Age? We have never even seen a mass extinction event in our recorded history. We only have the barest of influence on our planet if you ignore earth's entire history. It is known fact that more species have died than have existed in the narrow band of history that you seem to give such impetus to.
Err. Wait -you think my argument is that more species have gone extinct in the last two hundred years than in the history of the world? That's absurd.
I've been speaking in rate of extinctions. Extinction events usually happen due to a confluence of cataclysms that cause a shift in climate faster than species can adapt to. Note the articles I posted all point to a RAPIDLY increasing rate of extinction. What do you think is causing that?
Humans.
How would they know about this so-called rate of extinctions unless they know about every life-form that existed previous to humans. Many forms of life don't leave fossils because of their soft bodies. Fossils are also only formed when specific conditions are met so life that went extinct without leaving that record would be unaccounted for. Sea animals are far more likely to be fossilized than terrestrial animals for one example of this. There are also more and more species being discovered all the time. Do all of those get factored into those equations? I would venture to bet that there are more species on this planet right now than they have fossil records for all of the rest of history put together. Don't try to tell me that they know about the rate of extinctions 500 million years ago...
Again, human arrogance that we somehow call the shots for this planet. Ants are more successful than we are as a species...
@BallpointMan I misunderstood, my apologies. Though I find the thought that the rate of extinction we see today is greater than a mass extinction event is patently absurd. We still don't approach anywhere near the levels needed to be responsible for global change.
@Grond0 "As @semiticgod referred to it's the speed at which things are changing that is so concerning. Information from things like ice cores gives us an accurate picture of the climate over many thousands of years and this speed of change has never occurred before. Evidence over millions of years is weaker, but things like a review of the fossil record and analysis of sedimentary rocks suggests that the current rapid climate change has never been the norm."
No it never was the norm. But they happen regardless.They are ioslated incidents that happen every now and then in earth's history. The dinosaur extinction event, massive global climate change during the Ice Age, the breaking of Pangea, etc. Massive events that dramatically change things are never the norm, but they happen from time to time regardless of our efforts for or against. We are due for a re-normalizing of climate (remember that the earth's standard climate is tropical to sub-tropical, even at the poles.). Its the natural cycle of the planet and we are better served learning how to adapt to it, than waste our efforts on stopping it when it was never in our control to begin with.
How would they know about this so-called rate of extinctions unless they know about every life-form that existed previous to humans. Many forms of life don't leave fossils because of their soft bodies. Fossils are also only formed when specific conditions are met so life that went extinct without leaving that record would be unaccounted for. Sea animals are far more likely to be fossilized than terrestrial animals for one example of this. There are also more and more species being discovered all the time. Do all of those get factored into those equations? I would venture to bet that there are more species on this planet right now than they have fossil records for all of the rest of history put together. Don't try to tell me that they know about the rate of extinctions 500 million years ago...
Again, human arrogance that we somehow call the shots for this planet. Ants are more successful than we are as a species...
If you were to only compare the rate of extinctions of animals that leave behind evidence of their extinction, it's still clearly happening at a faster rate in the last 200 years than in the 200 years before that, and extrapolated out - in recent eras.
So this line of argument doesnt get us anywhere. I dont buy the "we cannot know" argument as a cop out to avoid addressing a problem that we are reasonably certain is happening. By we, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of climatologists who believe man is having a substantial impact on the climate. See Boo's argument above for why attempting to dismiss them out of hand strains credulity.
I don't find it surprising that humans could be responsible for a world-wide shift in temperatures. Humans have done crazier things by complete accident.
We have a much more powerful impact on the planet than we did when we were chucking spears at wooly mammoths. We've created entire islands, diverted rivers, carved holes through mountains, wiped out entire forests and ecosystems through deforestation and erosion or even just basic pollution, and mercury levels in fish have spiked for the sole reason that humans have been leaking mercury into their water supply. We've dramatically slashed the worldwide fish population, lit up the planet with electric lights enough that you can literally see us from space, wiped out entire species, and created entire species. Most of those changes weren't even intentional--just like climate change.
We already know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that's one of its physical properties. We already know that carbon dioxide is at its highest levels in thousands of years, and we already know that humans are emitting more carbon dioxide than we ever have in human history. We already know that global temperatures are their highest levels in thousands of years. We already know that global temperatures have never spiked as quickly as they have over the past several decades. And we're already seeing unusually strong natural disasters just a few years after the increased global temperatures just happened to coincide with the rapid melting of glaciers and ice floes that introduced large amounts of cold water into weather systems. And we already know that sudden changes in weather systems trigger chaotic behavior in those systems. None of that is theoretical.
Is it really so implausible that our millennia-high levels of known greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the millennia-high temperatures that occurred at the exact same time?
@semiticgod It's entirely plausible but it isn't provable. On the micro-scale we are devastating the planet in some ways and I won't even try to defend it. The Aral Sea is almost completely gone just so the Russians/Soviets could grow crops in regions that they had no business growing crops in. The Colorado River doesn't even make it to the Pacific anymore because of the US diverting water to the plains and Mexico doesn't have any say in it. Ditto with China screwing the Vietnamese out of the Mekong River so they can have cheap electric power. All of those problems are short-sighted human problems. We're also great at devastating our ecosystems by not controlling the introduction of non-native species (both animals and plants) and some of those introductions were even intentional on the advice of scientists that should have known better.
It's when I get preached at that I'm destroying the planet and need to feel guilty about keeping my house at 70F instead of 65F and should pay $5/gallon for gas and also pay a carbon tax that I call BS. If I wanted to feel guilty all the time I'd start going to church again...
@Balrog99 this seems an odd argument to me. Proving anything to the degree of certainty you appear to require is going to be difficult, but how much evidence do you need before you take policy action?
I think in another post you referred to weather forecasts suggesting they are not very reliable. Sure there are still deficiencies, but it amazes me how accurately computer models can predict something as apparently chaotic as the weather so far ahead. If a forecast said that a hurricane was predicted to cross your city in a week's time would you really propose doing nothing to prepare for it on the grounds that the prediction might be wrong?
You've already said that you accept the evidence that the climate is changing - and that evidence is strong, see for instance this graph of global temperatures. As @semiticgod referred to it's the speed at which things are changing that is so concerning. Information from things like ice cores gives us an accurate picture of the climate over many thousands of years and this speed of change has never occurred before. Evidence over millions of years is weaker, but things like a review of the fossil record and analysis of sedimentary rocks suggests that the current rapid climate change has never been the norm.
The mechanism by which carbon dioxide influences temperature is also now well understood. The area that still needs more work is what mitigating factors apply - for instance the capacity of the sea to absorb carbon dioxide. However, those are just mitigating factors - they may change the rate of climate change, but they won't stop it happening entirely. And given the above graph of global temperatures the evidence seems to me to be absolutely compelling that, if we do nothing, the world will change very significantly within my lifetime.
While I can appreciate the annoyance, I also don't think in principle that it's wrong to ask people to pay the true cost for what they consume. There's an ongoing argument about the extent to which oil companies should pay for pollution for instance, but I doubt if you believe that a company should be totally free to spread pollution without cost to themselves. The production of carbon dioxide is an analogous situation - it's a byproduct of fossil fuel use which has high future costs, the question is should we contribute to those costs or leave them all to the future?
How you react to the current evidence is also crucial. Even if you take the position that the link between carbon dioxide and climate change is unproven that still means you accept there is the possibility of a link. Given the importance of the issue, the precautionary principle would suggest that we should follow policies that will reduce the harm if there is indeed a link. To end on a more optimistic note, such a policy direction would not be particularly difficult. There is far more energy in natural systems (like wind, sunshine and tides) than humans could make use of in the foreseeable future and the costs of getting energy from those systems is already competitive with fossil fuels. More research is needed in finding good ways to store that energy on a small scale, but the prospects for doing that are good - we just need to do it quickly enough to mitigate the worst effects of the temperature increases already under way.
What you're talking about policy-wise is already happening with minimal government interference. Research is being done on alternative energy sources. Sustainability is a key component of city planning, building planning, infrastructure planning and even long-term corporate strategies (including the multi-national chemical company that employs me). Companies are cleaning up their acts for the optics now, not because of punitive government measures. I'm talking about the western economies, not so much in the developing countries unfortunately. It's going to be a tough sell to those countries without some kind of compensation from developed nations (I don't even want to think about how that would be negotiated).
@Grond0 "As @semiticgod referred to it's the speed at which things are changing that is so concerning. Information from things like ice cores gives us an accurate picture of the climate over many thousands of years and this speed of change has never occurred before. Evidence over millions of years is weaker, but things like a review of the fossil record and analysis of sedimentary rocks suggests that the current rapid climate change has never been the norm."
No it never was the norm. But they happen regardless.They are ioslated incidents that happen every now and then in earth's history. The dinosaur extinction event, massive global climate change during the Ice Age, the breaking of Pangea, etc. Massive events that dramatically change things are never the norm, but they happen from time to time regardless of our efforts for or against. We are due for a re-normalizing of climate (remember that the earth's standard climate is tropical to sub-tropical, even at the poles.). Its the natural cycle of the planet and we are better served learning how to adapt to it, than waste our efforts on stopping it when it was never in our control to begin with.
@ThacoBell all the 'events' you refer to took place over much longer periods than the current increase in global temperatures.
I don't disagree that we need more effort in adapting to change. Part of the reason I was so annoyed at Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris deal was that effort can only be effective if it's coordinated internationally. Climate change is going to lead to huge international pressures, e.g. from migration forced as a result of water shortages or rising sea levels. If that's going to be managed peacefully we need a mechanism to handle it and the Paris accord could have been a useful tool in that process.
However, accepting we need to be more adaptable does not mean we shouldn't also try and reduce the pressures leading to the need for that adaptability. Here is an interesting article on the history of the proposal to limit global warming to 2 degrees. Although that's now commonly badged as a way to avoid the most disruptive effects of increasing temperatures, the 2 degree target was originally proposed by an economist in 1977. The basis for that was that a 2 degree increase would push temperatures to the maximum the earth had experienced in the last 100,000 years, i.e. the aim was to limit climate change to the natural cycle you refer to. I think the chances of successfully keeping the rise within that 2 degree band are already negligible, but the further over it we go the more international disruption will be caused - so I do think it's important that we try and mitigate the rise in temperatures as well as considering how to adapt to it.
How would they know about this so-called rate of extinctions unless they know about every life-form that existed previous to humans. Many forms of life don't leave fossils because of their soft bodies. Fossils are also only formed when specific conditions are met so life that went extinct without leaving that record would be unaccounted for. Sea animals are far more likely to be fossilized than terrestrial animals for one example of this. There are also more and more species being discovered all the time. Do all of those get factored into those equations? I would venture to bet that there are more species on this planet right now than they have fossil records for all of the rest of history put together. Don't try to tell me that they know about the rate of extinctions 500 million years ago...
Again, human arrogance that we somehow call the shots for this planet. Ants are more successful than we are as a species...
If you were to only compare the rate of extinctions of animals that leave behind evidence of their extinction, it's still clearly happening at a faster rate in the last 200 years than in the 200 years before that, and extrapolated out - in recent eras.
You can't say that because they don't know how many species were on this planet 200 years ago with any degree of accuracy. They don't really know how many species are on this planet right now!
I'll grant that you're likely correct about the highly visible species (mammals, reptiles, birds and maybe amphibians in the more easily accessible areas). You could also maybe assume that every species alive now was also around 200 years ago but that might not even be accurate.
Look guys, I'm not saying humans are blameless or shouldn't be more long-term thinkers, I'm saying that huge sweeping governmental policies will do nothing but backfire on whoever implements them. Mark my words.
Come up with some reasonable policies that don't rely on guilt as a persuasive measure or punish people who just want to raise a family and enjoy life a little bit and you might be onto something. I'll even be the first person to climb aboard (I am a member of the National Geographic Society which is where I get a lot of my info, I don't agree with all of it, but I do read it).
@Grond0 I think we disagree on a fundamental level that can't really be debated at this point. I would need to see enough hard data that can explain why this is not a natural climate cycle to convince me.
Back in the 70's it was supposed to be a new ice age that would kill us all. The hole in the ozone layer was supposed to kill us all too. Incidentally, they found the hole in the ozone layer at the same time they were ABLE to detect a hole in the ozone layer. That means it may have always been there for all they know.
I have some sympathy for this line of thinking, because I remember coming home in fourth grade crying to my mother because my teacher told me the entire world will be underwater by 2004. It's obvious that there has been some sensationalism in the claims by climatologists over the years. But again, this speaks to the severity of climate change, not the existence of it.
At the end of the day I have little to go on, being ignorant of the details of climate science. If I hear that 90+ percent of experts in the area agree, I have to defer to their judgment, even if it is an inexact and imperfect science.
How would they know about this so-called rate of extinctions unless they know about every life-form that existed previous to humans. Many forms of life don't leave fossils because of their soft bodies. Fossils are also only formed when specific conditions are met so life that went extinct without leaving that record would be unaccounted for. Sea animals are far more likely to be fossilized than terrestrial animals for one example of this. There are also more and more species being discovered all the time. Do all of those get factored into those equations?
I've heard paleontologists constantly discuss sampling issues with regards to fossil records. You're not the first person who ever thought of factoring that into the equation. Bringing up widely-discussed issues in scientific methodology does not prove that nobody really knows what happened during those mass extinctions.
Not to nag, but in my eyes, the most persuasive arguments are the ones that say, "this is what we know and this is what we can conclude." I've never found "we don't really know for sure" to be very convincing--it's a rejection of an argument, not a counterargument.
There's an ongoing argument about the extent to which oil companies should pay for pollution for instance, but I doubt if you believe that a company should be totally free to spread pollution without cost to themselves. The production of carbon dioxide is an analogous situation - it's a byproduct of fossil fuel use which has high future costs, the question is should we contribute to those costs or leave them all to the future?
I agree with this line of thinking, which is why I think a carbon tax is preferable over more punitive government actions. We don't want to forcefully discontinue beneficial economic activity, but we also don't want the parties benefiting from that activity to take no responsibility for the negative externalities that come with it. That way economic activity can continue, but any costs that carbon emissions produce on nonconsenting third parties can be compensated through the tax.
How would they know about this so-called rate of extinctions unless they know about every life-form that existed previous to humans. Many forms of life don't leave fossils because of their soft bodies. Fossils are also only formed when specific conditions are met so life that went extinct without leaving that record would be unaccounted for. Sea animals are far more likely to be fossilized than terrestrial animals for one example of this. There are also more and more species being discovered all the time. Do all of those get factored into those equations?
I've heard paleontologists constantly discuss sampling issues with regards to fossil records. You're not the first person who ever thought of factoring that into the equation. Bringing up widely-discussed issues in scientific methodology does not prove that nobody really knows what happened during those mass extinctions.
Not to nag, but in my eyes, the most persuasive arguments are the ones that say, "this is what we know and this is what we can conclude." I've never found "we don't really know for sure" to be very convincing--it's a rejection of an argument, not a counterargument.
My most persuasive argument is that the more dire the prediction is, the harder you should grip your wallet. 40+ years of experience and observation went into that assessment...
What you're talking about policy-wise is already happening with minimal government interference. Research is being done on alternative energy sources. Sustainability is a key component of city planning, building planning, infrastructure planning and even long-term corporate strategies (including the multi-national chemical company that employs me). Companies are cleaning up their acts for the optics now, not because of punitive government measures. I'm talking about the western economies, not so much in the developing countries unfortunately. It's going to be a tough sell to those countries without some kind of compensation from developed nations (I don't even want to think about how that would be negotiated).
I don't accept that everything would be fine if there was no government interference - things like sustainable planning are only taken account of by the private sector because of government interference. The reason for that is there is a disconnect between benefits and costs in relation to the environment, which means it's not normally in the private sector's interests to be sustainable in the absence of government regulation.
To give a concrete example of this, one of the things I've been involved with at work is setting up a commercial housing company. I'm also involved in various energy projects and have been keen to improve the sustainability of the houses that will be built (better insulated, solar panels installed etc). Other than very niche developments, housing developers in the UK do not build sustainable housing. That's because it costs more to build and they are concerned that customers will not choose to buy their houses as a result. From the customer's perspective that's very possible as they don't know how long they will own the house and whether the benefits from increased sustainability will outweigh the increased costs for them.
However, while it is rational for both developers and individuals not to choose sustainable housing, it is not rational from the viewpoint of the economy as a whole. That's the case purely looking at it economically without the need to allocate any costs to climate change, i.e. over the lifetime of the house the reduced operating costs will greatly outweigh the initial construction and ongoing maintenance and lifecycle costs. What is needed is some form of mechanism that joins those costs and benefits together. So for instance our housing company could offer new houses at two different prices. One would be the 'true price' while the other would be a market price competitive against other, less sustainable, housing. People that chose to buy at this second price would pay more for their energy, so that effectively they would be in the same position as if they had bought a less sustainable house (but the wider environment would get the benefit of the reduced energy usage).
Nice tidbit I learned today: the Bush family refused to travel from the White House until the day after Christmas so that Secret Service agents could spend the day with their families. That's class!
You can't say that because they don't know how many species were on this planet 200 years ago with any degree of accuracy. They don't really know how many species are on this planet right now!
There are a few issues with this line of logic:
A - Generally speaking, the number of species on the planet will not change much over 200 years, except for through extinction. So if there are X number of species today, it's not like the number 200 years ago is going to be wildly different. If there were 2,000,000 species 200 years ago, and 500 went extinct over that period of time, then we have approximately 1,950,000. Evolution and adaptation take on the order of a million years to occur, not hundreds.
When taken with the above, it becomes clear that evaluating rate of extinction as if the number of species is rapidly changing doesnt make actual sense. They arent. Historically, we see approximately 1 extinction per million species in year. One source I showed had 63 separate bird species have gone extinct in the past 100 years. That's only birds.
@Grond0 I think we disagree on a fundamental level that can't really be debated at this point. I would need to see enough hard data that can explain why this is not a natural climate cycle to convince me.
I'm honestly curious - For a climate-change denier: What information/data do you use to justify your denial?
Comments
That said, though I personally favor a liberal immigration policy, there are plenty of reasonable people who disagree with me for reasons aside from the race of potential migrants.
But all this is besides the point. Sessions v. Dimaya was not decided based on immigration policy, but on principles of constitutional law and criminal law. The case turned on whether vague statutes should be read in a way that best favors a criminal defendant, so as to avoid the exercise of arbitrary power by the state. Justices Alito, Thomas, and sometimes CJ Roberts have a history of siding with the state in these matters. Justice Gorsuch, like Scalia before him, typically interprets vague statutes with the benefit being given to the plaintiff (consistent with the principles underlying the Rule of Lenity). The liberal justices (other than Breyer in some cases) tend to agree.
I'm sure that self interest on the part of climate scientists has some effect on the margins. I know one person who went into climate science with the express purpose of proving the existence of anthropomorphic climate change, so there could be some confirmation bias as well. However, I really, really doubt that its enough to lead so many climate scientists (I hear 97%, which is really an overwhelming number) to completely fabricate their findings.
Finally, there is a difference between being political and ideological. Justice Breyer speaks for the American Constitution Society every year. Ginsburg and Sotomayor have spoken to them as well. Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch have all spoken at Federalist Society events. This is very different from attending a fundraiser, or speaking about an electoral candidate, which got Justice Ginsburg in trouble last year.
This so-called climate science is more like a religion. It's a lot like listening to the late-night televangelists preach about doomsday and then tell you where to send your check...
What scientists say is that the effects we are seeing now are not what is expected and we've definitely had an effect. Things like bomb cyclones, extreme temperatures, and wild weather events are what we are getting. There are a million examples, jeez look at air quality in china or whatever you want. So you don't want to be bullied into paying more gas. Well I'd like to have my cake and eat it and not worry about any consequences. Do things sometimes go too far? Maybe. That doesn't mean that there isn't a real issue underneath this all.
I'm not holding my breath for Fox "News" to do the right thing, are you? Hannity made 36 Million dollar salary last year, he can go to any lawyer he wants to he went to Trump's fixer for a reason.
London is no longer a shithole like it used to be. Lake Erie has been cleaned up. Smog isn't as big an issue in the western world as it used to be. When's the last time you heard about acid rain? Things have gotten better without such drastic measures as called for the UN. The biggest mistake the democrats could do is latch on to this. When policies like that start hitting real people In the pocketbooks they're not going to care about some theoretical planetsaving BS.
Two points:
A - Environmental Biology does look at the effect that a changing climate has on the biology of the region. So while they arent climatologists, they are related. Additionally - I didnt cite those people because they study climatology. It was to point out that the assertion that science which is driven primarily through universities is *NOT* contingent on finding data to back up false assertions.
B - My guess? Super low. Glaciers advance really, really slowly across landmasses. I'm betting those species had plenty of time to adapt to their changing climate. Unlike current day - when the climate is shifting so fast that models currently expect New York City to have the climate of Miami by 2100 (Assuming it's not half underwater). No one is arguing that humans do more damage to the climate of the planet than an asteroid would. However, we have the foresight and scientific ability to mitigate the damage we do.
I've been speaking in rate of extinctions. Extinction events usually happen due to a confluence of cataclysms that cause a shift in climate faster than species can adapt to. Note the articles I posted all point to a RAPIDLY increasing rate of extinction. What do you think is causing that?
Humans.
Why did smog go away from London. Do you know? Why did Acid Rain cease to be as big of a deal. Do you know? It's due to those pesky environmental regulations that governments realized they needed to put in place to keep people's quality of life stable. It wasnt some fickle climate that no one can ever predict or understand.
Those are great examples of exactly what we need to do now - only on a larger scale.
I think in another post you referred to weather forecasts suggesting they are not very reliable. Sure there are still deficiencies, but it amazes me how accurately computer models can predict something as apparently chaotic as the weather so far ahead. If a forecast said that a hurricane was predicted to cross your city in a week's time would you really propose doing nothing to prepare for it on the grounds that the prediction might be wrong?
You've already said that you accept the evidence that the climate is changing - and that evidence is strong, see for instance this graph of global temperatures.
As @semiticgod referred to it's the speed at which things are changing that is so concerning. Information from things like ice cores gives us an accurate picture of the climate over many thousands of years and this speed of change has never occurred before. Evidence over millions of years is weaker, but things like a review of the fossil record and analysis of sedimentary rocks suggests that the current rapid climate change has never been the norm.
The mechanism by which carbon dioxide influences temperature is also now well understood. The area that still needs more work is what mitigating factors apply - for instance the capacity of the sea to absorb carbon dioxide. However, those are just mitigating factors - they may change the rate of climate change, but they won't stop it happening entirely. And given the above graph of global temperatures the evidence seems to me to be absolutely compelling that, if we do nothing, the world will change very significantly within my lifetime.
While I can appreciate the annoyance, I also don't think in principle that it's wrong to ask people to pay the true cost for what they consume. There's an ongoing argument about the extent to which oil companies should pay for pollution for instance, but I doubt if you believe that a company should be totally free to spread pollution without cost to themselves. The production of carbon dioxide is an analogous situation - it's a byproduct of fossil fuel use which has high future costs, the question is should we contribute to those costs or leave them all to the future?
How you react to the current evidence is also crucial. Even if you take the position that the link between carbon dioxide and climate change is unproven that still means you accept there is the possibility of a link. Given the importance of the issue, the precautionary principle would suggest that we should follow policies that will reduce the harm if there is indeed a link. To end on a more optimistic note, such a policy direction would not be particularly difficult. There is far more energy in natural systems (like wind, sunshine and tides) than humans could make use of in the foreseeable future and the costs of getting energy from those systems is already competitive with fossil fuels. More research is needed in finding good ways to store that energy on a small scale, but the prospects for doing that are good - we just need to do it quickly enough to mitigate the worst effects of the temperature increases already under way.
Again, human arrogance that we somehow call the shots for this planet. Ants are more successful than we are as a species...
@Grond0 "As @semiticgod referred to it's the speed at which things are changing that is so concerning. Information from things like ice cores gives us an accurate picture of the climate over many thousands of years and this speed of change has never occurred before. Evidence over millions of years is weaker, but things like a review of the fossil record and analysis of sedimentary rocks suggests that the current rapid climate change has never been the norm."
No it never was the norm. But they happen regardless.They are ioslated incidents that happen every now and then in earth's history. The dinosaur extinction event, massive global climate change during the Ice Age, the breaking of Pangea, etc. Massive events that dramatically change things are never the norm, but they happen from time to time regardless of our efforts for or against.
We are due for a re-normalizing of climate (remember that the earth's standard climate is tropical to sub-tropical, even at the poles.). Its the natural cycle of the planet and we are better served learning how to adapt to it, than waste our efforts on stopping it when it was never in our control to begin with.
If you were to only compare the rate of extinctions of animals that leave behind evidence of their extinction, it's still clearly happening at a faster rate in the last 200 years than in the 200 years before that, and extrapolated out - in recent eras.
So this line of argument doesnt get us anywhere. I dont buy the "we cannot know" argument as a cop out to avoid addressing a problem that we are reasonably certain is happening. By we, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of climatologists who believe man is having a substantial impact on the climate. See Boo's argument above for why attempting to dismiss them out of hand strains credulity.
I don't disagree that we need more effort in adapting to change. Part of the reason I was so annoyed at Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris deal was that effort can only be effective if it's coordinated internationally. Climate change is going to lead to huge international pressures, e.g. from migration forced as a result of water shortages or rising sea levels. If that's going to be managed peacefully we need a mechanism to handle it and the Paris accord could have been a useful tool in that process.
However, accepting we need to be more adaptable does not mean we shouldn't also try and reduce the pressures leading to the need for that adaptability. Here is an interesting article on the history of the proposal to limit global warming to 2 degrees. Although that's now commonly badged as a way to avoid the most disruptive effects of increasing temperatures, the 2 degree target was originally proposed by an economist in 1977. The basis for that was that a 2 degree increase would push temperatures to the maximum the earth had experienced in the last 100,000 years, i.e. the aim was to limit climate change to the natural cycle you refer to. I think the chances of successfully keeping the rise within that 2 degree band are already negligible, but the further over it we go the more international disruption will be caused - so I do think it's important that we try and mitigate the rise in temperatures as well as considering how to adapt to it.
I'll grant that you're likely correct about the highly visible species (mammals, reptiles, birds and maybe amphibians in the more easily accessible areas). You could also maybe assume that every species alive now was also around 200 years ago but that might not even be accurate.
Look guys, I'm not saying humans are blameless or shouldn't be more long-term thinkers, I'm saying that huge sweeping governmental policies will do nothing but backfire on whoever implements them. Mark my words.
Come up with some reasonable policies that don't rely on guilt as a persuasive measure or punish people who just want to raise a family and enjoy life a little bit and you might be onto something. I'll even be the first person to climb aboard (I am a member of the National Geographic Society which is where I get a lot of my info, I don't agree with all of it, but I do read it).
"It's all about the balance people!"
At the end of the day I have little to go on, being ignorant of the details of climate science. If I hear that 90+ percent of experts in the area agree, I have to defer to their judgment, even if it is an inexact and imperfect science.
Not to nag, but in my eyes, the most persuasive arguments are the ones that say, "this is what we know and this is what we can conclude." I've never found "we don't really know for sure" to be very convincing--it's a rejection of an argument, not a counterargument.
To give a concrete example of this, one of the things I've been involved with at work is setting up a commercial housing company. I'm also involved in various energy projects and have been keen to improve the sustainability of the houses that will be built (better insulated, solar panels installed etc). Other than very niche developments, housing developers in the UK do not build sustainable housing. That's because it costs more to build and they are concerned that customers will not choose to buy their houses as a result. From the customer's perspective that's very possible as they don't know how long they will own the house and whether the benefits from increased sustainability will outweigh the increased costs for them.
However, while it is rational for both developers and individuals not to choose sustainable housing, it is not rational from the viewpoint of the economy as a whole. That's the case purely looking at it economically without the need to allocate any costs to climate change, i.e. over the lifetime of the house the reduced operating costs will greatly outweigh the initial construction and ongoing maintenance and lifecycle costs. What is needed is some form of mechanism that joins those costs and benefits together. So for instance our housing company could offer new houses at two different prices. One would be the 'true price' while the other would be a market price competitive against other, less sustainable, housing. People that chose to buy at this second price would pay more for their energy, so that effectively they would be in the same position as if they had bought a less sustainable house (but the wider environment would get the benefit of the reduced energy usage).
Nice tidbit I learned today: the Bush family refused to travel from the White House until the day after Christmas so that Secret Service agents could spend the day with their families. That's class!
A - Generally speaking, the number of species on the planet will not change much over 200 years, except for through extinction. So if there are X number of species today, it's not like the number 200 years ago is going to be wildly different. If there were 2,000,000 species 200 years ago, and 500 went extinct over that period of time, then we have approximately 1,950,000. Evolution and adaptation take on the order of a million years to occur, not hundreds.
When taken with the above, it becomes clear that evaluating rate of extinction as if the number of species is rapidly changing doesnt make actual sense. They arent. Historically, we see approximately 1 extinction per million species in year. One source I showed had 63 separate bird species have gone extinct in the past 100 years. That's only birds. I'm honestly curious - For a climate-change denier: What information/data do you use to justify your denial?
Why are the effects of climate change presented only as negatives?