Incidentally, what the heck is a "taxi medallion"? Is that some sort of license to operate legitimate taxis in the Greater New York City Metropolitan Area?
More or less, but it's separate from the licensing system for taxi drivers. It's a mechanism to limit supply. All yellow cabs are required to have a taxi medallion, and until recently, only yellow cabs could legally pick up street-hail passengers anywhere in NYC. (There's a new system of green cabs for the outer boroughs, so the yellow cab restriction now only applies to Lower and Midtown Manhattan, plus the airports.) There are under 14000 medallions in existence, and they can be bought, sold, and leased. They reached peak value earlier this decade when some were selling for over $1 million, but their value has plummeted with the rise of Uber, etc.
Taxi medallions have been the subject of ire among free market economists for years. for precisely this reason. It's a state approved monopoly that protects the business interests of insiders (first come, first serve) encouraging rent-seeking over wealth creation.
It is important to note that there is a legitimate basis for the idea behind taxi medallions outside of economic protectionism, such as concerns about congestion on the roads. Many cities seek to increase use of the subway and other transportation systems. Yet the economic protectionism is rampant, and was big in the 80s when there was an influx of Caribbean and Southeast Asian taxi drivers into major cities. The established companies definitely feared potential competition from these new drivers, and sought to close out the market by making medallions prohibitively expensive.
joluv The differencebeing that one can stop someone from defecating in their house. Humanity as a whole, cannot prevent Earth's natural cycle.
Think of the world as a spinning coin on its edge. That's the natural cycle of the earth. Eventually it will fall over on its own. But if you touch it, even slightly, it will fall faster, those slight touches are Global Warming.
For example, take the natural occurrence of Global Warming of artic methane emissions. Those emissions were eventually going to be released, but the warming of the planet through man made emissions sped up the process.
@JoenSo Everything I've seen, at best, stops at asserting that climate change is happening (which I don't dispute); or claims people are responsible, but only gives short term examples of local change. In fact, most assersions I have read reach the conclusions that we are responsible for climate change, simply because climate change is happening.
The vast majority of scientific reports not only agree that climate change is happening, but that this is the result of human activity. The mechanism for global warming as a result of the production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is well understood. The reports I linked in previous posts referred to some of the data that confirms how we know the impact of global warming is the result of the greenhouse effect and not some of the other potential factors that can affect global temperatures (such as solar activity). Carbon dioxide is produced naturally, e.g. as a result of volcanic activity, but human activity (including farming) is currently responsible for about 99% of carbon dioxide emissions.
Can you link to any peer-reviewed scientific papers that conclude either: - that climate change is happening, but not as a result of human activity. - that climate change is the result of human activity, but don't provide evidence for this?
@deltago That is some messed up scale. What you propose would be like a single atom touching a spinning coin and making it stop.
@Grond0 Agreement does not equal being correct. I've read through a few of @semiticgod 's links, and its all stuff I've seen before. They all parrot each other, they only go back about 100 years, and fail to define why our last couple decades have been more damaging than any of the natural climate change of the past. Our global climate is still relatively low temperature compared to even just a few thousand years ago. The world and humanity didn't end then, and it won't end in the 1,000 (not due to global warming at least).
No one has ever been able to successfully cook an omelette without breaking some eggs. I am still of the opinion that the effects are not going to be as negative as some suspect but that topic is up for debate. Although there are many times when people are irrational and brain-dead, if the choice becomes "adapt or die" then we will adapt to the new norm...and some of us may even get to become settlers on the newly de-iced continent of Antarctica.
What is *not* up for debate is that the best long-term chance for the survival of the species we know as "human being" will not be found by staying stuck on this one planet. There is a deadline in the future which we *cannot* alter--one day the Sun *will* swell into a red giant as it goes into its death phase, roasting this planet into a charred hunk of rock. If we haven't made a foothold on the Moon, then Mars, and then beyond that then we deserve to join the dinosaurs in the Hall of Failed Species. Of course, that eventuality presumes that a global pandemic hasn't wiped out so many people that recovery is not possible (the survivors will linger until they and their descendants die out from insufficient population) or that a "planet-killer" meteor has not struck.
Many species have faced the choice of "adapt or die," and a large fraction of them have died. I hope we'll adapt when that time comes, but it could go either way.
Temperatures further back than 100 years would be based on geology, paleontology, and arborology. Those are all inference-based; our estimates of prehistoric "ice ages" are all based on subtle traces in rocks, sediment, fossils, and tree rings and so forth.
But there's the thing--if you don't accept the claim that today's temperatures fluctuations are wilder than in previous millennia, on the grounds that we don't have records from 10,000 BCE or whatever, you must also reject the claim that today's temperature is colder than normal, and the related claim that a return to prehistoric, higher temperatures would be natural for the Earth.
Both
"the temperature changes of the past few decades are more drastic than they've ever been"
and
"the Earth used to be hotter; we're in an unusually cold period"
are based on the same evidence: inference from lines in bedrock, sediment deposits, and tree rings and the like. If we have no reason to believe recent temperature changes are weird, we have no reason to believe the ice ages ever happened--it's all derived from the same sciences and the same methodology.
Except that we still can't precisely predict the weather, let alone global climate changes. Climatology doesn't have a great track record either. Remember, back in 70's we were all supposedly going to freeze in another ice age by now.
Science changes. That's part of the process. But I think this shows that science is improving over time--not that it can't be trusted to make predictions.
Except that we still can't precisely predict the weather, let alone global climate changes. Climatology doesn't have a great track record either. Remember, back in 70's we were all supposedly going to freeze in another ice age by now.
There is a difference between climate and weather. Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
Weather is what you see outside on any particular day. So, for example, it may be 75° degrees and sunny or it could be 20° degrees with heavy snow. That’s the weather.
Climate is the average of that weather. For example, you can expect snow in the Northeast in January or for it to be hot and humid in the Southeast in July. This is climate.
Remember, back in 70's we were all supposedly going to freeze in another ice age by now.
This argument has shown up for years now even though it's a misconception. Global cooling was a hypothesis back then, yes, but was only explored by a minority of the scientific community. There was in no way a scientific consensus about it. In fact, far more scientific papers were about global warming even then.
@JoenSo Some things that once had consensus according to knowledge at the time:
Flies grew from meat. Tomatoes were toxic. The earth was the center of the solar system. There was no landmass west of Europe until you hit Asia. Bloddletting is a great way to cure sicknesess like the flu. Aspirirn is a miracle that cures any problem.
I could go on and on really. I need far more than simple consensus to be convinced. Especially when the data is either absent or so narrow focused that it ignores other factors in favor of the popular perception.
You were the one saying that there was a scientific consesus about global cooling in the 1970s. I just pointed out that that wasn't the case. And comparing the huge amount of research on climate change with ancient misconceptions is neither fair or accurate.
@JoenSo Some things that once had consensus according to knowledge at the time:
Flies grew from meat. Tomatoes were toxic. The earth was the center of the solar system. There was no landmass west of Europe until you hit Asia. Bloddletting is a great way to cure sicknesess like the flu. Aspirirn is a miracle that cures any problem.
I could go on and on really. I need far more than simple consensus to be convinced. Especially when the data is either absent or so narrow focused that it ignores other factors in favor of the popular perception.
I think the issue is A - those werent evidence based scientific assertions (this is), and B - there isnt just a "simple consensus" that this is happening. It's incredibly widely accepted among the community of people who have spent the majority of their lives studying it.
I read a few of those sources. They absolutely argue that man-kind has contributed to climate change. If you're looking for them to somehow disprove that there's no influence from the natural cycle of climate change, then you're asking for scientists to argue the null. They arent doing it because the natural cycle needs to be considered along with the impact we have otherwise it's bad data.
Keep in mind, in all of this, you're holding a position because you "arent convinced" but havent produced any peer-reviewed sources that argue against man's impact in the changing climate. I dont want to sound overly harsh, but it seems like you're holding onto your position not because you have scientific evidence to back it up, but because you simply want to.
Michael Cohen has decided to withdraw his defamation lawsuits against buzzfeed and Fusion GPS over the famous pee dossier. The lawsuits would have required Cohen to submit evidence forcing him to provide documentation and sworn testimony which he can probably no longer feel confident about faking since the FBI has raided his offices and has unaltered documentation.
--------------------
Trump has allegedly had trouble finding defense lawyers. But today he has hired Rudy Giuliani to his personal legal team that he has been funding with his re-election campaign funds. Giuliani was brought on with the stated goal being to help negotiate a end to the Russian investigation with Bob Mueller.
--------------------
Trump said that ‘Human Trafficking Is Worse Than It’s Ever Been In The History Of The World’ as he pushed a confused argument for his border wall. He must have conveniently forgot about the centuries-long trans-Atlantic slave trade which ended not so long ago. During the slave trade over 10 million people were forcibly shipped from parts of Africa to North America, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.
You were the one saying that there was a scientific consesus about global cooling in the 1970s. I just pointed out that that wasn't the case. And comparing the huge amount of research on climate change with ancient misconceptions is neither fair or accurate.
Yes I did, as an example that climatologists don't have a freat track record for these things.
@BallpointMan "I think the issue is A - those werent evidence based scientific assertions (this is)" So, Climatology wasn't science based back then, but somehow NOW it is? " there isnt just a "simple consensus" that this is happening. It's incredibly widely accepted among the community of people who have spent the majority of their lives studying it." You have just described consensus, yes.
"I read a few of those sources. They absolutely argue that man-kind has contributed to climate change. If you're looking for them to somehow disprove that there's no influence from the natural cycle of climate change, then you're asking for scientists to argue the null. They arent doing it because the natural cycle needs to be considered along with the impact we have otherwise it's bad data."
I'm not looking for them to disprove anything, I'm looking for them to actually prove their assertions. And no, they AREN'T properly considering the natural cycle, thats been my position this entire time. They look at at a VERY narrow band of time (Usually a decade or two before the industrial revolution) and say, "Look! See? Its worse now in this insignificant period of time than this other insignificant period of time! We are totally correct! Fund us!"
There is a deadline in the future which we *cannot* alter--one day the Sun *will* swell into a red giant as it goes into its death phase, roasting this planet into a charred hunk of rock. If we haven't made a foothold on the Moon, then Mars, and then beyond that then we deserve to join the dinosaurs in the Hall of Failed Species.
I'm not looking for them to disprove anything, I'm looking for them to actually prove their assertions. And no, they AREN'T properly considering the natural cycle, thats been my position this entire time. They look at at a VERY narrow band of time (Usually a decade or two before the industrial revolution) and say, "Look! See? Its worse now in this insignificant period of time than this other insignificant period of time! We are totally correct! Fund us!"
I'm going to stop arguing with you. The very first paragraph of the first source he cited (from NASA, mind you) started with explaining the natural cycle and briefly discussed how natural Climate Change works, followed by providing a concise and easy to understand justification for why Humanity is responsible for current climate change, and some of the effects thereof.
NASA's funding isnt contingent on lying about Climate Change. I suspect conservative lawmakers would be more than happy to fund NASA even more if it did refute Climate Change.
You've apparently looked at these sources, and despite the first one literally giving you the information you're asking for, you've decided it didnt do enough.
You and I, we're both biased on this issue. I'm looking at sources that are credible, and you arent providing any credible sources to support your position(Any sources at all, in fact). What's the point of having an informed discussion?
Trump has allegedly had trouble finding defense lawyers. But today he has hired Rudy Giuliani to his personal legal team that he has been funding with his re-election campaign funds. Giuliani was brought on with the stated goal being to help negotiate a end to the Russian investigation with Bob Mueller.
--------------------
This seems totally crazy to me. Does anyone else see this as a move out of desperation? An honest question - Does Giuliani actually do anything related to law these days? I Saw he's "on leave" from a law-firm, but I dont really know what his association with that law firm is? I feel like's basically been a consultant for a long time and probably provides no real legal value (This is totally my own conjecture. I dont actually know if that's true).
Let's not lecture each other on how we're supposed to interpret evidence. Our arguments can stand as they are; we don't need to push any harder.
I think it's notable that @ThacoBell is confronting the other side's evidence head-on and reading it. Most people tend to ignore those kind of sources outright.
@BallpointMan It looked at <100 year period. If we are talking about global catastrophic change, that is not enough. That isn't even a blink of history. So no, it didn't give me enough. I haven't produced sources that do so, because no is looking at the whole picture. I balk at the discipline because everyone has joined the same echo chamber, and no one is looking elsewhere. Thats what makes this such a frustrating subject. Its like pointing a magnifying glass at an anthill and trying to figure out why the local pond has dried up.
@BallpointMan It looked at <100 year period. If we are talking about global catastrophic change, that is not enough. That isn't even a blink of history. So no, it didn't give me enough. I haven't produced sources that do so, because no is looking at the whole picture. I balk at the discipline because everyone has joined the same echo chamber, and no one is looking elsewhere. Thats what makes this such a frustrating subject. Its like pointing a magnifying glass at an anthill and trying to figure out why the local pond has dried up.</p>
The House GOP (almost certainly acting by way of Devin Nunes) has leaked Comey's memos. Nunes, ever not the brightest bulb, only served to prove that they say.......exactly what Comey has been saying they did. What they DO reveal is that Trump was personally encouraging his FBI Director to jail reporters in an effort to stop leaks from his own White House, and seeming to imply that PRISON RAPE would make them give up their sources.
@Grond0 Agreement does not equal being correct. I've read through a few of @semiticgod 's links, and its all stuff I've seen before. They all parrot each other, they only go back about 100 years, and fail to define why our last couple decades have been more damaging than any of the natural climate change of the past. Our global climate is still relatively low temperature compared to even just a few thousand years ago. The world and humanity didn't end then, and it won't end in the 1,000 (not due to global warming at least).
@ThacoBell I agree with others that it's time to call a halt to this discussion, so this will be my last word on it.
I am arguing that climate change is real, caused by man and will be large enough in scale to be disruptive to human society.
Is it real? Personally I don't see any need to go beyond changes in global surface temperature to evidence this. The last full IPCC report in 2013 said this about the evidence: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen." The use of the word unequivocal in a publication that is the result of work by thousands of scientists is itself a statement.
Is it caused by human activity? The potential for changes in carbon dioxide levels to cause global warming was known about well over a century ago, but at that stage it was only a theory. In the last 50 years though we've collected the data to turn this from just another hypothesis to one solidly backed by evidence. The last IPCC report said "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." Note the difference in language here, though I would be willing to bet that when the next IPCC report comes out that will be further strengthened. The report I referred to in my previous post is a good starting point for understanding why scientists are so confident that warming is the result of human activity and not natural factors.
Will it be disruptive? There are a number of ways in which global warming will cause disruption, e.g. - the amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere and seas is increasing, which will lead to an increase in the average intensity of weather events like hurricanes. - temperature changes will lead to changes in weather patterns such as rainfall. That will help in some places, but in others make currently inhabitable land uninhabitable. - sea level rises, even on the assumption that we mitigate the worst effects of climate change, will be of the order of 1 meter in the next century. The best case scenario from that would be displacing tens of millions of people and hundreds of millions would be more realistic. That won't be an easy process to manage.
Your argument doesn't really seem to address the above, but is more about the fact that, on geological timescales, the current changes in temperature are still relatively small. I don't dispute that and am not trying to claim that climate change will lead to the extinction of humanity as a species. It will though have a significant influence on the way people across the world live our lives in the future. Given that, it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that the political process would consider how we respond. I may not agree with the proposed actions in many countries, but I can at least see the political process is addressing the issues. At the national level anyway, that's not currently the case in the US. As you know I'm a strong believer in using evidence to drive policy and I obviously therefore find the refusal to do that in this area in the US irritating. My apologies if that irritation has been too clearly expressed in my previous posts.
The House GOP (almost certainly acting by way of Devin Nunes) has leaked Comey's memos. Nunes, ever not the brightest bulb, only served to prove that they say.......exactly what Comey has been saying they did. What they DO reveal is that Trump was personally encouraging his FBI Director to jail reporters in an effort to stop leaks from his own White House, and seeming to imply that PRISON RAPE would make them give up their sources.
Yeah it leaked like an hour after the house GOP got it. It's almost as if they are trying to impede the investigation.
Honest Comey comes off as a boy scout - again. No idea why Lyin Trump is always attacking him. Oh right.
The Justice Department's inspector general referred its findings on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to the US attorney's office in Washington for possible criminal charges associated with lying to internal investigators. No word on when they will forward recommendations for Jeff Sessions charges for the same exact thing.
I've been sitting on the sidelines for a couple days but have to say I'm with @ThacoBell here. I'm sure you're all shocked!
I'll add that I don't think humanity is ready for what amounts to not only a universal grand plan, but also a multi-generational grand plan at that. Good luck keeping democracies focused for that long a period of time. Other than some kind of multi-national overseer with punitive powers (which I and many others would oppose vigorously) how do any of you see this working? Do you really think people will sacrifice for 2-3 generations just to see if there's evidence that their sacrifices are working? Not only that, but the underdeveloped countries would be locked in stasis with no hope of catching up. I'm sure their people will be ecstatic about 'taking one for the team'. I'd rather not have us taking a hit on the carbon-tax, penalize people for using energy, crack-pipe but rather focus on finding and utilizing alternative energy sources. Once that happens we'll know soon enough if the CO2 levels start dropping.
There was a special on Nova about climate change that I watched the other night. The program showed how the CO2 levels rise and fall in cycles over past millennia and how that cycle is mirrored by the temperature. What was missing was any mention that the CO2 levels might rise and fall because of the changing temperatures, which is also possible when two cycles rise and fall in tandem. I wonder why there was no mention of that possibility? Scientific curiosity is being pushed aside for politics imho.
Reading the Comey memos now. Just want to point out that this paragraph is off, considering that McCabe's own wife was a "political person" running for office at the time.
I'm dying to know who the redacted leader is. I'm sure many people on the left will speculate that its Putin, which I guess is possible. Not surprising that Trump had reservations about Flynn's judgment considering what went down.
Pretty remarkable that someone would worry about their wife believing a hooker story, even "1%"
Yeah, he had such reservations about Flynn's judgement as NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER that AFTER Sally Yates informed the Administration he was susceptible to blackmail, they kept him on for 3 MORE WEEKS, and then Trump specifically asked Comey to let the investigation into him go. What sound and sober judgment.
As recently as 20 minutes ago, Trump continues to insist Comey leaked classified information, which is complete and utter bullshit. His own memos and notes were not classified information. It was literally impossible for him to "leak" it.
I'll add that I don't think humanity is ready for what amounts to not only a universal grand plan, but also a multi-generational grand plan at that. Good luck keeping democracies focused for that long a period of time. Other than some kind of multi-national overseer with punitive powers (which I and many others would oppose vigorously) how do any of you see this working? Do you really think people will sacrifice for 2-3 generations just to see if there's evidence that their sacrifices are working? Not only that, but the underdeveloped countries would be locked in stasis with no hope of catching up. I'm sure their people will be ecstatic about 'taking one for the team'. I'd rather not have us taking a hit on the carbon-tax, penalize people for using energy, crack-pipe but rather focus on finding and utilizing alternative energy sources. Once that happens we'll know soon enough if the CO2 levels start dropping.
I'll resist the temptation to respond to your point about CO2 levels - the causation process has already been covered in earlier posts / links though if you're really interested.
In relation to your question about action I don't see that as an insuperable problem at all. - proposals on reducing greenhouse gases thus far have not included any international enforcement mechanism (though some individual countries have put them into domestic legislation) and I don't see the need for one in future. - I don't see a need for anyone to sacrifice anything. Renewable sources of power are already pretty competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear and I'm quite sure that the economic case, as well as the environmental one, for burning fossil fuels as the main source of power in the world will be clearly dead in my lifetime. - with quite limited international help it's entirely realistic to expect that currently undeveloped countries could bypass the sort of industrial revolutions that western countries and China have gone through. Even today, if we were designing a power system for a country, it wouldn't be the top-down national grid approach, but a much more dispersed solution. In countries that already have such infrastructure moving away from that is likely to be a long process, but there's no need to put it in where it doesn't currently exist. I mentioned before the need for further research on energy storage systems, but there are already plenty of options in this area - see this article for instance.
Comments
It is important to note that there is a legitimate basis for the idea behind taxi medallions outside of economic protectionism, such as concerns about congestion on the roads. Many cities seek to increase use of the subway and other transportation systems. Yet the economic protectionism is rampant, and was big in the 80s when there was an influx of Caribbean and Southeast Asian taxi drivers into major cities. The established companies definitely feared potential competition from these new drivers, and sought to close out the market by making medallions prohibitively expensive.
For example, take the natural occurrence of Global Warming of artic methane emissions. Those emissions were eventually going to be released, but the warming of the planet through man made emissions sped up the process.
Can you link to any peer-reviewed scientific papers that conclude either:
- that climate change is happening, but not as a result of human activity.
- that climate change is the result of human activity, but don't provide evidence for this?
@Grond0 Agreement does not equal being correct. I've read through a few of @semiticgod 's links, and its all stuff I've seen before. They all parrot each other, they only go back about 100 years, and fail to define why our last couple decades have been more damaging than any of the natural climate change of the past. Our global climate is still relatively low temperature compared to even just a few thousand years ago. The world and humanity didn't end then, and it won't end in the 1,000 (not due to global warming at least).
What is *not* up for debate is that the best long-term chance for the survival of the species we know as "human being" will not be found by staying stuck on this one planet. There is a deadline in the future which we *cannot* alter--one day the Sun *will* swell into a red giant as it goes into its death phase, roasting this planet into a charred hunk of rock. If we haven't made a foothold on the Moon, then Mars, and then beyond that then we deserve to join the dinosaurs in the Hall of Failed Species. Of course, that eventuality presumes that a global pandemic hasn't wiped out so many people that recovery is not possible (the survivors will linger until they and their descendants die out from insufficient population) or that a "planet-killer" meteor has not struck.
But there's the thing--if you don't accept the claim that today's temperatures fluctuations are wilder than in previous millennia, on the grounds that we don't have records from 10,000 BCE or whatever, you must also reject the claim that today's temperature is colder than normal, and the related claim that a return to prehistoric, higher temperatures would be natural for the Earth.
Both
"the temperature changes of the past few decades are more drastic than they've ever been"
and
"the Earth used to be hotter; we're in an unusually cold period"
are based on the same evidence: inference from lines in bedrock, sediment deposits, and tree rings and the like. If we have no reason to believe recent temperature changes are weird, we have no reason to believe the ice ages ever happened--it's all derived from the same sciences and the same methodology.
Weather is what you see outside on any particular day. So, for example, it may be 75° degrees and sunny or it could be 20° degrees with heavy snow. That’s the weather.
Climate is the average of that weather. For example, you can expect snow in the Northeast in January or for it to be hot and humid in the Southeast in July. This is climate.
@JoenSo Some things that once had consensus according to knowledge at the time:
Flies grew from meat.
Tomatoes were toxic.
The earth was the center of the solar system.
There was no landmass west of Europe until you hit Asia.
Bloddletting is a great way to cure sicknesess like the flu.
Aspirirn is a miracle that cures any problem.
I could go on and on really. I need far more than simple consensus to be convinced. Especially when the data is either absent or so narrow focused that it ignores other factors in favor of the popular perception.
I think the issue is A - those werent evidence based scientific assertions (this is), and B - there isnt just a "simple consensus" that this is happening. It's incredibly widely accepted among the community of people who have spent the majority of their lives studying it.
I read a few of those sources. They absolutely argue that man-kind has contributed to climate change. If you're looking for them to somehow disprove that there's no influence from the natural cycle of climate change, then you're asking for scientists to argue the null. They arent doing it because the natural cycle needs to be considered along with the impact we have otherwise it's bad data.
Keep in mind, in all of this, you're holding a position because you "arent convinced" but havent produced any peer-reviewed sources that argue against man's impact in the changing climate. I dont want to sound overly harsh, but it seems like you're holding onto your position not because you have scientific evidence to back it up, but because you simply want to.
Michael Cohen has decided to withdraw his defamation lawsuits against buzzfeed and Fusion GPS over the famous pee dossier. The lawsuits would have required Cohen to submit evidence forcing him to provide documentation and sworn testimony which he can probably no longer feel confident about faking since the FBI has raided his offices and has unaltered documentation.
--------------------
Trump has allegedly had trouble finding defense lawyers. But today he has hired Rudy Giuliani to his personal legal team that he has been funding with his re-election campaign funds. Giuliani was brought on with the stated goal being to help negotiate a end to the Russian investigation with Bob Mueller.
--------------------
Trump said that ‘Human Trafficking Is Worse Than It’s Ever Been In The History Of The World’ as he pushed a confused argument for his border wall. He must have conveniently forgot about the centuries-long trans-Atlantic slave trade which ended not so long ago. During the slave trade over 10 million people were forcibly shipped from parts of Africa to North America, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.
@BallpointMan "I think the issue is A - those werent evidence based scientific assertions (this is)"
So, Climatology wasn't science based back then, but somehow NOW it is?
" there isnt just a "simple consensus" that this is happening. It's incredibly widely accepted among the community of people who have spent the majority of their lives studying it."
You have just described consensus, yes.
"I read a few of those sources. They absolutely argue that man-kind has contributed to climate change. If you're looking for them to somehow disprove that there's no influence from the natural cycle of climate change, then you're asking for scientists to argue the null. They arent doing it because the natural cycle needs to be considered along with the impact we have otherwise it's bad data."
I'm not looking for them to disprove anything, I'm looking for them to actually prove their assertions. And no, they AREN'T properly considering the natural cycle, thats been my position this entire time. They look at at a VERY narrow band of time (Usually a decade or two before the industrial revolution) and say, "Look! See? Its worse now in this insignificant period of time than this other insignificant period of time! We are totally correct! Fund us!"
I'm going to stop arguing with you. The very first paragraph of the first source he cited (from NASA, mind you) started with explaining the natural cycle and briefly discussed how natural Climate Change works, followed by providing a concise and easy to understand justification for why Humanity is responsible for current climate change, and some of the effects thereof.
NASA's funding isnt contingent on lying about Climate Change. I suspect conservative lawmakers would be more than happy to fund NASA even more if it did refute Climate Change.
You've apparently looked at these sources, and despite the first one literally giving you the information you're asking for, you've decided it didnt do enough.
You and I, we're both biased on this issue. I'm looking at sources that are credible, and you arent providing any credible sources to support your position(Any sources at all, in fact). What's the point of having an informed discussion?
This seems totally crazy to me. Does anyone else see this as a move out of desperation? An honest question - Does Giuliani actually do anything related to law these days? I Saw he's "on leave" from a law-firm, but I dont really know what his association with that law firm is? I feel like's basically been a consultant for a long time and probably provides no real legal value (This is totally my own conjecture. I dont actually know if that's true).
I think it's notable that @ThacoBell is confronting the other side's evidence head-on and reading it. Most people tend to ignore those kind of sources outright.
I am finished with this discussion, though.
I am arguing that climate change is real, caused by man and will be large enough in scale to be disruptive to human society.
Is it real?
Personally I don't see any need to go beyond changes in global surface temperature to evidence this
Is it caused by human activity?
The potential for changes in carbon dioxide levels to cause global warming was known about well over a century ago, but at that stage it was only a theory. In the last 50 years though we've collected the data to turn this from just another hypothesis to one solidly backed by evidence. The last IPCC report said "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." Note the difference in language here, though I would be willing to bet that when the next IPCC report comes out that will be further strengthened. The report I referred to in my previous post is a good starting point for understanding why scientists are so confident that warming is the result of human activity and not natural factors.
Will it be disruptive?
There are a number of ways in which global warming will cause disruption, e.g.
- the amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere and seas is increasing, which will lead to an increase in the average intensity of weather events like hurricanes.
- temperature changes will lead to changes in weather patterns such as rainfall. That will help in some places, but in others make currently inhabitable land uninhabitable.
- sea level rises, even on the assumption that we mitigate the worst effects of climate change, will be of the order of 1 meter in the next century. The best case scenario from that would be displacing tens of millions of people and hundreds of millions would be more realistic. That won't be an easy process to manage.
Your argument doesn't really seem to address the above, but is more about the fact that, on geological timescales, the current changes in temperature are still relatively small. I don't dispute that and am not trying to claim that climate change will lead to the extinction of humanity as a species. It will though have a significant influence on the way people across the world live our lives in the future. Given that, it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that the political process would consider how we respond. I may not agree with the proposed actions in many countries, but I can at least see the political process is addressing the issues. At the national level anyway, that's not currently the case in the US. As you know I'm a strong believer in using evidence to drive policy and I obviously therefore find the refusal to do that in this area in the US irritating. My apologies if that irritation has been too clearly expressed in my previous posts.
Honest Comey comes off as a boy scout - again. No idea why Lyin Trump is always attacking him. Oh right.
The Justice Department's inspector general referred its findings on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to the US attorney's office in Washington for possible criminal charges associated with lying to internal investigators. No word on when they will forward recommendations for Jeff Sessions charges for the same exact thing.
I'll add that I don't think humanity is ready for what amounts to not only a universal grand plan, but also a multi-generational grand plan at that. Good luck keeping democracies focused for that long a period of time. Other than some kind of multi-national overseer with punitive powers (which I and many others would oppose vigorously) how do any of you see this working? Do you really think people will sacrifice for 2-3 generations just to see if there's evidence that their sacrifices are working? Not only that, but the underdeveloped countries would be locked in stasis with no hope of catching up. I'm sure their people will be ecstatic about 'taking one for the team'. I'd rather not have us taking a hit on the carbon-tax, penalize people for using energy, crack-pipe but rather focus on finding and utilizing alternative energy sources. Once that happens we'll know soon enough if the CO2 levels start dropping.
There was a special on Nova about climate change that I watched the other night. The program showed how the CO2 levels rise and fall in cycles over past millennia and how that cycle is mirrored by the temperature. What was missing was any mention that the CO2 levels might rise and fall because of the changing temperatures, which is also possible when two cycles rise and fall in tandem. I wonder why there was no mention of that possibility? Scientific curiosity is being pushed aside for politics imho.
I'm dying to know who the redacted leader is. I'm sure many people on the left will speculate that its Putin, which I guess is possible.
Not surprising that Trump had reservations about Flynn's judgment considering what went down.
Pretty remarkable that someone would worry about their wife believing a hooker story, even "1%"
As recently as 20 minutes ago, Trump continues to insist Comey leaked classified information, which is complete and utter bullshit. His own memos and notes were not classified information. It was literally impossible for him to "leak" it.
In relation to your question about action I don't see that as an insuperable problem at all.
- proposals on reducing greenhouse gases thus far have not included any international enforcement mechanism (though some individual countries have put them into domestic legislation) and I don't see the need for one in future.
- I don't see a need for anyone to sacrifice anything. Renewable sources of power are already pretty competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear and I'm quite sure that the economic case, as well as the environmental one, for burning fossil fuels as the main source of power in the world will be clearly dead in my lifetime.
- with quite limited international help it's entirely realistic to expect that currently undeveloped countries could bypass the sort of industrial revolutions that western countries and China have gone through. Even today, if we were designing a power system for a country, it wouldn't be the top-down national grid approach, but a much more dispersed solution. In countries that already have such infrastructure moving away from that is likely to be a long process, but there's no need to put it in where it doesn't currently exist. I mentioned before the need for further research on energy storage systems, but there are already plenty of options in this area - see this article for instance.