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).
I have no problem with that policy. Everything is up front and the consumer gets to make his/her choice based on that information. Nobody is telling them they're bad people for choosing option 2, they're not going to Hell, they're just making an informed choice and dealing with the consequences. That is a fine example of a good idea that I requested in an earlier post.
Preaching from the pulpit of 'You're all evil people who need to be punished for looking out for yourselves' is not going to work.
@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.
As has already been mentioned above, what I find compelling is the speed of change. The rate of increase in global temperatures in the last 60 years or so is considerably greater than anything that can be explained by the natural factors we are aware of. Here's a short article that I think is quite helpful. One of the telling points in that is to measure the temperature change in the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) compared to the troposphere (lower atmosphere). The former has been cooling recently, which is consistent with the greenhouse gas explanation for global warming (but not with other possible explanations such as solar activity).
The article also briefly covers the fact that volcanos emit carbon dioxide - but human emissions are far higher, so if global warming is due to greenhouse gases that is down to human intervention not natural causes.
Can someone give us a timeline of what the precise effects of climate change will be and when they will occur?
Why are the effects of climate change presented only as negatives?
I cannot speak to the former. Consult various models and you'll have an answer?
As to the latter - Climate change on the scale we're looking at will be undeniably bad for humans. An enormous percentage of humans live on or within 50 minutes of a coast-line. If water levels continue to rise, you can surmise the result (See Miami. 50 years ago, King Tides wouldnt cause widespread flooding in the city. Now they do).
A huge percentage of the world relies upon the ocean as a primary food source. Ocean acidification is already occurring and will absolutely strain oceanic ecosystems.
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.
No, those are examples of success precisely BECAUSE they were smaller scale. Instead of some god-awful huge all-encompassing mega-regulation involving every country on the face of the earth (which is a pipe-dream and would lead to democracies voting out the people who shoved it down their throats) why not divide it up into smaller more digestible bites? It's already happening slowly and with some more good ideas like the one @Grond0 mentioned earlier it's very doable. Let's not make it some religious all or nothing BS but make it logical and give people choices. I believe that is what people really want and you'll be surprised by the choices people will make if you let them.
No, those are examples of success precisely BECAUSE they were smaller scale. Instead of some god-awful huge all-encompassing mega-regulation involving every country on the face of the earth (which is a pipe-dream and would lead to democracies voting out the people who shoved it down their throats) why not divide it up into smaller more digestible bites? It's already happening slowly and with some more good ideas like the one @Grond0 mentioned earlier it's very doable. Let's not make it some religious all or nothing BS but make it logical and give people choices. I believe that is what people really want and you'll be surprised by the choices people will make if you let them.
Climate scientists say that's not going to work. A half-hearted attempt will only slow the changing climate, not prevent it. I understand there will be difficulties if not every nation buys in, but that doesnt mean we can simply say "Well - if India wont, why should we?". That's a recipe for a cataclysmic outcome.
Why are the effects of climate change presented only as negatives?
I've seen plenty of articles describing the benefits of climate change. Here's a well-known paper by Richard Tol, who would be classed as a climate sceptic. That's not because he believes climate change is not happening, but that he thinks the impact of that is likely to be positive on balance up until around the end of this century.
I would agree that climate change, at least up until now, has been very clearly a net benefit for the world as a whole. A big contributor to that is agricultural production - plants grow much better due to the higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, there are other benefits as well. For instance the UK regularly has considerably higher death rates in the winter due to lower temperatures, but generally not higher death rates in the summer. An overall increase in temperatures is expected to reduce the current disparity.
What concerns me though is that the costs and benefits are not evenly distributed. I mentioned above there is a disconnect between costs and benefits in relation to environmental factors. Will farmers in the mid-West of the US be willing to put some of their gains from increased production into helping people displaced by rising sea levels or desertification? I think the only way to do that would be through an international framework, but the problems in the EU over managing what are really quite small flows of migrants in recent years shows how difficult that is likely to be.
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?
There are many niche species that would have been impossible to evolve over 'millions of years'. Many biologists adhere to a theory that evolution sometimes takes jumps. Kirtlands Warbler in Northern Michigan is a perfect example. It's such a niche species that it isn't possible that it was around before the ice-age. Granted, it's still a warbler so not a new genus or anything but it would still count as a species going 'extinct' if it was to disappear.
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.
What does Trump's ownership of hotels have to do with Justice Gorsuch? It is not a fundraiser, nor is it a campaign event. What ethical problems arise from Gorsuch speaking there?
As far as The Fund for American Studies having political interests, I think people misunderstand what the organization does. The only "political interests" it has is securing internships for students in its programs. While it certainly benefits from friendly relationships with government officials in that capacity, it does not effect policy in any way.
This is an organization that provides students with summer internships and classes, as well as opportunities to visit important sites in DC. TFAS is not the Heritage Foundation, a lobbying group, or a trade association. They have no pecuniary interests that can be furthered by a relationship with the president.
Full Disclosure: I was a TFAS student twice over, once with their Institute on Comparative Political and Economic Systems in college and once as part of the Legal Studies Institute in law school. I'm pretty familiar with the organization's mission and history, and they even offered me a job. The board consists of college professors, not businessmen, and there is no real economic incentive for the organization and it is registered as an educational non-profit.
No, those are examples of success precisely BECAUSE they were smaller scale. Instead of some god-awful huge all-encompassing mega-regulation involving every country on the face of the earth (which is a pipe-dream and would lead to democracies voting out the people who shoved it down their throats) why not divide it up into smaller more digestible bites? It's already happening slowly and with some more good ideas like the one @Grond0 mentioned earlier it's very doable. Let's not make it some religious all or nothing BS but make it logical and give people choices. I believe that is what people really want and you'll be surprised by the choices people will make if you let them.
Climate scientists say that's not going to work. A half-hearted attempt will only slow the changing climate, not prevent it. I understand there will be difficulties if not every nation buys in, but that doesnt mean we can simply say "Well - if India wont, why should we?". That's a recipe for a cataclysmic outcome.
Forcing unpopular policies down people's throats is a good way of accomplishing nothing in the long term. Don't forget we have elections every 2 years in the US. Other democracies also have elections. Piss off enough enough voters and that's a sure way to ensure that policy doesn't stay in place for more than 4 years tops. Reactionism might even result in policies going in the complete opposite direction and nullifying all of the accomplishments to that point. Just take a look at human history before you poo-poo my opinion...
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.
But you also have to remember how these things came to pass.
I think the reason why we don't here about Acid Rain (that term coined in 1972 - same year as the Clean Water Act) any more is due to people bringing attention to it and finding and improving technology to fix it - that or we outsourced it to China with all the factory jobs.
Lake Erie had to be declared dead until government (on both sides of the border) said OK, lets clean it up, and that is after the Cuyahoga river caught fire too many times to count.
The thing with all three of these is that we had to see the consequences of it before we acted. We don't really see the consequences of Global Warming right away unless you're morbid and watch polar bear drown. But it's easy to wave a hand at images like that and say the ice could be melting this very second for numerous reasons even if the warming of the planet from man made emissions is the most plausible.
~~
Now don't get me wrong, I am completely against a "renewable energy" push by governments as well. The state of Ontario energy crisis now should be a learning experience for all governments looking to buy into "clean" energy solutions. They're too expensive and unpredictable to rely on solely. You still need to compliment them with Nuclear or Gas.
I do believe the world is heating up too fast however and it is causing conditions to get worse. I do not like when people say "ya well that isn't scientifically proven" because there are a lot of things that can't be scientifically proven and had been the crutch for arguments such as cigarette smoking and sugar consumption for years. I think there is still enough evidence pointing towards it though that we can say, ok, just in case maybe we should attempt to do something to lower emissions but I think we are looking at the wrong people for answers in politicians as they tend to be two faced about the issue.
What does Trump's ownership of hotels have to do with Justice Gorsuch? It is not a fundraiser, nor is it a campaign event. What ethical problems arise from Gorsuch speaking there?
As far as The Fund for American Studies having political interests, I think people misunderstand what the organization does. The only "political interests" it has is securing internships for students in its programs. While it certainly benefits from friendly relationships with government officials in that capacity, it does not effect policy in any way.
This is an organization that provides students with summer internships and classes, as well as opportunities to visit important sites in DC. TFAS is not the Heritage Foundation, a lobbying group, or a trade association. They have no pecuniary interests that can be furthered by a relationship with the president.
Full Disclosure: I was a TFAS student twice over, once with their Institute on Comparative Political and Economic Systems in college and once as part of the Legal Studies Institute in law school. I'm pretty familiar with the organization's mission and history, and they even offered me a job. The board consists of college professors, not businessmen, and there is no real economic incentive for the organization and it is registered as an educational non-profit.
The Trump International Hotel is one of the many ways in which foreign governments and corporations can seek to bribe the President of the United States by holding events there and funneling cash directly to him. There are several lawsuits that say that Trump is violating the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause. These cases could very well make their way to the Supreme Court.
What message does Justice Gorsuch agreeing to speak there give? Do you think he will he be impartial when these cases inevitably wind up at the Supreme Court?
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.
Lake Erie had to be declared dead until government (on both sides of the border) said OK, lets clean it up, and that is after the Cuyahoga river caught fire too many times to count.
To be completely honest, a major factor in the Lake Erie clean-up was the zebra mussels (an invasive species that entered the lake via bilge that became a nuisance in it's own right, but fortunately had a voracious appetite for algae). I didn't mention that because it didn't enhance my argument and I was too lazy to find a better example...
What message does Justice Gorsuch agreeing to speak there give? Do you think he will he be impartial when these cases inevitably wind up at the Supreme Court?
What message does Justice Gorsuch agreeing to speak there give? Do you think he will he be impartial when these cases inevitably wind up at the Supreme Court?
He was today.
Today had nothing to do with a case directly against a man who put gorsuch on the bench and is profiting off of his businesses while holding public office.
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
What message does Justice Gorsuch agreeing to speak there give? Do you think he will he be impartial when these cases inevitably wind up at the Supreme Court?
He was today.
Today had nothing to do with a case directly against a man who put gorsuch on the bench and is profiting off of his businesses while holding public office.
A position that he will hold for life regardless of what Trump thinks of him from that moment on. I seriously doubt he's going to worry about Trump at this point (the pinnacle of any lawyer or judge's career). The Supreme Court is the one place where politicians can be themselves with little consequence. Unless he thinks Trump is going to off him, I guess...
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
Considering it turned out that FOX News was running a veritable sexual harassment mill under Roger Ailes, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Hannity at the center of yet ANOTHER controversy in that vein. But there isn't a single professional conservative media personality who will carry water like Hannity will. He is insisting that Cohen only gave him "real estate advice" and that he never retained his services. Yet he also is claiming that he expects attorney/client privilege. Which is it?? Why straddle both sides of the fence?? Either Hannity is lying, or Michael Cohen and his lawyer lied to a judge in Federal court.
There are alot of people in the mainstream media today hitting FOX News hard for not even giving Hannity a slap on the wrist. Their naivete in regards to FOX is part of the problem. That they even had to ask the question as to whether Hannity would be punished by FOX is absurd. Of course they didn't. Why would what amounts to State TV punish anyone?? They exist as a full-fledged 24/7 propaganda network. Watching FOX is like entering an alternate dimension. Negative stories about the right or the President are NEVER covered the night they break. There is a concrete reason for this, which is that a message has to be decided upon before even acknowledging them. You will hear the exact same message broadcast on every one of DOZENS of AM radio shows across the country. FOX News and AM radio produce a constant feedback loop that has been poisoning the discourse in the country for over 2 decades, and you cannot talk about the rise of Donald Trump without first studying how brutally effective explicitly right-wing media is.
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
I am conflicted.
I have no idea why his name had to be made public, and I do believe he has the right to privacy in this matter unless his name was made public because his relations with the lawyer also tie in with the federal investigators case. If it doesn't, it was a mistake to make it public as people are already speculating on the "services" provided by the lawyer. Personal life is private regardless of what we think of a person, especially a private citizen (even if he unofficially advices the President).
That said, it does expose him to some unethical behaviour as he should have disclosed his relationship prior to interviewing him or discussing the raid. BUT his audience doesn't care about such things so regardless of what is exposed he isn't going anywhere and this'll blow over in what, 2 weeks? Unless he is involved in some capacity, then, you know shit will hit the fox fan and a huge can of worms is going to explode.
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
Considering it turned out that FOX News was running a veritable sexual harassment mill under Roger Ailes, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Hannity at the center of yet ANOTHER controversy in that vein. But there isn't a single professional conservative media personality who will carry water like Hannity will. He is insisting that Cohen only gave him "real estate advice" and that he never retained his services. Yet he also is claiming that he expects attorney/client privilege. Which is it?? Why straddle both sides of the fence?? Either Hannity is lying, or Michael Cohen and his lawyer lied to a judge in Federal court.
There are alot of people in the mainstream media today hitting FOX News hard for not even giving Hannity a slap on the wrist. Their naivete in regards to FOX is part of the problem. That they even had to ask the question as to whether Hannity would be punished by FOX is absurd. Of course they didn't. Why would what amounts to State TV punish anyone?? They exist as a full-fledged 24/7 propaganda network. Watching FOX is like entering an alternate dimension. Negative stories about the right or the President are NEVER covered the night they break. There is a concrete reason for this, which is that a message has to be decided upon before even acknowledging them. You will hear the exact same message broadcast on every one of DOZENS of AM radio shows across the country. FOX News and AM radio produce a constant feedback loop that has been poisoning the discourse in the country for over 2 decades, and you cannot talk about the rise of Donald Trump without first studying how brutally effective explicitly right-wing media is.
I don't know, to me Rush is the only one remotely worth listening to. That's more because of bringing facts to light that aren't reported on the 'main-stream' media. His whole-hearted support of Trump nauseates me though seeing as Trump is not a true conservative (which Limbaugh would have happily pointed out in years past). I think Limbaugh has sold out to Trump for the ratings but I have no evidence of it. Hannity is a moron who talks about the same points ad-nauseum and doesn't even bother considering other points of view. Savage is an asshole trying to sell his books. Levin is a demagogue appealing to trailer park trash and almost nobody else. I guess just because I don't like them doesn't mean other people don't though...
Edit: it's when those guys talk about how 'Christian' they are that I throw up in my mouth a little. Well, technically Savage is Jewish but I'd bet that's by race and not religion...
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
Considering it turned out that FOX News was running a veritable sexual harassment mill under Roger Ailes, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Hannity at the center of yet ANOTHER controversy in that vein. But there isn't a single professional conservative media personality who will carry water like Hannity will. He is insisting that Cohen only gave him "real estate advice" and that he never retained his services. Yet he also is claiming that he expects attorney/client privilege. Which is it?? Why straddle both sides of the fence?? Either Hannity is lying, or Michael Cohen and his lawyer lied to a judge in Federal court.
There are alot of people in the mainstream media today hitting FOX News hard for not even giving Hannity a slap on the wrist. Their naivete in regards to FOX is part of the problem. That they even had to ask the question as to whether Hannity would be punished by FOX is absurd. Of course they didn't. Why would what amounts to State TV punish anyone?? They exist as a full-fledged 24/7 propaganda network. Watching FOX is like entering an alternate dimension. Negative stories about the right or the President are NEVER covered the night they break. There is a concrete reason for this, which is that a message has to be decided upon before even acknowledging them. You will hear the exact same message broadcast on every one of DOZENS of AM radio shows across the country. FOX News and AM radio produce a constant feedback loop that has been poisoning the discourse in the country for over 2 decades, and you cannot talk about the rise of Donald Trump without first studying how brutally effective explicitly right-wing media is.
I don't know, to me Rush is the only one remotely worth listening to. That's more because of bringing facts to light that aren't reported on the 'main-stream' media. His whole-hearted support of Trump nauseates me though seeing as Trump is not a true conservative (which Limbaugh would have happily pointed out in years past). I think Limbaugh has sold out to Trump for the ratings but I have no evidence of it. Hannity is a moron who talks about the same points ad-nauseum and doesn't even bother considering other points of view. Savage is an asshole trying to sell his books. Levin is a demagogue appealing to trailer park trash and almost nobody else. I guess just because I don't like them doesn't mean other people don't though...
Repeating the same points ad-nauseum is the entire point.
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
I am conflicted.
I have no idea why his name had to be made public, and I do believe he has the right to privacy in this matter unless his name was made public because his relations with the lawyer also tie in with the federal investigators case. If it doesn't, it was a mistake to make it public as people are already speculating on the "services" provided by the lawyer. Personal life is private regardless of what we think of a person, especially a private citizen (even if he unofficially advices the President).
That said, it does expose him to some unethical behaviour as he should have disclosed his relationship prior to interviewing him or discussing the raid. BUT his audience doesn't care about such things so regardless of what is exposed he isn't going anywhere and this'll blow over in what, 2 weeks? Unless he is involved in some capacity, then, you know shit will hit the fox fan and a huge can of worms is going to explode.
Cohen and his lawyer are the ones who revealed his name. They were the ones screaming about a third party who had to be protected, so the judge reasonably asked who that would be. As for Sean Hannity's expectation of privacy, tell that story to the parents of Seth Rich.
What message does Justice Gorsuch agreeing to speak there give? Do you think he will he be impartial when these cases inevitably wind up at the Supreme Court?
He was today.
Today had nothing to do with a case directly against a man who put gorsuch on the bench and is profiting off of his businesses while holding public office.
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
Considering it turned out that FOX News was running a veritable sexual harassment mill under Roger Ailes, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Hannity at the center of yet ANOTHER controversy in that vein. But there isn't a single professional conservative media personality who will carry water like Hannity will. He is insisting that Cohen only gave him "real estate advice" and that he never retained his services. Yet he also is claiming that he expects attorney/client privilege. Which is it?? Why straddle both sides of the fence?? Either Hannity is lying, or Michael Cohen and his lawyer lied to a judge in Federal court.
There are alot of people in the mainstream media today hitting FOX News hard for not even giving Hannity a slap on the wrist. Their naivete in regards to FOX is part of the problem. That they even had to ask the question as to whether Hannity would be punished by FOX is absurd. Of course they didn't. Why would what amounts to State TV punish anyone?? They exist as a full-fledged 24/7 propaganda network. Watching FOX is like entering an alternate dimension. Negative stories about the right or the President are NEVER covered the night they break. There is a concrete reason for this, which is that a message has to be decided upon before even acknowledging them. You will hear the exact same message broadcast on every one of DOZENS of AM radio shows across the country. FOX News and AM radio produce a constant feedback loop that has been poisoning the discourse in the country for over 2 decades, and you cannot talk about the rise of Donald Trump without first studying how brutally effective explicitly right-wing media is.
I don't know, to me Rush is the only one remotely worth listening to. That's more because of bringing facts to light that aren't reported on the 'main-stream' media. His whole-hearted support of Trump nauseates me though seeing as Trump is not a true conservative (which Limbaugh would have happily pointed out in years past). I think Limbaugh has sold out to Trump for the ratings but I have no evidence of it. Hannity is a moron who talks about the same points ad-nauseum and doesn't even bother considering other points of view. Savage is an asshole trying to sell his books. Levin is a demagogue appealing to trailer park trash and almost nobody else. I guess just because I don't like them doesn't mean other people don't though...
Repeating the same points ad-nauseum is the entire point.
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
I am conflicted.
I have no idea why his name had to be made public, and I do believe he has the right to privacy in this matter unless his name was made public because his relations with the lawyer also tie in with the federal investigators case. If it doesn't, it was a mistake to make it public as people are already speculating on the "services" provided by the lawyer. Personal life is private regardless of what we think of a person, especially a private citizen (even if he unofficially advices the President).
That said, it does expose him to some unethical behaviour as he should have disclosed his relationship prior to interviewing him or discussing the raid. BUT his audience doesn't care about such things so regardless of what is exposed he isn't going anywhere and this'll blow over in what, 2 weeks? Unless he is involved in some capacity, then, you know shit will hit the fox fan and a huge can of worms is going to explode.
As for Sean Hannity's expectation of privacy, tell that story to the parents of Seth Rich.
Should I contact them at Comet Ping Pong?
(Just kidding - I'm definitely NOT a proponent of conspiracy theories.)
With some rare exceptions (like Jake Taper) cable news is cancerous to public discourse and I tend to avoid it entirely.
You need look no further than Laura Ingraham. She's highly educated, having graduated from Dartmouth and the University of Virginia School of Law. She's also highly experienced, working as a speech writer for the Reagan Administration and clerking for a judge on the Second Circuit and then again for Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court. She's clearly intelligent, capable, and qualified. And she spends her time rebutting highshoolers and basketball players.
Hannity isn't half as bright or as talented, so its no surprise to me that he finds himself in trouble yet again. There is a clear conflict if he is interviewing his own lawyer, and that should be revealed.
The thing is, if it was revealed it shouldn't even be a problem considering that this is a regular occurrence:
One of the problems with climate change is chaos. The thing about human society is that we depend on a stable environment almost as much as a normal species. We need reliable climate to keep crop yields high. We need air that's clean enough to breathe without causing damage to our lungs. We need water that's free of toxins. We need sea levels to stay still, because rising sea levels would flood our highly-populated coastal communities and lowering sea levels (which thankfully we don't have to worry about) would force them to relocate.
Snow kills crops. Drought kills crops. When crops die, food prices fluctuate and destabilize the market. Changing temperatures make organisms migrate. When fish leave an area, fishermen have to move. When insects pour into an area, people have to deal with them. Storms destroy cities.
I honestly don't care if a tree falls in the forest. If a beautiful ecosystem dies, I don't mind as long as it doesn't affect humans. Nature has no inherent value to me. But we live in the environment, and we get exactly 100% of our natural resources from the environment. Anything that impacts the environment will impact us--and we need to make sure that those impacts work in our favor, because most changes will not. The global economy is based on a certain ecosystem, and if the ecosystem changes, things will get less efficient. Moving X centimeters of rain from region A to region B is bad for both regions.
Chaotic weather patterns threaten economic growth and economic stability. Now, if it were a choice between a world without global warming and a world without energy, I'd definitely go with the polluted city over the farm without electricity.
But that's not the decision we have to make. We already have tons of profitable alternatives to fossil fuels--the choice is whether to implement policies to encourage sustainable energy or just let it burn. And for me, that choice is actually pretty basic.
Fossil fuels give us lots of energy at the cost of economic disruption.
Cohen and his lawyer are the ones who revealed his name. They were the ones screaming about a third party who had to be protected, so the judge reasonably asked who that would be. As for Sean Hannity's expectation of privacy, tell that story to the parents of Seth Rich.
Ya no.
"In a legal filing before the hearing on Monday, Mr. Cohen said that, since 2017, he had worked as a lawyer for 10 clients, seven of whom he served by providing “strategic advice and business consulting.” The other three comprised Mr. Trump, the Republican fund-raiser Elliott Broidy and a third person who went unnamed.
The mystery was solved when Kimba M. Wood, a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, ordered that Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, disclose the name of the client in question — who turned out to be Mr. Hannity...
The surprise naming of Mr. Hannity took place after several minutes of back and forth among government representatives, members of Mr. Cohen’s legal team and Judge Wood.
Before the name was revealed, Mr. Ryan argued that the mystery client was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity a secret because he would be “embarrassed” to be identified as having sought Mr. Cohen’s counsel.
Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the hearing to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient cause to withhold a client’s name, and Judge Wood agreed."
They were ordered to disclose it by a judge after that judge listened to arguments on why the name shouldn't be disclosed.
My argument is, IF this client has nothing to do with the investigation then his name shouldn't have been revealed and if he is involved, his name should only be revealed once those communications are made public by the prosecution.
Can someone give us a timeline of what the precise effects of climate change will be and when they will occur?
I cannot speak to the former. Consult various models and you'll have an answer?
I have done that before on other boards only to find that the models don't all agree.
*************
re: Hannity.... On the one hand it isn't any of our business who he retains as legal counsel. On the other hand, if he is going to go on air and defend Mr. Cohen then it is incumbent upon Mr. Hannity to disclose that this person is his lawyer if he wants to retain that "fair and balanced" tagline his network uses.
Fossil fuels give us lots of energy at the cost of economic disruption.
Nuclear power gives us lots of energy.
Which offers the better future in the long run?
Nuclear, without a doubt. The problem with nuclear reactors is that we have been building them incorrectly--too much risk of meltdown (Three Mile Island) and/or conventional explosion (Chernobyl). If we can get a design that minimizes these risks (set it up so that any disruption in normal operations results in core shutdown) then nuclear won't be the problem it has been.
Skunkworks once claimed that it would have a prototype fusion reactor by 2017 but they missed their deadline. I think the new deadline is 2020 and I really hope that happens. Having fusion reactors available by 2025 would make the entire fossil/nuclear discussion moot since neither one would be needed.
Nuclear, without a doubt. The problem with nuclear reactors is that we have been building them incorrectly--too much risk of meltdown (Three Mile Island) and/or conventional explosion (Chernobyl). If we can get a design that minimizes these risks (set it up so that any disruption in normal operations results in core shutdown) then nuclear won't be the problem it has been.
Skunkworks once claimed that it would have a prototype fusion reactor by 2017 but they missed their deadline. I think the new deadline is 2020 and I really hope that happens. Having fusion reactors available by 2025 would make the entire fossil/nuclear discussion moot since neither one would be needed.
Just to be clear, fusion is still nuclear energy... And another problem with nuclear energy is waste disposal. I don't believe we have a perfect solution yet.
Comments
Preaching from the pulpit of 'You're all evil people who need to be punished for looking out for yourselves' is not going to work.
The article also briefly covers the fact that volcanos emit carbon dioxide - but human emissions are far higher, so if global warming is due to greenhouse gases that is down to human intervention not natural causes.
I cannot speak to the former. Consult various models and you'll have an answer?
As to the latter - Climate change on the scale we're looking at will be undeniably bad for humans. An enormous percentage of humans live on or within 50 minutes of a coast-line. If water levels continue to rise, you can surmise the result (See Miami. 50 years ago, King Tides wouldnt cause widespread flooding in the city. Now they do).
A huge percentage of the world relies upon the ocean as a primary food source. Ocean acidification is already occurring and will absolutely strain oceanic ecosystems.
Climate scientists say that's not going to work. A half-hearted attempt will only slow the changing climate, not prevent it. I understand there will be difficulties if not every nation buys in, but that doesnt mean we can simply say "Well - if India wont, why should we?". That's a recipe for a cataclysmic outcome.
I would agree that climate change, at least up until now, has been very clearly a net benefit for the world as a whole. A big contributor to that is agricultural production - plants grow much better due to the higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, there are other benefits as well. For instance the UK regularly has considerably higher death rates in the winter due to lower temperatures, but generally not higher death rates in the summer. An overall increase in temperatures is expected to reduce the current disparity.
What concerns me though is that the costs and benefits are not evenly distributed. I mentioned above there is a disconnect between costs and benefits in relation to environmental factors. Will farmers in the mid-West of the US be willing to put some of their gains from increased production into helping people displaced by rising sea levels or desertification? I think the only way to do that would be through an international framework, but the problems in the EU over managing what are really quite small flows of migrants in recent years shows how difficult that is likely to be.
As far as The Fund for American Studies having political interests, I think people misunderstand what the organization does. The only "political interests" it has is securing internships for students in its programs. While it certainly benefits from friendly relationships with government officials in that capacity, it does not effect policy in any way.
This is an organization that provides students with summer internships and classes, as well as opportunities to visit important sites in DC. TFAS is not the Heritage Foundation, a lobbying group, or a trade association. They have no pecuniary interests that can be furthered by a relationship with the president.
Full Disclosure: I was a TFAS student twice over, once with their Institute on Comparative Political and Economic Systems in college and once as part of the Legal Studies Institute in law school. I'm pretty familiar with the organization's mission and history, and they even offered me a job. The board consists of college professors, not businessmen, and there is no real economic incentive for the organization and it is registered as an educational non-profit.
I think the reason why we don't here about Acid Rain (that term coined in 1972 - same year as the Clean Water Act) any more is due to people bringing attention to it and finding and improving technology to fix it - that or we outsourced it to China with all the factory jobs.
Lake Erie had to be declared dead until government (on both sides of the border) said OK, lets clean it up, and that is after the Cuyahoga river caught fire too many times to count.
The thing with all three of these is that we had to see the consequences of it before we acted. We don't really see the consequences of Global Warming right away unless you're morbid and watch polar bear drown. But it's easy to wave a hand at images like that and say the ice could be melting this very second for numerous reasons even if the warming of the planet from man made emissions is the most plausible.
~~
Now don't get me wrong, I am completely against a "renewable energy" push by governments as well. The state of Ontario energy crisis now should be a learning experience for all governments looking to buy into "clean" energy solutions. They're too expensive and unpredictable to rely on solely. You still need to compliment them with Nuclear or Gas.
I do believe the world is heating up too fast however and it is causing conditions to get worse. I do not like when people say "ya well that isn't scientifically proven" because there are a lot of things that can't be scientifically proven and had been the crutch for arguments such as cigarette smoking and sugar consumption for years. I think there is still enough evidence pointing towards it though that we can say, ok, just in case maybe we should attempt to do something to lower emissions but I think we are looking at the wrong people for answers in politicians as they tend to be two faced about the issue.
What message does Justice Gorsuch agreeing to speak there give? Do you think he will he be impartial when these cases inevitably wind up at the Supreme Court?
Anybody else interested in what we may be going to find out soon about Sean Hannity? I'm fairly conservative but I can't stand that guy (I used to listen to him until I came to the realization that I think he's dumber than a box of rocks). I'm not sure I agree with how he's being treated but it's a bit suspicious how he never mentioned that he had any kind of relationship with Cohen.
There are alot of people in the mainstream media today hitting FOX News hard for not even giving Hannity a slap on the wrist. Their naivete in regards to FOX is part of the problem. That they even had to ask the question as to whether Hannity would be punished by FOX is absurd. Of course they didn't. Why would what amounts to State TV punish anyone?? They exist as a full-fledged 24/7 propaganda network. Watching FOX is like entering an alternate dimension. Negative stories about the right or the President are NEVER covered the night they break. There is a concrete reason for this, which is that a message has to be decided upon before even acknowledging them. You will hear the exact same message broadcast on every one of DOZENS of AM radio shows across the country. FOX News and AM radio produce a constant feedback loop that has been poisoning the discourse in the country for over 2 decades, and you cannot talk about the rise of Donald Trump without first studying how brutally effective explicitly right-wing media is.
I have no idea why his name had to be made public, and I do believe he has the right to privacy in this matter unless his name was made public because his relations with the lawyer also tie in with the federal investigators case. If it doesn't, it was a mistake to make it public as people are already speculating on the "services" provided by the lawyer. Personal life is private regardless of what we think of a person, especially a private citizen (even if he unofficially advices the President).
That said, it does expose him to some unethical behaviour as he should have disclosed his relationship prior to interviewing him or discussing the raid. BUT his audience doesn't care about such things so regardless of what is exposed he isn't going anywhere and this'll blow over in what, 2 weeks? Unless he is involved in some capacity, then, you know shit will hit the fox fan and a huge can of worms is going to explode.
Edit: it's when those guys talk about how 'Christian' they are that I throw up in my mouth a little. Well, technically Savage is Jewish but I'd bet that's by race and not religion...
(Just kidding - I'm definitely NOT a proponent of conspiracy theories.)
You need look no further than Laura Ingraham. She's highly educated, having graduated from Dartmouth and the University of Virginia School of Law. She's also highly experienced, working as a speech writer for the Reagan Administration and clerking for a judge on the Second Circuit and then again for Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court. She's clearly intelligent, capable, and qualified.
And she spends her time rebutting highshoolers and basketball players.
Hannity isn't half as bright or as talented, so its no surprise to me that he finds himself in trouble yet again. There is a clear conflict if he is interviewing his own lawyer, and that should be revealed.
The thing is, if it was revealed it shouldn't even be a problem considering that this is a regular occurrence:
Snow kills crops. Drought kills crops. When crops die, food prices fluctuate and destabilize the market. Changing temperatures make organisms migrate. When fish leave an area, fishermen have to move. When insects pour into an area, people have to deal with them. Storms destroy cities.
I honestly don't care if a tree falls in the forest. If a beautiful ecosystem dies, I don't mind as long as it doesn't affect humans. Nature has no inherent value to me. But we live in the environment, and we get exactly 100% of our natural resources from the environment. Anything that impacts the environment will impact us--and we need to make sure that those impacts work in our favor, because most changes will not. The global economy is based on a certain ecosystem, and if the ecosystem changes, things will get less efficient. Moving X centimeters of rain from region A to region B is bad for both regions.
Chaotic weather patterns threaten economic growth and economic stability. Now, if it were a choice between a world without global warming and a world without energy, I'd definitely go with the polluted city over the farm without electricity.
But that's not the decision we have to make. We already have tons of profitable alternatives to fossil fuels--the choice is whether to implement policies to encourage sustainable energy or just let it burn. And for me, that choice is actually pretty basic.
Fossil fuels give us lots of energy at the cost of economic disruption.
Nuclear power gives us lots of energy.
Which offers the better future in the long run?
The mystery was solved when Kimba M. Wood, a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, ordered that Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, disclose the name of the client in question — who turned out to be Mr. Hannity...
The surprise naming of Mr. Hannity took place after several minutes of back and forth among government representatives, members of Mr. Cohen’s legal team and Judge Wood.
Before the name was revealed, Mr. Ryan argued that the mystery client was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity a secret because he would be “embarrassed” to be identified as having sought Mr. Cohen’s counsel.
Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the hearing to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient cause to withhold a client’s name, and Judge Wood agreed."
from here.
They were ordered to disclose it by a judge after that judge listened to arguments on why the name shouldn't be disclosed.
My argument is, IF this client has nothing to do with the investigation then his name shouldn't have been revealed and if he is involved, his name should only be revealed once those communications are made public by the prosecution.
*************
re: Hannity.... On the one hand it isn't any of our business who he retains as legal counsel. On the other hand, if he is going to go on air and defend Mr. Cohen then it is incumbent upon Mr. Hannity to disclose that this person is his lawyer if he wants to retain that "fair and balanced" tagline his network uses. Nuclear, without a doubt. The problem with nuclear reactors is that we have been building them incorrectly--too much risk of meltdown (Three Mile Island) and/or conventional explosion (Chernobyl). If we can get a design that minimizes these risks (set it up so that any disruption in normal operations results in core shutdown) then nuclear won't be the problem it has been.
Skunkworks once claimed that it would have a prototype fusion reactor by 2017 but they missed their deadline. I think the new deadline is 2020 and I really hope that happens. Having fusion reactors available by 2025 would make the entire fossil/nuclear discussion moot since neither one would be needed.