[kenberg]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-24, 14:05, said:

On global warming you're forgetting one huge thing. A couple thousand years ago there was a flood. Noah made a very wise decision to get rid of any of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs you see fart ridiculously. They also eat up lots of greenery which was killing the rainforests. So if anything humans are actually helping the global warming cause historically by getting rid of farting dinosaurs.

I wonder if a guy could get a government grant to study this approach. It certainly sounds promising.

[hrothgar]

olegru, on 2016-August-24, 14:15, said:

What I found unacceptable is eagerness of liberals to put labels on people who dare to question common unproven believes.

Just to be clear

1. Its bad to put labels on people
2. And you attribute this behavior to the "liberals"

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-24, 14:06, said:

Godwin's Law in action.

I have no faith in Trump. I believe he'd be as bad a president as Clinton, though for different reasons. But he's not a Nazi.

Of course Trump isn't a Nazi...

The expression National Socialist hasn't polled well since the mid 1940s.

Trump is merely a "populist" who is actively courting the "Alt Right" and regularly retweets #whitegenocide memes.

Look at his new campaign manager whose magazine keeps running pieces stating “Jews run the banks” and “Jews run the media”...

Sorry Ed, If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[hrothgar]

delete

[olegru]

hrothgar, on 2016-August-24, 14:54, said:

Just to be clear

1. Its bad to put labels on people
2. And you attribute this behavior to the "liberals"

My apologies, I should not generalize. My experience in discussions with people who proclamate themselves as liberals makes me to think that many of them cannot tolerate right of other people to have different opinion. Of course it does not mean that all liberals are like that. I was wrong to put phrase way I put it. Thanks for correction.

By the way, here is a post that I had in mind then commented about liberals and labeling.

hrothgar, on 2016-August-24, 12:48, said:

Not too surprisingly, it's often the same group of idiots espousing both theories

[Cyberyeti]

olegru, on 2016-August-24, 14:15, said:

Now I am agree with every word.
1: If human activity is a presumable cause for future catastrophe we have no choice but act today based on current knowledge and current assumptions.
2: In a same time we must continue research to make sure our assumptions are correct and our resources are not wasted in wrong direction.
3: What I found unacceptable is eagerness of liberals to put labels on people who dare to question common unproven believes. (Sorry, all above have nothing to do with Trump. I have no ideas about his position towards climate change and not really interested to learn more. Somehow I don't think there is a connection between what he is saying and what he is planning to do.)

I agree with 1 and 2.

The question is when you consider something proven, and whether it's right to wait for an absolute proof which is VERY unlikely to be available, or to act on an almost universal consensus backed up by enough evidence to strongly suggest that it's right. Particularly when pretty much all the arguments on the other side have been comprehensively debunked.

It gets dodgy when religion is involved as people are prepared to use their holy book and quote it as fact which makes the scientists' job impossible as no sort of proof will convince them.

[hrothgar]

olegru, on 2016-August-24, 15:05, said:

By the way, here is a post that I had in mind then commented about liberals and labeling.

Sorry,

I should have been more clear when I made my post

I personally don't have any problem affixing labels to people.
I certainly don't have any problem labelling people who

1. Believe in creationism
2. Deny climate change

as "idiots".

I certainly wasn't criticizing you for labelling liberals. Rather, I was mocking you for being so completely oblivious that you were able to write a self righteous little post while engaging in precisely the same behavior that you were criticizing.

Maybe the following will be received better" "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 16:20, said:

I understand a lot of what you were saying. That said I think you are missing something. Maybe I am naive. But here's my position anyway.

A lot of the complaints about Republicans are complaints I agree with. the bush approach seems to be a neocon ideal of lots of military intervention in order to create some utopian world where economic power is centralized Within a corporate oligarchy. Governments are to be minimalized largely because they get in the way of the corporations who really know what's best for everyone. the military is the arm of government that acts as an enforcer of corporate wisdom. The free market is a means of somehow ensuring that corporations evolve into ideal and results.

The Democrat View seems to me to be very similar to neocon views but with a heavy emphasis on puppet mastering. More of a psychotic chess game with all kinds of pieces moving all over the place restrained to some degree by a perceived need to have a group effort and to follow certain Rules of Engagement unless those Rules of Engagement involve the general rule to not be sneaky for calculating as to who you support.

The Democrats also want to enable a strong corporate Powerhouse. however they would seek to control it. they need the strong corporate Powerhouse in order to fund an increasing number of citizens on government payrolls as a power source in elections.

It completely third idea seems to be emerging. Some call it populism. Some call it nationalism. One aspect of this is to reduce International meddling. Fewer all out Wars. Less creepy puppet mastering. Maybe isolationist but leaving others to resolve their own problems. Threatening to the neocons. Threatening to the diplomacists.

The Nationalist populists seek to enable the workers to fend for themselves in a free Market not controlled by corporations and rules designed to benefit them. Not beholden to a government pay out.

Trump speaks this language. He might be full of crap. He may have just realized that others are thinking this way and is riding that train. I can't speak to his genuine nature.

What I do know is that this is how I feel now. I am not going to vote for the person either in the Democrat Puppet Master strain war in the neocon corporatist strain. Both of them have gotten us into a holy mess internationally and have converted booming manufacturing cities into major recipients of welfare checks. I want to read one day that Johnny and Jamar and Juanita and Akbar and Chen have negotiated a fair wage for themselves without competition enabled for the benefit of the corporates to allow the corporates to be taxed to pay for the same people to receive welfare instead of those jobs. I would like those people to go home to their families and not have to watch the news with their children about the United States being involved in 12 separate bizarre International crises or involved in one huge senseless War. I want them all to feel safe then taking their children to the fireworks on Independence Day.

I appreciate your position but the solution is to go to work locally and start the chain of change you envision, not to vote for a madman, IMO.

[Al_U_Card]

LOL Maybe Barney Google can enlighten us all about the "Divergence problem" that continues to raise doubt in climate theology. But avert your eyes if you prefer name-calling and group-think.

[kenrexford]

I've noticed something interesting. There has been a strange number of times recently when I have heard reports of some cooling trend while also finding out that some acts of piracy have been increasing. I noticed that while watching the news over dinner. My wife made a delicious bowl of spaghetti for me.

[Cyberyeti]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-24, 15:47, said:

LOL Maybe Barney Google can enlighten us all about the "Divergence problem" that continues to raise doubt in climate theology. But avert your eyes if you prefer name-calling and group-think.

There are plenty of other methods of looking at temperature, the Japanese have been measuring and recording it by proxy for hundreds of years. The question is not are we warming, but why.

[kenberg]

del

[helene_t]

This was an interesting and civilized discussion, please don't turn it into a climate change ******.

[shyams]

Here is a serious poll question for the Americans with a vote on Nov 8th.

If Hillary Clinton were a man (while remaining an ex-Senator, ex-Secy of State, ex-whatever), would he (Mr. Hill Rodham) be:
a. More ahead on opinion polls (vs. Mr Donald Trump) compared to what currently exists
b. About the same level on opinion polls compared to what currently exists
c. Worse on opinion polls compared to what currently exists

[Al_U_Card]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-24, 17:32, said:

There are plenty of other methods of looking at temperature, the Japanese have been measuring and recording it by proxy for hundreds of years. The question is not are we warming, but why.

Yes, why were we, and then not and then again and then not and then again and now not?

[Al_U_Card]

shyams, on 2016-August-25, 00:24, said:

Here is a serious poll question for the Americans with a vote on Nov 8th.

If Hillary Clinton were a man (while remaining an ex-Senator, ex-Secy of State, ex-whatever), would he (Mr. Hill Rodham) be:
a. More ahead on opinion polls (vs. Mr Donald Trump) compared to what currently exists
b. About the same level on opinion polls compared to what currently exists
c. Worse on opinion polls compared to what currently exists

What about if "he" was black? (Like Hilary's soul and Donald's current personal financial statements.)

Personally, I would go for b as the polarization of viewpoints and situations in the US appears to be pretty well established and likely unaffected by whichever of the lesser evils is in there.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-25, 04:22, said:

Yes, why were we, and then not and then again and then not and then again and now not?

Admittedly, I am just eyeballing things, however, it would appear as if the high point of each of those arrows is higher than before.
Moreover, it would appear as if your graph is excluding the last five years of data including last year's record setting highs.
(And oh, btw, this year is even higher)

In theory, the point of this graph might be to try to claim that there is no acceleration in the warming trend.
The three line segments appears to be cherry picked to be parallel to one another.
However, this isn't how one conducts this sort of analysis.

You can demonstrate most anything if you cherry pick your numbers.

For example, some idiots were stupid enough to claim that there was no warming over "the last 17 years" because they cherry picked their data and started measuring from an outlier.
It took a few years, but 2015 beat the previous high, 2016 is looking to be significantly hotter, and of course the long term trend continues.

Sadly, there are some folks who are stupid enough to continue to parade around these stories long after they've been discredited.

[Cyberyeti]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-25, 04:22, said:

Yes, why were we, and then not and then again and then not and then again and now not?

Hrothgar largely nailed this, but I see that graph as hugely worrying. The 1980 trough is not as low as the previous ones and the current peak is higher, plus the last couple of years are very worrying.

I think I've said this before, but the Phil Jones quoted on there is actually a local bridge player.

[kenberg]

shyams, on 2016-August-25, 00:24, said:

Here is a serious poll question for the Americans with a vote on Nov 8th.

If Hillary Clinton were a man (while remaining an ex-Senator, ex-Secy of State, ex-whatever), would he (Mr. Hill Rodham) be:
a. More ahead on opinion polls (vs. Mr Donald Trump) compared to what currently exists
b. About the same level on opinion polls compared to what currently exists
c. Worse on opinion polls compared to what currently exists

A recent column by Richard Cohen of the Post contained the line "I would rather vote vote for Kim Kardashian than for Donald Trump". We don't need to take this casual comment too seriously but it reflects the fact that the M/F difference between Trump/Clinton is dwarfed by other differences. So I think that b. is the right answer. If the question were rephrased to ask about Sanders/Clinton, I am less confident of the answer. The diffferences between the two were large there as well, but I am still uncertain of whether Clinton would have done better or worse if she were male but otherwise unchanged.


Of course "otherwise unchanged" is a tricky business. Could Donald Trump be a woman but otherwise unchanged? It's hard to imagine. Could Sarah Palin be a man but otherwise unchanged?

[Al_U_Card]

See the CC thread if you are curious or daring...