• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

nijato

Active member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
198
Location
Charm City, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Then continue to stop pipelines, stop building dams, stop nuclear plants, and stop drilling for oil. You're stopping it all and then wonder why your prices go up and availability goes down, and all the while protesting that businesses are moving overseas. Meanwhile you mire yourselves in unsustainable debt.

Do you see a healthy future in any of this?
Have you ever read the Lorax?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
73,487
Reaction score
31,915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What that research did was pop the pompous declarations that GCM were science, that the science was settled and that there was nothing to debate. Well, those were indefensible positions for GCM were not accounting for this phenomenon, the science clearly was not settled, and there was plenty room to debate many aspects of climate science. The fact that we know how individual processes work doesn't mean that GCM were accurately modeling the system. They couldn't accurately model the system because the scientists writing the code clearly didn't understand how the system worked for they were completely ignorant of a major subsystem in the climate.
The models are the product of the best science on the subject and nobody has ever suggested that climate research is somehow complete, or that the climate models have been perfected.

So, why are you bringing any of this up?
 

RiverDad

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
1,515
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The models are the product of the best science on the subject and nobody has ever suggested that climate research is somehow complete, or that the climate models have been perfected.

So, why are you bringing any of this up?
You think that I'm arguing some strawman?

The Environmental Protection Agency counts as an important player? Don't they?

December 7, 2009



The question of the science is settled. The debate that should be taking place now is how to address this challenge and take advantage of the opportunity it offers.​


I'd be crucified if I did in my professional life what I see many climate scientists doing in their professional lives.
 

nijato

Active member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
198
Location
Charm City, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
What that research did was pop the pompous declarations that GCM were science, that the science was settled and that there was nothing to debate. Well, those were indefensible positions for GCM were not accounting for this phenomenon, the science clearly was not settled, and there was plenty room to debate many aspects of climate science. The fact that we know how individual processes work doesn't mean that GCM were accurately modeling the system. They couldn't accurately model the system because the scientists writing the code clearly didn't understand how the system worked for they were completely ignorant of a major subsystem in the climate.
We're all aware that climate science has the difficulty of not having a proper control group - we have only one Earth. Everyone understands that models are models and include uncertainty. So what? I don't think you'll find many scientists who think every detail and variable has been perfectly described. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to characterize cloud formation as something climatologists and modelers were "completely ignorant of."
 

nijato

Active member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
198
Location
Charm City, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Which country do you believe is better equipped to address the consequences which arise from various forms of pollution, the US or Mexico?
Well, I have some misgivings about what "pollution" might entail... but I'll bite. I'll go with the US, generally.
 

nijato

Active member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
198
Location
Charm City, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
You think that I'm arguing some strawman?

The Environmental Protection Agency counts as an important player? Don't they?

December 7, 2009



The question of the science is settled. The debate that should be taking place now is how to address this challenge and take advantage of the opportunity it offers.​


I'd be crucified if I did in my professional life what I see many climate scientists doing in their professional lives.
If the question is "Is atmospheric carbon dioxide a substance which threatens the health and welfare of Americans," (the standard for EPA regulation) the answer is yes, and the science IS settled. I feel like you're off your game lately! We don't need to know the dynamics of cosmic-ray induced ionization to know CO2 affects climate.
 

RiverDad

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
1,515
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, I have some misgivings about what "pollution" might entail... but I'll bite. I'll go with the US, generally.
Mexico had a higher GDP/capita wealth than did the US back in the colonial era. We surpassed Mexico because our annual economic growth rate was about 1 percentage point higher than theirs and this effect compounded over time.

The policy problems here are 1.) people think poverty sucks, 2.) people want jobs, 3.) the pollution control measures reduce economic growth.

The philosophical question is how much sacrifice does the present generation endure in order to make life easier for a future wealthier generation and if we create conditions today which make the environmental problems of the future worse, will the conditions we create today, which are wealth enhancing, create enough compounded wealth over time to offset the increased environmental problems of the future.

We know from the world of today that wealthier societies are better able to bear the burden of repairing the environmental damage that has been created by industrialization.

Lastly, my personal impression is that most environmentalist are economic illiterates and they don't realize the real economic costs of the policy solutions that they're advancing. Not all people mind you, but a whole lot of them. What these policies will produce is kind of like the economic landscape we see before us today, at best, and quite likely higher levels of inflation (energy costs get more expensive faster than they would otherwise) and lower levels of job creation, lower levels of wealth creation, more fiscal imbalances between spending and revenue.
 

nijato

Active member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
198
Location
Charm City, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The philosophical question is how much sacrifice does the present generation endure in order to make life easier for a future wealthier generation and if we create conditions today which make the environmental problems of the future worse, will the conditions we create today, which are wealth enhancing, create enough compounded wealth over time to offset the increased environmental problems of the future.

We know from the world of today that wealthier societies are better able to bear the burden of repairing the environmental damage that has been created by industrialization.
It would seem that you assume economic growth is a permanent condition. I think infinite growth on a finite planet is an impossibility.


Sent from my SGH-T589 using Tapatalk
 

RiverDad

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
1,515
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It would seem that you assume economic growth is a permanent condition. I think infinite growth on a finite planet is an impossibility.

Sent from my SGH-T589 using Tapatalk
There are hard, physical limits to human knowledge on SGH-T569? Wow, I feel for you guys. Here on Earth, that's the planet I live on, we manage to make ourselves wealthier by doing things in smarter ways.
 

nijato

Active member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
198
Location
Charm City, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
There are hard, physical limits to human knowledge on SGH-T569? Wow, I feel for you guys. Here on Earth, that's the planet I live on, we manage to make ourselves wealthier by doing things in smarter ways.
Yes, my lovely techno-utopia is completely dependent on fossil fuels. Doesn't mean I'm going to live in a unibomber shack. Not yet anyway.
 

Grant

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've read teh actual article by CERN, not the misinterpretations by people trying to sell more books.
AHA! So he has a profit motive! And this make you suspicious, huh?, and unwilling to accept the what is being said. It seems you share the same closed mind shared by many little lefty brains and can't absorb information which conflicts with their beliefs, usually gained from an article which they first read on any subject.
No, do you need help learning the difference between a journalist who has an open agenda and a scientist? Obviously you do since you are clearly under the asinine belief that Solomon is a scientist.
No, he is a "journaist" (sic) ( a word a moron like yourself can't even spell) in a national newspaper, He refers to scientists in his column and the studies which have been done. These studies are available to everyone, but an ignorant piece of cow dung like yourself apparently can't process that into your poorly educated head.

I do not get any of my scientific information from journalists because journalists are so often clueless about science.
He is writing about the science, the background and the consequences. Can't you even decipher that much?

Depends on how you define media. If you define media to include real scientific publications, I will get my scientific information from them from time to time.
How do you suppose the word "media" is defined? You don't know that either? Does this have to be explained to you as well?
Scientific American, for example, is a publication I will read. I usually go to the primary sources anyway, though.
I'll wager a 'moron' like yourself just looks at the pictures.

I only come across as thick to those who prefer to wallow in ignorance.
No you'll be a thick, stupid and rude buffoon in any environment.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
29,972
Reaction score
32,415
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems you share the same closed mind shared by many little lefty brains and can't absorb information which conflicts with their beliefs

( a word a moron like yourself can't even spell)

but an ignorant piece of cow dung like yourself apparently can't process that into your poorly educated head.

I'll wager a 'moron' like yourself just looks at the pictures.

No you'll be a thick, stupid and rude buffoon in any environment.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
50,835
Reaction score
33,093
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AHA! So he has a profit motive! And this make you suspicious, huh?, and unwilling to accept the what is being said. It seems you share the same closed mind shared by many little lefty brains and can't absorb information which conflicts with their beliefs, usually gained from an article which they first read on any subject.


No, he is a "journaist" (sic) ( a word a moron like yourself can't even spell) in a national newspaper, He refers to scientists in his column and the studies which have been done. These studies are available to everyone, but an ignorant piece of cow dung like yourself apparently can't process that into your poorly educated head.



He is writing about the science, the background and the consequences. Can't you even decipher that much?



How do you suppose the word "media" is defined? You don't know that either? Does this have to be explained to you as well?


I'll wager a 'moron' like yourself just looks at the pictures.



No you'll be a thick, stupid and rude buffoon in any environment.
I see you've run out of real arguments, and resorted to ad hominem and personal attacks instead. Oh well. Maybe if you picked an issue on which there was some debatable points, you'd have better luck. It's OK. It's not your fault.
That windmill just wasn't fighting fair.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
115,068
Reaction score
32,526
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People are angry tonight. lol
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
AHA! So he has a profit motive! And this make you suspicious, huh?, and unwilling to accept the what is being said. It seems you share the same closed mind shared by many little lefty brains and can't absorb information which conflicts with their beliefs, usually gained from an article which they first read on any subject.
No, he has a profit motive AND his information conflicts with that which actually exists in the article he purports to cite. When you willfully ignore that latter bit, it might appear to be closed mindedness, but when you actually take all of the information in, instead of making up nonsense to replace that which you do not wish to acknowledge, you'll see that there is more than just the profit motivation involved.


No, he is a "journaist" (sic) ( a word a moron like yourself can't even spell)
See, this kind of idiocy is why people think you are a retard, grant.

Anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence would be capable of recognizing that this is not a spelling error, but instead a typographical error where I accidentally ommitted the "L".

This is because those who have working brains would be able to note that I spelled the word correctly later on in the same post. But apparently your feeble little pea brain is incapable of actually taking in all of the evidence presented to you when there is a perfectly retarded explanation for you to latch on to.

in a national newspaper, He refers to scientists in his column and the studies which have been done.
I read to the actual study be claims to be referencing, so I am fully aware that his interpretation of what the study said is false. Therefore, I have to take everything else he says with a grain of salt due to teh fact that I know for a fact he is not above making **** up.

These studies are available to everyone, but an ignorant piece of cow dung like yourself apparently can't process that into your poorly educated head.
Again, your feeble mind failed to take in all of the information available to you. I specifically noted that I had read the study in question in the very first sentence of the post you are quoting. But, as usual, an intelligent analysis of the data fell outside of your intellectual capacities.

He is writing about the science, the background and the consequences. Can't you even decipher that much?
Here's a little fact for you, since it is doubtful that your intellectual capacities are of a level high enough to intuit these facts on your own. Just because someone writes about science, the background and the consequences doesn't mean they know what they are talking about, nor does it mean that they are doing so honestly. People can lie. In this case, we know that Solomon is lying because he makes a claim about the CERN article which is definitely not true.

It does not "all-but-settle" the issue. No single study can ever do that, but it is especially true of a study such as this one that got the results that it did CERN. One very specific thing that was mentioned in the CERN study itself was that cosmic rays alone could not account for everything.



How do you suppose the word "media" is defined? You don't know that either? Does this have to be explained to you as well?
The media encompasses many groups, not simply news organizations.

You decided to use that term, while I stuck with a more specific term of "journalists".

But I'm willing to answer questions, even if they are posed by dishonest and ignorant people.


I'll wager a 'moron' like yourself just looks at the pictures.
As the old saying goes, a fool and his money are soon parted. How much are you willing to lose on this wager?

No you'll be a thick, stupid and rude buffoon in any environment.
Rude I'll accept. I'm certainly rude.

But you have to be smarter than someone to actually know if they are stupid or thick, grant. This is simply not the case here. It's like how a brainless sea sponge doesn't have the intellectual capacities to judge the intelligence of a chihuahua. Even though the chihuahua may indeed be stupid, the sea sponge is so over-matched by the chihuahua intellectually that it simply does not have the capacity to judge said chihuahu.

While I might be a rude little chihuahua, no sea sponge can judge me to be stupid. Just sayin'.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
105,959
Reaction score
50,013
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Moderator's Warning:
It's the holiday and I don't want to have to work, but you guys are making me do it. Any more and I will add thread bans to the points.
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You think that I'm arguing some strawman?

The Environmental Protection Agency counts as an important player? Don't they?

December 7, 2009



The question of the science is settled. The debate that should be taking place now is how to address this challenge and take advantage of the opportunity it offers.​


I'd be crucified if I did in my professional life what I see many climate scientists doing in their professional lives.
Some do say that the debate is over, but IMO what they mean is that there is now more than enough evidence to justify responding to the problem -- particularly given the fact that time is of the essence.

If you get a diagnosis and multiple second opinions telling you with 97% confidence that you have a fast-growing brain tumor, do you keep seeing additional doctors in the hopes that you can get a 100% certain diagnosis, or do you go ahead and treat your condition as if it's a fast-growing brain tumor?
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And what was that?
The great significance of a small increase in average temperature, as illustrated by National Geographic.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
50,835
Reaction score
33,093
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Some do say that the debate is over, but IMO what they mean is that there is now more than enough evidence to justify responding to the problem -- particularly given the fact that time is of the essence.

If you get a diagnosis and multiple second opinions telling you with 97% confidence that you have a fast-growing brain tumor, do you keep seeing additional doctors in the hopes that you can get a 100% certain diagnosis, or do you go ahead and treat your condition as if it's a fast-growing brain tumor?
That depends on how much damage the tumor has done to your though process.
 
Top Bottom