• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Religion of Green

Robertinfremont said:
I agree that we all should love clean air and water.
Click to expand...
Except when it requires Govt. regulation to achieve it right? Saying you love clean air and water means nothing. It does not come from wishing.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Still nobody has refuted my own post.

This is it.

2 degrees over 150 years is in the regular course of nature. And were it the fault of man, it still does not matter at all. We tolerate such changes during our regular days and do not notice harm.

You think NASA is a religion? I was discussing content.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many average degrees lower it took for the Earth to experience an Ice age? 6 degrees lower than today and we had mile high glaciers covering much of the Earth.. 2 degrees of warming in such a short time is unprecedented.

Tierney is lead author of a paper published today in Nature that found that the average global temperature of the ice age was 6 degrees Celsius (11 F) cooler than today. For context, the average global temperature of the 20th century was 14 C (57 F).

"In your own personal experience that might not sound like a big difference, but, in fact, it's a huge change," Tierney said.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200826141405.htm#:~:text=Tracking Temperature,11 F) cooler than today.
 
iguanaman said:
Do you know how many average degrees lower it took for the Earth to experience an Ice age? 6 degrees lower than today and we had mile high glaciers covering much of the Earth.. 2 degrees of warming in such a short time is unprecedented.

Tierney is lead author of a paper published today in Nature that found that the average global temperature of the ice age was 6 degrees Celsius (11 F) cooler than today. For context, the average global temperature of the 20th century was 14 C (57 F).

"In your own personal experience that might not sound like a big difference, but, in fact, it's a huge change," Tierney said.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200826141405.htm#:~:text=Tracking Temperature,11 F) cooler than today.
Click to expand...
I think Robert prefers to maintain his "freedom" from published scientific literature.

www.nature.com

Glacial cooling and climate sensitivity revisited - Nature

A compilation of proxy data are used with an isotope-enabled climate model ensemble to constrain cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum, producing estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity that agree well with the current consensus range.
www.nature.com www.nature.com
 
iguanaman said:
No so fast. Qanon believers think DJT is an archangel sent by God to expose a worldwide pedophile conspiracy. One of them is currently pushing a conspiracy of her own to overturn the will of the people and crown the one term mistake king.

0*2dXulMQfmq208-Ue.
Click to expand...
I clearly missed that comment!
 
iguanaman said:
Do you know how many average degrees lower it took for the Earth to experience an Ice age? 6 degrees lower than today and we had mile high glaciers covering much of the Earth.. 2 degrees of warming in such a short time is unprecedented.

Tierney is lead author of a paper published today in Nature that found that the average global temperature of the ice age was 6 degrees Celsius (11 F) cooler than today. For context, the average global temperature of the 20th century was 14 C (57 F).

"In your own personal experience that might not sound like a big difference, but, in fact, it's a huge change," Tierney said.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200826141405.htm#:~:text=Tracking Temperature,11 F) cooler than today.
Click to expand...
What we do not know is where on the cycle of glacial and inter glacial periods we are!
We may be 6 C warmer than the lowest portion of the glacial period, but we do not know if we are at the peak of the inter glacial,
or on one of the small cycles that exists within each period.
For the record, actual observed warming over the last 150 years, is about 1.1C not 2 C.
 
The Netherlands' eco-friendly biomass power plants use briquettes made from healthy trees cut down in Estonia, including in protected areas where deforestation is prohibited. Such is the concern for the environment.
 
Ringo Stalin said:
The Netherlands' eco-friendly biomass power plants use briquettes made from healthy trees cut down in Estonia, including in protected areas where deforestation is prohibited. Such is the concern for the environment.
Click to expand...
I think it is telling that people all over the political spectrum, can see the obvious hypocrisy.
 
Jack Hays said:
Stupid is as stupid does.


Green recovery must end the reign of GDP, argue Cambridge and UN economists
Our fixation with Gross Domestic Product for over half a century as the primary indicator of economic health has rendered nature “invisible” from national finances, intensifying the biosphere’s destruction by omitting its value from the systems that govern us.
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

So you think not factoring in the impact on our natural ecosystem is a legitimate way to estimate economic health? Interesting view. Not uncommon. I'm assuming in your storied career in the history of science you are familiar with S. Fred Singer. Back in the 80's he was shoe-horned into the National Academy of Sciences study on acid rain. Because he had (even at that time) a track record of being a hired "merchant of doubt" (I believe he had previously been hired on to cast doubt on second hand smoke risks), as I recall none of the researchers would actually work with S. Fred so he was relegated to his own little appendix in which he posited that fixing acid rain would be a net loss economically. If I am recalling Oreskes correctly it was through the magic of assuming that "nature" didn't have an economic value.

It's a great dodge. And for those of you who don't live on the planet earth it's probably OK. But for those of us who DO live on this planet and rely on our ecosystem it might be valuable to factor in the value of NATURE from time to time.

I'm also going to pull rank on you in terms of a career in R&D science in industry. Often times without regulations it is easier to dispose of chemicals in less-than-healthy ways. That's why we ended up with environmental regulations because PEOPLE LIKE YOU threw a hissy fit when your kids started developing horrific head cancers.

Remember: WE THE PEOPLE want a safe environment and we DON'T really value greed over green. We may THINK we do, until that greed lines the pockets of some executard at the expense of children dying horrible, horrible deaths.

Believe it or not with regulations in place industry CAN ADAPT and we did! We do a great job now, relatively speaking! And in no small part it is because we are REQUIRED to do it and EVERYONE is required to do it.
 
longview said:
I think it is telling that people all over the political spectrum, can see the obvious hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I am unfamiliar with the Estonian forest issue, but I might add that trees are a renewable resource. Speaking as a frequent visitor to the world of paper industry it is an excellent resource. Of course it should be farmed responsibly and if the Dutch are doing something sketchy they should stop.
 
istodolez said:
So you think not factoring in the impact on our natural ecosystem is a legitimate way to estimate economic health? Interesting view. Not uncommon. I'm assuming in your storied career in the history of science you are familiar with S. Fred Singer. Back in the 80's he was shoe-horned into the National Academy of Sciences study on acid rain. Because he had (even at that time) a track record of being a hired "merchant of doubt" (I believe he had previously been hired on to cast doubt on second hand smoke risks), as I recall none of the researchers would actually work with S. Fred so he was relegated to his own little appendix in which he posited that fixing acid rain would be a net loss economically. If I am recalling Oreskes correctly it was through the magic of assuming that "nature" didn't have an economic value.

It's a great dodge. And for those of you who don't live on the planet earth it's probably OK. But for those of us who DO live on this planet and rely on our ecosystem it might be valuable to factor in the value of NATURE from time to time.

I'm also going to pull rank on you in terms of a career in R&D science in industry. Often times without regulations it is easier to dispose of chemicals in less-than-healthy ways. That's why we ended up with environmental regulations because PEOPLE LIKE YOU threw a hissy fit when your kids started developing horrific head cancers.

Remember: WE THE PEOPLE want a safe environment and we DON'T really value greed over green. We may THINK we do, until that greed lines the pockets of some executard at the expense of children dying horrible, horrible deaths.

Believe it or not with regulations in place industry CAN ADAPT and we did! We do a great job now, relatively speaking! And in no small part it is because we are REQUIRED to do it and EVERYONE is required to do it.
Click to expand...
Your baseless smear of Fred Singer notwithstanding, I'll take up your argument. No one claims nature and the impact of activity on the environment should not be considered. What is counterproductive is to mix value judgments about quality of life with numerical measures of economic performance. To do so risks "polluting" our understanding of economic performance and making rational management more difficult.
 

Stealth Green New Deal language being slipped into take-it-or-leave-it House spending package
From the “sneaky bastards” department and the American Energy Alliance. AEA Urges Senate and House Leaders to Reject “Sense of Congress” Nonsense. WASHINGTON DC (December 14, 2020) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, sounded the alarm today on a proposed Sense of Congress resolution that if…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:

Stealth Green New Deal language being slipped into take-it-or-leave-it House spending package
From the “sneaky bastards” department and the American Energy Alliance. AEA Urges Senate and House Leaders to Reject “Sense of Congress” Nonsense. WASHINGTON DC (December 14, 2020) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, sounded the alarm today on a proposed Sense of Congress resolution that if…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Not sure this is a big problem since it is a "Sense of Congress" resolution which isn't necessarily binding in any real way. More an 'opinion'.

A “sense of” resolution is not legally binding because it is not presented to the President for his signature. Even if a “sense of” provision is incorporated into a bill that becomes law, such provisions merely express the opinion of Congress or the relevant chamber. They have no formal effect on public policy and have no force of law.
SOURCE: https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/archives/98-825.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Robertinfremont said:
Explain it in your own words. Show me where NASA says Robert you are wrong.
Click to expand...

We do not deal with a 2degC change in global average temperature on a daily basis. That is not correct.

The key (in my own words) is that this is a GLOBAL AVERAGE. I don't know if you work a lot with statistics but shifting the average of a very, very, very large data set is not an easy task. This is why it is VERY important that even small number changes in this GLOBAL AVERAGE will make a big difference.

If you would like to hear what NASA says, they do not use your name but they do point out you are in error here:

NASA said:
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
SOURCE: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

There! Hope that helps!
 
istodolez said:
Not sure this is a big problem since it is a "Sense of Congress" resolution which isn't necessarily binding in any real way. More an 'opinion'.
Click to expand...

We will see once the weevils are removed from the flour.

The Stealth Green New Deal
As negotiations continue on a year-end government funding bill as well as a new round of coronavirus relief spending, bad energy policy is looking to hitch a ride. The zombie Manchin-Murkowski energy bill, which we call the American Energy Bureaucracy Act, has staggered back into the picture. In the fall, the bill got even worse after an agreement was reached to enrich big corporations at the expense of small businesses and individual consumers. A marriage of corporate bootleggers and green Baptists, with regular Americans forced to foot the bill.
The word on the street is that there are negotiations taking place to try and jam a pre-negotiated energy bill into the year-end spending bonanza. AEA obtained a page from the discussion draft that appears to include a provision from the House Green New Deal lite version of energy legislation, H.R. 4447, making is a “Sense of Congress” that calls for 100% of power demand to come from “clean, renewable, or zero-emission” energy sources. While these terms are conveniently not defined, from the wider messaging of environmental activists we know what they mean by that: replace electricity from natural gas and coal with expensive, unreliable wind and solar power. If included, this amounts to a backdoor 100% renewables mandate, snuck into a huge omnibus spending bill that they hope no one notices.
Forcing renewables onto the grid raises electricity costs and makes the grid less reliable. We only have to look at what has happened repeatedly this year in California to see the 100% renewable future: rolling power cuts at times of high demand and low renewable generation. And the California disaster is with a grid that is only partially renewable. Imagine facing power shortages because of dependence on renewables and deciding that we should become even more dependent on renewables.
www.americanenergyalliance.org

The Stealth Green New Deal

As negotiations continue on a year-end government funding bill as well as a new round of coronavirus relief spending, bad energy policy is looking to hitch a ride. The zombie Manchin-Murkowski energy bill, which we call the American Energy Bureaucracy Act, has staggered back into the picture. In...
www.americanenergyalliance.org www.americanenergyalliance.org
 
istodolez said:
We do not deal with a 2degC change in global average temperature on a daily basis. That is not correct.

The key (in my own words) is that this is a GLOBAL AVERAGE. I don't know if you work a lot with statistics but shifting the average of a very, very, very large data set is not an easy task. This is why it is VERY important that even small number changes in this GLOBAL AVERAGE will make a big difference.

If you would like to hear what NASA says, they do not use your name but they do point out you are in error here:


SOURCE: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

There! Hope that helps!
Click to expand...

Correct me on this then.

MAN IS IN CHARGE OF CLIMATE Yes or No
 
Robertinfremont said:
We have long had a history of people wanting to believe anything. It could be the Sun God. It could be the God of the Oceans. It can be the god of Climate fear.

Click to expand...

It could be the orange tweeto, sure seems like a religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom