TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Sept 17, 2015 15:01:01 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 17, 2015 15:31:44 GMT -5
So you think RICO charges should be brought? Good to know.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,341
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 17, 2015 18:56:48 GMT -5
Well, if that insideclimatenews is right, maybe manslaughter charges should be pressed against Exxon.
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 23, 2015 12:31:37 GMT -5
The Pope speaks about Climate Change: Excerpts“Mr. President,” Francis said, speaking in English despite his discomfort with the language, “I find it encouraging that you are proposing an initiative for reducing air pollution. Accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation. When it comes to the care of our common home, we are living at a critical moment of history.”
Devoting more of his address to that issue than to any other topic, the pope said there was still time to heal the planet for its children. “To use a telling phrase of the Rev. Martin Luther King, we can say that we have defaulted on a promissory note and now is the time to honor it,” he said. www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/us/politics/pope-francis-obama-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 23, 2015 12:59:27 GMT -5
The Pope speaks about Climate Change: Excerpts“Mr. President,” Francis said, speaking in English despite his discomfort with the language, “I find it encouraging that you are proposing an initiative for reducing air pollution. Accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation. When it comes to the care of our common home, we are living at a critical moment of history.”
Devoting more of his address to that issue than to any other topic, the pope said there was still time to heal the planet for its children. “To use a telling phrase of the Rev. Martin Luther King, we can say that we have defaulted on a promissory note and now is the time to honor it,” he said. www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/us/politics/pope-francis-obama-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-newsThe Pope should leave climate change to the scientists.
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 23, 2015 13:01:59 GMT -5
The Pope should leave climate change to the scientists. Would the Republicans do the same?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 23, 2015 13:17:00 GMT -5
The Pope should leave climate change to the scientists. Would the Republicans do the same? You're missing the point of my post.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 23, 2015 13:56:42 GMT -5
If we left climate change to the scientists we wouldn't have half this country dutifully following the orders of their political handlers to ignore the science.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,341
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 23, 2015 19:10:19 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 7, 2015 14:09:04 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Oct 7, 2015 14:38:07 GMT -5
Let me just see if I get your logic correctly : - there's a study that says that drinking a full-fat glass of milk is inversely associated with weight gain in Swedish women ages 40-55 - the conclusion is that those people don't go eat a donut - ?? (something involving underpants gnomes) - climate change isn't happening
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 7, 2015 18:54:03 GMT -5
My logic simply is: sometimes a scientific consensus should continually be questioned instead of ridiculing those who cast doubts on the consensus.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 8, 2015 9:13:17 GMT -5
Cool. Climate change is not one of those things though.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 8, 2015 9:20:26 GMT -5
Cool. Climate change is not one of those things though. Why not?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 8, 2015 9:24:12 GMT -5
Because only special interests with a profit motive, and those who they have convinced through their decades of propaganda, believe otherwise.
I don't even know what the anti-consensus consensus is anymore. It doesn't exist? It does exist but isn't a threat? It does exist and is a threat but isn't man-made? It IS man-made but not a threat? It is such a threat it's not worth addressing? Technically it's always okay to question science?
This subject is just one of those things I don't understand the pushback for, short of pushback on particular policies. This is as settled as scientific consensus gets.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 8, 2015 18:36:04 GMT -5
There is no such thing as settled science.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 9, 2015 8:53:44 GMT -5
There is no such thing as settled science. Which of course does not translate into something that has anything at all to do with climate change outside of corporate-sponsored obfuscatory efforts. Also, I said "This is as settled as scientific consensus gets." so we may want to be a bit more precise in our pedantry.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 9, 2015 10:04:07 GMT -5
There is no such thing as settled science. That's true. And I also agree with KC that it's appropriate to continually question the orthodoxy. Nothing wrong with that. The problem for "deniers" or "questioners" or whatever the current term is, is that there has been an incredible amount of continued scientific inquiry on these issues, and those newer inquiries almost universally come to the same conclusion as the older ones: the Earth is warming, humans are largely to blame, and there will be significant consequences. There may be differences in the rate of warming -- and even slowdowns in that rate -- but no rational person can dispute that this has been studied about as much as any issue subject to study can be -- and there is as much consensu as there could possibly be a consensus with an issue of this kind. The question, I think, is this: What, in addition to what we have now, would it take you to be convinced that the conclusion above is correct? There has to be some potential tipping point for those that question the premise, right? Otherwise, a "denier" would have to concede that we should never take action based on scientific findings. And, certainly that can't be true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 11:25:29 GMT -5
I just want to remind you that when people ask Do you believe in climate change, they are conflating several questions which need to be addressed separately
1. Is the earth's temperature increasing 2. Are humans contributing to the increase in temperature 3. If you accept that humans are impacting on earth's temperature, how much?? 4. How much can we affect the increase in the rise in the temperature, by cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, etc.
It appears that the majority of scientists feel that the answer to questions 1 and 2 is "Yes." However, there is a lot of controversy in the scientific community when looking at questions 3 and 4.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 9, 2015 13:26:01 GMT -5
I just want to remind you that when people ask Do you believe in climate change, they are conflating several questions which need to be addressed separately 1. Is the earth's temperature increasing 2. Are humans contributing to the increase in temperature 3. If you accept that humans are impacting on earth's temperature, how much?? 4. How much can we affect the increase in the rise in the temperature, by cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, etc. It appears that the majority of scientists feel that the answer to questions 1 and 2 is "Yes." However, there is a lot of controversy in the scientific community when looking at questions 3 and 4. I think the answer to 3 is pretty well settled also. Perhaps not to quite the same level of scientific certitude as 1 and 2, but the vast majority of scientists believe humans impact the temperature considerably. But 4 is an open question, as is the logical followup to 4: What if anything should we do about the problem? Here's the problem: if there is not political consensus on 1 and 2, we never get to a rational discussion on 4 (and my 5). There are a whole range of possibilities -- many of them very different but nonetheless rational -- but we are cheating society out of a lucid discussion of those options (let alone federal funding to better suss out the options) without consensus on 1 and 2.
|
|