Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: Extreme weather and a changing climate (CNN Opin/Obama Admin Offical)

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I neither belive in it nor disbelieve in it as yet.

    The science, for what it is, is credible in the majority IMO.

    However, it's incomplete and partial. A very short-term understanding with very limited measurements and exceptionally limited historic record with which to compare it to.

    Put simply, I see the issue as like math problem with 1,000,000,000 variables.

    And we know maybe 10,000 of the variables values.

    I simply do not yet belive we know enough to prove the case.

    And I cannot seperate the political agenda related to Man-Caused Global warming from the science, and who (generally and in the majority) is funding that science.
    Fair post. My personal opinion is that the science is solid yet incomplete, and I question the alarmist effect much more so than the logical cause.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,070
    Sweet link!!

    The FAQ was pretty funny. The Zetas are warning us that Planet X is going to cause the earth's poles to shift on 12/21/12.

  3. #23
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,421
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Sweet link!!

    The FAQ was pretty funny. The Zetas are warning us that Planet X is going to cause the earth's poles to shift on 12/21/12.
    LOL....it was the easiest link I could find to the article, which originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The 16 scientists on the list were all signatories on the letter/article, and there are very significant names among them.

  4. #24
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby2 View Post
    No one is saying that industry is the sole cause.

    I just wouldn't be shocked if it played it a part.
    Of course it's played a huge part in our record high temperatures. You are right when you say people have their heads in the sand if they don't acknowledge man-made global warming. The scientific community is waaaaaaaaay on the side of believing that global warming/climate change is exacerbated by man's industrial evolution over the last 150 years or so. It's a very small minority of [dumb, misinformed, ignorant] scientists who think that this is just a random blip in Earth's history.

    The posters here who disagree can cherry pick all the scientists they choose to fit their agenda of having their heads in the sand, but that doesn't change the sad reality that **** is really bad right now in the Earth's atmosphere -- and it's not getting better, unless we make some serious changes.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    Of course it's played a huge part in our record high temperatures. You are right when you say people have their heads in the sand if they don't acknowledge man-made global warming. The scientific community is waaaaaaaaay on the side of believing that global warming/climate change is exacerbated by man's industrial evolution over the last 150 years or so. It's a very small minority of [dumb, misinformed, ignorant] scientists who think that this is just a random blip in Earth's history.

    The posters here who disagree can cherry pick all the scientists they choose to fit their agenda of having their heads in the sand, but that doesn't change the sad reality that **** is really bad right now in the Earth's atmosphere -- and it's not getting better, unless we make some serious changes.
    By serious changes what exactly do you suggest? A new governing body to dictate behavior?

    I think you way over estimate our ability to change and are way under estimating the earth's ability to eliminate the problem.

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,336
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

    Greenland Flash Thaw Part of Natural Cycle?
    Lora Koenig, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, noted that such events are known to have happened before, in the pre-satellite era.


    "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average," with the last one happening in 1889, Koenig, a member of the NASA team analyzing the satellite data, said in a statement.




    ...




    Scientists estimate that if all of Greenland's ice sheet were to melt, the global sea level would rise by 23 feet (7 meters).


    "To be perfectly clear, that is not what we're seeing," Mote said. "Greenland is losing mass, but it would take a very long time to lose all of that mass."

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    By serious changes what exactly do you suggest?
    I'd be interested to know some specifics as well.

  8. #28
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    By serious changes what exactly do you suggest? A new governing body to dictate behavior?

    I think you way over estimate our ability to change and are way under estimating the earth's ability to eliminate the problem.
    I think you way underestimate it. Earth isn't eliminating the problem this time around like it did in years past, because Earth has never seen fossil fuel burning like it has over the last 200 years. Again, I'm deferring to the overwhelming portion of the scientific community that says we are in trouble because of man-made climate change.

    Serious changes - I do not expect a new governing body to dictate behavior. I hope that the U.S. government can, in the very near future, start taking more serious measures to help combat climate change. More funding for alternative energy (non-fossil fuel) research which in effect creates new jobs - win, win. Then harness that alternative energy. Keep raising the prices of gas to encourage more green alternatives. Tax the living hell out of it (I'm sure that'll go over real well in this forum). But that's me. Set up a better rail system in the U.S for better and more efficient long-distance mass transit. Make it cheap so that people use the system. That's just the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. I took a class on sustainability in college and there really are some very easy measures Americans can take to ensure a better future.
    Last edited by MCBNY; 07-30-2012 at 02:30 PM.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    I hope that the U.S. government can, in the very near future, start taking more serious measures to help combat climate change.
    Ok, lets take a look then:

    More funding for alternative energy research which in effect creates new jobs - win, win.
    Funding which must come from Govt. Revenue, which is currently at a Trillion+ Deficit.

    So, new and higher taxes then, and a Green Industry based not on competition and innovation, but Govt. selection of winners/losers.

    Keep raising the prices of gas to encourage more green alternatives. Tax the living hell out of it (I'm sure that'll go over real well in this forum).
    Ok, so thats part of our higher taxes. Moving on....

    Set up a better rail system in the U.S for better and more efficient long-distance mass transit. Make it cheap so that people use the system.
    A massive cost of gargantuan proportions.

    Assume that too would be paid for via new/higher taxes?

    That's just the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. I took a class on sustainability in college and there really are some very easy measures Americans can take to ensure a better future.
    By all means, please tell us some of the other possabillities.

    Thus far we have higher taxes on Oil to pay for Green Investment and a new Transnational Rail Network, none of which would have an effect on other Nations, only our own.

    What tax rates do you think would be required to pay for this in a deficit-neutral form?

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    I think you way underestimate it. Earth isn't eliminating the problem this time around like it did in years past, because Earth has never seen fossil fuel burning like it has over the last 200 years. Again, I'm deferring to the overwhelming portion of the scientific community that says we are in trouble because of man-made climate change.


    Link?

    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    Serious changes - I do not expect a new governing body to dictate behavior. I hope that the U.S. government can, in the very near future, start taking more serious measures to help combat climate change. More funding for alternative energy (non-fossil fuel) research which in effect creates new jobs - win, win. Then harness that alternative energy. Keep raising the prices of gas to encourage more green alternatives. Tax the living hell out of it (I'm sure that'll go over real well in this forum). But that's me. Set up a better rail system in the U.S for better and more efficient long-distance mass transit. Make it cheap so that people use the system. That's just the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. I took a class on sustainability in college and there really are some very easy measures Americans can take to ensure a better future.
    "Win-win" again

    Do you really believe the things you propose would have no impact on our economy?

    "Make it cheap" LOL. Sounds so simple. Why didn't anyone think of that yet?

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    I think you way underestimate it. Earth isn't eliminating the problem this time around like it did in years past, because Earth has never seen fossil fuel burning like it has over the last 200 years. Again, I'm deferring to the overwhelming portion of the scientific community that says we are in trouble because of man-made climate change.

    Serious changes - I do not expect a new governing body to dictate behavior. I hope that the U.S. government can, in the very near future, start taking more serious measures to help combat climate change. More funding for alternative energy (non-fossil fuel) research which in effect creates new jobs - win, win. Then harness that alternative energy. Keep raising the prices of gas to encourage more green alternatives. Tax the living hell out of it (I'm sure that'll go over real well in this forum). But that's me. Set up a better rail system in the U.S for better and more efficient long-distance mass transit. Make it cheap so that people use the system. That's just the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. I took a class on sustainability in college and there really are some very easy measures Americans can take to ensure a better future.
    When you say cheap you mean have other people pay for it? There is nothing cheap about building high speed rail and operating it.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Ok, lets take a look then:



    Funding which must come from Govt. Revenue, which is currently at a Trillion+ Deficit.

    So, new and higher taxes then, and a Green Industry based not on competition and innovation, but Govt. selection of winners/losers.



    Ok, so thats part of our higher taxes. Moving on....



    A massive cost of gargantuan proportions.

    Assume that too would be paid for via new/higher taxes?



    By all means, please tell us some of the other possabillities.

    Thus far we have higher taxes on Oil to pay for Green Investment and a new Transnational Rail Network, none of which would have an effect on other Nations, only our own.

    What tax rates do you think would be required to pay for this in a deficit-neutral form?
    Yes we are a trillion dollars in debt. But does that mean we are going to stop spending as a nation? Hell no. The U.S. is always going to spend, spend, spend. We obviously had no problem blowing a gazillion dollars to wage two completely useless wars. We just ended one of those wars. How about we spend some of the money we would have sunk into Afghanistan and better use it to fund alternative energy? Just brainstorming here.

    Taxes should be raised IMO. I don't know to what extent, but they are too low at the moment. I believe in bigger government obviously, so I don't expect the majority here to agree with me.

    Couple these two options together and there's no reason we can't get more efficient as a country, and further, help the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    When you say cheap you mean have other people pay for it? There is nothing cheap about building high speed rail and operating it.
    Government funded. Yeah, we have to pay for it with taxes. That's the good thing about taxes - you pay 'em, you get rewarded with great public options.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    Yes we are a trillion dollars in debt. But does that mean we are going to stop spending as a nation? Hell no.
    Obviously. The debt is the debt, the budget is the budget, they are not one and the same, only related.

    The problem is a massive increase in Govt. Spending, without an equivalent increase in revenue generation, will only serve to vastly increase the debt further.

    We obviously had no problem blowing a gazillion dollars to wage two completely useless wars.
    One fiscal mistake does not justify another.

    How about we spend some of the money we would have sunk into Afghanistan and better use it to fund alternative energy? Just brainstorming here.
    As you just noted, the Wars were unbudgeted. Part of our problem at current is the lack of a Federal Budget. As such, we simply spend whatever with far less limit and accountabillity.

    Taxes should be raised IMO. I don't know to what extent, but they are too low at the moment. I believe in bigger government obviously, so I don't expect the majority here to agree with me.
    Well, the problem is you NEED to know how high youw ant to raise it. You don't get to want one thing (massive new spending) without having the same respect and knowledge of what it takes to get that new thing.

    Your argument loses alot of it's strength and steam if you cannot deliniate what and how you want to raise taxes to fund your ideas. without that, it;s just fantasy. With it, we have someplace to begin debate and discussion, i.e. is projects A & B worth new Tax Rates of X, Y & Z.

    it's very easy to say "I want this". ****, I want a Mars Colony.

    It's far harder to pay for it. I'd go so far as to say it's less important what youw ant, than it is how you plan to pay for it, and how we (the taxpayers) would feel about it.

    Couple these two options together and there's no reason we can't get more efficient as a country, and further, help the Earth.
    Sorry to pick nits, but we're not helping "the Earth". It's not a person, it has no interests of it's own, it's aplanet that will exist with or without us or our help.

    What we're doing (or you wish to do) is maintain an ecological status quo of non-change in the interests of current biodiversity and human interest. Anti-Evolution, if you prefer, human-led actiopn to stop normal evolutionary and climactic processes to maintain the current ones.

    Like the lack of abillity to explain the payment side, describing the debate as "helping the Earth" is silly emo-talk. We're aiming to achaive something far more in OUR percieved interests than the planet. The planet could care less, it's a planet.

    Just say'in.

    Government funded. Yeah, we have to pay for it with taxes. That's the good thing about taxes - you pay 'em, you get rewarded with great public options.
    The value of what we taxpayers get is, obviously, debatable. If it wasn't, we wouldn't all be here debating it.

    And thats just the value of what we actually get, not counting the losses incurred to do costs, waste and fraud inherant in the system.

  14. #34
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,125
    It seems like we are pretty set in our ways, so I'm not gonna continue debating on this topic that's digressed. I admit to not knowing taxes more in depth, so I can't offer you a specific plan in that regard. I'm young and still learning. But I do have strong ideas about taxes in general (that they should be higher).

    Just one thing...
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Sorry to pick nits, but we're not helping "the Earth". It's not a person, it has no interests of it's own, it's aplanet that will exist with or without us or our help.

    What we're doing (or you wish to do) is maintain an ecological status quo of non-change in the interests of current biodiversity and human interest. Anti-Evolution, if you prefer, human-led actiopn to stop normal evolutionary and climactic processes to maintain the current ones.

    Like the lack of abillity to explain the payment side, describing the debate as "helping the Earth" is silly emo-talk. We're aiming to achaive something far more in OUR percieved interests than the planet. The planet could care less, it's a planet.
    You know what I meant though. Okay, we can't help an inanimate object like the whole Earth. But we can abuse it less and in effect that'll help human beings.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    It seems like we are pretty set in our ways, so I'm not gonna continue debating on this topic that's digressed. I admit to not knowing taxes more in depth, so I can't offer you a specific plan in that regard. I'm young and still learning. But I do have strong ideas about taxes in general (that they should be higher).
    I don't think we've digressed at all. Problem ----> Policy. Thast how it works.

    As for a lack of knowledge on taxation, well, educate yourself and then answer the question. I maintain that promotion of a policy, without any idea how said policy can and should be paid for, is making only half of an argument, and a weak half at that.

    For example, "Hunger is a Problem" is easy. Creating a policy that addresses it, is funded, and is supported by the majority is hard.

    The real challenge in Governance is not identifying a problem, it's crafting a sustainable, affordable, funded policy position to address it.

    You know what I meant though. Okay, we can't help an inanimate object like the whole Earth. But we can abuse it less and in effect that'll help human beings.
    I know exactly what you mean, and again, it's a poor and IMO dishonest emo-directed way of stating the case. You do it again here saying "abuse it less". Abuse implicates that there is some "right way" the planet should be treated, as if it were a sentient being with "human" rights of it's own.

    Again, people need to stop anthrpomorphisising the argument. There is no "Mother Nature" who needs "protected" from the "abuse" of human.

    There is a non-sentient planet that does not care one way or the other how it's used by the organisms living onboard it. We, the organisms, care....which is why a meaningful portion have decided to promote an agenda of anti-evolution and anti-climate change, to "in-effect "freeze" the planets biosphere and climate exactly as it is today forevermore. Our interests, not he planets, and no "abuse" involved wither way.

    Accurate arguments are important.

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I don't think we've digressed at all. Problem ----> Policy. Thast how it works.

    As for a lack of knowledge on taxation, well, educate yourself and then answer the question. I maintain that promotion of a policy, without any idea how said policy can and should be paid for, is making only half of an argument, and a weak half at that.

    For example, "Hunger is a Problem" is easy. Creating a policy that addresses it, is funded, and is supported by the majority is hard.

    The real challenge in Governance is not identifying a problem, it's crafting a sustainable, affordable, funded policy position to address it.



    I know exactly what you mean, and again, it's a poor and IMO dishonest emo-directed way of stating the case. You do it again here saying "abuse it less". Abuse implicates that there is some "right way" the planet should be treated, as if it were a sentient being with "human" rights of it's own.

    Again, people need to stop anthrpomorphisising the argument. There is no "Mother Nature" who needs "protected" from the "abuse" of human.

    There is a non-sentient planet that does not care one way or the other how it's used by the organisms living onboard it. We, the organisms, care....which is why a meaningful portion have decided to promote an agenda of anti-evolution and anti-climate change, to "in-effect "freeze" the planets biosphere and climate exactly as it is today forevermore. Our interests, not he planets, and no "abuse" involved wither way.

    Accurate arguments are important.
    I'm practicing. Give me time.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,336
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    It seems like we are pretty set in our ways, so I'm not gonna continue debating on this topic that's digressed. I admit to not knowing taxes more in depth, so I can't offer you a specific plan in that regard. I'm young and still learning. But I do have strong ideas about taxes in general (that they should be higher).

    Just one thing...


    You know what I meant though. Okay, we can't help an inanimate object like the whole Earth. But we can abuse it less and in effect that'll help human beings.
    You say you are young as your excuse for not knowing more about taxation. Does that mean you have yet to have a job and earned money to pay taxes on?

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    You say you are young as your excuse for not knowing more about taxation. Does that mean you have yet to have a job and earned money to pay taxes on?
    I gave up right after "I don't really know much about it, but I have really strong feelings about it"

    Sadly, that kind of thing is pretty common.

  19. #39
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    You say you are young as your excuse for not knowing more about taxation. Does that mean you have yet to have a job and earned money to pay taxes on?
    Well I am 18 and I have my first full-time job this summer. So yes, that is my excuse, and I think it's legitimate. I'm not going to pound my chest and spew things that I don't have a great idea on. But I do have a general idea and I'm honest about what I know and don't know.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,336
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    Well I am 18 and I have my first full-time job this summer. So yes, that is my excuse, and I think it's legitimate.
    Fair enough and good luck in your summer job and <assuming> your subsequent college career. Out of curiosity what are you majoring in?


    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    I'm not going to pound my chest and spew things that I don't have a great idea on. But I do have a general idea and I'm honest about what I know and don't know.
    You say you won't "pound [your] chest and spew things that [you] don't have a great idea on" yet you feel that all of us actually making money, supporting families, paying mortgages, etc, should pay a lot more. Do you see the hypocrisy of that statement?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us