Federal Government Confirms Nearing Apocalypse -- it's very hard to dismiss this. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14970228
One Degree wrote:I have always been an independent. There is no reason to bother arguing with people who want to label me otherwise. Most of my views could be considered more liberal than the liberals as I believe they result in greater choice.

There you go again. I guess tongue in cheek doesn't play well in this format. I will try to be nothing but serious with you in the future.

My point, btw, was that it is unrealistic to even consider that America's or the earth's population will stop growing or remain stable. People like orgasms too much.
#14970229
@Sivad

See if you can spot the difference between these two claims:

1. Statistics show a decline in drought.
2. Statistics DO NOT show a decline in drought.

The first claim was made by Lomborg.

The second claim was made in the assessment.

Here is the entire section on drought:

    Declines have been observed in North America spring snow cover extent and maximum snow depth, as well as snow water equivalent (a measurement of the amount of water stored in snowpack) in the western United States and extreme snowfall years in the southern and western United States.102,103,104 All are consistent with observed warming, and of these trends, human-induced warming has been formally identified as a factor in earlier spring melt and reduced snow water equivalent.101 Projections show large declines in snowpack in the western United States and shifts to more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow in many parts of the central and eastern United States. Under higher future scenarios, assuming no change to current water resources management, snow-dominated watersheds in the western United States are more likely to experience lengthy and chronic hydrological drought conditions by the end of this century.105,106,107

    Across much of the United States, surface soil moisture is projected to decrease as the climate warms, driven largely by increased evaporation rates due to warmer temperatures. This means that, all else being equal, future droughts in most regions will likely be stronger and potentially last longer. These trends are likely to be strongest in the Southwest and Southern Great Plains, where precipitation is projected to decrease in most seasons (Figure 2.5, right) and droughts may become more frequent. 101,108,109,110,111,112 Although recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensity in some regions of the United States, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical record, and though by some measures drought has decreased over much of the continental United States in association with long-term increases in precipitation (e.g., see McCabe et al. 2017113), there is as yet no detectable change in long-term U.S. drought statistics. Further discussion of historical drought is provided in Wehner et al. (2017).101

    Few analyses consider the relationship across time and space between extreme events; yet it is important to note that the physical and socioeconomic impacts of compound extreme events can be greater than the sum of the parts.25,114 Compound extremes can include simultaneous heat and drought such as during the 2011–2017 California drought, when 2014, 2015, and 2016 were also the warmest years on record for the state; conditions conducive to the very large wildfires, that have already increased in frequency across the western United States and Alaska since the 1980s;115 or flooding associated with heavy rain over snow or waterlogged ground, which are also projected to increase in the northern contiguous United States.116

Most of it sounds pretty bad.

If you want to cherry pick a few phrases to make it seem less bad, go ahead. Everyone here can read it for themskeves and decide for themselves if Lomborg was twisting the truth.

And here is Wehner et al. 2017

    Wehner, M.F., J.R. Arnold, T. Knutson, K.E. Kunkel, and A.N. LeGrande, 2017: Droughts, floods, and wildfires. In Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. D.J. Wuebbles, D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, pp. 231-256, doi:10.7930/J0CJ8BNN.

    Recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensity in some regions of the United States; however, by geographical scale and duration, the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical record (very high confidence). While by some measures drought has decreased over much of the continental United States in association with long-term increases in precipitation, neither the precipitation increases nor inferred drought decreases have been confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing.

    The human effect on recent major U.S. droughts is complicated. Little evidence is found for a human influence on observed precipitation deficits, but much evidence is found for a human influence on surface soil moisture deficits due to increased evapotranspiration caused by higher temperatures. (High confidence)

    Future decreases in surface (top 10 cm) soil moisture from anthropogenic forcing over most of the United States are likely as the climate warms under higher scenarios. (Medium confidence)

    Substantial reductions in western U.S. winter and spring snowpack are projected as the climate warms. Earlier spring melt and reduced snow water equivalent have been formally attributed to human-induced warming (high confidence) and will very likely be exacerbated as the climate continues to warm (very high confidence). Under higher scenarios, and assuming no change to current water resources management, chronic, long-duration hydrological drought is increasingly possible by the end of this century (very high confidence).

    Detectable changes in some classes of flood frequency have occurred in parts of the United States and are a mix of increases and decreases. Extreme precipitation, one of the controlling factors in flood statistics, is observed to have generally increased and is projected to continue to do so across the United States in a warming atmosphere. However, formal attribution approaches have not established a significant connection of increased riverine flooding to human-induced climate change, and the timing of any emergence of a future detectable anthropogenic change in flooding is unclear. (Medium confidence)

    The incidence of large forest fires in the western United States and Alaska has increased since the early 1980s (high confidence) and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate warms, with profound changes to certain ecosystems (medium confidence).

And now we do not have to worry about people cherry oucking from that either.

Those predictions do not sound good at all.
#14970234
jimjam wrote:I find the global warming deniers rather interesting. When temperatures rise beyond a point …. ice melts.....



I could spend the next few hours listing evidence of warming global temperatures from dozens of unrelated world wide sources with nothing to gain money wise but …… as I say, they are interesting.


:lol: You don't even know what the debate is over. Nobody denies the world is warming or that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have impacted the climate. I find people like you who don't know anything about the science or the controversy rather interesting. What exactly are your opinions based on? The official pronouncements of a demonstrably compromised and captured institution? How is that any different from religious fundamentalism? It's the same exact psychology, it's the very same psychology that has allowed the few to dominate the many for the last 10,000 years of human history. It's the same dynamic, a duplicitous priesthood posing as authorities to the credulous and fearful masses and promising security and assurance in exchange for faith and obedience.

All I can tell you alarmists is that you better come up with something better than babbittry if you ever want to get any real traction on this issue.
#14970239
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Sivad

See if you can spot the difference between these two claims:

1. Statistics show a decline in drought.
2. Statistics DO NOT show a decline in drought.

The first claim was made by Lomborg.

The second claim was made in the assessment.



Statistics do show a short to mid term decline in drought. Lomborg was right, you are dead wrong. If you were honest you'd just acknowledge your mistake, if you were wise you would just let it go, but since you're neither you're going to keep trying to muddy the waters with tortured logic and ludicrous denial. Everyone is on to your game.
#14970254
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Here is the entire section on drought:

[list]
All are consistent with observed warming, and of these trends,


Consistent with observed warming doesn't mean shit, it hasn't been attributed to anthropogenic forcing and since they can't detect that signal in all the noise of natural variability all they have is a vague assertion that human activity might be playing some small role.


human-induced warming has been formally identified as a factor in earlier spring melt and reduced snow water equivalent.


Again, that's not saying anything. Is it the predominant factor? Is it a minor factor? They don't know. How much is natural variability and how much is anthropogenic? They don't say, but they do say that drought in general has decreased and that the anthropogenic signal is undetectable.

If you want to cherry pick a few phrases to make it seem less bad, go ahead. Everyone here can read it for themskeves and decide for themselves if Lomborg was twisting the truth.

And here is Wehner et al. 2017


And now we do not have to worry about people cherry oucking from that either.


No, we have to worry about people like you citing shit they don't understand and thinking they've done anything but undermine their own position. What the section actually says is that the anthropogenic signal is undetectable but there might be doom on the horizon if the projections hold. But we know the projections won't hold because all the models are diverging from observation and that divergence is continuing to grow.

Those predictions do not sound good at all.


Those projections are all based on the same bullshit models that the entire bogus alarmism is based on. I guess you can terrify yourself by contemplating the mere possibility of catastrophe by why would you?
#14970255
Pants-of-dog wrote:Nothing in the assessment or in Werner says that.


Oh, it doesn't say "drought has decreased over much of the United States"? ok then. crazy denial is not an argument.
#14970263
Sivad wrote:You don't even know what the debate is over.

The "debate" is , as usual, over money. "When somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money." H.L.Mencken

Sivad wrote:I find people like you who don't know anything about the science


You are obviously an impartial and well educated expert. I hereby concede the field to you.
#14970265
jimjam wrote:You are obviously an impartial and well educated expert. I hereby concede the field to you.


I'm a well informed observer, you are an uniformed devotee of official consensus.
#14970281
I'm going to reply to each part separately. All the parts come from one post.
Sivad wrote: :lol: You don't even know what the debate is over. Nobody denies the world is warming or that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have impacted the climate.

I call BS. I see many people deny both the warming and that humans have caused it. For example, very recently I posted a reply about a female paid shrill of the Enterprise Institute who said on 'Face the Nation', "... the last 2 years were the coldest since the 80s..." In fact those years were among the 4 or 5 hottest ever.

I find people like you who don't know anything about the science or the controversy rather interesting. What exactly are your opinions based on?

I don't know about his, but my opinions are based on youtube videos and my back ground education in college with a year of Physics and a year of Chemistry and 5 years of Material Engineering credits, etc.

The official pronouncements of a demonstrably compromised and captured institution?

Which institution is this? The IPCC or the 13 agencies of the Federal Gov.? Despite claims that the report that 97% of climate scientists [not plain scientists] believe that AGW is real and humans are the main cause has been debunked; it has not been convincingly debunked. Also, 99% of peer reviewed published scientific reports say AGW is real. Just a very few say the opposite. Also, scientific papers are conservative, in that they stick to what can be proved and don't say what the scientists really think is actually going to happen. Recent papers are saying that the warming is happening faster than they predicted, not slower.
. . If the institution that you are referring to is the mass of climate scientists, then I question your assertion. Do you have any proof or even evidence? Are you relying on assertions by authorities that you trust?
. . . . . I find this laughable. Show me the money that has corrupted the scientists of every nation on earth. It isn't just US or 'Western' scientists you know. It is all scientists. If for exmaple, Indian scientists all agreed with you, I'm sure you can find evidence of this. Or all Arab scientists. Or all Chinese scientists. Etc., etc.

How is that any different from religious fundamentalism? It's the same exact psychology, it's the very same psychology that has allowed the few to dominate the many for the last 10,000 years of human history. It's the same dynamic, a duplicitous priesthood posing as authorities to the credulous and fearful masses and promising security and assurance in exchange for faith and obedience.

It is different because it is based on science. The claim is that if you invest the time to learn the science you will understand how the reported results are based on reproducible experiments or computer projections. In religion, there can be no such claim. The best they can say is that if you accept the assumption that the book (Bible) is true, and you study the argument then you will see how the argument follows from what the book says. But, it starts from the assumption that the book is true.

All I can tell you alarmists is that you better come up with something better than babbittry if you ever want to get any real traction on this issue.

Sivad, as I see it, you are scared that you will lose something that you value in the now. And therefore, you resist the facts. You don't want massive tax increases to hit you.

OK, fine. I get that. That is why I propose the you investigate MMT. Most of the new spending in the US can be financed with deficit spending. The same deficit spending that was used recently to allow the Trump tax cuts and military spending increases.
. . You may claim that you don't like those either. And yet, they are the current reality. You are scared that the shit will soon hit the fan. You ignore that this claim has been made for the last 70 years by some economists and that it has NOT happened yet.
. . You are more scared of the financial crash that might happen based on a science that has been wrong for the last 70 years; than you are scared of the climate "crash" that is based on real science, science that has a proven record of being right. Certainly more right than economics has been so far.
. . I assert that if you spent 20 hours of your time reading about MMT with an open mind, you would see the light. The 2 key points are --- 1] The Gov. is not like a family or a company because it can always pay its bills, by borrowing or just creating dollars. And, 2] That the Gov. has had a national debt for the last 142 years and so far this has not caused even one real problem. It causes problems in some people's minds, but it is private debt that has caused all the real problems [and OPEC raising the price of oil for a while].
. . If you disagree with my assertion that the national debt has not caused one real problem, please be kind enough to point it out to me here and now.
#14970300
Steve_American wrote:
I call BS. I see many people deny both the warming and that humans have caused it.


There are cranks on both sides of it, there are always cranks, but there are no serious skeptics denying the earth has warmed or that human activity as impacted climate.

Which institution is this? The IPCC or the 13 agencies of the Federal Gov.?


All of the above as well as the institution of science in general.

Despite claims that the report that 97% of climate scientists [not plain scientists] believe that AGW is real and humans are the main cause has been debunked; it has not been convincingly debunked.


It has been completely debunked. It's just bullshit propaganda peddled by media, politicians, and activists.

But let's say there really is a 97% consensus, nothing would be better proof that the field of climatology is completely dysfunctional. A 97% consensus on an system as complex and poorly understood as the climate would only be evidence of extreme groupthink, politics, a perverse incentive structure, academic capture, etc. A 97% consensus would only be evidence of a pathological field.

Also, 99% of peer reviewed published scientific reports say AGW is real.


That's meaningless. All that says is there's near universal agreement that the Earth is heating up and that human activity has contributed. Every serious skeptic agrees with that.



Also, scientific papers are conservative, in that they stick to what can be proved and don't say what the scientists really think is actually going to happen.


I don't want to hear anyone's opinion on the state of science who hasn't taken the time to actually investigate the state of science. I'm not interested in your naive misconceptions about what science is or how it operates.

. . . . . I find this laughable. Show me the money that has corrupted the scientists of every nation on earth.


I don't care how you find it, the people that actually study it take it very seriously.

if you invest the time to learn the science you will understand how the reported results are based on reproducible experiments or computer projections.


It's based on dubious data and flawed models. Your faith isn't in the actual science, you don't know anything about the actual science, your faith is in Science. You're one of the faith militant for the cult of Science.

Sivad, as I see it, you are scared that you will lose something that you value in the now. And therefore, you resist the facts. You don't want massive tax increases to hit you.


No, wrong. I could give a shit about money. I care about this issue because it's being used by a political and financial elite to dominate society.
#14970323
Steve_American wrote:
Sivad, as I see it, you are scared that you will lose something that you value in the now. And therefore, you resist the facts. You don't want massive tax increases to hit you.

Sivad wrote:
No, wrong. I could give a shit about money. I care about this issue because it's being used by a political and financial elite to dominate society.

In that case you are not making sense.
As I see it the Repud Party is in the thrall of the rich and powerful and they are fighting to keep people like you from accepting AGW.
As I see it you don't mind too much the "control" that the society and Gov. already have in your life. It is new control you oppose.
Are you a Libertarian who wants nobody but you to control how you act? If so, you apparently are able to conform enough to stay out of prison. Yet, you believe bullshit arguments about AGW because (as you yourself say) you don't want more control. Despite you not knowing what that control would be. CO2 is poison in large amounts. You fight for the right to continue to dump the equivalent of cyanide into the environment.
. . . You say you hate the idea of a carbon tax, so you hate getting a direct payment into your bank account of $X a month that will offset some or *more* than what you will have to pay extra for gasoline, etc.
#14970342
Steve_American wrote:In that case you are not making sense.
As I see it the Repud Party is in the thrall of the rich and powerful and they are fighting to keep people like you from accepting AGW.
As I see it you don't mind too much the "control" that the society and Gov. already have in your life. It is new control you oppose.


I do mind the current government intrusions in my life and I'm pretty dead set on removing those intrusions and not giving the government more power over my life.


Are you a Libertarian who wants nobody but you to control how you act?


You don't have to be a libertarian to have a problem with big government technocracy inventing fake crises to better dominate the world.

Yet, you believe bullshit arguments about AGW because (as you yourself say) you don't want more control. Despite you not knowing what that control would be.


I know exactly what that control would be. It's crazy that you don't. :lol: It's crazy that you haven't even thought through all the potential ramifications of the policies you're supporting.

You fight for the right to continue to dump the equivalent of cyanide into the environment.


:knife:


. . . You say you hate the idea of a carbon tax, so you hate getting a direct payment into your bank account of $X a month that will offset some or *more* than what you will have to pay extra for gasoline, etc.


:knife: I hate the idea of people living and dying in poverty because some bunch of asshole technocrats thought it was a good idea to jack up the cost of living for everyone on the planet.
#14970346
jimjam wrote:There you go again. I guess tongue in cheek doesn't play well in this format. I will try to be nothing but serious with you in the future.

My point, btw, was that it is unrealistic to even consider that America's or the earth's population will stop growing or remain stable. People like orgasms too much.


?? My comment was not intended to accuse you of anything. You seem to be offended when I meant no offense. I was simply stating the fact as I see it that my political position is misunderstood by many.
#14970373
I wrote:
. . . You say you hate the idea of a carbon tax, so you hate getting a direct payment into your bank account of $X a month that will offset some or *more* than what you will have to pay extra for gasoline, etc.

Sivad wrote:
:knife: I hate the idea of people living and dying in poverty because some bunch of asshole technocrats thought it was a good idea to jack up the cost of living for everyone on the planet.


Obviously you either don't understand the proposed carbon tax or you don't trust the Gov. in 3rd World nations to carry it out ethically.

As I understand the proposed carbon tax, everyone in every nation would get money to off set what the average person in that nation would pay for that tax. Therefore, those living in poverty in a 3rd World nation would get cash to lift them out of poverty.

OTOH, I do worry that it would not be done properly in many nations.

However, I'm done responding to you. I hope the lurkers understood my points better than you do. I write for the lurkers not for lunkheads.
#14970385
Sivad wrote:No, wrong. I could give a shit about money. I care about this issue because it's being used by a political and financial elite to dominate society.


Looks like our self proclaimed well informed observer accidently got it half right. He may not give a shit about money but Donald and the elite financial plutocracy whose interests he represents certainly do. Right now they pretty much have an iron grip on dominating societies energy needs with a well oiled system of delivering fossil fuels. They are not the least interested in interrupting their spectacular cash flow by either cleaning up their act or ceding any of the action to wack job liberal renewable energy types. They know that sooner or later they will have to bow to reality but are clearly only interested in today's cash flow. The tomorrows of the world do not enter into their greed centered concept of leadership. As their shill Donald famously declared, "Yeah, but I won't be here."
#14970618
Global warming has an upside. I live in Maine. My neighbor has lobster traps piled high in his yard.

The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99% of the world’s waters, rising at three times the global average. That warming has created optimal conditions for lobsters to reproduce and survive into adulthood.

“It’s actually been really positive for us. We’ve seen probably the most favourable environmental conditions for lobsters ever,” said Patrice McCarron, the executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, which represents more than 1,000 members of the state’s lobster industry.
#14970623
jimjam wrote:Global warming has an upside. I live in Maine. My neighbor has lobster traps piled high in his yard.

The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99% of the world’s waters, rising at three times the global average. That warming has created optimal conditions for lobsters to reproduce and survive into adulthood.

“It’s actually been really positive for us. We’ve seen probably the most favourable environmental conditions for lobsters ever,” said Patrice McCarron, the executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, which represents more than 1,000 members of the state’s lobster industry.

So why not enjoy it? Why cry gloom and doom?

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/10725413[…]

I can think of at least one large, industrialised[…]

My guess is you're more powerful than her so can […]

What we need is asylum centers in the U.S. Put fol[…]