Page 17 of 228 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767117 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #161
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    You should link original sources, not a shill newspaper that cites Brietbart.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973

  2. #162
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    The position of the paper is that the early models showed too much warming, but that there is still evidence of growing global warming. Is that the position that you took from reading it?

    EDIT to add: Two years before the Santer paper was published, this article was posted on Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-observations/

    Does the position of the article seem sensible, or does it cause problems for you (Josh)?
    Last edited by Unfated33; 11-10-2017 at 11:11 AM.

  3. #163
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Government science didn't destroy the American diet. In fact it was science funded by the companies that stood to profit. Cui Bono?

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/1...me-to-fat.html

  4. #164
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I know the equation and the forcing and the amount in wm^2 that are in this paper. There is nothing that has contradicted my decades long position. Please, look back at where I said the issue was not the 200yo claims on CO2 warming, which is a strawman, but on the FORCING that is caused by the models using a 3X factor for water vapor.

    The problem is one of generations. Science goes out, problems are seen, but it takes a generational change for them to evolve or change.

    Science doesn't turn on a dime, but on a generation. Max Plank said:

    My position was and is correct, the problem is the generation hasn't caught up yet. People on here think just as Michael Mann did, based on his evidence actually, and he IS a leading climate scientist. That doesn't mean I am anti-science, quite the opposite, I just pivoted early. Mann and others are pivoting now. If anybody here would need to change their position, it wouldn't need to be me.
    You can read the full text here - http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/pu...reGeosci17.pdf

    I think it'd be interesting to do what's called a "Journal Club" on this paper, everyone interested reads it and comes back Sunday afternoon for an in-depth discussion.

    And an extra task for Josh - if the forcing of water vapor is overestimated but global warming still occurs, what's the prognosis and what do you base it on?

    Edit: Let's make it Sunday.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  5. #165
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    And supplemental material if you want it - http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matt...science_SI.pdf
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    This brings up a thought. Taxation as punishment. To control culture. I dislike it - while I know it works, it tends to burden those who are poor or make bad choices in general.

    And it brings up a counter point: High taxes are used as a deterrent. To punish. To stop behavior.

    Which begs the question: Why do some of you support high taxes on business? We have the highest Federal tax in the developed world. We are at 39.5%, where as everybody else in the OCED is lower. Canada is 25%, even China is 25%.

    Then, if a US based business is doing business in China, we also tax them an extra 14.5%.

    That is just punishing a business, as if they are doing something wrong. The US Government is acting as if it wants to stop the bad behavior of...business.

    It seems very short sighted to me.
    What is the other option? Banning or limiting the use of substances in products? That to me is harder to regulate and you will encourage companies to look for loopholes and changing recipes while possible adding different synthetic ingredients to keep the taste of their products the same or similar.

    Our tax rate in comparison to other countries is kind of irrelevant for a few reasons in my opinion. First being the tax on everything can be lowered if the government increases it's efficient paired with evaluations for how the funds are being used. I also feel that a country needs to get it's money from somewhere and variance between business tax and personal tax in America verse other countries is going to vary by tax paying population and the amount of tax paying business entities per country so it's going to be hard to find easily relatable tax structures just based on that. I also don't mind seeing a premium on business tax in America because we are the world's largest consumer market and having businesses pay a premium to offer their products to the largest market seems like a smart pay to play scheme, not that I think it is implemented correctly as it is right now though, but that would be a different scope of argument.

    I have shown and still feel that taxation as regulation might be one of the cleanest ways to help America with it's food crisis. Just doing a quick search at Walmart a Twinkie costs around $0.28 per Twinkie in my area and an apple from a bag looks like it costs on average $0.42 per apple. If we look at caloric cost per dollar an apple is on average 95 calories and a Twinkie is 135, just a quick Google search. So an apple is $.0044 per calorie where a Twinkie is $0.0021 per calorie. I know that is a rough example of what I'm trying to show but it does show that if we could screw with the tax structures to make the apples and the Twinkies reverse in cost then it hopefully helps to put us on the right track to a healthier lifestyle.

    Tax reform like that doesn't have to be a permanent thing also. If the nation can switch to a healthier lifestyle and if our obesidy level drops reforming the taxes can be done to make a more fair tax scheme once people are educated on healthier eating, but with out the education and with the addictive low cost food in the market it is something that needs to be addressed.

  7. #167
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Part of the reason, previously in this discussion, I made sure to look at homicides in general and how they were consistent both after a ban (after a small uptick) with before, and how they were often consistent across areas that have high and low gun ownership.

    I guess it bares repeating, and I have done that here on almost every page, that people find a way to kill. That doesn't change dependent on the tools. Homicides stay at the same level. WHAT tool they use changes. How they kill.

    We determined this a while ago? This was shown as the MEANS vs the MOTIVE discussions we had. Motives, being why people murder, are more important. If you remove the Motive, you remove the murder. If you remove the tool, they just find a different one - which with 80% of homicides being drug related gang activity, it is important to impart action on the Culture.
    I don't think it's that simple. But I can agree that people will always find a ways to kill (unless they're paralyzed from neck down) .
    However the less efficient the method is then more likely it can also be evaded/stopped. You can surely agree with that?

    BTW there were also these in the last link:


    We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
    Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
    Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).

    After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
    This book chapter summarizes the scientific literature on the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths.
    This article examines homicide rates of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) from 1996 to 2010. Differences in rates of homicides of LEOs across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership. In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    This brings up a thought. Taxation as punishment. To control culture. I dislike it - while I know it works, it tends to burden those who are poor or make bad choices in general.

    And it brings up a counter point: High taxes are used as a deterrent. To punish. To stop behavior.

    Which begs the question: Why do some of you support high taxes on business? We have the highest Federal tax in the developed world. We are at 39.5%, where as everybody else in the OCED is lower. Canada is 25%, even China is 25%.

    Then, if a US based business is doing business in China, we also tax them an extra 14.5%.

    That is just punishing a business, as if they are doing something wrong. The US Government is acting as if it wants to stop the bad behavior of...business.

    It seems very short sighted to me.
    The corporate tax code in the U.S. makes absolutely no sense. Not only is it high, it encourages the avoidance of taxes through taking on more debt and essentially double taxes stock holders. A better system in my mind would be to drop the rate to 0% and raise the capital gains/dividend rates to match the personal income rates. That way a company can either choose to dividend out the money which stockholders pay taxes on or pump money into the business. I know a few liberal economists have discussed turning corporations into simple pass-through entities like LLCs, LLPs as well.

  9. #169
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    You should link original sources, not a shill newspaper that cites Brietbart.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973
    I generally do, but I was busy. That being said - the information is just the same, and the Ad Hominem fallacy is all yours. You are one of those people who keep recommending Breitbart to me, I really should start reading them. Or is that just a catch all boogeyman like Fox? Who I don't read either. Boy oh boy, the assumptions.

    The position of the paper is that the early models showed too much warming, but that there is still evidence of growing global warming. Is that the position that you took from reading it?

    EDIT to add: Two years before the Santer paper was published, this article was posted on Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-observations/

    Does the position of the article seem sensible, or does it cause problems for you (Josh)?
    Of course there is still evidence the earth is warming. Hey, there is a big strawman that skeptics think there is no warming, and it gets repeated a lot. Skeptics do think the earth was warming, and we do think CO2 is part of that. I have said this before, but it seems....oh well. (shakes head)

    What we also do say is a lot more involved though. The coldest 2 points in the last 8000 years were 1660 and...1850. When we started really taking a measure of temperature here in the US. So, yeah, we are warming! We warmed up till about 1950, cooled a bit till late 1970's, which is also when satellite data started collecting. Then we warmed till 1998, when we entered a very slow 'warming' period that is being called "The Pause" by most. So, that is all warming. We are not denying that.

    Secondly, we don't debate CO2's portion. It is 1.1wm^2, just like we have all along. The issue is the models. They show a positive feedback for water vapor, also known as Forcing. This feedback is about 3X, though some like Otto et al have dropped to to 2. The original work by Hansen/Gavin actually used about 3.8wm^2 instead of the higher 4.4wm^2 that some do. But that is where you get the models outrunning the observations, like I posted before.

    If you remove the forcing/feedback, then the skeptics are happy - because for nearly 20 years we have been saying the forcing doesn't work that way. It's exactly our position. And then the models will start tracking with the observations.

    As you described it, the position of the paper matches mine, and nearly every skeptic.

    On Gavin Schmidt's blog post: is pretty good also, but it is a basic read, dare I say, for beginners? The science in still young, and there are lots of variables, but this has been a skeptic's position also. We do have 3 data sets in observations that correlate well, the GCRN raw, weather balloons and satellite are now pretty much in sync. And we don't have any models that correlate. I would like to see longer runs, and my friend actually has a meeting setup about 9 years from now for us to discuss my feelings on the change in climate matching my assumptions. Gavins commentary is fairly balanced and yet covers some of the major conflicts that are being discussed.

    And an extra task for Josh - if the forcing of water vapor is overestimated but global warming still occurs, what's the prognosis and what do you base it on?
    As I linked before, mostly in conversation with Gordon, there is a growing body of work (thousands of papers actually, with 400 just this year) showing long term changes in solar output and variability being the major driver of climate. This was accentuated by the results from the CERN CLOUD study. Mind you, I don't think we should be avoiding CO2 as a factor - the amount retained is higher than if we had not put any more CO2 in the atmosphere, but the cycle is fairly well shown in proxy data to be occurring in step with increased or decreased solar cycles, like the Maudner Minimum.

    Here is one example of many hundreds:



    To simplify: Natural variation in my opinion, with the extra from CO2 additions without forcings/feedbacks.


    I don't think it's that simple. But I can agree that people will always find a ways to kill (unless they're paralyzed from neck down) .
    However the less efficient the method is then more likely it can also be evaded/stopped. You can surely agree with that?
    Yep. The winner of course is Timothy McVeigh. Some diesel, some fertilizer.... cheap and plentiful, nice and efficient. Or $75 for a u-haul truck for the runner up (or runner down?). Well, he most likely didn't get the deposit back. (Too soon?)

    The difference, since you seems to want to go back to the tool vs the motivation debate, is you are not taking away the same tool used to defend yourself. We can't exactly carry around a fertilizer bomb or a pickup in our ankle holster to stop a shooter.

    But I am really done with the tool argument, and I will not go back to it. It is time better spent on the motivations, since those are root causes, not implements of the cause.

    Tax reform like that doesn't have to be a permanent thing also. If the nation can switch to a healthier lifestyle and if our obesidy level drops reforming the taxes can be done to make a more fair tax scheme once people are educated on healthier eating, but with out the education and with the addictive low cost food in the market it is something that needs to be addressed.
    HA! That is why we have 77,000 pages of taxes. Have you SEEN what Obamacare did to our tax structure? Wow.

    And - no, I don't want to do the same thing we have been doing as a government, it has been a huge screw up already. Forcing the food pyramid on people, telling them how to eat? That is horribly authoritarian, and you want to go in and double down in an entirely different direction? Forcing people to eat according to whatever is science now? No. Change will have to come slow, or you will break things you need, like the majority of you food production lines. And first, you need to gain trust by saying that you screwed up. Because it took 50 years to get here, and you can't just change it in a couple tax moves. Food runs a big part of our economy. Huge.

    Change will have to some slowly, we are just coming to these conclusions as a society. Wait a bit.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #170
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Calling a source bad isn't ad hom.

    So what do your models without forcing predict for the climate without anthropogenic CO2 and methane production?

Posting Permissions

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