Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DonaldD

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13
General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 16, 2019, 04:17:32 PM »
And now we have someone who doesn't understand the definition of the word "judgment"... either that, or you are conflating the legal vs non-legal language, which I agree is stupid.  (again, here's a hint - you do not need to form an opinion in order to identify somebody as black or Asian.)

There is no law against being a racist.  Racist acts, however, may or may not be illegal.

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 16, 2019, 03:46:27 PM »
Now you pretend not to understand "prejudicial" (hint - there is no judgment required in having a club open to only a select type of people.) Either that, or you do not understand formal logic.

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 16, 2019, 02:05:28 PM »
So she's taken up residence here instead. There is no interest like self-interest.
That's pretty disingenuous of you.  Was it purposeful, or subconscious?  She moved here with her family as a child - so "tak[ing] up residence" wasn't her decision.  She did become a citizen when she was still a minor, however, so one might say she has taken more active steps to become a member of the polity than people who were simply born here and just inherited their citizenship without any effort on their part.

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 16, 2019, 11:56:18 AM »
Fact is they are groups based on race. By definition they are racist groups.
No, this is not by definition.  You should look it up.  Maybe what you meant is "racial".  This is pretty basic, language-101-level comprehension.  Unless you are trying to redefine the word for political reasons... naw...

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 16, 2019, 05:30:48 AM »
They seem to me to be more divisive than the President.  Have no respect for our laws.  Routinely to lie about the country and what it stands for.  I honestly, can't think of what makes you think that they do love the country.
This just illustrates my point.  You could as easily have used these exact same words, just turned around, to describe the president. Your partisan blinders simply don't allow you to see it.

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 15, 2019, 05:11:37 PM »
But the problem here, is that he's largely correct, the progressive congresswomen do largely seem to hate the country they represent
And this here illustrates one of, if not the main, failures of the modern USA - the inability to accept that others who do not share one's particular beliefs must hate the country.

These are woman who have repeatedly voiced their love of country and who have decided to serve their homeland.  They will just never be accepted by the "USA - love it or leave it" simple-minded, binary folks who don't happen to agree with them on policy.

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 15, 2019, 04:29:41 PM »
The question is... which policies/executive orders are being enacted this/next week that will benefit from the distraction provided by the sturm und drang resulting from his tweets?

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: July 12, 2019, 06:05:06 PM »
AGW is a hoax
Why would one study, either supporting AGW or not supporting AGW, be sufficient to make someone so certain of anything?  It's just silly, given the thousands of papers on the topic, spanning multiple different disciplines.

That's not even getting into the relevance of the study... a study which is mostly a rehash of another study done 5 years ago.  For instance, cosmic ray flux on Earth has not shown a significant or consistent trend over the period of warming (during the satellite period) - in fact, cosmic ray flux lagged temperature changes over the period of 1970 to 1985.  Another major problem with ascribing anything to cosmic rays is that although galactic cosmic rays do lead to aerosol formation, the aerosols do not grow enough to form cloud-condensation nuclei, by 2 orders of magnitude.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: July 08, 2019, 02:10:54 PM »
In this case, 95% of the arguementers on climate change don't actually understand how the conclusions they are repeating were reached.
I would say closer to 100%, given that the internet has given anybody with a keyboard a point of view that can be expressed fairly readily.  And this problem is, of course, common to both sides of the debate.

What I see thrown around so often now is equating climate science with modelling.  However, there are hundreds of lines of inquiry that support unprecedented warming having nothing to do with modelling. Biological changes, ice extent changes, glacier changes, oceanic changes, land based temperature changes, satellite MSU changes, jet stream changes, tropopause changes, seasonal weather changes... and the list goes on and on. You could discount any number of these sets of metrics without affecting the overall conclusion. 

You can also completely misrepresent and misunderstand how the models are created and what the models are used for, and also not affect these conclusions in any significant way.  But that never seems to stop people from making the argument that how the climate is changing is uncertain because ... models!

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 28, 2019, 12:30:16 PM »
Wait, industry can function without transportation? On what planet?
More than a little dishonest to excise the very next sentence where I addressed that, isn't it?

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 27, 2019, 10:34:41 PM »
China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita
China is also reducing its CO2 emissions as a proportion of its overall energy budget.  So while it is increasing emissions, it is actually reducing its fossil fuel usage as a proportion of the overall economy.

This goes to what The Drake pointed out earlier, and to what is implicit in your position, that unless China actually limits its citizens' standard of living to something on the order of one quarter that of what US citizens enjoy, then the US should do nothing.

Like when I mentioned cutting back on cars?
Oh, you were being serious when you wrote "No driving a personal car"?  So you are all for laws that outlaw the use of private vehicles, are you?

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 27, 2019, 09:08:11 PM »
Per capita is just a measure - it's an inconvenient measure for those who want to avoid taking action, to be sure.

Industry accounts for only 22% of US CO2 emissions, so of course, if one is being disingenuous, one would focus exclusively on that metric.

Whereas a more honest analysis would take into account the other 78% of US CO2 output, including transportation, electricity generation, residential and agriculture.

Of course, there is a wide overlap in all sectors (industry manufactures goods purchased for residential use, electricity generated is used by both industry and residential, etc.  Which all goes back to per capita: the CO2 costs of products, infrastructure, food, and transportation are created throughout the US economic cycle, and consumed for the most part by US consumers (i.e., per capita comes into play)

And the same goes for the Chinese - it's just that as China exports more finished products to the US than the other way around, and the US consumers actually have a larger CO2 footprint as a result of purchasing Chinese exports.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 12, 2019, 07:37:56 AM »
You conflate the political and the journalistic with the scientific.  Don't do this... it's straight up Crunchian.

Don't quote Al Gore; don't quote some random 'science journalist' on a website.

There is no hard and fast 10-year window.  Every year, every moment without action increases, incrementally, future costs. A ten year window is just the accumulation of all those incremental costs.

As for solution proposals, they come in many forms - NOT just focused on C02 emission reductions (although that is likely where the largest opportunities lie as far as future cost reductions).  Adaption proposals are also being investigated. Refugee and migration policies are being debated. Land reclamation projects are being studied, as are different carbon capture methods. That YOU are focusing exclusively on the CO2 reduction debate doesn't mean other avenues are not also being investigated and debated.

But CO2 emission reductions simply have to occur, unless we want to commit to much higher future costs.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 11, 2019, 09:27:04 PM »
I really don't "mistake you".  Honestly, "0.3" degrees?  Since you have an opinion on what trends you see in people's posts on the subject, how can you seriously ask that question knowing that in no scenario  would there simply be a 0.3 degree change in daily temps? 

It is instructive that all of your oversights and mistakes occur in a single direction.  Think about that for a moment

As for arguments taking a certain form - the majority of the arguments are about the very existence of the temperature trend. That you think the only solutions require economic Armageddon also suggests you are not paying attention

As for helping those poor countries... We already see thousands of North Africans drowning in the Mediterranean every summer, people fleeing situations that are already being exacerbated by climate change.  The world is already doing nothing.  Pretending this will change as the numbers rise is not just ahistorical, it cooks into any eventual forced action probably hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not millions, before the world does anything.

But of course that ignores that those people receiving foreign aid won't simply sit around in dust bowl conditions, depending on the outside world for food and water... Significant numbers of them will simply leave.  I'd you think there are migration problems now...

Pretty much all of your solutions are naive and fly in the face of current reality... And all because you really, to be generous, have not informed yourself.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 11, 2019, 06:36:56 PM »
Does having the temperature be 0.3 degrees higher on average...
???  You realize that the world is on average already (let's go with NASA) 0.9 degrees (Celsius I assume you meant) warmer than the late 19th century, right?  That's 3 times higher already than the number you pulled out of your hat. We are also going to be severely challenged in keeping future temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius.
And note that I'm not saying it's cheap, but if the "doomsday" crowd really means it then why isn't the argument that the government *must* take measures to help drought areas before it's too late?
???  ??? Who do you think pushes for more foreign aid?  It isn't the climate change denialist crowd.  Look, there is already more than enough food grown to supply the world's population.  But for some reason, people are not shipping free food to starving people in drought ridden and war torn countries.
If so, my recommendation would be that an emergency measure of helping the drought areas by creating water channels
???  ???  ??? If this was so easy (if expensive) then wouldn't the wealthiest country in the world have been able to solve its own drought issues in California, one of the wealthiest areas in the country? Cutting "channels through mountain ranges, and making water flow uphill is really not as simple as you might think.  And doing so for poor people half way across the world, when Mexicans are coming to steal our jobs, rob our stores and rape our women?  It's not going to happen.
...would be far cheaper than crippling the entire global economy
Ah here we have it - there are many things that can be done that would improve the world's economy and still reduce carbon emissions.  This is simply a failure of imagination and interest on your part.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 11, 2019, 04:45:35 PM »
You also have millions of people in drought zones who will become increasingly at risk of food and water shortages, leading to things like civil and international wars and mass human migration.  Beachfront property is the least of 'our' concerns as are polar bears. If you think refugees are straining US resources today, this should really be what you focus on... that is, if the idea of tens of millions of additional people being displaced, starving and dying doesn't do it for you.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 11, 2019, 04:03:59 PM »
Oh, and before anybody foolishly jumps on my wording above - currently, human activity is the primary driver of climate changes today - recent changes in temperature are estimated to be caused mostly by increases in GHGs.  That's primary, not sole driver.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 11, 2019, 10:32:36 AM »
Climate changes. It always has, it always will. The planet should be warming right now since we're exiting an ice age - hopefully. Anyone arguing for a static climate is arguing against planetary history.

What has to be proven is the theory that human activity is the primary, or sole driver, of climate change now.
Impressive - a Gish gallop of a bunch of thoroughly discredited denialist talking points.
  • "Climate changes. It always has, it always will." - yes, it does. Nobody in climate science disputes that.
  • "The planet should be warming right now since we're exiting an ice age" - Yes - and geologic history would suggest that the rate of temperature would be on the order of 4-7 degrees per 5000 years - the rate of increase for the past century is 10 times that.  Of course the current rate of increase is even higher, and is projected to continue to increase so we'll see a rate of increase between 30 times and 100 times that of previous ice-age recoveries.
  • "Anyone arguing for a static climate is arguing against planetary history." It's a good thing that nobody working in climate science is arguing for a static climate then (whatever "arguing for" means in this context)
  • "What has to be proven is the theory that human activity is the primary, or sole driver, of climate change now." Right.  Done and done.  You don't buy it, but then you also quoted a guy above who disputes the carcinogenic properties of tobacco and asbestos...clearly, you carefully choose what to put stock in and what to ignore.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 07, 2019, 03:37:35 PM »
It doesn't "prove the theory".  Of course, one could say that since "the whole Greenland ice sheet is still losing lots and lots of ice", the fact that one of the many Greenland ice sheets is gaining ice is not particularly important - and it is really not evidence against a general warming of the planet as you were trying to argue.

But pointing out that you were misrepresenting the evidence also does show that you were misrepresenting the evidence.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 07, 2019, 01:43:29 PM »
Originally posted by Crunch:
How about glaciers? They’re disappearing according to warmists. Are they?

A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds.

The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience.
A more complete reading of the study, however, puts that in context:
NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project has revealed Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier, the island’s biggest, is actually growing, at least at its edge. In research published Monday in Nature Geoscience, researchers report that since 2016, Jakobshavn’s ice has thickened slightly, thanks to relatively cool ocean waters at its base—which have caused the glacier to slow down its melt. This reverses the glacier’s 20-year trend of thinning and retreating. But because of what else is happening on the ice sheet, and the overall climate outlook, that’s not necessarily a good thing for global sea level.

That's because, despite the fact that this particular glacier is growing, the whole Greenland ice sheet is still losing lots and lots of ice. Jakobshavn drains only about seven percent of the entire ice sheet, so even if it were growing robustly, mass loss from the rest of the ice sheet would outweigh its slight expansion.
The question is whether Crunch only read, copied and pasted the edited excerpts he sees in the right-wing echo chamber, or whether he consciously misrepresented the study to support his position...

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 07, 2019, 01:02:23 PM »
The irony is the raft of logical fallacy in your response.
"You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means." :)

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 07, 2019, 10:09:31 AM »
Claiming it was debunked is not debunking. It’s the firdt one I found, how many would it take you?
The irony here is delicious - in that you somehow thought that linking to a crank article in The Telegraph, penned by a man who also disputes the negative health effects of asbestos, would somehow be convincing to anybody who had not already made up their minds on the topic.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 06, 2019, 03:48:32 PM »
Linking to a 4-year old article that was debunked within 3 days... at least you're consistent.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 06, 2019, 12:59:13 PM »

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 05, 2019, 10:17:43 PM »
It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away.
Except this is not what you quoted:
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
The latter quote does NOT mean that the "end of the world" would occur within that ten year period, but that there would be unavoidable effects that would eventually occur if actions to reduce emissions had not been taken by then.  Was what was written hyperbolic? Yes. But Crunch's characterization of the quote is again a non sequitur.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 05, 2019, 02:43:43 PM »
It's been too late for 30+ years. It's always 12 years away from ... whatever it is that's going to happen, not sure you guys even know.
There's no need to misrepresent: 
  • AR1 (from IPCC working group 1, in 1990) was talking about a 2C increase over a 35-year period (2025) and a 3C increase by 2100 (with referenced uncertainties and assumptions, of course).
  • Working group 2 in 2001 also made reference to the effects of climate change in 2100, and nothing as early as the 20-teens.
  • AR5 produced in 2014 also focuses on 2100, with no reference to 2025 anymore

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 05, 2019, 02:16:37 PM »
Pretending that increased CO2 levels *only* have negative effects is emotional and not fact based.
Why?  Are the only possible arguments that increased levels of CO2 have no beneficial effects emotional ones?  Also, you realize that nobody here has made any argument about increased CO2 levels having no beneficial effect, right?

As an aside, however, what would those beneficial effects be, and would they offset the costs associated with increased CO2 levels?

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 05, 2019, 12:50:10 PM »
Fenring, it already is too late to avoid some of the effects and costs, and some effects that are yet to come are already baked into the current CO2 levels - which will continue to accrue even if we were to reduce net CO2 increases to zero immediately. It is also "almost too late" to start doing things to reduce significant future effects not already destined to occur, because turning around complete economies takes time.  It is not, however, too late to do anything that would reduce long term costs.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 05, 2019, 12:43:38 PM »
Just because temperature can have an effect on CO2 levels, this in no way means that there are no other ways to change CO2 levels. It also does not imply that changes in CO2 levels do not themselves have an effect on temperature.  These are two implicit non-sequiturs in his position that Crunch is repeatedly unable to grasp.

Observing that the effects of increased CO2 levels in the current environment will have negative consequences is also not an "emotional" argument, never mind a "screed"; but using such loaded, emotive language does seem to be one technique people use to enable themselves to ignore ideas and facts that inconveniently do not support their positions.

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 04, 2019, 02:59:52 PM »
I love how those denying the effects of climate change think that asking for an absolute/correct number is some magic way of winning an argument.

Guess what?  Higher concentrations of CO2 than now will mean more cost to adjust/mitigate, more human suffering, more refugees.  Lower concentrations than now will mean lower costs, less suffering, less migration.

General Comments / Re: Why is May still around?
« on: June 04, 2019, 02:54:51 PM »
And of course, ignoring climate change and the millions of resulting current and future climate refugees isn't the best way to reduce the pressures on the immigration systems of western countries...

General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 04, 2019, 02:36:46 PM »

General Comments / Re: Ink your eye
« on: June 02, 2019, 06:32:10 AM »
There's a difference between sticking a needle in one's own eye, and sticking a needle in somebody else's eye.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: May 28, 2019, 09:46:51 PM »
Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated
Repeating something silly over and over won't make it magically become more believable...

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 21, 2019, 06:59:31 AM »
politically motivated... so Republicans investigated Republicans, but it was all politically motivated...

You didn't also believe that these investigations, initiated by the majority party and run by majority party representatives, were, as the president repeated endlessly, a Democrat driven witch hunt, do you?

General Comments / Re: That's dumb
« on: April 12, 2019, 08:41:38 AM »
I expect that drivers who use their phones do not actually look at their phones 100% of the time while driving... since warning signs  such as these are actually shown to have reduced speeds in areas where speeding was a problem, it is very possible that this method will have an effect in reducing mobile use, if only temporarily around the sign.  If the goal is safety, rather than punishment, this would be a cheap and likely effective tool.

General Comments / Re: Yemen
« on: April 11, 2019, 10:30:01 PM »
I have proof of that: I found it impossible to ignore previously.
Just because you cannot ignore something, does not mean everybody else is also unable to ignore it. And if others are able to ignore something (as was the case with Yemen for many years) then that thing was not "un-ignorable"

General Comments / Re: Yemen
« on: April 11, 2019, 04:46:11 PM »
Originally posted by Fenring:
Not that I disagree, but I find it strange that this is suddenly being seen as an issue when it's been going on for years. And it didn't even start with Obama, but went back to Bush Jr. and probably even before that. Not Yemen specifically
I think you just answered your own question: "this" is suddenly being seen as an issue specifically because the scope of the human tragedy in Yemen is becoming un-ignorable.

Originally posted by ScottF:
Depending on which type of immigration you’re asking about, the first two are answered inversely
How does the type of immigration change the answer to the question "Is the USA full?"

The current economic model absolutely requires growth, without which credit would eventually dry up and the system would crash... If not through natural population increase, and if not through productivity gains that slightly outstrip the economic growth, then net immigration would be required.

Now, I have no boarders, but if I did, they might be open to immigrants, but they might want to close themselves to immigration... :P

As for whether it's a problem?  It's no more a problem than it ever was. There have always been chicken littles running around on the topic, but the world never has ended...

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: March 27, 2019, 07:16:19 AM »
"Did not establish that there was" is not equivalent to "established that there was not".  I get why the 24-hour news cycle requires immediate response and drama, though. This does give some information, but without access to the details in the report, it's still looking at tea leaves.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: March 24, 2019, 10:48:12 PM »
The funny thing is (not surprising of course) is that you don't realize that it is still 100% accurate.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: March 18, 2019, 04:36:38 PM »
The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd.  Drinking was a huge focus of the hearings. 
Speaking of Retcon.... The focus on Kavanagh lying about drinking is not the same as caring about his drinking. Like it or not, excessive drinking is almost a right of passage in the USA.

Potentially perjuring oneself denying one's drinking in order to avoid opening oneself up further to accusations of sexual assaults is not.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: March 18, 2019, 12:44:46 PM »
People were "outraged" because they believed it possible that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted somebody. Crunch believes that people were "outraged" because Kavanaugh drank beer, whereas nobody else was outraged over his beer drinking. Clearly, crunch equates drinking beer with sexual assaults.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: March 18, 2019, 10:00:55 AM »
It's weird that crunch equates drinking beer with assaulting people sexually...

General Comments / Re: Oh, Beto!
« on: March 16, 2019, 06:59:05 AM »
Of course, the "other factor" is the vast overwhelming majority of those lives are only at stake if they refuse to leave where they're living currently, "when the time comes."
And this, of course, is a trivial consideration  ::)

General Comments / Re: Oh, Beto!
« on: March 15, 2019, 06:48:12 PM »
There’s just no future for the world unless we get Beto.
Again, don't be dense.  In a trivial sense, "the future of the world depends on us right now here where we are" is always true.  But clearly, O'Rourke was being more dramatic.  Maybe he was even suggesting that hundreds of millions of people would be affected, or just that vast swathes of the Earth would become uninhabitable.

But to jump directly from "the future of the world depends on us" to there being "no" future for the world is completely crunchian.

General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« on: March 15, 2019, 06:36:32 PM »
So the sticking point here is that you would like to be shown a direct link between the object of a lobby and the lobbyists?
No.  Mislabeling an entity as "foreign" as you did, and putting those words into Omar's mouth, is the issue: there is a non-trivial difference between characterizing a lobby as a foreign entity (especially one wielding direct political influence) and talking about domestic entities pushing allegiance to foreign country.

General Comments / Re: Oh, Beto!
« on: March 15, 2019, 11:36:58 AM »
if you don’t vote for him we’re all gonna die.
Don't be dense.  Our last chance to avoid massive changes to climate affecting hundreds of millions of people does not equate to "we are all gonna die".

Of course, if you really do care about avoiding massive undocumented immigration, you would absolutely support policies that would reduce the risk of making vast swathes of Central and South America un-livable (not to mention Florida and major coastal cities in the USA).

General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« on: March 15, 2019, 06:33:00 AM »
Originaly posted by Fenring:
As for Omar's comments about the pro-Israel lobby, I likewise see this as being an entirely valid objection; namely, that a foreign lobby should wield direct political influence in America.
Wait a minute - is this an accurate paraphrasing of Omar's statements?  Omar absolutely wrote and spoke about political influence "in this country" pushing "allegiance to a foreign country" but did she also talk about these influencers being foreign lobbies wielding direct influence in the USA? Unless you think that groups like AIPAC are in some way "foreign"... I really doubt it, but I am open to being shown otherwise.

Omar has already stepped on a number of linguistic land mines; people should be careful not to further misrepresent, even inadvertently, what she actually said or wrote.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13