|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 21, 2016 15:14:23 GMT -5
And I'd like you to correlate your poor conclusions on climate change to your poor conclusions on the economic advantages of slavery. You lost me there. Man made global warming and climate change. Back to this: There it's nothing there that suggests any policy response.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 15:18:47 GMT -5
Exactly.
Now, if you have a point to make, make it. And your point should be better than just proving me wrong, because nobody other than you is listening to me.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 21, 2016 15:55:33 GMT -5
Yeah, but you’re an accountant. Your profession has standard practices and accepted methods of analyzing and quantifying data. You look at payables and receivables. You look at revenues and profits. You look at assets and liabilities. You look at a whole bunch of crap and fit that into a regulated and somewhat predetermined framework. Nowhere in your report would you include that the CEO has a big wart on his nose, that his secretary has a hairstyle from the 60s, or that the guy in shipping has a great sense of humor. Climate change is not at all the same, first and foremost because climate change has been politicized. I’m going from memory here so I might be a little off, but 75% of people used to believe that global warming and climate change was real and that we were causing it. It didn’t matter if you were red, blue, green, conservative or liberal. 3/4 of the population believed that it was real. Then something happened. Conservatives started believing that it was all a hoax. Liberals still believed that it was real. Climate change became part of identity politics. Personally, I don’t get it. I’m not a scientist. I don’t use a thermometer to make sure my water is boiling at 220 degrees Fahrenheit. I don’t use two thermometers to make sure that 220 degrees Fahrenheit is still 100 degrees Celsius. I’m willing to take their word for it. Even though it seems counterintuitive, I don’t feel the need to drop a bowling ball and a marble from a bridge to see if they really do hit the ground at the same time. Scientists tell me my intuition is wrong, and I take their word for it. Scientists say they’re observing something through a telescope that actually happened thousands of years ago . . . and I take their word for it. You see where this is going, right? 97% of scientists say that we are responsible for changing our climate and that we are reaching an irreversible tipping point. What do I do? I take their word for it. Sure, I could say that those other 3% of scientists are right because they agree with my conservative pundits and my conservative friends. I could, but I just don’t see how that makes much sense. You are right about the methods and standard practices used by the accounting profession to perform analysis. I think that's one of my hang ups here. I'm failing to see the differences between the kind of analysis I do and the analysis performed by climate scientists. Some financial analysis involves comparison of one thing to another. As I understand it that's part of what climate science is about; measuring changes in temperature. In that respect I don't understand how that's any different than measuring the change in inventory value from one accounting period to the next. Similarly, once we're done calculating the change in inventory we want to know why it changed. I think that's what climate science is seeking to do as well. I have to disagree with you about the guy in shipping who has a great sense of humor. I just finished an inventory analysis. As it turns out the guy in shipping didn't play a part in what happened but the guy in purchasing did. And once I've talked to him to try to find out what happened he will be mentioned in my report. Sometime within the past 2 months or so a video was posted on this forum. It featured a guy, former Green Peace person I think, who spoke about human caused climate change. At several points he refuted some of the published science. Some of our brothers on this forum rejected everything the guy said because they considered him an apologist for, I think, the oil industry. That was the gist of the argument. I'm about as cynical as anyone else but I'm not so cynical as to believe that a group with a vested interest is entirely incapable of uncovering important facts. That's why the politics of this issue frustrate me so. As to the assertion that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is human caused I offer this; not so many centuries ago 99.9% of scientists, as well as popular opinion, said that that the world was flat. Prior to that it was common to believe that the earth revolved around the sun.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 21, 2016 16:12:59 GMT -5
The earth does go round the sun.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 21, 2016 16:15:53 GMT -5
The earth does go round the sun. And that's repeatable. We hope.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 21, 2016 16:20:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 21, 2016 16:27:35 GMT -5
The earth does go round the sun. Oops. James, thanks. See, I told you all I don't know anything about science. I meant to say that people believed that the sun revolves around the earth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 18:37:39 GMT -5
The earth does go round the sun. Oops. James, thanks. See, I told you all I don't know anything about science. I meant to say that people believed that the sun revolves around the earth. They may know that the earth goes around the sun but they seem to have considerable trouble understanding that the big flaming ball has a lot to do with climate. More effect than any number of people could ever have. They're solar deniers!
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 21, 2016 18:47:32 GMT -5
"As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008)."
www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Edit - there are 24 pages, (1171 posts) of discussion on the site about the article. It gets complex.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 21, 2016 19:34:09 GMT -5
Y'know the thing that makes me question the claim that science is driving the climate change debate from the left? I think if science was truly driving the debate, there would be millions of scientist epauls. As it stands, the consensus that what we are facing is an apocalypse is actually the very thing that makes it so implausible. If it was really science driving the debate, there would be more "scientists" discussing the possible benefits to a warmer planet.
If it was really science, there might be a consensus that the globe is warming. What there wouldn't be (if it were truly science driving the debate) is a consensus about the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 21, 2016 20:09:27 GMT -5
"We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be faced with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate, limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc. But we're not stuck on that track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is the best summary of scientific evidence available, and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. Climate contrarians will often mock 'CAGW' (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming), but the sad reality is that CAGW is looking more and more likely every day. But it's critical that we don't give up, that we keep doing everything we can do to reduce our emissions as much as possible in order to avoid as many catastrophic consequences as possible, for the sake of future generations and all species on Earth. The future climate will probably be much more challenging for life on Earth than today's, but we still can and must limit the damage." www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htmOnly 371 posts of to and fro discussion on this one. Dig in. There is qualified agreement and disagreement galore, as is typical.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 21, 2016 20:22:10 GMT -5
Of significance is that 195 countries agreed in Paris that 2.0° warming was a troubling prospect. That 1.5° is a worthwhile goal. (Not gonna happen).
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 21, 2016 20:36:26 GMT -5
Nope. Still apocalyptic.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 22, 2016 9:54:16 GMT -5
I am a strong believe in the concept of climate change. The climate changes constantly. I don't think there is any doubt about that. As far as attributing current climate change trends to mankind is concerned I'm not a denier or someone who has fully embraced the idea. I simply don't know and I don't have sufficient scientific knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff. Nothing I've seen on this forum has convinced me one way or the other. Climate liars always insist that the debate is about science. And in particular a very narrowly defined portion of science. This keeps things in a simple caricature (conveniently leaving out any downside that may exist to solving the problem) that's easily foisted off on laymen who will believe anything and promote their cause. But the debate ceased being only about science when the liars began demanding that government force be used to get other people (it's always other people. Climate liars don't do shit themselves, they consider their alarms to be enough of a contribution) to correct the problem. Now it becomes a political and policy question and the stubborn facts of reality that science can't address begin to rear their ugly head. And when maintaining traction for their illusion becomes more and more difficult to maintain, the liars get more and more virulent in their attacks on anyone who dares question the orthodoxy. Hart's pretty dead on with the way the scam works. I've been there, I've actually been forced to read the papers and listen to the bullshit. I could tell all kinds of stories that would just bore you to death. One particular news item from last week though, to give an indication of how shaky the house of cards actually is. EPA implemented an ethanol fuel mandate several years ago (around 2008) in response to the climate hype (a lot of shit got traction about that time including federal Cap and Trade). There was some debate about whether mandating more ethanol in fuel was actually good for the environment. Didn't stop the mandate (pork for the ADM's of the world) but it did require a report to Congress due in 2014 that determined whether ethanol was bad for the environment. Turns out it never materialized. Now understand that EPA would gang-rape their grandmothers in order to prove damage to the environment (witness Volkswagen's $17 billion and counting fines in their NOx cheating scandal that has hurt no one and compare it to GM's $2 billion ignition switch or Toyota's $1.7 billion air bag settlements which actually involved killing people). Well, last week EPA announced that for all their certainty about everything, they'll still need another 8 years to determine the environmental impact of the ethanol mandate. Meanwhile, down on the farm the mandate stands...... The way to understand the debate properly is to give it context beyond the science. By definition, if it is human activity that is causing this, the solution is cutting back on human activity- either the activity part or the human part. Can't be any other way. It's pure magical thinking to assume that pounding on energy users and providers will yield a sudden new way to generate CO2-less energy. And history has shown repeatedly that really bad things come from science unencumbered by morality. Now imagine you are in a doctor's office. The doctor says, "It can be scientifically proven that you are likely to die from a horrible disease in the next 40 years. Would you like a pistol so you can end it all now?" There are probably a range of potential reactions to that absolutely scientifically true statement. You could ask what the disease is and what your odds of survival are and when this will likely take place. If the doctor says it's ALS and shows you the test results and describes the gruesome death you will likely face in a couple months, you may be willing to take him up on the offer. If he says he thinks you've got Stage 1 cancer with a potential 80% survival rate and he'd like to do more tests, you might not want to jump at the offer. If he says you don't have anything yet but the odds are good that you'll get something, you'd probably tell him to shove his offer up his ass. If you found out your ex-wife was paying him to talk you into offing yourself, even with confirmed ALS you'd probably want to stick around long enough to see the bitch go to prison. Thoroughly different reactions to the same scientific fact. And that same level of scientific fact is what's being pushed by the climate liars. To the best of their knowledge based on computer models and a history of being wrong in the specifics of their predictions, do you choose to put that gun to your head? Or your children's? Like I've said, people in this country really got an eyeful of what the climate liars really were demanding in about 2008 and have chosen to wait it out. Which has only sent the liars into apoplectic fits of hand wringing and flying private jets around the world to step up the pressure on governments to act to squash the opposition. Idiots.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 22, 2016 10:55:58 GMT -5
This debate (which really isn't a debate in that we have active government coercion going on at this very moment to silence one side of it...reflect on that for a moment) fascinates me to no end.
We've apparently agreed that "97% of scientists believe Man made global warming and climate change"...which is a statement that means literally nothing*. Yet from that meaningless statement (if it were an actual scientific statement, it would include actual numerical values about the prediction. Science without numbers is not science.), the climate alarmists imply an imprimatur for literally any carbon abatement program they can imagine, and further claim that opposition to their carbon abatement program can only be ground in "science denial" and nothing else.
There are just so many logical fallacies there it is impossible to peel them all back, short of an extended dissertation.
There was an interesting development related to this last week that, in my reading, gets to what this is really all about.
Motorcycles, like all vehicles, are subject to emissions regulations. That has long presented a problem for Harley Davidson, since their style of motorcycle is fundamentally based on very old technology. It is (relatively) easy to meet emissions standards if you make motors in the Japanese fashion (ie, short stroke, large bore, liquid cooled, multi-valve heads, etc). It is a lot harder to meet the standards with the old style (long stroke, single valve, air cooled) motor. In order to meet standards, HD style motors have to be tuned to an extremely lean condition. So lean that they run hot, have durability problems, and fail to produce much power. That's why the engines keep getting bigger and bigger. It takes 107ci in a current, fuel injected, emissions compliant, over-lean motor to produce power equal to my 26yo, 80ci carbed motor.
For years, with a wink and a nod, the MoCo has sold "tuners" to new buyers. These are add-on computers that modify the FI map so that the engines run properly. But they are not compliant with emissions standards. Go to an HD dealer a month ago, and they'd sell you a bike, along with a tuner that they would install before you even took delivery.
So the EPA stepped in. Last week there was an order (or an agreement, or whatever it is called) where HD is paying a $12 million fine and agrees to never sell tuners again. Furthermore, HD agreed that if you take a bike to one of their dealers and they discover that you installed an aftermarket tuner, your warranty is void.
Now, on the one hand, who cares. Bunch of asshole weekend pirates get their panties in a wad? Screw those guys.
But the real point, IMHO, is the absolute stupidity of even worrying about any of this in the first place.
There are about 9 million motorcycles registered in the US. There are around 250 million cars registered in the US.
The average driver puts around 13,000 miles per year on a car.
I can't find stats for motorcycles, but I've read that a good average is around 3,000 miles per year. That strikes me as at least in the ballpark.
That works out to 27 billion vehicle-miles per year for motorcycles vs 3.25 trillion vehicle-miles per year for cars. Maybe it makes it clearer to describe motorcycles as 27 billion and cars as 3,250 billion.
Which means total motorcycle vehicle miles works out to about 0.83% of total car miles.
What that means is that there is literally nothing that the EPA could possibly do in terms of motorcycle emissions that could ever, even in theory, amount to anything more than rounding error in the overall emissions picture. Even if, through magic, all motorcycle emissions were simply eliminated, there would be no measurable effect on anything. Not on local smog. Not on global warming (if you believe in that sort of thing). Nothing.
In a rational world, the government would not be involved in any of this. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world.
In our world, where the government thinks it has the responsibility to control these things, the EPA has still managed to completely shoot themselves in the foot. When you consider the total environmental footprint of motorcycles compared to cars, motorcycles are substantially and obviously better.
- Motorcycles are smaller and lighter. That means less manufacturing input is needed to produce them. - Motorcycles get superior mileage. - Motorcycles are easier on road surfaces, resulting in less wear and tear. - Motorcycles take up less space on the roads, resulting in less congestion. - Etc, etc, etc. I could list dozens more.
What that means is that, in a world where the government behaved rationally, it would be actively encouraging the use of motorcycles. Instead, the EPA is doing the exact opposite.
So why even bother? It is all just stupidity layered on top of stupidity, for no purpose at all other than to express regulatory power.
* And I'm ignoring the fact that "97% of scientists" believe no such thing. I've read the study. It's another of the nonsensical "meta-studies" on this topic that are the fodder for the nightly news. Any Freshman logic student could tear it apart, if so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 22, 2016 11:14:34 GMT -5
For an example of how all this nonsense translates into actual human cost, consider the poor, beleaguered gas can.
Back in 2000, California decided that spills from gas cans were a real problem, so spill-proof cans were mandated. The EPA thought that was a really great idea, so they got in on the action.
Next thing you know, those ridiculous, "spill proof" spouts were mandated nationwide.
Brilliant.
Naturally, the new "spill proof" spouts proved anything but, and people were getting burned left and right. And naturally they sued the manufacturer, because the guys making gas cans are responsible when you burn your dumb ass spilling gasoline. And certainly the EPA is could never be held responsible when the ridiculous spout they mandated causes people to spill more gas.
Now the Blitz company, once the largest maker of gas cans in America, is out of business, and 100+ employees are out of a job.
Because science.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 22, 2016 11:18:45 GMT -5
For an example of how all this nonsense translates into actual human cost, consider the poor, beleaguered gas can. Back in 2000, California decided that spills from gas cans were a real problem, so spill-proof cans were mandated. The EPA thought that was a really great idea, so they got in on the action. Next thing you know, those ridiculous, "spill proof" spouts were mandated nationwide. Brilliant. Naturally, the new "spill proof" spouts proved anything but, and people were getting burned left and right. And naturally they sued the manufacturer, because the guys making gas cans are responsible when you burn your dumb ass spilling gasoline. And certainly the EPA is could never be held responsible when the ridiculous spout they mandated causes people to spill more gas. Now the Blitz company, once the largest maker of gas cans in America, is out of business, and 100+ employees are out of a job. Because science. And now that you're down to maybe one gas can supplier in the U.S., what's the hardest thing to find in an emergency like a hurricane or a flood? A gas can.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Aug 22, 2016 11:21:30 GMT -5
I seem to recall reading once somewhere that the greatest source of air pollution on the planet are all the lawnmowers, trimmers, chainsaws, etc., that get to have no burdens placed on them.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 22, 2016 11:22:52 GMT -5
For an example of how all this nonsense translates into actual human cost, consider the poor, beleaguered gas can. Back in 2000, California decided that spills from gas cans were a real problem, so spill-proof cans were mandated. The EPA thought that was a really great idea, so they got in on the action. Next thing you know, those ridiculous, "spill proof" spouts were mandated nationwide. Brilliant. Naturally, the new "spill proof" spouts proved anything but, and people were getting burned left and right. And naturally they sued the manufacturer, because the guys making gas cans are responsible when you burn your dumb ass spilling gasoline. And certainly the EPA is could never be held responsible when the ridiculous spout they mandated causes people to spill more gas. Now the Blitz company, once the largest maker of gas cans in America, is out of business, and 100+ employees are out of a job. Because science. the new gas can that the EPA rules have created
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 22, 2016 11:31:01 GMT -5
And now that you're down to maybe one gas can supplier in the U.S., what's the hardest thing to find in an emergency like a hurricane or a flood? A gas can. Floods? No floods here. Floods only happen when a Republican is in office.
|
|