Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[drogulus]

I am surprised to see you argue that Trump is the master of all subjects...

Basically I am just irked by ridiculous gotcha arguments, here in the form of gotcha by proxy. There's enough substance to criticize Trump on I'd venture.

    The article was not about gotcha as much as that minions Trump employs to take care of his interests thought the golf course needed protection from a "liberal hoax". A sensible position, especially given the amount of erosion to the golf course from recent storm activity. The point is that this was a perfectly legitimate concern that Trump must affirm as a responsible human being, if only to himself. What makes this indelibly Repubbish is not denying climate change, or sensibly affirming it with money and property at stake, but doing both at once and disavowing neither.

[Madiel]

At last, a presidential race that isn't a popularity contest.

The fact that they're not popular doesn't stop it from being a popularity contest. The requirement is merely to be more popular than the other candidate(s), not to be popular.

[Ken B]

    The article was not about gotcha as much as that minions Trump employs to take care of his interests thought the golf course needed protection from a "liberal hoax". A sensible position, especially given the amount of erosion to the golf course from recent storm activity. The point is that this was a perfectly legitimate concern that Trump must affirm as a responsible human being, if only to himself. What makes this indelibly Repubbish is not denying climate change, or sensibly affirming it with money and property at stake, but doing both at once and disavowing neither.

So I gather from this that what's "Repubbish" is when one person disagrees with another.

[drogulus]

So I gather from this that what's "Repubbish" is when one person disagrees with another.

    You only get one bite, that's enough. I said what makes it Repub. Trump has climate change in his money plans, but not in yours because he tells you it's a hoax. Are you OK with that?

    With a Texan here or there excepted, not one Repub with name recognition strikes me as a climate denier out of sheer ignorance. I'm not even sure about Lamar Smith!

    So, denying science you not so secretly think is right is terminally Repubbish. It doesn't come from anywhere else.

[kishnevi]

    You only get one bite, that's enough. I said what makes it Repub. Trump has climate change in his money plans, but not in yours because he tells you it's a hoax. Are you OK with that?

    With a Texan here or there excepted, not one Repub with name recognition strikes me as a climate denier out of sheer ignorance. I'm not even sure about Lamar Smith!

    So, denying science you not so secretly think is right is terminally Repubbish. It doesn't come from anywhere else.

Sigh.  It appears you have no idea that some people are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change because they are not ignorant
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-1-introduction.html

With links to later portions of the essay.  He is actually more sympathetic to the idea of anthropogenic change than I am.

To oppose a popular scientific principle means that you may be unpopular, not unscientific


.

[Ken B]

Sigh.  It appears you have no idea that some people are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change because they are not ignorant
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-1-introduction.html

With links to later portions of the essay.  He is actually more sympathetic to the idea of anthropogenic change than I am.

To oppose a popular scientific principle means that you may be unpopular, not unscientific


.

Plus of course this isn't Trump, it's a manager in one of his businesses. One advocating to an agency no less.

[mc ukrneal]

This was new for me: https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html

It seems that, despite what many are saying, GOP delegates are not bound to vote for anyone unless the rules of the Convention will dictate it. I don't think it really matters, but I found it interesting because all the major GOP figures seem to be saying the same thing - delegates must vote for the candidate who won/earned their vote in the primaries. The reality seems to be that they can 'vote their conscience.'

[Florestan]

Trump has climate change in his money plans, but not in yours because he tells you it's a hoax.

Hillary Clinton trumpets climate change on every opportunity, yet she flies all over the place in her private jet (as does another climate change superhero, Leonardo di Caprio). Are you OK with that? Or is it that the hypocrisy of the Left is okay while the hypocrisy of the Right is not?

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-1-introduction.html

Bah, humbug! Who needs facts & data and thinking, when science is settled?

Thank you very much for posting the link, most interesting.

[Ken B]

This was new for me: https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html

It seems that, despite what many are saying, GOP delegates are not bound to vote for anyone unless the rules of the Convention will dictate it. I don't think it really matters, but I found it interesting because all the major GOP figures seem to be saying the same thing - delegates must vote for the candidate who won/earned their vote in the primaries. The reality seems to be that they can 'vote their conscience.'

At base parties are private clubs. They have no constitutional standing. A few states have laws about being bound on ballot 1 but I doubt they are enforceable. And if enough people want to just vitiate the first ballot they can anyway.  Since parties want to win they generally respect the primary results. But if Trump is found in bed with a live boy and a dead girl after shooting someone on fifth avenue, look for the gop to find a way to dump him.

It was different long ago. In the 50s someone won nearly all the primaries and the party picked Adlai Stevenson anyway.  The backroom gave us Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, FDR, Truman, Kennedy. Primaries gave us Bush, Kerry, Trump, Hillary.

[Madiel]

He is actually more sympathetic to the idea of anthropogenic change than I am.

He is in fact totally on board with that idea, as he outlines in his excellent precise introduction.

[Florestan]

He is in fact totally on board with that idea, as he outlines in his excellent precise introduction.

Read carefully through all the chapters up to, and including, the last.  If after that you still praise the guy, then kudos to you for seeing the light...

[Madiel]

Read carefully through all the chapters up to, and including, the last.  If after that you still praise the guy, then kudos to you for seeing the light...

I do still praise him, because he's making a careful and rational argument not merely based on wanting to outright deny that human beings pumping all of their gaseous waste into the atmosphere could possibly have an impact.

His argument is not about whether we are having an effect, but about the most likely extent of the long-term consequences. Which is a legitimate topic of scientific debate.

This is very different from people who just stick their head in the sand and say "la la la, nothing's happening, I can go on thoughtlessly dumping my waste much in the same way that my ancestors dumped their liquid and solid waste anywhere they felt like without thinking about what it might do afterwards".

Of course, people still ARE dumping their waste without thinking about what will happen to it. That's why we have the North Pacific Gyre.

I really wish that the whole issue was thought of more often as one of waste management, rather than "how much can we get away with before the climate changes", because that would make it more obvious that it's a dumb idea to keep wishing and hoping that our waste has no consequence.

[Brian]

Hillary Clinton trumpets climate change on every opportunity, yet she flies all over the place in her private jet (as does another climate change superhero, Leonardo di Caprio). Are you OK with that? Or is it that the hypocrisy of the Left is okay while the hypocrisy of the Right is not?

Are they buying carbon offsets?

Would you like to suggest a (safe) alternative method of travel? The American train system is rudimentary, and bicycling is impractical.

EDIT: After doing some Google searching, it appears that Leo does practice carbon offsets, and there is even a whole forest planted with his funds in Mexico. But rough third-party calculations suggest that he is not 100% "carbon neutral" - just that he contributes somewhat less to climate change than the average American, despite his wealth.

[Florestan]

I do still praise him, because he's making a careful and rational argument not merely based on wanting to outright deny that human beings pumping all of their gaseous waste into the atmosphere could possibly have an impact.

His argument is not about whether we are having an effect, but about the most likely extent of the long-term consequences. Which is a legitimate topic of scientific debate.

Precisely.

Let me quote him in full:

The 97% number first appeared in a "study" by several academics who sent out a survey to scientists with some climate change questions.  They recieved over 3146 responses, but they decided that only 77 of these respondents "counted" as climate scientists, and of these 75 of the 77 (97%) answered two questions about climate change in the affirmative.

[follows a slide that shows that questions shave been submitted to 10,257 out of 12,500 AUG members, answers have been received from 3,146 people, 77 of whom have been considered as coming from clkimate scientists]

We will get to the two questions in a second, but note already the odd study methodology.  If the other 10,000 plus people sent the survey were not the targets of the survey, why were they sent a survey in the first place?  It makes one suspicious that the study methodology was changed mid-stream to get the answer they wanted.

Anyway, what is even more fascinating is the two questions asked in the survey.  Here they are:

    When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The 97% in this survey answered the questions "risen" and "yes".

Do you see the irony here?  If you have been following along with this series, you should be able to say how I would have answered the two questions.  I would certainly have said "risen" to 1.  The answer to question 2 is a bit hard because "significant" is not defined, but in a complex system with literally thousands of variables, I would have said one of those variables was a significant contributor at anything over about 10%.  Since I estimated man's effect on past warming around 40-50%, I would have answered "yes" to #2!  In fact, most every prominent science-based skeptic I can think of would likely have answered the same.

So you heard it right -- I and many prominent skeptics are part of the 97% consensus.  Effectively, I am being told to shut up and not continue to say what I think, in the name of a 97% consensus that represents exactly what I am saying.  This is so weird as to be almost Kafka-esque.

This is very different from people who just stick their head in the sand and say "la la la, nothing's happening, I can go on thoughtlessly dumping my waste much in the same way that my ancestors dumped their liquid and solid waste anywhere they felt like without thinking about what it might do afterwards"

.

Can we agree that global warming / climate change is one topic, and waste / garbage management another, and that they are not necessarily related?

[Todd]

I really wish that the whole issue was thought of more often as one of waste management

I would suggest approaching climate change from a risk management perspective.  Certainty is not required to act, costs and benefits can be assessed and form a rational basis for policy making, and, as a side benefit, new financial products can be created to mitigate risk and make money. 

But rough third-party calculations suggest that he is not 100% "carbon neutral" - just that he contributes somewhat less to climate change than the average American, despite his wealth.

Anyone who owns a private jet is not carbon neutral.  And out of curiosity, what type of auditing is performed on the off-sets that are purchased?  Mr DiCaprio is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to substantive policy matters, but he lends a pretty face to the cause, so I guess that helps.

[Madiel]

Let me quote him in full:

How is that quote relevant? That's not remotely the bit of his writing that is about engaging with the science. That's just you going straight for the tiresome "they all lied" line of argument. The whole reason his writing impresses me is because criticising others forms such a small part of his writing.

Can we agree that global warming / climate change is one topic, and waste / garbage management another, and that they are not necessarily related?

No we can't. Not unless we can agree that public health is one topic, and management of liquid waste going into the waterways is another, and that they are not necessarily related.

[Florestan]

Would you like to suggest a (safe) alternative method of travel?

No. I am all for cars, planes, ships and other fossil-fuels burning transportation vehicles. What I am against is hypocrisy, both Right and Left.

EDIT: After doing some Google searching, it appears that Leo does practice carbon offsets, and there is even a whole forest planted with his funds in Mexico. But rough third-party calculations suggest that he is not 100% "carbon neutral" - just that he contributes somewhat less to climate change than the average American, despite his wealth.

Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of making a movie, especially a movie starring di Caprio? My right thumb tells me that we might be in for a big surprise.

[Madiel]

Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of making a movie, especially a movie starring di Caprio?

Yes, because there are examples of movies (and other forms of entertainment) which have aimed to be carbon-neutral.

[Florestan]

How is that quote relevant? That's not remotely the bit of his writing that is about engaging with the science. That's just you going straight for the tiresome "they all lied" line of argument. The whole reason his writing impresses me is because criticising others forms such a small part of his writing.

Hmmm.... I just remembered that when I stated a very true fact --- namely that Max Planck blew the then settled science in the face of all the all-too-convinced settlers --- you reproached me for not helping the political debate.

Can we at the very least agree that science is one thing and politics / policies another, and that they are not necessarily related?

[Florestan]

Yes, because there are examples of movies (and other forms of entertainment) which have aimed to be carbon-neutral.

All right. Please show me facts & figures & data showing that the latest di Caprio movie is carbon-neutral, or at least more carbon neutral than 1,000 John Does driiving his car to job and back home over the same period as it was needed to make the said movie.