And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[amw]

Whatever else,it's an interesting horse race.

A horse race is certainly preferable to Dementia Joe sliding to victory without breaking a sweat. I hope for future improvements in Sanders and Warren's positions as things get closer to Iowa.

(Harris seems to have given up running for president and is instead running to become the next president's AG but I suppose she still has an outside chance if Biden fans decide to ditch him)

[greg]

What's this news about Tulsi Gabbard dropping out soon?
Of course the most bipartisan candidate would have to. 

[JBS]

I don't claim expertise of climate science. However, I don't fall for fossile fuel industry propaganda either. I'm not THAT stupid.

Yes, smaller fluctuations happen fast*, but drastic changes comparable to what has happened during the last 100 years takes long. Look at the black thick curve (1800-present). That's humans (industrial revolution). So different from what was before (years 0-1800).

* Say 0.1 K change in global mean tempetature trend in 100 years.

If that's the chart I think it is, it uses cherrypicked data to give the impression that  the rate of change is faster than it really is. It understates temperature change in earlier times and overstates temperature change in modern times. Result, it gets people to say OMG! based in manipulation.

Even it is an honest chart, it merely shows correlation. The evidence for causation is remarkably thin, especially when you understand that although we know rather little about nonhuman factors in climate change, what we know suggests all of the change can be accounted for by nonhuman factors.

Which illustrates my main point.

You are assuming the information you get from AGW advocates is impartial and honest. It's actually biased and subject to manipulation. AGW advocates can look towards government grants and money from the  industries that would benefit from development of alternate energy. So they have as much motivation to mislead the public as the ones who work for the fossil fuel. Be as skeptical of the advocates on your own side as you are of the ones who advocate for the other side.  They are not trying to inform you, they are trying to persuade you. That means the information you get from them is edited and arranged. It's not impartial.

Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.

[North Star]

If that's the chart I think it is, it uses cherrypicked data to give the impression that  the rate of change is faster than it really is. It understates temperature change in earlier times and overstates temperature change in modern times. Result, it gets people to say OMG! based in manipulation.

Even it is an honest chart, it merely shows correlation. The evidence for causation is remarkably thin, especially when you understand that although we know rather little about nonhuman factors in climate change, what we know suggests all of the change can be accounted for by nonhuman factors.

Which illustrates my main point.

You are assuming the information you get from AGW advocates is impartial and honest. It's actually biased and subject to manipulation. AGW advocates can look towards government grants and money from the  industries that would benefit from development of alternate energy. So they have as much motivation to mislead the public as the ones who work for the fossil fuel. Be as skeptical of the advocates on your own side as you are of the ones who advocate for the other side.  They are not trying to inform you, they are trying to persuade you. That means the information you get from them is edited and arranged. It's not impartial.

Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.

These charts below from NASA and NOAA are more cherrypicking, I guess? (here's Poju's chart. 'It' doesn't understate or overstate anything, as it is a composite of 11 different reconstructions. You're welcome to show that the compiler cherry-picked or altered the 11 reconstructions to manipulate the resulting chart and to prove your earlier claim.)  And I see you already offer the correlation is not proof of causation defense next. We know since John Tyndall and Svante Arhus in the 19th century of the greenhouse effect, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has a dramatic effect on Earth's surface temperatures. Can you point out an alternative explanation for the correlation between atmospheric CO₂ levels and changes in Earth's climate? I suspect forest fires increasing with the temperature rise will not be enough to explain the recent rise.
And then, you try to prove that those who have shown with scientific methods that the science showing man-made climate change is scientifically true, are just as dishonest as those who try to show that science is wrong, or that science is not certain, or that science is corrupt because scientists want money for their solar energy plants? Maybe you should show us a chart that displays how a scientist's expressed views on climate change correlate with the money on their bank accounts. After that you would only have to refute the science. You say that these are just two sides to a story? "A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie", to quote The Wire...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

[drogulus]

     The difference between past warming and cooling periods and the present one is that now it's global and in the same direction. This hasn't been true in past human history, though scientists once believed that warming and cooling periods were global in nature, that's no longer the case.

     Government funds all kinds of science. I'm not cynical about any of it. Selective cynicism about human engineered climate change is no more justified than cynicism about government supported research into the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It's not a "two sides" thing between the tobacco lobby and oncologists.

     Climate change is being caused by human intervention and we have government sponsored research to thank for much of our knowledge of it. And it's plain false to suggest that scientists do not consider correlation vs causation in their investigations. They didn't forget about the distinction.

     

These charts below from NASA and NOAA are more cherrypicking, I guess? (here's Poju's chart. 'It' doesn't understate or overstate anything, as it is a composite of 11 different reconstructions. You're welcome to show that the compiler cherry-picked the 11 reconstructions to manipulate the resulting chart and to prove your earlier claim.)  And I see you already offer the correlation is not proof of causation defense next. We know since John Tyndall and Svante Arhus in the 19th century of the greenhouse effect, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has a dramatic effect on Earth's surface temperatures. Can you point out an alternative explanation for the correlation between atmospheric CO₂ levels and changes in Earth's climate? I suspect forest fires increasing with the temperature rise will not be enough to explain the recent rise.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

      Dammmm! I was just about to link to the charts from the NASA and NOAA "advocates" the cynics don't trust.
     

[JBS]

These charts below from NASA and NOAA are more cherrypicking, I guess? (here's Poju's chart. 'It' doesn't understate or overstate anything, as it is a composite of 11 different reconstructions. You're welcome to show that the compiler cherry-picked the 11 reconstructions to manipulate the resulting chart and to prove your earlier claim.)  And I see you already offer the correlation is not proof of causation defense next. We know since John Tyndall and Svante Arhus in the 19th century of the greenhouse effect, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has a dramatic effect on Earth's surface temperatures. Can you point out an alternative explanation for the correlation between atmospheric CO₂ levels and changes in Earth's climate? I suspect forest fires increasing with the temperature rise will not be enough to explain the recent rise.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

1) Temperature reconstructions from premodern times are by their nature speculative.
2) Even in the modern period, temperature comparisons are usually not completely completely on point because human construction can impact microclimate.
Which means that the data is not as reliable as you think it is. (And if human action is the cause of increasing CO2 levels, thre would be less fluctuation in prehuman eras and a faster rate before 1950.)
3) The point is, we do not know enough about natural factors like solar flares, etc. to say that CO2 is the only, or even the most important, reason.  We don't even know enough about the greenhouse effect: it may actually have a cooling effect.
Hence, the most reasonable attitude is skepticism if anyone claims CO2 is the main reason.
(Forest fires may have an impact, in that they result in less CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis.)

[Karl Henning]

If that's the chart I think it is, it uses cherrypicked data to give the impression that  the rate of change is faster than it really is. It understates temperature change in earlier times and overstates temperature change in modern times. Result, it gets people to say OMG! based in manipulation.

Even it is an honest chart, it merely shows correlation. The evidence for causation is remarkably thin, especially when you understand that although we know rather little about nonhuman factors in climate change, what we know suggests all of the change can be accounted for by nonhuman factors.

Which illustrates my main point.

You are assuming the information you get from AGW advocates is impartial and honest. It's actually biased and subject to manipulation. AGW advocates can look towards government grants and money from the  industries that would benefit from development of alternate energy. So they have as much motivation to mislead the public as the ones who work for the fossil fuel. Be as skeptical of the advocates on your own side as you are of the ones who advocate for the other side.  They are not trying to inform you, they are trying to persuade you. That means the information you get from them is edited and arranged. It's not impartial.

Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.

Poju islike Trump: he's always right, so he need never change his mind.

[schnittkease]

Poju islike Trump: he's always right, so he need never change his mind.

The same can be said for everyone else on this thread...   

[North Star]

1) Temperature reconstructions from premodern times are by their nature speculative.

If you mean that they are not based on thermometer readings, you are correct. That doesn't mean that the methods used by scientists (coral skeletons, tree rings, glacial ice cores, etc) allow for errors of the magnitude that would result in the recent development looking unexceptional.

2) Even in the modern period, temperature comparisons are usually not completely completely on point because human construction can impact microclimate.
Which means that the data is not as reliable as you think it is. (And if human action is the cause of increasing CO2 levels, thre would be less fluctuation in prehuman eras and a faster rate before 1950.)

Oh, so global warming is just the misrepresentation of the thermometers in Vancouver and Oslo that were originally in the forest, suddenly being inside an office building.

Nobody suggested that human action is the only thing that can raise CO₂ levels. The point is, The recent trend is something totally different than the fluctuation caused by volcanoes and weather.

3) The point is, we do not know enough about natural factors like solar flares, etc. to say that CO2 is the only, or even the most important, reason.  We don't even know enough about the greenhouse effect: it may actually have a cooling effect.
Hence, the most reasonable attitude is skepticism if anyone claims CO2 is the main reason.

Solar flares etc have existed for a long time, and so have variations in those. The climate has warmed faster than ever since the industrial revolution, according to the best means we have to measure that. Is there any reason to think that solar flares etc are suddenly having a more dramatic effect than ever before?

[drogulus]

1) Temperature reconstructions from premodern times are by their nature speculative.
2) Even in the modern period, temperature comparisons are usually not completely completely on point because human construction can impact microclimate.
Which means that the data is not as reliable as you think it is. (And if human action is the cause of increasing CO2 levels, thre would be less fluctuation in prehuman eras and a faster rate before 1950.)
3) The point is, we do not know enough about natural factors like solar flares, etc. to say that CO2 is the only, or even the most important, reason.  We don't even know enough about the greenhouse effect: it may actually have a cooling effect.
Hence, the most reasonable attitude is skepticism if anyone claims CO2 is the main reason.
(Forest fires may have an impact, in that they result in less CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis.)

     All of these factors go into the scientific consensus. I doubt if I have thought of any objections they haven't already considered.

     I have thought of something else, though, a kind of counter objection. If the human induced climate change theory is wrong, you have an enormous greenhouse gas input that is doing effectively nothing. It's there, but an unknown something else is responsible for the changes. Now you have 2 puzzles, a massive effect with no cause, and a massive cause with no effect.

     Causation is a matter of predictive strength. Climate science has great predictive power and it's only getting more precise.

[71 dB]

Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.

I am a cynic, not least because of people like you. That doesn't mean I can't evaluate the degree of which I can trust different sources of information. The US is a curious place in that corporations can finance pseudoscience and make people distrust real science to protect their short term profits and the corporate media calls it 50-50. It's different elsewhere.

[71 dB]

Poju islike Trump: he's always right, so he need never change his mind.

Nonsense. Three years ago I thought Hillary Clinton was a good candidate because I didn't know much about American politics. Trump's victory made me realize I need better understanding/knowledge and what you know I found out she was a bad candidate. I was totally wrong and I have changed my mind about Hillary Clinton quite dramatically since.

In fact I think we Europeans have this general idea that the Dems are the "good" guys when most of them are almost as corrupt or as corrupt as the Republicans. Maybe we Europeans have been naive in thinking the US is a beacon of democracy and western freedom (brainwashed by american movies and cultural influence and what not) so at least one party has to be the good guys. Well, after Trump's victory when I started to follow american politics I was in for a big shock: There is no real democracy but oligarchy and only a handful of politicians are actually "good guys".

[Muzio]

I say, keep Tulsi Gabbard in mind.  IMO, she is going to play a much bigger role in the primaries than most people think.  She is not going to allow the DNC to shove her aside so inofficiously and discourteously after she performed the surgical takedown of Heels-up Harris.  Some suggest she may threaten to run as an independent, or worse yet (better yet?) endorse our current sublime President.  In other news:

Biden is now polling at 19 percent behind Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are both at 20 percent, in the Monmouth University Poll.

"Biden has suffered an across the board decline in his support since June.  He lost ground with white Democrats (from 32% to 18%) and voters of color (from 33% to 19%), among voters without a college degree (from 35% to 18%) and college graduates (from 28% to 20%), with both men (from 38% to 24%) and women (from 29% to 16%), and among voters under 50 years old (from 21% to 6%) as well as voters aged 50 and over (from 42% to 33%).  Most of Biden's lost support in these groups shifted almost equally toward Sanders and Warren," Monomouth found.

NATIONAL POLL: Early #2020 Dem preference:

20% @BernieSanders (UP 6 pts from June)
20% @EWarren (UP 5)
19% @JoeBiden (DOWN 13)
---------------------------------
8% @KamalaHarris
4% @CoryBooker
4% @PeteButtigieg
3% @AndrewYang
2% @JulianCastro
2% @BetoORourke
2% @MarWilliamson

[JBS]

I am a cynic, not least because of people like you. That doesn't mean I can't evaluate the degree of which I can trust different sources of information. The US is a curious place in that corporations can finance pseudoscience and make people distrust real science to protect their short term profits and the corporate media calls it 50-50. It's different elsewhere.

News flash.
It happens everywhere.
Even in Finland.

[Karl Henning]

The same can be said for everyone else on this thread...   

I'm sure not, and not only of myself.

But, your opinion is noted.

[SimonNZ]

our current sublime President. 

Trump suggests 'nuking hurricanes' to stop them hitting America – report


Definition of the adjective "sublime" from Merriam-Webster:

1a : lofty, grand, or exalted in thought, expression, or manner
b : of outstanding spiritual, intellectual, or moral worth
c : tending to inspire awe usually because of elevated quality (as of beauty, nobility, or grandeur) or transcendent excellence

[71 dB]

Trump suggests 'nuking hurricanes' to stop them hitting America – report

Since stronger and more frequent extreme weather conditions are a result of climate change, Trump literally wants to fight climate change by nuking the weather... 

[Muzio]

Definition of the adjective "sublime" from Merriam-Webster:

1a : lofty, grand, or exalted in thought, expression, or manner
b : of outstanding spiritual, intellectual, or moral worth
c : tending to inspire awe usually because of elevated quality (as of beauty, nobility, or grandeur) or transcendent excellence

Spot on.  Also, this:

[Karl Henning]

The same can be said for everyone else on this thread...   

You may recall that when you called me for being unfair to your esteemed self, I apologized, for I was indeed in the wrong, and you pointed this out with tactful restraint.
,
Your present remark makes for an interesting sequel, but that is your affair.

The case for your rather glib "but you're all the same" riposte will be strengthened by pointing out where Poju has apologized for calling anyone who disagrees with him "stupid" or "brainwashed."

Your search is apt to take quite some time, time which you may wish to dedicate to endeavors likelier to meet success.

[71 dB]

How can a nation be totally divided without somebody being brainwashed?