52 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Perhaps no one can be bothered.

Exactly, and that speaks volumes about alarmists. Reason not in the vocabulary. Totalitarianism is.

29 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

So the children are CITIZENS therefore under current law, not illegal. Have the right to vote and perhaps exerviced the right.Under current law

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Yes, children born in the United States, for example an illegal alien has a baby in the back of a coyote van as it speeds across the border is currently a US citizen. That child one day will vote. 

Now multiply this event by 20 million illegal aliens allowed to enter and stay in the USA, and what do you have? A rapidly changing demographic in one generation. That can never be changed. Forever.

Crazy huh? Born during GW Bush, a voter today.

If you think I am trying to deny this horrible fact - I am not. 

I do favor closing this anchor baby loophole.

What was your point?

And no one here is yet to offer a criticism of my critique of the article that launched this thread!

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It is meretricious to claim people will starve if oil production is cut. It's more likely Americans will get  healthier. They might have to walk or use bicycles.

I read a statistic some time ago that the USA, with 5% of the world's population, consumes about 40% of the world's resources.

If we leave the Polynesians out, who have a genetic predisposition,  the next nation in terms of obesity levels is the USA.

Face it, Americans are pigs at a trough, and they are squealing because their swill may be taken away from them.

 

Ok, you cut oil production and this is what happens. Price goes up. Disagree? Go ahead present an economic argument.

If oil price goes up, the price of shipping rises, as well as all transportation. Disagree? Present an argument.

If shipping price is up, and price of ferilizers up, the price of food commodities go up. Disagree? Present your economic argument.

Now what happens to bring prices down if production is high, but the price goes down, typically that is global recession. And that is not good. As I said earlier, what do you want? My Govt is the USA, we cannot force other countries to pay for catalytic converters for their autos, or filter and recapture systems for their coal plants.

Nor do I support insane ideas of disrupting the global economy, or offering economic incintives to other countries to save themselves.

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

We do disagree, I accept the fact that man made climate is real and action needs to be taken

I have no argument that there is man made Co2, but I disagree as to the amount caused by man, and I believe that not enough is known regarding this process, and of other processes feedback loops involved. I also strongly disagree with mitigation efforts, that could cause far more problems then those they purport to fix. Additionally, more needs to be put into how to learn with it, then believing there is a magic bullet of shutting down fossil fuels, without any thought to what that means and how it would transform the world, potentially to extreme negative effect.

I object strongly to people claiming all the science is settled, and the use of climate as a left wing umbrella scare tactic fundraising tool.

And I object to vague generalities made "Action needs to be taken" that carry within them a threat of doom.

Likewise I most strongly object to conversation with anyone who does not understand the monetary issues involved with the Paris Accords as this indicatesvI am speaking to someone with absolutely zero understanding of both sides of the issue. If someone does not understand both sides of an argument  then frankly they know nothing at all about what they are even talking about, and cannot even make a cogent argument at all, and cannot even understand the meaning of their own position let alone someone elses.

On 2/24/2020 at 5:37 AM, RJRS1301 said:

Please inform us as to when "illegals" got the right to vote??

I am interested that government does not appear to be one cooperation, but one of adversity of parties on pure ideology, without governing for ALL citizens

When illegal aliens enter the United States illegally, they are not citizens. When they have children, under current court interpretation of US law, those children instantly are citizens regardless of the status of their parents. Someone who swam a river into the USA, 2001  and became pregnant soon after has produced a Democrat voter. For the effect of this see Orange County California. And by the way this woman likely has not had one child, more likely its 5 or 6.

As if that is not enough California municipalities, and other democrat enclaves, ARE enacting laws giving illegal aliens voting rights in local elections. A dangerous step which is designed to eventually franchise them as voters nationally. 

If that is not enough, they are pushing for blanket amnesty and citizenship path for all 20 million. They also want all of them to have free medical, free University, etc. 

Illegal Aliens are NOT citizens of the United States, because they were NOT invited into the United States.

Before charges of racism begin, let me say that I am not opposed to the USA, the most diverse country in the world, having a robust immigration system, that takes in people from all over the world, who desire to be part of OUR way of life.

But that does not mean that 80% of our immigrants are supposed to be uneducated Guatamalans and Hondurans who cannot read and write in Spanish let alone English.

I support sealing the Southern border with Fencing.

I support a chipped and barcoded social security card including photo which must be used for employment, and strictly enforced.

With that in place I expect self deportation of illegals once they realize no work is available.

Until that happens I support a moritorium on all immigration from central America.

Once that happens I support re-opening immigration to the needs of the USA, including paths to citizenship for certain categories of workers, such as temporary farm workers from the Countries mentioned.

But never will I support a citizenship path for law breakers.

With regard to DACA, or so called dreamers, I support this category as being looked at Seperately with strict guidelines. 

I support ammending US law to prohibit instant citizenship for so called anchor babies, of illegal aliens.

12 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Early on I posted this but I will again but this time I will be more specific.

 

This is the Headline of the Article we are discussing in this thread. Read it carefully:

 

“Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist”

 

A Reuters summary reads:

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Global warming was leading to an “irreversible” mass melting of the Antarctic ice and purging carbon from the atmosphere was the only solution to slow the process, an Australian climate scientist told Reuters on Wednesday.

 

 

Inside of the article, however, we find this: (My bolds for emphasis)

 

“Recent human activity has intensified global warming, which could result in a mass melting...”

 

“The study showed the world could lose most of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed and is fringed by floating ice, in a warmer world. “

 

“What we’re seeing with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that this starting of the melt, once we reach a certain threshold, will continue despite our efforts to stop it,” she told Reuters.

 

“The team hopes to continue the research to determine how quickly the ice sheets responded...”

 

“If hotter temperatures were to sustain they could cause an extreme global sea level rise. “

 

The Rest of the article contains a series of unsupported assumptions. Obviously political and aimed at the Australian Government.

 

Now I ask you, to please read the bolds above and ask yourself these questions what does COULD mean?

 

What is the certain threshold?

 

What have they determined? Anything? How fast?

 

What does IF...were to sustain mean? For how long? What temperatures? Do you see the smoke and mirrors here?

 

I am not claiming that the research pointed to in this article is not valid, and even perhaps correct, it could very well be, but the article that is using this research is absolute garbage designed to instill fear and present the research in a manner which is simply untrue.

 

I direct your attention again to the articles title and summary. Remember – this article – is NOT the research. You would have to read the paper directly.

Again, read the above, it is about the article discussion here, and about how the headline and summation, distort the content, and how the content gives nothing in the form of evidence to support a damn thing. In short, an alarm bell article that gives evidence for nothing

49 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

given the incompetence demonstrated by everyone involved in climate science,

i would want to verify the test setup myself before i buy any of it,

and i also dismiss hypothesis of heat 'already having a massive negative effect',

too many of these has embarrassed them self with imbecilic predictions of

doom.

heres but a taste of the endless gibberish that we are being fed with 3 times a day

 

https://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/

 

Again, as the subject here is a magazine article  I invite all to read my earlier post about THIS magazine article, which shows quite clearly how, this article distorts the underlying research it draws from for political purpose, which is why, while interesting, they are worthless as a source of truth about climate research. 

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We are are not debating with Judith Curry here, she’s not as far as I am aware a member of TVF.

 

 

Some people are, in fact, attempting to debate Judith curry here. You are late to the party.

14 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Not really, no it isn’t. 
 

Economics 101 is we only have one habitual planet and unless we act it will no longer be fit for purpose. 

Act? Sure, shall we cut oil production? Depress the global economy, put people out of work, make them hungry, destabilize their Govts, and all for theoretical effect on modeled Co2 rise? We disagree, on the science. Accept that.

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

When you write caricaturing nonsense like "I refuse to be lectured into accepting a belief that the end is near." you kind of undermine your pretense of rationality.

Articulate your position. do your best. Don't use a magazine article to do it please.

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's funny. On one of John Oliver's shows he tellingly illustrated the problem with your approach. The way the global warming dispute, such as it is, is depicted on cable news, with 1 pro and 1 con, lead to the public misconstruing the state of opinion in the community of climatologists. So instead of having 1 pro and 1 con, Oliver brought on 97 scientists (well, actors in lab coats) on the pro side of global warming and 3 on the anti side. The point is Curry is part of a small and reactionary community of mostly has-beens and cranks. People who can't adjust to a new way of doing science. And we can see that their predictions have proven to be wrong time and time again. Yet instead of critiquing themselves and their models, they continue to critique the scientists who have predicted it right.

You have yet to articulate what exactly YOUR view is. You can quote all day long but you are not very good at saying what it is you are advocating. Here let me go there again. What do you want? What do you think? What are you trying to accomplish? What Government is your own that you are trying to influence? And to what end? What are you asking of those who are not in line with the consensus view? What do you want of us? You still do not review my review of the article here. Its very clear how magazines manipulate Research papers for political purposes. That is why I do not put much faith in them but prefer to look direct at research when I can. A difficult path. So to my questions? My position is simple. The science is not settled, nor are the best paths forward to mitigate. 

25 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess that means you are disqualified. To borrow from one of your countrymen who seems to be no longer with us, discussion with you is like pounding sand down a rathole.

You have shown no evidence whatsoever you are interested in listening to anyone else on this thread. Humble and desiring to learn? Yeah right.

Here shall I say again, I am not one of the ones here who is a true believer, asking anyone to accept anything I say as the Gospel. Must I fall to my knees and beg forgiveness for denying the consensus view? I refuse to be lectured into accepting a belief that the end is near. Got that? I refuse! Science is not Religion kids.

On 2/23/2020 at 2:48 PM, spidermike007 said:

I travel back there twice a year, for a month or more. It is not that the environment is dismal, though the big cities in California are dreadful, with the tens of thousands of homeless, being pushed out by rents of $3,000 or more. Over 30% of the homeless population are fully employed, yet cannot afford a home. Unless you are in the top 20%, the quality of life is truly dismal. A constant struggle for most, despite all of the bragging about how dynamic the economy is. It is, for the top 20%. 

 

It is more about the attitude, and the pessimism, and the disappointment of most Americans. They do not appear to be enjoying their lives. The fulfillment level feels very low. I see it with my own eyes, every time I go back. The men barely even date anymore, and the women seem to be getting more militant, and less feminine by the day. It is truly a sad environment.

 

Congrats on your move to Thailand. I love it here. After 30 days in the US, I cannot wait to get back!

You know you are someone I would love to have some more in depth conversation with. I feel your pain. But I see things differently as to the way to repair the damage. Let me know when you arrive in Thailand we can meet and have a chat. I've lived on the streets. 

20 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

In case you missed it, "illegals" cannot participate in the US electoral system as they do not have voting rights. In addition, many states have structured their voting laws to  gerrymander district boundaries, and to impose registratation obstacles  to disenfranchise  latinos and afro americans. 

You just keep on spouting your extreme discriminatory  statements as you have eroded your credibility and are painting yourself as a petty bigot. Newsflash: Not all Republicans are bigots and not all Republicans  share your ignorant views.

In case it is difficult to understand, when two illegal aliens meet and find each other attractive, they mate, and they have babies. Their babies get instant US Citizenship. They then grow up and vote. For examples see Orange County California. Thank you. 

On 2/23/2020 at 8:25 AM, earlinclaifornia said:

Truth is without trumps support, Bernine and the upcoming HARD left turn would not be possible.

I will remember this post when they debate. Good luck in the Primaries I am definitely hoping for his becoming the Democrat nominee. Hasta la Victoria Siempre camarada!

1 minute ago, brokenbone said:

every plant that goes into a greenhouse adapt to 1500 ppm in an instant,

its safe to say every plant will adapt to 1500 in an instant,

and not only adapt in an instant, but thrive in an instant

You know.... earlier on here, someone asked me to provide a source that when the production levels of oil go down, the price of oil goes up, and the price of commodities goes up. They wanted a magazine article to prove that crazy idea I had! ???? 

I find it absolutely comical that someone would spend so much time here debating Judith Curry with non-scientists using magazine articles from her detractors, but refuses to go over and debate with the woman herself. If someone has such a problem with her but refuses to debate her or even discuss the points, to find common ground, or prove her wrong, or learn something, or speak with scientists who are in agreement or even disagreement with her, it speaks volumes. 

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1. The point is your assertions wrt to science that is only acceptable if you or those you argue with have read the actual scientific papers.

 

2. I’m not ‘following’ you.

 

3. It appears from your posting history that it is you who is trolling ( refer your statements wrt needing to have read scientific papers).

I suggest you scroll up and read my take on the article that prompted this thread. Go ahead. Please respond. I detail the differences between an Article written, versus the Research Paper that is being written about. They often are two different things. Perhaps we can agree on that?  SEE #262

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

She's at it again:

Plausible scenarios for climate change: 2020-2050

Posted on February 13, 2020 by curryja | 206 Comments

by Judith Curry

A range of scenarios for global mean surface temperature change between 2020 and 2050, derived using a semi-empirical approach. All three modes of natural climate variability – volcanoes, solar and internal variability – are expected to act in the direction of cooling during this period.

https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/13/plausible-scenarios-for-climate-change-2020-2050/#more-25721

I am sure you are smarter then all of that right? You are a Phd in Climate science who taught at one of the most prestigious science universities in the world?

A thread presenting both sides of Ocean acidification:

https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/19/ocean-acidification-discussion-thread/

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t ever gat on an aircraft to fly anywhere unless you have read and understood all the science of aerodynamics, metallurgy, strength of materials, jet engine thermodynamics, hydraulics, electronics, navigation, automatic control, and at the point of landing, tire materials strength.... etc.

If I fly on an airplane, I would not think that I have then the knowledge to discuss with you what goes into the metallurgy involved and how it could be improved or how the plane could be made to fly better, or how the engine did not get me there fast enough and then claim I am an engineer able to fine tune it etc etc etc...what is your point? other then following me and trolling?