WalkingOrders

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Believe me, I’m not taking your word for it. Nor am I being swayed by your words. 
 

I’ll keep to what I believe we need to do if we are to reverse the damage caused by man made climate change.  

It's economics 101

21 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

I've no idea what is your capital C country. I didn't ask for anything. I've no idea what you are talking about. But right now I am questioning your stability.

 

This is my first encounter reading some of your material so I've not yet formed a judgment as to how you think about climate change. I did not call you a denialist. I purposely used the plural "deniers", referring to the evident (if not mere sock account) abundance of whom participate in these and similar forums.

 

Questioning science does not determine denialism. Misrepresenting data does. Laying out facts is not being an alarmist.

I am from the United States. I live in Thailand. I have posted no material but have given you a website. The website is run by Judith Curry who you have labled as a denier., or posted materials I should say labeling her as a denier, someone worthy of ridicule. In fact, she is a bright academic now retired from that field who now is CEO of a Company which provides risk analysis to corporations on the subject of changing climate. 

The website, which I take you have found , provides a place for those with like minded views, as well as those who do not to provide material for debate on the subject of the Climate. It is very scientific, difficult to understand unless you are a professional in the field, but none the less is a great source for listening to both sides of debate on the minutia, as well as the big picture of the climate. I hope you find something constructive over there. If you post questions, you will get answers or posted in the right direction. There are materials there which are numbers based, and otherwise. judithcurry.com

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

According to who?

According to history my friend. Go back in time, and research what happens to the price of commodities when the price of oil spikes, and imagine what would happen to the price of oil if American oil and gas went off the market. 

You see that is the problem here, no one needs an "according to who" sometimes. Some things require someone to study and develop an opinion of how they see the objective realities of their world through their own intellect.

if you decrease production - price goes up - and a complete shutdown of the US fossil fuels industry would result in a price spike like the world has never seen.  Such a hike would then result in a equally insane hike in commodities which are shipped around the world, and priced in direct relation to the cost of that shipping.

Such a price hike in commodities would be shown immediately in the price of grain (bread), remember the Egyptian bread riots? 

But don't forget oil based fertilizers are also used around the world. Oh man it could get even uglier.

The spikes could then cause unrest as the poorest countries with the weakest Governments , or most corrupt begin to teeter. This becomes an out of control spiral. Now the richest of Nations would survive the storm, despite being hurt significantly, but the poorest, well you can figure it out.

But don't take my word for it....I am just giving an opinion based upon a broad knowledge of how things work. I mean I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Not in this case.

23 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

If the front-runner was anyone other than Bernie, the Dems wouldn't be freakin out.  The fear is not only losing to Trump, but down ballot as well (i.e., losing the House/Senate).  The problem is that most Dems are not as far left as Bernie.  I myself--who likes Bernie as a person--was rather uncomfortable watching him make all sorts of campaign promises, almost all of which will cost huge bucks.  South Carolina will be key.  If Bernie wins there, his chances on Super Tuesday increases significantly.   

I think Comrade Bernie will be the nominee.

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Are you American? If so, your post is the most ridiculous I have ever seen on TV.

Item: Withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Item: Appointment of an oil executive to the post of EPA Secretary

Item: The Red Queen's race of shale oil fracking.

 

Australians call it coming the raw prawn.

The Paris accord? Right, I am not for carrots given to anyone. Fracking? Has resulted in the lowest price of oil in years. The world's poor can afford bread! Remember $107 a barrel?

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I state my views when and where it is appropriate. 
 

One is I would like those in government to enact changes that meet the necessities outlined in the ipcc reports.

As example, I have no control over Thai, Lao, India, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Cambodian, or Chinese decision making. It does not matter what I say, or what I think. 

Likewise  I worry greatly when a Presidential candidate, uses Climate as a vote getting fundraising tool, and theatens - literally - to Nationalize the entire fossil fuels industry  and immediately cutail American fossil fuels production.

The result which would be an immediate hike in the price of oil to well above $100.00 a barrel, causing a likewise spike in the price of commofities like grain, and causing immediate suffering to those at the poorest margins, and tanking the global economy.

1 minute ago, thaicurious said:

Well, my first suggestion would be that you stop being so damned presumptuous. After you've regained some self control, I'd refer you back to a post you put your heart on wherein I laid out a general parameter of what I think reasonable (the specifics of which I might speculate but don't know that I can speak to well enough without further seeing some considered studies) :

 

 

Regardless, it seems silly if not futile to discuss solutions to climate change with climate deniers.

 

Not sure as to your thinking processes but you seem to be confusing some things. Besides that you had asked in two places what might be my position about which I'd already answered in a post you hearted, what you are commenting on here was my response to your prior complaint about no bylines, if I recall that conversation correctly. I was offering from the website about which you complained the approving voices of scientists and their identifications, their bylines, showing the website not devoid of these about which you complained. If you need further bylines, you can find them on the link I had provided for your review. Also you can search info on authors of posted articles on their search window.

 

For future reference, as to how I decide to answer a comment, be that by my own words or by words said by others, that's sort of entirely my decision, not at all yours.

 

Particularly in these ridiculous climate denial discussions I see no reason to reinvent the wheel on revolving disinformation for which the dubunking response is easily copy/pasted from better knowing others.

My Country IS doing the best it can  what more do you want? I am neither a denialist or an alarmist, except to say I deny the alarmist position. I deny scare tactics, I deny the science is settled, and view intense debate is demanded by science.

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Doesn't matter what my govt is, very few if any are taking real action.

 

Edit: I will concede those investing in renewable energy sources are moving in the right direction. I was being overly harsh above. However until we meet the recommendations of the IPCC, there is still work to be done.

Of course it matters, because that is the only Govt you have any control over via your participation. The only Gov you have any policy influence over. 

Are you here trying to influence other country's policy?

Some Govts are meeting IPCC recommendations. I for one do not believe that I should support offering carrots to Nations that do not, nor do I wish to interfere in those Nations to force them to do what should be voluntary.

I live in one of the most polluted cities in the world right now. Bangkok Thailand. All of South East Asia is covered in a sick cloud. Who do you wish to address your concerns to? The Paris accords are primarily about money, given, to somehow cause countries to do what they should already do. They are using climate as an extortion tool and I am not buying.

2 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Point being, how many get off their lazy a$$e$ and actually get out and vote? 

The apathetic voter. At the end of the day it's who both sides are always fighting for. People typically do not switch sides, they just get <deleted> off and stay home.

44 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The sentiment in 2016:

 

The democrat  Republican party is imploding. They are all cutting each other at the knees and will soon need to then, forgive and forget and get behind the last injured candidate standing.

A reflection of my earlier post regarding the neocon/neoliberal consensus being attacked from both sides.

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I claimed that people are bad? Really? Quote that post please.

 

Equally, where did I use the words “non-believers” and “apocalypse”? Again, quote the post please. 
 

I believe that there needs to be action taken at a governmental level that enacts the recommendations of the IPCC. 

What Government is yours, and how do you see them as deficient?

12 hours ago, thaicurious said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook....the site maintains a database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments put forth by those who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml

"this is the best resource for information on climate myths on the internet. I can't recommend it highly enough. They even have an iPhone app!"

Katharine Hayhoe
Professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University

 

"There's a great website called Skeptical Science that has sort of a list of all of the various myths about climate change that have become commonplace in sort of among those who deny the reality of climate change and the actual scientific responses."

Michael Mann
Director of the Earth System Science Center, Penn State

 

"It is extremely helpful that I can just point these people to Skeptical Science, so I don't need to answer the same things again and again."

Stefan Rahmstorf
Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University in Germany

 

"I frequently refer people to it. This is extraordinary in terms of advancing knowledge about climate change."

Naomi Oreskes
Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University, Co-author of Merchants of Doubt

 

"Skeptical Science is a fantastic resource for debunking misinformation about climate change..."

Simon Donner
Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia

 

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

I am sure you can speak in your own words. What is your position, and what are you saying needs to be done?

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Raised by boating parents some in the Caribbean back in the 70s and later in Florida, I've also seen the destruction while knowing what it's supposed to look like. Glad you'll take your kid to see what's left. But my last time down was my last time in a long time. My memory is that it once was about the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen. But the bleaching I saw on my last visit, there was so much of it, like an underwater ghost town, just makes me weep for the dead.

 

It is a horror what we've done to our planet.

 

 

So what is your suggestion, a ban on fossil fuels, the nationalization, and shutdown of the industry in your country?

12 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Plenty of links out there to the IPCC reports from the last few years,  their reports lay out what we need to do and how long we have until we enter a situation we can no longer prevent. .

I asked you a pretty direct question, you are the one claiming urgency  and we are bad people and all evidently because we are non-believers in a coming apocalypse. I've read the IPCC reports, tell me in your own words, how bad is it? What are we supposed to do? Ban fossil fuels? Nationalize the gas and oil Industry of the USA and shut it down? Ban container ships and Aircraft, what do you believe?

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

No need to shout, I can hear you.

Classic attacking the messenger, it's called ad hominem. The labels you are attempting to attach to me are wrong-headed. Ascribing sinister motives to me is BS.

The superiority of renewable energy is already being demonstrated in Australia, where fossil fuel generators are losing out badly, with a shrinking customer base. Tesla Powerwalls are only the beginning. Think back to what a computer or mobile phone looked like at the first iteration.

It's a facile argument I should be designing a program for saving the world, as someone who is retired and out of the picture. Electricity generated by solar and wind power, stored by mega-batteries, would be my answer. Did you know the latest Tesla performance vehicle leaves Mercs and BMW's in the weeds? There is no real reason why, with the exception of aircraft, all other forms of transport cannot be powered that way.

Keep leaving the sad icons on my posts, they just demonstrate your credentials as a nattering nabob of negativity.

If alternative sources are available, then they are used, a natural progression which the markets bring into play, one fuel source replaces another. This is simple economics. So if this is the case, then why are you on the left always screaming? You are screaming because you wish, correct me if I am wrong, to not follow this market mechanism you claim is already in play, and instead wish to force an abolition of fossil fuels. My contention here would be that alternatives to replace such a ban currently do not exist. You contend that they do, but if that were the case, then a transfer away from fossils would already happening. I agree that to certain degree this is happening, but no such replacement to support a fossil fuels ban exists.

If you believe otherwise, stop screaming at the rest of us and let the market do its job, just like it replaced whale oil.

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There are only two candidates in the running for the 2016 presidential election with personal ties to authoritarian regimes. They are Trump's ties to Putin and Bloomberg's ties to Xi.

Trump has no ties to Putin, read the Mueller report. Bloomberg is gone after Super Tuesday.

7 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Mr. Trump became president by the will of the people, as any Potus before him.

If Mr.Sanders become president it will be due to the will of the people.

i suppose no  one can contest this.

Now for sure a lot of people are easily influenced, but that is the case in every situation.

 

Mr Trump, and all Presidents before him, has never claimed to be a socialist, and never heaped praise on any socialist regime.

These facts, and they are facts, etched in stone, are not lost upon the American people.

Bernie Sanders is a Communist, an agitator, who like all Communists agitates against the capitalist world. Like other communists before him who came to power in elections, he claims to be pro-democracy. 

I do not trust anyone who claims to be a socialist. I fear socialism grabbing the reins of power in the USA.

This past year Sanders said he wants to throw CEOs of oil companies into jail.

He said he wants to nationalize the entire Energy sector.

He supports decriminalization of crossing the US border illegally

He will decriminalize drug use, beyond legalizing marijuana, presumably decriminalizing crack, meth, and heroin.

He wants instant amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens inside the United States. 

He wants to give free medical to all illegal aliens and non US citizens who manage to step foot into the USA.

No I will not tolerate this, nor will the vast majority of US voters, who simply want a stable economy to be maintained, and believe the Founding Fathers were always speaking for the Citizens of the USA, and no one else!

5 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

  That "dude sitting on the back of his truck in Texas" doesn't want his taxes to increase by 20%, or 30%, or 50%.  That's what he's "gonna not like about it".  

And...

Don't Mess With Texas ????

I like this guy's happy face. He is very happy about this. Confident. Cool.

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The post of yours i quoted is the only one I've seen making a claim the world will end in 1o years.

 

I've made no such claim.

OK fair enough how urgent is it?