Leonardo DiCaprio meets with Trump on green jobs to boost economy

[ilostmypassword]

On 12/10/2016 at 0:20 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump promised jobs. He never supported man made climate change theory. If he is keeping his promise on jobs that would make him the first president in 9 years to do so.

Trump isn't stupid, and he has children. If he was given real proof that if he didn't do something his children would die I'm sure he would do something. If Obama has any real proof that climate change is caused by man and is reversible by something he can do, why hasn't he done it already?

Such ignorance Obama did try via executive order. He didn't have a chance to implement change via legislation since the Republicans are so implacably opposed to it. Do you have any knowledge at all of the American political scene?

Edited December 11, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

On 12/10/2016 at 0:20 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump promised jobs. He never supported man made climate change theory. If he is keeping his promise on jobs that would make him the first president in 9 years to do so.

Trump isn't stupid, and he has children. If he was given real proof that if he didn't do something his children would die I'm sure he would do something. If Obama has any real proof that climate change is caused by man and is reversible by something he can do, why hasn't he done it already?

As has been pointed out, if Donald Trump pulled saved the equivalent of one Carrier Plant a week, it would take him 30 years to do what Obama did in saving the US auto industry.

[ilostmypassword]

On 12/10/2016 at 0:20 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump promised jobs. He never supported man made climate change theory. If he is keeping his promise on jobs that would make him the first president in 9 years to do so.

Trump isn't stupid, and he has children. If he was given real proof that if he didn't do something his children would die I'm sure he would do something. If Obama has any real proof that climate change is caused by man and is reversible by something he can do, why hasn't he done it already?

You are to be congratulated for coming up with a way of telling truth from falsehood that is clearly superior to the scientific method. As I understand it, your proof rests on the indubitable fact that heads of government are basically very rational and knowledgeable and not at all influenced by their prejudices or immediate self-interest. Therefore, even if an overwhelming percentage of scientists say that such and such is the case, it can't be true of these leaders don't believe it.  I believe that the Nobel Prize for well everything will soon be on its way to you.

[radiochaser]

On 12/8/2016 at 3:03 AM, honu said:

In this case the actors are repeating the concerns of climatologists, the universal consensus of all of the climate scientists around the world, except for those paid directly by oil companies and other fossil-fuel interests to express lies.  In general the point is valid though, and saving the world can become a bit of a comedy, especially when they are more a part of the problem than the average person.  

 

The real scandal is that the average guy on the street that isn't paid to have an opinion or hasn't been reading fake news sites or listening to Rush Limbaugh could possess the briefest awareness of the subject, and the accurate knowledge that of course climate change is occurring.

 

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#40c7670c171b

[honu]

I did a research paper on this over a decade ago, and things weren't so different then, just a lot worse in a short period of time now.

 

That was towards the end of the Bush administration, and they'd cleaned up any of the US government sites related to admitting climate change was happening.  But the evidence was overwhelming then, the scientific consensus clear, now that much more undeniable.  I wanted to mention some of my own speculation instead of that though.  If someone really thinks that climate change isn't happening they're well beyond facts and graphs.

 

Reading between the lines, it really seemed too late to fix it then.  CO2 levels were out of control, a good bit over the highest in recent history (on the millions of years scale), nothing like now when they're much higher.  Scientists could only guess then what would happen next, and how fast, and they're still just working with theories now.  The conservative estimates of a 2 to 4 degrees rise in temperatures over the next century could be way, way off, and that could happen in the next few decades, or worse.  The problem isn't just that, it's that cutting back emissions by a substantial fraction (less than half) doesn't solve anything, because the problem keeps getting worse, just worsening that much slower.

 

The other thing that stood out was that there was only stable climate in the past 10,000 years (the smear on the edge of one of these graphs; it shows up better in a much shorter time span).  It's probably not a coincidence that's the time period since the stone age ended, the time of human civilization.  Things might get a lot less pleasant than they were prior to that 10,000 years, the likes of which humans have no records of experiencing.  The half million years before were relatively hard times, quite inconsistent, but there's no guarantee it won't be much worse since we've changed the balance of inputs.  

 

Consistent agriculture might not work very well, counting on long term weather patterns for routine growing seasons.  I don't mean like California drought now, or floods, or the polar vortexes, a next level of changes should be coming.  Some relatively inhabitable areas now might improve, but the inconsistency could be the big problem, since without vaguely reliable weather patterns agriculture just isn't going to work.  People might learn to live off algae instead of crops, or something like that, from work on soylent now (really), so it's not all gloom and doom, but the scale of the problem isn't really being discussed much.  Terraforming the Earth might be all but required to get back to "normal," and we have absolutely no idea how to accomplish that sort of thing, not even good science fiction to draw on.  There really isn't even a "normal" since the Holocene--which just ended--was atypical; climate is never that stable.

[MajarTheLion]

On 12/9/2016 at 9:34 PM, piewarmer said:

yes but it should be slow, over hundreds of years at least, if you see the data on Co2 its a massive spike caused by you and me and its rising off the scale. The nay sayers show data that's not up to date, check the data showing this year as well. If you do you should be stunned. This one is from NASA.

Remember the Ozone layer problem, everyone pulled together across the globe, now its stable and shrinking. That was kids play compared to the sacrifices we must undertake. the only way is to make it unprofitable to be a polluter.

 

 

 

So you assert that going from 0.00003% CO2 to 0.00004% CO2 is causing this supposed catastrophe? Seriously? And how much would you like to be penalized for polluting?

[lannarebirth]

On 12/9/2016 at 7:34 PM, piewarmer said:

yes but it should be slow, over hundreds of years at least, if you see the data on Co2 its a massive spike caused by you and me and its rising off the scale. The nay sayers show data that's not up to date, check the data showing this year as well. If you do you should be stunned. This one is from NASA.

Remember the Ozone layer problem, everyone pulled together across the globe, now its stable and shrinking. That was kids play compared to the sacrifices we must undertake. the only way is to make it unprofitable to be a polluter.

 

 

 

I happen to agree with you, but answer me this; why is it the World's greatest polluters are given the most leniency in cleaning up their pollutive ways and those who have already made great strides in minimizing pollution are asked to do much more?

[piewarmer]

12 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

So you assert that going from 0.00003% CO2 to 0.00004% CO2 is causing this supposed catastrophe? Seriously? And how much would you like to be penalized for polluting?

actually yes, but forget about fixing it, we already passed the tipping point. enjoy the ride.