We all know his stance on this already.

So there's no point in reminding people what an ignorant ass he is? And to remind those in Florida and the Carolinas of where his policies are leading?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I don't know how any supporters of Trump can't be anything but embarrassed after that interview. He's such an idiot on so many levels.

So, give this some pause, I have to actually give him more credit on that response than I'd typically give him (which is none).

Why? He actually said that something is happening. He even gave a logical and to the point answer of why: he doesn't want to spend billions or trillions on something he isn't sure about. And spending money on anything is against the views of his base.

Now, that is 100x better than a large portion of his base. Parts of his base think dinosaur oil and coal is God's gift for us to plunder. Or go around and intentionally modify their truck to "stick it to the man" and shoot soot at folks.

I've heard members of the base say "well good, I don't like cold winters". And, be totally serious.

So, for once, he actually gave a somewhat measured reason for something. Cost. I don't agree with the cost assertion, but it's a 1000x better than "God's providence of oil".

On the cost:
I believe renewables could be a good source of jobs for the future. Also, if you're a "small government" or a type that "lives off the land"..........moving to localized solar/wind/renewables has the potential to take you FURTHER from big government and corporate power providers. It makes you more independent.

You can do what you want obviously. I view it as nothing more than a daily piss and moan about Trump thread. It's quite entertaining. Carry on.

The rest of this part of the interview is even crazier. He goes on to say that scientist can’t be trusted. Stahl ask him to provide one report that backs up his position. He falls back to the”many people are saying” routine. And stahl asks for a name of one of these people, then another word salad.

Doesn’t science tell us there are two sexes?

Pick and choose much?

You’re conflating sex and gender. It’s not picking and choosing to recognize gender identity vs biological sex.

Doesn’t science tell us there are two sexes?


Pick and choose much?


Oh the irony...

“You’re conflating sex and gender. It’s not picking and choosing to recognize gender identity vs biological sex. “

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Thank you for posting this. I know it's not a popular stance. There is no scientific or genetic evidence for gender identity as a construct. In fact gender used to be a synonym for sex (the noun).

Just because a group of loudmouths shout something louder than everyone else doesn't make it true. And that applies to a lot of stuff, ideology notwithstanding.

Well, it’s not a case of “a bunch of loudmouths shouting.” The leading psychiatric associations recognize gender dysphoria as an actual issue; recent brain scans have indicated biological links between identified gender and biological brain markers. While studies are still in their infancy — not surprising in a country that just legalized gay marriage two years ago and still has a sizeable population resisting against that — to say it’s just a purely manufactured issue is wholly inaccurate.

While I don’t get it personally, I’m not about to write off people’s experiences and arguments for it when it’s an issue that literally doesn’t negatively impact my life one bit nor that of anyone I know and it’s not harming anyone, particularly when actual research may indicate the assumptions of the loudmouth fundamentalist culture I grew up in may be incorrect. It’s not my place or anyone else’s to judge, though there are those using an unclear 5000 year old collection of books to loudly argue their case.

If I were King I'd start up a whole host of major efforts to make us energy independent with renewables. Bring the oil companies into it. Not to mention they'll just have more of a highly valuable commodity when levels get depleted around the globe. Then we could get out the Middle East.

It's not splitting the fucking atom or anything. Surely it could be done if there was a will and probably cost effective in the long run.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

What's the point of denying it.

Saying you don't want to do anything about it... THAT I can get behind.

So you've elected a moron as president. But everybody already knew that.

Yeah just be intellectually honest and then deal with it or not for whatever reasons you care to justify, but don't deny it just because you don't like the possible implications.

Scientists told us in the 1970s that the world was cooling.

If they were wrong once, why not again?

The "stupid" runs deep in this one.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"Scientists told us in the 1970s that the world was cooling.

If they were wrong once, why not again? "


They weren't wrong. They were right then, and they are very likely to be right now.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Dumb fuk trump said he knew more about NATO than Mattis to boot. Yikes

I wonder if his fans believe his bullshit or if it's just that they know he bullshits but he's their bullshitter?

I wonder if his fans believe his bullshit or if it's just that they know he bullshits but he's their bullshitter?

About 60% actually believe him (that's the scary part) and the other 40% don't care because Obama/Clinton bullshitted too and/or because the stock market is up.

"bout 60% actually believe him (that's the scary part) and the other 40% don't care because Obama/Clinton bullshitted too and/or because the stock market is up. "

Correction: and the stock market is up while someone that liberals hate is President.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I am a Carolinian. Are you referencing hurricanes? The storms we get summer-fall? The same type storm that wiped out Galveston in 1900? Or the one that slammed New Jersey in 1903? Hazel in NC in 1954? Hugo in SC and NC in 1989? Hurricane Andrew in 1992?

Is climate changing? Sure. It has changed well before industrialzation and will likely change well after we humans kill ourselves off. No doubt there are natural and human components to that change. If you are on the right you sound like a moron not admitting to the fact that humankind does have an effect. On the left, you likewise sound like a moron not admitting to the fact that nature does have an effect. So we have concluded the majority on both sides are morons...

I dislike Trump, but on this I can see his point. He shouldn't say scientists should not be trusted but that Earth is a complex system and we may or may not be sure how the climate change process works. This is a complicated nonlinear system we are talking about, not a simple linear system. Hell, we seem to waffle back and forth about whethereggs, alcohol, red meat, etc are good or bad for us every few years. Why does one lifelong smoker develop lung cancer yet another doesn't? Organic systems are tough nuggets to crack, yet our hubris gets hold of us and we swear we know more than the smartest lady in the room, Mother Nature. Only she knows the answer, and she holds those secrets close to the vest.

I dont know anyone who is saying that nature changes over time. I dont think anyone arguing climate change doesnt also say that nature goes through different patterns.

Any credible person seems to say that what humans are doing is impacting the planet. Their differences seem to be the degree of what that impact is.

Trump seems to think it is all a conspiracy theory.

And in many ways it is a conspiracy theory, but it's one played by both the right and left for their own zombie followers.To his credit, it seems like he isn't as closed off as most on the right. Likewise, he's not as willing as most on the left to accept full blame on behalf of humankind. The real answer is somewhere between 0% and 100%, and he seems to accept that. The right and left, by and large, are on those extremes. Our problem as a society is the lack of vocal credible people that sit between those two extremes.

I think in zero ways man made climate change a conspiracy theory. The actual impact it is having sure, we could discuss that.

We have those on the right who are, by your definition, morons. Some of them even hold positions of great power in our current government. I don't recall hearing *anyone* on the left saying that nature does not have an effect, so you've got a false equivalency there.

The climate change we are experiencing is unprecedented in its speed. That's a big difference between what is going on now and the tired "climate has always changed, so no big deal" excuse.

As for being sure: the current understanding of the process has allowed predictions to be made, and those predictions have been shown to be correct. Again, saying that science doesn't know everything about X has no bearing on what the science says about climate change. Another logical fallacy.

I have no idea what you are saying about what Mother Nature knows.

You sound more like a denialist than a skeptic, since you trot out the usual denialist arguments.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I am a Carolinian. Are you referencing hurricanes? The storms we get summer-fall? The same type storm that wiped out Galveston in 1900? Or the one that slammed New Jersey in 1903? Hazel in NC in 1954? Hugo in SC and NC in 1989? Hurricane Andrew in 1992?



I have no idea why you are referencing hurricanes to me but the history lesson is appreciated.

But if there is a connection, I will say in general that climate does go back further than 100 years and that the term "global" warming doesn't just refer to Carolina or any specific places that can be held in isolation.

If you want to consider arguing that climate change is a hoax, look at the global average temperatures over the past 100 years and see if you can see a trend. And then, compare that to the global average amount of pollution emitted and then see if you can see a trend. Don't just look at North or South Carolina, it's a big world.

Sometimes I'm astounded by how and why climatology has a left/right divide. I don't remember it always being this way.

Somehow we don't meet relatively uneducated people with staunch opinions on oncology, astrophysics or herpetology who proclaim to be better informed than the scientists who are specialists in those fields, despite having a obvious inability to hold a rational discussion on a professional level with such scientists.

We meet these uneducated people with opinions on fields like immunology (vaccines) and oncology (alternative treatments for cancer) all the time. Scientific ignorance spans disciplines. Then there's the Flat Earth Society...

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

At the end of the day its lobbying.

Just trying to create unwinnable businesses like drug enforcement, border crossings, and terrorism.

True.But they are really fringe idiots. This has become mainstream idiocy with a divide in both the media and politics.

True.But they are really fringe idiots. This has become mainstream idiocy with a divide in both the media and politics.



The media and politics are 2 sides of the same coin.

There was a report in the NYT last December that looked at how members of the political parties viewed climate change. Some of the observations were,

• Over the past two decades, Republicans have grown increasingly doubtful about climate change, even as Democrats have grown increasingly convinced that it’s happening and is caused by humans.
• But recent research reveals greater nuance in partisan climate opinions across the country.(ie. more living on the coast see it as a problem)
• Fewer than a third of registered Republicans nationwide say that climate change is caused mostly by human activities, while nearly half say it’s mostly due to “natural changes in the environment"
• Since the election of Donald Trump as president, belief that climate change is human-caused has declined among registered Republican voters, according to another recent poll. (ie. Republicans believe Trump over scientists...go figure)

However, there are good signs,

• there’s a long history of “support among people of all partisan backgrounds for regulating pollution – basic things like clean water and clean air,”

And herein lies my biggest beef with “climate change”.

As someone who’s boots are on the ground in the pollution prevention business I have seen resources shifted away from protection of the air and water (protections that have proven measurable results) to “combating climate change” with no evidence at all of doing any good.

A perfect example of this is the best, most efficient system for handling gasoline storage tank overpressure issues (that cause VOCs to be realeased) is system that burns off the vapors.

In many jurisdictions they are not allowed because they create CO2. The average daily amount of CO2 that these systems produce is equivalent to 3 people breathing.

Another stupid fucking thing that California did was require new Diesel engines to use Diesel Exhaust Fliud (DEF) to combat global warming and reduce particulates (based on a proven to be fraudulent study, btw). Well this DEF mostly comes in plastic containers (1 or 5 gallon) that cannot be recycled.

I service one site that is a truck stop and they fill a dumpster every singe day with discarded DEF containers.

Straight to the landfill.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not speaking for tgrunnin but I surmise he was referencing hurricanes as there have been articles the recent hurricane Michael was caused in some part by man-made global warming/climate change and there will be more intense and more consistent massive hurricanes in the future due to climate change. His point appears to be that we have had intense and significant hurricanes in the past ( the ones cited) prior to the promotion of climate change as the cause or the greatest moral crisis of our time.

Trump is making a strategic move on the climate change front and it will bolster ihs side and possibly bring in some folks. Most folks that take any time to look at it will tell you man is having some effect on the environment. The amount (overall)and accuracy of the predications is still up for debate. But most importantly, Trump basically said he is not going to take drastic steps in terms of opening up the government spicket of funding or make drastic changes to our society as a result of the current knowledge on climate change. Most would probably agree with that position. The majority of people don't want 15$ gallon gas, 2,000 energy bills etc.

Its most likely the changes needed to stave off the drastic effects of climate change according to the scientist will not be made and we will simply have to adapt to whatever climate we have. In the meantime, we should clean up the oceans (plastic floating islands) recycle, clean up the water supply, and do what we can within reason.

Do you really think the consensus of science was that the world was cooling in the 70s.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8199/full/



If so, where do you get you information from?

Just to let you know. Your sources are just wrong and most likely to lazy to actually care if they are right or wrong.




I will recommend everybody to watch this video.
It is going through how a anti science guy Steve Crowder is just plain wrong when he tries to read science. Nothing surprising there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeOZSMrwnYw


I am looking forward to the list of scientific papers supporting the view that the science consensus was that the world was cooling in the 70s.

As someone who’s boots are on the ground in the pollution prevention business I have seen resources shifted away from protection of the air and water (protections that have proven measurable results) to “combating climate change” with no evidence at all of doing any good.



I do agree with you. I think there's a lot of fighting and posturing to point fingers at who is responsible while we ignore the actual pollution going into air and waters. I traveled in places like India, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia where the water was so thick with garbage that you could literally walk across it. Getting into an argument about what's happened over the last 100 years while people in large parts of the world treat the environment like a toilet is really not seeing the forest for the trees.

100% agree and why I don't get to worked up about claims of global catastrophe and drastic effects in the next 50 years. How about we focus on those countries you mentioned and put our resources in aid money towards getting them livable conditions and stopping the ground level plastic pollution, sanitation issues, deforestation etc.

I came across a neuroscientist that study sleeps on the Joe Rogan show last night. Really interesting. Whatever the topic is, it's useful to remember that there are people out there who know what they are talking about because their career is to know about it. Now it's not like those people don't have agendas that may bias them significantly but I think that's usually pretty apparent when it's going on.

Then you have most people who are just talking out of their asses.

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. They seem weighted heavy in terms of CO2 impact and less so for clouds , solar flare, earth's position, etc. Not to mention how the historical data has been revised to the point the "pause" has now been corrected to a slight uptick in temps for the past 20 years or so.

I just think there is more for us to learn and that as Duffy said spending lots of money that may not even address the problem is just wrong headed. Not to mention the increased cost of living if we try to artificially introduce more expensive alternate energy (sun, wind) in lieu of the economy will naturally do in time.

It is partly because people are being asked to change their behavior. People don't like that. Climate deniers ("the right") opt out by denying their is a problem. And pointing out people like Al Gore and the Leonardo Decaprio's of the world. Lot of other folks opt out ("the left") by keeping the debate being about the problem of "those climate deniers" Works for both sides. Right or left the biggest indicator of what your carbon footprint will be is your income level. Uneducated folks are usually poor and they likely think it is going to cost them proportionally more if you increase the price of carbon. And they probably would be right.

No one is being asked to change their behavior wrt oncology astrophysics etc. Unless you have cancer I guess and that is personal.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I consider a denier someone who doesn't think what's going on is heavily influenced by humans.

Obviously predicting the future is less certain.

And impacts whether doing something is possible, worthwhile, etc.

"Is climate changing? Sure. It has changed well before industrialzation and will likely change well after we humans kill ourselves off. No doubt there are natural and human components to that change. If you are on the right you sound like a moron not admitting to the fact that humankind does have an effect. On the left, you likewise sound like a moron not admitting to the fact that nature does have an effect. So we have concluded the majority on both sides are morons...

I dislike Trump, but on this I can see his point. He shouldn't say scientists should not be trusted but that Earth is a complex system and we may or may not be sure how the climate change process works. This is a complicated nonlinear system we are talking about, not a simple linear system. Hell, we seem to waffle back and forth about whethereggs, alcohol, red meat, etc are good or bad for us every few years. Why does one lifelong smoker develop lung cancer yet another doesn't? Organic systems are tough nuggets to crack, yet our hubris gets hold of us and we swear we know more than the smartest lady in the room, Mother Nature. Only she knows the answer, and she holds those secrets close to the vest. "


Just because you don't know or understand something doesn't mean that no one does.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Out of curiosity, of the stuff you have read to establish your opinion, how much have read from the IPCC?

I work in a world with some pretty complicated problems. Often we deal with nonlinear systems and invariably folks will do a couple of tests, correlate their models to those tests, and claim they have a validated model. Sure it is validated for those inputs you have tested, but it is a far stretch to claim the model accurately predicts the response for any input. Correlation is not causation. The climate models are complicated and imperfect. It is a continual process to inform those models, and we must better understand the limitations of those models.

I take it you haven't dealt with the modeling of complicated systems before.

My stance is neither pro/anti climate change, only understand the limits of the models and don't use them to make low confidence claims.

The above indicates that you have not made an effort to learn about the actual science behind the consensus on man-made climate change. Pretty much everything you say above is wrong.

You can start here for a layman's description. If you want to understand why your arguments are wrong, you can try here. I commend you on your journey to learn more.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Some for sure (& they can been seen as part of the problem, too). Science to me is constantly being poked and prodded and the IPCC seems to dig their heels in way to hard to me. They seem unable or unwilling to admit that there could be other major contributors to climate change other than CO2.

Frequency and severity of hurricanes are influenced by increases in sea surface temperatures. Rising sea surface temperatures are well documented globally. There is solid science behind this knowledge.

Ignore it, refute it, cherry-pick data as much as you wish, you can't change facts.

What can you say when multiple models, created by different groups, using different data sets across multiple scientific fields, all point to the same conclusion? And when many of these models are used to make predictions that have, in fact, already proven out? Does that increase your confidence in these models?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Of course I'm not denying that these things are happening, just that there are other significant contributors to climate besides CO2.

Also, please tell me what the "normal" temp for the earth is based on either your links or your own understanding. I suspect that the earth's temp. millions of years ago may have been higher than today as there was flora fossils found in Antarctica a few years ago.

In addition, let's say that drastic measures are put in place and there are major reductions in temp could there be unintended consequences where temps are driven down to where the climate gets too cold?

Listen, all I'm saying tying climate change to a political agenda (either way) is not a good idea.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Then you have most people who are just talking out of their asses.



Thank goodness you don't see any of that around here.

Really??
Where do you get your information about the models from?
You are SO wrong. Not just a little wrong.
Do you know how science is done?
I am talking about science, not blog writing.

But I am guessing that you have done your research.
Can you please post any links to your sources?

It is partly because people are being asked to change their behavior.


I think that is exactly why so many don't want to admit it, the fear they might have to change their lifestyle. It's the same when people are told the best way to eat. What they really want is to lose weight while doing exactly what they are doing now...

"I take it you haven't dealt with the modeling of complicated systems before. "

I have degrees in math education and mechanical engineering. I've worked the last 9 years of my career in data science, including predictive modeling.


"Often we deal with nonlinear systems and invariably folks will do a couple of tests, correlate their models to those tests, and claim they have a validated model. "

And the entire problem rests on this straw man. If what you just wrote resembled climate science, then you'd have a point.

Climate models are a single piece of a field of study that 1000s of scientists have done countless of experiments on, approaching it from a large variety of different angles over the last several decades, and they all point to the same answer. This isn't "folks doing a couple of tests and finding a correlation."



"I work in a world with some pretty complicated problems. "

I find it hard to believe that you can have a successful career if you apply the same, "meh.....these people say that, those people say this......the truth probably lies in the middle" approach that you are using in this thread.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Things change. (Antarctica not always at south pole) To think human caused climate change are catastrophic is just fear mongering.

watch here for some fun plate tectonics (only 540 million years worth). Go back even farther if you want to see it get REALLY wacky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjCcJtnbg_A

So you consider the most authoritative, widely representative and respected body on the subject, supported by the most knowledgeable scientists who have attained consensus via study in multiple disciplines, making the most comprehensive analysis conceivably possibly to subsequently formulate the best-informed recommendations, to "seem to be" not quite to you liking, so you dismiss the sum knowledge in preference to.....what?

If you required an appendectomy would you distrust reputable medical knowledge and ask your local fishmonger to perform the surgery?

This is exactly the bewildering thought process that prompted my initial post.

You really haven't paid the least bit of attention to the latest IPCC released this past week have you?

what I find interesting is thinking like a socialist where the collective we "think" that government can come up with a good , workable solution(s). I mean that is what we are talking about here, really. Hell, we can't really predict the weather out a few months accurately but we can predict how 'ole mother earth's climate will be out 20-100 years?

OK, that point is just so banal, facile and exhibits such a lack of understanding of the topic that I might as well spend my time trying to play chess with a frog.

Except that claiming that there are other "significant contributors" you are using a common denialist argument.

Then you use the common denialist argument about "what is the normal temperature", as if that has anything to do with whether we are responsible for climate change. It's just deflection.

Then you go on to more deflection into the realm of what to do about it.

You still sound like a denialist. You can't agree that man-made effects are driving climate change.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"Things change. (Antarctica not always at south pole) To think human caused climate change are catastrophic is just fear mongering.

watch here for some fun plate tectonics (only 540 million years worth). Go back even farther if you want to see it get REALLY wacky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjCcJtnbg_A "



1,000 scientists walk into a lab and say, "hey, look at all this research we've done over the last 30 years. Looks like climate change is a pretty big deal."

Knewbike looks at the pile of research, looks back up and says, "Nuh uh."

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

"Also, please tell me what the "normal" temp for the earth is based on either your links or your own understanding."


What's the normal temperature of a preheated oven? What temperature should it be if your head was inside of it?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

you just made my point, thanks!

To the contrary. It's a big deal to us at this time. Just a deal that is futile to fix. No chance in hell that you change all of human behavior to even make a dent in the inevitable outcome. Also. there was plenty of life when it was 10 degrees hotter on this planet let alone 4. Adaptation will happen.

I agree with you that this is the biggest issue with making "climate change" a political issue. If we could stop having the debates on the merits of the science we could start having debates on the appropriate response. Right now the opposition to extremest who say "stop all CO2 emissions at all cost" is saying "there isn't climate change". It is sort of the "nah, nah, nah, I am not listing to you" counter argument. We need a strong voice that says "balance the impact of reducing CO2 emissions with impacts on quality of life", or the "Paris Accord is not the best way to invest in reducing the global impact."

I think I hear that start to change in Trump's interview. He is no longer deny, deny, deny. He is arguing about the cost of dealing with the issues. That is a start. I look forward to a time when he says, "I accept the mainstream science, but I think we can solve the problem in a different way."

"you just made my point, thanks! "

Um, pretty sure I didn't.

It might be "normal" for you oven to be 350 degrees. However, YOU can't survive at that temperature.

Likewise, it might be normal for the Earth to be 5 degrees warmer, but that would put a large part of our population under water, along with a whole host of other problems that humans are not well suited for.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

 "No chance in hell that you change all of human behavior to even make a dent in the inevitable outcome. "

I think that's a horrible excuse for the people who are blocking progress. I don't think its a reasonable argument to be the worst western country with regard to climate change because no one else will be good enough.

I think that's referred to the Nirvana fallacy.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Who is talking about fixing things?

Proposed strategies generally revolve around strategies of amelioration, limitation, reducing rates of temperature increases, etc.

Citing past differentials in the earth's temperatures that preceded human evolution hardly supports a "she'll be right" argument for the future, particularly when predicted the rates of change far outstrip historical precedents.

Just because we can't change all of human behaviour does not mean we cannot make significant changes that will lead to better outcomes. Just as past and current human activity has had profound impact on the current climate, likewise the nature of our future activities will continue to influence environmental outcomes.

Some adaptation will happen, much will not, whether that be demographically, socially or environmentally. This is currently evident with the devastation of our largest coral reef ecosystems.

From a personal standpoint, I don't think it is ethically justifiable to drive species (let alone entire ecosystems) to extinction when we have a capacity to effectively conserve them.

Or we can just teach our kids to throw their rubbish out of the car window, because hey, we're all fucked anyway and it doesn't matter.

In addition to the human population, I think the bigger concern is regarding the other species' populations. What happens when the chemical makeup and temperature of the environment is not conducive to the survival of pollinators? Are they even more sensitive to environmental changes than we are?

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Seriously?

Don't you think it would be more realistic to look forward to a more progressive president?

Do you really think Trump would ever say that, let alone back it up with any informed and viable alternatives?

The hallmark of his government is lurching from one rash and ill considered decision to another.

Don't worry it's only about 70% of our food that is principally or near-exclusively pollinated at little or financial cost by one lone species.

That would only be cause for concern if we didn't have an understanding of colony collapse disorder, were releasing inordinate quantities of insecticides into the environment on a global scale, or there was a suite of bee pathogens with which to contend.

Oh!.....Hold that thought a moment...... :-/

Where are your sources??
What kind of science are your use as references?
What data sets have been used?
What science journals have articles you get your information from been published?

You are attacking real science without reference anything yourself.

Science does not know everything about gravity, but that does not mean you can throw yourself from the roof of a tall building and expect to fly.

Um, I can expect whatever the fuck I want to expect.

Doesn't mean I'll get it though.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I am sure all of you have heard anti science people saying that: due to no global warming, scientists are not using the term global warming anymore but climate change. Apparently this is a change that has happen recently. Of course this is just bs.

This scientific article came out in 1956
The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change

that's right throw out the anti science card. I'm sure that my "resources" are from other scientist but their data simply does not support that CO2 is the only determining factor. Look it up if you care to.

That 1956 article is where the environmental movement basically began by the way.

And don't be silly, of course these is global warming (now called climate change) and there is also global cooling. The earth is not a large building with a thermostat to where we can adjust the temp to your desire nor do we agree what the temp even should be).

Have you not been in the same car with your wife and just when you get the temp just the way you like it she says its either too warm or cold?

Where are your sources???

List them!!


So you think that the scientists only look at CO2? Really?
Are you saying that solar output is not in any models? Really??

I think we can all act locally and personally to effect climate change, but it requires a small bit of sacrifice and education. When you hear "carbon tax", I think many people think "government money grab". We need to educate all, right and left, that they can take steps that do not involve a big impact to their pocketbook.

Here are a just a few things we do as a family:

1. Solar system - I lease the system for the same monthly rate as I would pay the electric company. I use it to charge my electric car I lease for the same amount I would lease a gas powered car.
2. My kids ride their bikes to school, sports, and other activities. We are not busing them around in a giant SUV.
3. We capture a good portion of our grey water to use for our vegetable garden. Growing vegetables saves trips to the store and we can control what goes into the farming of the vegetables.
4. We are careful when we buy packaged goods, selecting those we the least amount of packaging as possible.
5. We recycle everything possible. I consider it a personal victory when I can put out only a 10 gallon bag or less of trash each week. Much of our green waste goes back into the garden.
6. We have reduced our consumption of meat products, not eliminated, but reduced beef consumption mainly due to the impact beef production has on air, water, and land resources (we still enjoy the occasional burger though).
7. We drink tap water and fill reusable sports bottles.

I'm sure there are other things we do that are not coming to mind right now. I don't think we have not made any huge sacrifices, in fact, many of the things we do like the garden, recycling, and cycling places are family activities. And don't think we live in some country commune or giant plot of land. We live in a small single family home in a major suburban area.

Education is necessary to give the masses the simple things and tools they can do to make an impact.

I'm in the Carolinas. Please remind me of where his policies are leading to exactly? I really want to hear a straight-up honest answer.

that's right throw out the anti science card. I'm sure that my "resources" are from other scientist but their data simply does not support that CO2 is the only determining factor. Look it up if you care to. No climate scientist claims CO2 is the only determining factor. None. Climate scientists all recognize the influence of clouds, arctic sea ice, sunspots (and the sun in general), axial tilt, and many many other factors in determining the Earth's climate. However, all climate scientists agree that C02 is a significant factor in determining the global average temperature, and that rising CO2 (and methane) levels will read to rising temperatures during the next century.
That 1956 article is where the environmental movement basically began by the way.

And don't be silly, of course these is global warming (now called climate change) and there is also global cooling. The earth is not a large building with a thermostat to where we can adjust the temp to your desire nor do we agree what the temp even should be). Most climate scientists that care about the ability of the Earth to provide enough food, living space, and avoid huge damages due to climate change would argue that the climate of the 20th century was pretty good, and that the climate of the 21st and 22nd centuries will be significantly less desirable unless steps are taken to avoid catastrophic climate change. Certainly ice age or colder conditions aren't optimal either. You will not find any climate scientists that argue that more than 2 degree C warming is beneficial on the whole to humans (or the environment).

Have you not been in the same car with your wife and just when you get the temp just the way you like it she says its either too warm or cold? If you and your wife are driving together when it's 100 degrees out and your kid says "let's turn on the heat on!", do you say "well, we can't do anything to avoid this, and we can't agree on the temperature, so let's just turn the heat on", or do you try to explain to them why that would be bad?

More severe and frequent storms, with accompanying storm surges and flooding. That's what you get when your policies are all about drilling and burning fossil fuels, rolling back mileage requirements, eliminating coal emissions regulations, and things like that. You don't already know this?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I'm not going to say we shouldn't do anything. Many things have worked to slow down or fix problems in the past. Reduction of chloroflorocarbons and the ozone layer. DDT ban and the resurgence of many large birds. But the slow down of climate change is going to take a cooperation that I believe to be unattainable. People want to keep what they have. People want to better their situation. People are making more people. So try if you must. Just don't be overly disappointed that it doesn't work out.

I do not excuse people who block progress. There is a happy medium somewhere between living in a hut with no running water or electricity and living in a mcmansion driving dully diesels to a paper pushing job and flying to exotic ironman races for entertainment. Just don't expect anyone to agree where that lays.

It's great that you do all those things, and I congratulate and thank you! The most important thing you can do is vote for government officials who believe that climate change is due to man-made effects, that continuing to burn fossil fuels is making the situation worse, that we need to take action immediately to attempt to stave off the eventual effects, and that we need to ensure that research and development of renewable energy sources are adequately funded.

Do you do that?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Well, here is a quote straight from the UN following Hurricane Michael...liberals hug the UN, yes?

"The UN Climate Panel found in its latest report that hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) haven’t increased: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclones over the past century. For the United States, the trend of all land-falling hurricanes has been falling since 1900, as has that of major hurricanes. In the 51 years from 1915, Florida and the Atlantic coast were hit by 19 major hurricanes. In the 51 years to 2016, just seven. In the last 11 years, only two hurricanes greater than category 3 hit the continental USA — a record low since 1900. From 1915 to 1926, 12 hit."

But you don't understand, its still going to happen. Haven't you heard there will be catastrophes, storms, flood surges, cats lying with dogs, lions sitting with lambs.

To heck with your stats and facts,,,,from the UN no less.

"Have you not been in the same car with your wife and just when you get the temp just the way you like it she says its either too warm or cold?"

Thank you. I learned more from this post than from any other in this thread. I've learned when to stop wasting my time.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Hi Jenn,

I'll look into your post, but here's one that show's that major storms have been steadily increasing.

https://www.theguardian.com/...storms-getting-worse

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Thanks. Interesting read.

Can you provide a link to that, as that information is not in the IPCC report itself that I could find?

Here's a bit from the actual IPCC report:

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Ahhh so fewer storms but more intense. Lets focus on the "fewer storms" portion.

I am failing to find the report that that quote came from. Google seems to be littered with right wing tabloids that are including the quote, yet not providing a source (hmmm, wouldn't they want me to read the entire report for myself?). What I found, however, were many articles that agreed with that paragraph in terms of numbers of hurricanes, but then goes on to say that we've had more stronger hurricanes than before.

The basic science (upon spending only a little time reading through it) says that a string hurricane event tends to zap the energy (for lack of a better term) from future hurricanes. So you end up with bigger, but fewer.


https://www.ucsusa.org/...ge.html#.W8ZUehNKibU



Or, for any deniers reading along, just skip the article altogether, or the previous one I posted, and most of what I wrote, and just remember Barry said, "fewer."

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Yes I do. And I work and volunteer at the local level to impact the decisions made in my town about building, water and land use, alternative energy, preserving open space, and improving mass transit.

Voting in individuals who think longer term and will back policies for positive change is critically important but so is taking individual action. Duffy pointed out above, problems he sees with regulations governing his industry. It's great he can identify the problem, but has he attempted to bring about change? Has he tried to partner with others to bring attention to the absurdity of the situation or has he done what many Americans do and that is say someone else will fix it?

"Ahhh so fewer storms but more intense. Lets focus on the "fewer storms" portion. "


Its generally the intense ones that cause the death and destruction.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

but why male models?

Is there a joke in there that I'm missing? I have no idea what you are talking about.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Science doesn’t care about political ideology, the political arguments are just astroturfing. Self education is the only way that people will change their minds on climate change, you can’t convince people who don’t trust climate science that climate change is a massive issue.

It’s not even worth debating, there’s plenty of good info on the web without the need for forums.

Yes.

Every. Fucking. Day.

It’s what I do.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

It’s from Zoolander. Essentially at the beginning of a scene Ben Stiller asks Andy dick why they are using male models for a stupid plot. Andy dick gives Ben Stiller a dialogue on why they are using male models for the plot. At the end of dialogue Ben Stiller says “yeah but why male models.”

So it’s similiar to here. If you tell people their will be fewer but more deadly storms, people will still not understand why that is bad.

Essentially “why male models” = something that no mater how well you explain something even in reletively simple terms and the other person just can’t comprehend

From Trump's AP interview:


I just threw up.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Ahh. Thanks.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

after a rewatching, its actually david ducovney https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHrn_pHW2so

My god, he's an idiot.