clinton cut taxes after he raised them. and tax revenue collected went up, after he cut tax rates.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for the usual mindless comments... key board warrior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well you at least partly correct because I didn’t start posting on this board until this presidential run and election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, because you are just chock full of insightful and intelligent dialogue in this thread, Einstein

To be fair, I feel Wayne has more insight than he is able to articulate with words and junk and stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Should we get him a Chalk Board app or something?

Short sighted thinking and I’m not saying addressing climate change is easy or that we in the USA can tackle it on our own. The bill your children and their children’s children will pay will be far bigger than if we address it incrementally over the next decade. The predictions for sea level rise, heat induced droughts, wildfires and impact on agricultural are really startling if they hold true. I’m a big believer in science and not political spin on how that gets interpreted. So you can pay me now or pay me three fold later, both parties and most importantly other countries better figure it out. We should be leading in this effort and this administration doesn’t even believe the science. Since we are celebrating putting a man on the moon, maybe the science that made that possible then and predicts weather changes in the future has more merit than this administration is giving it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are these the same scientist that predict the current weather? How is that working out?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep your head in the sand buddy and if your think the pretty weather girl on your local channel is what I’m referring to, that explains your view of the scientific community☔️☔️☔️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a large sample of what the science of weather has to offer on a daily basis.You must be in direct contact with the real experts. But put your faith where you feel safe and roll the dice. Barry Burbank here I come!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1. Weather and climate are very different things.
2. I do have direct contact with the ‘real experts’. It isn’t faith it is based on science. Faith belongs in a church.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s based on models. those models rely very heavily, on assumptions
about things like the atmospheres ability to absorb pollution, effect of ocean currents, etc. the more the
model relies on assumptions, the more speculative it is. which explains why their predictions have been so inaccurate. i’m not saying we don’t have a problem to deal with, but let’s be honest about how exact the science is.

you want a model that tells
you how many 65 year olds will
live to age 80, or how many times a
coin will
land on heads if you flip
it 10,000
times, that model is based on hard science. climate change models? not nearly as much hard science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.
A large portion of our understanding is based on direct measurements compared against the instrumental record and against the geological record, including things like ice cores. I am a field scientist, I am inherently skeptical of models, but when models have the ability to align well with observations (see Stephan rahmasdorf’s 2007 paper on sea level rise) using data not used to make the model, I take notice.

This (below) is a nice explanation of how climate models work, particularly about how the point of the models is to show the trends and not make a prediction of a date/time/magnitude. But you know all this, we have been around and around on this before. The whole political forum is a circle jerk of the two sides just aiming at each other same #^&#^&#^&#^&. Boring.....

https://youtu.be/3v9aRQpumPA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I need to remind you, they can’t hear you with their heads in the sand. Even that excellent and clear video explanation won’t be believed, but when that point of no return hits their children or their children’s kids smack dab in the face, they won’t hear the crying from six feet under.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That doesn’t really help either Bob... 😁

I look at it this way. My modeling colleagues use various models to predict beach erosion in a storm. Now as the guy that measures the changes in morphology and processes during the storm, I tend to not agree with the predictions, of exactly how much, how fast and where the sand will move around.

However, when three or more of their models, using different assumptions and past data to train the model, all show erosion of a value pretty close to the measured, but off by a bit, it isn’t fair to just dismiss the models outright.

It is a real issue. I think it is incredible hubris to look at the planet right now, and think we haven’t had an impact. burning fossil fuels has altered the chemistry of the atmosphere in a way that traps more outgoing solar radiation and warms the planet. We need to be proactive and start thinking more about it. I wish they were wrong, particularly on sea level rise, but it just doesn’t seem to be the case.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know I have started 10 threads over the past 8 years in this specific forum (and earlier but only the last 8 years are indexed). Ohhh, and most recent was in May, 2019. That recent enough for ya?

It is that simple :hee:. Both sides do stupid sh!t, both sides do good sh!t, 'cept maybe the Squad.

I really wish we could all get along, but the other side just won't see things my way ; ) (/sarc)

On a side note, 5 years ago on the Seahorse going over to Cutty, PaulS and I figured we could fix 90% of the problems facing this country simply by working together. :kewl:

I agree with your last point John, however I’m concerned that many on this board are more concerned about how good the market is, how low the unemployment is, when while that’s all good (never claimed it wasn’t only who it benefits most); there are far bigger and far more costly problems coming globally when our planet bites us back saying you had your chance. Electing a guy who doesn’t even believe in climate change or the science is a dangerous four year hiatus from effectively making changes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not no. yes. that’s why NONE of the dire predictions have come true. if it was an exact science, philadelphia would oceanfront. and alaska would
be exporting pineapples. i build
predictive models for a
living, and i do it it an area where it’s almost am exact science.

why have none of the dire predictions come true? because the models were off. you can’t ever make that statement wrong. only a zealot would
try to make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, show me the models you mean. The one that predicted what you (rhetorically) have said. Prove it. Not Al Gore said, not so and so said, the actual scientific paper (or pop media summary of it is fine; Anthony Watts blog doesn’t count). Until then, you are dismissed on this and I am done arguing with you. Not one credible global climate model said anything close to that.

Have there been some misses on models, absolutely, but to be completely dismissive is just stupid, and ignoring it is zealotry.

The ones I read and look at, which represent the best science out there have not been anywhere close to that. See the IPCC reports for examples. Not hair on fire, these represent consensus estimates, and tend to be conservative. In fact many of the vocal climate scientists often think they are too conservative.

Sea level rise, in the extreme is predicted to be north of 13ft in New London by 2100 (read rapid drawdown of Greenland and west Antarctic ice). High value is something like 9ft. The middle of the road estimates are 3-6 feet. If those middle values are anywhere near correct, costs and losses will be catastrophic, well before 2100.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See head firmly planted, keep winning until your loose big.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t have the models. i know what the predictions were that have been released by the scientists. as i said, i have little doubt we need to change our ways, but as a scientist, when someone else is laughably wrong that consistently, they will
eventually lose credibility. i’m long, long past the point where
skeptical. 40 years ago we were facing an ice age, then global warming, then they defined it in the most vague possible term so that every possible result validated their theory...climate change.

i have solar panels on my house, and i spend more time in the woods getting dirty, and more
time on water getting soaked, than 98% of the planet, at least before we had kids that is. and i love animals more than 99.99% of the planet,,and cherish my kids futures more than 99.99% of the planet. so i’m heavily invested in a healthy planet .

but given their track record of making ridiculously wrong predictions, how can you not be skeptical? al gore got amazingly wealthy off this, and he doesn’t seem to be concerned, the only thing he’s unplugged in the last 20 years is his treadmill. if i was that wrong that often, no one would
listen to me. and they’d be right to laugh in my face. it’s still very very speculative because we are in unchartered territory here. we’ve never been in this path, so we can’t know what the effects will be.

accurate models ( like predicting how many times a coin will
turn up heads, or predicting mortality based on age), rely on a large set of data points to use to predict patterns and results, based on past observations. with this kind of climate change, we have no historical data to look at, this is all new. not easy to model
that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last points on this, I have work to do tonight, as I stay home and hang with the kids on Thursday's in the summer. If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage.

Good for you on all that. We are looking at solar when we need to replace our roof, but not yet.

We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes (and times when CO2 was way higher for geologic reasons in the past). The geologic record provides a wealth of information to compare to the historic data and make predictions about the future. The track record, which you call laughable of the models in the last decade or to in particular has been very good. Again, show me what you meant otherwise and we can discuss them.

As far as global cooling, see the link below. Check out the number of scientific publications that show warming vs cooling. This idea that scientific consensus was global cooling has lingered because of some famous articles in a few different pop media magazines.

https://skepticalscience.com/What-19...l-cooling.html

"If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage"

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-didnt-happen

https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24...t-predictions/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...e-predictions/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...lly-everything

http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-...edictions.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...d-did-not-end/

I can go on and on...

"We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes"

The hell we aren't. We've never had this much of the world become industrialized, using fossil fuels at this pace in these amounts. Because that has never happened before, we don't know what the effects will be. It's not very complicated.

Solar panels - we've had an awful lot of dead birds thanks to the panels (thy keep nesting under there and then cook), and I've read that the panels are a huge mess to dispose of when they no longer function. So is it a net benefit to mother earth? I don't know. Again, the greenies didn't quite get it right, and that's a LOT simpler than trying to predict climate change impacts across all the complicated ecosystems on our planet.

Thanks.
I looked at them, one looks like a duplicate in part. Most are taking predictions with no date or time in them, and saying ‘wrong’ when really, the implications of the original source is probably later this century....

Were some of the crazy predictions made in the 70’s a bit dramatic (centered around the earth day origin), sure. Does that mean we should ignore everything since then, nope.

I read your links, read the ones I posted, watch the model clip.

The first one, Cato said we need to have it dealt with it by now (2000, 2012) meaning, reducing CO2. Not a prediction that by 2019 Philadelphia would be ocean front. The prediction mentioned was 2080 or something similar

The second was broader on environmental issues, not really climate change.

Watts list covers things with no time mentioned in many, only in the future, except a few at 2030, 2050 and 2080. How can they be ‘wrong’ in the future.

The new American claim that temperature has not risen since 1996 has been debunked. Do some reading on skeptical science, it has some good explanations in a reasonable way.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-...ed-in-1998.htm

Humans are free list I don’t have time to deal with, and would have to pull a few sources, as I am not up on things like tornado predictions, but #1 is flat out wrong, sea level is rising, and that rate of rise has accelerated in the last few decades. Tide gauge records and satellite altimeter data shows this. A colleague’s work with his grad students suggests locally, this is the highest rate in 3,300 years at least, based on studies of past sea level in marshes. The one on temperature being flat is also wrong, see above.


You are right, we are in uncharted territory for the rate of industrialization and CO2 emissions. There are also times in the geologic past, due to other processes/reasons, CO2 was higher. At those times, sea level was much higher than present and the temperature was much warmer. As you are wont to say, try making that wrong

As far as solar panels, all energy production has consequences. All. I am waiting and hoping for solar shingles!

Good night Jim.
Sorry for derailing the thread on the deficit....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you have a fabulous brain :kewl:

bry, you say we produced more carbon in the past, i cant disprove that. but we don’t know what it means, or what the effect of current conditions will be. because current conditions are, as you conceded, unique.

i am completely persuadeable on this issue, i’ll go wherever science, not political zealots, take me. i’m not any kind of science denier, but i’m not clinging to an ideology either.

are there any problems in the world
today, for which the solution, isn’t to give liberals more power?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How is it short sighted to focus on something we actually have the ability to fix on our own? We could reduce our emissions to zero and China and India wouldn't care.

Nobody here doesn't believe in Climate Change, Nobody. We just don't rank it as the number 1 threat to the US. Right now we are leaving a humungous bill for our kids and their kids to pay and nobody seems to care about it. Nobody. That should be the priority, but everybody spends their time bitching about anything and everything else but.

Of course both sides do stupid stuff i dont see that cliche as helpful. Seeing it ignores the why is it happening


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course both sides do stupid stuff i dont see that cliche as helpful. I feel it ignores the why


Me too however the Potus and his people and some supporters take any criticism of policy or Trump and twisted it into Anti Americanism protected at elected an regular citizen .. thats a hard pill for we to take

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

much of the disagreement is the fact that the left has co-opted the issue and turned it in to a political hammer and vilified and attempted to exorcise anyone who doesn't go along with their religious zealotry...I think AOCommunist's "brain and mentor" admitted as much recently as if it wasn't already clear, the issue of the environment is simply a mechanism by which the socialists fundamentally change society more to their liking and generate funds to do so...so there is certainly science showing that the earth's climate is changing, it is after all "living and breathing"... not to mention the fact that we've paved, built on, altered and forever disturbed huge land spaces and waterways, shoreline..we will continue to do so and continue to create ridiculous amounts of waste...are we really shocked when a city built below sea level is flooded???? I've mentioned that I think each person/family should be forced to keep a month's waste/garbage on property to see how they deal with it and make them aware of how much they actually produce...regardless of what you do, it's nothing more than a bandaid on what has already been done and what will continue to be done and we are just a blip on the history of the planet....humanity is on a crash course, it's just a matter of time...we will extinct ourselves...I like it warmer...bring the heat!