Nothing. I'll have gotten it all in place already. — Benkei
I actually went to the Biden site where he lists out his positions. If I had to pick what I didn't particularly like, it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. He wants to study the idea of reparations, which I find horribly polarizing and unjust. That alone will cost him my vote. He had an entirely hands off stance with China, and I do see them as a threat and concern. I'm not in principle opposed to tariffs as he is. I didn't like his idea of raising teacher's salaries, as I don't follow how the federal government should have a hand in that very (very very) local issue. He's in favor of 2 years of free college education, which in principle sounds good, but that sounds again like a state issue, considering different state institutions charge differently and private colleges are much more expensive. I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. His objections to drilling for oil I largely disagree with. — Hanover
If other countries can do it, so can we — Xtrix
But otherwise, yes it can be done and has to be done if we want to survive. — Xtrix
"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic. — h060tu
What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one. — Xtrix
No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now. — Xtrix
They can, and they have.
— Xtrix
CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. And in fact, not even among greenhouse gases.
CO2's role is very overplayed. Methane gas might be worse. — h060tu
No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man. — Xtrix
Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point? — Xtrix
What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one.
— Xtrix
Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me, but I'll gladly look for his name for you. — h060tu
No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now.
— Xtrix
Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved. — h060tu
Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, — h060tu
And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution. — h060tu
No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.
— Xtrix
Not really. — h060tu
Your article was about CO2. — h060tu
Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass,
— h060tu
Wrong. — Xtrix
And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution.
— h060tu
Completely wrong. — Xtrix
Completely correct. — h060tu
Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.
— Xtrix
They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists. — h060tu
Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me — h060tu
Your article was about CO2. — h060tu
CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. — h060tu
those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved — h060tu
Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, — h060tu
No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject. — Xtrix
So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing. — Xtrix
Richard Lindzen at MIT. — h060tu
I'm not an expert, but he is. And I haven't studied climate science as a layman, in years. So I don't really want to have a debate on this. — h060tu
Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg — h060tu
I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there. — h060tu
So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson). — Xtrix
The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value. — h060tu
The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.
Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll: — Xtrix
No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so.
— Xtrix
They're really not. — h060tu
So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.
— Xtrix
Yeah, that's what you're doing. — h060tu
I cited two climate scientists who agree with me. — h060tu
LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing. — h060tu
Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much. — h060tu
Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means. — Xtrix
I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another. — h060tu
Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis. — h060tu
You assume that because I question your assumptions, that I am a "denier" I am not a "denier" I am Agnostic on the question. — h060tu
I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up. — h060tu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.