Since the Democrats have proposed the Green New Deal...

Jump to Last Post 1-14 of 14 discussions (333 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image80
    jackclee lmposted 7 months ago

    Our country needs to have a real conversation about climate change, the science, the myth, the possible solutions, and the impact on every aspect of our lives...

    We have been told the science is settled by Al Gore. Is it?
    We have been told we humans are the cause? Are we really?
    We have been told fossil fuel is the culprit, what is the real alternative? Sun, wind, nuclear? Is there a viable alternative?
    Who has a larger carbon foot print?
    What are carbon credits?
    Why are climate models so wrong in their projections? And always wrong on the high side?
    If the global warming is the existential threat according to President Obama, why are some people not acting that way? Including politicians, celebrities, activists, environmentalists? and the elites?

    1. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      To add some additional details to your opening comment:

      "We have been told the science is settled by Al Gore. Is it?"

      We have been told by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the current consensus among the majority of the world's scientific community is:

      "Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)"(1)

      "We have been told we humans are the cause? Are we really?"

      We have been told:

      "Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C"(2)

      "We have been told fossil fuel is the culprit, what is the real alternative?"

      We have been told:

      "Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal time scales (high confidence)"(3)

      And

      "Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO2"(4)

      QED.


      (1) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads … one_LR.pdf (p.6, Section A.1)
      (2) ibid
      (3) ibid (p.7, section A2.2)
      (4) https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global … sions-data

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        You answered Jack's questions succinctly and with scientific answers, therefore, Jack won't believe it at all.  Like Trump, he knows more about climate change than the scientists.

        1. jackclee lm profile image80
          jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Yes I do in fact. There are “scientists” and there are scientists. I have attended numerous talks by climate scientists. I ask the most basic questions and they have no answers.
          Why should I put my marbles on people that depend their paycheck on the NSF for funding?
          They have made projections that fail to materialize and they have made excuses after excuses...
          It is time they put their money where their mouth is.

        2. jackclee lm profile image80
          jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Don, here is my hub on this complex topic ...
          “hubpages.com/education/Climate-Change-Predictions-How-Accurate-Are-They”
          It is my second highest viewed article here on HubPages.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Jack, you've been here over 4 years and written over 600 articles in the process. From what I can tell from your bio you've yet to reach a million views.


            Why should one read the works of someone with so little results from their efforts? Apparently you are so right about things people don't want to discover from you their errors. Yeah right   lol

            1. jackclee lm profile image80
              jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I don’t write for viewers. If you noticed, many of my articles are targeted for a narrow audience. I write about fencing as a sport. It is targeting a handful of people at my club and my school...
              I write about my own life experiences and it is only of interested for my family members, my kids and cousins and nieces and nephews...
              I write about my travels, my most popular article is about my trip to China. It gets on average 20 views per day.
              I write about religion, and finances and technology...
              You are welcome to explore all my writings but I couldn’t care less.
              I write mainly for me. I belong to a writers group in my local library. Some of my writings are political. It gets lots of feedback and some are very controversial. I am conservative but I live in a very liberal blue state of NY...I stand my ground and they respect me. I am giving them an opinion from the other side and once in a while, it breaks through.

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Here are the contents of my topics...
                “hubpages.com/literature/My-Contents-of-Hubbooks”

                This is how most of my hubs are divided...

              2. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Giving who an opinion, Jack? You made my point for me by admitting you have very few people who even want to read your stuff. I tried, but dang Jack, your hubs are even less entertaining and factual than your political comments on the forums..


                I'll hit 4 million views in the next week or so,  even as this is my off time of the year to garner views. Some of my hubs will hit a million views apiece in the near future.


                See where I'm going ,Jack? If you're not getting at least decent traffic to a hub, you may not  want to use it as a good example of your opinion.  Don't bother to thank me...

                1. jackclee lm profile image80
                  jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes Randy, you are so smart and everyone read your articles as gospel. So why are you here arguing with me?

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Because as I already stated, I dislike those who spread fake news as truth. As you are a firm believer in Limbaugh, I think says it all!

                2. jackclee lm profile image80
                  jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Randy, it must bother the hell out of you I was right about Trump...
                  Your TDS just can’t let it go? Can you?
                  Try to stop and breathe for a change.
                  I am not your enemy.
                  You are your worst enemy...
                  Those who seems to have the most conviction are the ones most disturbed by the truth once discovered.
                  It shakes your belief to the core.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Right about what, Jack? Your silly poll you posted as "gospel."
                    TDS is as real as your belief in Limbaugh.

                    My breathing is normal as it always is when I face fake news.

                    No, you're not my enemy, but you and those like you do the country great harm by supporting a sleazy conman.


                    And your other statements show how sure you are you're correct. Namely, bull cookies!  So deep your are, Obi Wan!  lol

            2. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Randy,

              I think this issue is somewhat similar to the vaccination issue. With the recent outbreaks of Measles around the U.S., I think we can safely conclude that anybody who believes that vaccinations are a "hoax" is an idiot. These people should be prosecuted and jailed for endangering the public. That so-called "hoax" claim about vaccinations comes as a result of people distrusting scientists and government. Instead of believing the experts, they assume they know better.

              Climate change is the same sort of issue. Experts are all telling us something very clearly. Those who don't want to believe it because they "know better" or because they just naturally distrust expertise and government (or whatever else they distrust) are endangering the rest of us logical people who, when the doctor tells us we have a health issue, we believe him because he's an expert and has had years of schooling. We don't walk out of his office, go on the internet, and prescribe ourselves some medication based on what we find because it fits what we wanted to hear. Maybe you get a second opinion. But when the second doctor, along with a thousand other doctors, tells you the same thing, you take their advice.

              Only an idiot would choose to ignore that advice.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                There are trained and experienced climate scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming.

                https://thebestschools.org/features/top … cientists/

                1. jackclee lm profile image80
                  jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  You are absolutely correct and I listed a bunch in my hub as well...

                2. lobobrandon profile image88
                  lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Did you even read that article? Because only the 5th guy says the man made influence is not high. The others say what I said in my first reply here: we need a lot more data for an accurate prediction but the predictions are not far off.

                  They disagree with the means to battle it. One of the 5 suggests nuclear energy and I along with many others support nuclear energy.

                  What is clear from that article is that these people were forced to resign based on public opinion and not expert opinion. The other experts didn't want to get caught in the crossfire and therefore withdrew support. The uneducated public unfortunately has the largest voice in the world. The same public is the reason politicians are turning off the nuclear plants and not planning new ones.

                  Every one of them is right in saying that it's become a political issue and this leads to uneducated people chipping in without an expert opinion.

                  What the 5th guy says is right to some extent. The Earth is built to let in and out radiation and it could increase with the position of earth in the galaxy. But the greenhouse gases keep the energy trapped. Remember that the sun is a star too and the radiation we get from the sun is a lot more than any other star. To understand this turn on a flash light a cm in front of your face and many more 20km away. Which one sends you more photovoltaic radiation? Do those at 20km even make any real difference?

                  Lastly, not in line with this article because all of the 5 who are said to be against it actually believe in man made climate change. But when a doctor says you've got cancer why do you go for a second opinion? The first guy is an expert. He could be wrong, right? So among thousands of doctors if 5 day you got kidney cancer and 995 say you don't, do you go ahead and get that kidney removed? Assuming that the 5 say that the kidney removal saves your life.

                  Lastly, I am sure Jack didn't read the article you shared. So this is something important for him to understand before he can give his "expert" opinion.

                  You might be asking yourself: “If I wanted to become a climate scientist and contribute to this work, how should I go about it? What should I study?”

                  Climate science is a field with many different points of entry. Here is a list of the topics in which our climate scientists have taken their PhD's:

                  Applied Mathematics (1)
                  Chemistry (1)
                  Geology (1)
                  Atmospheric Science (1)
                  Geophysics (x3)
                  Hydrology (1)
                  Marine Geology (1)
                  Meteorology (1)
                  Planetary Atmospheres (1)
                  Physics (x2)
                  Mathematical/Theoretical Physics (x2)
                  Here is the breakdown of doctoral fields of study for the 15 climate scientists on our list:

                  one in applied mathematics;
                  one in chemistry;
                  nine in geology and related fields; and
                  four in physics, including mathematical/theoretical physics.
                  Some additional subjects that also might lead into climate science might include the following:

                  Geology-related Fields
                  Climatology
                  Earth and Environmental Sciences
                  Marine Biology
                  Oceanography
                  Planetary Science
                  Radiometric Dating
                  Stratigraphy
                  Volcanology
                  Physics-related Fields
                  Astrophysics
                  Fluid Dynamics
                  Statistical Mechanics
                  Thermodynamics
                  If you try, you can probably come up with still more fields of study that would be relevant to the highly synthetic field of climate science.

                  Note: It should go without saying, but we'll say it anyway---to pursue a professional career in climate science, you will need a PhD degree.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    None of the above matters...
                    What does matter is if you believe in the greenhouse effect or not, and if the hockey stick theory is correct...
                    In both scenario, we are all screwed. There is nothing man can do to stop either scenario.

                    I don’t believe it because I have common sense. The earth is massive. It will do what it will do with or without man and his fossil fuel.  It will go through its cycles of ice age about every 100,000 years.
                    It will go through it s warming and cooling every 100 years or so...
                    It will change based on volcanos and asteroids...and earthquakes...
                    It will do all the natural events it was created...and there is little if any we can affect the outcome.
                    That is my belief now, until further evidence to the contrary.
                    All the current climate models are incomplete.
                    They tend to over emphasize the greenhouse effect.

                  2. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "What is clear from that article is that these people were forced to resign based on public opinion and not expert opinion. The other experts didn't want to get caught in the crossfire and therefore withdrew support."

                    I would say this statement supports my belief that global warming caused by man is a hoax.  If scientist are not able to perform experiments and go where the science leads them, it is not science.  It is science being performed to confirm an agenda.  That is not science but politics.  It means that all results are suspect since they are done to support a political agenda and not for the sake of establishing a scientific truth.

                    "Every one of them is right in saying that it's become a political issue and this leads to uneducated people chipping in without an expert opinion."

                    I have news for you, it can even lead to educated people chipping in without expert opinion.  So, what would the theory of global warming being caused by man look like if the politics has been removed from the equation at the beginning and scientists being able to just use science to determine if it is true or not?  I imagine it would look pretty different. 

                    Here is an interesting article about climate change data being changed and distorted.  It is from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

                    "a series of case studies produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program between 2004 and 2010 to document the abuses highlighted in our 2004 report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making"

                    https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center- … GxtNOhKhdg

                3. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  And there are people who believe the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. This does not make it true and, if you have any expertise in astrophysics or really, just common education, you don't believe those people. Unfortunately, climate science is a bit more complicated, so when the average person finds the one person among ten thousand who has a different opinion, they can latch onto that opinion and claim it represents a disagreement when scientifically speaking, it does not.

                  But really, throw anything out there - cigarette smoking causes cancer. I'll find a doctor who doesn't agree that it causes cancer. Does that mean I should start smoking cigarettes?

                  1. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "the average person finds the one person among ten thousand" ?????? Now, on the flip side it is also disingenuous to report large numbers of people believe in something when that also is not true.  I'm referring to 97 percent of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change.  Absolutely false. 

                    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei … 1b364d3f9f

                  2. lobobrandon profile image88
                    lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Do you know what the funny thing is? This article that they linked to, there are 5 experts who disagree (according to the article), but read the write-up and if you understand climate science you will see that 4 of the 5 believe in man-made climate change they just don't believe in the way we are going about it. One guy suggests going Nuclear which I agree with, another says we need better input for better models, which is also obvious.

                    Those who disagree (from this article) only disagree with the way the common man is dealing with it. Nothing more. We all know how public opinion is important for universities and political parties. So, due to the public not liking them, they were forced to resign.

                  3. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    It is not the same between Nobel scientists and crackpot in their basement...like the flat earth society.
                    You are too quick to judge...
                    There are legitimate concerns about the current climate science community.
                    Do you believe science of any form can be a consensus?
                    What about the scientific method, long established as the way to prove a theory?
                    Where is the proof of man caused glogbal warming?

        3. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Just wanted to add some details. No intention of defending the science of climate change to any climate change deniers. It's not even climate change denial, it's science denial. I have no interest in it, like I have no interest in debating science with people who believe the earth is flat.

          1. jackclee lm profile image80
            jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            That is a common argument Al Gore uses about climate deniers. Compare to the flat earth society.
            The problem is not the deniers but the skeptics like me. Yes, I believe the climate is warming. My skepticism is what is causing the warming and to what extent humans are responsible?
            You will do your self a favor by reading my article. If you still hold the same opinion, fine, at least you have been exposed to the other side of the argument. The science is not settled.
            The other common argument is 97% of scientists agree with global warming...
            Unfortunately, also false. Science is not a consensus.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              "Science is not a consensus."

              According to you, Jack? What sort of climate studies degrees are you proud you achieved during your educational endeavors?

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                I don’t have a degree in climate science. I am self taught because I have a brain and I have what is called the scientific method in my DNA. I approach each problem with the same sketicism. My instincts are better than most. I am not alone. There are many scientists and meteorologist that agree with me...

            2. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Who is likely to be a more reliable source of information about climate change, every national academy of sciences on the planet, or you? No offense, but the answer is not you.

              And there is a difference between healthy skepticism, and an absurd denial of science and reality. There is no reasonable doubt that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon. The question is settled to the extent any scientific question can be.

              So I have no interest in your article Jack, just as I would have no interest in an article claiming the earth is flat.

              1. lobobrandon profile image88
                lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                I am working on my PhD in fluid and climate modeling. A few months ago I gave Jack a very detailed reply, he ignored it and asked some other unrelated questions. He thinks he is smart and that he knows how to do his research because he says he has research capabilities in his DNA - he's a joke, always was if you see his posts on these forums.

                If he is so smart, he would be able to understand the simple difference between climate and weather and the differences that go into modeling them and the reason why different models have different outcomes, but in statistical terms have the very same outcome.

                1. jackclee lm profile image80
                  jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  I am well versed in computer simulations. I know enough about climate models that it can be tweaked to give almost any desired outcome. Based on some artbitary parameters and assumptions, a small change can grow to a large error with time. Yes, I don’t trust climate models and believe they are incomplete. They are biased toward CO2 concentration. When other factors are considered, CO2 is just one of many components.
                  Weather and climate are two different animal. I never doubted it. It is the general public that confuses the two...
                  Everytime there is a heat wave, people will drag up golbsl warming...

                  1. lobobrandon profile image88
                    lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    No. You do not know enough about climate models.

                    The small change is not growing into a large error with time. It's not an error, it's all within range of the two-point statistics of the variance. The error does not grow with time, it just deviates based on the initial conditions. It's no exponential increase of sorts.

                    As an engineer, you need to use the right terms for these things.

                    I do agree with you that the climate models are incomplete. The reasons for them being incomplete are stated in my previous reply. But, at the same time, they are very complete in the sense that they are pointing in the right direction. If the model says the Earth is going to warm by 1.5 - 2 degrees on average due to man-made issues, you can rest assured that it is, in fact, going to change within +- 0.1 - 0.2 of this range.

                    C02 is definitely one of the many components and on it's own it is not the most intensive greenhouse gas. But it is also the one that is up there in the highest relative increase in concentration since the industrial revolution because we have taken millions of years of sediment (crude oil) and thrown it up in the air forming a layer of dust (analogy to sediment which is usually considered to be dust) that traps the heat within its blanket.

                    It is wrong to bring in the topic of global warming for every heat wave. But, look into the statistics and you will see that natural calamities to do with the climate are happening on a larger scale than ever before since man was a hunter and gatherer.

                    If you really want to understand this and don't just want to bring it up because of some liberal vs conservative issue, check out this page, it explains it very well: https://skepticalscience.com/global-war … ediate.htm

          2. jackclee lm profile image80
            jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Don, you are free to do as you please. Just let me know if you plan to give up plane travel...

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              There won't be any hydrogen or electric powered planes in the future, Jack? Gee, you know the future, as well as, everything else! You're just like Trump, be proud....of something. tongue

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Not anytime soon. We are stuck with fossil fuel for at least the next 100 years...

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  As we've gone from the model T and the wright brothers to triple trailer trucks and high speed electric cars, as well as the space shuttle and jetliners longer than their first flight, that's not something I could agree to.  Couple that with the ever increasing rate of technology rise and I'd almost guarantee there WILL be alternative methods of driving flight (there is already an electric plane that flew around the world.  Nonstop as I recall).

                  1. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    But those are experimental planes. I am talking about commercial travel.
                    How are you going to fly without jet fuel?
                    Our commerce will come to a stop.
                    The attack on fossil fuel is self defeating, don’t you understand?
                    We need it and our world runs on fossil fuel, coal, oil and natural gas. Without it, we might as well go back to the stone ages.

                    As advanced as solar and wind power, and nuclear, it accounts for only 5% of our total power needs. Where are you going to get that?
                    Star Trek zirconian crystals is fantasy...

            2. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Just let me know when you stop believing you understand climate science better than the majority of the world's climatologists. Facts matter Jack. They really do.

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                They do to me as well.
                I am trained as an engineer and the problem with climate change science is that it is a theory that cannot be validated until 30 years from now.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  I'm a farmer, Jack. I've spent over 50 years studying weather patterns for my livelihood. Does this make me just as knowledgeable as you?

                  1. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Randy, there is a difference between weather and climate.

                    According to NASA,  "The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time."

                    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa … ather.html

                  2. lobobrandon profile image88
                    lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    No way Randy, this makes you more knowledgeable than him and it's very apparent from the way you speak. You have both knowledge and understanding to use that knowledge. Don't underestimate yourself.

                2. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  If you want to put it in such simple terms, I'm game.

                  If by some chance the majority of the world's climatologists and climate scientists are wrong, and anthropogenic global warming is not real, the consequence in 30 years is that we would have taken actions to reduce global temperatures (which also improve the quality of air and water) without needing to.

                  If anthropogenic global warming is real, then the consequences are potentially catastrophic.

                  The cost of doing nothing therefore outweighs the cost of doing something. So we should do something.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    "In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe."

                    "On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked."

                    "More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe."

                    "Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity."

                    http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-3 … jdRTGVgu7c

                    Have no idea who these people are, and not inclined to research their statements.  But there it is; not everyone accepts the politics of anthropomorphic warming, or even global warming at all.

                  2. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    It depends how extreme you want to do this. You say there is no harm. But to people in the third world, it may be life and death...

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    "The cost of doing nothing therefore outweighs the cost of doing something. So we should do something."

                    You left out the "if" part.  IF it is true then the cost of doing nothing outweighs the cost of doing something (and IF our efforts are successful, of course).  And IF it is not true (or IF our efforts produce no real effect) the cost of doing something far outweighs the cost of doing nothing.

                    I hear this argument quite often from believers. "Well, IF you are wrong you will be in hell forever.  It outweighs a lifetime  (the only one you will ever have) of servitude to the church".

                3. lobobrandon profile image88
                  lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Nope, in that you are 100% wrong. It is not a theory, it is a statistical simulation based on the input we have today. How accurately the input is measured and how well we know how things work together affects the result. One wrong move can alter the outcome, but, the alteration is still an overall rise in temperatures. The only difference is where and how it will affect the world.

                  You only have to wait 30 years if you are slow at understanding basic physics and statistics. These are not theories, they are statistical facts.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    If it is so accurate, why wait 30 years? How convenient.
                    If you are so positive about your projections, it should be accurate next year and next 5 years...

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

      The green deal has been proposed.  It seems many dem's have approved its progressive agenda. Time to put their money where their mouths are. But it into a bill, with a plan of how they intend to pay for it and stand up and vote.  hen in 2020 run on it...  The people have a right to know what they are fully voting for.  This cheap form of politics is disgusting. Sorry for having to be so blunt, but no other word suits my thought.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        When have you ever worried about being "blunt", Shar?  lol

  2. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 7 months ago

    Jack, have you read some of the proposals in the "Green New Deal?"  I did and laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes.  I don't know what is funnier, the portion about working with farmers to decrease Methane gas produced by bovine flatulence, cows farting, or providing economic security to those unable or "unwilling" to work. Oh, there is retrofitting every building in the United States was also a good one.

    This is just as example of where the Democrat party is right now.  This is a proposal written by members of Congress that illustrates just how detached from reality these people have become.  They appear to be just children working on a high school fantasy project.  Do any of them realize where they are at and what they are doing?  It doesn't appear to be the case.

    My latest favorite from AOC is how Latinos were descendants of native people.  Huh?  I suppose her education in history didn't include the portion about the the Spanish Conquistadors and how they wiped out the Myans and Incan civilizations.  Must have skipped that little historical detail.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio … tive-to-us

    How could a college educated person get to be so ignorant?



    https://hubstatic.com/14406058.jpg

    1. IslandBites profile image87
      IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      My latest favorite from AOC is how Latinos were descendants of native people.  Huh?

      And obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I'm willing to listen if you have proof that Latinos descended from native peoples.  So, if you can provide proof I will read it.  I'll wait.  Are you familiar with the historic significance of Spanish Conquistadors?  Puerto Rico started as a Spanish colony by Christopher Columbus.  There is a reason they speak Portuguese in Brazil.  It was discovered by Portuguese diplomat Pedro Álvares Cabral.  You do know that Native Americans and the Spanish fought many wars? There are still descendants of the Myans and the Incas, but that varies throughout all of Latin America.

        1. IslandBites profile image87
          IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          This is funny, thanks for the lesson. lol

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            You do realize if you have no proof, you have no reality? Do you have anything to prove what AOC claims?

          2. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            You cannot cure willful ignorance, IB. Someone who doesn't realize many of the Mexican and South American people have Native American ancestry or are full blooded NA obviously didn't listen in grammar school history class.  roll

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, and people who don't have the intelligence to prove their point can't be taken serious and are often thought of as humorous.  Yes, historical facts do exist, they are just beyond the scope of those who lack the intellectual tools to seek them out or comprehend them.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                And that would be you!

                https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-o … ican-blood

                Check out the 3rd paragraph and I'll send you a serving of crow, Mike. One of your classic errors, but then, there are plenty to choose from.  lol

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Randy, Thank you for supplying the link.  It only proves my point. 

                  From your link

                  "Hispanic Americans are a different matter, however. But, their Native ancestry comes from a different history - that is to say, it comes from the Latin American mestizaje. This is part of a different colonial history, which did not exist in north America."

                  So, Latinos have ancestors from Latin America.  That stretches from the tip of South America to the Mexican/USA border.  The ancient people in this part of the world were the Aztecs, Myans and Incans.  They had very advanced civilizations. 

                  So, you could also look at the many wars the Native American along the Rio Grand fought with the Aztecs. 

                  So, thanks for proving my point.  Latino heritage is from South America, Central America and Mexico as well as other places the Spanish  Conquistadors ruled. 

                  Have a good day Randy.  Nice try.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    I went back and checked the link and it had changed since I linked it with another answer to the question.


                    Here is the 3rd paragraph on the first question:

                    "Then there is the problem of the South West. Mexicans are primarily Native Americans who speak Spanish due to being forced to learn it by the Spaniards. Now we look at them like they are a different race. They are not. They are simply Native Americans and some have a little Spanish blood thrown in."


                    Caw!!  Still believe many of the Mexicans aren't pure Native Americans? Probably... 

                    And where did you  that find most of the SA and Mexican people were murdered by the Spaniards?

            2. IslandBites profile image87
              IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              But shh, he's the expert.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                "A legend in his own mind," as the saying goes.

  3. Onusonus profile image75
    Onusonusposted 7 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51832440_1030300367175998_6769879781560287232_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=283d49a119a66fc268a3ed9d373b5377&oe=5CEE8911

  4. henrymencken profile image82
    henrymenckenposted 7 months ago

    I would suggest climate change fanatics to read up on work Bjorn Lomborg has done, if their motive is truly to make the world a better place.

    It's a problem when a discussion becomes so political. People will look only at evidence to support their views or agenda.

  5. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 7 months ago

    I worry at how naive our young people are in this country. It appears they think money grows on trees, every person but them are rolling in money and if everything climate related were done in this bill it will magically change the climate.

    Not to mention the bizarre belief that the world will end in 12 years because of global warming.

    Truth is, you can't force Americans to find the funds to remodel their homes to make them energy efficient. Most don't have the money for such. I wonder how much pollution would be created by a massive nationwide remodeling project, massive construction for railways and developing technology to plug cow's butts.

    Even if America found a way to implement everything in their plan we currently account for just 16% of greenhouse gases. Emerging economies will not participate and cannot be chastised for attempting to grow their economies.

    This plan is ridiculous, cannot be implemented and there is no data to support that it would make even a negligible difference in the problem the world faces. The democrats know this and are just pandering for votes by pretending they support it. Not surprising.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      So there, Nyaaaa!  tongue

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Wow. I'm so sorry to have said something that would tax your brain so hard to have to come up with such an extremely well thought out response for a leftist. Take a break Randy. You've earned it.

  6. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 7 months ago

    There is a reason conservatives are more likely than liberals to deny climate science, just like there is a reason there are more anti-vaxxers among liberals. Sadly, we are beginning to see the consequences of the poor decisions of anti-vaxxers and how their denial of reality affects all of us.

    Climate deniers are being led around by the nose by powerful interest groups who value short-term wealth over the health of the planet.

    I recall a study that found conservatives are less likely to purchase light bulbs that are labeled "good for the environment." That's just plain stupid.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      That's odd (or comical depending on your viewpoint), for I would have said that it is those that accept the concept and the short-term wealth over reason.  After all, we all watch as the "green" movement makes billions for companies that return nothing at all.  We watch as the VIP's of the movement leave gigantic carbon footprints in their personal lives.  We see the dozens of ads promoting home solar cells for "no money down" - because the neighbors will pay that FOR you - and doesn't mention there will be a lien on your home until it's paid.  That movement has great political backing, but at the root it is all about money and power, not the well being of the earth or it's people.

      As far as light bulbs, perhaps the conservatives are more distrusting of everyday sales tactics designed to sell and nothing more?  And that's coming from someone that has only one filament bulb in the house, and that's the one in the oven.  Even the refrigerator has LED lights in it - it was a selling point when I bought it, although not for energy savings.  And someone that drives a plug in hybrid that goes 3,000 miles on a 10 gallon fill-up...but couldn't get the tax rebate because it is limited to the rich.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        So much nonsense in there. Maybe someone will feel like wasting their time on it. I dont.

        1. lobobrandon profile image88
          lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Full of crap in there. No point explaining when you know the response.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Yep. Been down that road. Don't feel like doing it again.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Well, my electric bill rose some $10 per month...because some giant "green" company making solar cells conned the power company (a monopoly as most are, guaranteed a profit) into building a substation and providing power during construction...for a plant that never made a single solar array.  Taxes went up, too, to finance the same project.

          Have you not gotten the ads for solar cells for your home?

          All about money, as I said.

    2. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Let me give you one real example of liberal stupidity.
      In Seattle, where my in laws live, they passed an ordinance a few years ago that all houses must convert to CFL bulbs to save the environment. After much expense to convert over, now a few years later, LED became a better alternative, less electricity and longer lasting and better for the envionment... too bad they did not waited...

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        You left out the scare that grew rapidly over mercury in CFL's.  It turned a lot of people off of CFL's, and for good reason.

        1. lobobrandon profile image88
          lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Another uneducated worry.

          The amount of mercury in a CFL is very small, only 4-5 milligrams. This is almost one thousand times less than what was in mercury thermometers! ... In short, the exposure from breaking a compact fluorescent bulb is in about the same range as the exposure from eating a can or two of tuna fish

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Dammit man, I love tuna!

            1. lobobrandon profile image88
              lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              For every two cans of tuna that you eat, you're eating one CFL bulb. Not good, not good at all.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I fully understand that.  I even agree with it, with the caveat that destroying thousands of CFL bulbs over a lifetime CAN produce damage (mercury is not secreted from the body).

            But the comment was about the fear of mercury.  Spread by fear mongers without full knowledge of what they are speaking of. 

            Makes one consider fear stories of many kinds, doesn't it?  When we accept a false story as truth fear becomes the over riding factor.  Or even an unproven story with grossly exaggerated projections as a true forecast of the future rather than a distant possibility.

            1. lobobrandon profile image88
              lobobrandonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Exactly. So never consider false stories by people who do not work and have experience in a certain field.

              No metal is secreted from a body, only organic compounds. Yes, mercury is poisonous, so is arsenic in apple seeds. This is why the proper disposal of CFL bulbs is needed, the same with all electronics and their lead batteries. Also, I didn't say you feared it, just that it was an uneducated fear. The same as the fear by anti vaxxers.

              I read that anti vaxxers are mostly liberal and something of that sort. An honest question: Does every single argument land under the liberal/democrat umbrella in the US? This is what it seems like. People, in general, cannot seem to think of every situation on its own and they need to support their team no matter what. I know it's unrelated, but I know you'd be able to give me a good answer to this (hopefully), better than most here, at least.

  7. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 6 months ago

    Whew! I am getting dizzy trying to follow this thread.

    So what is the bottom line - is the earth flat, or not? Will Georgia become a beachfront property, (sorry for your loss Randy), or will the Appalachian trail become the new I-95? Are the zombie bacteria just waiting for us to blink, or are we really the masters of the universe? I am so confused.

    GA

    1. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      No need to be confused, everything will be OK...there is no global catastrophe...anything that comes our way, we can mitigate. Humans are resilient and we are adaptable. There are humans living in the arctic and the equator...global warming will be just another challenge...

    2. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I now live on what was once a barrier island around 12,000 years ago GA, so I'll have a few extra years to evacuate. tongue

      But not to worry because we have our resident self-professed Climate Change expert to keep us informed. But you already knew that , eh? lol

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        My predictions for 2026...
        <snipped>

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Self promotion is against forum rules, Jack. You'll have to resort to something much sneakier to get people to read your...….stuff.

          1. jackclee lm profile image80
            jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I don’t care if people read it. I only post this as it relates to our discussion.
            I have published over 600 articles on Hubpages. Do you think I really care if you read one of my articles.
            I am well aware of the self promotion aspect of HubPages.
            I personally think it is misguided.
            If a hub already covers a particular topic of discussion, why not allow it to be posted...it just makes common sense.
            The blanket rule of not allowing hub links is just an indicator to me that HubPages has a primitive AI checking system. A more sophisticated system would be able to distingush whether a post is self promotion or not.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              "I personally think it is misguided. "

              Are you sure?  I can't remember the last time I saw a post on the HP facebook page that wasn't pure self promotion and nothing else.

              I'd hate to see the forums turn into the same thing, and I'm sure they would.

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                I know what you are saying but there needs to be some compromise.
                Self promotion is one thing but repeating the same arguments should not be encouraged also. In any discussion of a deep nature, invariably, there will be incidence of some related topic that has been explored already possibly in an article. I see no reason why it cannot be shared to make a point. The forums already allow links to other websites...

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  In other words, "rules shouldn't apply to such as myself, just the peons."

                  We get it , Jack! roll

                  1. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Read what I said...no more mo less.

            2. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Sure you care if people read your....stuff, Jack. Otherwise you wouldn't be touting it all the time as a measure of your brilliance.  No one wants to read your OPINION instead of facts.

              Kind of sad if you ask me..

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, I am a basket case...

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  I didn't want to mention it first....

                  1. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "No one wants to read your OPINION instead of facts"  is hypocrisy another aspect of the English language you seem to lack an understanding?

  8. lobobrandon profile image88
    lobobrandonposted 6 months ago

    Watch this. This is why I get so pissed off with people who think science is a debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1MZ8U8C9c8 it's not. What you do with the knowledge and the policies you form, that's debatable.

    It shows how uneducated some societies are becoming, societies that were once smart. Right now there's a thread calling the new generation stupid. It's simply hilarious when many in the new generation in some countries that had great pasts are waking up to step back into the shoes of their forefathers and not the immediate ancestors.

    GA Anderson, this is a comment from the video above:

    This is where the severely misunderstood "97%" argument came from. That stat isn't the number of scientists that believe in man-made climate change. That is based on a meta-analysis of papers studying the climate. They reviewed thousands of papers and found that 97% of them determined that human activity was having a measurable impact on climate change. The other 3% didn't necessarily come to the opposite conclusion. Some simply didn't have the evidence to say that any changes were directly linked to human activities. That is what Neil is talking about. When you have the vast, vast majority of papers reaching the same conclusion then you can say that the theory holds true. This isn't up for debate anymore.

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Are you serious?  I had to watch this more than once. 

      Look at the 1:48 of the video.  I'm not a scientific expert.  I do know history.  I assure you that Abraham Lincoln signed NOTHING into law in 1963.  So, CNN's fake news continues.  Hurricane?  Isn't there a difference between weather and climate?  Isn't it disingenuous to talk about cherry-picking science and then post an image of a hurricane? 

      I didn't see anything worth anything except a man who is not a climate scientist trying to sell his book. 

      You may know science but do you know economics?

      There is absolutely NO workable realistic solution to this problem if it were proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt.  In order for something to work, ALL the countries would have to be on board with a solution. 

      Do you really think there is a realistic way to get countries the size of China and India to limit their manufacturing and risk economic collapse?  All the science in the world is not going to get them to change.

      So, say all you want about climate change.  You don't have a realistic solution to the problem.

      1. lobobrandon profile image88
        lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, China and India are doing faaaar more than the USA. China is leading the green revolution. India is nowhere near the USA in the pollution they let out, the USA per capita is way higher than China and a lot of the stuff manufactured in China goes to the US. This is why your President is so worried about the trade deficit.

        I support the Green New Deal even though it's trying too much, because the fact is people like you are gonna be gone and we're going to deal with it. You can take your green dollar bills and keep them in your graves and take them to the afterlife much like the Pharoes of Egypt.

        Economics is a man made venture, the planet is not. Without a planet to work with there is no point in economics. Money is nothing when a crisis happens.

        Also, if you have the common sense you think you have, you would know it's 1863. Maybe FoxNews would have said it right.

        Watch this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjIyms1BX4

        The good thing though is that it's just the USA that has the dumb folk who doubt science, very few in Australia, the rest of the world is in unison. Unfortunately, the USA is the biggest polluter contributing directly + in trade.

        Like I said: there's a huge difference between understanding and not doing anything about it. 1 in 4 people in the US don't even understand it.

        Btw. how are hurricanes cherry picking? What are the good things that have been happening?

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          "I support the Green New Deal"

          Good luck taking a train to Europe.  Did you even read it? 

          You know science.  You don't have a clue about the reality of economics or even world politics.

          "Economics is a man made venture, the planet is not. Without a planet to work with there is no point in economics. Money is nothing when a crisis happens."

          You need more real-world experience.

          1. lobobrandon profile image88
            lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I am in Europe.

            I watched a video on the Green New Deal, it's got targets it cannot and will not achieve, but it's a step in the right direction: Planning based on facts. Something your government has forgotten to do.

            I do know about Politics and how the system is built for lobbyists, this is why the US is crying foul, you have one of the biggest Oil lobbies in the world.

            I also know about Economics, not an economist, but I know how the world works. You know just one system that works, this does not translate to: It's the only system that works.

            Begin by reading this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07845-5 if you know about economy, you will see how taking away from oil subsidies would free up a lot of cash. But, that's something your current government will never do because ... funding and lobbies. Indonesia has done it.

            Also, if you know what's happening around the world. you would know that Inida and China are not the problems. The US and China are major problems, India somewhat, but Nigeria is going to be a huge issue. This is why they need to invest in green technology and not go the fossil fuel route. They are booming and Zambia is not far behind. Right now Sub-Saharan Africa uses less electricity than Alabama. That's going to change fast.

            Also, the largest shipping companies in the world are working full time on going green, so are major beer companies such as Heineken and they are still wreaking in profits. Cambodia, Mexico and Brazil are making huge changes and improvements among many others.

            Lastly, with the population growing and with projections of reaching 11 billion we're going to need circular economies, because the world is not going to be as it is now with 10% of the world having the most wealth, there's going to be a much larger middle economy and your current economic systems and policies do not support this, in fact they push for a wider gap. 

            I don't need more real-world experience, you need to be able to think of the world other than yourself. Not just your family, but the next generation.

            I know you guys are not young and it's not easy to change your mentality, most of all admit that you've changed your mind on something you've been headstrong about for decades. But that's what you need to do.

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Your responses are too much like something you would see in a textbook.

              NO...you don't know economics. Believing China and India will work to lower their manufacturing to accommodate for the theory of man made climate change is naive

              You may know science, but beyond this discipline, you seem to only know what you've read. 

              That's not real.

              What makes your generation look so unintelligent is you don't know what you don't know.  Let that sink in.

              Academia is not the real world.

              1. lobobrandon profile image88
                lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Canda is working on laws to make repairing a thing. They don't want their population to keep buying new things from China just because things cannot be repaired anymore. This is a step towards the cyclic economy, less waste.

                Our generation knows what we don't know and we trust experts in their field to do their job, something many in your generation cannot fathom to do because you need to know it all. Just like Jack, you guys are a Jack of all trades and a master of none.

                China only produces because the West consumes. So it's not up to China. They are doing their bit to move to cleaner production. Are you doing your bit to cleaner consumption? Of course not.

                Both China and India have amazing policies set up and they are working towards their goals. They are still expanding on their carbon footprint in order to give everyone electricity. If you can live without electricity, good for you. But it's a basic human need in this day and age and that's the only reason they still have some coal plants going up. But, the number is massively offset by renewables.

                The whole situation in NY with Amazon is funny to watch. Some economists like yourself think Amazon was bringing something to the city. They were only bringing in people with higher wages that would push the locals further out. If that's how an economy works, for the top bracket it needs to change and people are standing up for it. She would not have been voted in otherwise.

                Also, as I said, if you knew much about Economy you would know that Africa is the real problem that is waiting to happen.

                I'd rather look unintelligent than be unintelligent and selfish. Have you visited India and China in the last 10 years or have you seen documentaries that are not on FoxNews?

                क्या आप उनकी नीतियों को जानते हैं?

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  "China only produces because the West consumes. So it's not up to China. They are doing their bit to move to cleaner production."

                  You do need to brush up on your economics.  These countries have HUGE populations.  They need to find jobs for billions of people.  If they can't create an economy to support their population, the government could be taken down and the country would then descend into chaos.  So, these countries MUST maintain a huge manufacturing industry. 

                  "They were only bringing in people with higher wages that would push the locals further out. If that's how an economy works,"

                  You need to read more about that deal.  Amazon offered to hire most of the workforce from the local economy.  New York has the people they need.  That was one thing that made New York attractive to them.  Getting Amazon to leave was a stupid thing done by stupid people.  Again, not something someone done by people who know economics.  The New York economy lost a lot of new tax revenue.  It was stupid on New York's part. 

                  Yep, been to China and India within the last 10 years.  Spoke with lots of people there.  Amazing places.  Very rich in culture and history.  Anybody have a chance to visit there...I recommend it.  Went with a couple to India who had never before been out of the United States.  They were overwhelmed.  Ah, the sights, sounds, smells are all unique.  No matter how many things you see in China or India...there is always more to see. I plan on going back.

                  1. lobobrandon profile image88
                    lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    I don't see the point here. Capitalism does not have to die to have cleaner production and a green economy. Margaret Thatcher should have been alive today, some conservatives would have seen that the two can go hand in hand with some efficient but big changes.

          2. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            Give it up. Anyone under 35 is in a panic mode that precludes thinking beyond 'the sky is falling'

            1. lobobrandon profile image88
              lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              I see. All the old guys in the climate council are going to be blushing when they see how young you've made them.

              But your message is right, some conservatives are gonna be conservatives, preserving those brain neurons for a day when they may come to use. So there's no point arguing. Gonna have to give it up.

            2. IslandBites profile image87
              IslandBitesposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Keep up with your generalizations! Good job!

              1. lobobrandon profile image88
                lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                I've begun doing that to them too. I am treating them as wise old men on all threads they participate in.

    2. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Cool, it seems the origin of that "97%" may have been found. That was my question all along Brandon. It was never a question of the legitimacy of the AGW claims.

      As for your link: thanks, I am a huge fan of Tyson. Love to hear anything he has to say. Even watched his failed TV show, but... I was never in disagreement with what he said, or the fact that AGW is real. So the video was just a nice evening treat.

      GA

      1. lobobrandon profile image88
        lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        No prob. Glad you got your answer. But that 97 percent is still not to be believed.

        At some point in time only a handful of people believed in evolution. Today it is probably a 100 percent of the scientists. But if I study papers and consider past publications this number would go down as they didn't have the tools and in this field the right theory to match their findings.

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Wait, don't play with me pal. "But that 97 percent is still not to be believed. " Was that sarcasm? I don't do well with detecting sarcasm. It might be the only thing I have in common with Sheldon ;-)

          GA

          1. lobobrandon profile image88
            lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            It's not sarcasm, I gave you an example of how things change. That 97% will be closer to 100% if Cook looks only at modern papers.

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              I can see that, and as soon as I can determine the answer to this Ph.D. question I will come back to the question of whether Cook's claim encompasses ALL scientists.

              So far I am only convinced it includes published scientists.

              As a side note: In looking at the SU faculty pages I came across SU's Science Dept. publications listing. I did not look at where their list of papers were published, but there were multiple students with published papers. Does that make them scientists?

              GA

              1. lobobrandon profile image88
                lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                I was a student with published papers. Yes, that makes them a researcher. A scientist is one that has a PhD and works in research, both your and my link says that. It is very clear in both the links, I am sorry if this is hard for you to comprehend.

                And Cooks paper encompasses all scientists because all scientists are published scientists.

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Ok bud, Be sorry all you want, but your point is not hard for me to "comprehend." I simply disagree with it, and your self-affirmation.

                  On your say, all scientists must be published Ph.D.s in order to claim the title of scientists. Multiple Google-supplied sources and my local university Science Dept. head contradict your "say."

                  I will leave you to your opinion, but put the support of my opinion in their validations.

                  It seems very clear that one can be a legitimate scientist without a Ph.D. or published papers. That scientist may forever be deemed a lower-level or entry-level scientist, but they will be a scientist none the less.

                  Even more confusing is "your published papers" statement. As a student, you say you were a "researcher", but as a degreed, (BS), scientist you aren't allowed to be a researcher until you attain a Ph.D.?

                  GA

  9. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 6 months ago

    Oh, this is too funny to me.  I couldn't resist.

    https://hubstatic.com/14428757.jpg

  10. abwilliams profile image32
    abwilliamsposted 6 months ago

    I have not been involved in this particular discussion, but this is too funny for me to pass by. Thanks for making me laugh out loud Mike, now I am ready to tackle the work week.

  11. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 6 months ago

    Here is another one I couldn't resist sharing.


    https://hubstatic.com/14431491_f1024.jpg

  12. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 6 months ago

    I saw where AOC is changing the pay structure for her staff, from the norm. Paying those less qualified more than the average, taking pay away from the more qualified to accomplish it. Of particular interest is that I saw no mention of her pay going toward correcting 'inequities'.

    Socialist control on display. 'Do as I say, but don't make me pay for it'.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, the top pay she will offer is half what she makes.  It will be interesting to see if he she follows through with the plan after the top, most experienced, people pack it in and leave for greener pastures.

      Think she'll give up her luxury apartment (with no "affordable" units in the complex) and pass on the savings on to her employees?  Will she use some of her own (capitalist) salary to put towards her socialist ideals?

      Or will she sit back enjoying capitalism while her employees suffer under her application of her own brand of socialism to them?

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Her response to that may reiterate a previous comment she made "I'm in control and you are just shouting out from the cheap seats." I think the aura of power has gone to her head. That didn't take long.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          No, it didn't take long.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I find it interesting that quote was in a letter written by Lord Acton of England in 1887.  Guess there have always been people like AOC around.

  13. hard sun profile image85
    hard sunposted 6 months ago

    Talking about power going to a politician's head, and not mentioning Trump, brings an Alanis Morissette song to mind..don't ya think

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Believe it or not, for some it is possible to have a conversation that does not involve Trump. Not democrats, of course. But some people can.

      1. hard sun profile image85
        hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Ha ha....it's a free ride when you've already paid...figures...just don't think about it and you can keep supporting the guy

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Not in your shoes, so can't see from that angle. I think the statement you made is ridiculous, but again, not in your shoes.

          My comment wasn't support of Trump just the fact that,for some, life appears to revolve around Trump.

          1. hard sun profile image85
            hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            You don't have to be in my shoes. We used to be better than Trump. It's not just Trump...it's the people in a cultural and intellectual crisis, and the climate change conspiracy theories are a symptom of the degradation. Trump just brings it all to the front and piles on the dung as he attacks democracy.

            I haven't stated anything about Trump much of anywhere lately.. but if a conversation about the morality of a freshmen Senator can be front and center due to its importance...welp., Trump should be brought up. If you want to call that my life revolving around Trump..then so be it.

            I've had, and will have my kicks, there's no doubt of that. Take care.

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              "Welp" Now that I like. Spoken like a true Eastern Shoreman.

              Although I would agree with the criticism of bringing Trump into a non-Trump thread--a la Jake-- your "welp" won me over. I forgive you. ;-)

              GA

              1. hard sun profile image85
                hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Ah..and I thought I was dubbed Unforgiven a long time ago. The new life coursing through my veins will only serve to stiffen my anti-Trump stances. That is, after I drink some coffee and get to work.

                Truly, I have grown weary of Trump bashing in every unrelated conversation just as I have the Trump circle jerking. This conversation just screamed ..what about Trump?...just as so many seem to scream what about Hillary, or Obama, to Trump supporters.

                Thanks Obama.

                I think welp is folksy-enough to fit the Hoosier vernacular no matter the term's origins.

            2. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping

              https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash … se-keeping

            3. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Yes. We used to be better than Trump. Let's hope we get back there.

              But dismissing criticism, at every turn, simply with a "what about Trump comeback" excuses the behavior of another offending party. It will not do anything in the effort to get back to a 'better' position.

              Honestly? At this juncture, AOC is the leftist image of Trump.

  14. Onusonus profile image75
    Onusonusposted 6 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52717553_2315977078466894_8010109712072704000_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&amp;_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&amp;oh=273b0aac3bfd101119aa6dca4f0676d4&amp;oe=5CEA365D

    1. lobobrandon profile image88
      lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this
      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        I was wondering about that meme, but didn't have the interest, (or belief), to pursue it.

        But your link did prompt a look around, and I found a Forbes article that adds some more details to your Guardian link.

        How Much CO2 Does A Single Volcano Emit?

        GA

        1. lobobrandon profile image88
          lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          This got me going wow: It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            One has to wonder how "Additional emissions from tectonic, hydrothermal and inactive volcanic areas contribute an estimated 66 million tons of CO2 per year" while acknowledging that "the total number of emitting, tectonic areas are unknown".

            Or for that matter, how "emissions from mid-ocean ridges are estimated to be 97 million tons of CO2 annually" when we haven't even traveled them, let alone the rest of the ocean bottom.

            But beyond that, humanity produces about 2.3# of CO2 per day, or 3B tons per year for the species.  It also comprises about .027 of the total of animal life (not counting bacteria or other single cell organisms); animal life thus produces 118B tons of CO2 per year (by breathing, using homo sapiens as the benchmark), compared to the 29B we produce by burning.  Kind of puts a different picture on man producing most of the CO2 entering the atmosphere.

            https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 … eathe.html

            https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ … imals-pnas

            1. lobobrandon profile image88
              lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              There's something called the carbon cycle and no species on the planet other than humans is doing anything to change this cycle. Read this from the article on slate:

              No. Human beings do exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we’re still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy.

              Doesn't really paint a different picture.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                I saw that, understand that, and recognize the difference.  Although limiting the addition of "sequestered" carbon to other species rather than all sources other than man seems a little disingenuous, especially considering that the topic here is volcanoes.

                The fact remains that when you say humanity is producing far more CO2, via the burning of fossil fuels, than all of natural causes combined is patently false.  It isn't even close.

                We can see this, too, in the percentage of O2 in the atmosphere.  Early on it was near o.  Then bacteria came along and it rose, followed by plant life and another huge rise.  Then animals came into being (think BIG dinosaurs) and it fell drastically to near what it is today, along with the size of animals.

                If you want to actually discuss what man is doing to CO2 levels, then, it is likely best to consider what we are adding on a percentage basis.  But of course that is very, very low (on the order of 2%) and doesn't have nearly the emotional impact of 29,000,000,000 tons.

                1. lobobrandon profile image88
                  lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  The difference is that the volcanoes etc bring up carbon from the mantle. So they are comparable to what man is doing with fossil fuels. The rest of the life forms are not.

                  Also, it was geological activity that resulted in life and the change in the atmosphere, no doubts there. But geological activity is known to bring stuff up from the depths while geological activity also results in it getting buried.

                  The change in the atmosphere by life happened over billions of years, not over 200 years. So you begin to see what that 2% is doing.

                  When you have a balance of scales, that 2% is a massive amount.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "The change in the atmosphere by life happened over billions of years, not over 200 years. So you begin to see what that 2% is doing. "

                    Actually, no it didn't take billions of years to see a large change in the composition of the atmosphere.  Not unless you mean all of the changes in the last 4.5B years lumped into one event.

                    Not to say it took 200 years either, although some of the massive events in the past might have had that effect and in far less time.  We can't tell that close when it comes to the entire atmosphere, although we DO know that there were events that happened in a few hours or days.

                    "When you have a balance of scales, that 2% is a massive amount."

                    Certainly no argument there!  But, as I said, it simply does not carry the emotional impact of 29,000,000,000 tons.   Those zeros carry a lot of weight to the gullible person that isn't going to actually think about what is being said anyway.  And it is the emotional impact that counts far more than fact in today's arguments.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)