Green new deal equals magical thinking

[brenthutch 422]

On 11/28/2019 at 4:23 PM, billvon said:

The REASON we have plenty of bald eagles and we don't have burning rivers any more is because of those evil progressive liberals you always attack.  So - you're welcome.

 

Richard Nixon was a progressive liberal?

EPA 1970

Endangered Species Act 1973

 

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 2,114]

59 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Richard Nixon was a progressive liberal?

Compared to the present day R party, yes he was.

[JoeWeber 2,613]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Richard Nixon was a progressive liberal?

EPA 1970

Endangered Species Act 1973

 

 

Sorry to interrupt but you danced past answering whether this bit of narcissistic insanity was cool as long as you were getting conservative judges and anything Obama erased.

[billvon 2,772]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Richard Nixon was a progressive liberal?

EPA 1970

Endangered Species Act 1973

 

 

Compared to today's republican - yes.  Neither Nixon nor Reagan could be a viable candidate for the GOP today - they'd be labeled socialist takers by today's GOP.

[JerryBaumchen 1,304]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

EPA 1970

Endangered Species Act 1973

Hi Brent,

Nixon did not initiate legislation for either of those.  It started in Congress & the bills were presented to him, then he signed them.

I was around in those days.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 422]

7 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Brent,

Nixon did not initiate legislation for either of those.  It started in Congress & the bills were presented to him, then he signed them.

I was around in those days.

Jerry Baumchen

Wrong, "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection.^[3] President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970^[4] and it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order."  Congress just ratified what was already in effect. (see the SNL version of "I'm Just a Bill" for more further education) 

[DJL 235]

On 12/2/2019 at 10:04 PM, billvon said:

I don't know what "the climate change media" is.  You mean the scientific community?  They have been talking about this for decades.

I do get that.  Much of news, while informative, still needs to get ratings and there IS money to be made in pandering to those who want to hear affirmation of their beliefs.  Some channels are more guilty than others, in my opinion CNN and NPR are the worst.  Even then it's not an issue of the information being wrong but that they lay it on so thick.  

[brenthutch 422]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

I do get that.  Much of news, while informative, still needs to get ratings and there IS money to be made in pandering to those who want to hear affirmation of their beliefs.  Some channels are more guilty than others, in my opinion CNN and NPR are the worst.  Even then it's not an issue of the information being wrong but that they lay it on so thick.  

They lay it on thick and they try to weave it throughout their coverage of unrelated topics.  "income inequality is bad but it is likely to get much worse because of climate change"   It is only getting more shrill as the predicted calamity fails to materialize.  Oxford Dictionaries just named "Climate Emergency" as its word of the year, and Dictionary.com did the same for "existential"  Even a brutally cold start to the winter season can't snap some folks out of this delusion.

[gowlerk 2,114]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is only getting more shrill as the predicted calamity fails to materialize. 

The "predicted calamity" is actually a series of effects, some unknown, some more sure that will happen over the next decades. In the meantime glaciers are melting, seas are rising, and oceans are warming. These predicted and observable measurable effects are and will continue. No matter how shrill you get in denying the facts.

[DJL 235]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

They lay it on thick and they try to weave it throughout their coverage of unrelated topics.  "income inequality is bad but it is likely to get much worse because of climate change"   It is only getting more shrill as the predicted calamity fails to materialize.  Oxford Dictionaries just named "Climate Emergency" as its word of the year, and Dictionary.com did the same for "existential"  Even a brutally cold start to the winter season can't snap some folks out of this delusion.

I was North of Pittsburg for the Thanksgiving weekend.  Cold where you are doesn't mean cold for the world.  Here's October, showing both high and low records in the US, Nov will be out in about two weeks.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201910/supplemental/page-1

Here's the global average to date.  We're in the midst of the second hottest land and sea year on record and the highest global land temps on record.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201910/supplemental/page-1

You should be familiar with this as you posted the same graph earlier this year in an effort to claim that the year was not actually the hottest ever.

Edit:  The predictions ARE coming true.  Glaciers melting, Arctic Sea ice melting, permafrost melting, incidents of extreme weather increasing.  I spent two pages of this very thread showing you exact examples of these these predictions coming true.  All you have for your proof is that the most knee jerk reactionary crazed dingbats got it wrong when they said things like that the arctic ice would all be gone by now.

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 422]

That is kind of my point.  The planet is a fraction of a degree warmer and the only thing to happen is shrinking deserts, record food production, rising global life expectancy, rising global GDP, shrinking poverty, and record low death rates from natural disasters.  We just shattered hundreds of record cold levels and our local ski area just had its earliest open EVER.  What I can observe with my own eyes does not match up with the "existential threat of catastrophic global warming" narrative.  It makes me question just how much "data homogenization" is going on at NOAA.

BTW temps have been warming, glaciers have been melting and the seas have been rising for more that 10,000 years.

Edited December 4, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is kind of my point.  The planet is a fraction of a degree warmer and the only thing to happen is shrinking deserts, record food production, rising global life expectancy, rising global GDP, shrinking poverty, and record low death rates from natural disasters.  We just shattered hundreds of record cold levels and our local ski area just had its earliest open EVER.  What I can observe with my own eyes does not match up with the "existential threat of catastrophic global warming" narrative.  It makes me question just how much "data homogenization" is going on at NOAA.

BTW temps have been warming, glaciers have been melting and the seas have been rising for more that 10,000 years.

We're in a big ole' circle back to where the discussion was about a year ago.  At this point it's like Memento but I'm all out of post-it notes and tattoos.

Edited December 4, 2019 by DJL

[ryoder 1,571]

1 minute ago, DJL said:

We're in a big ole' circle back to where the discussion was about a year ago.  At this point it's like Momento but I'm all out of post-it notes and tattoos.

That was a great film!

[DJL 235]

10 minutes ago, ryoder said:

That was a great film!

I have this condition....

[brenthutch 422]

6 minutes ago, DJL said:

We're in a big ole' circle back to where the discussion was about a year ago.  

You mean 16 years ago.  The prediction was for record droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornados, desertification, mass migration out of the Caribbean and Maldives, diseases, crop failures, ice free arctic, dead polar bears on and on and on.  None of it happened.  In many cases just the opposite of what was predicted actually happened. 

[DJL 235]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You mean 16 years ago.  The prediction was for record droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornados, desertification, mass migration out of the Caribbean and Maldives, diseases, crop failures, ice free arctic, dead polar bears on and on and on.  None of it happened.  In many cases just the opposite of what was predicted actually happened. 

Ok, get specific if you're claiming their specifics were wrong.  What was the exact claim and what has happened in each of those examples you provided?

[wolfriverjoe 1,480]

6 minutes ago, DJL said:

Ok, get specific if you're claiming their specifics were wrong.  What was the exact claim and what has happened in each of those examples you provided?

I've asked that before.

The predictions he's claiming haven't come to pass (yet) were NOT short term predictions. They were 'hundreds of years' predictions. 

So of course they haven't happened yet. 

I've asked for some proof that any of that was predicted to happen in decades, not centuries, predictions backed up by solid scientific data. Not by Al Gore.

There HAVE BEEN  predictions made in a 'decades' time frame. They were for small temp increases, glacial & ice cap shrinkage. Those have been pretty much spot on. 

The other major 'decades' prediction is the tipping point. The point at which we're pretty much fucked no matter what we do. Of course, the only way to verify that prediction is to do nothing (which we are doing quite well) and wait. By the time it's been proven to be correct, it will be too late. 

[DJL 235]

5 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I've asked that before.

The predictions he's claiming haven't come to pass (yet) were NOT short term predictions. They were 'hundreds of years' predictions. 

So of course they haven't happened yet. 

I've asked for some proof that any of that was predicted to happen in decades, not centuries, predictions backed up by solid scientific data. Not by Al Gore.

There HAVE BEEN  predictions made in a 'decades' time frame. They were for small temp increases, glacial & ice cap shrinkage. Those have been pretty much spot on. 

The other major 'decades' prediction is the tipping point. The point at which we're pretty much fucked no matter what we do. Of course, the only way to verify that prediction is to do nothing (which we are doing quite well) and wait. By the time it's been proven to be correct, it will be too late. 

His effort is to find the small thing that people got wrong instead of looking at the big picture too.  16 years ago scientists hypothesized things like various islands being affected.  It hasn't happened to those specific islands YET but it IS happening all along the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, the Mekong Delta.  Next is the game of what you can see with your own eyes.  If we want to play that game them I'll show the progression of sea rise at my girlfriend's property on the Chesapeake.  I'm in the process of trying to establish oyster reef around it to stop erosion but that doesn't do much for the salt water seepage that's making the trees die.  Next is "but it's good for someone somewhere".  In the example of the Maldives it's good for some of the reefs because with more deep water in the very flat and shallow sea bed there's more opportunity for reefs to build if acidification and temp rise doesn't get them first. 

[brenthutch 422]

14 minutes ago, DJL said:

Ok, get specific if you're claiming their specifics were wrong.  What was the exact claim and what has happened in each of those examples you provided?

Floods- No change

Droughts- No change

Hurricanes- No change

Tornados- Fewer not more

Polar Bears- More not fewer

Maldives and Caribbean- Populations growing not shrinking

Food production- More not less

Ice free arctic by 2013 (predicted by climate scientist and parroted by Gore)- Still here

Desertification- Deserts shrinking not growing

These predictions for not for some time hundreds of years in the future these were predictions of catastrophe that were going to effect us and certainly our children. (Just ask Greta)

 

[DJL 235]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Floods- No change

Droughts- No change

Hurricanes- No change

Tornados- Fewer not more

Polar Bears- More not fewer

Maldives and Caribbean- Populations growing not shrinking

Food production- More not less

Ice free arctic by 2013 (predicted by climate scientist and parroted by Gore)- Still here

Desertification- Deserts shrinking not growing

These predictions for not for some time hundreds of years in the future these were predictions of catastrophe that were going to effect us and certainly our children. (Just ask Greta)

 

Don't see any sources there.  Again Memento.

[brenthutch 422]

I have sourced every claim and posted earlier on this thread.  Do you own google if you don't believe me.

[brenthutch 422]

https://www.arctictoday.com/narrative-polar-bears-become-problem-arctic-environmental-groups/

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/

I know the inclusion of a wattsupwiththat link will make your head explode but try to get past that and go on to the links that back up the assertions 

[gowlerk 2,114]

57 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You mean 16 years ago. 

16 years is an eye blink. That's one of the problems we must deal with. The major effects of warming are down the line and easy for people to ignore in the present. You are correct about one thing, it is not an existential threat. Our main existential threat is large scale thermonuclear war. Just because the human race will almost certainly cope with a warmer climate does not mean it is wise to just continue experimenting with global warming in order to find out how bad it may or may not be. That would be foolish and in keeping with being passengers and crew on a ship of fools. We can do better without sacrificing our standard of living, and we will.

[DJL 235]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

You are correct about one thing, it is not an existential threat.

Agreed, but it's like knowing we're going to hit the ice berg and saying it's OK because it won't kill everyone.  Right now we're just arguing about how quickly to slow down to mitigate how quickly we need to get to the life boat.

[billvon 2,772]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That is kind of my point.  The planet is a fraction of a degree warmer  . . .

Well over a degree, to be specific.  (2016 was 1.7F warmer, 2018 was 1.4F warmer)  But you know that.

I think this may be why no one here takes you very seriously - you do things like that regularly.  People think "if he's lying about that super simple thing, maybe everything else he says is untrue as well."