Did I stutter? If you need remedial classes on the modern understanding of anthropogenic climate change and how we know what we know, start a thread on it, and we will be glad to rectify any misconceptions you may have. 
But coming into a thread about where republicans need to shift their positions to better represent reality and taking the philosophical equivalent of the young earth position is not particularly helpful.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
P.S.- Climate science, as described to you before and ignored by you, is not an experimental science – it’s a cross-disciplinary field that is a synthesis of experimental sciences and observation. If you want to wait for the kind of imaginary and impossible “evidence” you’ve concocted, you’ll be waiting until the all the polar ice caps melt and the seas rise right into your back yard. If you want to be serious about the issue, start reading the above link.
It uses models. Chapter 9. Next!
No, I haven’t ignored it. And yes, climate science is indeed experimental science. Here’s a simple experiment for you: fill a transparent soda bottle with CO2, leave it in the sun, and measure how the temperature rises. Yes, the Earth is a complex and not fully understood system; that just means that more work is needed.
Cancer is not a fully understood disease, but medical science treats it as best it can and treatments evolve as the disease is better understood and new treatment methods are developed. No doctor says, “Well, we can’t treat this cancer patient because we don’t fully understand the disease.”
Quantum mechanics is not fully understood but technology is moving forward with quantum computing. Nobody is saying that Quantum computing is too complex and we should wait to develop this technology until it fully understood.
Why insist that climate science should be treated differently?
Again:
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
W.F.J. Evans (2006)
That can be falsified indeed, so again, you are not looking at the evidence. And just in case you think that just by seeing the word model there you are free to dismiss it: that is not what the paper is just about, they are telling all that there was a prediction of how much downward infrared radiation that done by models was there. So the experiment was made to confirm is that 1) that effect is there indeed and 2) It was actually a bit higher than was predicted then.
So, umm… any non-climate-change thoughts on the thread?
That was sorta my point: because I see both sides perfectly willing to lie or deceive in service of their goals, the realization that my side lies doesn’t move me away, since I see the same thing everywhere. It is, in other words, not a discriminator, which was something I thought septimus might have been suggesting.
I don’t want to belabor this particular point but the above doesn’t accurately represent either RCP8.5 nor the context in which I discussed it. You’re trying to make it sound as if it’s a ridiculous, highly improbable scenario that is being put forward by climate scaremongers as being “likely”. In point of fact, while it is – by definition – intended to be extreme in the sense of being the upper bound of the four RCPs, there are important aspects of it that are perfectly plausible if we get enough “leadership” of the Trump-Pruitt-Perry variety for long enough.
For example, from a paper describing this pathway, and specifically from the section 3.1 Storyline and main scenario drivers of RCP8.5, we see first of all that it’s not correct to allege that it assumes “super high population growth” – it assumes that the population in 2100 will be 12 billion, which is only slightly higher than the UN projection of 11.2 billion wherein they also add “According to the UN’s ‘medium variant’ projection which assumes a decline in fertility rates and an increase in life expectancy, there’s a 95% chance that the world’s population will be between 9.5 and 13.3 Billion in 2100.”
The RCP also assumes “Compared to the broader integrated assessment literature, the RCP8.5 represents thus a scenario with high global population and intermediate development in terms of total GDP” – not “low GDP growth”.
It also assumes “Given the overall slow rate of technological improvements in low-carbon technologies, the future energy system moves toward coal-intensive technology choices with high GHG emissions” – which is practically right out of the Trump coal-pandering playbook.
And it concludes “Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity”. As I noted before, this is the only scenario in which stabilization of increases in radiative forcing does NOT occur by 2100.
To be clear, I personally don’t think RCP8.5 is particularly likely, but only because I believe that the US and the rest of the world, including China, can and will do better than the travesty that Trump & gang are presently laying out, but I do think it’s a fair statement that there are many elements of RCP8.5 that make it closer than any other RCP to what would happen if reckless Trump-like disregard for emissions reductions and low-carbon technology continued for many years and other countries followed suit.
And in terms of things that are “actionable”, the IPCC devotes an entire working group to assessing mitigation policy, and another to assessing climate impacts and adaptation strategies.
This is an excellent point.
And it’s one I have used before myself: unquestionably, FDR lied. Now, we cannot know what the effect of candor would have been, but it’s a fair guess that at the very least our war efforts in Europe would have been worse for us and better for the Axis powers.
Still I say that I cannot concede to politicians the freedom to lie for my own good. The country might well make better decisions governed by a wise compassionate monarch than by a collection of elected yahoos. But the system is its own reward.
Human beings need lots of things. But in our society, we regard some of those things as the responsibility of the recipient to provide for himself.
Human beings need sex, but Helen Hunt won’t take my phone calls. Is it her duty to help out others in need? No.
Fifty years ago, there was no consensus that medical care was the responsibility of the government to provide.
When did it transform into a human need that the government must pay for?
Yep, but not much of a counter about the immigration issue from conservatives there. Hard to add thoughts when conservative posters tell us that what when the Republicans are telling us that they will remove all undocumented immigrants is a stupid idea.
I also did point out that I do see a lot of the moves made by the fossil fuel industry regarding climate change to show up in the health care issue. Particularly the delaying tactic to say that doing the right thing and covering all Americans would lead to an economical disaster.
As the late Hans Rosling said, It was the irrational system we had before the ACA the clear unsustainable system, but the ACA still does not go far enough to control issues like cost. We should be talking about how to fix or improve on the changes brought by ACA or to make indeed a better system, but the conservatives right now in power in the USA are mostly ideologues that also see things like single payer as a sin. As in the climate issue, almost all conservatives outside the USA do see us as uncivilized regarding this issue.
This is a classic example on why trying to “prove” a “fact” to someone on the other “side” is a waste of time. Define “fact” in a complex situation. Quartz refuses to accept as a “fact” that which the vast majority of people will accept as a “fact”, because he doesn’t accept that science establishes a “fact” in the same way that the rest of you are accepting it does. Without that simple agreement, further discussion is useless.
I have softened my stance on gun control, and while I disagree with those who feel that we need to lift restrictions on guns even further, the level of gun control that I would advocate for is significantly less than it used to be, and I am not overly upset with the current status quo. I have changed my stance form believing that pro-lifers hate women and wish to see them as only subjugated breeding incubators to feeling that they have a valid reason for their beliefs outside of pure misogyny, even if I still disagree with whether or not a third party has a right to be involved in that decision. My feelings on SSM have changed to where I think it really should have been a state by state issue, though I do agree that every state of the union should be required to recognize any marriage performed by any other state.
There are some others as well, but I would say that I have moved many of my positions based on the reasoned arguments of some of the conservatives on the board.
And you are one of the exceptional individuals I was talking about. If your place on the bell curve were not more horizontal than vertical, if your father had instilled less discipline in you as a child, if your father hadn’t bothered to immigrate to the US before you were born, not to mention any other mentors or benefactors who helped you out along the way, you would not be where you are today. You have a combined exceptional talent and luck that not everyone has access to.
The mere fact that most people tend to stay poor means that, well most people tend to stay poor. You can either look at that as their fault (which I would if it were some insignificant fraction of a percent of the population), or look at it as society not providing the opportunities for the majority of the impoverished to make it out of their situation.
Discipline is hard when you are stuck in a rut. If you know that you can never make it out, then you grab what comfort you can, when you can. If you know that saving and scrimping will get you to a better place, then that makes it easier to make the sacrifice of today for future returns.
I also disagree with your perception that they always make these poor choices. I worked at a rent a center for a year and a half. The poor people were coming in, and getting things like refrigerators, microwaves, occasionally computers for their children’s education, and very occasionally TV’s, but always the smallest, cheapest TV’s we had.
The people coming in and getting the big screen TV’s and leather couches were primarily “kids” in their 20’s that came from a middle class background, who had these things as a kid, and feel entitled to them now.
When you can’t see how you will survive the winter, might as well be the grasshopper.
By trickle down, I mean cutting taxes on the top tiers of income brackets, decreasing taxes on capital gains, decreasing the requirements for something to be considered long term capital gains, and cutting corporate tax rates.
There is nothing in any of those that will actually create jobs, but those are the proposals that are usually put forward by those who believe in trickle down.
There certainly are tax incentives that could be used to bolster the economy, but those incentives should be directed at small businesses with less than 15-50 employees, and revenues of less than a million to 10 million a year. Now, I can admit that I say this with a biased position, as such policies would help me, but still, small businesses are where job growth happens, small entrepreneurs are where economic activity increases. The large rich people and corporations that we currently give tax cuts to are shrinking their workforce and their investments in the country. Giving them tax breaks will not incentivize them to change these profit maximizing measures, it will just give them even more money, and reduce the taxes collected by the govt.
Sure, and this one is opinion in some ways, but is also a conclusion based on both empirical and anecdotal evidence.
I will give the anecdote that when my sister and I were opening up this business, it was hard for her to get anyone to give her the time of day. In many ways, this place is more hers than mine, as she put up more of the money, and brought all of the talent. But that did not matter to the landlord, the bank, the lawyer, the contractors, or even the guy that we originally contracted to do our sign. They treated her like shit, and only straightened up any when I came in the room. Which was bullshit, because she actually had most of the answers to the questions, so we had to play a stupid game, where they would ask a question, she would answer it, and they would look at me until I repeated what she said.
When I was a fast food manager, I was an assistant, and my general manager was a woman. Whenever someone had an issue, they would always end up ignoring her and focussing on me, even though she was really the one they should be talking to.
There is a wage gap, and I am not talking about the 86% or so that is the gross difference between a man and women’s wages without accounting for profession, but there still is a not insignificant gap even when all those factors are accounted for, and the woman is doing the exact same job as the man.
There are others, but I will end with one question. How many times in your life have you been actually concerned about being raped?
Well, for whatever reason they do commit less crime, and that is factual. We can disagree on the reasons why, but the actual fact is something we do agree on.
(And note that I am talking about crimes that are not directly related to the white collar crimes that they commit in order to enjoy the same rights and privileges they would have if their immigration status was normalized, but actual crimes that hurt individuals or the community, like property crimes or violent crimes. If you make all alternatives to poverty illegal, then people are going to turn to the illegal alternatives to poverty. Otherwise, if you are going to get upset with them for violating laws to be hired, I can tell you about some of my competitors who pay people [perfectly legal citizens] under the table less than minimum wage.)
Well, we may disagree on the magnitude here, and honestly, I do not know enough about the mountain of regulations that exist to say what percentage of them are useful, what percent are useless, and what percent are counter productive. I suspect that there are those in all three categories, but I would not be able to give you even an educated guess as to what proportion is in which catagory. But, we can at least agree that some regulations are good and necessary in order to maintain a safe and livable environment. So, when people complain about regulations, they should really point out the specific regulation or at least group of regulations that they feel are in the latter categories, rather than just broad brushing regulations as bad.
For instance, I feel that my industry is under regulated. You need no qualifications whatsoever to be a dog groomer. Now, we perform best practices here, so, if there were regulations, then we would already be in compliance, and if there were minor changes, they would be easy to achieve. My competition does not follow best practices, and so they injure or kill dogs, but their non-compliance with best practices makes them cheaper, so they charge less, and make more than I do, at the expense of injure and killed dogs, as well as employees making less than MW under the table.
To be honest, our nuclear arsenal is all that is really needed to prevent an invasion of armed forces from another nation state. Our military is there to project our power to other parts of the globe.
But walmart, and other companies do subsidize the premiums, and that subsidy comes out of the pockets of those who either do not participate in the program, or do not have as large a family as others in the program. Which would be not unlike using tax dollars to subsidize premiums for individual insurance plans, which is not all that unlike a single payer system, if everyone were covered.
I don’t believe it ever did. American conservatives should realise that UHC is much cheaper and more cost-effective - particularly with private top-up - than fully private health insurance.
Your aversion to models is your own problem and no one else’s, and the idea that models are “proof” of global warming is, again, a profound misunderstanding on your part. I seriously suggest you at least read the 13 other chapters as well as the Technical Summary before pontificating further. Models are used to project many different metrics of future climate change with various levels of spatial resolution, but no one suggests that models are evidence for the well-quantified radiative forcing properties of greenhouse gases. That evidence comes from empirical observations in the experimental sciences. Where do you think all that extra energy is going? No, it’s not going out into space (not to the extent that it did before we increased CO2 in the atmosphere) because we can predict it experimentally and then observe the earth’s thermal energy flux with satellites. In effect, satellites can literally see the earth warming, and then we can go up to Arctic and watch all the sea ice melting at record levels and the permafrost thawing for the first time in recorded history. But you’ll still claim we don’t have any “actual” evidence.
I don’t think you understand this subject very well. That’s not how you would establish the radiative transfer properties – the absorption and emission spectra – of greenhouse gases. But yes, you can establish it experimentally.
However, climate science itself is not an experimental science, because it applies the results of experimental physics (and chemistry, geology, biology, mathematics, and other disciplines) to the study of the earth’s overall climate. As I keep saying, apparently to no avail, it’s a cross-disciplinary field.
That’s why I did not direct this query at you.
Yes, but – at what point can we say, simply, that not everyone has the same talent? For all my vaunted skills (and please feel free to continue mentioning them at every opportunity 
) I’m not an Academy Award willing actor. I have never been as Germont and gotten to sing Di Provenza, because I sing in the key of “off.” The Lakers join the Wizards and the Celtics and every other NBA team in snubbing me for a power forward spot. Tiger Woods rests easy at the thought he’ll lose a master’s jacket to me. I don’t get those spots because I lack the requisite talent to achieve them. And no one thinks that everyone should be a star baritone or an NBA great. Why do we believe that everyone should be at some monetary equilibrium? We must provide a framework that allows all to equally apply their talent; we don’t have to ensure that all are successful.
Yes, it’s hard. But what of it?
It still has to be done. It was hard for me to watch other people get new cars while I had nothing, and then a clunker that I had to repair myself. But it can be done.
OK. But I’m pretty sure studies have shown that a reliable correlation exists between poverty and poor financial decisions.
That’s not what I mean. It can be PART of an extended set of policy choices, but that’s not the entirety of “trickle down,” in my understanding.
Once. And I admit that indeed, most women have a quadruple-digit answer.
But that’s a feature of biology much more than it is one of policy.
And how does that help your case? 100% of illegal immigrants commit or participate in a white collar crime to work in the United States. However nefarious your competitors are, I doubt that 100% of their employees are paid illegally.
Doesn’t that depend on whether most are bad? If most are bad, them a general complaint is valid and the exceptions are the useful ones; the person praising regulations should be the one to clarify the ones he says are salutary.
Unless our invaders are similarly equipped.
Yes, it IS unlike it. The subsidy Walmart provides is compensation for employment. No one obtains Walmart health insurance as a primary member for nothing.
That analysis is a good start but I will suggest that it’s incomplete because it overlooks an important alternate explanation for why they are lying.
We have only to look at the record of climate disinformation campaigns by the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests – amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in overt and covert campaigns largely bankrolled by conservative foundations – to understand the motivation.
I will suggest that most of these politicians are lying not because they don’t believe the science (although I think most of them are misinformed and willfully uninterested in the facts) nor because they genuinely believe in a “greater good” or a “higher truth” (if they did, they would be interested in a genuine understanding of both the economic upside and the environmental downside of ignoring the physical climate reality). I suggest that most of them are lying because they are cynically pandering to their base in self-interested pursuit of power and personal gain, with willful and reckless disregard for the well-being of their fellow citizens.
This raises the question of equivalence between the two sides which you appear to assume …
I agree, but I think it’s worth examining this presumption of “both sides do it” a little more closely.
This is clearly true at least to some extent. I think one of the reasons that Hillary did more poorly than expected was that everything that came out of her mouth seemed politically calculated, which I think had a major impact on her credibility and trust factor.
But one has only to look at the points cited in the OP to see how many of them are just simply counterfactual – i.e.- beliefs that are flat-out wrong. Climate change is a classic, and we can see that unfolding even in this thread, and evolution vs creationism is another. Yes, both sides lie and both sides have an element of pandering to their base for self-serving goals, but ISTM that contemporary conservatives are the ones who uniquely own anti-science positions on these wedge issues. It also seems to me (perhaps less persuasively) that they also own positions on economic issues that primarily serve vested interests like the 1%.
On the other side, by contrast, I can’t think of any major player on the right corresponding to someone like Bernie Sanders. Certainly there’s nothing deceptive or obviously self-serving about pushing for what can plainly and objectively be called “socialized medicine”, a stance that pits him against a big swath of moderates and conservatives and against one of the most powerful business lobbies in America, and a stance that seems to serve no interest except the greater public good.
Whether that’s really true of Bernie is of course only speculation, but in retrospect in can be said to have been true of a leftist-socialist Canadian named Tommy Douglas, who is thought of today as the father of single-payer health care in Canada and widely regarded as one of the greatest Canadians in history.
That’s like saying, “I’m a die-hard practitioner of alchemy, and have moved my thinking towards that of modern chemistry on many issues over the years based on reasoned dialogue and arguments here. But you’re a chemist? How many principles of alchemy have you accepted based on reasoned dialogue here?”
Both sides are not equivalent. Of course one would expect a reasonable person to move from less-reasonable to more-reasonable ideas, but that doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with another reasonable person because they failed to move from more reasonable to less-reasonable ideas.
They might listen, if there were an option to listen without shutting up.
Yeah, right. Conservatives are so uninterested in “identity politics” that they passed thirty two state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in fifteen years. Conservatives are so non-violent that there were only a little over a thousand incidents of hate crimes committed against gays in 2016. The reason abortion clinics spend so much on security is, obviously, to protest peaceful pro-life protestors from savage attacks by hordes of pregnant women trying to get abortions, right? And if you want to talk about threats to free speech, clearly - clearly - the biggest threat to the concept is college students yelling at Milo Yiannopolis, and not, say, Peter Thiel nursing a decade long grudge that led to the bankrupting of an independent news agency over the publication of a verifiably true news story about a public figure. Or Donald Trumps repeated statements that libel laws need to be broadened so he can sue the NYT for accurately reporting on the effects of his policies. Or even the routine protests that erupt from the Christian Right every time Disney putsa gay characterin something.