Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:19 PM UTC

NumberCruncher wrote: post #47

sqeaky wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a geological timescale we are in a cooling trend, but what non-biased source grants credence to the idea that CO2 and Methane aren't warming things right now in greater amounts? It seems entirely reasonable that anthropogenic climate change is a bigger deal than ice ages and we could prevent one.

Having a higher CO2 or methan level for 100 years is on a geological timescale a rounding error. There were times in earth history (vulcano eruptions, meteor impacts) where life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change. And we are still here.

Post by eanzenberg » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #117

hbt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. No one has a solution for climate change that doesn't involve changing personal habits. People don't want to do that. Eating less meat or a carbon tax (i.e taxing the working poor) is not a solution. It's admitting defeat. People don't need to "believe in climate change". We simply need to build a solution that is much better than what they have available now. What that…

>Eating less meat or a carbon tax (i.e taxing the working poor) is not a solution. The poor emit disproportionately little CO2. A carbon tax mostly taxes industry.

Post by tzs » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:24 PM UTC

barneygumble742 wrote: post #38

clumsysmurf wrote: post #15

"Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge." By appointing Myron Ebell to lead the transition at the EPA, Mr Trump has made it clear he's made up his mind. Personnel is policy.

It comes down to the DOD having a serious talk with Trump. They have been taking it just as seriously as the EPA.

Post by vkou » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:32 PM UTC

api wrote: post #123

barneygumble742 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. In the past whether it was a republican or a democrat administration, they have always taken the counsel of the DOD very seriously. But like many things after this consequential election, the country is in uncharted territory. The US has always had a president with past government leadership or military experience. U.S.C. Article Two, Section 1 needs changes but that won't happen with constitutional purists c…

I've seen lots of comparisons of Trump and Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco. Personally I'm seeing more parallels to Hugo Chavez. Chavez wrecked Venezuela in part by trying to "purge the insiders." That never works. Problem is that the insiders know everything and have all the skills and expertise. Chavez was a left-populist and Trump is a right-populist, but history seems to show similar outcomes for populists of any ty…

Post by ticviking » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:39 PM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #133

sammydavis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By all reports, Trump can't stay focused on any one thing more than a few minutes, whether it was 20 years ago talking to reporters, people working for him, whatever. So he's not likely to be the person who will care about a long term, non-immediate risk. I still can't believe someone like him can be president. If Jeb Bush had won, I would have been a little disappointed, but I would have gone to sleep and not worrie…

Honest question: do you think a person like you describe could have his record in business management? Reportedly he was almost bankrupt in the 90's and recovered a quite large fortune afterwards. While I'm not a big believer in the capitalist mythology that people get rich by their effort and skills, and I'm aware that luck plays a huge factor, I do suppose that there is a bare minimum of cleverness and focus needed…