Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

I on the other hand like to review from a variety of sources...I'll acknowledge climate change but I won't necessarily acknowledge the root cause as being man induced industrialization until I review all data available. And even then, man induced industrialization as the cause is biased in itself because it eliminates the possibility multiple causes.

---

Human activity as cause:

Ocean dead zones with zero oxygen have quadrupled in size since 1950, scientists have warned, while the number of very low oxygen sites near coasts have multiplied tenfold. Most sea creatures cannot survive in these zones and current trends would lead to mass extinction in the long run, risking dire consequences for the hundreds of millions of people who depend on the sea.
Climate change caused by fossil fuel burning is the cause of the large-scale deoxygenation, as warmer waters hold less oxygen. The coastal dead zones result from fertiliser and sewage running off the land and into the seas.

Human activity as remedy:
“This is a problem we can solve,” Breitburg said. “Halting climate change requires a global effort, but even local actions can help with nutrient-driven oxygen decline.” She pointed to recoveries in Chesapeake Bay in the US and the Thames river in the UK, where better farm and sewage practices led to dead zones disappearing.

Full article is here-
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...oxygen-starved

Sahara, which is rather big, used to be a forest and it was no co2 of human origin that caused it to go dry... Or did we have an industrial revolution a couple of thousands years ago? Baltic sea used to freeze and you could cross it on foot and it was no big deal. Climate changes. Why don't you get over it and prepare for change rather than try to put all your shit in peoples' minds?

You didn’t mention any time periods. One period when the Sahara had a subtropical climate was possibly as recent as 6000 years ago. The Hadley circulation once rose above the latitude that now bounds it to the North and the Sahara was a monsoon belt. The redirection of the Hadley was definitely not due to the burning of fossil fuels. There was no doubt a reason. “Climate changes” is certainly not a satisfactory explanation. Sometimes it’s due to continental drift. Sometimes precession. Sometimes meteorite strikes. Sometimes complex shifts in atmospheric and oceanographic currents. Sometimes the production of oxygen by photosynthetic plants.

Again, you made no mention of time. The Baltic is much further north and of course entirely covered by ice during the last ice age. That also wasn’t caused by the burning of fossil fuels. More recently, we know from records that the Baltic Sea has frozen over 20 times since 1720. The last time was in 1987. This averages to about once every 13-14 years. It’s now been 31 years since the last freezing. I’m not sure anyone as yet attributed a cause to this latter phenomenon. But my guess is that the greenhouse effect has not been eliminated.

The current exponential rise in global atmospheric and oceanographic temperatures and the concomitant recession of glacial ice is most definitely due primarily to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by human activity.

Quote:

---

Why don't you get over it and prepare for change rather than try to put all your shit in peoples' minds?

---

Get over what? No one is stopping you or anyone else from suggesting solutions: how to stop, or slow, or prepare for an inevitable change. I would think knowing the cause of the change would be useful to these endeavors. If it were not for climatologists you wouldn’t even know if global warming would dry up the oceans or cause them to rise.

Dear Miss Ts Redvex,

I see your ultra right crappy no argument posts on just about any subject. I have to ask, are you getting paid for that? Or are you just practicing to get a job in that sense?

Are you aware of the fact that global warming due to human activity denial is already a felony in several countries, like say holocaust denial is? So why would that be?

Or do you just want people to shut up about any topic that makes you uncomfortable? Cause it's easier to live in denial?

Once had a dear friend who was very gay, the macho type. He couldn't hide it from himself or others, but kept struggling to come to terms with it. His remedy for that was two fold. He took to alcohol, and he joined extreme right movements. Once I asked him what he would have done if say he lived on the early 40's. His answer was he would have volunteered to throw himself in the crematorium.

Macabre but funny, it still makes no sense. Just as little as a person like you who belongs to a minority that is always in danger of being surpressed takes stances on behalf of people who would leave you rotting in the gutter without blinking a eye.

I don't get it.

I believe that any genuinely right-wing people wouldn't give two fucks about anyone's sexuality, race, gender expression, where he buys his fags from, how he brings his children up, as well as that they would be the ones to help a person lying in a ditch before any greedy, jealous communist. We are the reasonable people, who tell the truth without bending it so that it suits us or our acquaintances. If you do not understand that then apparently you are not a reasonable person and therefore also think socialism is good. As to communists of all sorts, most of them actually believe in the bullshit they preach - just like the extreme "blow-up warriors" being deployed here believe in things - and the rest are either too afraid to speak reasonably because they want to keep their cosy jobs at the propaganda wheel - be it global warming, homophobia or gender equality, or are the arse-holes who come up with it.

Sahara's climate has changed several times and periods are it is going to change again, and just like it was not the global warming, or man-generated CO2 that changed it in the past, it is not going to be it in future. It is not important here how long ago Sahara was a forest. It is more important to note that the forest became desert within a century, maybe a few years longer. Your claims that you can definitely attribute global warming solely to humans making CO2, based on less than-half-a-century of research is just bullshit.

As to Baltic, I meant that you could go walk on it from Poland to Sweden in around the 15th century. Also 13 years is not that long a time for about 20 degree winter temperature shifts, is it? So what, is the industrial revolution and all the factories and power plants etc. taking a break every 13 years? Or is it because the cows stop breathing or people become vegan and eat no meat, every 13 years? Knowing the cause actually wouldn't help much. It is certainly not a necessity, since I'm here, not frozen somewhere, at the bottom of Baltic sea. Whereas thinking something which actually hasn't got much to do with it is causing climate change, might lead to a false sense of security once you've brought all the factories and development in Europe to stop, and getting the European civilisation wiped out by others who decide to keep their development going. I kinda understand why someone living in the US would be aiming at that, but Stavros, or any other European?? Do you really believe the solidarity of your comrades will make them help you when everybody is struggling to feed their families? LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

I believe that any genuinely right-wing people wouldn't give two fucks about anyone's sexuality, race, gender expression, where he buys his fags from, how he brings his children up, as well as that they would be the ones to help a person lying in a ditch before any greedy, jealous communist.

---

I have to say at this point it looks not just like willful blindness but stupidity. "Genuine" right-wingers wanted same-sex relations in the U.S. to be illegal. Genuine right-wingers 75 years ago sent gay men to concentration camps where they were murdered. Some genuine right-wingers today insist they should call transsexuals "men" and exclude them from military service. Some genuine right-wingers support conversion therapy for gay children, which is often just a euphemism for torturing children into conformity in a way that will only harm them physically and emotionally but not change their sexual orientation.

I love your use of the no true scotsman fallacy but these are genuine right-wingers. Are all right-wingers this way? No, some are more moderate.

As you made clear elsewhere, genuine right-wingers don't simply dislike "communists". Often communism is the pretext, used as you use it when it doesn't apply, to bash a minority simply because of who they are. At the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville here, the lead neo-nazi called everyone a communist. You call everyone a communist and it doesn't have an ascertainable meaning the way you use it. That's a design feature, not an accident. This is the word intended to demonize people different from yourself who are concerned about civil rights.

Why is it that when Trish posts on this topic, she is eloquent and her posts contain details about the mechanisms of climate change and the empirical facts that demonstrate its effects and when you post, it's nothing but scurrilous name-calling, obvious errors, and conclusory statements with bogus reasoning?

Firstly, state should not interfere in marriage at all.
Secondly, while it might makes sens for the state to encourage mixed-sex marriages, I cannot see why state would encourage same-sex marriage. It is obvious to me that delegalisiation of homosexuality was direct consequence of some gay activists trying to get the privilege over the non-gay people, of being able to marry another person of the same sex.

Technically, in accordance with dictionaries' medieval definitions adult human males are men, unless they are no longer fertile. Similarly, adult human females who cannot bear children are not women. Argue with the commies at your universities, to acknowledge the existence of DNA and the confusion around who is man and who is woman should be gone.

The problem is that there are not many right-wingers out there. The majority of people are socialists who believe in democracy, social justice, public NHS, trade unions, benefits, etc, etc..

I am not trying to bash minority with communism, I am trying to do that with majority, unfortunately. I cannot wait till one of you calls me a rotten capitalist whenever I say that there should not be benefits or public healthcare, or the so called 'nanny-state' that looks after all the lazy bastards on the dole who after all also deserve to eat because of human rights...

Trish seems to be somewhat smart but it also seems that she would advise victims of a hurricane to cover the roof of their new house with solar panels and build a wind turbine in their back yard, rather than advising them to move the hell out of the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Firstly, state should not interfere in marriage at all.
Secondly, while it might makes sens for the state to encourage mixed-sex marriages, I cannot see why state would encourage same-sex marriage. It is obvious to me that delegalisiation of homosexuality was direct consequence of some gay activists trying to get the privilege over the non-gay people, of being able to marry another person of the same sex.

Technically, in accordance with dictionaries' medieval definitions adult human males are men, unless they are no longer fertile. Similarly, adult human females who cannot bear children are not women. Argue with the commies at your universities, to acknowledge the existence of DNA and the confusion around who is man and who is woman should be gone.

---

When I said right-wingers wanted to prohibit same-sex relations I was not talking about marriage. I was talking about adult consensual intercourse between members of the same sex. This was illegal in this country in many places and it was right-wingers who fought to maintain the prohibition. Second, your comment about the state encouraging same-sex marriage is incoherent. They were being asked to grant the same rights to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples, nothing more. There was no ascertainable privilege being sought, simply equality, which you portray as privilege while describing it in a way that makes clear you consider equality for gay men and women to be a privilege.

We don't need to depend on medieval dictionaries for definitions of sex and gender. Nobody is saying that based on DNA male to female transsexuals are female. There is no contention that transitioning changes dna, only that people who identify as female should not be addressed with male pronouns. Or how is it you would like to be addressed?

You also don't seem to know what I mean when I use the word minorities.

I contrasted Trish' style with yours to point out that you are unique in that your statements can be shown to be false and you will move on as though you are permitted to lie in defense of your various manias.

A bunch of pages back you insisted the scientists who authored the paper Stavros linked were government scientists. When it was pointed out they were researchers, scholars, and professors from a variety of universities you asserted they didn't have phds. When you were shown that they all had phds you insisted the paper did not consider alternate causes of climate change. When you were shown the section where they discussed and analyzed alternate causes at length you then said that they simply concluded that climate change was anthropogenic indirectly by ruling out alternate causes. When you were shown that they demonstrated that climate change was anthropogenic directly and not by the process of elimination you didn't seem to care. Here's a name for you: obscurantist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Your claims that you can definitely attribute global warming solely to humans making CO2, based on less than-half-a-century of research is just bullshit.

Whereas thinking something which actually hasn't got much to do with it is causing climate change, might lead to a false sense of security once you've brought all the factories and development in Europe to stop, and getting the European civilisation wiped out by others who decide to keep their development going. I kinda understand why someone living in the US would be aiming at that, but Stavros, or any other European?? Do you really believe the solidarity of your comrades will make them help you when everybody is struggling to feed their families? LOL

---

1) Climate science is over 100 years old, but you won't acknowledge that, or take an interest in the analysis of the data. Science after all is now the new Bullshit, which may be why your comrades in the USA want to replace the Constitution with the Holy Bible (as edited by them, of course).

2) You might want to explain why factories in Europe, North and South America all but ceased production in the 1920s and 1930s and led directly to the greatest threat to civilization posed by the murderous racists of Germany and Japan. Why did free markets lead to a collapse of the banking system? Why did food production so exceed demand prices collapsed? What was the consequence of the incompetent Winston Churchill taking Sterling back on to the Gold Standard in 1925 and the book JM Keynes wrote about it, The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill?

I ask because yet again, even after 2008, we are being told regulation is bad for business. We are told regulation is bad for the environment. We are told immigration is destroying jobs. We are told that trading blocs are bad for business yet the same people (the US and the UK) want trade deals as a replacement that lock the partners in to unequal relations.

Just as we see the rich pass by on the other side because 'poverty is a choice' and they sneer at society's failures, believing them fit only for the gas chamber.

And before you dismiss the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society as Communists, ask yourself how they protected the environment in Alaska in the 1970s and get back to us with your balanced judgement.

Right-wingers in favour of taking away freedom?! I don't know how you define a right-winger, but I would certainly not call a right-winger anyone who is in favour of prohibiting things that do not threaten and disturb others. I cannot see anything incoherent with my marriage argument. If for example, a heterosexual man may legally marry a woman, and a gay man may legally marry a woman, then there is no privileges there. However, if for example a homosexual man may legally marry another man, while a heterosexual man may not legally marry a woman, then the homosexual man is privileged.

I would like to be addressed as if I was a female and that is one of the reasons for my transition. This does not mean, however, that I approve of laws telling people how to address me under threat of lawsuits. Nor do I approve of laws that actually enabled me to change my name etc... And before you ask, it is like with the NHS, just because I disapprove of it being publicly funded does not mean I am not going to use it, especially that I have to pay for it anyway, if I chose to be righteous.

They didn't use their titles in their report so they may have actually not had them while preparing the report. Maybe it was different people who produced the report than the ones you read about in Wikipedia; maybe someone just wrote the report and put a bunch of names from Wikipedia underneath to give it more credibility; maybe the information in Wikipedia, which can be edited by any eloquent communist, is fabricated; maybe they got their titles by dint of producing the report; or maybe they are actually Doctors but were too were ashamed to put their titles there. There are many reasons why I think my doubts were justified. If government subsidises idiots to get titles then surely it wants them to learn things like gender equality and global warming. My point was simply that those reports should not be taken for granted as they were not produced for independent scientists' private money. If I was to call anyone obscurantists then it would be you guys, exactly for saying that a bunch of allegedly intelligent people allegedly with PhDs done mostly at some dodgy American universities, are definitely right in saying in their government-funded report that humans are most likely responsible for climate changes (which in case you still haven't noticed is different from saying people are definitely responsible for climate changes) just because they have some those PhDs.

The basic market rule says clearly that demand is the cause of supply and not otherwise. Had the the markets been free, the banking system would have not collapsed.

I tell you yet again that governments should not interfere in economy. Countries do not trade with eachother. People who live in countries do. The idea of running a country as if it was a company is ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Right-wingers in favour of taking away freedom?! I don't know how you define a right-winger, but I would certainly not call a right-winger anyone who is in favour of prohibiting things that do not threaten and disturb others. I cannot see anything incoherent with my marriage argument. If for example, a heterosexual man may legally marry a woman, and a gay man may legally marry a woman, then there is no privileges there. However, if for example a homosexual man may legally marry another man, while a heterosexual man may not legally marry a woman, then the homosexual man is privileged.

I would like to be addressed as if I was a female and that is one of the reasons for my transition. This does not mean, however, that I approve of laws telling people how to address me under threat of lawsuits. Nor do I approve of laws that actually enabled me to change my name etc... And before you ask, it is like with the NHS, just because I disapprove of it being publicly funded does not mean I am not going to use it, especially that I have to pay for it anyway, if I chose to be righteous.

They didn't use their titles in their report so they may have actually not had them while preparing the report. Maybe it was different people who produced the report than the ones you read about in Wikipedia; maybe someone just wrote the report and put a bunch of names from Wikipedia underneath to give it more credibility; maybe the information in Wikipedia, which can be edited by any eloquent communist, is fabricated; maybe they got their titles by dint of producing the report; or maybe they are actually Doctors but were too were ashamed to put their titles there. There are many reasons why I think my doubts were justified. If government subsidises idiots to get titles then surely it wants them to learn things like gender equality and global warming. My point was simply that those reports should not be taken for granted as they were not produced for independent scientists' private money. If I was to call anyone obscurantists then it would be you guys, exactly for saying that a bunch of allegedly intelligent people allegedly with PhDs done mostly at some dodgy American universities, are definitely right in saying in their government-funded report that humans are most likely responsible for climate changes (which in case you still haven't noticed is different from saying people are definitely responsible for climate changes) just because they have some those PhDs.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics In this country, the party that checks most if not all of the boxes in this wikipedia article is the Republican party. They fought to defend laws that would allow police to put gay men in shackles for having consensual sex. You simply cannot argue they are not right-wing, as they support nationalism, natural law, populism, and oppose protections against religious interference with governance. Not all Republicans support each sub-category to the same degree but thankfully for this argument, the ones who supported these loony-tunes homophobic laws tend to be the most right-wing by these criteria.

They fought to prevent equality from gay couples in marriage. Let me spell it out: heterosexual couples were allowed to marry. Homosexual couples were not allowed to marry. Right-wing Republicans wanted to prohibit homosexual couples from marrying members of the same sex.

There are no laws against being rude to ts women by calling them men nor does anyone support such laws. The right-wing commentators I metnioned are not simply against prohibiting it by law, as everybody is, they are the ones engaging in the abuse.

The scientists did not have their degrees next to their names because the section merely listed who authored the paper. It did not have a bio for each person. Their credentials were not fabricated, and were generally available on university sites as well as other private sites and not only on wikipedia. Let's not waste our time. I don't know what to say to your claim that they are dodgy universities that would not send this thread even farther off course. So I won't. I also won't continue the argument as we've gotten away from the purpose of the thread. Maybe we can start it in a more general thread.

Quote:

---

I believe that any genuinely right-wing people...

---

You make a sharp distinction between genuine right-wingers and those who proclaim the title but are not so genuine. You seem to set great store by this distinction. I presume, then there is also an equally important distinction between genuine communists and those who only proclaim to be communists as well as those who identify as liberal but do not claim any alliance with communism. I presume there is an equally important distinction between genuine socialists and those who only proclaim to be. For those who know how to make those distinctions paint me left-leaning, not a socialist and certainly not communist.

Quote:

---

Sahara's climate has changed several times and periods are it is going to change again,...

---

Yes, the Sahara and the Baltic (which are do not constitute the entire surface of the Earth by any means) have exhibited and will exhibit variations in their local climates. Each shift will be due to a set of specific reasons: geographic, oceanographic, atmospheric, biospheric, climatological, astronomical etc. With study we may sometimes be able to discern the causes and model the phenomenon, in other cases not.

Quote:

---

Your claims that you can definitely attribute global warming solely to humans making CO2, based on less than-half-a-century of research

---

Half-a-century is a long time when it comes the rapidity of the growth of scientific knowledge, and climate science is older than that. Yet there are indeed many problems that are complex to point of intractability. Fortunately the current climate shift is not one of them.

Consider that seasons are easier to explain than daily local fluctuations in weather - even over regions as vast as the continental United States. The reason is we have a ready model that explains the seasons; i.e. the tilt of the Earth’s axis relative to the ecliptic. We can use celestial mechanics and our knowledge of solar luminosity to quantitatively predict length of day, solar flux and model the occurrences of the seasons and explain roughly their average effects on local weather patterns. This model has beaten out all competing models (which admittedly weren’t too viable in the first place. Nevertheless, some have speculated it was the Earth’s proximity to the Sun that caused the Seasons while others thought the behavior of various Gods or Goddesses were responsible. It’s the quantitative success plus the shear logical beauty of the model that’s (at least to me) convincing.

By analogy, we have a beautiful model of atmospheric chemistry and how it interacts with the spectrum of the Sun’s flux of energy. We understand that the Earth sits in a river of energy flowing from the Sun; we know, for example, that the Earth’s atmosphere filters out the worst of the ultraviolet rays. Indeed the model quantitatively predicts, for each wavelength, the flux of energy that can pass through the atmosphere and strike the Earth’s surface. We can then measure the flux at the Earth’s surface and verify the model’s accuracy.
We quantitatively understand how the various surfaces of the Earth and it’s oceans reflect or absorb this energy. We know that the absorbed energy will be radiated back into the atmosphere in the infrared band and we can calculate how much of that infrared radiation will be absorbed by the atmosphere and how much will be lost to the vacuum of space. Perpetually bathed in a stream of radiant energy, the Earth’s surface will seek an equilibrium where the net flux of incoming energy will equal the net flux of outgoing energy.
As you might expect the average temperature of the system can be affected by a number of parameters.
The solar constant for one. It called the solar constant for a reason. Although it shows a degree of variability it remains relatively constant and the degree of its variability cannot account for the the major changes in the Earth’s temperature that we’ve been observing since the mid-19th century.
The one parameter that has changed significantly over that period of time has been the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The variation in this parameter does indeed quantitatively account for the global rise in surface temperatures we’ve been observing over that same period of time.
Other parameters can show variability too, such as the albedo (i.e. the reflectivity) of the Earth, its oceans and atmosphere. Lowering the albedo can cause the Earth to absorb a greater portion of the Sun’s heat and thereby increase the global temperature.
Some of the parameters effect each other; e.g. if the proportion of greenhouse gases rise, the resulting rise in global temperature can melt the highly reflective ice-shelves and glacial covers decreasing the Earth’s overall albedo. This can lead to a runaway feedback effect - unless the increased temperatures create greater cloud cover which in turn will increase the Earth’s albedo.

Quote:

---

...thinking something which actually hasn't got much to do with it is causing climate change, might lead to a false sense of security once you've brought all the factories and development in Europe to stop, and getting the European civilisation wiped out by others who decide to keep their development going.

---

Quote:

---

Trish ... it also seems that she would advise victims of a hurricane to cover the roof of their new house with solar panels and build a wind turbine in their back yard, rather than advising them to move the hell out of the region.

---

I’ll speak for myself, thank you. The science of atmospheric chemistry and how it interacts with the solar flux makes absolutely no recommendations, political or otherwise. It certainly doesn’t recommend we shut down our factories and bring civilization to a halt.
However, combined with our knowledge of anthropology, history and the other humanities we can easily speculate what climate change might mean to our civilization when oceans rise, arable lands diminish and the trees, flowers and grains that once thrived in the tropics shift markedly toward the poles.

Quote:

---

A bunch of pages back you insisted the scientists who authored the paper Stavros linked were government scientists. When it was pointed out they were researchers, scholars, and professors from a variety of universities you asserted they didn't have phds. When you were shown that they all had phds you insisted the paper did not consider alternate causes of climate change. When you were shown the section where they discussed and analyzed alternate causes at length you then said that they simply concluded that climate change was anthropogenic indirectly by ruling out alternate causes. When you were shown that they demonstrated that climate change was anthropogenic directly and not by the process of elimination you didn't seem to care. ...

---

I’m just repeating this portion of bronofan’s reply to RedVex because it’s apt. I think some conservatives deny the science of global warming because they actually fear that their favorite ideology is too provincial and too short-sighted to surmount the problems that climate shift poses. To survive, you sometimes have to decide, "Do I have faith in the box or do I break out it?"

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1813629]

Right-wingers in favour of taking away freedom?! I don't know how you define a right-winger, but I would certainly not call a right-winger anyone who is in favour of prohibiting things that do not threaten and disturb others.
--There is a problem with labels, not least when someone dismisses another as a 'Communist' or a 'Stalinist' or an 'Unrepentant Capitalist Roader' or a Social Justice Warrior, or a 'Bleeding Heart Liberal' a 'Right-wing fascist' etc etc. In the UK, a Liberal is someone who believes in free markets, low taxes, minimal government, and that a wide range of human behaviour should be permitted as long as it does not harm others. In the US, a Liberal is someone who believes the State should intervene to ameliorate the worst aspects of poverty. I can't do much to re-order the use of words, but words do matter, and at times it might help if people are more precise in the way that they use them.

I tell you yet again that governments should not interfere in economy. Countries do not trade with eachother. People who live in countries do. The idea of running a country as if it was a company is ludicrous.
--Government intervenes to regulate markets that, left alone, produce prosperity and corruption; innovation and despair; that never guarantee jobs and income, that confer riches on criminals, poverty on the honest. Why should producers have all the rights in the world, and consumers none at all?

And yes, The idea of a businessman running a country as President is indeed ludicrous, as reality tells us every day courtesy of those United States of America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I’m just repeating this portion of bronofan’s reply to RedVex because it’s apt. I think some conservatives deny the science of global warming because they actually fear that their favorite ideology is too provincial and too short-sighted to surmount the problems that climate shift poses. To survive, you sometimes have to decide, "Do I have faith in the box or do I break out it?"

---

I would amend your mostly intelligent and eloquent post. I think those people who campaign against Climate Change as a 'hoax' are not in any sense interested in the science, but oppose the remedies because they incur taxes, which they hate; they impose collective changes to human behaviour, which violates their belief in the 'sanctity' of the individual (unless he or she is an Arab in which case they only exist to be bombed into extinction); and they rely on government/the State to regulate a wide range of operations in industry to reduce carbon emissions; and -the cardinal sin of sins- use tax-payers money to subsidize alternative energy solutions.

If I were to put words into their mouths, they would be: This is My Planet, and I will do what I want with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics In this country, the party that checks most if not all of the boxes in this wikipedia article is the Republican party. They fought to defend laws that would allow police to put gay men in shackles for having consensual sex. You simply cannot argue they are not right-wing, as they support nationalism, natural law, populism, and oppose protections against religious interference with governance. Not all Republicans support each sub-category to the same degree but thankfully for this argument, the ones who supported these loony-tunes homophobic laws tend to be the most right-wing by these criteria.

---

Instead of pegging this conversation to an American political party I'd rather make this more universal for you. What possible justification is there for prohibiting "things that do not threaten and disturb others" as you put it? Consensual sex between adults of the same sex is a behavior that does not threaten or disturb others. If you look to the link I posted that listed tenets of right-wing political movements you will see two; Tradition and religion. Sodomy laws flow directly from these two categories, categories that do not depend on a rational or secular purpose. The justifications are based on what community norms have tended to be rather than any justification for those norms.

Recall, this was brought up in the context of you insisting other advocates of your belief system would not want to infringe on your rights. I am just calling to your attention that it is right-wing political movements that are more apt to threaten individuals based on outmoded taboos and traditions that do not serve any legitimate legislative purpose.

While there are some political terms that are ambiguous and used loosely and political movements that are portrayed as monolithic when they are actually more varied, you don't have a leg to stand on here. Within the left-right divide, it is more often those on the right, often self-described as right of center who are apt to mistreat lgbt members, and that includes you. So while you may agree with these people on many other issues, they would not respect your civil rights. I generally think it's a bad idea to have political allies who overlap on 90+ percent of issues but only differ on respecting your right to be treated with respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I would amend your mostly intelligent and eloquent post. ...

---

I hoped that was my gist,
But I missed.
Amendment accepted.

Uh oh, when I say "genuine right-wingers" to make sure that others understand that there are also charlatans pretending to be right-wingers, then that is wrong, but when you emphasise period with"of time" or that something "quantitatively contributes" to something else, as if it didn't contribute otherwise, then that is good. Hmm. <sniff sniff> I smell communism on the board..

No, it is not important for me what type of communists I am calling communists. I use it as an umbrella term (which you communists should understand and like a lot just like you do your other collectivist policies like all women are equal to men) for anyone who leans left. It doesn't matter if they want to control trade with other countries, what the speed limit on a motorway is, or who is it legal to fuck in the ass and who it isn't. I might as well call them non-right-wingers, but that just sounds a bit too awkward for my taste as well as it is way too long to write. Besides, it would not relay the negativity that comes with the term “communist”.

So if your variable solar constant cannot have effect on the climate changes you have observed for the last 150 years, can you actually say that it's fluctuations had never had any effect on climate changes, say in the previous 150k years? What you have is a multidimensional function you are trying to extrapolate based on not even a per-mille of data you would need to get anything useful or even reliable. That is just silly. Unless of course, you are getting funding from the government to do that and it is in your personal interest for people to believe it.


I think someone already mentioned that we are living in a relatively cool period (of time) – in case anyone needs further explanation, and the CO2 levels aren't really off the scale so I'm just gonna drop this one here.


As to albedo and being unable to determine weather patterns.. What if we have a really shitty century, or we will emit so much and smoke and shit that it is gonna be cloudy most of the time. Will we have holidays in the Antarctic instead of holidays in California then?

Oh, by the way. "lost into the vacuum of space" sound a bit lower-middle... Dreadfully tinny. You had been much better of saying "dissipated into the vacuum of space" to sound even smarter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T70-HTlKRXo

Quote:

---

...when you emphasise ... that something "quantitatively contributes" to something else, as if it didn't contribute otherwise, ...

---

That would just be silly. Rather than say, “X quantitatively contributes to Y,” I would say, “the contributions of X to Y are quantitatively determined by theory and are confirmed by measurement.”

Quote:

---

So if your variable solar constant cannot have effect on the climate changes you have observed for the last 150 years, can you actually say that it's fluctuations had never had any effect on climate changes, say in the previous 150k years?

---

Acutally, it’s not my solar constant. I can’t take credit for it or its discovery. It was Claude Pouillet who made the first measurement of the solar constant in 1838 and who found it to be approximately 1.228 kilowatts per square meter. But to answer your question: No, the solar flux has and is expected to change throughout the lifetime of the Sun. We have crude measurements of the solar flux from Pouillet’s time to 1901, and rather reliable ones ones up to 1995, and very accurate ones since SOHO was placed in orbit. The fluctuations in the solar flux have remained relatively small over the past 1.8 centuries and cannot account for the exponential growth in global temperatures that have been measured since the mid-19th century. We also have an understanding of the thermonuclear processes that fuel the Sun as well as an understanding of the stability and luminosities of stars generally and in particular of those like the Sun. It is not unusual for the stellar flux of a star like the Sun (class and age) to be constant over periods of time as short as a few centuries. On a much larger time scale the Sun’s luminosity is expected to rise. In a five billion years it will expand and things will very hot for Earth if it’s still around and in the same orbit.

Quote:

---

I think someone already mentioned that we are living in a relatively cool period...

---

Relative to the recent past that person would be wrong.

Quote:

---

As to albedo and being unable to determine weather patterns.. What if we have a really shitty century, or we will emit so much and smoke and shit that it is gonna be cloudy most of the time. Will we have holidays in the Antarctic instead of holidays in California then?

---

Speaking of non-sequiturs, what if we have a wonderful century? Does that mean we’ll all be selling our organs to keep our children from being prostituted while the super-successful entrepreneurs and ‘stable geniuses’ of the world snack on delicacies topped with human-liver pâté? Stupid question - right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Uh oh, when I say "genuine right-wingers" to make sure that others understand that there are also charlatans pretending to be right-wingers, then that is wrong, but when you emphasise period with"of time" or that something "quantitatively contributes" to something else, as if it didn't contribute otherwise, then that is good. Hmm. <sniff sniff> I smell communism on the board..
No, it is not important for me what type of communists I am calling communists. I use it as an umbrella term (which you communists should understand and like a lot just like you do your other collectivist policies like all women are equal to men) for anyone who leans left.

---

This is one of the reasons why so many of your posts get lost in incoherent language. The assumption behind the word 'Communist' is that you associate them with the central planning and one party states of the USSR and its allies, rather than with Marx's view of Communism as the final outcome of the class struggles that he claimed have shaped human history, and will only be exhausted through socialist revolution. That Communism as he envisaged it is a stateless society without taxes should in fact appeal to libertarians who loathe government and taxes today.

It is not difficult to use words that appear to mean something, thus, when I wrote above In the UK, a Liberal is someone who believes in free markets, low taxes, minimal government, and that a wide range of human behaviour should be permitted as long as it does not harm others, I was making a general point. In terms of social policy, a liberal thus approves of same-sex marriages as a measure of individual freedom from the State, and a crucial element of the civil society that flourishes within but not against the State. By contrast, a Conservative is mostly opposed to same-sex marriage because, as the name implies, they wish to Conserve something, usually the status quo. In the UK Conservatives against same-sex marriage often base their argument on religious grounds, but we encounter here the problem that neither Liberals nor Conservatives are pure, as many Conservatives do not have strong religious views but do believe in same-sex marriage.

This is because strict political identity turns out to be fluid. Conservatives appeal to liberals on social policy so as not to look 'old fashioned', to appeal to the youth vote and get votes from all at election times. Liberals and socialists have often been opposed to abortion, seeing it not as a personal issue for the woman but a socially moral question about the meaning and value of life, just as socialists can be in favour or, or opposed to the European Union with or without the UK's membership.

To lump everyone who doesn't believe in your version of a tax free market free heaven on earth as a 'Communist' thus strips people of their right to be themselves rather than a name on a badge. And it does not help when you are unable to deal with the science of climate change, yet insist that the science does not prove the human element in recent history. We do not just need the science to tell us what is happening, we also need the politics to organize the remedies that can deal with some of the worst aspects of climate change and environmental pollution.

The irony is that many personal decisions amount to a form of 'collective action' that can help save coastal regions and the oceans from erosion and pollution, that can prevent the further deterioration of coral reefs, that can 'save the tiger', 'save the whale' and preserve our forests. Millions of plastic bags once free in supermarkets in the UK no longer find their way into the sea or landfill, we can make a difference. What is wrong with that?

Thinking of politics in terms of simple dichotomy between left=big government and right=small government is not very helpful.

Use of the terms left and right actually originates from pre-revolutionary France. The conservatives, who wanted to preserve the power and privileges of the monarchy, aristocracy and the church sat on the right of the national assembly. The reformers and/or radicals who wanted to reduce these privileges and increase the rights of the common people sat on the left. This dichotomy between conservatives and reformers/radicals is less relevant nowadays given how far the status quo has shifted in the reformist direction.

It is probably more useful to think in terms of three different dimensions: economic, social and defence/national security. It may also be useful to add a fourth dimension that cuts across these: nationalism vs internationalism.

Political parties characterised as 'right' these days generally favour less regulation/taxation of economic activity, but more regulation of social behaviour in the name of traditional values/'morality' and a more hawkish stance on defence/national security. The latter two positions are actually 'big government'. Moreover, there is a growing element on the right that favours economic nationalism (with tighter controls on trade and immigration), which is where the fourth dimension comes in. Parties characterised as 'left' generally favour more regulation/taxation of economic activity, more tolerance of diverse social behaviour and more emphasis on diplomacy/international cooperation rather than military power.

This shows why RV's simplistic notions are really very silly.

An after-thought: the one thing that has not changed since pre-revolutionary France is that the right still favours the interests of those who have wealth and power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Thinking of politics in terms of simple dichotomy between left=big government and right=small government is not very helpful.
Use of the terms left and right actually originates from pre-revolutionary France. The conservatives, who wanted to preserve the power and privileges of the monarchy, aristocracy and the church sat on the right of the national assembly. The reformers and/or radicals who wanted to reduce these privileges and increase the rights of the common people sat on the left. This dichotomy between conservatives and reformers/radicals is less relevant nowadays given how far the status quo has shifted in the reformist direction.
It is probably more useful to think in terms of three different dimensions: economic, social and defence/national security. It may also be useful to add a fourth dimension that cuts across these: nationalism vs internationalism.
Political parties characterised as 'right' these days generally favour less regulation/taxation of economic activity, but more regulation of social behaviour in the name of traditional values/'morality' and a more hawkish stance on defence/national security. The latter two positions are actually 'big government'. Moreover, there is a growing element on the right that favours economic nationalism (with tighter controls on trade and immigration), which is where the fourth dimension comes in. Parties characterised as 'left' generally favour more regulation/taxation of economic activity, more tolerance of diverse social behaviour and more emphasis on diplomacy/international cooperation rather than military power.
This shows why RV's simplistic notions are really very silly.

---

I usually find myself in agreement with your posts, but consider this one confused. I think that is because in addition to the problems of defining Left and Right in general terms, differences emerge in specific countries where left and right do not mean the same thing.

Replacing class struggle -at one time the acme of left-v-right, with Marine Le Pen's concoction: Mondialistes ou Patriotes is little more than an attempt to refurbish Nationalism as the driving force of politics, but where the definition of the Nation for Le Pen is quite clearly White and Christian and nobody else. It repudiates the Imperial past which incorporated France's Black colonies into the Republic -even today French citizens in the Caribbean vote in General Elections- but is most intense in its rejection of the idea that a citizen of France can be Jewish or Muslim.

Thus, on the one hand France's alt-right is close to the US alt-right and an element of the Republican Party that bases the whole of the American project from Jamestown to this morning as the realisation of the rights of White Christians to rule for their own benefit, regardless of class. There are differences, because the immigrant experience means that White Christians can be Catholic rather than Protestant, and while Jews for some should be expelled from America along with Muslims and Black Americans, other Republicans and possibly some alt-right even if they want them expelled, accept this is not a realistic option, whereas preventing the further influx of Latin Catholics is a keenly felt problem they wish would go away.

The problem deepens in Europe, because there has been a long-established connection between Socialism and Christianity, something Americans find inexplicable, if they even know about it. If the left has resonance here, it is because of a trend in early industrial Britain for artisans and unskilled labourers to choose local Christian community churches against the Established Church of England, doing so on the basis that the Gospels provided them with a moral authority that government and the church lacked.

These non-established religious groups stressed the importance of communities sharing the benefits of their labour in a moral economy where a person's needs were to be met from the community that produced it, notwithstanding the ownership of landowners and capitalist merchants. The roots of the Labour Party are thus found in thousands of working class communities which developed their own networks of power and representation that, until the creation of the party in 1900 were disparate and poorly organized.

This Christian basis for policies of justice and equality are also found on the continent in the Netherlands and Germany, but less so in Italy and France, where the left has since 1789 been anti-clerical, as has also been the case in Spain. Ireland, again, offers a quite different profile owing to the almost complete dominance of the Catholic Church, and where left and right has been a weak distinction to make, as politics tended to be shaped more by the conflict with Britain than the conflict within Ireland.

Into this mix, Marxism has had a varied career, and not a particularly successful one, but in its British expression, one sees its weaknesses and failures. The British Labour movement was, as is also true of the continent, split asunder by the Russian Revolutions and the success of the Russian Communist Party in creating alternative socialist parties that sapped working class loyalty often handing parliamentary success to its opponents. The creation of 'ghettoes' on the left meant that many Marxists gave up on the Communist organization to choose Labour as an effective vehicle for their careers, even though they were outnumbered in the party until Corbyn's spectacular rise to the leadership. The weakness lies in the fact that Labour is not an internationalist party so that even Marxists like Corbyn and McDonnell may give lip service to international causes but are in fact small-time nationalists.

A cardinal feature of Marx's concept of class was that it was like capitalist, international in character. But whereas Marx was careful to use class as a component of the social relations of capitalist society, he had no empathy with or even understanding of nationalism, even though it was becoming a more dominant factor of politics in the 19th century than class struggle. In fact the revolutionary role of the proletariat, a mission discovered through their development of an awareness of their own, actual power to create change, collapsed in 1914 as working class parties in Britain and Germany opted to support the nationalist rather than the revolutionary cause, a factor which persisted after the war and into the darker era of the Third Reich and the Second World War.

Thus emerged, for want of a better use of words, a 'soft left' which believed in the Parliamentary Road to Socialism, its best exemplar being the Attlee government of 1945. But while this suppressed the hard left, their persistence, and the drift of the 'soft left' to the 'Third way' incoherence of Tony Blair's New Labour, has emerged as a more powerful force than it was before. But, where is their internationalism? Corbyn and McDonnell have both campaigned against the UK's membership of the EU since 1973, as was true of their socialist guru Tony Benn, who, though he had an American wife, was completely uninterested in the USA as a country and usually dismissed its foreign adventures much as Corbyn does today. There is not even a shred of sympathy or understanding, and thus no solidarity with workers in China or Vietnam, and while Corbyn's Latin wives have given him a penchant for the state capitalism of Chavez or Morales, he has been markedly quiet about the drift to dictatorship in Venezuela and Bolivia.

The old tradition of Labour, its Christian sense of justice and equality may still reside in parts of Labour, but today the party is mostly a confused mess of pro-European technocrats and -were it not grotesque to use the term- national socialists who yearn to impose Socialism in One Country. The meaning of left and right was never more exposed as a confusing if meaningless distinction than in this unfit-for-purpose movement of second-rate party hacks and deluded students.

But if you want a even more toxic problem, consider the roots of the environmental movement, which today appears to most as a 'left-wing' movement because it takes on Big Business, Government and their supporters variously described as 'climate change deniers', Lumberjacks and Morons. Those roots are closer to what we think today of as Fascism than socialism, largely because the environmental movement elevated nature to the status of something close to religion as being, indeed, our 'natural condition'. It may have begun with the 'back to nature' movement that was a signal feature of the Romantic poets like Wordsworth, or part of the early hostility to industry that one finds in Goethe and Schiller in Germany, but it took off in the late 19th century when anxieties over population begged the question: can the environment support another billion people?

The answer was no, leading to respectable writers, like HG Wells, long before the Nazi genocide, to suggest a cull of useless humans may be the only way to save our green fields and fishy coasts, our over-burdened towns and cities, indeed, our very 'civilization'. Eugenics, scouting for boys, cold showers and the worship of mother nature became the roots of the movement which now looks so different because in the interim, we discovered that Genocide is not a good way to deal with the 'problem'.

Finally, in this over-long post, one notes that in the US, the environmental movement has been conservative but also effective -one thinks of the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and the Audobon Society taking the oil companies to court to delay the development of the oil industry in Alaska for years; whereas the Green Party in Germany emerged as a coalition of groups mostly if not exclusively fed up with the SPD's politics-as-usual and support for the nuclear energy sector. Whereas in the US the Green Party is a day-care centre for cranks and losers.

The reason why flighty mentioned that both right and left wingers mean big government and less freedom for individual is exactly why I think it would be much more useful to class them both as left. There are simply no right-wing parties. No liberals - in its proper sense, who should be for freedom from any restrictions, be it social or economical.

Since your solar constant was 1.228kW 200 years ago, and is now between 1.318kW and 1.548kW then maybe, but only maybe, it would be wise to include its variations in your global warming, since that is a variation of 7.3% to 26% difference - that is shitloads over 200 years, if you ask me. Also, it would be nice to consider Milankovic cycles, and the facts that Earth's orbit is now becoming less eccentric, which equalises season's length, which implicates longer summers and shorter winters. It would also be nice to include axial precession in your global warming considerations, since it seems like it may be the time when the North Pole (ain't that at the same hemisphere North America is on?) is beginning to turn towards the Sun during perihelion and the temperatures in Australia during summer there are rather high. If I were you, I'd really stop bullshitting your fellow Americans about CO2 emissions, and tell them to get some shorts and flipflops as well as maybe plan moving somewhere else if I lived at a place that is already being affected by dangerous weather extremes rather than invest in inefficient solar panels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

The reason why flighty mentioned that both right and left wingers mean big government and less freedom for individual is exactly why I think it would be much more useful to class them both as left. There are simply no right-wing parties. No liberals - in its proper sense, who should be for freedom from any restrictions, be it social or economical.
.

---

Liberal theory does not believe in freedom without restriction, as even in its most austere form, it maintains that freedom does not permit one person to harm another -it imposes limits to preserve a basic form of order in society. The claim that 'left' and 'right' can be defined in terms of their relationship to government, and the extent to which individuals are governed is limited to the status of a simple idea that is not met in the real world.

Solar panels have been so efficient in households in the UK they have been able to generate more electricity than they need and sell the surplus to the national grid.

Quote:

---

Since your solar constant was 1.228kW 200 years ago, and is now between 1.318kW and 1.548kW then maybe, but only maybe,...

---

As I said, the early measurements were crude. Consider the difficulties and factors that needed to be considered in making those early measurements of the solar flux at the Earth’s surface: atmospheric absorption on the day the measurement was made, exact determination of the experiment’s height above sea level, exact distance from the Sun when the measurement was made, proper measurement of the caloric rise of the measuring apparatus, time of day, day of year etc. Yes, Pouillet’s 1838 measurement was 1.228 kilowatts per square meter. In 1875 Violle’s measurement was 1.7 kilowatts per square meter. The average is 1.46 kilowatts per square meter. These two early measurements bound (below and above) the more accurate modern measurements you cited. The difference (even if we could count it as a surplus) is insufficient to account for the exponential warming of the Earth we been observing for over a century and a half. But yes, the current climate models do take into consideration the variations in the solar constant.

The Earth’s precession (the gyroscopic wobble of its spin axis), it’s orbital eccentricity and other orbital parameters vary through a complex set of not yet thoroughly understood cycles called the Milankovitch cycles. As you say, variations in these parameters will induce variations in the flux of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and do (when acting in synchrony) force changes in the Earth’s climate. The cyclic occurrences of Earth’s ice-ages are linked to the Milankovitch cycles. These cycles have (on a human scale) very large periods: on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (the period of Earth’s precession is somewhere around 25000 years and the period in the variations of Earth’s eccentricity is on the order of 112000 years). That’s why over the period of a mere 200 years these variations are largely negligible. However, if you want to include them in the current climate model, know that the Milankovich cycles are now slowing (by a very very small amount) the warming of the Earth. But they are no match against the greenhouse gases that billions of people have been dumping into the atmosphere over the past 1.5 centuries.

Of course there needs to be order. That is the whole idea of having a state with its police and military forces. The thing is to restrict the nation's freedom in as little ways possible.

Solar panels are so efficient that government needs to subsidise their use at homes to make it potentially reasonable to buy and install the panels, along with all the batteries, inverters, drivers etc required for them to work properly with the grid. And all that only if you live in a sunny spot anyway.

Yeah the solar constant is measured in kW/m/m rather than kW. Taking some crude measurement from 200 years ago, probably burdened with high inaccuracy and adding it to a measurement taken with a more accurate contemporary instrument to calculate an average does not remove any error from the mean, which means you end up with a value as inaccurate as the most inaccurate value taken into consideration.

By the way, I haven't come across anything related to anything other that observed temperatures' analyses in that report you attached here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Solar panels have been so efficient in households in the UK they have been able to generate more electricity than they need and sell the surplus to the national grid.

---

Such a pity then that most of the UK population can't fucking afford them! New installations have plummeted by over 80% since 2016!
Figures from the Solar Trade Association(STA)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

Such a pity then that most of the UK population can't fucking afford them! New installations have plummeted by over 80% since 2016!
Figures from the Solar Trade Association(STA)

---

The Government since 2010 has helped increase the number of homes with solar panels as part of the Clean Growth Plan, and as seen in the Green Match link below local councils remain committed to subsidizing new projects, as indeed they should. There is no logic to leaving the development of solar to the markets as markets don't provide in this instance.

The problem has emerged from the dysfunctional government we have had since the elections of 2015 and 2017, David Cameron's colossal blunder over the EU Referendum, and the shambles of Theresa May's emergency 'government' which has all but knackered rational policy making as Ministers spend most of their time trying to focus on their jobs and careers outside the EU, while bickering with each other as if they were in a school playground. Thus, from the Solar Trade Association:

Since 2015, employment in the sector has fallen by at least two thirds from a high point of well over 30,000. Large-scale solar deployment has stalled (notwithstanding isolated exceptions that nevertheless prove this rule), and the revised feed-in tariff has seen a dramatic year-on-year drop in rooftop installations. In 2015, there were 155,000 new domestic installations that year receiving the feed-in tariff. In the first six months of this year, the number was less than 5,000. It is undeniable that the sector suffered unnecessarily as a result of knee-jerk policy making in the aftermath of the 2015 election where solar was wrongly and public blamed for the LCF overspend. Ministers are keen to describe UK solar as a success story, and so it is. But what we need now from the Government is certainty and partnership for the future, rather than basking in past successes. The fact is, as the recent REN21 report showed, positive policies are still vital to the solar industry internationally. It is ironic that Solarcentury, a stalwart of the UK sector since the late 1990s, is now exporting successfully our UK solar expertise literally all around the world, while the UK domestic market remains in downturn.
http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/one-st...-solar-policy/

Leaving the EU could reverse the trend toward carbon efficient homes as the UK runs out of money, unless some courageous politician steps forward to announce an increase in income tax.

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/20...ded-by-council

http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/its-ti...reconceptions/

Your stupid fucking answer to everything! Br-exit? Is that it? What the fuck is "Ministers focussing on careers outside of the EU" supposed to mean? They already have a job as an MP?

Go & see your Doctor to see if you can get something for it! Oh....& good luck! My surgery doesn't do appointments over the phone anymore, they're all taken! You have to go down there at 8am & join the queue(line) to book an appointment for that day! I suppose that's the fucking fault of Br-exit too? You Nutters!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Yeah the solar constant is measured in kW/m/m rather than kW. Taking some crude measurement from 200 years ago, probably burdened with high inaccuracy and adding it to a measurement taken with a more accurate contemporary instrument to calculate an average does not remove any error from the mean, which means you end up with a value as inaccurate as the most inaccurate value taken into consideration.

---

Yes, you got it: the cruder the measurement the wider the margin of error. If the older data is included in say, your calculation of ocean rise or say, your calculation of the Earth’s temperature anomaly, then your prediction will also include a somewhat larger margin of error.

A few posts ago you were eager to include Pouillet’s calculation of the Solar Constant because you thought the higher modern values meant there was an increase in the solar flux that could account for global warming. (It wouldn't have.) But of course Violle’s higher measurement throws a monkey wrench into that maneuver. So now you want to exclude the 19th century measurements.

It doesn’t matter. You can do the calculation either way. Leave out the 19th century measurements of the solar constant altogether, or put them in. You can leave out the effect of Sunspot activity or include it. Leave out the effect of the Milankovitch cycles or put them in. Either way you’ll find that at this moment in time the greenhouse-effect utterly swamps all other factors that might modify the temperature of the our planet. The current warming trend is indisputably due, primarily, to the precipitous rise of greenhouse gases that humans have been dumping into the atmosphere for over a century.

When I used to go to chronic fatigue meetings, the people there that were really into having chronic fatigue could tell me which doctor to go to if I wanted to have lyme disease, and which doctors I could go to if I didn't want to have lyme disease. This was the era when the Bush W doctors that claimed lyme disease didn't exist, were frantically calling the same doctors they called frauds when George got a bulleye's rash on his leg. Trying to find a doctor that would confirm I had a pituitary tumor was a year long nightmare, because the Growth Hormone that is used to treat it cost Insurance Companies millions of dollars a year. In the debate over climate change, any fool can sense that sticking a hose from your car exhaust into the car is going to kill you, but THE JUDGE in this debate is going to be the people that don't want to buy an electric car, they prefer a "69 GTO.
There is a reason it was called Gilligan's Island, and not just because Gilligan used to be Maynard G Krebs, Mr Howell was Mr Magoo, FGS. The Professor had his own hut because he was an oddball, Gilligan was THE DECIDER who had his own mind when it came to who he obeyed, Gilligan was the common denominator.
To make a long boring story short, Global Warming's existence doesn't rely on science, it relies on who is in the White House, a Democrat, or a Republican.
The average Joe that believes Global Warming is costing them a job are the same Joes that cling to their guns and religion. You can't just identify global warming to fix it, you can't just sell it (Gore) you got to pull it off. Obama could do it. Trump could undo it. Global Warming is Hillary's fault. Don't Boo, VOTE!!!
Trump WELCOMES the hate of gays and trannys because 32% of Americans hate gays and trannys. There is a method in his madness. Let's hope so anyway, if 32% of Americans decide nuking Iran and N Korea is a good thing, ...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

Your stupid fucking answer to everything! Br-exit? Is that it? What the fuck is "Ministers focussing on careers outside of the EU" supposed to mean? They already have a job as an MP?

---

In fact my post was a rational reply to yours with regard to solar panels and why sales and installations have stalled in the last two years. That Brexit is our breakfast, lunch and dinner should be as obvious to you as it is to everyone else in the UK, just as the desperation of MPs who don't know if they will survive the next Election is as real as their fake support for Theresa May, or not as the case may be.

You are the one who absorbed the lies pumped into your belly by that dishevelled drunk Boris Johnson, no-mates Gove and I'm-really-not-a-fascist Farage. When are you going to take some responsibility for stabbing this country in the back and at least admit you have no idea how we are going to fund the NHS, education, housing or the Bomb when we lose our lucrative partnership with the EU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

To make a long boring story short, Global Warming's existence doesn't rely on science, it relies on who is in the White House, a Democrat, or a Republican.
The average Joe that believes Global Warming is costing them a job are the same Joes that cling to their guns and religion. You can't just identify global warming to fix it, you can't just sell it (Gore) you got to pull it off. Obama could do it. Trump could undo it. Global Warming is Hillary's fault. Don't Boo, VOTE!!!

---

Not sure about that Buttslinger as a lot of Americans are now employed in the alternative energy industry they can't all be climate change deniers (article is from 2017):

In the United States, more people were employed in solar power last year than in generating electricity through coal, gas and oil energy combined. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent. It's a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute Donald Trump's assertion that green energy projects are bad news for the American economy.

Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000. The boom in the country's solar workforce can be attributed to construction work associated with expanding generation capacity. The gulf in employment is growing with net generation from coal falling 53 percent over the last decade. During the same period, electricity generation from natural gas increased 33 percent while solar expanded 5,000 percent.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#3a37179d2800

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Not sure about that Buttslinger as a lot of Americans are now employed in the alternative energy industry they can't all be climate change deniers (article is from 2017):

---

Fair enough, let me put it this way, if Trump's base were screaming in favor of Climate Control, Trump would claim to be all about Climate Control, he would say he's always been about Climate Control, he invented Climate Control long before loser Al Gore, then he would do everything he could to quietly dissolve Climate Control Regulations that cost Business Exec$ ulcers. It really is amazing how Evangelicals, Gun Nuts, Businessmen and the KKK are all on the same page when it comes to Trump or Politics in General. There are guys like Karl Rove, and even Sloppy Steve Bannon who dedicate their life into finding out what 51% of the Country want, no, I mean 51% of the people who vote, No wait, I mean 51% of the electoral college vote.....
I do know that Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House, Reagan took 'em off. I think Obama had played a chess game with big business for eight years, they sat on their cash but all that's over now, the cash spigots are turned on to wide fuckin' open. Maybe Trump will dissolve incentives for Big Business to invest in Green Energy, I don't know. I do fear that by this November's election, the Economy will be booming before the bill to the middle class comes due. Much of Politics is like a Sports Book, you don't get rich by knowing who will win the game, you get rich by knowing who people will bet on. Obama stopped politicizing and started Legislating after he won the election, Trump is still debating Hillary. I am very surprised if solar energy generates more cash than gas, electricity, and coal combined. I think maybe Solar and Wind hires more people, but gas and oil generates more cash. Sometimes a person's perception trumps reality, illusion sells, what distracts you defines you..... blah blah blah. I do know I don't get a Solar Energy bill in the mail, but my gas bill this month was off the charts. I gotta go pick up my car now, the global freezing broke my plastic front door handle. $250.
Politicians and Car Repair guys. Friends or Foes???????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

In fact my post was a rational reply to yours with regard to solar panels and why sales and installations have stalled in the last two years. That Brexit is our breakfast, lunch and dinner should be as obvious to you as it is to everyone else in the UK, just as the desperation of MPs who don't know if they will survive the next Election is as real as their fake support for Theresa May, or not as the case may be.

You are the one who absorbed the lies pumped into your belly by that dishevelled drunk Boris Johnson, no-mates Gove and I'm-really-not-a-fascist Farage. When are you going to take some responsibility for stabbing this country in the back and at least admit you have no idea how we are going to fund the NHS, education, housing or the Bomb when we lose our lucrative partnership with the EU?

---

You really do show on here with your paranoia and unstable behaviour, your accusations & insults, simply over the result of a referendum called by the then Leader of the UK, that you are seriously and mentally unstable. If I had my way I would lock you up in a Mental Institution & throw away the key!
You have been told time & time again how I would fund everything with the £1.9bn per year saving by leaving but you don't fucking listen because of your illness!
Most stable normal rational people who voted remain have now accepted democracy & would like the Government no negotiate our way out of it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

You really do show on here with your paranoia and unstable behaviour, your accusations & insults, simply over the result of a referendum called by the then Leader of the UK, that you are seriously and mentally unstable. If I had my way I would lock you up in a Mental Institution & throw away the key!
You have been told time & time again how I would fund everything with the £1.9bn per year saving by leaving but you don't fucking listen because of your illness!
Most stable normal rational people who voted remain have now accepted democracy & would like the Government no negotiate our way out of it!

---

My post was calm and reasonable, and primarily a correction of the remarks you made about solar panels, a topic you have avoided in your latest post, just as you seem to think Brexit is not worth debating even though you are responsible for it, but I agree my latest post was a bit over the top, as they say, but the spirit was fine as we -and our descendants- will be living with your foolish and ill-considered decision for the rest of our lives as I see no prospect of Brexit being reversed, contrary to what you think.

That the UK will be obliged to continue paying into the EU after leaving is a fact of life because we signed an agreement to do so before the EU Referendum, that this will mean less money to spend in the UK in the transition period of two years -if that is what it is- cannot also be denied, while our exit will also begin a process whereby the UK's trade with the EU declines. The knock-on effect of leaving, in at least an interim period of 5 possibly ten years, will be a loss of income, so that your figure of £1.9 billion is a fantasy, like most Leave statistics, some of which claim the UK will benefit by $23 billion, most of which will not be spent on the NHS or Education anyway, but on benefits for the unemployed and the poor, much as Mrs Thatcher squandered North Sea revenues on benefits when unemployment due to her sabotage of the economy was at record levels.

You could consider other aspects of your decision -the UK's space scientists are being frozen out of the EU's Galileo programme because the UK is leaving and its future relationship with the EU is not clear, as is also emerging to be a problem in higher education with the Erasmus programme, while the signs are that the City of London will lose its passporting business. The claim that German car manufacturers want a deal to protect their lucrative trade is undermined by the simple fact that German cars cost more because of the decline of value of the pound and sales are already down, while the more complex problem of the supply-chain in EU motor manufacture may in time lead car firms to re-locate their UK businesses to the EU to cut costs. And so on, none of which means anything to you because you are convinced Labour will win the next election -which is possible- and spend our way out of the crisis we are in. Assuming we don't have first to spend our money bailing out the train operating companies or Carillion which is billions in debt with a pension fund shortfall of over £500m. Corbyn may enter office intending to spend £1.9 billion only to discover he is already having to spend £19 billion picking up the tab for Brexit and Theresa May's shambolic government.

And you think I am mad?

Have the last word as you always do but your stupid theories and speculation mean absolutely Jack Shit to me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

Have the last word as you always do but your stupid theories and speculation mean absolutely Jack Shit to me!

---

Mate, calm down. Just admit you don't understand the issue and you think knee jerk reactions are sensible arguments.

I'm from the continent. The one you liberated from Napoleon whereas we didn't ask for it (proof for that, we all reinstated his laws at the first possible opportunity). I pissed myself from laughing when the result of that so called referendum came in (to any sensible thinking person, the outcome of any referendum with such a magnitude should be a minimal 2/3 to say it is binding, but what could we expect from a country that has a sham democracy and not even a half decent constitution) and could only think of the story of Athens going to war on it's former colonies in Sicily without having a clue how far of they were, what it would cost to raise an army and get it there etc etc. They got defeated, and were bankcrupt and that was the end of them. Basic pride before the fall.

I work my ass of in a company that funnels its revenue to the UK by using a fraud sales office. Leave the UK and that set-up is no longer possible, so there will go the jobs and income, back over here. Good riddance!

My tax money is used to stop scores of immigrants who want to get to the UK, because they vastly believe a - they can make it there b - will never be expelled once they set foot on ground, because there are no ID cards needed and if you walk there, well you're british aren't you? Then more of my tax money is used flying those poor bastards back to were they came from. And you honestly believe we'll keep on doing that if don't cough up your dues??? Hell no man, I'll personally see to it that we do use the way cheaper method, give them a ticket Calais/Dover!

City started relocating already before the results came in, because basically they don't trust UK anymore. Sure, they face more stringent laws here, but they want to be where the money is (and they are a hell of a lot smarter than you and I and Stavros together, trust me). Do you have any idea of the fact that most of the continent thinks, knows, that the ravage of the financial crisis of 2008 would have been tampered a lot for the continent, were it not for the greedy bastards using the back door laws and exceptions the UK had gotten for 2 decades from the EU??? The trail from Wall Street to Greece goes straight through the City.

I felt relieved, honestly, were it not that the Brexit decision is the first step towards a future armed conflict in the end, because inevitably, someone will figure out there is money to be made that way. And we do anything for a quid, don't we?

And now for something completely different, Global Warming! (refugees of flooded lands not welcome in the UK I guess?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

I tell you yet again that governments should not interfere in economy. Countries do not trade with eachother. People who live in countries do. The idea of running a country as if it was a company is ludicrous.

---

Oh? Governments should only bail the economy out is it? Countries do not trade? Then why is the UK hurrying to make illegal trade deals quick quick now, before they lose their so advantageous deal with the EU. And why is self declared business man (with half dozen bankruptcies in his name), as a good "right wing person" pretending it is the only way?

You are actually Sarah Palin, aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

Have the last word as you always do but your stupid theories and speculation mean absolutely Jack Shit to me!

---

But Peejaye there is no speculation in the fact that two EU agencies are leaving the UK taking their jobs with them as well as the money spent by those workers in their local economy. There is no speculation in the 'threat' to farming of migrant workers no longer showing up for work, it has been happening all year with farmers in Cornwall lamenting the fact their crops are rotting in the fields without the labour to pick them. As I pointed out above, it is not speculation but fact that the EU Space Agency is denying British scientists the opportunity to work on the Galileo programme, that foreign student numbers are in decline, that the care system faces a major challenge as basic, and mostly low-paid staff also decline. If you are not worried by these developments, then don't be, but don't also pretend they do not represent the negative impact of Brexit before it is even a fact and we leave the EU.

Yes, the UK will adapt to leaving the EU, and in time the economy will probably recover to a level that people adjust to, and I don't doubt we will sign trade deals too. But it looks to me like these developments will not be a reality for at least 10 years because of the transitional exit from the EU, if there is one, because trade deals can't be signed in months but take years to negotiate, and because even when we leave the EU there will be multiple legal cases involving firms across the divide that sap time, money and energy. As Chupapu points out above, the Leavers invited the UK all aboard a ship that is sailing to an unknown destination on the basis that when we reach the other side, we will be rich, happy and free.

Sunny California must seem like the ideal destination for leavers, but then the fires burn the trees and dry out the soil, the rains come tumbling down, and paradise is turned into hell, and that is one hell of a journey to choose to make.