Author Topic: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong  (Read 44882 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 492
  • -Received: 773
  • Posts: 14247
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2018, 08:14:47 PM »
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actively promoted measures to combat climate change, with Reagan in 1987 overruling objections within his own Cabinet to a major proposed treaty to protect the ozone layer, according to recently declassified records posted today by the George Washington University-based National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org). As world leaders, including President Barack Obama, meet in Paris for the latest round of climate talks, the posting reveals a desire by the two Republican leaders from the 1980s for strong American leadership on climate issues that sometimes resembles the Obama White House view more than that of many of today’s top GOP officials – or presidential candidates.

In connection with the Montreal Protocol (negotiated in 1987 and put into effect in 1989), both Reagan and Bush 41 showed a clear desire to tackle environmental concerns and to lead the global community in that effort, according to the documents. Protests by the Domestic Policy Council, led by Attorney General Edwin Meese, and other agency heads led Reagan to step in to ensure adoption of the final set of U.S. objectives for the treaty. Bush basically shared his predecessor’s views on entering office in January 1989.


https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/

Offline Kings

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 355
  • -Received: 350
  • Posts: 1718
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2018, 07:18:35 AM »
what do the 3% of scientists have to say about global warming and why don't they agree?
Your missing the point about scientific consensus. Scientists carefully analyze the studies and papers by all research, including research that does not support warming or human responsibility to warming. That 3% data is taken into account. The consensus builds, changes, and evolves as more research is performed. At this point there is a massive body of research supporting warming. Sure the tiny amount of research that doesn't could be correct, but the odds are much much smaller. Why go off the conclusion that is most likely to be wrong? If it is right, with the way consensus works, once more research is done that demonstrates it to be right, it will be adopted and become the new consensus, so the ship would right anyway if there really is merit to the conclusion cO2 is not causing warming.

The current scientific consensus is the best data we have, and the best thing to go off of. It has historically steered us well and given us the technological power we now wield. Why make an exception because you don't like the result? Would you want Hillary be elected if she won 3% of the vote and Trump won 97%?  I honestly don't get it.

Re posting the study explaining consensus: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122410388488
 

i would at least like to hear why the 3% of people want hillary to be president.  it's not about wanting to be right about a topic, but challenging the topic rather than taking it at face value based on what "experts" say.  "experts" have been wrong, have had an agenda, and don't always have our best interest in mind. 

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 554
  • -Received: 515
  • Posts: 4858
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2018, 08:07:09 AM »

George Carlin got it right...he is worth listening to.[/b][/size][/color]


Funny guy.

First off, the point on 97% of species going extinct, you realize that was caused by SuperVolcanos, Asteroids, and other such massive calamities? The current die off looks similar, but too early too tell, but if it is human based, it implies we are as damaging as a massive global calamity.

But I couldn't care less if all the polar bears die or whatever, I only care about humanity. The earth is fine no matter what, it will move on, but we should work to make sure we aren't one of those 97% of species that get left behind.
Quote
Even if I were to stipulate the truthfulness of global warming there is NOTHING we could do about it short of banning all industry and your precious technology.(do you know how much energy it takes to mine one bitcoin?)  Better to evolve and adapt to our constantly changing "environment". 

There's really nothing we could do short of banning all industry? Do you really think that?

What we can do is price the negative externality of CO2 emissions with a carbon tax, and let the market's response to that cost minimize emissions. If banning all industry was the only way to do it, as you suggest, then industry would continue as normal and we could use the proceeds of the tax to evolve and adapt to our changing environment. Let the  market decide what is truly possible and best by pricing in the cost of emissions.  Tax is a rotten word, but in reality this is just recognizing a cost and paying it.




But you are not letting the market forces decide. You are imposing an external penalty and trying to socially engineer an outcome and agenda.  If free markets were free than rising oceans or more hurricanes would be reacted to naturally by the population.  They would move, like someone who builds a home on the side of a Volcano,  I don't think they will again, but the decision was theirs to make.  I live 60 feet from the water and I worry not a moment that my home will be submerged by the Pacific.  If it ever does, that's my kids problem or my kids kids. I don't need the government penalizing me with a new tax to get me to move for a perceived greater good, until then I am happy where I am.

Offline StarmanMBA

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 94
  • -Received: 42
  • Posts: 413
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2018, 08:50:27 AM »
"Consensus" is NOT science.  The "consensus" of virtually all scientists has been dead wrong again and again for centuries. 

In 1895, the President of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin, said "Heavier than air flight is impossible." 

Seven years later, two uneducated bicycle mechanics built the first airplane and flew it at Kitty Hawk.

If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance. v- Orville Wright


https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/orville_wright_130122


Professor Don Easterbrook presents facts contrary to the narrative of Al Gore, a mediocre mind who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.


[/url]

Physics Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever calls the climate change sharia a massive fraud which will cost the world trillions of dollars and accomplish nothing good, while hurting the poorest very badly.


[/url]
"There are only two kinds of people, decent and indecent." - Elie Wiesel

« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2018, 01:29:58 pm »
qwerty
Hey StarmanMBA - go fuck yourself :-)

The following members thanked this post;
Burn That Belly, id_rather_be_racing, misme, eyephone, fortune11, spootieho, CompressedVillage

Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 71
  • -Received: 60
  • Posts: 246
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2018, 09:28:46 AM »

George Carlin got it right...he is worth listening to.[/b][/size][/color]


Funny guy.

First off, the point on 97% of species going extinct, you realize that was caused by SuperVolcanos, Asteroids, and other such massive calamities? The current die off looks similar, but too early too tell, but if it is human based, it implies we are as damaging as a massive global calamity.

But I couldn't care less if all the polar bears die or whatever, I only care about humanity. The earth is fine no matter what, it will move on, but we should work to make sure we aren't one of those 97% of species that get left behind.
Quote
Even if I were to stipulate the truthfulness of global warming there is NOTHING we could do about it short of banning all industry and your precious technology.(do you know how much energy it takes to mine one bitcoin?)  Better to evolve and adapt to our constantly changing "environment". 

There's really nothing we could do short of banning all industry? Do you really think that?

What we can do is price the negative externality of CO2 emissions with a carbon tax, and let the market's response to that cost minimize emissions. If banning all industry was the only way to do it, as you suggest, then industry would continue as normal and we could use the proceeds of the tax to evolve and adapt to our changing environment. Let the  market decide what is truly possible and best by pricing in the cost of emissions.  Tax is a rotten word, but in reality this is just recognizing a cost and paying it.




But you are not letting the market forces decide. You are imposing an external penalty and trying to socially engineer an outcome and agenda.  If free markets were free than rising oceans or more hurricanes would be reacted to naturally by the population.  They would move, like someone who builds a home on the side of a Volcano,  I don't think they will again, but the decision was theirs to make.  I live 60 feet from the water and I worry not a moment that my home will be submerged by the Pacific.  If it ever does, that's my kids problem or my kids kids. I don't need the government penalizing me with a new tax to get me to move for a perceived greater good, until then I am happy where I am.

This is exactly where I think the debate should be, not on whether the warming exists or not. Can government reasonably achieve a goal of reducing CO2 emissions, without causing undue harm? There are surely people with agenda's that would care more to expand their own power or that of the governments and use warming as an excuse to do so. I am unsure if the government is capable of achieving this task.

Carbon tax seems the most likely to work; pricing negative externalities is economics 101. It is not free market, right. It is putting a constraint on the market, but one that is based on a societal cost. Ideally this would lead to the most efficient outcome with the least total cost needing to be paid. But of course, this is oversimplified, and any carbon tax implementation would be difficult in practice and prone to abuse.

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 554
  • -Received: 515
  • Posts: 4858
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2018, 09:43:29 AM »
What you propose would require a massive leap of faith that the government would efficiently re-deploy assets to achieve the desired goal.  I have little faith in that possibility, look at Obamacare as a great example.  I have more faith in the individuals ability to deploy their assets in an efficient manner. (the volcano example is proof of that).  Creating artificial penalties based on a premise not accepted by everyone (carbon can be controlled) and handing billions to a new government bureaucracy to spend for us, is suspect at best, disastrous economically at worst.

Offline inv0ke-epipen

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 71
  • -Received: 60
  • Posts: 246
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2018, 10:07:01 AM »
What you propose would require a massive leap of faith that the government would efficiently re-deploy assets to achieve the desired goal.  I have little faith in that possibility, look at Obamacare as a great example.  I have more faith in the individuals ability to deploy their assets in an efficient manner. (the volcano example is proof of that).  Creating artificial penalties based on a premise not accepted by everyone (carbon can be controlled) and handing billions to a new government bureaucracy to spend for us, is suspect at best, disastrous economically at worst.

I agree with most of your concerns here, except for that carbon can't be controlled. We know of ways to de-carbonize, and eventually, we will transition to sustainable energy one way or the other. It's in the definition "sustainable". The idea is to accelerate that transition to reduce harm.

I am a techno optimist, so see an economic opportunity in this energy transition.  I have confidence our brightest engineers will be able to build and develop energy systems that are more efficient and economically productive than our legacy sources of power. Of course this is not a sure thing, and my optimism could be completely misplaced.

It's interesting watching Tesla, as they are an example of a company growing up to meet the challenge of this transition and in response to government incentives/regulation. Will they end up being profitable and a source of wealth for Californians and the U.S? Or will they prove to be an unsustainable sinkole for investor and public money? We should have that answer in a few years.

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 554
  • -Received: 515
  • Posts: 4858
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2018, 10:42:56 AM »
If you look at my posts under Tesla model 3 you know I don't have a lot of faith in Tesla and Musk.  He does many fun things with government money but I have yet to see a legitimate profit in any of his adventures.  I believe that if electric cars are viable than the market would have them already and without government largess.  I actually think Hydrogen is the real answer but that is for another thread. 

Offline StarmanMBA

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 94
  • -Received: 42
  • Posts: 413
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2018, 12:27:22 PM »
  I actually think Hydrogen is the real answer but that is for another thread.

Hydrogen is produced by electrolyzing water.  Of course that process consumed much more energy than is produced by burning the hydrogen back into water, so it is a non-solution.
"There are only two kinds of people, decent and indecent." - Elie Wiesel

« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2018, 01:29:58 pm »
qwerty
Hey StarmanMBA - go fuck yourself :-)

The following members thanked this post;
Burn That Belly, id_rather_be_racing, misme, eyephone, fortune11, spootieho, CompressedVillage

Offline USCTrojanCPA

  • Your CPA Realtor
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 2598
  • -Received: 2082
  • Posts: 10234
  • Gender: Male
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2018, 03:55:10 PM »
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.
Martin Mania, CPA
AgencyOne
CA BRE License # 01799007
CA CPA License # 107675
mmania001@yahoo.com
714-747-3884 cell

Often imitated....Never duplicated!
Have license, will travel!

Offline Kings

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 355
  • -Received: 350
  • Posts: 1718
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #55 on: May 11, 2018, 06:08:00 PM »
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.

mission E looks pretty sweet. going to completely blow model s out of the water at the same price point.

Offline AW

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 46
  • -Received: 172
  • Posts: 1760
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #56 on: May 11, 2018, 08:01:41 PM »
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.

mission E looks pretty sweet. going to completely blow model s out of the water at the same price point.
I agree, b/w those 2, I’d go with mission E. 
Solar panels on a car currently don’t generate enough.  The Prius has one that barely turns on a fan, it’ll be a long time before powering a car is a reality. Although that’s a really nice idea

Offline Happiness

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 445
  • -Received: 398
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2018, 11:34:09 AM »
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.

mission E looks pretty sweet. going to completely blow model s out of the water at the same price point.
No point buying a Tesla now when the model E will be on sale in 2020.

This isn't Porsche's first foray into electric cars. For all you history buffs, the first car designed by Ferdiand Porsche, founder of what is now the Volkswagen Group, was an all electric car called the Lohner-Porsche of 1898:





Offline Kings

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 355
  • -Received: 350
  • Posts: 1718
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #58 on: May 13, 2018, 06:22:13 AM »
It would be cool electric cars were powered by solar power (free and abundant).  Not sure how easy it would be to outfit a car with solar panels though.

mission E looks pretty sweet. going to completely blow model s out of the water at the same price point.
No point buying a Tesla now when the model E will be on sale in 2020.

This isn't Porsche's first foray into electric cars. For all you history buffs, the first car designed by Ferdiand Porsche, founder of what is now the Volkswagen Group, was an all electric car called the Lohner-Porsche of 1898:



i wonder if it had a setting called "preposterous speed"

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline StarmanMBA

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 94
  • -Received: 42
  • Posts: 413
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« Reply #59 on: June 30, 2018, 08:31:15 PM »
President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Change Accord, much to the whiny dismay of virtually every Democrat in the country.  Turns out to have been a  brilliant move, saving us billions of dollars, with his many other efforts.

Even the Europeans themselves aren't practicing what they preach and agreed to IN WRITING!!!  Germany won't meet it's 2020  target and is even MORE likely won't meet it's 2030 target either.  But, hey, everybody has their neato piece of paper, so they got THAT goin'  for 'em.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a21605708/germany-likely-to-miss-emissions-target-for-2020/
"There are only two kinds of people, decent and indecent." - Elie Wiesel

« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2018, 01:29:58 pm »
qwerty
Hey StarmanMBA - go fuck yourself :-)

The following members thanked this post;
Burn That Belly, id_rather_be_racing, misme, eyephone, fortune11, spootieho, CompressedVillage

 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2021, SimplePortal