Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    31 Mar '17 04:54
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-orders-government-to-dismantle-1490723850-htmlstory.html

    Trump orders government to dismantle Obama’s climate change policies

    President Trump on Tuesday ordered the federal government to retreat from the battle against climate change launched by President Obama, issuing a directive aimed at dismantling the core policies that have made the U.S. a global leader in curbing emissions.

    The plan unveiled by Trump reflects an about-face for the U.S. on energy, and it puts into jeopardy the nation’s ability to meet the obligations it agreed to under the global warming pact signed in Paris with 194 other nations. It would shelve the landmark Clean Power Plan that mandates electricity companies reduce their emissions. It seeks to dislodge consideration of climate throughout the federal government, where it has been a factor in every relevant decision in recent years.

    "My administration is putting an end to the war on coal," Trump said. "I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy to reverse government intrusions and to cancel job killing regulations."

    Under the order, the government will abandon the “social cost of carbon” that regulators had painstakingly calculated and begun factoring into their decision on permit applications and rulemaking. Restrictions on methane releases at oil and gas drilling facilities would be eased.

    Agencies will also stop contemplating climate impacts as they launch into new projects, and restrictions on coal leasing and fracking on federal lands will be lifted.

    The directive, for which progressive states and environmentalists have been preparing for months, is certain to set off years of litigation and conflicts between Washington and state capitols.

    Some of the most far-reaching policies Trump is seeking to bring to a halt cannot be canceled unilaterally and require lengthy administrative proceedings. But others he can end with the stroke of his pen.
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    31 Mar '17 04:55
    Something to think about: Even Fox News has recently written an article saying Trump is "wrong on climate change".
  3. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    01 Apr '17 00:02
    Originally posted by vivify
    Something to think about: Even Fox News has recently written an article saying Trump is "wrong on climate change".
    Why does it all remind me of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565922/Gummer-friend-dies-of-mad-cow-disease.html

    "The daughter of a friend of the former agriculture minister John Gummer, who famously tried to prove beef was safe by encouraging his four-year-old daughter to eat a burger, has died of the human form of mad cow disease."

    Whether Trump believes the human causes and the real dangers of climate change or not, it is not impressive to watch him test his ignorance on the people of the USA. Good luck with the experiment. Shame the rest of the globe has to share the impact.

    If Americans really prefer not to believe evidence and instead wait around to see what happens, then they really do not begin to grasp the concept of risk. The Darwin award awaits.

    http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/
  4. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    01 Apr '17 03:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Why does it all remind me of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565922/Gummer-friend-dies-of-mad-cow-disease.html

    "The daughter of a friend of the former agriculture minister John Gummer, who famously tried to prove beef was safe by encouraging his four-year-old daughter to eat a burger, has died of the human form of mad cow disease." ...[text shortened]... to grasp the concept of risk. The Darwin award awaits.

    http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/
    Perhaps you can state definitively how much the temperature has changed in say 200 years and then state definitively how of that change is due to all human activity since man dioscovered fire.

    Then we can speculate on the difference the policy changes will have to the entire US, let's call it, 'effect'. Next we need to subtract what would the effect have been if no changes were made to 'policy'. Reapply this to the entire human populations 'effect' and subtract it all from other effects, you know termites, volcanoes, water vapour, sun activity things like that.

    Could you please round your number off to the nearest .0001 degree and present something here that isn't zero.
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    01 Apr '17 12:08 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Perhaps you can state definitively how much the temperature has changed in say 200 years and then state definitively how of that change is due to all human activity since man dioscovered fire.

    Then we can speculate on the difference the policy changes will have to the entire US, let's call it, 'effect'. Next we need to subtract what would the effect have ...[text shortened]... se round your number off to the nearest .0001 degree and present something here that isn't zero.
    Your question assumes that a small change in average temperatures has to have trivial effects, whereas the science not only predicts major effects but also demonstrates their progress in the real world around us.

    We do not have to speculate on the differences policy changes can make. We have to consider the scientific evidence. Again, you seem ignorant that humans can make conscious choices to influence their contribution to climate change but have to do this collectively.

    We do not require certainty to make choices. We need probability information and a concept of risk.

    Most young men drive cars recklessly and live. For this reason, lacking a concept of risk, many young men drive recklessly and either die, or are maimed, kill or maim others around them. After the event they seem woeful and apologetic but that does not restore their victims to life or health. Waiting until after the predictable effect of our actions before becoming rational is futile and stupid.
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    01 Apr '17 12:20 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Your question assumes that a small change in [b]average temperatures has to have trivial effects, whereas the science not only predicts major effects but also demonstrates their progress in the real world around us.

    We do not have to speculate on the differences policy changes can make. We have to consider the scientific evidence. Again, you seem ...[text shortened]... until after the predictable effect of our actions before becoming rational is futile and stupid.[/b]
    Yep, that's what I was talking about "the predictable effect"?

    What is the temp?
    What should it be?
    If there is a change how much of that change can be attributed to mans actions?


    We'll work through the numbers and see if the policy changes have any "predictable effect".

    Edit: any measurable "predictable effect".
  7. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    01 Apr '17 12:45
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Yep, that's what I was talking about "the predictable effect"?

    What is the temp?
    What should it be?
    If there is a change how much of that change can be attributed to mans actions?


    We'll work through the numbers and see if the policy changes have any "predictable effect".

    Edit: any measurable "predictable effect".
    Wajoma, you and I are not going to take the place of the scientific debate. Grow up. Whether you agree or not is of trivial interest. You remain on the side of a minority which is primarily motivated by vested corporate interests in the valuation of fossil fuels. In Trump you have a president willing to sign any piece of paper handed to him by corporate lobbies and call that governance.
  8. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    01 Apr '17 12:51
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Wajoma, you and I are not going to take the place of the scientific debate. Grow up. Whether you agree or not is of trivial interest. You remain on the side of a minority which is primarily motivated by vested corporate interests in the valuation of fossil fuels. In Trump you have a president willing to sign any piece of paper handed to him by corporate lobbies and call that governance.
    Pretty much as I thought.

    No measurable predictable effect from the policy changes.

    cheers.
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    01 Apr '17 13:04
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Yep, that's what I was talking about "the predictable effect"?

    What is the temp?
    What should it be?
    If there is a change how much of that change can be attributed to mans actions?


    We'll work through the numbers and see if the policy changes have any "predictable effect".

    Edit: any measurable "predictable effect".
    Be aware that human contributions to climate change aren't limited to temperature. Deforestation, which contributes to climate change, also has the effect of removing hundreds of tons of oxygen from the atmosphere. Forests also help the water cycle by helping water vapor go back into the atmosphere; deforestation can help cause droughts in other parts of the world.

    Human actions that contribute to climate change have other potentially disastrous effects. When you limit the discussion to "temperature", you do an injustice to the topic of climate change.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

    The above link contains a graph that shows a steady rise in climate since the late 1800s.

    The most dramatic fall happened between approximately 1890 and 1915. However, since the booming car industry and the introduction of assembly lines to increase the production of cars (among other industrial advancements), there has never been another drop in temperature to that degree. In fact, since 1975, there hasn't been a drop in global temps at all; it's only gone up (where as before, there were at least fluctuations where temps would fall below the previous years before rising again).

    It doesn't take a genius to intuit human activity is responsible for temps no longer fluctuating, but continually going up, given the carbon emissions, tons of methane, deforestation, etc., that humans are responsible for.
  10. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    01 Apr '17 13:04
    The global average (land and ocean) surface temperature shows a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C in the period 1880 to 2012, based on multiple independently produced datasets.
    Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming almost doubled for the last half of that period (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade).

    The retreat of glaciers since 1850 affects the availability of fresh water for irrigation and domestic use, mountain recreation, animals and plants that depend on glacier-melt, and, in the longer term, the level of the oceans. Studied by glaciologists, the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat with the measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is often cited as an evidentiary underpinning of global warming. Mid-latitude mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, and the southern Andes, as well as isolated tropical summits such as Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, are showing some of the largest proportionate glacial losses.

    Since 1880, as the Industrial Revolution took center stage, the ocean began to rise briskly, climbing a total of 210 mm (8.3 in) through 2009 causing extensive erosion worldwide and costing billions.

    All information from wiki: they supply the official sources.
  11. Standard member vivify
    rain
    01 Apr '17 13:09
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Pretty much as I thought.

    No measurable predictable effect from the policy changes.

    cheers.
    The "measurable predictable effect"? Continually rising temps.

    However, Fin is right: trying to claim a victory on a message board won't change the actual scientific discussion. If I don't prove to Freaky's satisfaction that the earth isn't flat, that in no way invalidates the work, data and peer-reviewed papers of the overwhelming majority of scientists who actually know what they're talking about.
  12. 01 Apr '17 13:11
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Yep, that's what I was talking about "the predictable effect"?

    What is the temp?
    What should it be?
    If there is a change how much of that change can be attributed to mans actions?


    We'll work through the numbers and see if the policy changes have any "predictable effect".

    Edit: any measurable "predictable effect".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
  13. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    01 Apr '17 13:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    The global average (land and ocean) surface temperature shows a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C in the period 1880 to 2012, based on multiple independently produced datasets.
    Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming almost doubled for the last half of that period (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, v ...[text shortened]... worldwide and costing billions.

    All information from wiki: they supply the official sources.
    Right now we're getting somewhere.

    .85 degrees C from 1880 to 2012.

    Agreed?

    Just trying to get to the bottom of these policy changes and quantify their predictable measurable effect.