So about that first Democratic Debate tonight..

bchad · October 16, 2015, 4:10pm

Global Warming should be discussed in the feedback loop forum.

Matt_Likes_Analysis · October 16, 2015, 5:19pm

Ghibli:

Matt_Likes_Analysis:

Yayyywork:

I think both sides need to find middle ground on this. You simply can not deny climate change, if the bulk of climate scientists say it is so, I am sure as hell going to believe them as I do not have any more knowledge than them. There are way too many arm chair climate scientists that read an article on a conservative site and run around speaking on the matter. (for the record, both sides do this on a number of issues)

For the vast majority of issues that can be studied by experts it is best to leave them to their studies and try and understand their opinions. I find it hilarious how we love to laugh at presidential candidates when they talk about the financial industry, does everyone here really think a climate scientist wouldnt think everything we/others not in the field say on the issue is laughable. A presidential candidate can not be an expert in all fields, they typically have areas that interest them more than others but in general their job is to be well rounded and decently informed on many issues and delegate to experts. In finance, listen to people who know finance. In physics, listen to a physicist. Their training is the culmination of thousands of years of study and experimentation. The consensus of experts is AT THE MOMENT the best guess we can make on issues.

That being said, the VAST majority of experts in the field say it is real, and it is most likely man made. No one argues with physicists when they have a consensus on issues, but when it comes to allocating resources differently to possibly save the earth long term the issue has been politicized to hell. I find it to be an similer version of Pascal’s wager;

A) Climate change is a threat

We do nothing. Result: death for billions if not the whole race over time

We do SOMETHING. Result: No clue, effectiveness of any program could vary wildly

B) Climate change is not a threat

We do nothing. Result: status quo

We do SOMETHING. Result: status quo

Obviously a simplified version of reality, but shifting SOME resources away in attempts to help combat climate change seems like the choice that makes the most sense.

doing something to combat manmade CO2 would certainly benefit the health of the smoggiest places on earth (e.g. beijing, kanpur, lahore, many ME cities). doing something to prevent many Western cities from turning into these cities is also a major benefit. you kind of have to treat spending to combat climate change the same way you justify spending on the CDC and similar institutions. you pay an annual premium to help prevent against a potential major calamity in the future and in the meantime improve quality of life slightly.

CO2 is not a component of smog. We can scrub the real pollutants and do. Old cars and trucks are primarily responsible for smog. New cars and power plants are incredibly clean, except maybe VWs. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/smog.html&edu=high

huh? from your own link… i suppose i mistyped and wrote smog when i meant generalized air pollution. nobody cares about smog but doesn’t care about air pollution in general.

Air pollution comes from many different sources. Natural processes that affect air quality include volcanoes, which produce sulfur, chlorine, and ash particulates. Wildfires produce smoke and carbon monoxide. Cattle and other animals emit methane as part of their digestive process. Even pine trees emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Many forms of air pollution are human-made. Industrial plants, power plants and vehicles with internal combustion engines produce nitrogen oxides, VOCs, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide , sulfur dioxide and particulates. In most megacities, such as Mexico City and Los Angeles, cars are the main source of these pollutants. Stoves, incinerators, and farmers burning their crop waste produce carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, as well as particulates. Other human-made sources include aerosol sprays and leaky refrigerators, as well as fumes from paint, varnish, and other solvents.

One important thing to remember about air pollution is that it doesn’t stay in one place. Winds and weather play an important part in transport of pollution locally, regionally, and even around the world, where it affects everything it comes in contact with.

Ghibli · October 16, 2015, 6:16pm

Matt_Likes_Analysis:

Ghibli:

Matt_Likes_Analysis:

Yayyywork:

I think both sides need to find middle ground on this. You simply can not deny climate change, if the bulk of climate scientists say it is so, I am sure as hell going to believe them as I do not have any more knowledge than them. There are way too many arm chair climate scientists that read an article on a conservative site and run around speaking on the matter. (for the record, both sides do this on a number of issues)

For the vast majority of issues that can be studied by experts it is best to leave them to their studies and try and understand their opinions. I find it hilarious how we love to laugh at presidential candidates when they talk about the financial industry, does everyone here really think a climate scientist wouldnt think everything we/others not in the field say on the issue is laughable. A presidential candidate can not be an expert in all fields, they typically have areas that interest them more than others but in general their job is to be well rounded and decently informed on many issues and delegate to experts. In finance, listen to people who know finance. In physics, listen to a physicist. Their training is the culmination of thousands of years of study and experimentation. The consensus of experts is AT THE MOMENT the best guess we can make on issues.

That being said, the VAST majority of experts in the field say it is real, and it is most likely man made. No one argues with physicists when they have a consensus on issues, but when it comes to allocating resources differently to possibly save the earth long term the issue has been politicized to hell. I find it to be an similer version of Pascal’s wager;

A) Climate change is a threat

We do nothing. Result: death for billions if not the whole race over time

We do SOMETHING. Result: No clue, effectiveness of any program could vary wildly

B) Climate change is not a threat

We do nothing. Result: status quo

We do SOMETHING. Result: status quo

Obviously a simplified version of reality, but shifting SOME resources away in attempts to help combat climate change seems like the choice that makes the most sense.

doing something to combat manmade CO2 would certainly benefit the health of the smoggiest places on earth (e.g. beijing, kanpur, lahore, many ME cities). doing something to prevent many Western cities from turning into these cities is also a major benefit. you kind of have to treat spending to combat climate change the same way you justify spending on the CDC and similar institutions. you pay an annual premium to help prevent against a potential major calamity in the future and in the meantime improve quality of life slightly.

CO2 is not a component of smog. We can scrub the real pollutants and do. Old cars and trucks are primarily responsible for smog. New cars and power plants are incredibly clean, except maybe VWs. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/smog.html&edu=high

huh? from your own link… i suppose i mistyped and wrote smog when i meant generalized air pollution. nobody cares about smog but doesn’t care about air pollution in general.

Air pollution comes from many different sources. Natural processes that affect air quality include volcanoes, which produce sulfur, chlorine, and ash particulates. Wildfires produce smoke and carbon monoxide. Cattle and other animals emit methane as part of their digestive process. Even pine trees emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Many forms of air pollution are human-made. Industrial plants, power plants and vehicles with internal combustion engines produce nitrogen oxides, VOCs, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide , sulfur dioxide and particulates. In most megacities, such as Mexico City and Los Angeles, cars are the main source of these pollutants. Stoves, incinerators, and farmers burning their crop waste produce carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, as well as particulates. Other human-made sources include aerosol sprays and leaky refrigerators, as well as fumes from paint, varnish, and other solvents.

One important thing to remember about air pollution is that it doesn’t stay in one place. Winds and weather play an important part in transport of pollution locally, regionally, and even around the world, where it affects everything it comes in contact with.

Not sure what your point is. Same site, different page. Not news that CO2 is a byproduct of combustion and many categorize it as a pollutant. I just don’t agree that it has an undesired effect and, therefore, should not be categorized as a pollutant. It’s not a component of smog and it is required for all life on Earth. And people here seem to like anecdotes, so research why the founder of Green Peace believes that humans would be better off if CO2 concentrations were four times higher than they are now.

system · October 19, 2015, 1:47am

Natural change in the climate over time is already risk enough, adding on heaps of additional risk from man-made changes is not something an intelligent species would do.

A change in the environment from current state is ALWAYS a negative in the short-term, since creatures are adapted to current state, not future state. Maybe they survive and adapt to future state, maybe they don’t. If you keep rolling the dice, making changes to the environment, sooner or later you get unlucky…and extinction is forever.

Someone above illustrated basic reasoning – a decision tree, “what if we take it seriously, what if we don’t take it seriously”. Taking it seriously is the best move, simple as that.

Yayyywork · October 19, 2015, 2:00am

^^^ thank you. The ONLY down side to taking it seriously is the possibility of allocating some resources differently when not needed. I dont see that as being that terrible of an option. Oil industry will lobby it to hell though out of their own self interest. Anyone see the SNL skit of the dem debate? Larry david as bernie was hilarious

system · October 19, 2015, 2:16am

^ Right, it’s sort of like the risk profile of using options to protect from extreme loss – you have to pay a small premium for some out of the money puts which cuts into your current year return, but you eliminate (or largely decrease) the risk of a COMPLETE loss of capital.

igor555 · October 19, 2015, 2:19am

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/18/watch_larry_david_play_bernie_sanders_on_snl_a_democratic_debate_cold_open.html

S2000magician · October 19, 2015, 3:17am

Well, except for Bill.

And, of course, Hillary.

S2000magician · October 19, 2015, 3:20am

Oh . . . It’s _ Bernie _ Sanders.

I was thinking it was Barry . . . .

system · October 19, 2015, 1:34pm

Just when you thought this place was like a weird jungle someone comes along and raises the bar by denying Science.

Audacious · October 19, 2015, 5:49pm

To my surprise, Bernie was the only pro NRA (somehow) among the Dems candidates.

ohai · October 19, 2015, 6:05pm

I think it is because Vermont people live in the wilderness and go around shooting geese, moose and that kind of thing. Otherwise, they are essentially Canadian (socialist, polite, live in cold place, produce maple syrup).

higgmond · October 19, 2015, 6:10pm

^ Bingo. People in rural areas of the US, regardless of party, tend to like guns.

Audacious · October 19, 2015, 6:13pm

He mentioned something about rural America being different than urban America. So he means Canada by Rural America. This makes total sense now

Palantir · October 19, 2015, 6:15pm

Canada is Rural America, I don’t see the issue.

Turd_Fergeson · October 19, 2015, 6:16pm

i have to say i love vermonters. they love craft beer at 11:00 am, artisinal cheeses, hiking, and they generally know how to have a good time. they’re good at the simple things in life that make it enjoyable. their brand of socialism seems to work just fine for a population of 500k. on the other hand, vermont socialism (or any form for that matter) applied to the entire U.S. would be a colossal failure. states rights, brah.

Audacious · October 19, 2015, 6:20pm

Am from the other side of the World and I dont have a problem with this. I’ll promote this new sovereign status among my tribe. This is my new mission in life.

My apologies to Her Majesty the Queen.

Yayyywork · October 19, 2015, 6:26pm

Any place that enjoys drinking before noon is ok with me

higgmond · October 19, 2015, 8:05pm

Reports today are that Uncle Joe will enter the race. I guess he got word from the FBI that Hillary will be facing criminal charges.

Sweep_the_Leg · October 19, 2015, 8:12pm

The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcvVhD5X3f0