Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

17 House Republicans call for climate change action


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> 17 House Republicans call for climate change action Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 9:11:58 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		The Atlantic has a piece today outlining the concern a group of House Republicans have in the Trump era:

"There really is consensus in the scientific community"
"It's important we take climate change very, very seriously, because the threats that are posed by that are very serious."

Further, Trump may not care about climate change, but the military does (story going round, from ProPolitica to Mother Jones):

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon's assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the US military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

"Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today," Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. "It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning."

Where does this leave the GOP, and where does this leave America, in a leadership with an official (!) policy of science denial?
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 9:48:44 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline 		Clearly, appointing a science denier to the cabinet position and cutting funds at the EPA are not helpful.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 10:17:28 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		True.

Other than a gratuitous nod to reactionaries, I don't see what the administration or Congress gains by pretending the problem isn't there.

I'm grateful our military is more interested in reality and preparedness.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 12:48:59 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'm grateful our military is more interested in reality and preparedness.


A word of caution. Matis is not "the military" he is a jarhead. There is a different mindset.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 1:17:54 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
"There really is consensus in the scientific community"


except for there isn't it, and those who keep saying so, and keep posting stuff as if it were indeed so, shouldn't be taken seriously...or beaten with a stick about the head, either one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
in a leadership with an official (!) policy of science denial?


oh and, youre an idiot.


< Message edited by bounty44 -- 3/15/2017 1:18:16 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 1:21:20 PM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

True.

Other than a gratuitous nod to reactionaries, I don't see what the administration or Congress gains by pretending the problem isn't there.

Evasion and denial have worked a lot better for the GOP than trying to address issues since the '70s. Why should they change their approach now?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 1:49:36 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
"There really is consensus in the scientific community"


except for there isn't it, and those who keep saying so, and keep posting stuff as if it were indeed so, shouldn't be taken seriously...or beaten with a stick about the head, either one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
in a leadership with an official (!) policy of science denial?


oh and, youre an idiot.


Well, tell it to the 17 Congressional Republicans, because I'm quoting them.

You're an idiot for not being able to tell the difference.

We done with that bullshit now?

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 1:53:27 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
"There really is consensus in the scientific community"


except for there isn't it, and those who keep saying so, and keep posting stuff as if it were indeed so, shouldn't be taken seriously...or beaten with a stick about the head, either one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
in a leadership with an official (!) policy of science denial?


oh and, youre an idiot.


You are a retarded felchgobbler.

Q.E.D.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 2:36:45 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
"There really is consensus in the scientific community"


except for there isn't it, and those who keep saying so, and keep posting stuff as if it were indeed so, shouldn't be taken seriously...or beaten with a stick about the head, either one.


There may not be unanimity, but there certainly seems to be preponderance of scientists.

Even in a Forbes article disputing the oft-used 97% figure, a former energy executive notes, "Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. "

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/3/#7d74314b4081

The NASA website lists some heavy-hitting organizations in the world of science that believe human activity underlies climate change. These include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

As for beating, that depends. What do you look like?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 3:57:58 PM   
InfoMan


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline 		Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s.

Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it...

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 4:00:29 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s.

Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it...

Not to mention...

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2

K.

(in reply to InfoMan)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 4:18:09 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s.

I'm not sure about that.

American Meteorological Society, "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus"

Abstract: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Article: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1


quote:

Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it...

Like gravity? Or free markets?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to InfoMan)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 4:43:21 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline 		It's nice nice to find out that there are some Republicans that are willing to put aside politics and profit margins to help mankind survive another 100 years.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 4:45:43 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

True.

Other than a gratuitous nod to reactionaries, I don't see what the administration or Congress gains by pretending the problem isn't there.

Evasion and denial have worked a lot better for the GOP than trying to address issues since the '70s. Why should they change their approach now?
Perhaps to save mankind from extinction?
;-)

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 5:04:34 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s.

Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it...
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As for aerosols it depends on what you're talking about; chlorofluorocarbons were depleting the ozone layer and thus had a warming effect but aerosols from massive volcanic eruption or an asteroid hitting the Earth, apart from the catastrophic effects of such, would cool the Earth.

(in reply to InfoMan)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 5:07:44 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Not to mention...

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2

K.

You got something a little newer? That was almost twenty years ago and science has made some advances since then.
;-)

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 5:29:36 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s.

Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it...

Not to mention...

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2

You got something a little newer? That was almost twenty years ago and science has made some advances since then.

Well I'm sure you must know what you're talking about, so I look forward to learning what advances have made possible the long term prediction of future states of coupled non-linear chaotic systems. Can I count on you to get back to me on that?

K.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 8:22:13 PM   
InfoMan


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s.

Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it...
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As for aerosols it depends on what you're talking about; chlorofluorocarbons were depleting the ozone layer and thus had a warming effect but aerosols from massive volcanic eruption or an asteroid hitting the Earth, apart from the catastrophic effects of such, would cool the Earth.


http://www.pnas.org/content/95/22/12753.abstract
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/10114550

It was actually a huge discussion at NASA for a while - the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project... they thought that greenhouse gasses made more clouds, and these clouds would effect aviation and space launches.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 8:44:24 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s.

Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it...

Not to mention...

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2

You got something a little newer? That was almost twenty years ago and science has made some advances since then.

Well I'm sure you must know what you're talking about, so I look forward to learning what advances have made possible the long term prediction of future states of coupled non-linear chaotic systems. Can I count on you to get back to me on that?

K.

So I guess that means that you have nothing newer on the subject. That's what I thought.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action - 3/15/2017 9:10:58 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s.

Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it...
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As for aerosols it depends on what you're talking about; chlorofluorocarbons were depleting the ozone layer and thus had a warming effect but aerosols from massive volcanic eruption or an asteroid hitting the Earth, apart from the catastrophic effects of such, would cool the Earth.


http://www.pnas.org/content/95/22/12753.abstract
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/10114550

It was actually a huge discussion at NASA for a while - the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project... they thought that greenhouse gasses made more clouds, and these clouds would effect aviation and space launches.
Great, in the 1990s where your articles come from, NASA discussed Atmospheric Aerosols and their possible effects. But that was twenty years ago, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what NASA is discussing now in regards to Global warming.
Global temperature up 1.7 degrees since 1880
Arctic ice minimum down 13.3 percent per decade
Land ice down 281 Gigatonnes per year
Sea level up 3.4 millimeters per year
Carbon Dioxide up 405.92 parts per million

(in reply to InfoMan)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> 17 House Republicans call for climate change action Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109