Cocky Democrat Stumped By Dinesh D'Souza Over Morality Of Climate Change

You were the one who used your snow story.

And, you are the one who brought up brakes - which I pointed out we use even if we can't control the fact that we're going to run into something - because we know that brakes are a way to limit damage.

You need to drop your references to "control", because everyone already knows "control" is a false argument.

 

Start with this.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/asia/india-paris-agreement-trump/index.html

What pisses Trump off is that India gets to go full blast adding more dirty coal plants. But we are told we do it wrong? By our cleaner plants? We have not added nearly as much renewals as the Democrats allege we have. We got a hell of a head start too. I recall around 1979 when we got the Altamont, CA wind farm going. The windmills of today are larger and more modern.

 

I get it now. This is Troll time as presented by the above poster.

 

No, I do not. I have studied this starting in 1980. i know when I started as it was part of my course.

I would admit I have listened to well over 50 and gaining on 100 climatologists. I have actually asked one of them some questions and he replied and told me of his papers. Some of them i have studied.

This is not a moral issue. Were it a moral issue, all of us would happily join in.

TARP was rushed into the fray as a solution by Bush. Banks did not need the cash. They resented getting it. But this is over and done with.

No, we do not know what you allege over climate. You and others suppose it is true. There were advantages to most of those nations not given to the USA. Which is one reason Trump is angry over it.

 

As we've been discussing, India gets to make its own decisions.

And yes, we really do "do it wrong" if that means emitting CO2. We are the number one world leaders in CO2 emissions per capita. Of course, China is number one if we're talking total emissions, but they have more than 4X our population.

As for Trump, surely he knows that India emits WAY less than we do (even though they have 4X our population), but still sees India as a reason we should be allowed to emit more.

And, he probably knows that China emits more than we do and sees THAT as a reason we should be allowed to emit more.

I really can't imagine a statistic on CO2 that Trump wouldn't see as justifying that the US can continue emitting more CO2 without any kind of restraint.

As for solar and wind technology, China is the leader in patents and production of solar and wind technology. They are doing the design and are leading in export of equipment.

China is seriously motivated as they know they need more energy, but many of their larger cities are horribly polluted by existing energy technology.

Of course, their government can take stronger action:

"The government announced last year that it was cracking down on coal production. Now it is discussing doing away with gasoline powered cars."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...siders-move-to-ban-gas-guzzlers/#758f93c51b73

 

No, people in the US aren't going to agree simply because it is a moral issue. We already disagree on just about every moral issue you can name - torture, abortion, police shooting black kids, women's rights, equal representation, health care for US citizens, DACA, death penalty, etc., etc.

TARP is only one example. We also have every other government action claimed to be for the purpose of regulating our economy, military spending level, etc.

 

There are so many you excluded. I don't know where to start. Climate has nothing to do with morals.

I do not recall getting into any discussion with you on the issues you now bring up. Do you want black kids shot by cops? I sure hope not. But the other question is why aren't you outraged when white kids get shot by cops? You excluded them so I figure you don't care.

 

The issues I mentioned ALL have a major moral component, yet there isn't agreement. It goes to discounting the idea that having a moral issue might lead to agreement.

And, climate change DOES have a moral component in that our per capita emissions are gigantic while the result of that WILL damage those who can least afford it - those on islands that will disappear, in regions such as the Leant where lethal strife is augmented by agricultural failure, etc., etc.

 

Moving on....

Here we have an engineer, a Ph. D making the case as I would with his expertise.

Not mere skeptics, but all posters owe it to themselves to watch this entire Video. It is a presentation at a professional group.

He introduces the concept of controls, the lag or follow of carbon dioxide and much more. Well worth watching.

i am still hunting down the other video of the NASA expert who proved using math that the claims made that blame humans is pure bogus non science.

 

LOL, stupid reply.

 

You tube
What have I told you about you tube???

Less reliable than a used car salesman on commission during a recession

If you want real information you go to papers that have been published and vetted for accuracy

 

For a PHD (and I note NOT in climate science) he has an astounding lack of academic credentials. Most scientists are easy to google - they make thier living after all publishing research so it is easy to track accomplishments

This bloke - Zip nada nothing save some crap on a weird website with an impressive sounding name

However he has been rebutted by no less an authority than D Roy Spencer - himself a sceptic

 

And you of course are well published, highly respected as the expert in climate science and of course skipped the step of proving that Spencer debunked this man. What do you know about controls and how to control global climate? You say man does not control climate. I am left gasping for air wondering then why you bother to post to humans who you admit do not control climate.

Heck, if I controlled climate or affected it, I would make it rain a few miles north of me to put out the raging fires they have right now. People have lost homes and property. I sure would help them. Maybe you in your wisdom will toss them a lifeline.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-napa-fires-20171009-story.html

 

What have I told you about you pretending to be the climate expert? What makes you believe you are the ultimate source?

 

Here is Roy Spencer.

 

Folks, since I do not get to read 100 percent of posts about climate nor the arguments proffered, it is possible the female from Australia has presented scientific papers.

But alas, I do not recall a single instance of her refuting any of us using a scientific paper.

If you know of any of her scientific papers, and I would appreciate learning her credentials proving she has the understanding of said scientific papers, please show us her papers.

 

I have never claimed to be an "Ultimae source" what I have claimed is that i know the difference between fake news and academic research

 

Why persist in strawman arguments??

They prove nothing except the person making the argument has run out of real issues to debate. Unable to prove that your so called you tube "expert" has any degree of knowledge in the field, has any clue about what he is claiming to be speaking about and is even vaguely correct in his assertations I am targeted with Ad hominems and logical fallacies

 

Kind of smug about that i see. So, now you do not admit you are the ultimate source. Why then even pay attention to you? Smugly you allege you know the difference in fake news and academic research. Thomas Edison should have waited to invent the electric light and phonograph till he had your permission based on published research.

 

The IPCC sets out all you would need to know and it has over 3,000 referenced academic papers

What denialists fail to do is read even paragraph one of the IPCC reports

 

What did he say that you as the non expert agree with. And in your non expert belief, what did he say you do not agree with?

You tube is as valuable to me as is any scientific display.

 

Oh, i started reading the IPCC reports when Bill Clinton was President. Shortly after Al Gore invented global climate change.

 

Edison, like all the rest did rely on academic research - it just was not as rigorous as it is today

Yes I can read academic papers and I have been trying to teach those of you who do not know about this how to do so as well.

Here is the IPCC http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/index.php

It has references throughout so you can check for yourself where the information came from and how well that information was reviewed before it was included

 

Really???
Then let us debate the conclusions then.

Which particular part of the working group reports or the task force reports are you particularly interested in challenging?

I am game

We can always start at the beginning with the WG1 which looks at the physical scientific basis for climate change
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/

 

You allege to know all about my many authors of science, including some I have cited including their scientifically published papers, e.g. Dr. Richard Lindzen ....

So since you claim to be the expert on the IPCC, by your using it as your source, precisely what paper or what author shown in the IPCC papers convinced you humans are the dirty low down sons of perdition to screw up global climate?

Was it your country? Was it the USA? Was it the Soviets? Was it China? What low down con artists ruined this planet?