Well, since you clearly define "independent" as "agreeing with me" then you won't find any.
In other words, you're just wasting my time.
I decided some time ago that I wasn't ever going to get straight answers from the climate change crowd. And we see that happened yet again in this thread.
So I'm running the clock. If there really is a near future problem with global warming, it'll show up in the next few decades.
Keystone XL provides essentially no tax revenue to the US, and exports raw, unrefined crude oil.
Think about this. You claim that oil from this pipeline will go straight to port bypassing many competitive, high volume refineries. So somehow it's better to ship low value crude to some distant port than higher value refined products? Or for that matter, perpetually ignoring the US market this whole time even though it's likely to frequently offer better prices than those foreign destinations?
Everyone involved in the debate on Keystone XL agrees that the oil will be refined. The debate, silly as it is, about whether the refined products are exported is what is disagreed upon.
The fact is that most if not all of the Canadian crude is designated to be processed in U.S. refineries, not exported directly. But a large portion of the diesel fuel, gasoline and other products of those refineries is indeed expected to be sold overseas. Exactly how much is impossible for us to predict, however. And expert sources are in disagreement.
and note this
Using NRDCâ(TM)s assumptions, and data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we calculate that 50.4 percent of the output of those refineries went for export in 2014. But that means 49.6 percent stayed in the U.S.
So even ignoring the refining, half of existing oil that goes through these refineries ends up in the US. No point to making an argument that is so broken.
We have millennia of societies full of illness which were quite able to produce. Health care is not as important as you make it out to be. Keep in mind that the lion's share of health care goes to end-of-life care for people who just aren't going to produce any more. There's room for a lot more demand at that stage including expensive drug intake.
My view is let's not let society degrade to the point that we can't function. That means health care is not and never should be the highest priority.
How are people going to have food and shelter if they are too sick to work?
I suppose you're right. Having access to whatever standard of health care is considered right at the moment is more important than not starving or freezing to death.
Then let's not make any assumptions and wait to see what the effects really are.
Precautionary principle is useless here because there are multiple conflicting disaster narratives. saloomy is right on the nose here. Why is AC's concern that global warming might actually do something harmful now that will take us 20 years to figure out more important than my concern that global warming mitigation will impoverish humanity to no useful result over the next twenty years? Wait and see works, folks.
What's the share of US GDP consumed by health care again? Why it's 17.5%. It's not going down. More and more people are getting these supposedly rare billing conditions. And we need society for other things than merely paying medical bills. You know, things like food, shelter, security, etc.
Seven plus billion people won't magically go away just because you don't like pipelines. That pipeline not only creates economic value in the US south (since they'll refine the petroleum first), but it also helps a billion people improve their lives (those Chinese you don't seem to like very much). You're for improving lives, right?
This is the huge difference between reality and imaginary dangers. This pipeline has huge concrete benefits, while the supposed dangers of slightly higher consumption of cheap fossil fuels are computer models that have never been verified in the real world.
I'm pretty sure most of us understand the Luddite obstructionism strategy quite well. We have other needs than just using less petroleum. I believe a pipeline does a good job of balancing the relative neediness of the needs.
American Bullies protesting on a US interstate because Trump won. And American Bullies no doubt riding Trump-provided "SWAT vehicles" followed them around until they returned to a nearby college campus. No arrests were reported.
What is? That I happened to live near a coal power plant? Or that Germany has indeed obtained the negative consequences that one would expect from subsidizing (via electricity consumers) renewable energy so much while shutting down its coal and nuclear plants?
That would have been a fine argument. But arguing that a slightly shorter 300 year resolution instead of 1000 years adequately addresses the poster's concerns about the absence of decadal scale measurement does not.
Let us note however a huge drawback of the low resolution. You can't actually show evidence for the assertion that today is the fastest rate of climate change ever. Short term rate of change measurements are impossible not merely impractical. I think that was what the original poster might have been getting at.
My sister similarly has major health issues and relies on a number of provisions of Obamacare in order to stay alive. Losing insurance for her would be a death sentence.
That's what Medicare/Medicaid are for.
Without insurance her medication jumps to $5000/month.
That's fine, if she's one of a few with those costs which currently is the case. But what happens when it becomes a significant fraction of the population? The answer is that we naturally revert to "sucks to be you" medical care where you pay for what you can afford.
Sooner or later everyone's medical care costs become greater than society can afford and they die.
My point behind this is that things like Obamacare are ongoing disasters in US health care. In addition to those high deductibles and expensive insurance, I see massive increase in unofficial monopolies on drugs (how much did her $5k per month drugs cost ten years ago?); insurance pools that healthy people steer clear of despite the tax penalty; a massive increase in Medicaid combined with reduction in Medicaid benefits; and a number of indications that insurance companies are consolidating or failing in ways that leave most of the US in oligopoly conditions for the Obamacare markets (such as a large fraction of the US covered by only one or two market participants).
What's the point of your sister needing provisions of Obamacare, if it's going to harm hundreds of millions of peoples' health in the process? Maybe we can do better for all involved?
Voters LOVE the rich. Most politicians they elect are rich. Most POTUS from both parties are/were, including the next one. Candidates will SAY they are a man of the people, an outsider, etc. but almost all of them aren't. Trump is actually one of the few exceptions who really never had previous experience in political office.
This is an example of observation bias. The poorest person who ran for president from the major parties this last cycle was Bernie Sanders who has $700,000 in wealth, Marco Rubio who had $100k in wealth, and Martin Oâ(TM)Malley who had a flat zero. Everyone (17 people!) else was a millionaire. Randomly picking a person will get you someone with at least a million dollars in wealth.
In addition, 8 of the 20 had $10 million or more. So that's 40% chance just out of the box, that you'll get someone with that much wealth.
Let us note that Sanders gave Clinton a hard run too. Her wealth didn't come close to protecting her from him.
Let's also keep in mind that most people don't know squat about people's wealth. I suspect Clinton would have had an even harder time getting elected if people commonly knew she had $45 million in wealth with over half of that ($24 million) earned in 2014. After all, how does one get that much from being Secretary of State?
Tree rings, ice core samples, sediment layers, etc. We have lots of ways to estimate temperatures based on observable biological and geological histories. And several of those can be measured independently and so far agree with each other to a pretty good degree.
Exactly my point. You're taking for granted that these things have been estimated correctly by parties with a universal interest in exaggerating the effects of global warming today and in presenting paleoclimate data in such a way as to confirm that bias. Where's the independent confirmation?
Because by the time we have solid, uncontroversial proof that the planet no longer supports life, there won't be anyone around to care.
You and those nebulous scientists you claim to channel haven't shown that's a problem. I call your bluff on this.
That said, there's plenty of scientific evidence of climate change.
Exactly my point. There's a huge gap between "there's climate change" and "we're all gonna die from climate change".
Of particular note is that "not fucked" isn't in that range of possibilities. Very few scientists are still willing to make that claim and most of the ones who do are almost universally funded by the oil industry in one way or another.
Says someone who just used an ad hominem attack as a scientific argument.
It would certainly be nice if science could be more concrete when predicting the future, but we don't exactly have a trove of Earths laying around that we can trial various scenarios on, so they're stuck making predictions based on the available information, rather than just sticking our collective head in the sand and hoping nothing bad happens.
Do so. Don't talk about how it'd be nice if you actually had a scientific reason for your opinions on the matter. I'll note the obvious here. We are already running the clock. If you're correct, then we will see global warming (not just some vague climate change) of the appropriate size to warrant your concern. But if we don't, and we're quite on track for not confirming your concerns, then we do have bigger things to worry about than mild global warming.
Ok, where's the evidence in those links? There's a lot of assertions such as:
In consequence, the many records of Î18O in ocean sediments and in ice cores, contain information about the temperature, evaporation, rainfall, and indeed the amount of glacial ice â" all of which are important to know if we are to understand the changes of climate in the Earth's history. Unfortunately, trying to disentangle these multiple effects is complicated since we have one measurement with many unknowns.
The paleoclimate group at GISS is working to try to decode these records using the latest generation of numerical models of the atmosphere and ocean circulation. In those models, we have included most of the physics necessary to simulate the distribution of Î18O in the oceans and the atmosphere. In addition, we have developed models of foram ecology that allow us to estimate at what depths in the ocean and at what season the carbonate forms on average.
Doesn't answer my question. How are we to know that they're getting this right? This is just a typical argument from obfuscation. You don't know a thing about the climate before the instrument age, but you can waste my time with links that don't mean much.
Slashdot Mirror
I think its time for all liberal elites with thier fancy university degress to go on strike and let the populists go die in the cold and the dark.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Liberal elites don't light a thing. Engineers do.
Well, since you clearly define "independent" as "agreeing with me" then you won't find any.
In other words, you're just wasting my time.
I decided some time ago that I wasn't ever going to get straight answers from the climate change crowd. And we see that happened yet again in this thread.
So I'm running the clock. If there really is a near future problem with global warming, it'll show up in the next few decades.
Compare that to other countries. Where people are also getting those rare conditions.
But sis needs $54k a year in insurance payments. Her life depends on us not making that comparison!
Keystone XL provides essentially no tax revenue to the US, and exports raw, unrefined crude oil.
Think about this. You claim that oil from this pipeline will go straight to port bypassing many competitive, high volume refineries. So somehow it's better to ship low value crude to some distant port than higher value refined products? Or for that matter, perpetually ignoring the US market this whole time even though it's likely to frequently offer better prices than those foreign destinations?
Everyone involved in the debate on Keystone XL agrees that the oil will be refined. The debate, silly as it is, about whether the refined products are exported is what is disagreed upon.
The fact is that most if not all of the Canadian crude is designated to be processed in U.S. refineries, not exported directly. But a large portion of the diesel fuel, gasoline and other products of those refineries is indeed expected to be sold overseas. Exactly how much is impossible for us to predict, however. And expert sources are in disagreement.
and note this
Using NRDCâ(TM)s assumptions, and data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we calculate that 50.4 percent of the output of those refineries went for export in 2014. But that means 49.6 percent stayed in the U.S.
So even ignoring the refining, half of existing oil that goes through these refineries ends up in the US. No point to making an argument that is so broken.
The guy stuck with 19th century energy model is calling people in the 21st century Luddites?
Yes. I think it's appropriate due to the regressive, primitive belief system in question.
Luddites opposed new technology.
Oil burning is a new technology. It's only a couple centuries old.
because better alternatives are available
Funny how the "better alternatives" cost more.
A society that is full of illness cannot produce.
We have millennia of societies full of illness which were quite able to produce. Health care is not as important as you make it out to be. Keep in mind that the lion's share of health care goes to end-of-life care for people who just aren't going to produce any more. There's room for a lot more demand at that stage including expensive drug intake.
My view is let's not let society degrade to the point that we can't function. That means health care is not and never should be the highest priority.
How are people going to have food and shelter if they are too sick to work?
I suppose you're right. Having access to whatever standard of health care is considered right at the moment is more important than not starving or freezing to death.
Then let's not make any assumptions and wait to see what the effects really are.
Precautionary principle is useless here because there are multiple conflicting disaster narratives. saloomy is right on the nose here. Why is AC's concern that global warming might actually do something harmful now that will take us 20 years to figure out more important than my concern that global warming mitigation will impoverish humanity to no useful result over the next twenty years? Wait and see works, folks.
Sounds like he supports adaptation. So there's that.
What's the share of US GDP consumed by health care again? Why it's 17.5%. It's not going down. More and more people are getting these supposedly rare billing conditions. And we need society for other things than merely paying medical bills. You know, things like food, shelter, security, etc.
Seven plus billion people won't magically go away just because you don't like pipelines. That pipeline not only creates economic value in the US south (since they'll refine the petroleum first), but it also helps a billion people improve their lives (those Chinese you don't seem to like very much). You're for improving lives, right?
This is the huge difference between reality and imaginary dangers. This pipeline has huge concrete benefits, while the supposed dangers of slightly higher consumption of cheap fossil fuels are computer models that have never been verified in the real world.
I'm pretty sure most of us understand the Luddite obstructionism strategy quite well. We have other needs than just using less petroleum. I believe a pipeline does a good job of balancing the relative neediness of the needs.
American Bullies protesting on a US interstate because Trump won. And American Bullies no doubt riding Trump-provided "SWAT vehicles" followed them around until they returned to a nearby college campus. No arrests were reported.
What is? That I happened to live near a coal power plant? Or that Germany has indeed obtained the negative consequences that one would expect from subsidizing (via electricity consumers) renewable energy so much while shutting down its coal and nuclear plants?
That would have been a fine argument. But arguing that a slightly shorter 300 year resolution instead of 1000 years adequately addresses the poster's concerns about the absence of decadal scale measurement does not.
Let us note however a huge drawback of the low resolution. You can't actually show evidence for the assertion that today is the fastest rate of climate change ever. Short term rate of change measurements are impossible not merely impractical. I think that was what the original poster might have been getting at.
My sister similarly has major health issues and relies on a number of provisions of Obamacare in order to stay alive. Losing insurance for her would be a death sentence.
That's what Medicare/Medicaid are for.
Without insurance her medication jumps to $5000/month.
That's fine, if she's one of a few with those costs which currently is the case. But what happens when it becomes a significant fraction of the population? The answer is that we naturally revert to "sucks to be you" medical care where you pay for what you can afford.
Sooner or later everyone's medical care costs become greater than society can afford and they die.
My point behind this is that things like Obamacare are ongoing disasters in US health care. In addition to those high deductibles and expensive insurance, I see massive increase in unofficial monopolies on drugs (how much did her $5k per month drugs cost ten years ago?); insurance pools that healthy people steer clear of despite the tax penalty; a massive increase in Medicaid combined with reduction in Medicaid benefits; and a number of indications that insurance companies are consolidating or failing in ways that leave most of the US in oligopoly conditions for the Obamacare markets (such as a large fraction of the US covered by only one or two market participants).
What's the point of your sister needing provisions of Obamacare, if it's going to harm hundreds of millions of peoples' health in the process? Maybe we can do better for all involved?
Voters LOVE the rich. Most politicians they elect are rich. Most POTUS from both parties are/were, including the next one. Candidates will SAY they are a man of the people, an outsider, etc. but almost all of them aren't. Trump is actually one of the few exceptions who really never had previous experience in political office.
This is an example of observation bias. The poorest person who ran for president from the major parties this last cycle was Bernie Sanders who has $700,000 in wealth, Marco Rubio who had $100k in wealth, and Martin Oâ(TM)Malley who had a flat zero. Everyone (17 people!) else was a millionaire. Randomly picking a person will get you someone with at least a million dollars in wealth.
In addition, 8 of the 20 had $10 million or more. So that's 40% chance just out of the box, that you'll get someone with that much wealth.
Let us note that Sanders gave Clinton a hard run too. Her wealth didn't come close to protecting her from him.
Let's also keep in mind that most people don't know squat about people's wealth. I suspect Clinton would have had an even harder time getting elected if people commonly knew she had $45 million in wealth with over half of that ($24 million) earned in 2014. After all, how does one get that much from being Secretary of State?
Tree rings, ice core samples, sediment layers, etc. We have lots of ways to estimate temperatures based on observable biological and geological histories. And several of those can be measured independently and so far agree with each other to a pretty good degree.
Exactly my point. You're taking for granted that these things have been estimated correctly by parties with a universal interest in exaggerating the effects of global warming today and in presenting paleoclimate data in such a way as to confirm that bias. Where's the independent confirmation?
Because by the time we have solid, uncontroversial proof that the planet no longer supports life, there won't be anyone around to care.
You and those nebulous scientists you claim to channel haven't shown that's a problem. I call your bluff on this.
That said, there's plenty of scientific evidence of climate change.
Exactly my point. There's a huge gap between "there's climate change" and "we're all gonna die from climate change".
Of particular note is that "not fucked" isn't in that range of possibilities. Very few scientists are still willing to make that claim and most of the ones who do are almost universally funded by the oil industry in one way or another.
Says someone who just used an ad hominem attack as a scientific argument.
It would certainly be nice if science could be more concrete when predicting the future, but we don't exactly have a trove of Earths laying around that we can trial various scenarios on, so they're stuck making predictions based on the available information, rather than just sticking our collective head in the sand and hoping nothing bad happens.
Do so. Don't talk about how it'd be nice if you actually had a scientific reason for your opinions on the matter. I'll note the obvious here. We are already running the clock. If you're correct, then we will see global warming (not just some vague climate change) of the appropriate size to warrant your concern. But if we don't, and we're quite on track for not confirming your concerns, then we do have bigger things to worry about than mild global warming.
I have. Hence, why I have this problem. The geological record is not at all clear cut and so many people refuse to acknowledge that.
In consequence, the many records of Î18O in ocean sediments and in ice cores, contain information about the temperature, evaporation, rainfall, and indeed the amount of glacial ice â" all of which are important to know if we are to understand the changes of climate in the Earth's history. Unfortunately, trying to disentangle these multiple effects is complicated since we have one measurement with many unknowns.
The paleoclimate group at GISS is working to try to decode these records using the latest generation of numerical models of the atmosphere and ocean circulation. In those models, we have included most of the physics necessary to simulate the distribution of Î18O in the oceans and the atmosphere. In addition, we have developed models of foram ecology that allow us to estimate at what depths in the ocean and at what season the carbonate forms on average.
Doesn't answer my question. How are we to know that they're getting this right? This is just a typical argument from obfuscation. You don't know a thing about the climate before the instrument age, but you can waste my time with links that don't mean much.
Then by all means provide that data when you get it. I'm tired of reading up on crap research that doesn't mean anything.
convicted
I didn't say convicted, I said committed. I think it says all when the defense is "She hasn't been jailed yet".
I'd encourage you to go visit a country like India or China, live near a coal burning plant for a year
I'll note that I've lived near a coal plant for about five years. But it was in the developed world with actual pollution controls.
Look at Germany - they've got enough solar and wind power to supply _all_ their needs.
For two costs: 1) doubled their electricity prices, and 2) having to import major power when solar and wind didn't supply their needs.