Trump on Pollution

[hillelslovak87]

A dyson sphere is what we would need to have unlimited energy in our solar system. Its basically a giant solar panel in space that would collect energy from the sun unobstructed by earth’s weather conditions (clouds). We already have the roadmap for what we need to do for the future of our energy collection. Elon Musk is currently investing heavily in space elevators (spacex) so that we will be able to transport materials into space with reasonable effort.

Do you know what the sun is and how it works? It is by far the greatest energy source we will have access to for the next million years unless we find some way to generate energy from gravitational waves (proven to exist in 2015 by LIGO).

Solar energy is the future of humanity, and it is clean energy, already being provided to us in abundance by the sun (let me know if i need to explain to u how the sun works). We just need to harness it.

Nope. Way smarter to hedge your bets on an extremely dirty fuel source that requires massive labor to extract and produce, and in an industry in which even the coal mine owners are pivoting away from.

What's next, capturing the sun's rays is limitless and doesn't require combustion to harness? Sheeeit. In 6 billions years, you're gonna look like an idiot.

 

[hillelslovak87]

First, the people working on AGW at NASA are not the same people who work on spaceflight.

Second, did you actually follow the footnote link on the NASA website? It links to the same paper I mentioned above, plus a 2016 paper by the same author. Which paper (2013 or 2016) do you think demonstrates your claim that 97% of scientists believe that global climate change is caused by humans?

Wasn't the source of the 97% number simply an analysis of peer reviewed climate science papers and what conclusions they came to?

 

[JonnyRingo84]

First they came for the words on an interdepartmental memo

seems like a trivial thing to try to regulate eh? i agree.

 

[Bargey]

A dyson sphere is what we would need to have unlimited energy in our solar system. Its basically a giant solar panel in space that would collect energy from the sun unobstructed by earth’s weather conditions (clouds). We already have the roadmap for what we need to do for the future of our energy collection. Elon Musk is currently investing heavily in space elevators (spacex) so that we will be able to transport materials into space with reasonable effort.

Do you know what the sun is and how it works? It is by far the greatest energy source we will have access to for the next million years unless we find some way to generate energy from gravitational waves (proven to exist in 2015 by LIGO).

Solar energy is the future of humanity, and it is clean energy, already being provided to us in abundance by the sun (let me know if i need to explain to u how the sun works). We just need to harness it.

Thank you for that bit of science.

I think there were three areas of current reality highlighted: practical, political and economic, with the German policy given an example. Want to comment on that or leave it to @hillelslovak87 to be a little cheerleader for you while offering nothing of substance?

 

[The Best JG]

First, the people working on AGW at NASA are not the same people who work on spaceflight.

Second, did you actually follow the footnote link on the NASA website? It links to the same paper I mentioned above, plus a 2016 paper by the same author. Which paper (2013 or 2016) do you think demonstrates your claim that 97% of scientists believe that global climate change is caused by humans?

I think im a big science hobbyist and ive never met a single educated science guy that doesnt believe humans can have an effect on climate change.

We can take the more recent one
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Seems pretty clear that just about everyone agrees we can fuck up the planet with pollution.

 

[waiguoren]

Wasn't the source of the 97% number simply an analysis of peer reviewed climate science papers and what conclusions they came to?

Here's my response from earlier to the guy claiming that "97% of scientists" believe in AGWT:


There's no study showing that 97% of scientists believe in AGWT.

A 2013 study by Cook et al in Environmental Research Letters collected about 12,000 studies whose abstracts mentioned "global climate change" or "global warming" and threw out about 8,000 of them for failing to take a position on AGW.

Then, of the remaining 4,000 or so papers which did take a position, Cook et al found that 97.1% indicated that humans play a role in global warming.

Your statement that "97% of scientists believe in AGWT" is not supported by this study.

 

[44nutman]

Do people even read anymore? This entire legal battle started in 2013 under the OBAMA administration... so somehow that means that Trump doesn't care about pollution?

From the article that you obviously did not read.

The lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont, which in late 2013 originally asked to have nine upwind states added to the “Ozone Transport Region.”

That case resulted in a consent decree that forced the EPA to decide by the end of October 2017 whether to add Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia to the region.

EPA chief Scott Pruitt declined to add the states.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Thank you for that bit of science.

I think there were three areas of current reality highlighted: practical, political and economic, with the German policy given an example. Want to comment on that or leave it to @hillelslovak87 to be a little cheerleader for you while offering nothing of substance?

Lol, you really are rustled, thinking agreement is cheerleading.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Here's my response from earlier to the guy claiming that "97% of scientists" believe in AGWT:


There's no study showing that 97% of scientists believe in AGWT.

A 2013 study by Cook et al in Environmental Research Letters collected about 12,000 studies whose abstracts mentioned "global climate change" or "global warming" and threw out about 8,000 of them for failing to take a position on AGW.

Then, of the remaining 4,000 or so papers which did take a position, Cook et al found that 97.1% indicated that humans play a role in global warming.

Your statement that "97% of scientists believe in AGWT" is not supported by this study.

I made no statement. I think that analysis provided a pretty good representation of what scientists thought, however.

 

[The Best JG]

Thank you for that bit of science.

while offering nothing of substance?

Uh.. ok do you think god created the earth in a few days and is watching and judging us? I guess it would be good to know what im dealing with here, since u dont seem to respect science

 

[waiguoren]

I made no statement. I think that analysis provided a pretty good representation of what scientists thought, however.

Jesus man, read more carefully.

This was an earlier response to a guy claiming that 97% of scientists believe in AGWT. The study by Cook et al shows no such thing.

 

[Pickle Rick]

Pollution is bad




we shouldn't do it

 

[hillelslovak87]

Jesus man, read more carefully.

This was an earlier response to a guy claiming that 97% of scientists believe in AGWT. The study by Cook et al shows no such thing.

Ok, I still fail to see how that sample that was asked does not represent the fields in question....

 

[usmctanker242]

From the article that you obviously did not read.

The lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont, which in late 2013 originally asked to have nine upwind states added to the “Ozone Transport Region.”

That case resulted in a consent decree that forced the EPA to decide by the end of October 2017 whether to add Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia to the region.

EPA chief Scott Pruitt declined to add the states.

That's exactly right... this was a legal issue going back to 2013 well before Trump. Do you think when Trump took over he was going to look into every single on-going case of litigation and interfere? Back in October of 2016 (before Trump) this issue was brought up again :
http://www.powermag.com/northeaster...a-action-on-ozone-transport-region-expansion/

So the Obama administration had 3+years to deal with this issue and they failed to do so, but somehow Trump's the bad guy? Get the hell out of here with this bullshit.

 

[waiguoren]

I think im a big science hobbyist and ive never met a single educated science guy that doesnt believe humans can have an effect on climate change.

Arguments of this form aren't of any use.

We can take the more recent one
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Sure. Table 1 of that paper lists 14 studies which attempt to quantify various forms of consensus on various questions. Which of the 14 studies shall we discuss? None of them show that 97% of scientists believe that man is responsible for most of the earth's observed warming.

Seems pretty clear that just about everyone agrees we can fuck up the planet with pollution.

Carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant. In particular, plants rely on it.

 

[The Best JG]

Pollution is bad




we shouldn't do it

Great user name. Been using “Solenya, the Pickle Man” on steam since the episode aired, one of the absolute best episodes of the series. How come i cant post on ur profile did u disable that? I also have both pickle man funkos pre ordered (but one is for a friends son, ill give him battery laser and keep rat drill fists)

 

[waiguoren]

Ok, I still fail to see how that sample that was asked does not represent the fields in question....

1) The claim is that 97% of scientists believe something, but the study only looks at papers, not scientists. There are other studies out there which attempt to poll actual scientists and which show a number much lower than 97%.

2) The authors of the paper threw out 67% of the global warming papers because those papers took no position on whether man was contributing to global warming.

 

[44nutman]

That's exactly right... this was a legal issue going back to 2013 well before Trump. Do you think when Trump took over he was going to look into every single on-going case of litigation and interfere? Back in October of 2016 (before Trump) this issue was brought up again :
http://www.powermag.com/northeaster...a-action-on-ozone-transport-region-expansion/

So the Obama administration had 3+years to deal with this issue and they failed to do so, but somehow Trump's the bad guy? Get the hell out of here with this bullshit.

Scott Pruitt denied it, even when the EPA's own data said that upwind pollution is a problem. I did not know Scott Pruitt was also head of the EPA under Obama.

Trumps current rate of rolling back environmental regulations, I am looking forward to catching this fish.

 

[The Best JG]

Carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant. In particular, plants rely on it.

Are you against deforestation at least then? Since u seem to know something about photosynthesis

 

[usmctanker242]

1) The claim is that 97% of scientists believe something, but the study only looks at papers, not scientists. There are other studies out there which attempt to poll actual scientists and which show a number much lower than 97%.

2) The authors of the paper threw out 67% of the global warming papers because those papers took no position on whether man was contributing to global warming.

Part 2 here is where that study by Cook confuses so many people. Out of ~11k papers on climate change only ~35% actually took a stance stating whether or not humans were a cause or the primary cause of climate change. Out of those ~4000 papers there was still 3% which said it was not humans. It's an easy study to look at, read the abstract, and suggest that 97% of all scientists agree about climate change, but it's intentionally misleading.