I got a letter from a Minnesota-based teacher who is getting inundated by students asking questions about Paris. Many of those questions are dogwhistles (the students do not realize that) indicating that they've been getting their information from Trump supporters, or so I can confidently guess. (The school is in an area where many voted for Trump.)
Here's my response. Short version: he lied about everything.
Most people in Minnesota who have asthma have it because of coal plant generated pollution. Shutting down the coal plants is a primary step in reducing climate change. So, even without climate change, if we could replace coal plants with clean energy production, which we can do, why would we not do that? Anybody in the room have asthma? Anybody in the room not know that asthma is not just an inconvenience, but a potential cause of death?
(And the list of diseases and disorders goes way beyond Asthma)
President says: “The green fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion. Nobody else is even close. Most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism. That’s where they came.”
Other countries have contributed a great deal. The US is the biggest per capita producer of Carbon, and stands to be in the top three countries to benefit from the economic benefits of Paris. So, we pay 3 billion of a total 10 or 11 billion.
This money is not from defense funds, that's just a scare tactic. It comes from the State Departments economic support funds. In other words, it comes from human rights and such. Trump should love that.
Plus the money does stuff. We'll get a return on that investment. Like less asthma.
President says: "We’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair."
NO, actually, you get to negotiate if you are in. The agreement was set up to have continuous negotiations.
President says: "China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020."
Bald faced falsehood. There are no such restrictions or permissions on any country as part of Paris. The expectation is that market forces and consideration of other issues such as disease will reduce the use of coal very quickly over the next few decades.
Kids in todays classrooms will still have kids with asthma, because this is all going very slowly, but the grandkids will hear the word "asthma" and think the same thing folks today think when they hear "gout" or "scurvy" or "rickets." Diseases that don't happen any more.
President says: “Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need.”
This is based on a study funded by the anti-science foundations US CoC and the American Council for Capital Formation, and others. It is pretty much made up.
The future jobs in this country are in clean energy. Solar and wind are creating jobs at a much higher rate than coal/gas/etc. Rebuilding the electric grid is going to require people, Americans specifically, and is going to support businesses. Especailly good for Minnesota. 75% of the North American new clean energy infrastructure was built by two companies based in Minnesota, and much of the trucking done to complete those jobs was done by a trucking company based in Minnesota.
President says: “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount.”
First, that is not a small amount. Second, the Paris deal was compared in an MIT report to market forces working on their own. So, the Paris deal is market forces plus a little extra. Why is Trump against that? Third, the Paris deal is also the framework to allow countries to adjust the overall changes needed as time goes on. There are uncertainties, esp. with respect to carbon sinks. This is not a reason the Paris deal does not make sense. It is the reason the Paris deal does make sense. Without the deal, an optimistic 0.2 degree difference would become a 0.5 degree difference. That's huge.
Maybe it would help if we changed units. Use the new unit I just invented, the "Trump". There are 10,000 Trumps in a Kelvin. So, the Paris deal gives us 2000 Trumps. That's YUGE!
President says: “China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years, 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”
China is slated to cut its carbon use more than most other countries, as does India. This is just looking at a long term projection/plan and cherry picking part of it and ignoring the rest.
President says: “Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.”
Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we get out. Remember all those kids with Asthma? When the US is the only country causing a worldwide disease and people realize that, we will have liability.
President says: “As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States, which is what it does.”
Noe he isn't, no he doesn't, and no he shouldn't.
What we've been reduced to -- how to teach meaningful civics while having to explain in diplomatic terms that your president is lying dirt bag...
When Trump cancelled Clean Power Plan, you posted Joe Romm's critique of how US will not meet its Paris targets. Now you say there are no restrictions on anyone. You call it a lie that India and China can increase, then you say they are not restricted, so then they CAN increase. If the agreement is so meaningless that no one is restricted, then leaving is not a big deal. Is the money to be paid an obligation, or is that also meaningless?
>Without the deal, an optimistic 0.2 degree difference would become a 0.5 degree difference.
What? The .2 is with the deal - without the deal. This number is disputed, but I don't see what you are intending to say here.
"Mike", you say a lot of crap and it's usually a pack of lies. Why, therefore, should we take your claims in #2 any more seriously than some wingnut ranting on a street corner?
"What? The .2 is with the deal – without the deal"
And you don't know what "feedback" means.
"This number is disputed, "
And whether the earth is NOT on a world-girding snake that will wake up and end the world at Ragnarok is disputed.
Is there any evidence or support for the dispute?
" but I don’t see "
None so blind....
"When Trump cancelled Clean Power Plan, you posted Joe Romm’s critique of how US will not meet its Paris targets. Now you say there are no restrictions on anyone."
Yes. So what is the problem? Two separate statements that are unconnected were said.
Do you not comprehend "time"?
The cause of asthma is unknown, but never let that get in the way of a good scare tactic...
Oh, and it wasn't 0.2C:
global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100
The 0.2 was another lie from Diddy Don. Did you ever think to check what the paper was before just believing him??? Is he so much less important than Michael Mann??!?!?
You have a post title that can be reused anytime President Trump tries to make a "substantive" comment.
The only good news around this line of bullshit is the fact that (at least locally) news outlets, when they summarize Trump's comments, are saying "However, the study used to support his points has been dismissed by scientists in the field."
It would be better if they included some comments about why, but that is a start.
"The cause of asthma is unknown"
Asthma triggers. Exposure to various irritants and substances that trigger allergies (allergens) can trigger signs and symptoms of asthma. Asthma triggers are different from person to person and can include: Airborne substances, such as pollen, dust mites, mold spores, pet dander or particles of cockroach waste.
And so anyone who cared to even look before claiming "nobody knows" would also know.
"Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,"
From Trumpo's mouthpiece.
Just above his ringpiece and below his hairpiece.
When it came to terrorism, the USA was always behind aiding the IRA in their terrorism. Where was their aid in the days of the Brighton bombing?
It only became something the USA cared about when it
a) Happened on American soil
b) By foreigners, esp the wrong religion and skin tone
at which point, after the rest of the world had put up with terrorism and fuck all help from the USA for decades, shrub whined "terrorism will not be tolerated" and the rest of the world said as one voice "No shit, sherlock! Welcome to the party, pal!".
And even if China is a more oppressive government than the USA, China only give a fuck over their own territory, the USA wants THEIR laws THEIR way EVERYWHERE.
I don't have to care or think about what China doesn't like because I don't fucking live there. But I have to put up with fucking FBI warnings because I'm able to use eyeballs to watch "pirated" content at some other time. and the fuckwits will arrest you for breaking their laws when you're never in their country or bound by them as a non citizen, if you merely have to make a border stop to somewhere else.
And if you're not important enough to be noticed, just renditioned away without a care.
CHINA won't arrest me.The USA damn well will.
So who do I have to worry about?
Nope. Medical science has not discovered what causes asthma....though many things can "trigger" it.
Like Wow being a fuckwit again.
Greg - "grandkids will hear the word “asthma” and think the same thing folks today think when they hear “gout” or “scurvy” or “rickets.” Diseases that don’t happen any more."
Hey, you know what else "triggers" asthma? Animal dander (see Wow's genius at #8)
Perhaps if we kill all the animals, grandkids will think of Asthma as one of those diseases that doesn't exist anymore!
Dean, apparently the 0.2 was what would happen by roughly 2050 if we started now, which because of the inertia of the climate would be early to see the results, since the output of 2000 would still be a major factor,and the paris accord did not require time travel to the past.
And I always find it amusing when deniers bleat on about James Hansen, citing his bona fides as support for their preferred options. Sorry, if you're claiming he's a fraud because of one claim he makes BECAUSE of his bone fides, you don't get to use those same bone fides to proclaim him right elsewhere.
"Nope. Medical science has not discovered what causes asthma"
Nope, they have discovered what causes asthma. Irritants making the tissues inflame via their autoimmunity reaction.
Batshit betty bullshitting beyond bounds.
And note whenever I post, batshit betty has to bang in with more nonsense.
Just like being a fucking idiot is a job description for the ex-tree pruning moron. Pity there's gonna be no welfare checks for you, dumdum!
Betty: "Nobody knows what causes it, but many things cause it..."
1."The underlying cause of asthma is not known"
2. "The exact cause of asthma is unknown"
3. "As we’ve noted, no one knows exactly the cause or causes of asthma, and we can’t even say for sure if it is one disease or a group of diseases with very similar manifestations. (A wise lung doctor once said, “Asthma is like love. Everyone knows what it is, but no one can agree on its definition.”
And so anyone who cared to even look before claiming “Doctors know” would also know....
Yep, you're a fuckwit.
@16 - You just put your imagination in quotes...
By the way fuckwit, you never told us how much "corrupt" profit you received as a shareholder of Westmill Solar.
Is there a reason you don't want to share this information?
Wow, not sure what #13 was addressed at me.
Is there any evidence or support for the dispute?
Oh, and it wasn’t 0.2C:
global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100
Wrong again, betty.
Re "Mike". And?
Again you seem to have problems with the idea that time passes and one sentence is not identical with another.
1.”The underlying cause of asthma is not known”
Wrong. See previous. And this:
2. “The exact cause of asthma is unknown”
And on to this:
3. “As we’ve noted, no one knows exactly the cause or causes of asthma"
Yep, you’re a fuckwit.
Oh, and I take you did refuse to read the paper,and just accepted what the little orangina bottler said as if fact, despite being, in fact, lies.
Since you cared so much about Mann telling the truth but don't give a shit for the accuracy of claims by the orange clownshoe playing at grown ups, I can accept the charge against you that you think trumpalino is far far less important and notable a person than even one scientist.
Ooooh, oooh, "mike", are your claims of "dispute" that you were accepting that there's a shit ton of people who are disputing the shredded wheat tin soldier in chief and calling him a liar?
Maybe instead of trying to defend the lying shitwad while pointing out many are calling him a liar, you should have just stuck with letting us know many think he's talking bollocks.
Reading comprehension is lost on you. Yea, I was saying the .2C was disputed, but it made no difference to my question, where Greg puts in a .5 that I don't understand what he means by it. Whether it is .2 or .6 or 1.1C, it is still without Paris - with Paris. Greg says without Paris .2 becomes .5, when .2 or .6 or 1.1 all are a comparison of with and without. Greg is intending something else, and all your posts add no clarity as usual.
Whatever the exact increase in global warming per year, decade, century, etc., as long as warming is increasing we are passing on to our descendants a problem that will negatively impact their lives. The question then becomes: Does it really matter whether the first generation to be royally screwed over is children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, or great-great grandchildren? I'm curious as to which generation our climate change deniers prefer to take the first big hits. Maybe the answer is any generation but their's.
"Reading comprehension is lost on you."
Who would know? You'd have to have some evidence of something that could be comprehended, but I simply don't get what point you're trying to make.
Reading comprehension requires something written down that can be comprehended. Sans that, the problem isn't reading comprehension.
" I was saying the .2C was disputed"
And I was pointing out it's a barren claim with no purpose or evidence or even context. Which you now are admitting yourself is the case:
" but it made no difference to my question"
It made no difference except to be pointless and distracting. And making no difference, there's nothing to comprehend. Apparently writing is a skill that is wasted on you, since you cannot find anything to write.
"where Greg puts in a .5 that I don’t understand"
And like I said to that bit, you clearly do not understand what feedback means.
0.5 comes after 0.2 but before 1.0. That's where it comes from. The real number system.
"Whether it is .2 or .6 or 1.1C, it is still without Paris"
So your claim is that whatever it is without Paris, it will be without Paris.
However, think on this: with Paris it would be what the number would be with Paris. Therefore you must address that.
"Greg says without Paris .2 becomes .5"
No, what he says is:
Without the deal, an optimistic 0.2 degree difference would become a 0.5 degree difference.
But I ask you this: why do you believe trump's claim of 0.2 yet don't accept Gregs' 0.2 and demand an answer from him?
Now you've been told trump was lying, why are you not as outraged at the lies and deceptions of the president of the usa?
Because it's a meaningless and pointless position, without even the slight eminence of a professorship at a fairly large US university?
Or you don't care about lies, just who you think can be accused of it?
"Greg is intending something else"
How do you know? Your first post was " I don’t see what you are intending to say here".
Were YOU lying too "mike"?
"“Whether it is .2 or .6 or 1.1C, it is still without Paris”"
Also you still fail entirely to have read the report.
All that "investigation" you did for Michael Mann's paper was patently a fiction, since you clearly do not have the capacity or desire to do any such work.
The paper said 0.6 to 1.1C by 2100 with Paris.
Where, exactly, do you get "without Paris"?
Where, exactly, do you not get 0.2 is not 0.6 to 1.1? Numeracy completely beyond your comprehension?
Hell, where exactly do you get 0.2?
And if you say Greg, I will point you to the fact that 0.2 is two tenths. See if that twigs a memory....
Wow is calling the Harvard medical school quote at #17 "wrong".......perhaps he should give them a call and set them straight.
Harvard - "Hello, Harvard Medical School, how can we help you?"
Wow - "Yes, my name is Wow and I would just like to tell you that you are wrong"
Harvard - "I'm sorry, what was that? Wrong?"
Wow - "Yes, wrong. You are wrong about asthma, doctors know what causes it"
Harvard - " Um, ok, what causes Asthma?"
Wow - "A lot of things trigger it, depending on the person"
Harvard - "Don't you have to have it for something to "trigger" it?
Wow - "What?"
Harvard - "Don't you have to have it for something to "trigger: it?
Wow - "Irritants making the tissues inflame via their autoimmunity reaction."
Harvard - "irritants of different kinds can be a trigger, but
the "exact cause of asthma is not yet known, although some researchers tend to think that asthma is caused by environmental and genetic factors that tend to manifest early on in a person’s life. These factors generally include atopy (the genetic inheritance of the tendency to develop allergies), parents who also have asthma, contact with airborne allergens in early childhood, contraction of viral infections during early childhood, or respiratory infections that are contracted during childhood. Since young children’s’ immune systems are still developing, these types of infections can be more easily contracted and less effectively eradicated through treatment than they would with adults."
"Some researchers believe it's our Western culture’s obsession with sanitation that has led to changes in the ways children’s immune systems develop. This is the “Hygiene Hypothesis"
"The bottom line is, the exact cause of Asthma is unknown"
"Are you a doctor?"
Wow - "What?"
Harvard - "Are you a Doctor?"
Wow - "Umm, yes, on Greg Laden's blog I am"
Harvard - "Fuckwit!"
Note: Some verbiage from this depiction of a typical Fuckwit was taken from the below link:
Nope, again, retardo, I'm calling you wrong.
Last I looked, Harvard wasn't an unemployed tree pruner for the town council.
Doctors do know what causes Asthma.
You even say it a few times.
But then go and say "we" don't know. YOU don't know. Doctors do.
"Asthma triggers. Exposure to various irritants and substances that trigger allergies (allergens) can trigger signs and symptoms of asthma. Asthma triggers are different from person to person and can include: Airborne substances, such as pollen, dust mites, mold spores, pet dander or particles of cockroach waste."
'course you don't because you're an insane little tit.
“Whether it is .2 or .6 or 1.1C, it is still without Paris”
That's a misleading quote, so perhaps you just don't get it. .2, .6, 1.1C, none of these are with Paris or without Paris. They are all a difference, the impact of Paris, (temperature without Paris)- (temperature with Paris). What is the .5 difference that Greg says is what you get without Paris? I'm a little surprised Greg did not highlight the .6-1.1C as the impact of Paris accord and not the .2C Trump said, but he instead said something that again you have added nothing to the discussion.
The New York Times now routinely calls Trump a liar.
It's now time for Dr. Fuckwit to explain what "causes" some people to get asthma while others don't...
Listen carefully class.
It's all yours Wow.
"The New York Times now routinely calls Trump a liar."
Seriously? The New York Times?
"“Whether it is .2 or .6 or 1.1C, it is still without Paris”
That’s a misleading quote, "
THen you were misleading, "mike". Or you're misleading now. For example: how? From what?
Clearly you cannot say. Knowing you would say. Not saying you do not know.
" none of these are with Paris or without Paris"
Where do you get that from?
" I’m a little surprised Greg did not highlight the .6-1.1C "
I'm a little surprised (not!) that you did not highlight that trump was lying
So it's greg's fault for saying trump was a liar but not with the 0.2C claim, and you have added nothing to that conversation other than fake confusion and fuckwittery.
You didn't know, or care, that he was lying, only that greg isn't enumerating every lie.
"Dr. Fuckwit, paging Dr. Fuckwit"......"the class is getting restless"......"Dr. Fuckwit, please report to teach the class"....."Dr. Fuckwit?"
The NYT calls the president a liar? No issue there - be is a serial liar.
Betula, careful with your argumentation. The comments about asthma also apply to e.g. influenza: not everyone gets the flu - in fact, many don't despite having come into contact with the same virus as others. We can't really explain why someone gets or does not get the flu, the best we can do is point to a weakened immune system vs a strong immune system, and "luck". In other words, using your own argumentation against asthma, you would have to argue that we don't really know what causes the flu...
Betula, listen to what Marco says - he's on the money.
You're simply diving into another field in which you have no understanding, and a propensity for search engine confirmation bias. What people refer to as asthma is more accurately characterised as a cluster of similar conditions and not one single 'disease'. There are multiple proximal causes that lead to similar signs and symptoms, and the ætiology of the event progressions are well understood at the bioligical level - it may simply be difficult to elucidate the particular cause in a particular instance without expensive testing.
Of course you seem to be following a particular semantic path predicated on the interpretation of the meaning of 'cause', but as Marco says what you're engaging in is a particular gambit aimed at bolstering your original claim, without actually getting to the nub of the subject.
And how do I know? Well, I did immunological research and diagnosis for a decade and a half.
Go learn some real science. Immunology is complex, as is ecology, because it requires a systems understanding that can be difficult to build. It's worth the effort though. In this instance I recommend that you start with the fundamentals of both adaptive and innate immunity: in particular, mucosal immunoglobulin functions, complement cascades, and downstream effects of various physical and biochemical/biological irritant challenges in pre-inflamed conditions.
I'll know when you've managed to do that, because your discussion of asthma will profoundly change in its tenor.
Betty, as with every other endeavour the sacked tree pruner engages in, doesn't know and doesn't care that he's clueless.
No effort will be expended on learning because it will only lead to finding himself wrong, and that's a result he doesn't want.
Shorter Marco - "Betula, be careful about posting articles stating that we don't know the cause of asthma, because we don't know the cause of the flu either"
I see you don't dispute any of my links...
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Yes I did notice you avoided the question @38...
You are a lousy teacher....in fact, non existent.
Shorter betty: Damn short. I guess being tiny is an advantage when your only skillset was standing in a tree...
Batshit: you insisted we didn't know what causes asthma. this is wrong. And you know it's wrong, which is why you're now changing what you're demanding I answer.
“As we’ve noted, no one knows exactly the cause or causes of asthma, and we can’t even say for sure if it is one disease or a group of diseases with very similar manifestations. (A wise lung doctor once said, “Asthma is like love. Everyone knows what it is, but no one can agree on its definition.”
You're not arguing with me Wow, you're arguing with Harvard Medical School.
Well, you're not really arguing because you haven't said anything...you're just calling them wrong,
It's the Fuckwit way...
Shorter Repub: We doesn't do us no nuance.
Meanwhile, reviewing the so called 'liberal media' -- https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/06/03/dozen-interviews-media-ne…
“As we’ve noted,"
Still wrong, betty.
Meanwhile, you continue to accept your greedy "corrupt" profits from Westmill Solar...
You should be ashamed...but you aren't.
I'll inform the Harvard Medical School that "Wow" says they are wrong.
I'm sure they will be contacting you shortly so you can set them straight....
Still trying to hide your change of question, betty? Fail.
You go tell Harvard medical school that nobody knows what causes asthma.
You go do that.
So trumpie tinymits lies, mike whines and eventually tries to hide in the "but greg didn't state EVERY lie!" as to why his only concern was greg's figures, not posotus's figures, and batshit here whines that greg's wrong about coal pollution causing asthma because betty hasn't a fucking clue about anything.
Wow- "You go tell Harvard medical school that nobody knows what causes asthma"
I just did. Here's their response..
"As we’ve noted, no one knows exactly the cause or causes of asthma, and we can’t even say for sure if it is one disease or a group of diseases with very similar manifestations. (A wise lung doctor once said, “Asthma is like love. Everyone knows what it is, but no one can agree on its definition.”
Looks like they agree with their own statement....thanks for the suggestion.
"I just did."
No you didn't.
Utter fail in your lie there, betty. However you ARE batshit crazy, so no worries, eh? At least your welfare will run out any day now and you'll be on the street turning tricks again.
So unless and until batshit here comes up with some actual reality based claims, the state of play here remains batshit going crazy insisting that they don't know aquat and "mike" desperate to keep the problem out of the posotus' mouth and cry off at everyone else.
Unsurprisingly, Betula is incapable of providing a rational rebuttal, and thus indeed must believe that we don't know what causes the flu.
It's kinda inevitable, though, that betty is using the tired old HI lies about tobacco again.
The only time the rightwingnutjobs bother to recycle.
Remember, marco, betty's only desire here is to pretend that coal power stations don't cause asthma, therefore there is no risk to life in minnesota.
OA @54, not only that, look at Spicer's responses when he was asked about Trump's stance and whether he (Spicer) had asked the president about his stance. The answers were no and no, I don't plan to.
Since Trump's base doesn't have the integrity to be offended by his lies and are without the understanding of the difference between climate and weather, his "Dodge and avoid" strategy is well chosen. It's made stronger by the lack of work on the journalists' side.
The journalist should just not show up. Only do their own investigation into what's happening and ignore every press briefing done. Just don't bother turning up.
Instead of saying "the press secretary said X", just do some investigation and talk about what YOU found out. You know, like "The FBI are wanting to talk to Jared Kushner in their investigation of Trump's campaigining ties to Russia.".
Ignore cries of "Fake news" or "Failing $INSERTNAMEHERE". Ignore what the buffoon and the loons say and just go and do your investigations.
Talk about what laws and deals are being done. There's no need to report what trumpos say for that, and there's never going to be anything in the press briefing about them.
Stop asking for the whitehouse to say what they're doing, and start investigating what is going on.
When the press secretary can't field questions, they can't drive the narrative, and there's no wasted time asking what the fuck the lunatic is blithering on about this time.
Just ignore the fucking moron and go and investigate what the government is fucking up and tell everyone about it.
Don't even invite KAC or any corrupt mouthpiece from the WH to talk about it. If they can't be trusted (and they have demonstrated many times that they will blithely lie openly), there's only a waste of time trying to ask them what is going on: you still have to check whether they're telling the truth. Which if you investigate, you have that information without asking the lying toerags and wasting that time.
The only risk is that The Orange Dump On The Throne will get so mad at not being the center of attention they'll declare a nuclear strike to get people talking about him again.
#10 on this list is my favorite, so I thought I would share it to "trigger" a Fuckwit.
10. Unknown. So what is the root cause of asthma? Quite honestly, despite how far we have come, researchers still do not know. In fact, the more researchers learn, the more complex they realize this disease is, making it quite understandable how the true root cause(s) of our disease has/have eluded medical experts since the beginning of time.
>You didn’t know, or care, that he was lying, only that greg isn’t enumerating every lie.
Greg can explain what he meant by .5C difference if he wants. You have shown yourself incapable of explaining it, or even understanding the issue. I suspect you do understand and are just lying about it with your usual blather. You probably realize you misquoted me, but don't care and just continue acting as if I'm wrong.
On the numbers (0.2, 0.5, etc) this is a dead end discussion and I'll tell you why.
Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 2.5 and 5.0+ degrees. If it is 2.5 degrees, a particular transition plan might get us 0.5 degrees. The same plan, if sensitivity is 5.0, will get us negative 1.5 degrees (I'm guessing at these numbers).
On the other hand, if climate sensitivity is higher than we expect (say, around 4.2) because of carbon sinks, and the plan under consideration changes that by addressing sinks, then we get to reduce the sensitivity itself. Or, if there is some positive feedback that the plan totally ignores because it is not known about causing sensitivity to be higher, then we get a worser-case-scenario.
On top of that, these numbers are highly confused because of policy makers and some scientists (innocently) playing fast and lose with the baselines. We can change the outcome of paris by recalibrating the baseline.
These numbers give a false sense that we know what is going to happen over the next few decades. We do not know that. We can put some minima on the likely outcomes, but most or all of the outcomes have fat upper tails, so any estimate on that end of the scale is not very easily estimated.
"On the numbers (0.2, 0.5, etc) this is a dead end discussion and I’ll tell you why."
I could do so umch easier and shorter.
Without the paris accord, there will be less done to stop AGW.
Therefore the temperatures will go up higher quicker.
And since there's no logical reason to claim 0.5C is impossible to reach, that 0.2 is less than 0.5, and that temperatures are a continuous variable with no reason for a discontinuity at 0.5C, eventually a 0.2 temp change will change to a 0.5C change.
But "mike" only wants to worry about you not being 100% absolutely correct and evidenced.
Apparently the piece of shit of the united states is so pointless and meaningless an individual to "mike" that he really doesn't care if or how he lies to the country.
Greg, according to "mike", you're far more important that the orange peel sitting in the oval office!
> >You didn’t know, or care, that he was lying, only that greg isn’t enumerating every lie.
> Greg can explain what he meant by .5C difference if he wants.
And you didn't know or care that you were lying and engaging in deflection from the orange buffoon's lies and your own prevarication and ignorance for your partisan ideology.
Hence you quote a statement then provide absolutely nothing to rebut or refute it yet still behave as if it has been dealt with.
Clearly lies from the rightwingnutjobs such as yourself and the anchorbabyindiapers are nothing to you, yet imagined lies you fabricate or read about from anyone not sufficiently nutjobing on the rightwing are a constant "worry" for you.
There's no point in greg explaining his 0.5, because it has nothing to do with your whines.
Your whining was solely about deflecting from the shitgibbon's lies.
Nothing more, nothing less.
"You have shown yourself incapable of explaining it, or even understanding the issue. "
LOL! THERE IS NO ISSUE. You fabricate the problem and refuse to have one solely so you can pretend it's my fault you're a lying sack of dishonest crap.
The issue is the orange blowhard lied to the USA and lied about the research, ad you know this but refuse to see it because it is politically inconvenient to you to do so.
Hence you avoid addressing it.
"mike" basic numbers here for you. I won't charge for the maths lesson, given this is something that is taught to eight year olds here in the UK:
when you have a continuous number increasing from 0.2 to 0.6, the number will at some point be at 0.5.
Like i said, here in the UK where homeschooling is barely used and heavily regulated and not a religious nut thing, eight year olds know this, but you#re a 'merkin, and you may not yet have reached that level of numeracy at whatever age you are at.
With that extremely remedial lesson out the way, "mike", what does greg's 0.5C have to do with trump lying? That is, after all, the issue here.
"So what is the root cause of asthma?"
So again changing the claim because you've been found out wrong again, betty.
We do know what causes asthma.
Wow - "We do know what causes asthma"
Nope, "we" know what "triggers" the symptoms.
On the other hand, it has become apparent to me that you are a root cause of nausea..
We know that the trigger causes asthma. You're too dumb.
Dean @ ~ 67
Basically Trump has turned the White House into Troll Central. If he ever leaves, there won't be enough Pine Sol and Febreze in all the land to scrub the stench out; and whatever he hasn't pillaged on the way out will certainly have to be either burned or autoclaved.
He has already set a ruinous precedent for this country that will have consequences far into the future.
#68: I've often wondered what the point was in asking known liars for their comments on anything. The most rational or semi-rational reasons I can think of are: (1) covering a conflict is an easy way to sell papers/get viewers so they need the liars point of view, (2) they are afraid that the Republicans will once again cry "liberal bias" if the media doesn't publish/air their lies, (3) they think that a large percentage of the public is deluded and will stop buying their papers/watching their shows unless the lies they have already bought into are repeated over and over.
~ # 82
Well, on a good day they can make Spicer hide in the bushes...
On the small chance that you aren't lying and really don't get it- If Greg had said the .2 is really .5, I wouldn't have made the comment, especially since I've already seen higher numbers. Instead he wrote WITHOUT PARIS the .2 becomes .5, which doesn't make sense. He still hasn't explained it. I agree with his latest comment.
"they are afraid that the Republicans will once again cry “liberal bias” if the media doesn’t publish/air their lies,"
That's just being "afraid" of something that will happen anyway, so why bother? Just don't go to the press briefings, ignore them like you'd ignore the hobo nutcase in a sandwich board on the street corner and interview them about the upcomming alien invasion.
Nothing you can ask the press secretary can be written without checking up if this time they're not lying out their ass or otherwise making shit up, and that checking will bring up the evidence that would have said the conclusion without the whitehouse press saying it.
And the whitehouse really doesn't want or like the press either, and really love hating on them and beittling them. So why not take them at their word and don't bother to ask them anyting? Just investigate what's going on and report it. See how the whitehouse likes it when the press room is stuffed with the likes of The National Enquirer and Fortean Times reporters and nobody is listening any more.
The WH is making themselves irrelevant by not even trying to pretend to care about reality. So don't bother
What does Greg saying 0.5 have to do with trump lying about it being 0.2? I'm not even posting this on the "off chance" you're honestly dealing here because it is absolutely crystal clear you are not. I'm just pointing out that your blowharding is merely off topic bullshit.
Oh, and I note that the 8-year-old five minute math lesson didn't take on. If a number increases it will go past 0.2 then past 0.5, meaning that a 0.2 will increase to 0.5.
But you're just proving that you only care about trying to find lies in "liberal lefties", and neither do investigation nor care to even try about your fellow rightwingnutkobs.
I'm not going to play word games about it "mike", you're a lying twat and trying to avoid realising that trump lied about everything there. Nothing you say changes that and nothing you whine about distracts anyone other than yourself from it.
And if you're just wanting to distract yourself from the evidence trump is a lying sack of orangutan shit, then sit in a corner and hum REAL loud.
Heck, maybe the national newspapers could just walk out when spicer or his temporary cover walks in to give a briefing.
Just up and walk out when he walks in.
And never come back unless they start at least caring to talk reality.
>What does Greg saying 0.5 have to do with trump lying about it being 0.2?
Can't know that until I understand what he meant in his .5 comment.
>If a number increases it will go past 0.2 then past 0.5, meaning that a 0.2 will increase to 0.5.
He said .5 without Paris. .2 also involves without Paris, and with Paris. So saying more time cannot change that. Once again you fail to add anything.
Temperatures with Paris are X, Temperatures without Paris are X+.2
What does it mean to say Without Paris, the difference becomes .5, when without Paris is one of the things being differenced?
I think Greg just meant something else. Unlike you, I don't leap to calling people liars on what is an innocent mistake.
#85: Hey, I agree with you, I was only trying to sort out what rationale the general media have for giving known liars more chances to lie -- and make it even worse by not calling them out on their lies. Maybe it was simply that candidate Bozo wore them out by lying just about every time he opened his mouth and they haven't recovered yet.
">What does Greg saying 0.5 have to do with trump lying about it being 0.2?
Can’t know that until I understand what he meant in his .5 comment."
So nothing and you knew it.
"He said .5 without Paris. "
No he said .2 will become .5
You're a moron mike.
"2 also involves without Paris,"
Where do you get that from? It's .6 to 1.1 without Paris. Because, you know, trump lied.
Something you cannot even begin to see because you really don't care about lies or anything, all you care about is the party affiliation.
"I think Greg just meant something else."
What does that have to do with trump lying?
" Unlike you, I don’t leap to calling people liars on what is an innocent mistake."
Since I don't all people liars on what is an innocent mistake, only when they're liars, this too is a lie, "mike".
Tyvor, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that this fear is merely a ridiculous pose/ It's the same nonsense that made obama decide to compromise before he even started negotiations. And there too it still didn't work to change the actions of the opponents, because those opponents are moronic nutbags.
Since it is inevitable no matter what you do, you do like every other problem we can do nothing about: ignore it.
” Unlike you, I don’t leap to calling people liars on what is an innocent mistake.”
the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs
Several problems with this claim.
This is alarmist. So maybe instead of screaming about the loss of millions of jobs, how about we start using rational science and level headed thought instead of alarmism and scare tactics to drive policy? That's what the repiblicans demand when AGW is discussed.
This is a prediction about the future, which is always so wrong as to be unreliable. Look at how many ecomonic model predictions have been wrong, and how many times they've had to modify or even outright replace models. This shows that the predictions cannot be accepted as reality. This is what republicans demand when AGW is discussed.
This is a claim without evidence: we have not yet lost the jobs that the paris accord would lose in the future. So instead of this alarmism and speculation to make policy, how about we wait until there's evidence of the job losses caused by the paris accord? This is what the republicans demand when AGW is discussed.
We have lost jobs before and will do so again. Sure, the paris accord could affect that number, nobody is disputing it, but to cry alarmist rhetoric over how it's all because of the paris accord when there's been several hundred years of recorded job losses in history long before the paris accord is just scaremongering and irrational. This is what republicans say when AGW is discussed.
The problem seems to be that republcans would rather rely on the much more broken economic models and ignore the scientific models that have had some success and promote their alarmism and irrational screaming as long as it is them doing it.
Just like it's fine to be even worse at knowing what confidential means or even more in bed with the bankers, or even more corrupt, or even more in bed with commununism, or even less willing to call out terrorism in the face of islamists, or even less willing to follow the constitution, or producing even more executive orders bypassing the government, or actually producing FEMA camps to detain citizens, or even lying in a vastly greater volume, as long as it is them doing it.
Of course kevin will not read the content and only count the presence and proclaim it yet more evidence of it being boring.
Counting is the highest level of cognition kevin can master. And then only up to 21. After that he has to get out the tic-tacs
Most people in Minnesota who have asthma have it because of coal plant generated pollution.
Boy, I wonder why that kind of categorical claim, provided with no references, gets people's backs up.
I wonder why someone whines about a claim that's pretty damn solid? I mean, just because one moron gets their back up about something blatantly obvious, but not to their liking, doesn't mean "people" get their back up at the patently clear.
But that sort of categorical claim, provided with no references, is normal for those who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala!".
#95: Are you under the impression that the junk emitted by burning coal is benign or even good for people? Have you never heard/read of the London fogs produced by burning of coal which were still killing people well into the mid-20th century?
Or why the black country was called the black country...
#91: Being an intelligent, rational human being, I think President Obama just underestimated the degree to which the GOP was run by ideological crazies willing to put their witless agenda before the health of the Nation. (Even to the point of rejecting their own basic health care plan.). And he also underestimated the willingness of a large part of the American public to be seduced by GOP lies and appeals to a fantasy of greatness at odds with present and future reality.
I think there was a lot of pride invested in being "the first and best black president", so he didn't want his tenure to be the lame duck one, so he desperately needed acceptance at least SOMEWHERE.
THEN his underestimation of the crazy of the republicans about having a home-negro in charge took effect.
If he'd gone "It doesn't matter if I'm MADE lame because the opposition refused to govern, I'll just be remembered as the first black man in the whitehouse and maybe the next one will have a much easier time of it", there would not have been the desperation to get agreement to exploit.
imagine if after getting pre-conceded into Romney Care, assuming that the Rs were sane and accepted it was dashed against their incoherent racism, Obama decided "Fuck it, if I'm gonna be refused, lets be refused single payer and medicare for all, which is what is REALLY needed", the Rs would have backed up HELLA fast. If he'd presaged that with other cases of if the concession was refused he trenched back further left, the Rs would have known better than to push it on the romneycare proposal because a further left proposal would be put in its place.
Obama wanted something to remain.
I hope he takes a good long look at how he never even asked for what he wanted and that everything he got willy-slapped into accepting was cratered afterward anyway and learns that attempting for a legacy rather than a change was a bad deal.
Even if single payer had been thrown out by Rs on a rampage, he would still have had the legacy of putting it in in the first place.
#100: You may well be right. Of course hindsight is much more accurate than foresight.
Re Obamacare, he could just have thought that even crazed Republicans wouldn't yank health care out from under >20 million people without serious repercussions. He may even have been right - ultimately. We may see in the 2018 election. Or the GOP may find or make up something to shout "Squirrel!" about and everyone will be distracted again.
He should there have known better. he used RomneyCare and they STILL whined and complained and bitched and moaned and cried and tore their hair out (those who had it).
It was at the point when they refused to accept RomneyCare and wanted it neutered he should have told them to fuck off and gone to what he putatively wanted. The point here being maybe he DIDN'T want it any better, hence this failure to act on his part pretty much killed his legacy as anything other than the first black president (though even the usa couldn't go all the way on the first go and had to go for a two-tone). And this SHOULD have told him how rabidly against a house negro being in charge ANYWHERE they were and therefore how little he would achieve if they got into power.
Hell, they spent 8 full years doing their damndest to ensure that obama did NOTHING. They even made it their platform: to make him a lame duck president.
I can accept that he took bad advice, but that only works at first. After years of that BS intransigence he should have told those advisers (which included practically all media source) to take a gallon of shut the fuck up juice and stop pretending that things not happening were because he wasn't working hard enough to be a republican.
If the Democrats actually listen and change, then the Republicans will be decimated and become a third player. Yes, by the next presidential election, if the Rs don't listen and the Ds do, it may become D vs I.
And if the Ds don;t listen, because of the asinine party identity politics going on, it will just bounce from R to D with fewer and fewer people voting.
Fewer Rs voting because their base is dying of old age, and fewer Ds voting because they're only chasing the R voters.
Its not just lies, but alarmism from trump too. What's with this alarmist claims of "disastrous flooding in Missouri" he's talking about? It's flooded before! According to some, the entire world was flooded! AND IT WAS GOOD!
I looked out on the street today, and I see no flooding, therefore this claim of floods is a lie.
CLEARLY this is just a way for trumpo to get his FEMA camps set up to round up good people and reprogram them for his NWO regime! And who will pay for the tents and food andheating? TAXPAYERS! Who will the money go to? TRUMP'S CRONIES! CLEARLY this flooding, which never happened at all and is totally not catastrophic since it used to be flooded far deeper than Everest, some say, is a hoax done to drive cash to these "disaster response" businesses and to scare people into following his authoritarian orders!
Indeed without water, NO LIFE WOULD EXIST! It's a LIFE GIVER, yet here is trump demanding that we ban water and make the earth a dry husk like mars!!!!!
Dumpster fire or train wreck, you decide.
In healthcare news: