Climate Change, school kids vs. Sen. Feinstein

[icehorse]

Summary: School kids tell Feinstein to sign the GND. Feinstein tells them DC doesn't work that way.

I'm loving this. I think in general Feinstein is okay compared to many in DC, but in this video she's demonstrating how deeply entrenched she is in the DC status quo.
I'm thinking that kids have to keep doing this with their DC reps. Over and over and over again.

Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt) | Twitter

 

[Subduction Zone]

Summary: School kids tell Feinstein to sign the GND. Feinstein tells them DC doesn't work that way.

I'm loving this. I think in general Feinstein is okay compared to many in DC, but in this video she's demonstrating how deeply entrenched she is in the DC status quo.
I'm thinking that kids have to keep doing this with their DC reps. Over and over and over again.

Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt) | Twitter

Feinstein is being a realist in this. Signing a poorly constructed "Green New Deal" would almost certainly be counterproductive. I do like the conversation that the GND will cause but it is not the answer . . . yet.

 

[icehorse]

Feinstein is being a realist in this. Signing a poorly constructed "Green New Deal" would almost certainly be counterproductive. I do like the conversation that the GND will cause but it is not the answer . . . yet.

If only Feinstein had said what you just said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If only Feinstein had said what you just said.

I will grant that her communication tools were a bit lacking, but when one has a surprise "gotcha attack" by people that should be one's allies clear thinking can be hindered. The hearts of both groups are in the right place. Sadly the naivety of the children may make them a useful tool for the Republicans and science deniers.

 

[icehorse]

I will grant that her communication tools were a bit lacking, but when one has a surprise "gotcha attack" by people that should be one's allies clear thinking can be hindered. The hearts of both groups are in the right place. Sadly the naivety of the children may make them a useful tool for the Republicans and science deniers.

To me the bigger message is that we cannot allow politicians to handle this situation using their normal, glacial DC processes. That's why I think this sort of "gotcha attack" ought to happen over and over again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me the bigger message is that we cannot allow politicians to handle this situation using their normal, glacial DC processes. That's why I think this sort of "gotcha attack" ought to happen over and over again.

Perhaps. you have a good point. The excuse that Trump would not pass such legislation does not really fly. Even though that is likely the case it would be good to work out as many details as possible ahead of time so that when Trump is gone a working solution can be quickly enacted.

 

[sun rise]

That's why I think this sort of "gotcha attack" ought to happen over and over again.

A politician of her age should be well equipped to handle gotcha questions from the press and thus from any source. Her dismissive response says quite a bit about who she really is.

She could have responded positively acknowledging their concern, saying that the GND brought up some real issues that needed to be addressed and that she would deeply consider how to address those concerns. She could have said about how DC works in a caring way.

She chose instead to offer an offensive, dismissive reply. I'm glad I did not vote for her last year

And yes I agree. This is one of the reasons I'm so happy with AOC. She's shaking up a status quo that totally needs to be shaken up. AOC's success in doing so is proven by the ranting and raving of her opponents. Good for her. And good for those kids. I'm not saying I endorse the proposals. I endorse the process.

I might again be listening to Dylan's classic "The Times They Are a Changing"

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Summary: School kids tell Feinstein to sign the GND. Feinstein tells them DC doesn't work that way.

I'm loving this. I think in general Feinstein is okay compared to many in DC, but in this video she's demonstrating how deeply entrenched she is in the DC status quo.
I'm thinking that kids have to keep doing this with their DC reps. Over and over and over again.

Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt) | Twitter

I hope that these youth are encouraged, because perhaps it is they that will save the World if anything is left when the get old enough to do it.

 

[Salvador]

Summary: School kids tell Feinstein to sign the GND. Feinstein tells them DC doesn't work that way.

I'm loving this. I think in general Feinstein is okay compared to many in DC, but in this video she's demonstrating how deeply entrenched she is in the DC status quo.
I'm thinking that kids have to keep doing this with their DC reps. Over and over and over again.

Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt) | Twitter

There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

 

[Ellen Brown]

There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

I have COPD from my occupation. I live a block, downhill from a major freeway. The last three years, the summer wildfires have often brought the visibility to less than 1/4 mile. Wood smoke especially bothers me. And, I have poor esophageal coordination (The Doctor's words), and I will likely suffocate because of it. I hope that you can see the cause for my concern?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

I get that you will defend the RCC against the claims of pedophilia.
And I get that you'll deny climate change, probably for the same underlying reason.

But either find actual science, or stop dressing up your opinions as if they're 'facts'. It's disingenuous and disrespectful to your intended audience.

For any interested in a more comprehensive consideration, including directly addressing the graphical 'proof' denying climate change, or the interesting fact that it's author reputedly studied insurance Law, and doesn't appear to be in the least sense qualified to make any claims about climate, I'd offer the following;

Talking To Climate Skeptics – Big Picture – Medium

It's long, but let's stop pretending we can read a paragraph posted by a random on the internet and are suddenly 'woke'.

 

[Salvador]

I get that you will defend the RCC against the claims of pedophilia.
And I get that you'll deny climate change, probably for the same underlying reason.

But either find actual science, or stop dressing up your opinions as if they're 'facts'. It's disingenuous and disrespectful to your intended audience.

For any interested in a more comprehensive consideration, including directly addressing the graphical 'proof' denying climate change, or the interesting fact that it's author reputedly studied insurance Law, and doesn't appear to be in the least sense qualified to make any claims about climate, I'd offer the following;

Talking To Climate Skeptics – Big Picture – Medium

It's long, but let's stop pretending we can read a paragraph posted by a random on the internet and are suddenly 'woke'.

I've never denied any climate change, I'm just pointing out the fact that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 hasn't significantly impacted global temperatures on average.

I'd now also would like to take this opportunity to mention that climate change models have failed to accurately predict climate change. Hence, scientists yet have a lot to learn about climate change. its causes as well as its environmental impact.

IPCC admits that climate models fail (Professor Stein Storli Bergmark, physicist) | Tesla

 

[Salvador]

I have COPD from my occupation. I live a block, downhill from a major freeway. The last three years, the summer wildfires have often brought the visibility to less than 1/4 mile. Wood smoke especially bothers me. And, I have poor esophageal coordination (The Doctor's words), and I will likely suffocate because of it. I hope that you can see the cause for my concern?

Well, maybe if the U.S. Forest Department properly did it's job of clearing out deadwood and brush, then there wouldn't be all these out of control forest fires; when there's climate change, we humans do sometimes need to better adapt.

 

[icehorse]

I know I'm not supposed to use the "funny" frubal, but sometimes it's really hard to resist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've never denied any climate change, I'm just pointing out the fact that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 hasn't significantly impacted global temperatures on average.

I'd now also would like to take this opportunity to mention that climate change models have failed to accurately predict climate change. Hence, scientists yet have a lot to learn about climate change. its causes as well as its environmental impact.

IPCC admits that climate models fail (Professor Stein Storli Bergmark, physicist) | Tesla

Any consideration to addressing what I said about the source of your previous post? Have you read the article I linked to which addresses this directly, as well as providing less biased measurements of what climate experts think overall?
You are still presenting things as 'facts'. You've linked here to a forums post (for goodness sake) which then links to YouTube.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I know I'm not supposed to use the "funny" frubal, but sometimes it's really hard to resist.

See, I find opinionative posts aren't too problematic.
I can agree or not. And even supporting evidence for those is ok, even if I find the posts 'wrong'.

But posts dressed up like facts give me the...well...let's just say you're being nice by avoiding breaking the funny frubal rule, and I'm being nice by not testing the language filter.

I guess we're both nice!!

 

[Salvador]

Any consideration to addressing what I said about the source of your previous post? Have you read the article I linked to which addresses this directly, as well as providing less biased measurements of what climate experts think overall?
You are still presenting things as 'facts'. You've linked here to a forums post (for goodness sake) which then links to YouTube.

The IPCC AR4 wrongly predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

The new NIPCC publication shows:

"Fossil fuels deliver affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy critical to human welfare. Wind and solar are not practical and reliable substitutes.

Fossil fuels create a better environment for the ecosystem because they require less surface area than renewable energy source.

Sixteen of 25 identified impacts of fossil fuels are net positive, eight uncertain. Only one is net negative. Areas of impact measured include agriculture, air quality, extreme weather events, and human health.

Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s."


"How could two international teams of scientists, economists, and other experts arrive at opposite conclusions? Therein lies a story.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet's carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.

Now consider the NIPCC. It is a scientific body composed of scholars from more than two dozen countries, first convened in 2003 by the great physicist S. Fred Singer and later chaired by another great physicist, Frederick Seitz. The NIPCC's only purpose is to fact-check the work of the IPCC. It receives no corporate or government funding and so has no hidden agenda or axes to grind. Most of its participants volunteer their time; a few receive token compensation for many hours of effort."

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it.

 

[icehorse]

Fossil fuels deliver affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy critical to human welfare. Wind and solar are not practical and reliable substitutes.

Plentiful they are mostly certainly not.
As for the word "substitutes", yours is a blatant false dilemma argument.

Fossil fuels create a better environment for the ecosystem because they require less surface area than renewable energy source.

Surface area? Is it your contention that large solar arrays in the middle of deserts would hurt the ecosystem?

Sixteen of 25 identified impacts of fossil fuels are net positive, eight uncertain. Only one is net negative. Areas of impact measured include agriculture, air quality, extreme weather events, and human health.

Please explain this..

Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s."

Another obvious false dilemma.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The IPCC AR4 wrongly predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

The new NIPCC publication shows:

"Fossil fuels deliver affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy critical to human welfare. Wind and solar are not practical and reliable substitutes.

Fossil fuels create a better environment for the ecosystem because they require less surface area than renewable energy source.

Sixteen of 25 identified impacts of fossil fuels are net positive, eight uncertain. Only one is net negative. Areas of impact measured include agriculture, air quality, extreme weather events, and human health.

Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s."


"How could two international teams of scientists, economists, and other experts arrive at opposite conclusions? Therein lies a story.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet's carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.

Now consider the NIPCC. It is a scientific body composed of scholars from more than two dozen countries, first convened in 2003 by the great physicist S. Fred Singer and later chaired by another great physicist, Frederick Seitz. The NIPCC's only purpose is to fact-check the work of the IPCC. It receives no corporate or government funding and so has no hidden agenda or axes to grind. Most of its participants volunteer their time; a few receive token compensation for many hours of effort."

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it.

My goodness.
Can you please stop dressing up your opinion as facts?

NIPCC funding is from Heartland, and Heartland funding includes various corporations with a vested interest in the sort of 'science' you're peddling.
And then you have the gall to state here that their funding is not corporate or government funding?

Sure, they funnel the coal and gas money through Heartland. That's what Heartland does, much like when they took tobacco money.

Sheesh.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#Diverse_funding_base.2C_reports_Heartland

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

warming takes time. Even if we stopped adding CO2 today the Earth would continue to warm.