Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On 9/20/24 01:23, D wrote:

  On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

D wrote:

>
>
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
>

D wrote:

>
>
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>

On 9/17/2024 6:11 PM, quadibloc wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 +0000, Don wrote:
>

Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
autocracy along the lines of these guys:
>
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
>
Oprah's a disciple of scientism:
>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
>
    ...
>
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
>
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."

>
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
>
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
>
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
>
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
>
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
>
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
>
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
>
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
>
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
>
John Savard

>
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is wrong. Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient (1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
>
Lynn
>

>
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
>
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has been proven by science.
>

>
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
>
>
William Hyde
>

>
This is incorrect William.

>
>
You are concurring with Lynn's claim that global warming is due to the sun. It is not.  We do study variations in the sun's output very closely, and such variations do not explain the current warming.
>
This has been known for decades.
>
You are also concurring with Lynn's claim that almost all climate change in the past was due to solar change.  We know this not to be the case, in particular with the ice ages.  We've known this for decades, suspected it for more than a century.
>
The world has often in the distant past been warmer than it is now. Yet the sun was dimmer.   Clearly, other factors also count, even dominate at times.
>
In your first paragraph you confuse climate with weather.  That's a mistake. Further, it does sometimes happen that night is warmer than day.  Weather's like that.
>
The press does indeed sometimes print stories about solar change.  It does not print that many for reasons given in the first paragraph.
>
But ignorance is not stupidity, it can be cured easily enough.
>
Lynn has maintained that he cannot believe in global change because it would be bad for his business. He is probably wrong in this, but it is for this reason that Lynn sees ignorance, or pretended ignorance, as being in his financial interests.  That is why I did not respond to Lynn.
>
While politics can attach itself to anything, at heart this is not a political question.  Observations  show the earth to be warming, and we know why.  Unexpected predictions, like Stratospheric cooling, were made in the 1960s and have been shown to be true (this alone contradicts warming by increased solar output, though one ill-informed person on this group cited it as evidence *against* AGW).
>
We have not yet begun to feel the worst effects, but weather events around the world tell us that change is here.  As do rigorous statistical studies.
>
What to do about it? Now that is indeed a political question.   One might propose doing nothing, just adapting to change.  One might propose a severe cut in GHG emissions.  One might propose geoengineering.   Or some mix of the above.  But we'll never make progress on these issues without accepting that the change is here, and worse is on the way.
>
Thirty five years ago, I said technology. It was clear that humans were going to use more and more energy, so that unless our energy sources were cleaned we wouldn't stop below 4XC02. But we didn't put the effort into it that was required.  No matter how fast we implement the low carbon technologies we now have or are developing, that alone will not alone save us from a 3C warmer world.
>
I would guess that you and Lynn would be for adaptation - get used to the higher  temperatures and more acid ocean, somehow, - or geoengineering. Either of those would probably have a less heavy regulatory framework than emissions cuts and that would fit with your political views.
>
But you won't make progress on either of those areas while wasting time arguing against reality. The more effort you put at that, the more the question of what solutions to adapt will be dominated by other people, and those will not be the solutions you prefer.
>
In part through the use of fossil fuels our ancestors created a society where ordinary people are live in comfort and safety beyond the dreams even of the richest people of earlier days, and have opportunities denied their ancestors for millennia.  But many good things have bad side effects and the task of those who received the benefits is to deal with those side effects.
>
That task has fallen to us.
>
It is one thing to fail our descendants because we were wrong.  Far worse to fail them because we didn't try.
>
>
>
William Hyde
>

 Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in your text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!
 Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion that what we see is natural and not man made. We also must remember that science is not democracy, where you vote, so it doesn't matter if 10 people believe X if 1 person can prove Y. Of course there is inertia in the system, so the 10 won't change over night, but eventually, with a paradigm shift or two they will.
 So since neither will convince the other, let's put that question aside, and focus on the second part.
 Regardless of if it is man made or natural, what to do?
 Since climate, coast lines, temperatures and what ever has shifted numerous times before (without the help of man) humanity has adapted or moved to a better place.
 The same strategy will work now as well. For instance, where I now live, there was once 3 km of ice (without the help of man, and it disappeared without the help of man too), and at that time no one lived here. Now people live here.
 So if one areas gets hot, people will move to another. There is also AC and numerous other technologies to deal with that.
 The coast line will move? Not a problem, move inland.

Almost certainly the Central Valley of California which is
prime farmland will be flooded with salt water. Those foothills
around the Valley are going to be very crowded and the food to feed
them if is cool enough will not be coming from the farms that
are put out of action.

 Eventually technology will solve all problems for us. Give electric cars 20-30 years and I'm sure they will be cheaper, and have further reach than gasoline cars. Then even I will change to electric.

As I understand it it will be centuries before the use of electric cars charged via solar and wind energy will make a damn
bit of difference to CO induced global warming.

 What will defintiely _not_ solve any problems, is eco-fascism, taxing peopl and companies to death. This will bring in a new dark age or soviet union, and people will die en masse. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 I think the climate-hysteric I agree most with is Björn Lomborg. He has explained why the current eco-fascist ideas about climate change is a disaster, and proposes techno-optimism.
 He also explains why all is not doom and gloom. The planet has been warmer, it is currently greening, so warmer climate will bring a lot of good with it.

Warming climate is accelerating warming by melting the
permafrost and releasing megatons of Methane another potent
global warming gas. Warming also increases the amount of water
vapor in the air which also contributes to Global Warming.

 So I say, enjoy the ride, enjoy reclaiming deserts, and longer summers, and do not work to introduce eco-fascism, which will only bring wars and death when the public gets desperate.

Eco-fascism?
With luck we will disintegrate back to tribal units.
without luck alien investigators may someday arrive to check our
the funny bones of bipedal ominvores with huge cranial capacity.
bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com