MEMBERS COMMENTS

< Prev  1 / 185  Next >
The Rational National | Bernie impresses Fox News crowd in town hall 90% Posted Apr 2019

The Rational National | Bernie impresses Fox News crowd in town hall

Comment: 17 hours ago

"Maybe instead of taxing so much, they could reduce spending..." I don't think that's a good way of thinking about tax. If you see tax as investment rather than cost, then everything changes - the people's money, to be invested in projects that improve the lives of the people. 

So then the question becomes about return on investment. For example, you can reduce spending by cutting the police budget and creating a society where people walk in fear on the streets. Or invest in the police and create a society where people feel safe to walk the streets. A bit like the difference between living in Somalia or Sweden.

Of course it's more complicated than that, but thinking of tax as investment rather than cost will create a much healthier society overall.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 3 days ago

"It's amusing that you consider my Boreme comments part of academia." I don't. They are full of flaws.

For example, just in your last comment: "Earlier I said "He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW".  You said that this was incorrect, because he agreed to the summary sentence you quoted which had made no mention of ice ages." Wrong again. It's incorrect because you said "...rather than AGW", rather than "as well as", or words to the effect. Rather than AGW means instead of AGW, which is not what he believes. It's the opposite! 

I know you didn't mean that, but it's just another example of your sloppiness. If you didn't brag about your academic credentials so much in the past, I wouldn't have a such problem with your sloppiness. After all, I'm certainly not immune to sloppiness myself.

Anyway, there's plenty more in your last comment that I'm tempted to pull apart, but I'm fed up with this. Have the last word - and please, please - no more inaccuracies. And definitely no more psychology.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 4 days ago

Please stop, you're giving academia a bad name. Even your latest response alone is full of inaccuracies.

"I hope that's a fair summation of your current position".  I'm surprised he agreed.  You deviously left out the alternative factor that he has been explaining - very sneaky." I didn't deviously do anything. I summed up his position in a concise easy-to-understand sentence - "so you think global warming is partly caused by human activity, and partly "the act of coming out of our ice age" - 3 times! Was that not enough?

"So yes, *coming out* of the ice age is his theory to account for a significant part of global warming." That's not accurate. He did not say it was a SIGNIFICANT part of global warming. 

I said: "so you agree human activity is warming the climate, you just don't think it's by very much." 
He said: "I didn’t say it’s not much.  I said we aren’t 100% responsible and I don’t know how much humans are responsible and neither does anyone else."

"And actually, whichever premise(s) you think he was checking, the fact is it was a premise (and critical at that), so not word-games, and not a distraction technique.  It was you who used it as such, presumably because you find his actual argument harder to challenge."

You presume wrong. His argument was not hard to challenge. I did - in a long detailed post about a quarter the way down the page: "But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era ...  it's not going to correlate because other things that also affect the temperature are missing." But he hasn't responded - because you came along.

"Please, next time you lock horns with him, listen.  Don't just look for ways of slowing the argument until it stalls." I was not trying to slow the argument until it stalls. I was trying to narrow it down to a single point of discussion. And we almost got there - then you came along.

FYI, my "single point of discussion" was not an excuse meme. This is it: Over a 30 year period, how much global warming could we expect from ice age cycles that span over thousands and millions of years. If the answer is pretty much zero, then human activity is responsible for pretty much all of global warming - according to what Guest1-9 believes.

Oh, and please don't play at psychology. You're rubbish at that as well.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 4 days ago

I just wanted you to confirm that what you said is what you meant. So, let's break it down. "He believes that the planet's warming is ... he needed to check if you accepted the premise; that we are coming out of an Ice Age.  You did, and he quickly moved on." I didn't. I accepted we were in an ice age because that is the definition in Wikipedia. I said: "I just agreed we are in an ice age. I can read Wikipedia as well."

He replied: "Fair enough but it took you a long time to admit it.  Don’t know why because it’s clear and scientists do agree we are in an ice age." Then he quickly moved on. 

I certainly did not accept we were coming out of an ice age. I said: "...if human activity had no impact on the climate, we would be cooling with an ice age beginning within 1500 years." That is the opposite to coming out of an ice age. 

He wasn't checking if I accepted the premise that we are coming out of an ice age, he was checking if I accepted we are IN an ice age right now. He said: “Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?”

"He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW". You even got that wrong.

I said: "OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, but you don't think all the warming is caused by humans, just some of it, but you're not sure how much. And you think climate scientists don't know either, they are guessing. I hope that's a fair summation of your current position."

He confirms it: "Yes, I think you understand my position now."

He thinks AGW is partly responsible, and so are ice age cycles. He just doesn't know  how big each part is.

For someone who analyses text for a living, you are rubbish.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 5 days ago

You wrote this a couple of threads ago: "It wasn't his distraction technique, and if you were focussed on trying to understand his argument rather than score points, you would have seen that.  He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW, and for that he needed to check if you accepted the premise; that we are coming out of an Ice Age.  You did, and he quickly moved on."

Do you stand by that?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 5 days ago

I rest my case.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 5 days ago

Psychology is not your strong point.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 5 days ago

"I don't think his point is about semantics, guest doesn't think it's about semantics, and I don't think it was a distraction technique on his part.  That was your cheapshot, an excuse-meme of yours, to try and invalidate his point." If you can't see that Guest1-9 was employing a distraction technique, then I can't help you. I was trying to narrow down the conversation to a single point that would be difficult to dispute. I was getting close, and then you came along and ruined it all. Thanks a bunch.

Having said that, your point about cherry-picking peer reviewed research is an excellent one. You just worded it so badly you really did sound like a Flat-Earther. Like when when you asked: "Can you point me towards a metastudy that shows we are definitely in an Ice Age?" when his point was we are in an ice age because that is the definition in Wikipedia.

"...the futile endless bickering between you two" From my point of view, the bickering is not futile. I have learnt a lot about climate change from bickering with Guest1-9. This time around, I have gained a better understanding of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and about why temperature and CO2 graphs don't correlate.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 6 days ago

"Application (what I'm talking about).  To determine whether the situation meets the definition above" That might be what you're talking about, but that was not what we were talking about. Guest1-9 was playing word games. It was only about definition. Scroll back up and reread. He even threatened to end the discussion if I didn't agree with a definition from Wikipedia. It was just a tactic to distract. He does it all the time. 

"The simple point I have been trying to show (which has been completely lost on both of you), is..." It's because you jumped in out of context, and that's why your simple point was lost on both of us. In context, it made no sense. Are you PA?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 7 days ago

You sound confused to me. Agreeing on the definition of a term is so communication is more effective. If you define "ice age" as when the planet is covered by 90% ice, and I define it as when the planet is covered by 10% ice, then there are going to be misunderstandings. So we agree on a definition so we can communicate.

Agreeing with a scientific consensus is very different. A scientific consensus means the research of a high number of experts agree. It is the best knowledge experts have to date. 

A non-expert in climate science has no choice but to accept the scientific consensus on AGW - unless they can demonstrate that the experts are conspiring to deceive, or are incompetent.

Compare these scenarios. If you see 100 doctors, and 97 of them say you have a heart problem, you'd be a fool not to accept their verdicts - unless you had other information - that they are conspiring to deceive you, or that they are incompetent.

If you see 100 witch doctors and 97 of them say you have a heart problem, you'd be a fool to accept their verdicts -  because you do have other information - that they are incompetent.

I accept the scientific consensus on climate change because climate scientists know climate better than me. I cannot show they are incompetent. And it is not plausible that thousands of climate scientists all around the world, speaking different languages, are conspiring to deceive the public, and have deceived great minds like Noam Chomsky and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but couldn't fool Trump or Guest1-9. Also, of the climate science that I do understand, it all hangs together. And the weather we are witnessing all around the globe is consistent with the science.

---------------

What you say about Guest1-9 is all very well, but YOU are not prepared to accept that glaciers are retreating. There are photos galore of retreating glaciers on the internet. You should try it sometime. There are also satellite measurements of ice thickness using fancy instruments. How much evidence do you need?

I had just finished writing this thread and was about to submit it, when I noticed that in the meantime, you and Guest1-9 had been conversing. I can't believe you asked him again "how do you know we are in an ice age?"

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 7 days ago

"But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era where the planet was constantly cooling and has never recovered.  That was around 50 million years ago and the temperature dropped from +14C delta from 1960-1990 levels down to -6C delta. We are simply recovering from that period." That 20C drop you are talking about happened over many millions of years. How much would you expect the temperature to drop in a random 30-year period within those millions of years? The correct answer is: pretty much zero. Also it's not a steady drop. Within those millions of years, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of warm and cold periods. In the last 1000 years alone we've had the MWP and the LIA. You keep trying to use graphs with a resolution of 1 pixel per million years when discussing a 30 year period. How many times do I need to explain that before you get it? Do you have learning difficulties?

Look at this temperature/CO2 graph spanning 400,000 years - that's half a pixel on the graphs you are using. https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif Now do you understand? If humans were not around, would we be on a rising temperature curve or decreasing temperature curve? The correct answer is decreasing temperature curve reaching intense ice age conditions within 1500 years - that's according to research published in Nature Geoscience. Scroll back up for details.

"I would still like someone to show me some correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the planet’s historical record because I see none.  Here’s a graph..." We've also been through this before. Are you sure you don't have learning difficulties? The sun's output is missing.

In the last 1000 years pre-Industrial Revolution, CO2 in the armosphere hardly changed. But if you drew a temperature/CO2 graph, they would not correlate because we had the MWP followed by the LIA which were caused by sun and volcano activity. Same goes for a temperature/CO2 graph that spans millions of years - it's not going to correlate because other things that also affect the temperature are missing. 

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 7 days ago

You are confused. A definition is not the same as a consensus. The definition of "ice age" seems to be very vague. For example, Wikipedia says: "An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age." Under that definition we are in an ice age because we still have continental and polar ice sheets, and alpine glaciers.

It's just words. If the definition was "at least 50% of the planet covered in ice all year round", then we're not in an ice age. Don't worry about it. Guest1-9 was just playing word games. He was argueing that a study that said 'if humans were not around, the planet would experience an ice age within 1500 years', was wrong because we are already in an ice age. 

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a tighter scientific definition of "ice age", so if anyone knows...

About retreating glaciers, that's an entirely different point. That is about what we accept as evidence since none of us are experts.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 7 days ago

About 10% of the Earth is covered in ice. Apparently, that is still defined as within an ice age. It's just a mild part of an ice age. It's a bit like having a warm day in winter - it's still winter according to how we define winter.

About 400 billion tons of ice per year has been lost since 1941. 

Sources:
E. Leuliette and L. Miler, Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608 (2009).

Kwok, R. and G. F. Cunningham (2015), Variability of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume from CryoSat-2, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373:20140157, doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0157.

Holland, P. R. and R. Kwok (2012), Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea ice drift, Nat Geosci., doi: 10.1038/NGEO1627.

Kwok, R. and N. Untersteiner (2011), The thinning of Arctic sea ice, Phys. Today, 64(4), 36-41.

Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock (2009), Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958 – 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15501, doi:10.1029/2009GL039035.

E. Rignot et al., Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modeling, Nature Geoscience. Vol 1, 2008.

Isabella Velicogna, Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19503 (2009).

------------

Happy reading.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 7 days ago

I was quite surprised when I looked up the definition of "ice age", that it was so vague. I was expecting something like - an ice age is defined as when 50% or more of the land is covered by ice all year round - or something like that. But all I could find was definitions like: "Ice age, also called glacial age, any geologic period during which thick ice sheets cover vast areas of land..." https://www.britannica.com/science/ice-age-geology
So whether we are in an ice age or not, just depends on how we define "ice age".

"How do we even know the glaciers are actually retreating?" The simplest way is just to take photos, for example: https://blogs.agu.org/fromaglaciersperspective/files/2009/07/honeycomb-glacier-1977-2006.jpg

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 7 days ago

Now I'm confused. Which ice age are you talking about? In your earlier post, all that stuff about 1850 - 1950 concerns the Little Ice Age that started around 1600. But the 25C stuff you keep going on about refers to the "big" ice ages that cycle over thousands and millions of years. These are caused by the Earth's orbit around the sun rather than solar output or volcanism that caused the Little Ice Age.
 
So when you say "the act of coming out of our ice age", which ice age do you mean? The Little Ice Age, or the big ice age (Quaternary glaciation) that started about 2.6 million years ago?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 8 days ago

OK, so just to update your position: global warming is partly caused by human activity, and partly "the act of coming out of the Little Ice Age". Is that fair?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 8 days ago

He's playing semantics. Technically we're in an ice age because of how ice age is defined. 

"By definition we are still in the last great ice age – which began during the late Pliocene epoch (ca. 2.58 million years ago) – and are currently in an interglacial period, characterized by the retreat of glaciers." 

https://www.universetoday.com/74714/what-is-an-ice-age

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 8 days ago

I just agreed we are in an ice age. I can read Wikipedia as well.

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to "the act of coming out of our ice age"? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 8 days ago

Yes, we are in an ice age.

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to "the act of coming out of our ice age"? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up? 

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 9 days ago

I don't want to get distracted talking about ice ages when today's climate change has nothing to do with ice ages. And we've been through this a gazillion times before. Don't you remember?

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to "the act of coming out of our ice age"? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up? 

PROFILE

WalterEgo

WalterEgo