Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris

[Astrid]

It's never a good idea to hop in bed with ones enemies like a harlot - and China is our enemy.

That sort of thing bites back.

Things are as America chooses to make them.


We in China we’re busy minding our own
business when imperialist westerners started showing up.

Americans jumped in.

Now IF China had run gunboats up the Mississippi all the
way to Ohio, say, and got involved in your Civil war to protect Chinese interests?

Your confederates retreated to Florida and China
and ever since China armed them against you?

You guys chose the course you want



And you support choosing to make things worse ?

I think your book mentions reaping the whirlwind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I live in Hong Kong.

I've been beaten.and imprisoned for opposition to.CCP

That's absolutely heart-wrenching to hear, Astrid. I wish you had led off with sharing that when you first joined onto CF. It would have better tempered how I've erringly viewed you, or felt about what you say from your point of view, from the start.

My apologies.

As have many Americans for doing the same in their country.

The USA has little good example to.show the rest of us about how to be a good world citizen

I would say that the USA is a very, very mixed bag of good and bad examples for the rest of the world.

As for China providing examples for the rest of the world, I'd have to look more closely at Pre-Mao Chinese history to find them, I think.

 

[RDKirk]

Not only is there storage, but there are reliable sources of wind (offshore winds usually blow) and when wind power is distributed across a wide area, it becomes collectively more reliable.

And what studies can you cite that shows the environmental impact on the ocean currents and sea creatures? You're simply trading one problem for another.

They certainly didn't manufacture it, nor would deliberate release into their own population make a lick of sense.

You don't know that because there has never been any thoughtful investigation into the matter. No one wants to release any information.

Given the number of errors above, I see no reason to take your word on any scientific topic.

This is a typical response from someone who doesn't want to face the issues and simply wish to foster their preconceived notions. Take my advice then, don't believe everything you read in the papers.

I'm old enough to remember paper bags in grocery stores. We use to use them all the time. Then the environmentalist told everyone paper bags were destructive to the forest and we needed to switch to plastic bags. Well, that didn't seem to work out very well because now they want us to go back to paper.

So, is climate changing happening or not? You're arguing against the change even happening again.

 

[Astrid]

So, is climate changing happening or not? You're arguing against the change even happening again.

Percent oxygen in atmosphere is going down.

 

[HarleyER]

Things are as America chooses to make them.
And choosing to make things worse - I think your
book mentions reaping the whirlwind.

A

Not only is there storage, but there are reliable sources of wind (offshore winds usually blow) and when wind power is distributed across a wide area, it becomes collectively more reliable.

And what studies can you cite that shows the environmental impact on the ocean currents and sea creatures? You're simply trading one problem for another.

They certainly didn't manufacture it, nor would deliberate release into their own population make a lick of sense.

You don't know that because there has never been any thoughtful investigation into the matter. No one wants to release any information.

Given the number of errors above, I see no reason to take your word on any scientific topic.

This is a typical response from someone who doesn't want to face the issues and simply wish to foster their preconceived notions. Take my advice then, don't believe everything you read in the papers.

I'm old enough to remember paper bags in grocery stores. We use to use them all the time. Then the environmentalist told everyone paper bags were destructive to the forest and we needed to switch to plastic bags. Well, that didn't seem to work out very well because now they want us to go back to paper.

And what studies can you cite that shows the environmental impact on the ocean currents and sea creatures?

None, because there are none. That's my point. Government studies are bias based upon what the political agenda happens to be. Government has a political motivation and the scientific community who is seeking funding will align themselves with political ideals.

But If you put a bunch of windmills in the path of whale migration there is bound to be an impact just as eagles or other rare birds flying into windmill. That is simply common sense. As Ben Franklin said, "The trouble with common sense is that it's not too common."

Rare White-throated Needletail killed by Windmill (Rare bird last seen in Britain 22 years ago reappears - only to be killed by wind turbine in front of a horrified crowd of birdwatchers)

Take my advice then, don't believe everything you read in the papers.

Wise advice.

The trouble with this article is that it is totally bias. It isn't about science. It isn't even exploring difference in various views. It is simply, "We're for climate change, Trump is a nut for suggesting anything else." This is what science "objectivity" has become-political.

 

[HarleyER]

I live in Hong Kong.

I've been beaten.and imprisoned for opposition to.CCP
policies.

As have many Americans for doing the same in their country.

The USA has little good example to.show the rest of us about how to be a good world citizen

All countries are the same. Leaders have political end that they hope to achieve at the expense of their people. This is the nature of man. This might sound cynical or pessimistic, but I like to think that it is simply an rational analysis of the way things are.

In the USA we have the CIA lying to Congress and politicians covering up for them, the FBI storming someone's house in the very early morning for no good reason, and President Trump being arrested, tried and convicted and given a $400 plus million dollar fine for supposedly paying money to keep an affair quiet.

You are absolutely right, the USA has little good examples to show the world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First, learn how to use the response features of this site. Just insert your cursor between two blocks of text in the quoted section and press "enter" and you'll have a place to write in the middle of the quoted text. Writing out the prior poster's text in red italics is not in anyway the convention here and I only recognized it when you quoted my words back to me this way.

Not only is there storage, but there are reliable sources of wind (offshore winds usually blow) and when wind power is distributed across a wide area, it becomes collectively more reliable.

And what studies can you cite that shows the environmental impact on the ocean currents and sea creatures? You're simply trading one problem for another.

You've given me no reason to think you would care about those studies if I could find them.

They certainly didn't manufacture it, nor would deliberate release into their own population make a lick of sense.

You don't know that because there has never been any thoughtful investigation into the matter. No one wants to release any information.

There certainly have been "thoughtful investigations" with information released to the public. Even the CIA has published their assessment.

Given the number of errors above, I see no reason to take your word on any scientific topic.

This is a typical response from someone who doesn't want to face the issues and simply wish to foster their preconceived notions. Take my advice then, don't believe everything you read in the papers.

No. I've seen anti-science people before. I want them to back their claims with evidence. I see no point in investing in "debunking" weak and false claims with details until the claims have detail or evidence. Your post was just a series of random "talking point" type claims.

I'm old enough to remember paper bags in grocery stores. We use to use them all the time. Then the environmentalist told everyone paper bags were destructive to the forest and we needed to switch to plastic bags. Well, that didn't seem to work out very well because now they want us to go back to paper.

I believe the grocers switched to plastic because it was cheaper than paper sacks.

 

[HarleyER]

So, is climate changing happening or not? You're arguing against the change even happening again.

I'm lost in the messages and the answers. If I've answered this before forgive me.

The climate is always changing. It has been changing for thousands of years, sometimes heating up, sometimes cooling off. That is a fact. What I'm arguing is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest that mankind is causing any impact to the climate. The climate might be heating up, but without other information factor in, simply saying that man is the cause isn't sufficient data for anything. For example, how does the earth rotation slowing down affect the climate? Has that been talked about in the climate debate. No.

And what's worst are people who believe that if the US would change everything to electric tomorrow everything would be just fine. What about the rest of the world? Why don't the environmentalists go throw some red paint on a Van Gogh in a China museum if they want publicity.

We are egotistical group of people who believe we're going to effect any change IF AND ONLY IF that change happens to be related to mankind.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm lost in the messages and the answers. If I've answered this before forgive me.

The climate is always changing. It has been changing for thousands of years, sometimes heating up, sometimes cooling off. That is a fact. What I'm arguing is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest that mankind is causing any impact to the climate. The climate might be heating up, but without other information factor in, simply saying that man is the cause isn't sufficient data for anything. For example, how does the earth rotation slowing down affect the climate? Has that been talked about in the climate debate. No.

And what's worst are people who believe that if the US would change everything to electric tomorrow everything would be just fine. What about the rest of the world? Why don't the environmentalists go throw some red paint on a Van Gogh in a China museum if they want publicity.

We are egotistical group of people who believe we're going to effect any change IF AND ONLY IF that change happens to be related to mankind.

Okay, so stick to the position that the climate is changing (which is factual and backed up by plenty of empirical evidence).

"Is the climate changing?" is a separate question from "If it is, what should we do about it?" Intertwining those questions makes it impossible to take any relevant action.

My personal stance is that, yes, the climate is changing, and the activity of humanity is almost certainly a factor (and has been since the development of agriculture). But I'm highly doubtful that we can effectively halt or disrupt the change. I suspect that when something as enormous as global climate has already changed to the extent that it's noticeable, it's gone past the tipping point. It's like carrying a wheelbarrow full of wet concrete...when you see that it's tipping, it's too late to correct it.

Even if we had a way, it's clear there is no global will to go back to pre-agricultural times.

So, IMO we should be talking about ways to best survive it. The DoD is already doing that. The Navy has quietly developed a timetable to abandon east coast naval bases as they become unusable. The Army is looking at how changes in the climate will affect conflict in various areas of the world and making long-range predictions of future conflicts.

Is anyone in the US working on concepts for handling long, hot summers? Water distribution? New crop varieties? New insect infestations? Moving populations? Or is everyone's head in the sand while politicians argue at a standstill over whether it's even happening?

 

[Astrid]

A

And what studies can you cite that shows the environmental impact on the ocean currents and sea creatures?

None, because there are none. That's my point. Government studies are bias based upon what the political agenda happens to be. Government has a political motivation and the scientific community who is seeking funding will align themselves with political ideals.

But If you put a bunch of windmills in the path of whale migration there is bound to be an impact just as eagles or other rare birds flying into windmill. That is simply common sense. As Ben Franklin said, "The trouble with common sense is that it's not too common."

Rare White-throated Needletail killed by Windmill (Rare bird last seen in Britain 22 years ago reappears - only to be killed by wind turbine in front of a horrified crowd of birdwatchers)

Take my advice then, don't believe everything you read in the papers.

Wise advice.

The trouble with this article is that it is totally bias. It isn't about science. It isn't even exploring difference in various views. It is simply, "We're for climate change, Trump is a nut for suggesting anything else." This is what science "objectivity" has become-political.

”Biased”. Not “bias”.

As for such knee- jerk cynicism ,
we have a saying that translates roughly to
”Cynicism is nothing but the scabby side of naïveté.”

 

[HarleyER]

”Biased”. Not “bias”.

Thanks for the correction.

”Cynicism is nothing but the scabby side of naïveté.”

There is another saying: "To be naive is to be unaware of how stupid and cruel other people are."

 

[HarleyER]

First, learn how to use the response features of this site. Just insert your cursor between two blocks of text in the quoted section and press "enter" and you'll have a place to write in the middle of the quoted text. Writing out the prior poster's text in red italics is not in anyway the convention here and I only recognized it when you quoted my words back to me this way.

You've given me no reason to think you would care about those studies if I could find them.

There certainly have been "thoughtful investigations" with information released to the public. Even the CIA has published their assessment.

No. I've seen anti-science people before. I want them to back their claims with evidence. I see no point in investing in "debunking" weak and false claims with details until the claims have detail or evidence. Your post was just a series of random "talking point" type claims.


I believe the grocers switched to plastic because it was cheaper than paper sacks.

Just insert your cursor between two blocks of text in the quoted section and press "enter" and you'll have a place to write in the middle of the quoted text.

It took me a while to figure out but I did it. Hooray! Thanks for your input.

Even the CIA has published their assessment.

After the CIA has lied before Congress, do you really think that they can be considered credible.

No. I've seen anti-science people before.

I'm not anti-science. I simply want an objective analysis of the situation that includes different perspectives. Isn't that what true "science" is about?

Going back and looking at the original post, do you think Scientific American is going to provide an objective analysis based upon what they said?

I believe the grocers switched to plastic because it was cheaper than paper sacks.

Do you have any scientific evidence that supports this conclusion?

 

[sjastro]

So? That doesn't address the coal burning facilities.

Of course it addresses China’s coal fired stations.
It should be blindingly obvious the more renewables that are introduced the less reliance China has on coal fired stations which affects their construction number.

It's not a terrible analogy. When the wind stops blowing windmills do not create energy. If you're using energy from other resources, you still are not using windmills if the wind is not blowing. I know they like to tout windmills are 20-40% effective, but I sincerely doubt this. People have too much faith in what the government tells us.

What do you think the point of having energy storage and alternative renewables is about?
When the wind doesn’t blow you have a back up source of energy, apparently Donald Trump doesn’t understand this and neither do you.
You are also using the argument of personal incredulity fallacy.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're taking a vehicle with a combustable engine and comparing it to one that runs on electricity. What you're not including are factors like 1) what is the carbon footprint for generating the electricity that fuels that electric vehicle, 2) what is the environmental impact of disposing of those electric batteries when they reach end of life (3-5 years), and 3) where are we going to get our supply of litium? Currently the only source is China. A large disposit was found in the US, but the enviromentalist don't want us to dig for it.

I should note that I'm not anti-electric car. I think that it is a great idea. But you just can't legislate them into existence and tell everyone they need to run out and buy a $60,000 vehicle without developing the infrasture and taking a more scientific approach to the problem.

I suggest you get your facts straight instead of making things up and trying to pass them off as informed comments.

Firstly the 18% - 87% CO₂ emission reduction is based not only the carbon footprint for EVs from production to final disposal but also on battery charging conditions using grids of different coal fired/renewable mixes ranging from 100% coal fired to nearly 100% renewable.
This explains the large variation in the percentage emission reduction.

Secondly Australia by far is the leading producer and exporter of lithium with 52% of the world lithium production.
Thirdly your country does produce lithium but only 1% of total production.

Has any scientific studies been done to say otherwise? What exactly is the impact on these windmills to people who live around them and to birds that fly into them?

Stop trying to weasel your way out of this.
Donald Trump stated that windmill noise causes cancer which is complete utter rubbish as there is no evidence to support this.
I want you to explain why you have blind faith in an individual who makes outrageously inaccurate statements that is the product of delusion or pathological lying.

Now I don't see Scientific America doing an article on the effects of late term abortion, the environmental impact of illegal immigrates and the effect on the desserts, or the polluting of the oceans and rivers from illegals deficating on the sidewalks.

I was hoping the discussion was going to be respectful as highlighted in the OP and not this puerile attempt at derailing it.

Thanks for the articles but I've dealt with statistics in my profession. You can make them say anything you want to make your case. All one really has to do is open their eyes to the truth.

I have presented evidence in the form of facts not statistics.
Since this is a science forum with the emphasis on evidence and you believe climate warming is a hoax, the onus is on you to show the evidence is fraudulent.
Boasting to have dealt with statistics in your profession and blindly accepting the nonsense coming out of Trump’s mouth is not evidence.

 

[Astrid]

Thanks for the correction.


There is another saying: "To be naive is to be unaware of how stupid and cruel other people are."

Of what use is this "back at you" game?

At best its just more cynicism

 

[Astrid]

Of course it addresses China’s coal fired stations.
It should be blindingly obvious the more renewables that are introduced the less reliance China has on coal fired stations which affects their construction number.

What do you think the

Of course it addresses China’s coal fired stations.
It should be blindingly obvious the more renewables that are introduced the less reliance China has on coal fired stations which affects their construction number.

What do you think the point of having energy storage and alternative renewables is about?
When the wind doesn’t blow you have a back up source of energy, apparently Donald Trump doesn’t understand this and neither do you.
You are also using the argument of personal incredulity fallacy.

I suggest you get your facts straight instead of making things up and trying to pass them off as informed comments.

Firstly the 18% - 87% CO₂ emission reduction is based not only the carbon footprint for EVs from production to final disposal but also on battery charging conditions using grids of different coal fired/renewable mixes ranging from 100% coal fired to nearly 100% renewable.
This explains the large variation in the percentage emission reduction.

Secondly Australia by far is the leading producer and exporter of lithium with 52% of the world lithium production.
Thirdly your country does produce lithium but only 1% of total production.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of this.
Donald Trump stated that windmill noise causes cancer which is complete utter rubbish as there is no evidence to support this.
I want you to explain why you have blind faith in an individual who makes outrageously inaccurate statements that is the product of delusion or pathological lying.

I was hoping the discussion was going to be respectful as highlighted in the OP and not this puerile attempt at derailing it.

I have presented evidence in the form of facts not statistics.
Since this is a science forum with the emphasis on evidence and you believe climate warming is a hoax, the onus is on you to show the evidence is fraudulent.
Boasting to have dealt with statistics in your profession and blindly accepting the nonsense coming out of Trump’s mouth is not evidence.

Sorry about my o.t. contributions

 

[sjastro]

I'm lost in the messages and the answers. If I've answered this before forgive me.

The climate is always changing. It has been changing for thousands of years, sometimes heating up, sometimes cooling off. That is a fact. What I'm arguing is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest that mankind is causing any impact to the climate. The climate might be heating up, but without other information factor in, simply saying that man is the cause isn't sufficient data for anything. For example, how does the earth rotation slowing down affect the climate? Has that been talked about in the climate debate. No.

And what's worst are people who believe that if the US would change everything to electric tomorrow everything would be just fine. What about the rest of the world? Why don't the environmentalists go throw some red paint on a Van Gogh in a China museum if they want publicity.

We are egotistical group of people who believe we're going to effect any change IF AND ONLY IF that change happens to be related to mankind.

Your response to @RDKirk is either highly disingenuous or shows a total lack of comprehension after it was explained to you why scientists are 100% certain current global warming is due to human activity and not natural variation.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it was a lack of understanding so let me try again this time with pictures.

If the earth was warming up naturally this what you would observe.

​

What we actually observe is this.

​

This is known as lower stratospheric cooling which was predicted in the 1960s and is a unique signature for global warming caused by human activity.
As I explained to you previously here is simple non technical version as to why this occurs.

Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

Paradoxically the strongest evidence for AGW is based on temperature measurements of the lower stratosphere. While AGW increases the temperature of the troposphere, the lower stratosphere which is immediately above the troposphere is getting colder. This was a prediction made in 1967 before AGW...

www.christianforums.com

A theory or hypothesis is useless without evidence so here are the supporting satellite measurements.

​

If you still want to push the line global warming caused by humans is a hoax, show us the satellite data is fraudulent.

 

[sjastro]

Sorry about my o.t. contributions

I don't mind if topics go OT, I am a frequent offender myself but when a poster makes comments of "illegals" defecating on sidewalks, this level of ignorance goes beyond being simply OT.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It took me a while to figure out but I did it. Hooray! Thanks for your input.

You're welcome.

After the CIA has lied before Congress, do you really think that they can be considered credible.

I'm not anti-science. I simply want an objective analysis of the situation that includes different perspectives. Isn't that what true "science" is about?

You made several claims that were contrary to established scientific results. Whether you intend it or not, you have repeated many widely used anti-science positions. Perhaps you have bad sources of information influencing your position.

Going back and looking at the original post, do you think Scientific American is going to provide an objective analysis based upon what they said?

I haven't read the editorial. Based on the headlines they are objectively correct about the presidential choice and what is good science based policy on climate and other named topics. The choice publish an editorial is up to the editorial staff of the magazine. It is not "science" to make the choice to speak up or not.

Do you have any scientific evidence that supports this conclusion?

Grocery sacks aren't a scientific topic.

 

[HarleyER]

Of course it addresses China’s coal fired stations.
It should be blindingly obvious the more renewables that are introduced the less reliance China has on coal fired stations which affects their construction number.

What do you think the point of having energy storage and alternative renewables is about?
When the wind doesn’t blow you have a back up source of energy, apparently Donald Trump doesn’t understand this and neither do you.
You are also using the argument of personal incredulity fallacy.

I suggest you get your facts straight instead of making things up and trying to pass them off as informed comments.

Firstly the 18% - 87% CO₂ emission reduction is based not only the carbon footprint for EVs from production to final disposal but also on battery charging conditions using grids of different coal fired/renewable mixes ranging from 100% coal fired to nearly 100% renewable.
This explains the large variation in the percentage emission reduction.

Secondly Australia by far is the leading producer and exporter of lithium with 52% of the world lithium production.
Thirdly your country does produce lithium but only 1% of total production.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of this.
Donald Trump stated that windmill noise causes cancer which is complete utter rubbish as there is no evidence to support this.
I want you to explain why you have blind faith in an individual who makes outrageously inaccurate statements that is the product of delusion or pathological lying.

I was hoping the discussion was going to be respectful as highlighted in the OP and not this puerile attempt at derailing it.

I have presented evidence in the form of facts not statistics.
Since this is a science forum with the emphasis on evidence and you believe climate warming is a hoax, the onus is on you to show the evidence is fraudulent.
Boasting to have dealt with statistics in your profession and blindly accepting the nonsense coming out of Trump’s mouth is not evidence.

It should be blindingly obvious the more renewables that are introduced the less reliance China has on coal fired stations which affects their construction number.

If renewable energy was so effective and efficient as you are claiming, then why isn't China putting 100% of their resources behind it?

When the wind doesn’t blow you have a back up source of energy, apparently Donald Trump doesn’t understand this and neither do you.

Don Trump stated that you don't produce any energy from wind turbines when there is no wind. This doesn't seem to be rocket science.

Secondly Australia by far is the leading producer and exporter of lithium with 52% of the world lithium production.

True, but China is the third leader producer and is the world's leader in lithium processing, with 60% of the world's lithium refining capacity for batteries.

I want you to explain why you have blind faith in an individual who makes outrageously inaccurate statements that is the product of delusion or pathological lying.

There is no blind faith. There's no cost benefit studies on what this will cost the US nor are the any impact studies on how these costs will impact other programs. What happens when you take farm land out of production for solar farms. You might have energy but also starvation.

I was hoping the discussion was going to be respectful as highlighted in the OP and not this puerile attempt at derailing it.

No, what you posted was simply a hit piece on Trump. Not an objective anaylysis of the benefit and costs of implement plans by both candidates. This isn't an attempt at derailing anything. It is simply trying to provide a balanced perspective to this discussion.

I have presented evidence in the form of facts not statistics.

You are correct. You've presented facts that are often touted but they are not the entire story. I remember one of our Executive Officer wanting to get sell off all of our computers and rent them. She stated based upon her "facts" were that it would be cheaper than buying them. I pleaded with her to do a cost benefit study, and she said there was simply no need since she had all the "facts" in front of her. To make a long story short, her decision ended up costing thousands of wasted dollars and led to her dismissal. We had to go out and buy all new computers.

 

[HarleyER]

Your response to @RDKirk is either highly disingenuous or shows a total lack of comprehension after it was explained to you why scientists are 100% certain current global warming is due to human activity and not natural variation.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it was a lack of understanding so let me try again this time with pictures.

If the earth was warming up naturally this what you would observe.

View attachment 354835
​

What we actually observe is this.

View attachment 354836
​

This is known as lower stratospheric cooling which was predicted in the 1960s and is a unique signature for global warming caused by human activity.
As I explained to you previously here is simple non technical version as to why this occurs.

Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

Paradoxically the strongest evidence for AGW is based on temperature measurements of the lower stratosphere. While AGW increases the temperature of the troposphere, the lower stratosphere which is immediately above the troposphere is getting colder. This was a prediction made in 1967 before AGW...

www.christianforums.com

A theory or hypothesis is useless without evidence so here are the supporting satellite measurements.

View attachment 354838
​

If you still want to push the line global warming caused by humans is a hoax, show us the satellite data is fraudulent.

The link below shows the average annual temperature by the National Weather Service for the last 150 years. In 1875 the average temperature was 52.5. In 2023 the average temperature was 52.2. The National Weather Service breaks it out for every year.

Now I don't have fancy graphs but a variation from 52.5 in 1875 to 52.2 in 2023 doesn't seem to tell me we have a global warming problem.

And, no, I was not being disingenuous

https://www.weather.gov/media/slc/ClimateBook/Annual%20Average%20Temperature%20By%20Year.pdf