2nd Democratic Debate...

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby David Flick » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:25 pm

.
.
    I was amused by the climate change section of the 2nd Democratic debate. Obviously Gov. Jay Inslee was easily the star of the night. But the other nine candidates made almost as much noise as he did. Here's the best description I can give that shows where the Dems are on this issue.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Haruo » Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:56 am

I think it might be more fun if they all did one-on-ones all around the circle, Lincoln-Douglas style.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12806
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby William Thornton » Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:29 am

Beto = zero

Gillebrand, another huge disappointment; I was reluctant to conclude she was a lightweight. She convinced me.

Castro, pretty smooth. Reminds me of Rubio.

Biden, actually has a pulse after all.

Harris, finally put a concrete proposal out on health care. Couldn't defend it.

DeB, go back to NY.

Booker, can do snide well.

Bennet, very weak at gestures with that wimpy hand chop.

Inslee, sounds like everything's perfect in WA. Haruo should have told us.

Gabbard, always smooth. Didn't seem to shine.

There was another guy, right? Didn't register with me.

This will be great fun when we get to the power five or so.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12405
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:17 am

I'm not ready to invest time in hearing this many candidates--two nights of them. When the field begins to thin, then it will matter. Too bad I am in a state where the primary is so late as to be largely meaningless. Last time, there were three or four on the ballot who had long since quit the race.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7551
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Sandy » Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:13 am

I watched both of them, didn't get to see all of the first night but watched the whole thing last night. Our primary is in March, so there may still be several candidates to choose from at that point, though I think the field will get down to less than ten before too much longer. There's not a person who has appeared on the stage the past two nights who won't give Trump fits in a head to head debate. It's worth watching, since one of those twenty people will be taking office in January 2021.

And the news keeps getting more encouraging.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -reelected
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9443
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby William Thornton » Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:12 am

Old friend Sandy, bankrupted by a big bet on hil, hopes to recover in 2020. We'll e.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12405
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Haruo » Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:35 am

If 90% of the voters in the five most populous states vote for candidate A, and 51% of the voters in the other 45 states vote for candidate B, who wins? Not the United States of America. And if the 51% would have been 49% if it hadn't been for the registered voters who stayed home rather than vote for A because of their age, gender, color, or position on some particular issue, then whom should we execute?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12806
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Tim Bonney » Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:46 am

I’ll watch the debates when the crowd thins. (By the way, as so many Democrats are running for the Presidency, I want to announce that I will not be a candidate for President in 2020 though my dog Luke is considering running under an anti-mailman platform in which the postal service would finally be eliminated so that those scary mail deliverers stop coming on our porch without his permission.)
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6292
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby KeithE » Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:55 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
    I was amused by the climate change section of the 2nd Democratic debate. Obviously Gov. Jay Inslee was easily the star of the night. But the other nine candidates made almost as much noise as he did. Here's the best description I can give that shows where the Dems are on this issue.

Absolutely ridiculous David. Inaccurate cartoons will not do anything to sway the science. I say inaccurate since no real climate scientist believes that earthquakes or tornados are due to global warming. Increases in wildfires and flooding are due to global warming (more specifically the increase to >400 ppm CO2 since just 1950 from natural levels that oscillate between 180 and 280ppm).

I did not watch either debate (bridge on Tuesday night, traveling to Clemson for funeral on Wednesday night for Frances Wilson - wife of Todd Wilson who some of you know).

Here is an evenhanded summary of the 12 minutes of climate discussion: In Detroit, Democratic candidates actually did some climate policy debating. Useful suggestions coming from Tim Ryan/John Delaney about soil/air carbon sequestration; Gillibrand was right about the advisability to compete for the new climate jobs (China is leading the way); Williamson pointed out GW/CC’s environmental injustice; Sanders and Warren pushed the Green New Deal which people ought to read more than make fun of (I'm still reading/considering all the policy factors and costs vs the cost of “business as normal” in this deal). All good discussion.

Trump ignores it trying to pick up voters like David through unsupported sarcasm.

For those who want scientific facts here is another good source from NASA.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Tim Bonney » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:20 am

Oh Lordy, Flick s going to suck us into another Global Climate Change debate. Shall we also start a thread for the Flat Earth Society? They have members around the globe. <VBG>
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6292
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Joseph Patrick » Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:30 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.
    I was amused by the climate change section of the 2nd Democratic debate. Obviously Gov. Jay Inslee was easily the star of the night. But the other nine candidates made almost as much noise as he did. Here's the best description I can give that shows where the Dems are on this issue.


From Gerry Milligan...David, would a Bible reference help bring you into the 21st century when it comes to global warming? If you believe the Bible, read Acts 27:39 - 28:1 and then go to Google Earth and look for a sandy beach on Malta.
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Haruo » Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:41 pm

I think evidence of human involvement in/culpability for global warming and/or climate change would run up against David's entrenched economic/financial preconceptions, and the latter would win, at least for a few more years, probably long enough for most of us to be watching the eternal replays.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12806
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Sandy » Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:14 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:Oh Lordy, Flick s going to suck us into another Global Climate Change debate. Shall we also start a thread for the Flat Earth Society? They have members around the globe. <VBG>


The Flat Earth Society? When I hear that, the image of the three monkeys, "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" pops into my mind for some reason.

I hear that there is also renewed interest among those who claim the moon landing never happened. Maybe that needs to be thrown in here as well. :-)
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9443
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby David Flick » Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:09 am

David Flick wrote:
    I was amused by the climate change section of the 2nd Democratic debate. Obviously Gov. Jay Inslee was easily the star of the night. But the other nine candidates made almost as much noise as he did. Here's the best description I can give that shows where the Dems are on this issue.
    KeithE wrote:1Absolutely ridiculous David. Inaccurate cartoons will not do anything to sway the science. 2I say inaccurate since no real climate scientist believes that earthquakes or tornados are due to global warming. 3Increases in wildfires and flooding are due to global warming (more specifically the increase to >400 ppm CO2 since just 1950 from natural levels that oscillate between 180 and 280ppm).

      1. Ridiculous??! Naa, I say humorous. You, of all people, should know that cartoons aren't created for any sort of "accuracy" or to "sway science." They're created specifically for humor. I like good humor and enjoy laughing. I enjoy sarcasm that makes my point. I also enjoy sarcasm that opposes my view. I'm an equal opportunity enjoyer of good sarcasm. Sarcasm isn't poison. You can become angry at those tossing sarcasm your way. Or you can laugh along with the rest of us. Try laughing once in a while. You might like it. :-)

      2. Depends on who you call "real climate scientists" A good many of your climate change alarmist buddies declare that global warming causes tornadoes and forest fires. Here's just one example. However, your favorite cross-town whipping boy, Dr Roy Spencer, says otherwise. I'm with Dr. Spencer every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

      3. When will you guys ever learn that CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a causer of forest fires and flooding? Those particular claims just ain't so.
    I did not watch either debate (bridge on Tuesday night, traveling to Clemson for funeral on Wednesday night for Frances Wilson - wife of Todd Wilson who some of you know).

    Here is an evenhanded summary of the 12 minutes of climate discussion: In Detroit, Democratic candidates actually did some climate policy debating. Useful suggestions coming from Tim Ryan/John Delaney about soil/air carbon sequestration; Gillibrand was right about the advisability to compete for the new climate jobs (China is leading the way); Williamson pointed out GW/CC’s environmental injustice; Sanders and Warren pushed the Green New Deal which people ought to read more than make fun of (I'm still reading/considering all the policy factors and costs vs the cost of “business as normal” in this deal). All good discussion.

    Trump ignores it trying to pick up voters like David through unsupported sarcasm.

      Shucks, I'm not trying to pick up voters. I'm simply commenting on, and laughing at, the hysteria surrounding climate change alarmism.
    For those who want scientific facts here is another good source from NASA.

      Yes, that's a very good read if you're strong into climate change alarmism. Say, Keith, a great many of the people on your side of this debate say stuff like, "Listen to the 'scientists'." And "Read what the 'scientists' have to say about climate change." They also say "97% of all scientists agree... to such and such". Have you ever heard any one of the so-called climate change experts name even one of their scientists?? Have you heard one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates name a single climate scientist? If they're so almighty sure their climate change "scientists" are on target with their claims, why don't they document them by naming name a few of them? Who are all of these climate smart guys? Maybe they're talking about Bill Nye the Science Guy.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Tim Bonney » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:11 pm

Sandy wrote:
I hear that there is also renewed interest among those who claim the moon landing never happened. Maybe that needs to be thrown in here as well. :-)


You can toss in holocaust deniers as well as those who say that Freemasons (or the Illuminati) run the World Bank. ;-)
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6292
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Joseph Patrick » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:47 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:
Sandy wrote:
I hear that there is also renewed interest among those who claim the moon landing never happened. Maybe that needs to be thrown in here as well. :-)


You can toss in holocaust deniers as well as those who say that Freemasons (or the Illuminati) run the World Bank. ;-)


From Gerry Milligan...Timothy, in the early teens of this century, at Oklahoma Baptist University, in the religion department, no less, there was an associate professor who was a "new earther." As I moved away from Oklahoma, I do not know if he is still on the faculty.
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Tim Bonney » Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:07 pm

Joseph Patrick wrote:
From Gerry Milligan...Timothy, in the early teens of this century, at Oklahoma Baptist University, in the religion department, no less, there was an associate professor who was a "new earther." As I moved away from Oklahoma, I do not know if he is still on the faculty.


Scary Gerry. Its one thing to run into students like that. But, someone with advanced theology degrees?
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6292
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby KeithE » Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:35 pm

David Flick wrote:
David Flick wrote:
    I was amused by the climate change section of the 2nd Democratic debate. Obviously Gov. Jay Inslee was easily the star of the night. But the other nine candidates made almost as much noise as he did. Here's the best description I can give that shows where the Dems are on this issue.
    KeithE wrote:1Absolutely ridiculous David. Inaccurate cartoons will not do anything to sway the science. 2I say inaccurate since no real climate scientist believes that earthquakes or tornados are due to global warming. 3Increases in wildfires and flooding are due to global warming (more specifically the increase to >400 ppm CO2 since just 1950 from natural levels that oscillate between 180 and 280ppm).

      1. Ridiculous??! Naa, I say humorous. You, of all people, should know that cartoons aren't created for any sort of "accuracy" or to "sway science." They're created specifically for humor. I like good humor and enjoy laughing. I enjoy sarcasm that makes my point. I also enjoy sarcasm that opposes my view. I'm an equal opportunity enjoyer of good sarcasm. Sarcasm isn't poison. You can become angry at those tossing sarcasm your way. Or you can laugh along with the rest of us. Try laughing once in a while. You might like it. :-)

      2. Depends on who you call "real climate scientists" A good many of your climate change alarmist buddies declare that global warming causes tornadoes and forest fires. Here's just one example. However, your favorite cross-town whipping boy, Dr Roy Spencer, says otherwise. I'm with Dr. Spencer every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

      3. When will you guys ever learn that CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a causer of forest fires and flooding? Those particular claims just ain't so.
    I did not watch either debate (bridge on Tuesday night, traveling to Clemson for funeral on Wednesday night for Frances Wilson - wife of Todd Wilson who some of you know).

    Here is an evenhanded summary of the 12 minutes of climate discussion: In Detroit, Democratic candidates actually did some climate policy debating. Useful suggestions coming from Tim Ryan/John Delaney about soil/air carbon sequestration; Gillibrand was right about the advisability to compete for the new climate jobs (China is leading the way); Williamson pointed out GW/CC’s environmental injustice; Sanders and Warren pushed the Green New Deal which people ought to read more than make fun of (I'm still reading/considering all the policy factors and costs vs the cost of “business as normal” in this deal). All good discussion.

    Trump ignores it trying to pick up voters like David through unsupported sarcasm.

      Shucks, I'm not trying to pick up voters. I'm simply commenting on, and laughing at, the hysteria surrounding climate change alarmism.
    For those who want scientific facts here is another good source from NASA.

      Yes, that's a very good read if you're strong into climate change alarmism. Say, Keith, a great many of the people on your side of this debate say stuff like, "Listen to the 'scientists'." And "Read what the 'scientists' have to say about climate change." They also say "97% of all scientists agree... to such and such". Have you ever heard any one of the so-called climate change experts name even one of their scientists?? Have you heard one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates name a single climate scientist? If they're so almighty sure their climate change "scientists" are on target with their claims, why don't they document them by naming name a few of them? Who are all of these climate smart guys? Maybe they're talking about Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Hey David - Global warming is not a funny matter. Many (100,000’s) have died already due to its effects. You may think it is funny but it is in bad taste - far worse than Trump’s “too bad” to the burglary of Elijah Cummings.

Read this from Scientific American. Some quotes:
Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world, and fear that the number may well double by 2030 even if we start getting serious about emissions reductions today.

A team of health and climate scientists from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the University of Wisconsin at Madison published these findings last year in the prestigious, peer-reviewed science journal Nature.


Besides killing people, global warming also contributes to some five million human illnesses every year, the researchers found. Some of the ways global warming negatively affects human health—especially in developing nations—include: speeding the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; creating conditions that lead to potentially fatal malnutrition and diarrhea;


Besides killing people and illnesses:
increasing the frequency and severity of heat waves, floods and other weather-related disasters
.

David is right that CO2 is not a classic “pollutant" with possible toxic effects at normal concentrations (not even close even at 410 ppm; CO2 concentration must be 5000ppm before a workplace must be evacuated and higher than that for immediate death). But that is not how it harms people. It blankets the earth maintaining a temperature and many humans / animals / plants/ infectious diseases are sensitive to what might seem like (to untrained people like David and me) a minor long-term 1-2C change. Difference between me and David I believe the public health professionals*. Especially if confirmed by separate researchers reputable universities and are peer-reviewed in journals.

Backing up WHO’s findings is a study by Stanford civil and environmental engineer, Mark Jacobson, showing a direct link between rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and increased human mortality. He found that the added air pollution caused by each degree Celsius increase in temperature caused by CO2 leads to about 1,000 additional deaths in the U.S. and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma. Jacobson estimates as many as 20,000 air-pollution related deaths may occur worldwide each year with each one degree Celsius increase.

“This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation,” relates Jacobson. “The study was the first to specifically isolate CO2’s effect from that of other global-warming agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and meteorological changes due to CO2 itself increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air.


And contrary to what David claims global warming does enhance the probability of forest fires and flooding (among many other bad effects).

Andrew Wang is right - we are way too late but that does not mean we should let those 150,000 deaths or 500,000 illnesses double as most say will occur by 2030 if actions are not taken.

If we had acted on James Hansens’s call in 1988, we’d be in far better place right now - our temperature rise since the industrial revolution would be about 0.6-0.8C not the 1.3C we have seen.
Image
If we had effectively reacted to Hansen’s warning, we would be near 100% alternative energy by now and fossil fuels would be banned. But the fossil fuel industry failed to adapt to what was and still is needed.

As for names of climate scientists (if David really wants to study what they believe through their research), he should consult here and click on their names to dig into their research. Dave Archer’s books are particularly good (non-polemic, simple explanations, lets the data talk).

There is an approximately 97% consensus (varied between 91% and 100% surveyed, average= 96%) of climate scientists that humans have caused this condition and the condition needs to be actively treated.
Survey of Climate Scientists

David’s reading on this subject is increasingly becoming cartoons only.

Even when he finds an article and links it here, he seems to read the title only and misreads that. His one example link is entitled "Global Warming May Spawn More Southeast US Tornadoes”. It mostly says severe weather has been affected by global warming (which is true - see plot below) and postulated that tornado frequency may increase by 2080. It is did not say tornadoes have already increased due to global warming.

Image

*I do understand the physics involved relating CO2 to temperature and importantly proficient in data analysis through 44 years infrared and thermal related analysis; but environmental health issues are not my forte.
Last edited by KeithE on Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby Haruo » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:44 pm

What happened to reforestation?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12806
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 2nd Democratic Debate...

Postby KeithE » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:33 pm

Haruo wrote:What happened to reforestation?

You could ask SIRI not Keith.

But since you asked! I love learning.

Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation in the U.S. from no other place than the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Deforestation Rates
The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land, albeit at a different successional stage. So the deforestation here refers to lands that are converted from forest to some other purpose. Deforestation could increase in the future because tree pests and diseases such as bark beetles are becoming more prevalent in the face of climate change.

Reforestation Rates
In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period. The trend in reforesting areas has been driven by organizations such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Arbor Day Foundation. Reforestation efforts were critical to maintain forest cover starting at the beginning of the 20th century, and they are the reason that there is a net positive trend in forest growth today.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest