Forums

Stephen Hawking and 374 other scientists speak up for climate pact (and against Donald Trump)

Stephen Hawking and 374 other scientists speak up for climate pact (and against Donald Trump)

http://www DOT geekwire DOT com/2016/stephen-hawking-climate-pact-donald-trump/

Tesla-David | September 22, 2016

We are screwed if the U.S. is stupid enough to vote Trump in as president. We have to take action on AGW/Climate Disruption seriously and enact a carbon tax. This article today shows how serious things are as Greenland Ice sheet is melting 7% faster than previously thought. The land Ice on Greenland alone will raise sea level by 20 feet or more. Idiots that do not accept the science and facts of reputable scientists need to get out of the way and let the rest of us act to prevent the worst outcomes from becoming reality by our inaction. We have to tools to reduce our carbon emissions, we only lack the political will and a public that demands action.

Tesla-David | September 22, 2016
Tesla-David | September 22, 2016
RedShift | September 22, 2016

@tesla_david

The US *is* stupid enough to vote Trump into power.

Seriously thinking a move to Canada in a few years.

SCCRENDO | September 22, 2016

@redshift. Hate to break this to your but any negative impact on climate by Donald Trump will impact Canada as well

dsvick | September 22, 2016

Seriously thinking a move to Canada for a few years.

Fixed it for you ...

Dramsey | September 22, 2016

We have to tools to reduce our carbon emissions, we only lack the political will and a public that demands action.

We have already dramatically reduced our CO2 emissions. More than any other country in the world, I believe. So I'm not sure why you seem to think we haven't, or, for that matter, why whom we elect as President would make any difference one way or the other.

makobill | September 22, 2016

Sure... Run away and leave us picking up the pieces,eh? I got nothing but love for Canada, but what happens in the US has direct impact on our Canadian brethren. Hell, this is going to be a global problem. A nightmare future, regardless of the election winner at this point in time....

johndoeeyed | September 22, 2016

@Dramsey
The reductions the US made are not dramatic at all, and are not the largest except with cherry picked starting points i.e. the US emissions kept rising after other countries emissions were declining, and then the US reduction was taken from the highest point. The US emissions don't even meet the Kyoto protocol (the US was one of the few countries not to ratify) of 5% below the 1992 levels. The US actually significantly increased their emissions.
Other countries have reduced their emissions by far more per capita eg: the EU
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/emissionpercent2.png

johndoeeyed | September 22, 2016

I meant '5% on 1990 levels by 2008-2012'

RedShift | September 22, 2016

Listen guys, I love skiing. The way it's going, I fear I can have a 'normal' skiing season only when it's El Niño time. Canada still will have some good skiing. I hear Whistler is very nice. Plus, have you seen the Bay Area traffic man.

Remnant | September 23, 2016

@ Tesla-David (September 22, 2016)

<< We have [the] tools to reduce our carbon emissions, we only lack the political will and a public that demands action. >>

This is reminiscent of an old German saying, "Schuster, bleib bei deinem Leisten", which, approximately, translates as "Cobbler, stick to your tools".

The advice should be addressed to Stephen Hawking and the other 374 scientists who have the nerve to advise Americans on things these scientists know nothing about and understand even less, such as politics and economics.

Pitiful ... !!!

SO | September 23, 2016

@Remnant - who do you suggest instead?

SCCRENDO | September 23, 2016

@Remnant. Yeah Remnant. What does Stephen Hawkins know? He is a foreigner who hasn't read the constitution like you. You're an idiot!!!!.

Mike83 | September 23, 2016

LOL. Angry fossil fuel troll.

RedShift | September 23, 2016

@remnant

*clap clap*

Idiotest post of all award.

Dramsey | September 23, 2016

The reductions the US made are not dramatic at all...

What can I say, cowboy? The people whose job it is to keep track of these things, like the United States Energy Information Administration, disagree with you. A simple Google search reveals dozens of citations. Even green web sites say we're leading in this regard.

Your link showing per-capita reductions doesn't support your assertion that other countries have reduced per-capita emissions more than us since it does not include the United States. In fact it's particularly useless since it is a bare graph with no links to source data or citations of where it came from.

So it may well be the case that other countries are doing better in reducing their CO2 emissions, but so far you haven't presented any evidence for this.

Mike83 | September 23, 2016

No surprise that fracking guys like Harold Hamm fund Trump keeping the 1% in control of our government.Lots of money for AstroTurf trolls .and funding media; particularly Murdochs rags. Fox news viewers are particularly susceptible.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/meet-oil-billionaire-quietly-shaping...

johndoeeyed | September 23, 2016

@Dramsey
As I said, the US deliberately cherry picks the starting point as their maximum emissions to make their reductions look good. When they do not cherry pick the starting point, for instance using the Kyoto starting point, their emissions reductions are not good.

I assumed you could easily work out for yourself the US per capita reductions. It does not take much effort. You do not even have to work it out. Just knowing the the US population has not increased much gives you the answer that the US reductions are much less than the EU. I should not have to spoon feed this stuff to you.

I have presented the evidence. You seem to not understand it.

Remnant | September 24, 2016

@ RedShift (September 23, 2016)

<< *clap clap* >>

This, of course, is a sample of the intellectually impaired and uncouth posts in this thread.

But here is a key sentence in the ecowatch article, "Scientists previously accounted for the flow of mantle, but they underestimated its effect."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, let's do some planning for the next Greenland ice sheet melt error. Shan't we?

Why are we even trying to discuss the Greenland ice sheet melting as an AGW item. Mantle flow is a larger contributor.

The ire of the racist, brain-dead "gentleman" from South Africa (#SCCRENDO) notwithstanding, we are off-topic. Dig?!

SO | September 24, 2016

@remnant - who do you recommend has the proper credentials to speak about this?

johndoeeyed | September 24, 2016

@Remnant
Please read and try to understand the scientific, and popular press, articles.
Your posts make it obvious that you have failed to comprehend them.

Remnant | September 24, 2016

@ johndoeeyed [troll] (September 24, 2016)

<< Please read and try to understand the scientific, and popular press, articles.
Your posts make it obvious that you have failed to comprehend them. >>

Please follow your own advice.

RedShift | September 24, 2016

@remnant

OK, how about actually answering what many have been asking of you: whom would you suggest with proper credentials to comment then? Dispel my impression of you being the typical incoherent, angry, ignorant and arrogant denier.

'Racist from South Africa'

There is no evidence he is remotely racist. Plenty of evidence you don't have any idea what is being talked about on this thread.

SCCRENDO | September 24, 2016

Remnant prefers fact free discussions. He doesn't trust foreigners. Takes after Donald
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-warns-that-clinton-...

Tesla-David | September 24, 2016

I proudly stand with the 375 scientists who are accurately assessing the impact of a "Drumph" presidency. He would be an utter disaster, racist bigot, misogynist, and a conman to boot.
@remnant, you are an idiot!

SCCRENDO | September 24, 2016

@Tesla-David +100

Remnant | September 25, 2016

@ soudman (September 24, 2016)

<< who do you recommend has the proper credentials to speak about this? >>

Primarily, the American citizens who know the founding principles and the history of their country, as well as the economic and political underpinnings of the American 2016 electoral debates.

Analytical minds from across the world can certainly contribute arguments and opinions, but not arrogant pronouncements based on their success in particular fields of knowledge.

Stephen Hawking and the 374 scientists who have taken a side in the American electoral debate are merely pushing towards the outer reaches of their narcissistic universes and have nothing to show for American, economic, or political "credentials".

SO | September 25, 2016

@remnant - Do you have any specific names of people that would qualify? (I should have made my original question more clear.)

SCCRENDO | September 25, 2016

@Remnant. Number 1 would be an idiot like you who claims to have read the constitution to understand all about climate change. Where exactly does the constitution and the founding fathers say anything about climate change and how to solve it? Could you point us in the right direction so we can also understand??

On the other hand I would tend to believe someone like Stephen Hawking who can visualize at least 8 dimensions more than you. Even England has smart people. As do South Africa.

Btw. Interesting accusation that I am a South African racist. Do you have any evidence or is this something you saw in your version of the constitution? The first thing that ever came out of your mouth was how foreign born individuals are not qualified to vote in the US. Not only are you are a bigot but a stupid one.

science-isbetter | September 25, 2016

@Remnant

You write "The advice should be addressed to Stephen Hawking and the other 374 scientists who have the nerve to advise Americans on things these scientists know nothing about and understand even less, such as politics and economics."

Almost all of the scientists among the 374 are Americans. Their institutions range from MIT to Caltech to Harvard to The University of Chicago and on and on.

Let me emphasize an element of your writing: "these scientists know nothing about and understand even less, such as politics and economics."

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. I stopped verifying the backgrounds of the scientists who signed the letter when I got to the 12th one: Luc Anselin who is a Senior Fellow at NORC at the University of Chicago. NORC is an abbreviation for the National Opinion Research Center. From the NORC webpage "Anselin’s publications include many hundreds of articles and several edited books in the fields of ... econometrics, economics."

Dr. Peter Agre, also a signer, has an MD.

I could go on...but.

RedShift | September 25, 2016

@remnant

As science-is better said it :"Almost all of the scientists among the 374 are Americans. Their institutions range from MIT to Caltech to Harvard to The University of Chicago and on and on."

Your move, dumbass.

Remnant | September 25, 2016

@ science-isbetter (September 25, 2016)

<< Almost all of the scientists among the 374 are Americans. ... I stopped verifying the backgrounds of the scientists who signed the letter when I got to the 12th one: Luc Anselin who is a Senior Fellow at NORC at the University of Chicago. NORC is an abbreviation for the National Opinion Research Center. >>

Well, Americans should attend some electoral town meetings and figure out whom they want to vote for. If they are single issue voters, because their scientific background doesn't allow them to figure out more issues, so be it, though I would expect a scientist to be able to develop a more complex analysis of the candidates. However, it should be clear to them that, no matter how successful they've been in a particular field of science, that success does not entitle any of them to more than one vote.

But then they can address their puzzlement to NORC and get Luc Anselin to do some spatial urbanistics computations or national opinion matricial analysis, in order to discover the voting trends and, perhaps, tell them whom to vote for, since he's already at it.

Point is that all of them (Anselin included) are groping in fields that are as foreign to them as anything else. We must reject the notion that excellence in some special field of knowledge entitles anyone to tell us whom to vote for. That's both arrogant and stupid.

Yes, scientists can be stupid too, when they stray outside of their area of expertise.

At this point, it is only reasonable for me to quit this thread, in which invective has supplanted debate.

Good luck to you and good bye.

johndoeeyed | September 25, 2016

@Remnant
You said "Point is that all of them (Anselin included) are groping in fields that are as foreign to them as anything else."
You have not even bothered to check. You simply spouted your ignorant opinion.

SO | September 25, 2016

It's too bad Remnant couldn't name even just one person he thinks is qualified. Does a person exist that does meet his criteria?

RedShift | September 25, 2016

Remnant,

Good bye, and good riddance. Carry on your bomb throwing and displays of complete ignorance in other threads.

SCCRENDO | September 26, 2016

@Remnant. Its pretty simple. These scientists unlike you understand climate change. They also understand that the Dems are working to remediate it. Trump and his fellow Republicans are deniers. As seems the libertarians. This is but one of many reasons to vote Dem not Trump and the rest. Remnant feel free to hang out at your KKK meetings to obtain more info.

Mike83 | September 28, 2016

It is hard to believe Republicans believe in liars but that is not a lie. Mentally questionable individuals with even a little power is dangerous to everyone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-change-tweet_us_57eac2...

J.T. | September 29, 2016

Trump supporters should be furious with him for being so cavalier in his approach to the election. Monday night left no doubt as to who wants it more. I am no fan of Hillary but have to give her credit for working hard and putting in the hours to prepare herself for the most important debate in history. Trump approached it like Obama approached ISIS, sorry ISIL, like it was a junior varsity debate club exercise.

It must be hard to support a candidate who doesn't even want the job enough to work for it.

Silver2K | September 29, 2016

Obama's approach to ISIS was right all along. The middle east needs to take care of their own problems, we can't keep sacrificing young men for them. Obama did something when he saw the new and untrained Iraqi army run away.

Obama is not an army general, he has advisors as does any other POTUS, But Obama gives the go ahead based on intelligence.

Silver2K | September 29, 2016

Loved it when trump mentioned Reagan's tax cuts as a success when it was a failure. The tax cuts were such a failure, he raised it to the same level Obama has it now. He blames Obama for pulling out of Iraq too early when Bush actually set the date. Let's for instance forget the date Bush set, the Iraqi prime minister did not want to extend the security agreement anyway. we had no choice, they wanted us out and was told we can take care of ourselves.

Tesla-David | September 29, 2016

These articles pretty much clarifies the differences between HRC and Drumph on AGW/Climate Disruption. Anyone who votes for this dumbass (Drumph) is mentally deficient IMHO. https://www.carbonbrief.org/us-election-tracker-republicans-democrats-en...
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-hates-solar-energy-91224541e0d9#.o0j22eauv

Tesla-David | September 29, 2016

"Drumpf"

Silver2K | September 29, 2016

Cruz disagreeing with Reagan on Colbert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKxXtOyMmYc

Reagan's tax cut fails on revenue

Silver2K | September 29, 2016
Mike83 | September 29, 2016

LOL
Make Mars great again. Send drumpf there and if he doesn't have $10 billion pass the hat. Steven outdid himself. Great video.

EmpiricalAudio | September 29, 2016

If you examine the data from DOE and NOAA you will find that the increase of CO2 from powr plants in the US has only flattened out, not decreased, and only because of transitions to natgas from coal in the last 10 years E missions from cars are still on the rise and getting worse due to cell phone use while cars are in park.... Really stupid. ALlso ound 5 % of parked cars are idling.

MitchP85D | September 29, 2016

Anybody who thinks the outcome of a political election will have some sort of affect on climate needs to pull their head out of where the sun don't shine!

dsvick | September 29, 2016

@Redshift - "Your move, dumbass."

You owe me a cup of coffee .... the keyboard, I think, will dry.

SCCRENDO | September 29, 2016

@Mitch. Anyone who thinks that electing Trump or even (are there any countries outside the US?) Johnson would not have a negative impact on climate change needs to pull their head out of where the sun don't shine!

Pages