Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

[Ten oz]

15 hours ago, Outrider said:

Yes I do and what kind of truth we are talking about defines what kind of fear. Since you started with climate change I will go with that for the moment. 

If we replace all the coal plants with solar panels there would be disruptions and some pain felt by both of us I am sure. But when that has passed I think we would be really happy with the results and agree it was well worth the price. 

I repair equipment used to produce porcelain tile and I am very good at it but my skills are a lot more specialized than you might think. I couldn't quit here today and go have success doing the same thing in a coal plant and visa versa.

What about the 50 year old man who has spent his whole life gaining a better understanding of the process of burning coal to produce steam to spin the turbines that produce the electricity? You may think that this guy can learn new skills but he dosent. He feels that if you are correct about climate change  his way of life is over either way. So it's easier just to lie to yourself and when you are backed up the Trumps of the world it gets even easier. 

 

 

There are significantly more people employed in solar than there is employed in coal. I feel like you are proving the point that fear of losing what one has isn't actually behind climate denial. Coal only accounts for les than 8% of the total number of people working in energy. That isn'[t enough inidividual people to move the needle on public opinion and yet coal miners and their concerns is a centeral topic of national conversation. Clearly tens of millions of more people than those actually associated with the coal industy are taking up strong positions and denying facts. Fear isn't their reason; they don't work in the industry. Their jobs are not on the line and they are not being asked to be retrained. The 50yrs men who worked in coal their whole life are a very small group. Their individual fears don't explain the national obsession with their plight.

 

Far more people work in the retail industry and major retailers like JC Penny, Kmart, Mervyn's, Sears, Radioshack, and etc have been closing store fronts in mass all over the country. We doesn't fear of lossing jobs created a backlash against Amazon if fear of losing what one has had or known is really what the motivating factors are?

"Between 2001 and 2016, jobs at traditional department stores fell 46%, according to Labor Department data.That's a much steeper drop than other troubled industries. For example, coal mining jobs dropped 32% during the same 15 years. Factory employment fell 25%. About 60% of department store employees are female, compared to 47% of workers overall. Minorities, the elderly and teenagers are also far more likely to find jobs in department and discount stores than they are elsewhere. Teenagers hold 8% of department store jobs, compared to 3% of jobs overall. "

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/12/news/companies/retailers-dying/index.html

[waitforufo]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are significantly more people employed in solar than there is employed in coal. I feel like you are proving the point that fear of losing what one has isn't actually behind climate denial. Coal only accounts for less than 8% of the total number of people working in energy.

Yes, what you state above is the truth.  The point you are missing however is that employing more people to produce the same amount of energy is not a good thing.  You are talking about reducing productivity.  That will not create economic benefits, but economic hardship.  

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Far more people work in the retail industry and major retailers like JC Penny, Kmart, Mervyn's, Sears, Radioshack, and etc have been closing store fronts in mass all over the country. We doesn't fear of lossing jobs created a backlash against Amazon if fear of losing what one has had or known is really what the motivating factors are?

"Between 2001 and 2016, jobs at traditional department stores fell 46%, according to Labor Department data.That's a much steeper drop than other troubled industries. For example, coal mining jobs dropped 32% during the same 15 years. Factory employment fell 25%. About 60% of department store employees are female, compared to 47% of workers overall. Minorities, the elderly and teenagers are also far more likely to find jobs in department and discount stores than they are elsewhere. Teenagers hold 8% of department store jobs, compared to 3% of jobs overall. "

Amazon is increasing retail productivity.  That is good for the economy.  That is why no one is complaining.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The point you are missing however is that employing more people to produce the same amount of energy is not a good thing.  You are talking about reducing productivity.  That will not create economic benefits, but economic hardship.

Speaking of missed points, you're ignoring the downstream costs and risks imposed by continued use of coal and related fossil energies.

These are things like medical and health issues, damaging storms, lost access to drinking water, increased prevalence of insects and related disease vectors, impact to food chains and related agricultural ecosystems, etc.

Once those externalities and downstream costs are accounted for, we quickly see the value of a focus on renewables.  All of this is only further magnified when we account for the subsidies in place to help the fossil fuel industry.

Given that renewables are already at or below parity in most locations, simply moving existing subsidies from oil to solar/wind makes the economic gain you're here challenging / denying rather overwhelming.

Edited November 7, 2017 by iNow

[Outrider]

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

You took my post personally..

Maybe. You said everybody above the age of 70 was ignorant of climate change and my dad and my mom are in that group so maybe. I would still have problems if you had said the Chinese or any number of other groups on the same grounds. What you said was unfounded discrimination.

I have shown you where you are wrong.

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Well, make a test. Get modern school books (physics, chemistry, biology etc.), and read them. Make tests they contain, to check how much do you still know and remember from them. Test knowledge from books on your dad, and grandpas, giving them questions from books..

What? This thread is about climate change and I had assumed you meant our elders were ignorant of that now you implie they are ignorant of everything?

You make a test get out in the world and talk to some older folks. I have no need of a test I talk to my 70+ parents just about everyday and they are neither deniers or ignorant. 

"physics, chemistry, biology"

I am ignorant in quite a few areas on these subjects and so is my dad. But give him any kind of "modern" computer with any kind of soft or hardware malfunction and he will have it repaired before either us is through  troubleshooting.

[waitforufo]

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

Speaking of missed points, you're ignoring the downstream costs and risks imposed by continued use of coal and related fossil energies.

These are things like medical and health issues, damaging storms, lost access to drinking water, increased prevalence of insects and related disease vectors, impact to food chains and related agricultural ecosystems, etc.

Once those externalities and downstream costs are accounted for, we quickly see the value of a focus on renewables.  All of this is only further magnified when we account for the subsidies in place to help the fossil fuel industry.

Given that renewables are already at or below parity in most locations, simply moving existing subsidies from oil to solar/wind makes the economic gain you're here challenging / denying rather overwhelming.

Legitimate points but a full accounting of both sides needs to be made and done by people without biases and exaggerations.  If it is not done that way then the truth doesn't matter.

[Outrider]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are significantly more people employed in solar than there is employed in coal. I feel like you are proving the point that fear of losing what one has isn't actually behind climate denial. Coal only accounts for les than 8% of the total number of people working in energy. That isn'[t enough inidividual people to move the needle on public opinion and yet coal miners and their concerns is a centeral topic of national conversation.

Why only coal counts? When you add in oil and natural gas it's about 50/50 and thats me letting you have biofuels and nukes. Which while renewable are not really clean. I know I only addressed a small group of deniers but I stand by my proposal. According to your chart above oil, gas and coal represent over 1 million jobs I think their concerns should figure into any middle ground we can find.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Clearly tens of millions of more people than those actually associated with the coal industy are taking up strong positions and denying facts. Fear isn't their reason; they don't work in the industry.

Of course your right and if I came off as proposing a solution to the entire problem that was not my intention.

[Outrider]

On 11/04/2017 at 3:34 PM, Ten oz said:

Everyone had the same truth. Today parties are defined by different truths. By today's strandards Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 were all Democrats:

No they were Republicans back when they really were grand. Ironic considering your first sentence in the quote box. Part of the problem with finding middle ground is that neither party can resist taking shots at each and both find it easy to rewrite history whenever convenient. It's part of the reason I no longer identify as Republican.

On 11/04/2017 at 3:34 PM, Ten oz said:

Eisenhower - Pro NATO, Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was billions in govt infastructure spending, supported the Civil Rights Act of 57' & 60', placed National Guard members unnder federal control to enforce Brown vsthe board of education, made Earl Warren the Chief Justice of the supreme court, made HI a state, and coined "military industrial complex".

Nixon - Pro China, sought Vietnam withdraw, created the EPA, supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, supported the Philadelphia plan (affirmitive action),  and expanded medicare in 72'.

Ford - endoresedan Amnesty program for those who had refuse to fight in Vietnam, WIN program sought tax increases to combat inflation, signed the Education For All Handicapped Children Act, and was openly pro choice.

Bush 43 - Raised taxes, endorsed the Americans with Disabilities Act, reauthorized the Clean Air Act, increased legal immigration by 40%, resigned his NRA membership, pro NATO, and signed the Strategic Arms Reduction, Treaty.

 

Most of this shouldn't be considered partisan issues. The fact that you and others think they are is part of the problem.

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, Outrider said:

Maybe. You said everybody above the age of 70 was ignorant of climate change and my dad and my mom are in that group so maybe. I would still have problems if you had said the Chinese or any number of other groups on the same grounds. What you said was unfounded discrimination.

I have shown you where you are wrong.

Nope. You misinterpreted what I said, and put my words upside-down..

 

What I said you should read:

"C'mon, they ("D.Trump and his crew") are deniers ("in climate change") because they're ignorant..

See their ("D.Trump and his team") age- they are 70-80+ years old grandpas.

They ("D.Trump and his fellows") don't understand anything from the modern world."

[Ten oz]

13 hours ago, Outrider said:

Most of this shouldn't be considered partisan issues. The fact that you and others think they are is part of the problem.

In 2017 those are partisan issues. Pro choice Republicans no longer exist on the nationa levell. I didn't make it that way and identifying it for what it is so doesn't encourage it. The current Republican Party is not what it once was. As a party they havetaken a hardline on abortion, guns, taxes, immigration, and etc. It has been swinging that way for somtime. It isn't Trump who pushed it there. GOP has had 3 waves prior to Trumpism which pushed them further and further: Reagan revolution, Newt Gingrich's contract with America, and the Tea Party.

 

It is sort of off topic though to discuss why politics are so partisan. The topic is more about why people tolerate it. Why voters accept lies and don't think the truth matters. I think it is has a lot to do with the way people are educated. For a long time I have felt education in the country was going in the wrong direction. Too much is geared around multiple choice tests. To often I see people create flashcard or study guides for a singular test which focus entirely on key words but lack any actual definition or information. People pass their testes and move on often having learned nothing. The tests themselves serving as something akin to a game one must beat. The process in different in STEM fields as knowledge is compounding and one must actually know the prerequisite material which is one of the reasons why society struggles to get more young people into STEM despite all the associated great paying careers. STEM is too difficult to get into once one has conditioned themselves to pass tests of keywords rather than knowing things. The way people are getting educated, broadly, these days doesn't build a solid knowledge base. It is easy for politicians to lie about things like the Civil War, for example, because such a large portion of the population only ever memorized dates to pass a multiple choice test and didn't really learn/think about it any further. The Civil War is just something that happened and knowing that it happened is all one needed to know to pass. Developing a childs mind into adulthood this way establishes a type of apathy towards facts. They (facts) are just key words on a flashcard without context. Something to brain dump after a test; disposable formalities. Listening to a civics discuss in a classroom today is a cringeworthy experience.

[Raider5678]

On 11/4/2017 at 9:54 AM, Ten oz said:

Many politicians flat out ignore known facts in favor are arguing their preference.

 

I joined my student government and got chosen to go to my state capital with about 350 other kids to present a bill. The kids are from all over the state, from different schools, with the number of students going for the Senate is based on how many kids there are, and the number of students for the house is just any kid who's in the program.

One of the requirements for presenting a bill is that you need sponsors. A sponsor in the Senate, a sponsor in the house, and you. So three people supporting every bill. But the sponsors all have to be from the same delegation, meaning I'm limited to 7 other kids to find two sponsors for. And naturally, it usually comes to "I'll sponsor your bill if you sponsor my bill, and he'll sponsor our bills if we'll sponsor his bills."

And, usually, that results in sponsoring a bill that I don't particularly agree with. But, I have to defend adamantly in the Senate because I'm a sponsor for it. Which means denying facts. And whitewashing most of the bill to emphasize what the other kids would probably approve of, etc. 

I'm starting to realize why politicians have such a hard time just going with what they believe. Because I've also heard there are about 6 well-respected kids whos opinion in the Senate will sway most of the other kids who have been there before IF they're from the same party(Liberal vs Conservative). Which I can see how that'd apply to real life with the idea that if you don't support the big players you aren't going anywhere. Because the other party won't support you, and if you speak out against your own party then they'll supposedly speak out against your own bills.  

Corruption in a freaking student government, I imagine it'd be worse in the national government.

35 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

     It is sort of off topic though to discuss why politics are so partisan. The topic is more about why people tolerate it. Why voters accept lies and don't think the truth matters. I think it is has a lot to do with the way people are educated. For a long time I have felt education in the country was going in the wrong direction. Too much is geared around multiple choice tests. To often I see people create flashcard or study guides for a singular test which focus entirely on key words but lack any actual definition or information. People pass their testes and move on often having learned nothing. The tests themselves serving as something akin to a game one must beat. The process in different in STEM fields as knowledge is compounding and one must actually know the prerequisite material which is one of the reasons why society struggles to get more young people into STEM despite all the associated great paying careers. STEM is too difficult to get into once one has conditioned themselves to pass tests of keywords rather than knowing things. The way people are getting educated, broadly, these days doesn't build a solid knowledge base. It is easy for politicians to lie about things like the Civil War, for example, because such a large portion of the population only ever memorized dates to pass a multiple choice test and didn't really learn/think about it any further. The Civil War is just something that happened and knowing that it happened is all one needed to know to pass. Developing a childs mind into adulthood this way establishes a type of apathy towards facts. They (facts) are just key words on a flashcard without context. Something to brain dump after a test; disposable formalities. Listening to a civics discuss in a classroom today is a cringeworthy experience.

9

In my opinion, an American education system is simply a machine that creates a member of society. Who needs free thinkers? They mess up the system.

If it succeeds, you get someone who sure, may have gotten bad grades or good grades, but they're usually going to end up working some job for the rest of their life without a society driving career. 

If it fails, then either they succeed and become the members of society who drive it, like scientists, leaders, politicians, inventors, etc. 

Or. They become the unproductive members of society. Drug dealers, thieves, etc. 

 

But that's just my opinion.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 One of the requirements for presenting a bill is that you need sponsors. A sponsor in the Senate, a sponsor in the house, and you. So three people supporting every bill. But the sponsors all have to be from the same delegation, meaning I'm limited to 7 other kids to find two sponsors for. And naturally, it usually comes to "I'll sponsor your bill if you sponsor my bill, and he'll sponsor our bills if we'll sponsor his bills."

And, usually, that results in sponsoring a bill that I don't particularly agree with. But, I have to defend adamantly in the Senate because I'm a sponsor for it. Which means denying facts. And whitewashing most of the bill to emphasize what the other kids would probably approve of, etc. 

1) That limitation isn't in place for real legislation

2)There's no way to argue for a bill on its merits? That sounds like a horrible bill.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I joined my student government and got chosen to go to my state capital with about 350 other kids to present a bill. The kids are from all over the state, from different schools, with the number of students going for the Senate is based on how many kids there are, and the number of students for the house is just any kid who's in the program.

One of the requirements for presenting a bill is that you need sponsors. A sponsor in the Senate, a sponsor in the house, and you. So three people supporting every bill. But the sponsors all have to be from the same delegation, meaning I'm limited to 7 other kids to find two sponsors for. And naturally, it usually comes to "I'll sponsor your bill if you sponsor my bill, and he'll sponsor our bills if we'll sponsor his bills."

And, usually, that results in sponsoring a bill that I don't particularly agree with. But, I have to defend adamantly in the Senate because I'm a sponsor for it. Which means denying facts. And whitewashing most of the bill to emphasize what the other kids would probably approve of, etc. 

I'm starting to realize why politicians have such a hard time just going with what they believe. Because I've also heard there are about 6 well-respected kids whos opinion in the Senate will sway most of the other kids who have been there before IF they're from the same party(Liberal vs Conservative). Which I can see how that'd apply to real life with the idea that if you don't support the big players you aren't going anywhere. Because the other party won't support you, and if you speak out against your own party then they'll supposedly speak out against your own bills.  

Corruption in a freaking student government, I imagine it'd be worse in the national government.

I think we all understand why politicians lie. The question is why do the tens of millions of voters who have nothing to gain from those lies go along? 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The question is why do the tens of millions of voters who have nothing to gain from those lies go along? 

I think they think the representatives they elect from their "side" are supposed to be automatically accepted, and too often aren't held to any stricter criteria than "Yay, our side is winning". The other side is always worse, and even if your side clearly lies more often, the other side tells bigger lies, or more costly lies, or somehow worse lies than your side. With only two major parties, everything can look black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. It's simplistic and it works.

[iNow]

It's the same reason I keep rooting for my sports team even when they are losing and really suck. It's tribal and about self-identity

[swansont]

I think there are a fair number of voters who don't want nuance. Truth can be complicated. Much like with other ideology, there are people who prefer the simple answer (or explanation) which is wrong to the compex answer which is right.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's the same reason I keep rooting for my sports team even when they are losing and really suck. It's tribal and about self-identity

And there's that, too.

[Outrider]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's the same reason I keep rooting for my sports team even when they are losing and really suck. It's tribal and about self-identity

Yes! But how better to fight that? And even if you convince me to fight my bias and I convince you how do we spread that to a larger audience?

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Yes! But how better to fight that? And even if you convince me to fight my bias and I convince you how do we spread that to a larger audience?

I saw a video where a bunch of strangers were put together and pretty much separated automatically into basic ethnic and gender groupings around the room. Then they started asking them to group differently (people who play piano over here, people who have a tattoo over there). It showed how surprisingly matched up people who looked nothing like each other could be.

I'm convinced our society is far more aligned than we're led to believe by those who profit more from our conflicts than our alignments. I would fight these biases by finding the similarities that will overcome our differences.

[LaurieAG]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm convinced our society is far more aligned than we're led to believe by those who profit more from our conflicts than our alignments. I would fight these biases by finding the similarities that will overcome our differences.

It's interesting to look at how individual political parties elect their leaders to get an indication on how things are going around the world, democracy wise. I'll just point out a few details with respect to parliamentary systems I've come across lately and leave it to the US members to compare these examples with the US system. 

In the UK the leader of the UK Labor party is elected by the members of the Labor party alone and all MP's only get 1 vote as a party member. While 70% of the elected Labor MP's are right wingers (and would ditch their left wing leader in an instance) they only get 1 vote so the party leader is in the 30% minority of left wing MP's in this nominally left wing party.

In Australia the 88 parliamentary MP's in the Australian Labor Party have half of the vote for the party leader while all the members of the political party have the other half. 40% of the party members and 60% of the right wing party MP's voted for the right wing party leader and this wing drove deregulation, sold off the national bank and then sold the national communications company (the right/left wing pricks are in the process of selling it again). Is a left wing party controlled by the right a nominal right wing political party?

In Ireland Fine Gael has the least democratic system.  https://www.finegael.ie/process-fine-gael-leadership-election-2017/

Votes will be weighted in accordance with the Fine Gael electoral college rules, with the 73 members of the Parliamentary Party (PP) accounting for 65% of the total vote, almost 21,000 party members accounting for 25% and 235 local representatives (232 councillors and 3 Údarás na Gaeltachta members) accounting for the remaining 10% of the vote.

So it just seems that the more right wing your politicians are (especially in supposed left wing political parties) the more right wing the entire political system will turn out to be. 

 

[Ten oz]

"Mr Trump said on Saturday he had had "two or three" brief conversations with his Russian counterpart at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) summit in the port city of Da Nang. "He (Putin) said he didn't meddle. He said he didn't meddle. I asked him again," he told reporters on Air Force One as he headed to Hanoi. He said he believed Mr Putin was "very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country"."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41954436

 

Along the lines of the truth not mattering Trump continues to bold face lie about Russia's meddling in our election choosing to cast it as partisan nonsense. Meanwhile even Trump's own administration acknowledges the meddling, Republicans in both the House and Senate have already voted to sanction Russia for it, and the Mueller investigation has already begun charging people in the U.S. for colluded with the Russian. At what point do Trump's continued lies become crimes: knowingly misleading the public, aiding our enemies, and interfering with ongoing investigations? Trump is POTUS !! There is no plausible deniability here. Trump has been briefed.

Trump's own Admin:

  Defense Secretary James Mattis on Thursday said that there was "very little doubt" Russia has attempted to interfere in democratic elections in the past.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/319832-mattis-very-little-doubt-russia-has-interfered-in-elections

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly warned his Russian counterpart that alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election is a "serious" incident.

"We talked about it in the discussion we had with [Russian Foreign] Minister [Sergey] Lavrov yesterday — and trying to help them understand just how serious this incident had been and how seriously it had damaged the relationship between the U.S. and the American people and the Russian people," Tillerson said

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/345553-tillerson-russian-election-meddling-created-serious-mistrust-between

at the Aspen Security Forum, Kelly was among several top national security officials who backed the government's conclusion that Russia carried out a campaign of cyberattacks and fake news to influence the election in favor of Trump.

Kelly joined CIA Director Mike Pompeo, White House Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism adviser Tom Bossert and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats who all expressed their support last week for the intelligence community's findings. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/28/john-kelly-recently-broke-trump-russia-election-hacking/521844001/

[tar]

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 6:58 AM, Ten oz said:

There are significantly more people employed in solar than there is employed in coal. I feel like you are proving the point that fear of losing what one has isn't actually behind climate denial. Coal only accounts for les than 8% of the total number of people working in energy. That isn'[t enough inidividual people to move the needle on public opinion and yet coal miners and their concerns is a centeral topic of national conversation. Clearly tens of millions of more people than those actually associated with the coal industy are taking up strong positions and denying facts. Fear isn't their reason; they don't work in the industry. Their jobs are not on the line and they are not being asked to be retrained. The 50yrs men who worked in coal their whole life are a very small group. Their individual fears don't explain the national obsession with their plight.

 

Far more people work in the retail industry and major retailers like JC Penny, Kmart, Mervyn's, Sears, Radioshack, and etc have been closing store fronts in mass all over the country. We doesn't fear of lossing jobs created a backlash against Amazon if fear of losing what one has had or known is really what the motivating factors are?

"Between 2001 and 2016, jobs at traditional department stores fell 46%, according to Labor Department data.That's a much steeper drop than other troubled industries. For example, coal mining jobs dropped 32% during the same 15 years. Factory employment fell 25%. About 60% of department store employees are female, compared to 47% of workers overall. Minorities, the elderly and teenagers are also far more likely to find jobs in department and discount stores than they are elsewhere. Teenagers hold 8% of department store jobs, compared to 3% of jobs overall. "

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/12/news/companies/retailers-dying/index.html

Ten Oz,

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

The facts are we get a small percentage of our energy needs filled by solar.   Most of our energy needs are filled by natural gas, coal and nuclear power.  Renewable sources like water and wind and Sun are significant and growing, but solar is just a percent or two.   It might be a higher percent in California, which is basically dessert in a lot of places and gets a lot of sun and does not do the heavy industry requiring coke and smelting and such that has been farmed out to other countries and industrial areas in this country (who by the way are also on the Earth) so employing 20 percent of your workforce to provide 2 percent of your energy is no great usage of manpower.

Sensei,

I am an old guy, but do not deny the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is causing warming of our planet and melting of the ice caps.  But we have been burning stuff for thousands of years, and burning a whole lot more in the industrial age.   I am sure there is a tremendous amount of mining, manufacturing and transportation required to make a solar cell. These activities add to the carbon in our air.  

So I think it is you that is the denier of fact.  You drive your car, fly to visit relatives, have you nick-nacks shipped in from all corners of the globe overnight, run you computer on energy you know not how it is produced, and call me a denier of fact because I actually face them and  chose to use the resources of my planet to make myself employed, to fulfill my needs, before I worry about what resources will be left for people I don't know, after I am dead.

Regards, TAR

Oh, and I live in the Northeast, where I need to burn gas to heat the water to heat my house.  Something else not required in So Ca.

And the people around the campfire in the chilly night away from the electric grid below and above certain latitudes require heat, or they will freeze.

 

and there is probably, in your numbers, people employed to remove the snow from the panels, and people employed to call me on the phone to get solar panels installed on my roof...will you come over and take the snow off my panels, should I have some installed?   Is there any data on the carbon costs to produce and install a solar?

Perhaps we should ask manufacturers to put a label on their stuff that would tell us how much carbon was released into the atmosphere to bring that product to its point of use.  That way we could make an informed choice to buy local or have something shipped in, and can choose to not use stuff that requires a lot of mining and heat to make, and that leaves hard to recycle components behind.   

I wonder what is done with old, non working solar apparatus.   Back a few years there was a big push to put pipes on the roof that would heat the water that you used to heat your house, to supplement your use of fuel to heat the water.   I don't see this stuff around any more.  It must be in some landfill somewhere. Solar panels will break, get outdated, or replaced for one reason or another, requiring the remanufacture of new panels.  I don't think that using acres of good farm land or retail space, or living space for solar fields, is the only way to go, to save the planet.

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

37 minutes ago, tar said:

Ten Oz,

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

The facts are we get a small percentage of our energy needs filled by solar.   Most of our energy needs are filled by natural gas, coal and nuclear power.  Renewable sources like water and wind and Sun are significant and growing, but solar is just a percent or two.   It might be a higher percent in California, which is basically dessert in a lot of places and gets a lot of sun and does not do the heavy industry requiring coke and smelting and such that has been farmed out to other countries and industrial areas in this country (who by the way are also on the Earth) so employing 20 percent of your workforce to provide 2 percent of your energy is no great usage of manpower.

 

If you read the post I was responding to it was about jobs. The poster was saying that fear of losing employment was the issue. Your reply isn't addressing my post in context.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

Sorry, I was responding to that particular posting of the data showing the amount of people employed in solar, and the OP contention that Trump denies facts.

There are, in the "Trump lies" arguments factors pro and con that conclusion.   It is obvious to me for instance that Trump does not deny people have an effect on the planet, but instead, asks what should be done, going forward.   The facts are, we need to fire kilns to get stuff done and if we refuse to burn coal here, it will be burned elsewhere and we will have to buy the product from the world, instead of selling it to the world, and these economic realities are important to the success and the way of life, of the people in the U.S.

I apologize again, for the fact I have not read the thread, at least the posts between the one where you posted the data on employment in various energy fields, so I might be out of context, but the thread is about facts and middle ground, and it does no good trying to prove someone else is a liar, when they might not be denying facts at all, but looking at a situation from another point of view than you are looking at it.   For instance, take the Russian Collusion issue.

Trumps says that other countries, other than Russia, could have, and probably did engage in computer hacking, and false information spreading, attempting to affect our political process.  He has been briefed on these things, and probably knows the truth about these things.  More truth than we private citizens are privy to.  When asked whether he believes Putin, when Putin says he did not engage in the hacking of our election, Trump answers that he is not going to call Putin a liar, when there are areas, like in fighting ISIS and denuclearizing North Korea where cooperation with Russia is required.   This is taken by Trump haters as Trump lying and denying Russia's hacking of our election.  This is taken by me, as Trump accepting the fact that it happened and moving forward in the best way possible.    Like if you catch a family member in a bold face lie, but don't call them on it, because more important family dynamics are served by ignoring the lie and dealing with the everyday realities of taking care of the family.

Or another example of what people use as proof that Trump is a liar that is a misquote in itself, is Trump's comment that the audience for his inauguration was the largest ever.  People then showed a comparison shot of the mall for Obama, compared to the Mall for Trump, and attempted to show it was an obvious lie.  I had watched the coverage, and the Mall shot was a little prior the actual hour of the inauguration so there actually where a few more folk at the actual hour than when the shot was taken, enough to cause Trump to look out at the crowd and see it, especially near the Capital, as significant.  But most importantly, his comment was talking about a world wide audience and people quickly took it as him denying that Obama drew a larger in person crowd.   Obama did draw a larger in person crowd, and even at the White House, the crowd was sparse, and Trump downplayed that, but the fact that the inauguron drew the largest worldwide audience ever, was probably a true statement.

So to address the OP I think the middle ground is the important ground to stake out.  That area that deals with the many and complex middle issues between the extremes.

And philosophically one should always consider the fact, that the exact same thing, framed in the first person is good, second person is neutral and third person is bad.

As in 

I am exploring my sexuality.

You are loose.

She is a whore.

Or,

I am thin.

You are skinny.

He is emaciated.

The middle ground is only achieved by looking at the vast area between the extremes from a first person point of view.

As in considering that global warming is happening, and we need to burn fuel to stay warm, so how best do WE proceed, to both protect the planet and maintain our way of life.

Regards, TAR

[Ken Fabian]

The concerns about climate mitigating actions have always been much broader than those directly involved in fossil fuels. The prospect of more expensive energy motivates all kinds of ordinary people and business leaders to oppose strong climate actions - Tar's winter heating for example. A whole new range of regulatory requirements around emissions motivates all kinds of ordinary people and business leaders to join in opposition to emissions regulations - without any direct consideration of the validity of the science on climate. Those concerns flow through business associations and lobbyists to political parties and politicians and through their own workforce as fears for job security within businesses with rising costs and reduced profitability. The concerns about energy costs and reliability as well as government regulation in an area formally free of it are shared by those with no direct involvement with fossil fuels.

These mostly economic concerns tend to have more direct and immediate impacts on choices than longer term and broader concerns about climate consequences, no matter that over the longer term the accumulated and irreversible climate impacts will include significant and accumulating economic costs. Studies of the relative costs seem to agree that prevention, even with more expensive energy is more cost effective than adaptation.

It's never been up to environmentalists or manufacturers of solar panels to solve the climate problem - that has tended to happen by default, by the failures of more mainstream influences to lead and act decisively. And I think to some extent perceptions of climate change being a "green" issue has been created and reinforced through deliberate efforts to discredit legitimate concerns by associating the issues with extremist ideology and irrationality that has tended to be viewed as impediments to economic growth and the benefits that delivers.

That climate change has serious and enduring economic consequences, affecting long term prosperity and security is a truth that can always be put aside in the face of more immediate business and living cost concerns. Except that it does have consequences and costs.

Those associated with political environmentalism or who are optimistic about the use of solar power do not have a monopoly on solutions. What I often see is disagreement with the solutions some offer as reason to reject strong actions to reduce emissions - including by misrepresenting the fundamental science about climate change and expert consideration of the consequences - rather than as reason to strongly promote alternative solutions.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, tar said:

There are, in the "Trump lies" arguments factors pro and con that conclusion.   It is obvious to me for instance that Trump does not deny people have an effect on the planet, but instead, asks what should be done, going forward.   The facts are, we need to fire kilns to get stuff done and if we refuse to burn coal here, it will be burned elsewhere and we will have to buy the product from the world, instead of selling it to the world, and these economic realities are important to the success and the way of life, of the people in the U.S.

You are posting your own feelings about what you choose to accept. Trump has denied that human caused climate change and his spokes people refuse to clarify.  His pivot is to discuss the economy. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGEzFbRl-g8   At the one minute mark O'Reilly asks Trump specifically if he believes if humans impact climate. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uJCrYuZ7yI  The WH's Press Sec won't say whether or not Trump believes human impact climate.

4 hours ago, tar said:

Trumps says that other countries, other than Russia, could have, and probably did engage in computer hacking, and false information spreading, attempting to affect our political process.  He has been briefed on these things, and probably knows the truth about these things.  More truth than we private citizens are privy to.  When asked whether he believes Putin, when Putin says he did not engage in the hacking of our election, Trump answers that he is not going to call Putin a liar, when there are areas, like in fighting ISIS and denuclearizing North Korea where cooperation with Russia is required.   This is taken by Trump haters as Trump lying and denying Russia's hacking of our election.  This is taken by me, as Trump accepting the fact that it happened and moving forward in the best way possible.

4 hours ago, tar said:

So to address the OP I think the middle ground is the important ground to stake out.  That area that deals with the many and complex middle issues between the extremes.

And philosophically one should always consider the fact, that the exact same thing, framed in the first person is good, second person is neutral and third person is bad.

So you are basically saying that is order to find middle ground I must accept your denials and deflections? Trump has denied climate and has denied Russia hacking in his own words many times. I could spend the day copying you links. Your refusal to acknowledge what is so plainly and painfully true is a major barrier to middle ground. 

[tar]

Ken Fabian,

I agree that climate change is causing more violent swings in weather.  Stronger storms, warmer winters, colder winters,  and things like the melting of the ice pack in the Hudson Bay, and the polar vortex out of round we had in 2014 where super cold air plunged down to Atlanta and warm weather reached up to Maine as the waves came around the Earthy.  This, as youo say, has economic repercussions, and prevention might be less expensive than adaptation, but the industrial age, volcanic eruptions, the oil fires burning in Kuwait, and the burning of 7 billion people right now, is stuff we cannot take back.   Going forward we can, should and will attempt to reduce our carbon emissions, use less paper and plant trees to sequester carbon and address the situation burning cleaner coal and using the smoke stack scrubbers and everything else we do, and utilizing new technologies as they are discovered.   But adaptation is required.  The dikes have to be built up a few feet as required.  People have to stop building multimillion dollar homes a couple feet above high tide   People that live near the shore should expect extreme weather and build to suit, and have a place to go, when the authorities say move out of the way of a powerful storm.

I recycle my paper one week and my bottles and cans the next.  I live in an area protected by the Highlands act (which I voted for) in NJ and cannot build except on existing footprints to protect the watershed for many reservoirs in the area.  I, on purpose do not use fertilizers on my lawn, or excessive insecticides, since I drink well water whose integrity is set by the actions of the people that live up the ridge, and my actions determine the quality of the water that is in the wells of people below me.  I do however mow my lawn with a walk behind, self propelled power mower, which burns gas.  I use a gas powered snow thrower in the winter.  I use a gas powered blower to clean off my driveway before I put sealant on it, etc.

I am responsible for some portion of the 1.8 degree increase over the last 200 years.  I have driven over a million miles in cars for business and pleasure, have flown to Japan 3 times, back and forth to Germany several times while in the army and to Mexico on vacation, and all over the states for business.  I am part of the avalanche.  But no individual snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche.  

So it comes down to, in my estimation, everybody doing their best to not foul the Earth up, for other people.  But there is a certain unrealistic economic component to lobbying for more expensive, cleaner energy.  That problem is, that most of the world can not afford it, and the people that can afford it, wind up paying for the excesses of others, while denying their own pleasure.

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

Trump, in that clip did not deny global warming,  he downplayed its importance as the number one issue facing the U.S. and suggested that the people making it a number one issue stood to make a lot of money.

On the denial of Russian hacking, I would tend to agree with you, but with qualification.  The whole thing started when Trump joked that he hoped Russia had hacked Hilary's unprotected private server, so we could see what was in the 33,000 emails she deleted.  Hilary, knowing through her connections to the justice department and the president that Russia really was hacking our internet, through the secrets gleaned from the clip drive Snowden gave them, used this to spin a collusion story to discredit the candidate Trump, and after the election and during the transition, continued to use this thread to discredit the President, and make a case for his election to be considered illegitimate.   In this climate, Trump needed to defend himself from these false claims.

Regards, TAR

In fact, if you think about it.  Discrediting the legitimacy of the President of the United States is a much more serious anti democracy move, than having back channel communication with another world leader, during the transition.

Consider the information Hilary was privy to as wife of a president, senator, secretary of state, high muckitymuck in charge of the global initiative, high position in the DNC and the briefings allowed to the democrat candidate for president, and thought to be the likely winner in that contest.   She knew and knows things we don't know, and Trump did not know, during the election cycle.  And as Trump has suggested many times since,  if Obama was aware of Russia hacking our election, why did he not stop it.