OT: Pew Current Events Quiz

James Arther does seem to be reliable Tea Party outlet. That's more or less orthogonal to the verifiable facts involved.

Now that Trump has dumped Priebus

it is going to interesting to see whether James continues to take Trump seriously. At some point or other the Republicans are going to have to recognise that Trump is a liability, and they have to re-evaluate the reliability of thier sources.

ly

hored

the

lia

ment

ered

the

ything wrong.

aim all you want that all this Trump stuff in the news is media fabrication , but that's a ridiculous claim. It's pretty difficult to fabricate interv iews and press conference clips, then have the participant "clarify" or bui ld upon what they previously said.

e Fox has become "too liberal", that's when you know Trump's base simply di slikes what the real news is.

It's not giving John Larkin the kind of news he likes to hear. Sadly, the A merican public should be kept up-to-date on the juvenile antics of the naci ssist they elected as president. It will make it easier when the Republican s are forced to dump him.

It has. Everybody is pussy-footing around it.

Not solid proof that CO2 is good (which it probably is), but absolutely disproof that AGW is destroying crops and killing people.

If the upward swing sustained for 100 years, you might risk a small sum.

and GDP has risen along with CO2 concentration? Oh brother....

I don't understand why you default to believing changing the concentration of an environmental compound is beneficial. The entire ecosystem has evolv ed to work with how it was for hundreds of thousands of years. Think what would happen if a person began breathing a different oxygen concentration p ermanently, or has their body temperature changed by even 1 degree, or had their blood iron changed from normal. To think we "know better" has always been proven wrong.

Give it time. Heatwaves and weather pattern changes will not be beneficial overall. People settled and began farming specific crops that grew well i n certain areas. GW is certain to throw this all in disarray.

I was in a stock that was on this sharp of an upward trend I'd be thinking about bailing real soon, as would any smart investor. Just saying....

It would be nice if the Earth was still hospitable to most humans in 100 ye ars.

People breath different oxygen pressures all the time as they change altitude. And people thrive in different temperatures from tropics to the arctic. We seem to be pretty resiliant that way. And normal body temperature varies between individuals (mine is around 98.0) and changes in individuals, too, over time. Life didn't evolve to be fragile.

A lot of people did evolve to be afraid. It's probably a survival trait for most people.

It will especially be nice if it stays warm. Interglacials are the exception, and don't last forever.

John hasn't got the message about correlation not equalling causation. If you plant more acres, food yield can go up even as the yield per acre declines.

As for AGW not killing people

killed 6300 people. It wasn't "caused" by AGW, but it was more intense than it would have been if the earth's surface were one degree Celcius cooler, and there had been 6% less water vapour in the air in that area to power the typhoon.

During ice ages atmosphere CO2 levels drop down to about 180ppm. It's not the only mechanism involved in make the planet's surface temperature lower during ice ages, but it is perhaps the most important one.

We won't have another ice age until atmospheric CO2 levels get a lot lower than they are now.

on of an environmental compound is beneficial. The entire ecosystem has ev olved to work with how it was for hundreds of thousands of years. Think wh at would happen if a person began breathing a different oxygen concentratio n permanently, or has their body temperature changed by even 1 degree, or h ad their blood iron changed from normal. To think we "know better" has alw ays been proven wrong.

I said concentration, not pressure. It's 20.9% at all altitudes.

And: "For humans and many animals to sustain normal functions, the percenta ge of oxygen required to sustain life falls within a small range. The Occup ational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, determined the optimal rang e of oxygen in the air for humans runs between 19.5 and 23.5 percent."

This has little to do with body temperature if we're talking warm-blooded h umans.

I said "has their body temperature changed by even 1 degree", not a change from the nominal 98.6. If your body temperature was forced to change by on e degree you'd know it. You really do interpret things as you see fit don' t you.

No it did not, but it doesn't take much to drive a species to extinction, a nd some are more fragile than others.

And a lot of people evolved to believe what they want, even science-minded people, regardless of what science says

years.

I don't know what this proves, other than ice ages are periodic, temporary, and if you didn't know, caused by slight changes in the Earth's tilt....al l of which are not true of AGW.

That is wildly conservative, and it's partial pressure of O2 that matters, not percentage.

I don't hide under the bed quaking in fear because something might change a little.

Better take a book and a flashlight under there.

ntage of oxygen required to sustain life falls within a small range. The Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, determined the optimal r ange of oxygen in the air for humans runs between 19.5 and 23.5 percent."

So now you know more than OSHA? Besides, Ignoratio elenchi.

ge from the nominal 98.6. If your body temperature was forced to change by one degree you'd know it. You really do interpret things as you see fit d on't you.

Perhaps not, but it seems you are the type that decides to take a nap on th e porch after multiple tornado warnings.

You obviously have no clue about positive feedback mechanisms, which is sur prising since you're technically minded.

ry, and if you didn't know, caused by slight changes in the Earth's tilt... .all of which are not true of AGW.

There's a certain amount of stupidity to someone who discounts all credible threats. But this is nothing new. The financial crashes of 1929 and 2008 and a large avalanche in Peru that killed thousands were predicted and ign ored by most. But I'm sure it's more comforting for you to cover your ears and sing "la dee da".

Cowards will always be with us. I do what I can to make the world better, and enjoy what I have.

I have probably contributed a few million times more to worldwide energy efficiency than you have. But I worry less. And I think that AGW is very bad science. We're more likely to have a cold spell coming up than a hot one, but really, nobody knows.

We could do something about particulates without destroying the world economy by shutting down fossil fuels.

ble threats.

Bubba Redneck isn't a coward because he chose to fight an alligator to prov e a point. But the alligator took his leg. So despite Bubba now being the bravest guy in town, he's not looking so smart with a missing leg. Not to mention walking is now very difficult.

So now this is a pissing contest?

Bubba Redneck didn't worry about losing a limb, either.

Despite basic incontrovertible facts....

I think you might mix up weather and climate. Not to mention, NASA, you kn ow the agency that got us to the Moon and landed a rover on Mars and has fa ncy satellites, disagrees with you:

-record-globally

But of course you'll either say their interpretation of the data is wrong, because you know more than them about this sort of thing, or that they're p art of the government and in on the conspiracy. And that the Moon landing is fake.

I don't think anyone is proposing to destroy the economy by doing something so sudden and drastic. The increasing rate of solar and wind installation s hasn't destroyed the economy yet, and have actually lowered electricity r ates while being better for the environment.

Your refusal to agree with research that if anything is moving away from yo ur opinion seems more politically motivated than rooted in facts.

rcentage of oxygen required to sustain life falls within a small range. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, determined the optima l range of oxygen in the air for humans runs between 19.5 and 23.5 percent. "

hange from the nominal 98.6. If your body temperature was forced to change by one degree you'd know it. You really do interpret things as you see fi t don't you.

the porch after multiple tornado warnings.

surprising since you're technically minded.

orary, and if you didn't know, caused by slight changes in the Earth's tilt ....all of which are not true of AGW.

ble threats.

It's the coward who refuses to see the world as it is.

Sadly, thinking that "AWG is very bad science" reveals a poor grasp of what constitutes good science. The claim that we're more likely "to have a cold spell than a hot one", when we are going through the fastest warming episo de on record does indicate that somebody doesn't know what he is talking ab out - and it's John Larkin.

Shutting down fossil fuel wouldn't destroy the world economy. Burning fossi l fuels and capturing and sequestering most of the CO2 generated would make generating power that way expensive, but by no means impossibly expensive.

It would make the rights to extract oil and coal a whole lot less valuable, and a whole lot of very rich people don't like that idea at all, and are s pending a lot on spreading lies about what is going on, every one of which John Larkin believes.

What percentage oxygen does OSHA reccomend for SCUBA divers at 100m

With gas it's usually partial pressure that's significant.

rcentage of oxygen required to sustain life falls within a small range. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, determined the optima l range of oxygen in the air for humans runs between 19.5 and 23.5 percent. "

Sure. People dive deeper than about a 100 feet have to use funny gas mixtur es to prevent damage from too high a partial pressure of oxygen, and people who climb Everest need to carry oxygen bottles.