[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

I think that Hillary and Clinton will win the primaries, and I really don't want them to. I mean, it's great that America might get a female president and all, but Hillary is a really bad choice. She tried to help her husband be president, and it didn't work out so well. She was a deceptive secratary of state. Trump is even worse. He has next to no clue how to be president, which means all the desicions he makes would actually made by someone else. Him making bad choices is bad enough, but a bunch of advisors would be even worse. Even if I were old enough to vote, I probably would sit this one out.

I'm not sure how we got to talking about climate change in the Presidential Election thread. It's not even in the top 10 of important problems for the American public at the moment and it will not play a significant role in the election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

While we're talking about it though, I would add that there is one thing about climate science which has always bothered me. Namely, its reliance on computer projections. Climate modeling is incredibly difficult with millions of constantly changing input variables, some of which such as solar irradiance occur entirely outside our realm of control. I've seen many dire predictions over the last 30 years fail to materialize. I've also never seen a computer model account for how ancient changes to Earth's climate were initiated nor accurately track their historical progressions based upon hard evidence such as ice cores.

So why then are we constantly pressured to immediately and fundamentally alter the nature of our economies and energy production to the tune of trillions of dollars based upon what by all accounts are at best incomplete methods of simulation? That's not keeping with the spirit of the scientific method.

Since government can influence our affect on the world's atmosphere, I think the subject is valid. Computer modeling is being used precisely for the reason you posted above. It is too complex to do any other way.

The debate has always seemed to be about what is going to happen. Modeling is being used to try and determine that and efforts are being made to make them more accurate over time. Modern weather forecasting is maybe 150 years old and has progressed to be quite sophisticated.

My thoughts, like yours, are that computer models will never be completely accurate nor will they be found acceptable by many people who will only be convinced by events I think we'll not be able to undo at this point.

Of the people I've quoted I think Sagan aligns best with these thoughts in that we can't deny that we are doing enough things on a large enough scale that the earth's atmosphere is changing and will alter weather and climate as a result. Whether they change for the good or the bad is left to be seen.

Although his Bachelor's degree was not in a scientific field, I find this quote rather solid and very similar to Pascal's Wager:
“If we take all these actions and if it turns out not be true, we have reduced pollution and have better ways to live, the downside is very small. The other way around, and we don’t act, and it turns out to be true, then we have betrayed future generations and we don’t have the right to do that.” - Tony Blair

That's the thing though, the potential downside is not at all very small. A great many people in the developed world will likely see their standard of living decline at least in the short term as governments divert funds to subsidize unprofitable, albeit cleaner forms of energy to the tune of billions of dollars. Poorer, developing countries who depend on cheaper forms of energy stand to have their entire economy disrupted by such a move driving millions back into poverty.

There is in fact a great potential opportunity cost if in the future it turns out we misdirected the wealth of an entire generation based upon flawed data. I'm not saying we shouldn't act but I do believe that the statement, "We have no other choice" is erroneous.

Thanks for saving me a load of typing

We always have a choice. Do you think it would be better to keep using fuels that cause problems or invest in cleaner and sustainable ones?

Our 2015 Federal budget allocated 3% to science and 54% to the military. Wikipedia lists our military spending as 3 times greater than China's, about 7 times Russia's and greater than the next five highest military budgets in the world.

We may be misdirecting the wealth of an entire generation, but it is certainly not because we are buying too many microscopes.

"Dealing with global warming doesn't mean we have all got to suddenly stop breathing. Dealing with global warming means that we have to stop waste, and if you travel for no reason whatsoever, that is a waste." - David Attenborough

If you mean a proposed law I don't care to dig around to find one, but legislation that would encourage employers to move manufacturing jobs back to our country would both improve our economy and cut down on pollution. I would favor a candidate who proposes ideas that lean in that direction.

I do not think a wall is the answer, but I also think that us paying immigrant workers low wages, in turn drives other wages down. If those spots were left unfilled, employers would raise wages to fill them. I would be willing to pay more for lettuce knowing that the people who picked it made a decent living from it instead of living in squalor as many of them do.

Do you know of any proposed legislation like you have asked me for? Please link them if you do.

I think that without the benefit of a proven science to guide us the ideal solution is one which would seek to utilize the best aspects of all forms of energy to maximum effect so long as their negative impacts could be reasonably minimized. My concern is that in our haste to make the transition we're going to needlessly hurt a lot of people in the process. Ask the families in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky who have mined for generations how they feel about losing their livelihood as a result of new Environmental Protection Agency regulations shutting down dozens of coal fired power plants across the nation. I guarantee you that climate change is not high on their list of concerns.

That's a good point, although we still use coal to generate about a third of our electricity. All of the subjects we have been discussing are more complex than we might think with a lot of gray to them and I appreciate what you are saying.

A couple of related industries that I think have benefited from regulation are environmental testing and waste management services. I know a guy who got into testing back in the 90's and it seemed like a pretty nice job.

I think we feel frustrated and powerless when talking about things like this. Our vote is one in more than 100 million, the electoral college lie between our vote and the candidates in the case of the President, and our politicians are influenced by money and power to put the welfare of a few over the rest of us.

I think discussion is good, not as much to change minds, but for the discussion itself as it draws attention to issues and forces people to think about them and their own roles in causing or resolving them. Many minds are better than a few and it sets us up for better solutions when and if our representatives take notice.

I was thinking earlier what value my vote might have and how to calculate it. I am sure there is a lot I didn't take into account, but if I have 1 vote of 118 million(I forget where I got that figure from) and take the total estimated political advertising for 2016 and lobbying expenditures for 2015, I get $779.66, which is actually more than I expected. It makes me feel worthless and valuable at the same time.

The carbon tax seems wacky to me as well. You end up with things like people riding jets around when they could be taking less wasteful transportation then telling us that they are making up for it in other ways, leaving me in the meanwhile collecting tin cans to be recycled and turning down my thermostat.

I see your point about the 54% and 15.88%. I chose the figure I did because it was on the discretionary spending chart along with science and seemed to tie into the comments Hoops' and I were making regarding choices.

The 15.88% is on a chart which includes money the government is obligated to spend legally. You are right that the 15.88% and 54% represent the same amount of money, but I am quite sure that there is a lot of leeway in how and how much is spent.

I have a question that is more in line with the original post. So far it has appeared that Trump is likely to win the Republican primary. The nominees are grudgingly saying they would be supportive of him if he wins but I have also seen reports that Republican leaders are trying to figure out how to nominate someone else. Paul Ryan is one name I saw come up a couple weeks ago.

Do you think they might successfully nominate someone else in a way that will upset his supporters? If they do, what do you think will happen? Some Trump supporters will vote Republican anyway, some may write trump in, and some may vote for someone from another party. I think many of the people who are supporters will probably stick with whoever is nominated. Has anyone seen discussion on this topic?

I suggest the add first more options to vote on. Not sure why the USA is only giving 2 options. trump is anyway a no-go. And the other side not sure. not life in the USA. but it would be more fear if people would get a third one to vote on. The current USA system is not fair at all.

Worse case would mean you need to choice between bad and bad. Fair ? In this case only one option would be remain to choise from.

I think he's referring more to adding another Republican from the Republican party to the Republican race for the nomination there. If they did that now and everyone loved him a man could have a chance of beating Trump.

Isn't the GOP already split? Trump has split the party, to my knowledge.