Climate change

Started by somatichypermutation, November 22, 2013, 07:22:22 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sambo

Quote from: West of the Rockies on December 03, 2013, 12:24:18 PM
I agree with your observations, Sambo.  I suggested early in this thread that someone was cherry-picking data to support his/her point that climate change is either a big, fat hoax, or that it is all part of a naturally-occurring cycle.  I'll hear someone exclaim in January, "Hey, it's 25 degrees outside where I live; so much for global warming!"  One has to look at the big picture:  rising seas, certain gases in the atmosphere, polar ice samples, etc.  Sure, there is some disagreement among scientists -- that's pretty normal and healthy, actually.

Anyway, as I said before, I'd love it if the whole thing were a big hoax (climate change), but I don't think it is.  Ignoring the warning signs could prove our undoing as a species.


I think this would be the weirdest coincidence and the most substantial cause and effect fallacy in the history of mankind, if what's happening to our environment is not man made.

What scares me the most is this methane time bomb we have up in the arctic that has been studied by American, Canadian, and Russian scientists for over a decade now and is barely the subject of popular discourse.

Google: Methane Arctic


onan

Quote from: Sambo on December 03, 2013, 02:10:00 PM

I think this would be the weirdest coincidence and the most substantial cause and effect fallacy in the history of mankind, if what's happening to our environment is not man made.

What scares me the most is this methane time bomb we have up in the arctic that has been studied by American, Canadian, and Russian scientists for over a decade now and is barely the subject of popular discourse.

Google: Methane Arctic

I have it on good authority from Exxon that everything is fine.

steelbot

Quote from: Sambo on December 03, 2013, 02:10:00 PM

I think this would be the weirdest coincidence and the most substantial cause and effect fallacy in the history of mankind, if what's happening to our environment is not man made.

What scares me the most is this methane time bomb we have up in the arctic that has been studied by American, Canadian, and Russian scientists for over a decade now and is barely the subject of popular discourse.

Google: Methane Arctic
DID NOT google Methane Arctic - but these crazy geological and climactic changes we "just discovered" during our runs as humans are very insignificant.  The earth will spin tomorrow, just don't know if we'll be along for the ride or not.  Pretty sure that any severe shifts in the climate that happen at one time such as a volcanic super eruptions, or Methane upheavals from below the surface of the oceans, whatever, there will be NO way to prevent it nor a reason to worry. (if you lived near it, your death is quick)  further away, you may have to worry, but it becomes a global problem soon enough. I wouldn't worry that the methane is gonna get ya before the crazys in the street during la revolucion =P

Juan

The trouble is the term "climate change."  What the hell does that mean?  At least "global warming" has a meaning. 

As I've said before, I grew up 250-miles from the nearest ocean.  We kids would go out to the abandoned kaolin mines and pick up shark teeth, fossilized sand dollars, etc., that were millions of years old.  Archaeologists also dug up a whale skeleton that looks nothing like a modern whale.  (BTW, you should have heard the fundamentalist Christians try to explain that.)

Are the changes between then and now climate change?

Quote from: Ben Shockley on December 02, 2013, 02:53:17 AM
It's easy to understand, Nowhere:  Property rights über alles, baby!

For the actual big-time capitalists, it's a matter of their owning:
-- oil wells and other extraction sources
-- machinery and patents for processing extracted resources
-- politicians who protect the capitalists' property and even grant them subsidies to augment their already-insane profits.   
Those capitalists "own property," and they by god mean to milk it for all it's worth before they spend one extra cent on altering or overhauling their methods.   To hell with the costs for the rest of the world:  it's THEIRS and they can DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH IT, so tough luck for you, nyah-nyah !!

As for what exactly "Juan" meant by loss of rights etc., I really do wish he had elaborated, although it's possible that he's actually never thought beyond the soundbite / bumper sticker.   Most likely he has just been conditioned by the capitalists' defensive propaganda, so that he feels the "false consciousness" of thinking that their interests are his.  Just like *Boy's bugaboo is that "all social action meant to improve the human condition leads inevitably and rapidly to mass murder by Judaeo-Slavs / Chinese / Cambodians," it may be that "Juan" has developed the knee-jerk belief that all such social action "leads inevitably and rapidly to his loss of material status symbols."   It might be, for example, that in his effort to emulate capitalist callousness, Juan has become more worried about his being able to drive something designed as a military utility vehicle down to the corner store to get a pack of hearing-aid batteries than he is about other humans and living creatures trying to exist on this planet.

You know: these same knee-jerk "conservatives" usually don't miss an effort to genuflect to the military.  I wonder what they would have thought of the significant material-lifestyle sacrifices that Americans were called on to make in the Second World War, in order to support the military and it's efforts.  I wonder if Juan and his ilk would have been screaming about "loss of property rights" etc. in WW2.  I guess they don't see protecting the environment as being as important as defeating the Axis.
In fact, dig his "logic:"  To extend my WW2 analogy, and by Juan's "logic," in late 1942, after already fighting the Japanese for 7+ months and having ground troops on Guadalcanal for 3 months, when the American public heard of the landings in North Africa, they should have immediately demanded the resignation if not execution of FDR and the entire high command of the U.S. military.  We had been fighting for 7+ months in the Pacific and still hadn't won, and NOW that goddamn Rosenfeld is wanting to send more boys to die fighting a totally different enemy?!?  Those Democrat sonsabitches are exceeding their powers!   Right?
Anything worth doing is able to be finished soon, right?  We've been picking up roadside trash since Iron Eyes Cody cried upon seeing it, so the atmosphere should be healed too by now, right?

What's funny is seeing people who fall far short of owning capital property whining about "property rights" precisely as the capitalists have conditioned them to do.   Juan, if you're nothing else, you're well-conditioned ideological cannon-fodder.   Like an overage Alex P. Keaton, just keep talking the talk, and eventually the big boys will notice what a good loyal lackey you are, and let you in the club and make you an honorary billionaire and just maybe take you away to that pristine planet they are keeping in reserve for when they have finally fucked this one up beyond all hope of reclamation.

Right?



Ever wonder why the Left is always attacking the oil companies?  It's because they know the West and our way of life currently rely on cheap energy.  So 'Big Oil' is 'greedy', 'Big Oil' 'starts wars', 'Big Oil' is responsible for 'man made' Global Warming.  Meanwhile they do anything and everything they can to attack coal, natural gas infrastructure, existing energy plants, and to block new ones.


Here we have the Perfesser informing us that we 'all' own the oil.  I guess he would have us each go out with our buckets and bring back what we need.  Either that or he is suggesting we nationalize oil production and seize those companies and their assets. 

I wonder how that would work out.  First we should remember that what really matters is how does oil get from the ground to the end user (in the form of gasoline) at the lowest cost.  Is that done more efficiently by someone trying to earn a profit to do it, or by one bureaucrat drawing a salary telling another bureaucrat drawing a salary to go do it?  What does history tell us?  What does our own experience with the public and private sectors tell us?  Of course the Marxist is never interested in any of that.  They just know better and know they can do it better.  Despite the results whenever they've tried it.

It takes a substantial investment to explore for oil deposits, acquire the rights to the land, drill it, pump it, transfer it from the site to the refinery, refine it, haul it to the gas station and sell it.  And pay taxes on it all along the way.  The end result is a gallon of gas currently around $3.50.  And that includes federal gas excise taxes, states gas excise taxes, sales taxes, all the various taxes the oil company, the pipeline, the truckers, the port, the refiners, and the gas station pay then pass on to their customers through the price of the gas.  That is still cheaper than a gallon of milk, beer, fruit juice, ice cream, or even bottled water.  It's essential, always available, and cheap.  So the Left attacks.


What about who owns it?  Or who should own it?  When people have built some wealth, by working for it and saving some, and then invest it elsewhere, it still represents something they have worked for and own.  If that happens to be part of an oil operation, why is that different from a farm or any other type of business?  It isn't.  I guess the Marxist would say 'the people' own the farm and those other businesses too.

Let's say the Marxist is successful, and is able - with government force - to seize the farms, private and commercial real estate, factories, stores, oil fields, mines, everything.  Does anyone think a gallon of gas would still be $3.50?  Still always be readily available?  Is that how it was in the old Soviet Union?  No.  Yet a more capitalist Russia now produces more oil than any other country.  Today gas is plentiful and cheap in Russia.

But the Left would have us believe just the opposite.  After all, since there is that much 'greed' in Big Oil, surely it would cost us less if that greed were eliminated, right?  Just look at the example of ObamaCare.  We were told the same thing - there was massive greed in the Health Care Insurance industry.  We were told ObamaCare would bring each family's premiums down by an average of $2500 per year.  Easy peasy.  Utopia was just around the corner.  How is that working out?

Sunday one of Obama's longest and most trusted advisors - David Plouffe - was on the talk show circuit telling us ObamaCare would be 'working great' by 2017.  Set aside the fact that he was unintentionally telling us nothing could be or would be fixed until after Obama left the scene.  But will it really be fixed by then?  Is health care utopia really only 4 years off?  Never mind the seriously ill who have recently lost their insurance - their deaths in the interim will just be statistics.

No, now is probably not the best time to rail about nationalizing the oil companies, Mr. Perfesser.  I know the Left never looks behind them to see the misery and destruction they've caused, but the rest of us do.  So perhaps berating the oil companies and suggesting 'we all' own it may not be the wisest course while we are still trying to dig out from under the absolute disaster known as 'ObamaCare'.



onan

Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 03, 2013, 08:34:16 PM


Ever wonder why the Left is always attacking the oil companies?  It's because they know the West and our way of life currently rely on cheap energy.  So 'Big Oil' is 'greedy', 'Big Oil' 'starts wars', 'Big Oil' is responsible for 'man made' Global Warming.  Meanwhile they do anything and everything they can to attack coal, natural gas infrastructure, existing energy plants, and to block new ones.


Here we have the Perfesser informing us that we 'all' own the oil.  I guess he would have us each go out with our buckets and bring back what we need.  Either that or he is suggesting we nationalize oil production and seize those companies and their assets. 

I wonder how that would work out.  First we should remember that what really matters is how does oil get from the ground to the end user (in the form of gasoline) at the lowest cost.  Is that done more efficiently by someone trying to earn a profit to do it, or by one bureaucrat drawing a salary telling another bureaucrat drawing a salary to go do it?  What does history tell us?  What does our own experience with the public and private sectors tell us?  Of course the Marxist is never interested in any of that.  They just know better and know they can do it better.  Despite the results whenever they've tried it.

It takes a substantial investment to explore for oil deposits, acquire the rights to the land, drill it, pump it, transfer it from the site to the refinery, refine it, haul it to the gas station and sell it.  And pay taxes on it all along the way.  The end result is a gallon of gas currently around $3.50.  And that includes federal gas excise taxes, states gas excise taxes, sales taxes, all the various taxes the oil company, the pipeline, the truckers, the port, the refiners, and the gas station pay then pass on to their customers through the price of the gas.  That is still cheaper than a gallon of milk, beer, juice, ice cream, or even bottled water.  It's essential, always available, and cheap.  So the Left attacks.


What about who owns it?  Or who should own it?  When people have built some wealth, by working for it and saving some, and then invest it elsewhere, it still represents something they have worked for and own.  If that happens to be part of an oil operation, why is that different from a farm or any other type of business?  It isn't.  I guess the Marxist would say 'the people' own the farm and those other businesses too.

Let's say the Marxist is successful, and is able - with government force - to seize the farms, private and commercial real estate, factories, stores, oil fields, mines, everything.  Does anyone think a gallon of gas would still be $3.50?  Still always be readily available?  Is that how it was in the old Soviet Union?  No.  Yet a more capitalist Russia now produces more oil than any other country.  Today gas is plentiful and cheap in Russia.

But the Left would have us believe just the opposite.  After all, since there is that much 'greed' in Big Oil, surely it would cost us less if that greed were eliminated, right?  Just look at the example of ObamaCare.  We were told the same thing - there was massive greed in the Health Care Insurance industry.  We were told ObamaCare would bring each family's premiums down by an average of $2500 per year.  Easy peasy.  Utopia was just around the corner.  How is that working out?

Sunday one of Obama's longest and most trusted advisors - David Plouffe - was on the talk show circuit telling us ObamaCare would be 'working great' by 2017.  Set aside the fact that he was unintentionally telling us nothing could be or would be fixed until after Obama left the scene.  But will it really be fixed by then?  Is health care utopia really only 4 years off?  Never mind the seriously ill who have recently lost their insurance - their deaths in the interim will just be statistics.

No, now is probably not the best time to rail about nationalizing the oil companies, Mr. Perfesser.  I know the Left never looks behind them to see the misery and destruction they've caused, but the rest of us do.  So perhaps berating the oil companies and suggesting 'we all' own it may not be the wisest course while we are still trying to dig out from under 'ObamaCare'.

since most oil is on public lands (in this country) and is owned by everyone and since big oil gets lots of tax breaks and subsidies, and since they seem to be writing the laws that should be regulating those same corporations... fuck them with the same 2 foot horse cock used for religious censors. I am also sick of these oil companies and their less than stellar safety records.

building wealth? you think oil companies built wealth... they fucking stole it. And continue to do it every day.

I am so fucking sick of lackies that seem to think any kind of regulation is bad... Exxon has yet to clean up the Valdez spill. Yet some want to trust these people to give sage advice on the environment.

You think gas is cheap because you can't see past your nose, which seems to be pretty far up someone's backside.

I pretty much stay put of these arguments, but your simplistic approach is beyond reason. Look up the Gillette Syndrome. then tell me about cheap gas. it is a much more complicated issue than some nice rich guy who just wants everyone to have a nice day.

we should have started to drop the oil standard in the 80's, we didn't. It would be nice to live in a world that didn't need to be protected, well I guess you don't think it does.

7 sisters oil companies now 6 (or less sisters ) since some of the old Standard oil monopoly split ups are coming back together like the Terminator  liquid metal guy. (Exxon -Mobil)(Texaco Phillips)(SOHIO-Amoco-BP) EXXON-Mobil is Rockefeller outright and then there is the Banksters that own them all (JP MORGAN-Chase is Rockefeller, Then BP, Shell are all royally owned and with Rothschild in the mix.
Everytime someone comes up with alternatives that would eventually develop into a shift I energy the inventors get knocked off.(Malov,  others involved in hydrogen research, or have rediscovered some of  Tesla's work, Townsend, ~~~~~) The people that figured how to get useful HHO electrolysis to sustain driving a car on water.  I saw a unit a friend of mine developed in Hawaii that was able to run his 6KW generator of HHO produced. He had figured out that  he was able to use a 600 Hz current pulse seems to be the key to achieving enough hydrogen production to run the generator. He  figured out that the 600 Hz frequency had some harmonic with the hydrogen and caused it to remain as  a mono molecule long enough to derive some energy from it as it rejoined the oxygen in the engine their is an implosion-explosion going on in the combustion. (!?!?)

Sambo

Paper boy you said so much and it ended up in Obama care....

I'm still trying to figure out who the left are if they aren't living in the west? Who are they and where? Are they in caves smoking poppies?

Cartels shouldn't exist. Period.

From individuals and our daily lives to large power structures there exists a tendency to want to stop time. It's bizzare that in an age of constant learning some of us are constantly learning how to keep things as unchanging as possible


Quote from: Sambo on December 03, 2013, 10:45:27 PM
... I'm still trying to figure out who the left are if they aren't living in the west? Who are they and where?...



Who said they aren't living in the West? 

I'm still trying to figure out why it is their toadies hate us so much.  Guilt?  Insanity?  Complete lack of understanding of how the world works?  Needing something in their lives to replace religion?

Those at the top - them I get.  They want a one-world government with themselves in charge.  They don't really give a crap about ideology, but they do need governments that have taken - or been handed - power over the population.  The the next easy step is to control those governments.  A United States with a free armed people is very much in the way. 



Quote from: onan on December 03, 2013, 09:05:50 PM
since most oil is on public lands (in this country) and is owned by everyone and since big oil gets lots of tax breaks and subsidies, and since they seem to be writing the laws that should be regulating those same corporations... fuck them with the same 2 foot horse cock used for religious censors. I am also sick of these oil companies and their less than stellar safety records.

building wealth? you think oil companies built wealth... they fucking stole it. And continue to do it every day.

I am so fucking sick of lackies that seem to think any kind of regulation is bad... Exxon has yet to clean up the Valdez spill. Yet some want to trust these people to give sage advice on the environment.

You think gas is cheap because you can't see past your nose, which seems to be pretty far up someone's backside.

I pretty much stay put of these arguments, but your simplistic approach is beyond reason. Look up the Gillette Syndrome. then tell me about cheap gas. it is a much more complicated issue than some nice rich guy who just wants everyone to have a nice day.

we should have started to drop the oil standard in the 80's, we didn't. It would be nice to live in a world that didn't need to be protected, well I guess you don't think it does.



This reads like a knee-jerk reaction by someone who has been hoodwinked by the Left.   You didn't happen to vote for Obama and support Occupy did you?


The US government should probably be charging more for the extraction of natural resources on Federal lands.  When Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska she demanded and negotiated much better deals from the oil companies drilling on Alaska state lands, and the residents of Alaska each now receive a larger annual check because of that.  But she's 'stupid', so that might not be the way to go.

Oil companies 'stole' wealth.  Yeah sure, that's why a gallon of gas costs less than a couple cans of soup.  At least they are passing their ill-gotten booty along to their customers.  You want to look at who is ripping us off, the oil companies are way down the list (they make very little on each gallon of gas).  And they actually produce something of value. 

Democrat politicians are pretty close to the top of the list of people ripping us off, if not at the very top.  Actually, they are at the very top.  And they produce nothing of value, and have been actually quite destructive.  I suggest our efforts go towards retiring them from public life before worrying about the oil companies.

I have yet to find a single person that thinks every regulation is bad.  But it makes a good narrative.

Nor have I heard anyone claim we should look to the oil companies for advise on the environment.  It is so strange to me how worked up people get over companies in the private sector, but never say a word about the really terrible job government does in everything they touch.  For example, I'd like to see the regulators actually regulate instead of just putting in their time to get their pensions before jumping ship and joining the very same people they regulate.  In the oil regulation business, that might go a ways towards better environmental results.

Until we find clean alternatives, we are going to be moving oil and gas around the planet.  That's just a fact.  There are going to be spills.  Just like as long as we are driving cars there are going to be accidents.  The goal should be no spills, no wrecks, but realize we are never going to quite get there. 

Quote from: Sambo on December 03, 2013, 10:45:27 PM
Paper boy you said so much and it ended up in Obama care...


I used it as a current example of the consequences of listening to these maniacs and following them.



Quote from: Sambo on December 03, 2013, 10:45:27 PM
...  It's bizzare that in an age of constant learning some of us are constantly learning how to keep things as unchanging as possible


The world has always had change.  And much of it has been for the better.  It really sped up during the industrial revolution, and faster still in the current technology revolution.  But before just jumping on any passing bandwagon, let's make sure it's going in the right direction.  Germany got change in the1930s.  We got change with Obama.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 04, 2013, 12:01:47 AM


This reads like a knee-jerk reaction by someone who has been hoodwinked by the Left. 

Yeah, because Onan is too fucking stupid to think for himself. Oh hang on...


Quote
You didn't happen to vote for Obama and support Occupy did you?

Do you support the citizens of Thailand and Ukraine currently trying to change their respective governments?

Quote
The US government should probably be charging more for the extraction of natural resources on Federal lands.  When Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska she demanded and negotiated much better deals from the oil companies drilling on Alaska state lands, and the residents of Alaska each now receive a larger annual check because of that.  But she's 'stupid', so that might not be the way to go.

Oil companies 'stole' wealth.  Yeah sure, that's why a gallon of gas costs less than a couple cans of soup.  At least they are passing their ill-gotten booty along to their customers.  You want to look at who is ripping us off, the oil companies are way down the list (they make very little on each gallon of gas).  And they actually produce something of value. 

Democrat politicians are pretty close to the top of the list of people ripping us off, if not at the very top.


Really? Remind us again which companies got untendered footholds in Iraq based purely on their support of the Bush administration?

Quote
  Actually, they are at the very top.  And they produce nothing of value, and have been actually quite destructive.  I suggest our efforts go towards retiring them from public life before worrying about the oil companies.

I have yet to find a single person that thinks every regulation is bad.  But it makes a good narrative.

Nor have I heard anyone claim we should look to the oil companies for advise on the environment.  It is so strange to me how worked up people get over companies in the private sector, but never say a word about the really terrible job government does in everything they touch.  For example, I'd like to see the regulators actually regulate instead of just putting in their time to get their pensions before jumping ship and joining the very same people they regulate.  In the oil regulation business, that might go a ways towards better environmental results.

Until we find clean alternatives, we are going to be moving oil and gas around the planet.  That's just a fact.  There are going to be spills.  Just like as long as we are driving cars there are going to be accidents.  The goal should be no spills, no wrecks, but realize we are never going to quite get there.

Because the companies are involved in the fucking regulations that they then abide by...And by happy coincidence those same regulations favour the oil companies to override the considerations of others. The same way Banks and other financial institutions get together with the tax regulators to help draw up tax arrangements for ....banks and financial institutions. Plus of course they throw in the 'consultancy fee' to help draw up those rules and regulations...win win..!

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 04, 2013, 02:07:24 AM
... Because the companies are involved in the fucking regulations that they then abide by...And by happy coincidence those same regulations favour the oil companies to override the considerations of others. The same way Banks and other financial institutions get together with the tax regulators to help draw up tax arrangements for ....banks and financial institutions. Plus of course they throw in the 'consultancy fee' to help draw up those rules and regulations...win win..!



When it comes to politics, so much of it is based on emotion, not thought.  Certainly that's what drives the Liberals.

And I'm not saying the Neo-con Globalist Republicans, or the stand-for-nothing Establishment Republicans aren't pretty close to the top of the heap when it comes to ripping us off, it's just that the D's are AT the very top. 



You do realize the Federal government is massive compared to various companies in the private sector and on Wall Street.  As far as political power, economic power, size, number of employees, money, police, military, by any measure you want to use.  It dwarfs anything else. 

If the politicians didn't allow them - invite them - to write the laws and regulations, they wouldn't be doing it. 

If the politicians didn't give them tax breaks and subsidies, they wouldn't get them. 

If the politicians didn't accept bribes from lobbyists and agree to whatever the corporations wanted, it wouldn't happen. 

If the politicians didn't allow regulators to go work for the companies they formerly regulated, the regulators wouldn't be as intentionally incompetent and corrupt. 

If politicians set limits about people in the revolving door between Big Media and the Federal government, or between Goldman Sachs and Treasury or the Fed, it wouldn't happen.


It's as if a corrupt country sheriff were to actively encourage various crooks to do whatever they wanted, and then take a cut instead of arresting them.  And then the town folk never holding the sheriff accountable.

Actually it's worse.  More like the sheriff and mayor changing the rules so what the crooks do is legal.  Then taking their cut.


For example, if a CEO in the private sector - say a CEO at a major Health Care Insurance company - had made the same promises to his shareholders ad customers that Obama made about ObamaCare, and the same disaster had ensued, that CEO would have been indicted.  Multiple counts of a laundry list of fraud items.  We'd probably never see him again.  And the same with probably most politicians and most of what goes on in DC.  But they aren't indicted, they are rewarded and actually defended by half the country.  It's crazy.


And the amazing thing is how little of a bribe it takes.  Mrs. Clinton, as  private citizen, just received $450,000 for a 'speech' underwritten by Goldman Sachs.  Since she is currently a private citizen, there are no reporting requirements, no campaign finance requirements.  But if she were to happen to win the Presidency next time around, that $450k will be worth billions to Goldman in crony capitalist fraudulent 'earnings'.  All she needs to do is go get more bribes like that from other organizations and try to buy her way into the Whitehouse.  That strategy has a great chance of success.  Look for her to announce her candidacy as late as possible so she can rack up these unreportable bribes for as long as possible.

I'm just using her as an example - nearly all of them do it.  It's just so amazing how cheap it is to buy one of these people.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 04, 2013, 03:26:45 AM





If the politicians didn't allow them - invite them - to write the laws and regulations, they wouldn't be doing it. 

If the politicians didn't give them tax breaks and subsidies, they wouldn't get them. 

If the politicians didn't accept bribes from lobbyists and agree to whatever the corporations wanted, it wouldn't happen. 

If the politicians didn't allow regulators to go work for the companies they formerly regulated, the regulators wouldn't be as intentionally incompetent and corrupt. 

If politicians set limits about people in the revolving door between Big Media and the Federal government, or between Goldman Sachs and Treasury or the Fed, it wouldn't happen.


It's as if a corrupt country sheriff were to actively encourage various crooks to do whatever they wanted, and then take a cut instead of arresting them.  And then the town folk never holding the sheriff accountable.

Actually it's worse.  More like the sheriff and mayor changing the rules so what the crooks do is legal.  Then taking their cut.

Yeah, they're exactly the same things that communists rail against..you're on common ground..I knew you'd eventually set it out. I won't bold the salient parts as I don't think you've mentioned things you shouldn't.




Was it really less than 2 months ago the 'Settled Science' hoaxters were telling us this was going to be the warmest winter on record? 

Now they'll probably tell us something like their inability to predict the weather reinforces their 'Manmade Global Change' climate ideas.



Me?  Just happy to be alive past the date Al Gore said we'd all be dead.

Well, it may be cold, but as you probably know, PB, California has just 20% of its usual snowpack.  It may be a brutal summer.

SciFiAuthor

If climate change is indeed occurring . . . it's probably one of the best things that could possibly happen to mankind. Everyone always starts with the assumption that it's automatically a bad thing. Why?

What they don't say is that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere over the course of the industrial age has had a measureable effect on crop yields. They've improved. Another thing that often isn't mentioned is that if the earth does start getting too hot, well, block out a percentage of sunlight and cool the fucker back down. It's not hard to do, we are able to put big sheets of mylar in orbit right now. We could freeze this bitch solid in a week with technology that we already have.

Instead it's hysterics over something that now appears to have been questionable to begin with. Humans do possess brains that can solve problems folks, the end is not nigh.




Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 06, 2014, 08:40:15 PM
What they don't say is that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere over the course of the industrial age has had a measureable effect on crop yields. They've improved.
Is that because of increased atmospheric C02 or improved farming methods over that time period?

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 06, 2014, 08:40:15 PMAnother thing that often isn't mentioned is that if the earth does start getting too hot, well, block out a percentage of sunlight and cool the fucker back down. It's not hard to do, we are able to put big sheets of mylar in orbit right now. We could freeze this bitch solid in a week with technology that we already have.
This also is questionable to me. By changing the amount of light reaching the surface of the Earth you start having an effect on photosynthesis and will influence weather patterns, and perhaps even change the dynamics of the jetstream depending on how serious a change you are suggesting.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 06, 2014, 08:27:29 PM
Was it really less than 2 months ago the 'Settled Science' hoaxters were telling us this was going to be the warmest winter on record? 

Now they'll probably tell us something like their inability to predict the weather reinforces their 'Manmade Global Change' climate ideas.



Me?  Just happy to be alive past the date Al Gore said we'd all be dead.
If you don't know the difference between weather and climate, then I'm not surprised that grasping the science of the matter eludes you.  But if anecdotal local weather patterns are the only proof you need, perhaps the record breaking heat in Australia will sway you:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/2013-australias-warmest-year-on-record

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Agent : Orange on January 06, 2014, 08:46:53 PM
Is that because of increased atmospheric C02 or improved farming methods over that time period?

Increased C02 directly or it's effects thereof on rainfall is directly implicated:

Ramakrishna Nemani et al., "Recent Trends in Hydrologic Balance Have Enhanced the Terrestrial Carbon Sink in the United States," Geophysical Research Letters 29, no. 10 (2002): 1468. This cites a 14 percent increase in the rate of plant growth in the United States as a direct result of increased atmospheric carbon.

Ned Stafford, "Future Crops: The other Greenhouse Effect," Nature, 448, no. 7153 (2007): 526-28.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory: "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Is Neither Boon Nor Bust," Press Release of Feb, 15, 2004, productivity being a measure of how much C02 is absorbed.

That's not even getting into genetic engineering of crops to more efficiently use C02--something the same climate change folks are vehemently against in near totality--should we need to drop it back to 300 ppm, though that comes with it's own danger, the last time it dropped below that it contributed to the ice age which we are still in and that happened because of the evolution of grasses that were significantly more efficient users of C02 at the end of the Paleocene.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Agent : Orange on January 06, 2014, 08:52:14 PM
This also is questionable to me. By changing the amount of light reaching the surface of the Earth you start having an effect on photosynthesis and will influence weather patterns, and perhaps even change the dynamics of the jetstream depending on how serious a change you are suggesting.

You'd definitely have a drop in photosynthesis of a percent or so, which is all you'd need to block from the sun to drop the temps. But that percent is after a dramatic projected increase in photosynthesis due to C02 fertilization and increased rain fall as projected by the climate models due to anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere. Or, put another way, if you dump a bunch of water and increase the C02 supply plants react with bigger leaves, bigger numbers, and more photosynthesis.

You will already have changes in the dynamics of the jet stream weather patterns by the time such a solution would be needed. Those are supposed to be the scariest part of climate change.

The earth is a system. Systems can be controlled with sufficient information and technology. If the planet starts going bad, engineer it to be otherwise. What you don't do is create a restricted society incapable of engineering the planet in order to save the planet as the greenies want. That's how you go extinct.

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 06, 2014, 09:42:29 PM
If you don't know the difference between weather and climate, then I'm not surprised that grasping the science of the matter eludes you...


I probably do, since I included this in my post:


Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 06, 2014, 08:27:29 PM
... Now they'll probably tell us something like their inability to predict the weather reinforces their 'Manmade Global Change' climate ideas...


Which you almost immediately confirmed, thanks.

CO2= plant food

More CO2= healthy plants

CO2 = gooood



Next?


Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 06, 2014, 10:36:16 PM
Ramakrishna Nemani et al., "Recent Trends in Hydrologic Balance Have Enhanced the Terrestrial Carbon Sink in the United States," Geophysical Research Letters 29, no. 10 (2002): 1468. This cites a 14 percent increase in the rate of plant growth in the United States as a direct result of increased atmospheric carbon.

Ned Stafford, "Future Crops: The other Greenhouse Effect," Nature, 448, no. 7153 (2007): 526-28.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory: "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Is Neither Boon Nor Bust," Press Release of Feb, 15, 2004, productivity being a measure of how much C02 is absorbed.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 06, 2014, 10:47:29 PM
You'd definitely have a drop in photosynthesis of a percent or so, which is all you'd need to block from the sun to drop the temps. But that percent is after a dramatic projected increase in photosynthesis due to C02 fertilization and increased rain fall as projected by the climate models due to anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere. Or, put another way, if you dump a bunch of water and increase the C02 supply plants react with bigger leaves, bigger numbers, and more photosynthesis.

You will already have changes in the dynamics of the jet stream weather patterns by the time such a solution would be needed. Those are supposed to be the scariest part of climate change.

Thank you for the links. I am gazing deeply into my navel, sitting in my armchair as I know very little about the climate change literature and I have not yet had the chance to read these papers. However, I found this a few weeks ago which caught my eye:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/455/2013/esd-4-455-2013.html
which seems to argue against geoengineering options. From the press release (see http://www.egu.eu/news/88/geoengineering-approaches-to-reduce-climate-change-unlikely-to-succeed/),
"In the new Earth System Dynamics study the authors also show how these findings can have profound consequences for geoengineering. Many geoengineering approaches aim to reduce global warming by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface (or, in the pot analogy, reduce the heat from the stove). But when Kleidon and Renner applied their results to such a geoengineering scenario, they found out that simultaneous changes in the water cycle and the atmosphere cannot be compensated for at the same time. Therefore, reflecting sunlight by geoengineering is unlikely to restore the planet’s original climate."
Emphasis mine. The arguments in this paper seem to be very simple (perhaps too simple?) and do not seem to take into account the effects of accelerated plant growth. I suppose the counter argument to this work is that the goal is not to return to the original state of the climate in the first place, and that rather than a temporary stopgap measure, reducing the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives is an endgame tactic that will not necessarily be detrimental to human survival. 
This is my first post in the politics section, I'm interested in learning and am asking apolitically, by the way :)

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 06, 2014, 10:47:29 PM
The earth is a system. Systems can be controlled with sufficient information and technology. If the planet starts going bad, engineer it to be otherwise. What you don't do is create a restricted society incapable of engineering the planet in order to save the planet as the greenies want. That's how you go extinct.
Sure, but controlling a non-linear system with any precision over long periods of time is a much taller order than solving a linear problem. I don't think it is unreasonable to look very closely before leaping especially when discussing far-reaching (potentially) high impact scenarios. By no means am I a "greenie" but I think we ought to tread carefully especially when discussing irreversible options like spraying a bunch of high albedo aerosols into the upper atmosphere to mitigate the effects of climate, for example.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: FightTheFuture on January 07, 2014, 04:04:02 AM
CO2= plant food

More CO2= healthy plants

CO2 = gooood



Next?

Forgot one:

More plants = Eventually less C02. They do consume it . . .

onan

Quote from: FightTheFuture on January 07, 2014, 04:04:02 AM
CO2= plant food

More CO2= healthy plants

CO2 = gooood



Next?

Actually:
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm

QuoteToo much CO2 is bad to the plants. Too high CO2 level lowers plants' transpiration during photosynthesis: without or with less transpiration less nutritive solution is drawn thru the plant, thus less food enters the plant and growth slows down. Under too high CO2 level, necrosis spots appear on leaves that may also roll into themselves. These dead tissue spots are a great food for bacteria and molds. Too much of a good thing, again, turns out bad results like a lower weighted yield per plant and a lower quality produce.

Yes CO2 is good for plants. But it is simplistic to think if a little CO2 is good more is better.

Also:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

QuoteIt has also been found that excess CO2 can make certain agricultural plants less nutritious for human and animal consumption. Zhu 2005, a three-year FACE study, concluded that a 10% decrease in the protein content of rice is expected at 550 ppm, with decreases in iron and zinc contents also found. Similarly, Högy et al. 2009, also a FACE study at 550 ppm, found a 7% drop in protein content for wheat, along with decreased amino acid and iron content. Somewhat ironically, this reduction in nutrient content is partially caused by the very increase in growth rates that CO2 encourages in C3 plants, since rapid growth leaves less time for nutrient accumulation.

There are lots of other points to show that higher concentrations of CO2 are destructive to our current environment, but I don't want play science teacher.

Quote from: onan on January 07, 2014, 04:30:57 AM
Actually:
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm

Yes CO2 is good for plants. But it is simplistic to think if a little CO2 is good more is better.

Also:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

There are lots of other points to show that higher concentrations of CO2 are destructive to our current environment, but I don't want play science teacher.





My scientists and THEIR  extensive 20 year study says your science is full of shit.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094] [url]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094 [/url]





b_dubb

It's unfortunate that this topic is in the Politics thread category

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Agent : Orange on January 07, 2014, 04:24:54 AM
Thank you for the links. I am gazing deeply into my navel, sitting in my armchair as I know very little about the climate change literature and I have not yet had the chance to read these papers. However, I found this a few weeks ago which caught my eye:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/455/2013/esd-4-455-2013.html
which seems to argue against geoengineering options. From the press release (see http://www.egu.eu/news/88/geoengineering-approaches-to-reduce-climate-change-unlikely-to-succeed/),
"In the new Earth System Dynamics study the authors also show how these findings can have profound consequences for geoengineering. Many geoengineering approaches aim to reduce global warming by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface (or, in the pot analogy, reduce the heat from the stove). But when Kleidon and Renner applied their results to such a geoengineering scenario, they found out that simultaneous changes in the water cycle and the atmosphere cannot be compensated for at the same time. Therefore, reflecting sunlight by geoengineering is unlikely to restore the planet’s original climate."
Emphasis mine. The arguments in this paper seem to be very simple (perhaps too simple?) and do not seem to take into account the effects of accelerated plant growth. I suppose the counter argument to this work is that the goal is not to return to the original state of the climate in the first place, and that rather than a temporary stopgap measure, reducing the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives is an endgame tactic that will not necessarily be detrimental to human survival. 
This is my first post in the politics section, I'm interested in learning and am asking apolitically, by the way :)
Sure, but controlling a non-linear system with any precision over long periods of time is a much taller order than solving a linear problem. I don't think it is unreasonable to look very closely before leaping especially when discussing far-reaching (potentially) high impact scenarios. By no means am I a "greenie" but I think we ought to tread carefully especially when discussing irreversible options like spraying a bunch of high albedo aerosols into the upper atmosphere to mitigate the effects of climate, for example.

That assumes that the "original" climate is desirable. In fact we're still in an ice age, and the climate we have now is a recent change from an earth that before the late Pliocene had significantly higher C02 than we have now. Life did fine before the late Pliocene and was actually more diverse. However, the earth before the industrial age was doing strange things, such as converting much of North Africa into a desert whereas it was historically arable land.

I read the synopsis and I would wonder one thing: The sun already varies in luminosity thusly impacting both the water cycle and the atmosphere simultaneously. The current pause in warming itself has been chalked up to that. That would imply that it that they can and are being compensated for at the same time right now I would think.

Oh I don't think it will ever get so far as to need shields or high albedo spraying. The earth has shown itself to be a remarkably self-correcting system across its history. It has sustained multiple catastrophes that make climate change look like tinker toys in comparison. If it can recover from an asteroid impact, actually several of them apparently, without losing ALL life then that's one hell of a robust system. Rising C02 doesn't even present an unusual state for Earth, instead we've been living in the unusual state.

The sad truth of the matter is that somewhere along the lines climate science went wacky. If you apply the same burdens of proof that are used in physics to climate science, you don't get the same reaction. If we did, the large Hadron Collider could not have been switched on due to a few scientists suggesting that it could go badly. We called them alarmist quacks and fired her up anyway. Yet when that same alarmism crops up in climate science, which it seems clear at this point that the earth is not reacting as they predicted, we don't seem to hold them to the same standards. Instead we do the freak out and at worst spend billions on potentially nothing and restrict human development, or at best mitigate something that may have ended up beneficial. Where did the idea that climate change is bad actually come in?

Well, it came in because of the anti-humanist movement decided it was a good thing to scare the shit out of everyone. Malthus started that garbage, scared the hell out of everyone that we would run out of land to grow food for an increasing population, the ideas were cited in every atrocity from the Irish Potato Famine to Nazi Germany, and . . . well . . . um . . . we invented better agricultural practices and Malthus' concept appears to have been a gross oversimplification. Yet that same anti-humanist ideology is still with us today, scaring the piss out of people.

But the proof is in the pudding. Greenpeace is opposing ITER. Now, why is that? It promises to be the saving grace as far as alternate energy. But they oppose it. They're not so stupid as to be scared of words like thermonuclear. No, they oppose it because they oppose human development and progress. The green movement wants a downgrade of human civilization. You will see a day where the question "What is the Keck Telescope's carbon footprint? Is it worth it?" is asked if we keep going down this road.

Well, if that's how things are, then I want a damned solid chunk of real proof that the problem exists and I want a damned solid chunk of proof that the human brain can't fix it with engineering before we start talking about slowing down progress. I have yet to be given that damned solid chunk of proof here in -4 Missouri with 12 inches of snow on the ground.




Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod