Started by somatichypermutation, November 22, 2013, 07:22:22 AM
Quote from: West of the Rockies on December 03, 2013, 12:24:18 PMI 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.
Quote from: Sambo on December 03, 2013, 02:10:00 PMI 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
Quote from: Ben Shockley on December 02, 2013, 02:53:17 AMIt's easy to understand, Nowhere: Property rights Ã¼ber 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?
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 03, 2013, 08:34:16 PMEver 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'.
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?...
Quote from: onan on December 03, 2013, 09:05:50 PMsince 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.
Quote from: Sambo on December 03, 2013, 10:45:27 PMPaper boy you said so much and it ended up in Obama care...
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
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 04, 2013, 12:01:47 AMThis reads like a knee-jerk reaction by someone who has been hoodwinked by the Left.
Quote You didn't happen to vote for Obama and support Occupy did you?
QuoteThe 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.
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.
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..!
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 04, 2013, 03:26:45 AMIf 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.
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 06, 2014, 08:40:15 PMWhat 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.
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.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 06, 2014, 08:27:29 PMWas 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.
Quote from: Agent : Orange on January 06, 2014, 08:46:53 PMIs that because of increased atmospheric C02 or improved farming methods over that time period?
Quote from: Agent : Orange on January 06, 2014, 08:52:14 PMThis 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: RealCool Daddio on January 06, 2014, 09:42:29 PMIf you don't know the difference between weather and climate, then I'm not surprised that grasping the science of the matter eludes you...
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...
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 06, 2014, 10:36:16 PMRamakrishna 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 PMYou'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.
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 06, 2014, 10:47:29 PMThe 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: FightTheFuture on January 07, 2014, 04:04:02 AMCO2= plant foodMore CO2= healthy plantsCO2 = goooodNext?
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.
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, HÃ¶gy 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.
Quote from: onan on January 07, 2014, 04:30:57 AMActually:http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfmYes 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.htmThere 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: Agent : Orange on January 07, 2014, 04:24:54 AMThank 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.htmlwhich 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 Earthâ€™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 planetâ€™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.