Sign in to follow this  
Nailing Malarkey Too

Climate Change .. One step too far. Can't stop laughing

Recommended Posts

I try my best to avoid ad hominem attacks here, but this idiot makes it very hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

image.thumb.png.c17009859f6a42bcb49e8da7b0b272d8.png

Maybe next time you should buy Trump commemorative coins that are made in the US of A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sean said:

I try my best to avoid ad hominem attacks here, but this idiot makes it very hard.

Hey Sean, Double your IQ and add the number of states Obama think are in the union and I could still out think you in my sleep.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Hey Sean, Double your IQ and add the number of states Obama think are in the union and I could still out think you in my sleep.

Except a fool and their money are soon parted.

Image result for trump kim summit coin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hot off the presses -

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/session48/pr_181008_P48_spm_en.pdf

 

GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 °C

an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Except a fool and their money are soon parted.

Image result for trump kim summit coin

there's a lot of chins in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a second ... This is a thread meant to laugh at a product that excludes "climate change" as a cause of damage to their product.

What product would this be? Some decking apparently, from Home Depot, goes by the brand "Veranda." Golly, those silly lefties right? Putting that into warranty, it's hard not to laugh at them!

Except, oh, uh ... it's Home Depot, the company notorious for its outsized support of Republican agenda, rather than Democratic agendas ...

RetailPolitics_Fig8.png

What's with those righties? Hard not to laugh at them and their "climate change", huh? What's with those Republican companies anyway huh? Them and their "climate change" stuff, it's hard not to  end up laughuing at them!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Hey Sean, Double your IQ and add the number of states Obama think are in the union and I could still out think you in my sleep.

Really? You’re going to brag about your admittedly low IQ? Self confessed, remember? 

214161012_MalarkeyMathIdiocy.jpg.7881861c6854a013a6f62b7b568673b3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

Excerpt -

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

Excerpt -

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

You aren't going to change anything.  Adapt.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

You aren't going to change anything.  Adapt.

That should be the Republican Motto.  I recommend getting that trade marked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

You aren't going to change anything.  Adapt.

"The worst will happen after I die.  I don't want to adapt my lifestyle now, so you adapt."

Changed for honesty.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

I'm not going to change anything.  You adapt.

Changed for succinctness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

How were the Great Lakes formed ?

A man who lives in the sky carved them out 6000 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lark said:

"The worst will happen after I die.  I don't want to adapt my lifestyle now, so you adapt."

Changed for honesty.   

You are too polite. Soreass's ideology is "fuck you, I got mine".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the latest IPCC panel, It's too late to stop climate change. It's happening regardless of what we do... All they are saying is if we drop emissions to 1998 levels the temp will rise .5c less than is expected and this will result in a 10cm lower water level. Am I missing something in the report?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we survived the Ozone Hole....should  be more concerned with  world population growth...

I can imagine David Hogg on some Somali's  leash

 

popgro.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Well we survived the Ozone Hole....should  be more concerned with  world population growth...

I can imagine David Hogg on some Somali's  leash

 

popgro.jpg

The Ozone hole is an example of what can happen when the world comes together and decides its better to solve the problem instead of lying about it.   Scientists have found somebody in Asia is cheating on an industrial scale.   The hole stopped shrinking.   If the cheaters are wise they will shut down before they are identified.   China would be hugely embarrassed and have the factory owner executed to save face.   A smaller Asian nation would face international embargo.    

We should be concerned about population growth.  Why is it the Republican party opposes all foreign aid tied to this goal?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

"The worst will happen after I die.  I don't want to adapt my lifestyle now, so you adapt."

Changed for honesty.   

Bullshit, I've been engaged in conservation efforts since I was a cub scout.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lark said:

The Ozone hole is an example of what can happen when the world comes together and decides its better to solve the problem instead of lying about it.   Scientists have found somebody in Asia is cheating on an industrial scale.   The hole stopped shrinking.   If the cheaters are wise they will shut down before they are identified.   China would be hugely embarrassed and have the factory owner executed to save face.   A smaller Asian nation would face international embargo.    

We should be concerned about population growth.  Why is it the Republican party opposes all foreign aid tied to this goal?   

Science solved the problem, not politics or treaties.  If R22 and R12 were the only refrigerants that work in Air conditioners then the world would still be using them and there would not have been a Montreal protocol. It was the chemical industry in countries with healthy economies that invented alternatives that allowed us to phase out ozone-destroying CFCs. 

If the real goal, which I'm sure you deny, is social engineering through wealth redistribution (carbon exchanges) and the result is the weakening of super economies like  America; then there may not be the industrial, research and wealth base to solve the future issues. 

Climate change evangelism won't reduce global warming but it may inadvertently destroy our capacity to cope or mitigate. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Bullshit, I've been engaged in conservation efforts since I was a cub scout.

 

Well, bully for you!   Unfortunately...based on your previous statements....all your efforts have been ineffective.  Mine too, sadly.  Even though I led an environmental organization for a decade and a half.  Not that we didn't try.  Drop in the proverbial bucket.  Contemporary economies are set up to do self-harm.

What is needed is a global, government-led and mandated effort focused on removing pollutants from our thin atmospheric blanket.  

So we need to spend money, now and wisely.  A fair bit of money OR we will spend a shit-ton lot more money later.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Bullshit, I've been engaged in conservation efforts since I was a cub scout.

 

oh, fk me... how do you vote again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quoting Malarkey but what a pile of shit - yes, George Soros in addition to his duties as the anti-Christ is also working to weaken the US.  sheesh.  Never mind that our commie prez Obama was pushing for more R&D for new technologies and alternative clean energies.  Even Bill Clinton in his book that nobody read (Back to Work) discussed that.  Was a win/win for the US creating jobs not easily exported and higher paying while improving the environment.

Our burn it down buddies made sure we got a Clown in Charge to get rid of that shit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

should  be more concerned with  world population growth...

No need to worry about that. Droughts and subsequent famines will take care of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Science solved the problem, not politics or treaties.  If R22 and R12 were the only refrigerants that work in Air conditioners then the world would still be using them and there would not have been a Montreal protocol. It was the chemical industry in countries with healthy economies that invented alternatives that allowed us to phase out ozone-destroying CFCs. 

If the real goal, which I'm sure you deny, is social engineering through wealth redistribution (carbon exchanges) and the result is the weakening of super economies like  America; then there may not be the industrial, research and wealth base to solve the future issues. 

Climate change evangelism won't reduce global warming but it may inadvertently destroy our capacity to cope or mitigate. 

Science and engineering identified the problem and found solutions.   The world agreed to implement them.   Change was expensive.   I have legacy systems using old freon that are slowly being changed out.   The one at the house is leaking and will be replaced in the Spring.   Several at work are being changed as they need service.   It was easier to get a given energy efficiency with old freon.   Cars had to be adapted for the new product.   

You harp on the costs of converting to a world friendly carbon conserving economy.   Those are real expenses, just like the expense associated with adapting to new freon.   The benefits are felt by others more then myself.   I am far from the sea.  I don't live in a Southern state that will require AC to survive.   I will die before another century passes, likely before another 50 years pass.   Australia benefited more from the ozone repair then the US and pale skinned people benefited more then I did.   I made the sacrifice for my species and my planet.   

You ignore the cost of not accepting the new reality.  In the absence of climate change reform we need to collectively write off large coastal sections as no longer inhabitable.  People living within the areas predicted to be affected by floods and increasingly affected by hurricanes need to be notified that by 2028 they will no longer be eligible for FEMA aid.   They will no longer be eligible for flood insurance.    Their homes were deemed expendable by Saorsa as we adapt.   I concurred.     Everything in color in the bottom illustration should be written off.  If you can afford to live there, it is your choice.  Don't be a liberal and expect others to pay for your choices.  

Likewise we need to adapt to the reality of California fire season.   California burns.  If you don't like it, build in concrete or move.  No more international fire fighting aid.  Adapt, don't expect the world to subsidize your lifestyle choices.   

Map of Seattle showing areas projected to fall below sea level during high tide by end of the century. The high (50 inches) and medium (13 inches) estimates are within current projections. The highest level (88 inches) includes the effect of storm surge.Image result for US flood map half century global warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Well, bully for you!   Unfortunately...based on your previous statements....all your efforts have been ineffective.  Mine too, sadly.  Even though I led an environmental organization for a decade and a half.  Not that we didn't try.  Drop in the proverbial bucket.  Contemporary economies are set up to do self-harm.

What is needed is a global, government-led and mandated effort focused on removing pollutants from our thin atmospheric blanket.  

So we need to spend money, now and wisely.  A fair bit of money OR we will spend a shit-ton lot more money later.  

What is a global, government-led and mandated effort? Sounds like something run on unicorn shit. Sure is nothing that can be considered realistic. Unless you mean someone has to conquer the world first so they can do this global mandating you so desire. 

Of course there may be a few other bits of warming while in this someone does his/her/it conquering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gissie said:

What is a global, government-led and mandated effort? Sounds like something run on unicorn shit. Sure is nothing that can be considered realistic. Unless you mean someone has to conquer the world first so they can do this global mandating you so desire. 

Of course there may be a few other bits of warming while in this someone does his/her/it conquering. 

Well,  for example, there was the Paris Climate Accord.  (Among other agreements, such as those that occurred in Kyoto, Montreal, Buenos Aires, etc.)  Trample on and torn up by petulant, short-sighted me-first fools.  

Hope you don't have kids or grandkids.  Could very well suck to be them.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I laugh my ass off every time I hear idiots chortle about things they know nothing about..... Like...... Just for instance..... Jack, laughing about an article on climate change, which he clearly doesn't understand.

 Then I sit back and look for ways to help the world, instead of gleefully clapping as it burns, and floods.

 Even though he's on my ignore list, enough people quote him for me to understand what a complete asshole he is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gissie said:

What is a global, government-led and mandated effort? Sounds like something run on unicorn shit. Sure is nothing that can be considered realistic. Unless you mean someone has to conquer the world first so they can do this global mandating you so desire. 

Of course there may be a few other bits of warming while in this someone does his/her/it conquering. 

War traditionally is very wasteful.  Fortunately, its in danger of becoming obsolete.   Oppenheimer found the first work around.  War is now the solution for global warming and effective population control as well.   

The CIA and Stuxnet have demonstrated another solution (Go America).    We no longer need to blow things up.  We just shut them down.  Let Atlanta, LA or Orlando swelter without AC, gasoline or water for a week.  Its population will drop dramatically with virtually no negative carbon impact while FEMA tries to charter buses and fuel trucks.   The entire population could brought to chaos by a cyberatack on the distribution systems used by gas stations or grocery stores lasting 48 hours.   Heck, just cripple the credit card machines for 24 hours and society would all but shut down.   

  Image result for oil fire war picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Well,  for example, there was the Paris Climate Accord.  (Among other agreements, such as those that occurred in Kyoto, Montreal, Buenos Aires, etc.)  Trample on and torn up by petulant, short-sighted me-first fools.  

Hope you don't have kids or grandkids.  Could very well suck to be them.  

 

But those agreements have achieved a total of fuck all. So we still need to find the unicorn paddock. As for the short-sighted fools, I presume you mean the leaders of countries like China, India and all those other countries that make excuses to put off doing anything about it. 

Mad for my grandkids, I guess they will get what ever we can make work out of it all. If the sea comes up enough they may even get beach front. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Well, bully for you!   Unfortunately...based on your previous statements....all your efforts have been ineffective.  Mine too, sadly.  Even though I led an environmental organization for a decade and a half.  Not that we didn't try.  Drop in the proverbial bucket.  Contemporary economies are set up to do self-harm.

What is needed is a global, government-led and mandated effort focused on removing pollutants from our thin atmospheric blanket.  

So we need to spend money, now and wisely.  A fair bit of money OR we will spend a shit-ton lot more money later.  

And, based on the multi-trillion efforts being bandied about for the last 20 years nothing proposed has any hope of being effective.  The most hilarious of which was the EU belief that Diesel was OK in cities until they had to be banned.

I had an interesting conversation with a nice young fellow in Copenhagen.  He was pointing out the lack of taxation on electric vehicles, government subsidies and special close in parking spaces.  I asked him if he had a car.  No, the 105% to 150% tax was too much and he couldn't afford one even if he had the price of the car.  He wasn't happy when I pointed out that all the benefits of electric cars seemed to go to the rich people then.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Well,  for example, there was the Paris Climate Accord.  (Among other agreements, such as those that occurred in Kyoto, Montreal, Buenos Aires, etc.)  Trample on and torn up by petulant, short-sighted me-first fools.  

Hope you don't have kids or grandkids.  Could very well suck to be them.  

 

What did that actually do?  What would the result of implementation be?  Officially sanctioned hand-wringing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lark said:

War traditionally is very wasteful.  Fortunately, its in danger of becoming obsolete.   Oppenheimer found the first work around.  War is now the solution for global warming and effective population control as well.   

The CIA and Stuxnet have demonstrated another solution (Go America).    We no longer need to blow things up.  We just shut them down.  Let Atlanta, LA or Orlando swelter without AC, gasoline or water for a week.  Its population will drop dramatically with virtually no negative carbon impact while FEMA tries to charter buses and fuel trucks.   The entire population could brought to chaos by a cyberatack on the distribution systems used by gas stations or grocery stores lasting 48 hours.   Heck, just cripple the credit card machines for 24 hours and society would all but shut down.   

  Image result for oil fire war picture

But surely you are just describing war with modern weapons. War is unlikely to ever become obsolete. Unless we do a runner from the universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

What did that actually do?  What would the result of implementation be?  Officially sanctioned hand-wringing.

“Officially sanctioned hand-wringing” 

Nice, may need to borrow this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

What did that actually do?  What would the result of implementation be?  Officially sanctioned hand-wringing.

At what point is insufficient action better then no action?  The human psych is illogical.   We will make futile efforts to save our house with a garden hose and pale of water if it is on fire, the dog is inside, and the fire department delayed.   If the fire is gradual and will take a lifetime to burn, suddenly nothing less then an inexpensive, guaranteed and complete solution is worth trying.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saorsa said:

I got mine. Fuck you.

Changed for accuracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Lark said:

Science and engineering identified the problem and found solutions.   The world agreed to implement them.   Change was expensive.   I have legacy systems using old freon that are slowly being changed out.   The one at the house is leaking and will be replaced in the Spring.   Several at work are being changed as they need service.   It was easier to get a given energy efficiency with old freon.   Cars had to be adapted for the new product.   

You harp on the costs of converting to a world friendly carbon conserving economy.   Those are real expenses, just like the expense associated with adapting to new freon.   The benefits are felt by others more then myself.   I am far from the sea.  I don't live in a Southern state that will require AC to survive.   I will die before another century passes, likely before another 50 years pass.   Australia benefited more from the ozone repair then the US and pale skinned people benefited more then I did.   I made the sacrifice for my species and my planet.   

You ignore the cost of not accepting the new reality.  In the absence of climate change reform we need to collectively write off large coastal sections as no longer inhabitable.  People living within the areas predicted to be affected by floods and increasingly affected by hurricanes need to be notified that by 2028 they will no longer be eligible for FEMA aid.   They will no longer be eligible for flood insurance.    Their homes were deemed expendable by Saorsa as we adapt.   I concurred.     Everything in color in the bottom illustration should be written off.  If you can afford to live there, it is your choice.  Don't be a liberal and expect others to pay for your choices.  

Likewise we need to adapt to the reality of California fire season.   California burns.  If you don't like it, build in concrete or move.  No more international fire fighting aid.  Adapt, don't expect the world to subsidize your lifestyle choices.   

Map of Seattle showing areas projected to fall below sea level during high tide by end of the century. The high (50 inches) and medium (13 inches) estimates are within current projections. The highest level (88 inches) includes the effect of storm surge.Image result for US flood map half century global warming

The Earth wants to be a perfect oblate sphere. It works night and day to wear down the high bits and fill in the low bits. That leads to eroding mountains, sediment fill and sinking continents giving way to rising oceans. Warming or no warming. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

The Earth wants to be a perfect oblate sphere. It works night and day to wear down the high bits and fill in the low bits. That leads to eroding mountains, sediment fill and sinking continents giving way to rising oceans. Warming or no warming. 

Agreed.  We need retention walls to keep the Rockies from filling in the Pacific.  We better start now ,before its too late.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lark said:

At what point is insufficient action better then no action?  The human psych is illogical.   We will make futile efforts to save our house with a garden hose and pale of water if it is on fire, the dog is inside, and the fire department delayed.   If the fire is gradual and will take a lifetime to burn, suddenly nothing less then an inexpensive, guaranteed and complete solution is worth trying.    

That's not so.  Most of the proposed solutions are easily shown to be ineffective.

If you start with the inanely simplistic "CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming" and concentrate all your effort in that direction you are missing a million other problems and solutions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

That's not so.  Most of the proposed solutions are easily shown to be ineffective.

If you start with the inanely simplistic "CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming" and concentrate all your effort in that direction you are missing a million other problems and solutions.

 

Oh...this is so hard!!!  Makes my head hurt!!!!  Don't do that thing if you're not doing that other thing!!!!

I'm going to go out with my cub scouts and pick up trash now.  I think I'll take my Expedition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

What did that actually do?  What would the result of implementation be?  Officially sanctioned hand-wringing.

Oh, lordy, I didn't read the protocol, so I don't unnerstand!!!  Oh, lordy, my hero pulled the plug on compliance, so what will the results of that non-implementation be????  

Oh, you've got the hand-wringing part down pat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Journalism is fake and science is bullshit.

Anybody thinking that strategy is going to end well is an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m laughing AT Malarkey. He’s happy that a corporation is removing one more thing from their responsibilities to him, as a consumer. YCMTSU 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Republicans were to support nationwide nuetering, he'd be on a plane to DC with his nuts on a cutting board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

The Earth wants to be a perfect oblate sphere. It works night and day to wear down the high bits and fill in the low bits. That leads to eroding mountains, sediment fill and sinking continents giving way to rising oceans. Warming or no warming. 

Fuck I love this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Fuck I love this place.

It's fucking poetry, innit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

The Earth wants to be a perfect oblate sphere. It works night and day to wear down the high bits and fill in the low bits. That leads to eroding mountains, sediment fill and sinking continents giving way to rising oceans. Warming or no warming. 

Is this a Conservative thing, to outright deny the existence of plate tectonics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

It's fucking poetry, innit?

Jack just keeps on giving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Is this a Conservative thing, to outright deny the existence of plate tectonics?

Just more Liberul sciency hooey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Fuck I love this place.

That was rich! Halema'uma'u is glad nobody noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

Is this a Conservative thing, to outright deny the existence of plate tectonics?

On the contrary, They are contributors to the smoothing of the planet. I didn't say it was a fast process. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

On the contrary, They are contributors to the smoothing of the planet. I didn't say it was a fast process. 

Your low IQ is showing. It’s ok, we’re all having a good laugh at your expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

On the contrary, They are contributors to the smoothing of the planet. I didn't say it was a fast process. 

How old is the planet? How old are the Rockies? 4.5 billion and 80 million respectively. The Himalayas are 50 million years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

On the contrary, They are contributors to the smoothing of the planet. I didn't say it was a fast process. 

Let me guess - you read this on a golden plate some random angle gave you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 9:30 PM, Sean said:

 

Hot off the presses -

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/session48/pr_181008_P48_spm_en.pdf

 

GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 °C

an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty 

Nothing eradicates poverty quite as quickly and effectively as roads and internal combustion engines. Ironic, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Is this a Conservative thing, to outright deny the existence of plate tectonics?

How do you think the oblatification of the sphere is occuring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

Is this a Conservative thing, to outright deny the existence of plate tectonics?

That’s why it’s called conservative.  Although conservatives are kind of picky about what they conserve.  

Like word-meanings becoming a work -around. :rolleyes:  

But back to your question- it’s a young theory, so.......for conservatives it’s got a way to go. 

(!) Now if you consider the conservative and evangelical theology that God wants you to be Wealthy, I think anyone might be able to argue that that there’s a BCE Roman notion that still lives, and at the least, that’s a 2,000 year old conservative nostrum that is still being conserved in some circles :blink:, so there you go!

Sophistry is fun!  It’s over 2,000 years old too-  Conservation rocks!

And in the competition between the cooling of the core of the Earth and the Sun going Nova, any bets?   Let’s see, how long ago was it that God created the earth?  Now if we take that number and subtract it from how many angels can dance on the head of a pin......... :lol: ........... <_<............ the answer might be, uh,  ...................6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Saorsa said:

What did that actually do?  What would the result of implementation be?  Officially sanctioned hand-wringing.

There are countries that take their responsibilities seriously.  Unlike the US, whose new administration blames the last administration for doing everything wrong then blows everything up.  Then newest fad being Trump's move of simply repealing everything the last president tried to do, because that sort of chaos is excellent for the country and everything that was put in place by democrats is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

There are countries that take their responsibilities seriously.  Unlike the US, whose new administration blames the last administration for doing everything wrong then blows everything up.  Then newest fad being Trump's move of simply repealing everything the last president tried to do, because that sort of chaos is excellent for the country and everything that was put in place by democrats is bad.

That doesn't actually address any concrete accomplishment of anything but political goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

There are countries that take their responsibilities seriously.  Unlike the US, whose new administration blames the last administration for doing everything wrong then blows everything up.  Then newest fad being Trump's move of simply repealing everything the last president tried to do, because that sort of chaos is excellent for the country and everything that was put in place by democrats is bad.

68yjyh.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as I don’t have to bail out the Captains of Industry when their beach houses get swamped, let them bring it upon themselves. I bought 20’ above the water for a reason. Somehow I know that when the day comes, it won’t be good capitalism to let the Best capitalists bear the costs of their decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

 And in the competition between the cooling of the core of the Earth and the Sun going Nova, any bets?  

I've wondered about that a lot, is the Earth actually cooling, or is it in some kind of steady-state due to the right volume and position relative to the sun? 

The laminar rotations of the core's layers clearly give us a wandering magnetic field right? Could the weak interactions in the core from the solar neutrinos allow for a steady state nuclear heating? I know that it seems insane, as weak interactions are so rare, but the core is well insulated, so maybe the interaction density wouldn't need to be too high with all that iron and nickel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

As long as I don’t have to bail out the Captains of Industry when their beach houses get swamped, let them bring it upon themselves. I bought 20’ above the water for a reason. Somehow I know that when the day comes, it won’t be good capitalism to let the Best capitalists bear the costs of their decisions. 

How in the heck did you find land in Florida 20 feet above sea level? I thought that the highest mountain in Florida was only 6.5 feet above sea level ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Nothing eradicates poverty quite as quickly and effectively as roads and internal combustion engines. Ironic, isn't it?

actually, cellphones (90+% of world adults) and now smartphones (75%+ of world adults) do a better job.

nothing salves the US populace like antiquated views of the world and their place in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

How do you think the oblatification of the sphere is occuring?

Weathering and gravity smooth the Earth out.

Plate tectonics and volcanism make the Earth unsmooth.

Large scale rotational forces and internal electrodynamics oscillate the Earth away and toward sphericity.

At any given time, due to interplay of these processes, the Earth could be moving toward greater or lesser average surface roughness and greater or lesser sphericity.

It would be only a guess that at any given moment the Earth is becoming more or less oblate or with more or less surface roughness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mikewof said:

How in the heck did you find land in Florida 20 feet above sea level? I thought that the highest mountain in Florida was only 6.5 feet above sea level ;-)

Just off of the St. John's river on a nice high ridge, with a 10 acre swamp between me and the river.  My property drops off into the swamp, so when the water comes up, I'm riverfront.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

 That doesn't actually address any concrete accomplishment of anything but political goals.

Huh?  That statement makes absolutely no sense.

Without regulation, there isn't an industry in the world that will worry about conservation.  When your political "goals" appear to be the removal of environmental regulation in the name of "simplification", you destroy the purpose of those regulations:  conservation.

I.e., as long as political parties aim to remove environmental regulations to promote corporate profit, nothing is going to happen.  Those regulations MUST happen first.

They are following through with a lot of environmental regulation in europe.  It certainly drives costs.  But would you rather have to pay a little more for paper bags at the grocery store, or would you rather destroy the oceans?  California is moving (slowly).  Banning of straws.  I'd like to see a banning of almost all non-biodegradable packing across the board.  There are engineering challenges to that (food packaging and freshness being the main one).  But packaging like those plastic formed pieces that you need to physically cut to get open could easily be replaced with paper packaging.

FORCING renewable energy is required.  It's more expensive, and neither the consumer nor the utility provider is going to move to a more expensive option without regulation forcing it.

Look at the recent "success" the US has had at lowering CO2 output.  That's almost totally a result of switching to natural gas, because it's cheaper.  Replacing one fossil fuel with another isn't a solution.  I can give you a similar story about corporations that go "zero trash to landfill", who actually force some third party company to repack all their goods into reusable dunnage once those goods get here from China.  They throwaway the non-reusable stuff at the third party.  That way the big corporation can claim "look at us!  We're green!  We're green!".

As I said - look at Germany and their focus on renewable energy.  It's just one of many examples of where Europe is kicking our ass in conservation.  If you want to be a world leader, then get up and freakin LEAD at something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Post deleted-

Responded to a troll who doesn't know what renewable energy is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grrr... said:

Don't look now, but Sailblue is humping your leg too.

So, as a matter of curiosity, what is the driver of that CO2 emission reduction?  Have we simply become more green through regulation?  Through government enforcement?  Or did some technology breakthrough happen that accidentally resulted in that reduction?

Protip: Switching from one fossil fuel to another is not a renewable or sustainable improvement.

But it does reduce CO2 emissions. Why are you reading me anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

actually, cellphones (90+% of world adults) and now smartphones (75%+ of world adults) do a better job.

nothing salves the US populace like antiquated views of the world and their place in it.

Trucks do a better job of getting food to market.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

-Post deleted-

Responded to a troll who doesn't know what renewable energy is.

You have no fucking idea....I have a LEED platinum project under my belt and another one in the works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Huh?  That statement makes absolutely no sense.

Without regulation, there isn't an industry in the world that will worry about conservation.  When your political "goals" appear to be the removal of environmental regulation in the name of "simplification", you destroy the purpose of those regulations:  conservation.

I.e., as long as political parties aim to remove environmental regulations to promote corporate profit, nothing is going to happen.  Those regulations MUST happen first.

They are following through with a lot of environmental regulation in europe.  It certainly drives costs.  But would you rather have to pay a little more for paper bags at the grocery store, or would you rather destroy the oceans?  California is moving (slowly).  Banning of straws.  I'd like to see a banning of almost all non-biodegradable packing across the board.  There are engineering challenges to that (food packaging and freshness being the main one).  But packaging like those plastic formed pieces that you need to physically cut to get open could easily be replaced with paper packaging.

FORCING renewable energy is required.  It's more expensive, and neither the consumer nor the utility provider is going to move to a more expensive option without regulation forcing it.

As I said - look at Germany and their focus on renewable energy.  It's just one of many examples of where Europe is kicking our ass in conservation.  If you want to be a world leader, then get up and freakin LEAD at something.

Nope, the Paris Accord was a lot of people making promises.  Europe made a lot of them and is doing a lot of regulation yet their CO2 production rose as much as the US decreased.

Yes, they are spending huge amounts of money of windfarms and solar but they aren't making much impact on their energy consumption and CO2 production.  They build a lot of capacity but it doesn't show up as a production source when you look at their consumption.

WEB_1413dh.jpg

Germany made a big deal about shutting down all their nuclear plants but then imported energy from France.  The source of that is Nuclear.

They talk about shutting down coal plants and end up increasing imports of oil and natural gas.  Their own predictions for change show this.

EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Nope, the Paris Accord was a lot of people making promises.  Europe made a lot of them and is doing a lot of regulation yet their CO2 production rose as much as the US decreased.

Yes, they are spending huge amounts of money of windfarms and solar but they aren't making much impact on their energy consumption and CO2 production.  They build a lot of capacity but it doesn't show up as a production source when you look at their consumption.

WEB_1413dh.jpg

Germany made a big deal about shutting down all their nuclear plants but then imported energy from France.  The source of that is Nuclear.

They talk about shutting down coal plants and end up increasing imports of oil and natural gas.  Their own predictions for change show this.

EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040.png

Point #1:

The amount of TOTAL Co2 reduced graph is a red herring.  Either we can agree that there is a problem, or we can agree that there isn't.  Otherwise we all go down the rabbit hole of arguing semantics.  For example:

The US is among the WORST C02 polluters.  We share the top with a couple other developed countries.  But people will argue we should look at CO2 versus how much we manufacture.  Or against GDP.  Or versus land size.  Or per capita.  And so on.  The graph that shows how much we reduced is a factor of how much we over-produce as well.  The two are tied together.  Then question WHY that reduction happened:  it happened because extraction methods of oil and natural gas in the US made them cheaper alternatives to (clean!) coal. 

So in the end, we can choose to spiral down the hole of statistics and play games with numbers.  Or we can admit we're doing a horrible job and simply move on from there.

Point #2:

The Paris accords were definitely about promises.  Do we keep those promises?  Do we TRY to keep those promises?  Or do we look to other countries and their failures and use that as a benchmark.  I.e., do we really want to measure ourselves against the failures of others?  Do we want to lead or do we want to make pathetic excuses?

Point #3:

Fossil fuels are fossil fuels.  They aren't renewable in any way (yet).  Either we can start building renewables now, or do nothing.  Eventually (projections say in perhaps 60 years) natural gas will be nearly gone.  At that point, will we have had the foresight to build renewables, or will we fall back on coal and oil?

Point #4:

Germany is following a roadmap.  That roadmap specifically includes reduced reliance on coal.  Coal is a horrible fossible fuel, and burning coal releases far more C02 that oil / natural gas.  That's why they are moving to those in the interim.  However, they are also making a concerted effort to force their industries towards renewables.  This is a culture change.  Culture changes are hard.  We haven't been working at it here nearly as hard as they have. Your graph is 7 years out of date.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2018

Point #5:

Energy consumption is a nightmare to control.  Better to start with improving production.  That plus an increase in cost of energy will naturally drive down usage.  Supply and Demand - just moving the price point will change the curves.

Summation:

Either we can realistically define a roadmap for the United States to move to renewable energy, or we can collectively shove our heads up our asses and make excuses about why we didn't.  Arguing about who is making the CO2 or why isn't really going to help.  From the same web site that a lot of the other information is coming from:

http://www.irena.org/publications/2015/Jan/Renewable-Energy-Prospects-United-States-of-America

The plans are there.  

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/here-s-roundmap-get-us-run-100-renewable-energy-2050/

 

This is all a long way from Jack's veranda failing due to climate change though..... I'm still scratching my head on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

That doesn't actually address any concrete accomplishment of anything but political goals.

You say that, likes it's a bad thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

You have no fucking idea....I have a LEED platinum project under my belt and another one in the works.

LEED is, frankly, an annoying (and expensive) carbuncle on the ass of the sustainable movement.  A great way to put up a self-congratulatory plaque on your wall.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

I've wondered about that a lot, is the Earth actually cooling, or is it in some kind of steady-state due to the right volume and position relative to the sun? 

The laminar rotations of the core's layers clearly give us a wandering magnetic field right? Could the weak interactions in the core from the solar neutrinos allow for a steady state nuclear heating? I know that it seems insane, as weak interactions are so rare, but the core is well insulated, so maybe the interaction density wouldn't need to be too high with all that iron and nickel?

That ringing sound is the sun?  

And what happens to the neutron parade as the spin of the sun’s core  slows down?

Maybe we’re in a sweet spot that will disintegrate over time, in a lot of ways-  I’d like to think we’ll start dealing with that now, but I fear too many of us are burying a long time healthy future for the Humans inside of a desperate hedonism born of despair- death inside the Gravity Well.  

The Earth is still the center of our solar system, psychologically .  Boy, you think orbits change slowly......

Gears inside of gears inside of gears.  Something to think about when you’re grinding at the beercan this week-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

As long as I don’t have to bail out the Captains of Industry when their beach houses get swamped, let them bring it upon themselves. I bought 20’ above the water for a reason. Somehow I know that when the day comes, it won’t be good capitalism to let the Best capitalists bear the costs of their decisions. 

Time to watch ‘The Magnificent Ambersons’ again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Point #1:

The amount of TOTAL Co2 reduced graph is a red herring.  Either we can agree that there is a problem, or we can agree that there isn't.  Otherwise we all go down the rabbit hole of arguing semantics.  For example:

The US is among the WORST C02 polluters.  We share the top with a couple other developed countries.  But people will argue we should look at CO2 versus how much we manufacture.  Or against GDP.  Or versus land size.  Or per capita.  And so on.  The graph that shows how much we reduced is a factor of how much we over-produce as well.  The two are tied together.  Then question WHY that reduction happened:  it happened because extraction methods of oil and natural gas in the US made them cheaper alternatives to (clean!) coal. 

So in the end, we can choose to spiral down the hole of statistics and play games with numbers.  Or we can admit we're doing a horrible job and simply move on from there.

Point #2:

The Paris accords were definitely about promises.  Do we keep those promises?  Do we TRY to keep those promises?  Or do we look to other countries and their failures and use that as a benchmark.  I.e., do we really want to measure ourselves against the failures of others?  Do we want to lead or do we want to make pathetic excuses?

Point #3:

Fossil fuels are fossil fuels.  They aren't renewable in any way (yet).  Either we can start building renewables now, or do nothing.  Eventually (projections say in perhaps 60 years) natural gas will be nearly gone.  At that point, will we have had the foresight to build renewables, or will we fall back on coal and oil?

Point #4:

Germany is following a roadmap.  That roadmap specifically includes reduced reliance on coal.  Coal is a horrible fossible fuel, and burning coal releases far more C02 that oil / natural gas.  That's why they are moving to those in the interim.  However, they are also making a concerted effort to force their industries towards renewables.  This is a culture change.  Culture changes are hard.  We haven't been working at it here nearly as hard as they have. Your graph is 7 years out of date.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2018

Point #5:

Energy consumption is a nightmare to control.  Better to start with improving production.  That plus an increase in cost of energy will naturally drive down usage.  Supply and Demand - just moving the price point will change the curves.

Summation:

Either we can realistically define a roadmap for the United States to move to renewable energy, or we can collectively shove our heads up our asses and make excuses about why we didn't.  Arguing about who is making the CO2 or why isn't really going to help.  From the same web site that a lot of the other information is coming from:

http://www.irena.org/publications/2015/Jan/Renewable-Energy-Prospects-United-States-of-America

The plans are there.  

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/here-s-roundmap-get-us-run-100-renewable-energy-2050/

The best part of that is #5 Energy consumption is a nightmare to control.

Yeah, and look where all that investment in production is going to get you by 2040 if you don't take the time to figure out how to deal with consumption.

EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040.png

Notice that the use of Nuclear increases 1%, Natural Gas 2%.  The 1% increase in 'other renewables' like wind and solar is equal to the 1% reduction in the use of coal.

YAY TEAM?  All that investment in production is wasted if you don't do something about consumption.  Wasted; the opposite of true conservation.  It still looks like all those environmentally sound electric cars are going to be fueled by TADA!!!!! fossil fuels.  But with the invesment of trillions you will have a lot of idle, wasteful production capacity until you figure out how to deal with it.

It's nice to look at production and see all that renewable stuff.

Germany-1.png

It's when you look at consumption that you see that Germany can't produce all the energy it needs and relies on imports.  That pushes the renewables down a lot because Russian oil and gas is cheaper.

One more interesting thing about that bottom graph is that while they fuck around with sources they show their own total production as just about static from 2013 to 2030.  That just don't feel right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites