Jump to content

Greta Rides Again?


Recommended Posts

On 11/16/2019 at 3:00 AM, pogen said:

 

Hitler was a vegetarian.   Maybe vegan.   So, ahead of the curve in that sense. 

I don't know if he ever ate bugs. 

For his last meal he ate a pistol.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

LB forwarded to the ED for a full ban due to attempted identification.

Thanks for those posting information on the excellent sailing adventures Greta has taken.  I dropped by here to learn about her second voyage and found what I was looking to learn.  I came pretty clos

The young lady sure has managed to get a lot of old folks' knickers in twists 

Posted Images

13 hours ago, Grrr... said:

In a position to look like what?

Did you watch the video?  In a position to look like a sham that can only recite what others tell her to say (which would be typical for a 16-year old, which is why you don't put them in that position), rather than the person that they want her portrayed as (some environmental prodigy).

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

I'm sure most here are familiar with Godwin's Law.  You know, you mention Hitler in the context of your argument and you automatically lose.  Well, I would like to propose LB's Law.  If you mention 'what if' in the context of your argument, you immediately lose.  

 

Fuck I love this place!

But what if Hitler never existed?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Panoramix said:

 

It isn't a luxury.

We are part of the environment, we need it to sustain our lives, the luxury is becoming so dependent of machinery that you eventually become too fat to walk to the shops.

Of course it is a luxury. If your basic needs are not met the environment comes a distant last in concern. The concept is really quite simple. Does it matter if you cut down the last tree when you die if you don't. We inherently try to live, so if it is a choice of screw the environment or die, then the environment always loses.

Most in the US have the luxury to make choices, many of the billions in the underdeveloped don't. Without solving the problems facing this large group we are just playing feel good shit with our pathetic aims.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Of course it is a luxury. If your basic needs are not met the environment comes a distant last in concern. The concept is really quite simple. Does it matter if you cut down the last tree when you die if you don't. We inherently try to live, so if it is a choice of screw the environment or die, then the environment always loses.

Most in the US have the luxury to make choices, many of the billions in the underdeveloped don't. Without solving the problems facing this large group we are just playing feel good shit with our pathetic aims.

It is true that in a survival situation the environment doesn't matter that much. Nevertheless, the people hurting the environment are mostly not the people in poverty. They don't have the means to do so. Their money goes into buying food, not oil.

Your remark is just "whataboutism", it was the preferred method by the soviets to discredit dissidents who were daring to be critica., if I were you, I wouldn't be proud of using such fallacious techniques. It didn't end well for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

It is true that in a survival situation the environment doesn't matter that much. Nevertheless, the people hurting the environment are mostly not the people in poverty. They don't have the means to do so. Their money goes into buying food, not oil.

Your remark is just "whataboutism", it was the preferred method by the soviets to discredit dissidents who were daring to be critica., if I were you, I wouldn't be proud of using such fallacious techniques. It didn't end well for them.

Got fuck all to do with whataboutism. You claimed looking after the environment is not a luxury, I disagree, that's all. So comparing it to some dumbass soviet shit is just lazy bullshit showing you either have no argument, no ability to articulate a rebuttal or feel dismissal is the way forward.

As for the damage caused by the poor billions in the world being insignificant, I again disagree. Vast amounts of the world where these folk live are not great examples of how to look after the place. Water, deforestation, pollution, they have the whole lot in spades. As they want to improve their lot they will need more of everything, lots more, causing even more problems. Or should we just shut the door on this group and tell them to just stay the way they are until the developed world comes up with a suitable answer. Yeah right, that will work out well. Will need a much bigger wall than Trump wants. And guns, a shit load of guns.

Oh look, an answer without any Russian in it. Maybe you can come up with some other long word so you don't need to think to much.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 4:47 PM, LB 15 said:

Using the terms ‘King Tides’ and ‘rouge waves’ are the best way to demonstrate your ignorance of the ocean. 

Another graduate from the Facebook institute of higher learning.

That's what the weather folks used when they got tired of calling them "spring tides".  So it went to "king tides" and now it's simply coastal flood warnings due to abnormal high tides.  Either way, it's happening and more often.  I know because I'm living it.

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

Got fuck all to do with whataboutism. You claimed looking after the environment is not a luxury, I disagree, that's all. So comparing it to some dumbass soviet shit is just lazy bullshit showing you either have no argument, no ability to articulate a rebuttal or feel dismissal is the way forward.

As for the damage caused by the poor billions in the world being insignificant, I again disagree. Vast amounts of the world where these folk live are not great examples of how to look after the place. Water, deforestation, pollution, they have the whole lot in spades. As they want to improve their lot they will need more of everything, lots more, causing even more problems. Or should we just shut the door on this group and tell them to just stay the way they are until the developed world comes up with a suitable answer. Yeah right, that will work out well. Will need a much bigger wall than Trump wants. And guns, a shit load of guns.

Oh look, an answer without any Russian in it. Maybe you can come up with some other long word so you don't need to think to much.

It wasn't about the Russians but about the kind of sophisms you use. In other words, you've managed to switch the conversation to something else while giving the impression that you were replying. That is an old technique, it is simply disrespectful to treat others like idiots and the reason why I am calling you out.

The people who deforest and pollute in developing countries aren't locals living hand to mouth. It is mainly some local guys who are selling out their countries to foreign corporations.

Look this is how it works in the real world : https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/in-colombia-a-palm-oil-boom-has-its-roots-in-years-of-fighting/2014/12/29/ae6eb10c-796b-11e4-9721-80b3d95a28a9_story.html

The local farmers didn't ask for the palm oil business and it didn't make them rich.

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

It wasn't about the Russians but about the kind of sophisms you use. In other words, you've managed to switch the conversation to something else while giving the impression that you were replying. That is an old technique, it is simply disrespectful to treat others like idiots and the reason why I am calling you out.

The people who deforest and pollute in developing countries aren't locals living hand to mouth. It is mainly some local guys who are selling out their countries to foreign corporations.

Look this is how it works in the real world : https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/in-colombia-a-palm-oil-boom-has-its-roots-in-years-of-fighting/2014/12/29/ae6eb10c-796b-11e4-9721-80b3d95a28a9_story.html

The local farmers didn't ask for the palm oil business and didn't make them rich.

You replied to a comment that caring for the environment was a luxury. You disagreed with the idea. I agreed with the idea and came up with reasons for this. You called it whataboutism, now you claim I was changing the subject and misdirection.

You need to get off the turps before trying to sound so intellectual, it doesn't work. Give it a try later when you sober up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gissie said:

You replied to a comment that caring for the environment was a luxury. You disagreed with the idea. I agreed with the idea and came up with reasons for this. You called it whataboutism, now you claim I was changing the subject and misdirection.

You need to get off the turps before trying to sound so intellectual, it doesn't work. Give it a try later when you sober up.

Of course this "caring for the environement is a luxury" idea is whataboutism, you pretended that people are destroying the environment because they have to to survive, this is just a blatant attempt to shift the conversation away from the harm done by greedy persons/corporations to developing countries. The big polluters are wealthy people/corporations, they aren't in a survival situation, they aren't doing it to feed their families. The mining companies who go to mine Colombia aren't doing it because they are about to starve, the  cosmetics companies don't use oil palm because they are in a desperate situation, the USA does not spray extremely harmful weed killers in Colombia to feed people. On the other hand the small farmers have to go away from their land because the environment they rely on to survive gets destroyed.

 

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching their progress on Predictwind, I am struck by the passage speeds.

sure they aren’t pushing the boat, but the Outremer is supposed to be top of the range in fast cruising cats.

their speeds are the same we would see on our Valiant 40 in similar winds and conditions...

currently 6.5 knots on a beam reach in 20 knots of wind..

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, olaf hart said:

Watching their progress on Predictwind, I am struck by the passage speeds.

sure they aren’t pushing the boat, but the Outremer is supposed to be top of the range in fast cruising cats.

their speeds are the same we would see on our Valiant 40 in similar winds and conditions...

currently 6.5 knots on a beam reach in 20 knots of wind..

 

We are talking of the North Atlantic in November, the sea state is probably quite bad, cross seas included, catamarans don't like this. So they are probably super prudent to completely avoid the risk of digging a bow. Also a comfort issue as slamming in waves the central platform at high speed is unpleasant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, olaf hart said:

Watching their progress on Predictwind, I am struck by the passage speeds.

sure they aren’t pushing the boat, but the Outremer is supposed to be top of the range in fast cruising cats.

their speeds are the same we would see on our Valiant 40 in similar winds and conditions...

currently 6.5 knots on a beam reach in 20 knots of wind..

 

Very small child and non-sailing teenager + father onboard. Yes, they could bash their brains out at 2-3x

that boat speed but they don't need to... this isn't a race. They have been plodding along in the 5-7 knot

range since they started. Good old cruising speeds. Comfortable, dry, easy meal prep, making progress.

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

 

It isn't a luxury.

We are part of the environment, we need it to sustain our lives, the luxury is becoming so dependent of machinery that you eventually become too fat to walk to the shops.

No that's decadence. As is voluntarily increasing the costs of basic goods and services to fund feel good initiatives such as Fuel taxes to subsidize electric vehicles or HOV lanes 

Luxury is being able to have discretionary activities and expenditures beyond survival. As a society, if you are not feeding your people, preaching to them about organic (primitive) methods that are not using GMO seeds,  fuel for tillage or fertilizers or herbicides or pesticides is deadly, by comparison to utilizing the advantages of modern agriculture. When an advanced country such as the US or most of the EU chooses to practice "Green" ideas it's acceptable because they are already done with the heavy work of infrastructure creation, and have in general declining birth rates that come with higher standards of living. Attempting to enforce that in the 3rd world doesn't work. Cold, hungry people are not very concerned about "climate change" fantasies. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

That's what the weather folks used when they got tired of calling them "spring tides".  So it went to "king tides" and now it's simply coastal flood warnings due to abnormal high tides.  Either way, it's happening and more often.  I know because I'm living it.

Spring tides are happening more often than every 14 days? Wow. Strange that it isn't happening here in Australia. The office window I have stared out of for 20 years is 3 mtrs from the water front and 2 mtrs above HAT (You might call that a King Kong tide) You have been listening to too many 16 year olds mate. There is zero increase in either the frequency or height of spring tides. And just for the record, people aren't dying, entire ecosystems have been 'collapsing' since before the dinosaurs and the world won't end in 18 months. 

Any slight increase in the sea level over the next few weeks will caused by Greta puking her way across the Atlantic.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Spring tides are happening more often than every 14 days? Wow. Strange that it isn't happening here in Australia. The office window I have stared out of for 20 years is 3 mtrs from the water front and 2 mtrs above HAT (You might call that a King Kong tide) You have been listening to too many 16 year olds mate. There is zero increase in either the frequency or height of spring tides. And just for the record, people aren't dying, entire ecosystems have been 'collapsing' since before the dinosaurs and the world won't end in 18 months. 

Any slight increase in the sea level over the next few weeks will caused by Greta puking her way across the Atlantic.

Oh, come on, man, can't you see how global warming is impacting the gravitational pull of the moon?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panoramix said:

Of course this "caring for the environement is a luxury" idea is whataboutism, you pretended that people are destroying the environment because they have to to survive, this is just a blatant attempt to shift the conversation away from the harm done by greedy persons/corporations to developing countries. The big polluters are wealthy people/corporations, they aren't in a survival situation, they aren't doing it to feed their families. The mining companies who go to mine Colombia aren't doing it because they are about to starve, the  cosmetics companies don't use oil palm because they are in a desperate situation, the USA does not spray extremely harmful weed killers in Colombia to feed people. On the other hand the small farmers have to go away from their land because the environment they rely on to survive gets destroyed.

 

Let me try this one more time to see if you will allow the blinkers to drop for a moment.

I think that caring for the environment is a luxury. Very hard to give a toss about it when survival is the aim in life. Trying to ensure your kids grow up to look after you in your short old age. People in this state put the environment way down the list of priorities.

Those in a fairly comfortable position have the luxury to forgo some niceties of life to help the environment.

Now, keep the blinkers aside for a moment more. At no time have I claimed they are the biggest problem, although they will become one as the gradually improve their lives. At no time have I claimed that the wealthy are blameless. In other words not trying to deflect from the problems you list, many of which I agree with.

I was purely referring to the idea that you claim, that is the one where caring for the environment is not a luxury. The rest of what you are writing is a real example of your 'whataboutism' problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Let me try this one more time to see if you will allow the blinkers to drop for a moment.

I think that caring for the environment is a luxury. Very hard to give a toss about it when survival is the aim in life. Trying to ensure your kids grow up to look after you in your short old age. People in this state put the environment way down the list of priorities.

Those in a fairly comfortable position have the luxury to forgo some niceties of life to help the environment.

Now, keep the blinkers aside for a moment more. At no time have I claimed they are the biggest problem, although they will become one as the gradually improve their lives. At no time have I claimed that the wealthy are blameless. In other words not trying to deflect from the problems you list, many of which I agree with.

I was purely referring to the idea that you claim, that is the one where caring for the environment is not a luxury. The rest of what you are writing is a real example of your 'whataboutism' problem.

OK...lets all agree here.  Gissie is a pontificating, deflecting fool.

Respecting and attending to the environment has nothing to do with foregoing “niceties”.  Unless you define a nicety as a Lamborghini.

Caring for the environment is not a luxury, it is a necessity.  It is the ecological equivalent of the Hippocratic oath:  First, do no harm.

There is a wide variety of delightful living that can occur once you take that simple approach.  Even if you burn a bit of diesel on your way out of the harbor. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Left Shift said:

OK...lets all agree here.  Gissie is a pontificating, deflecting fool.

Respecting and attending to the environment has nothing to do with foregoing “niceties”.  Unless you define a nicety as a Lamborghini.

Caring for the environment is not a luxury, it is a necessity.  It is the ecological equivalent of the Hippocratic oath:  First, do no harm.

There is a wide variety of delightful living that can occur once you take that simple approach.  Even if you burn a bit of diesel on your way out of the harbor. 

 

 

You sure haven't improved in your ability to reason. Sad, but then again also expected. You see adversaries when there are none. As for your claim ridiculous use of the hypocratic oath and do no evil, you make me miss Randumb. Who decides what is wrong. Burning diesel on the way out is doing wrong. Buying a grp boat does damage. Breathing does damage. Chopping down a tree to cook your food so you don't starve does damage. In theory just waking up does damage. You have the luxury to try and minimise the damage you do, although it is to late for you mind. The guy cutting down the tree to cook his meal doesn't have this luxury at all. Perhaps this simple concept is still to advanced for you.

So please return to your mole like life of mental darkness. You are lucky that you aren't bright enough to miss the ability to reason.

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

You sure haven't improved in your ability to reason. Sad, but then again also expected. You see adversaries when there are none. As for your claim ridiculous use of the hypocratic oath and do no evil, you make me miss Randumb. Who decides what is wrong. Burning diesel on the way out is doing wrong. Buying a grp boat does damage. Breathing does damage. Chopping down a tree to cook your food so you don't starve does damage. In theory just waking up does damage. You have the luxury to try and minimise the damage you do, although it is to late for you mind. The guy cutting down the tree to cook his meal doesn't have this luxury at all. Perhaps this simple concept is still to advanced for you.

So please return to your mole like life of mental darkness. You are lucky that you aren't bright enough to miss the ability to reason.

Prepackaged rhetoricical pablum. Not worthy of a response.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, olaf hart said:

their speeds are the same we would see on our Valiant 40 in similar winds and conditions...

currently 6.5 knots on a beam reach in 20 knots of wind..

Generally on our cat beam reaches in seas over 2-2.5m could be pretty uncomfortable, if the wave period was short.

We often spent more time slowing the boat down for increased comfort. When conditions warranted we could easily go faster than a V40. It was nice to have the option.

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

Prepackaged rhetoricical pablum. Not worthy of a response.

Yep - as expected.

Discussing stuff like this with people like you is like a discussion I had with a friend of mine's GF once on remote Aboriginal communities. She was a Sydney suburbanite and assumed that everyone, everywhere, had clean potable water, proper sewage disposal and reliable power supplies. She simply couldn't understand why I kept insisting that the kids had no hope of learning anything until they were properly fed, properly housed and well. Not to mention safe from abuse. She thought they needed better teachers. I didn't disagree but said they needed plumbers, electricians and community nurses way more and way sooner. You cannot teach a sick, hungry and frightened child no matter how good the teacher.

She'd always had that stuff and assumed everyone did.

You seem to suffer from the same blinkered vision.

Why do a lot of 3rd World places run goats even knowing how destructive to the environment they are? And why do they burn valuable fertiliser in the form of dung?

Because their other choices are to starve and have no fuel at all.

Potable water is a fundamental need. That takes a lot of power. If you don't have the power (alternatively a VERY low population density and preferably nomadic) you don't have potable water, and you get sick.

Nearly all of us want to live in a clean, green environment. Some of us (like me) already do. I built my infrastructure (water capture, sewage disposal) and maintain it as well. You - dunno. Perhaps you'd care to inform us of your life experience and what you've actually, personally done.

FKT

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

No that's decadence. As is voluntarily increasing the costs of basic goods and services to fund feel good initiatives such as Fuel taxes to subsidize electric vehicles or HOV lanes 

Luxury is being able to have discretionary activities and expenditures beyond survival. As a society, if you are not feeding your people, preaching to them about organic (primitive) methods that are not using GMO seeds,  fuel for tillage or fertilizers or herbicides or pesticides is deadly, by comparison to utilizing the advantages of modern agriculture. When an advanced country such as the US or most of the EU chooses to practice "Green" ideas it's acceptable because they are already done with the heavy work of infrastructure creation, and have in general declining birth rates that come with higher standards of living. Attempting to enforce that in the 3rd world doesn't work. Cold, hungry people are not very concerned about "climate change" fantasies. 

You are just living in wonderland, climate change is costing us vast amount of money, it is huge enough to worry the insurers. Just google "climate change insurance". Even if you live in an air conditioned bubble, you are dependent of the environment outside, the most obvious instance is the food you eat. You can't grow food cheaply in a place were the climate is constantly evolving. It costs a lot to adapt constantly. The energy to power your air-cond is harder to get hold of if there are violent climatic events on a regular basis.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gissie said:

Let me try this one more time to see if you will allow the blinkers to drop for a moment.

I think that caring for the environment is a luxury. Very hard to give a toss about it when survival is the aim in life. Trying to ensure your kids grow up to look after you in your short old age. People in this state put the environment way down the list of priorities.

Those in a fairly comfortable position have the luxury to forgo some niceties of life to help the environment.

Now, keep the blinkers aside for a moment more. At no time have I claimed they are the biggest problem, although they will become one as the gradually improve their lives. At no time have I claimed that the wealthy are blameless. In other words not trying to deflect from the problems you list, many of which I agree with.

I was purely referring to the idea that you claim, that is the one where caring for the environment is not a luxury. The rest of what you are writing is a real example of your 'whataboutism' problem.

I could have some sympathy for people who were in a situation where they had a to choose between survival and their immediate environment but that's mostly not the case. Most of the damage is done through greed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yep - as expected.

Discussing stuff like this with people like you is like a discussion I had with a friend of mine's GF once on remote Aboriginal communities. She was a Sydney suburbanite and assumed that everyone, everywhere, had clean potable water, proper sewage disposal and reliable power supplies. She simply couldn't understand why I kept insisting that the kids had no hope of learning anything until they were properly fed, properly housed and well. Not to mention safe from abuse. She thought they needed better teachers. I didn't disagree but said they needed plumbers, electricians and community nurses way more and way sooner. You cannot teach a sick, hungry and frightened child no matter how good the teacher.

She'd always had that stuff and assumed everyone did.

You seem to suffer from the same blinkered vision.

Why do a lot of 3rd World places run goats even knowing how destructive to the environment they are? And why do they burn valuable fertiliser in the form of dung?

Because their other choices are to starve and have no fuel at all.

Potable water is a fundamental need. That takes a lot of power. If you don't have the power (alternatively a VERY low population density and preferably nomadic) you don't have potable water, and you get sick.

Nearly all of us want to live in a clean, green environment. Some of us (like me) already do. I built my infrastructure (water capture, sewage disposal) and maintain it as well. You - dunno. Perhaps you'd care to inform us of your life experience and what you've actually, personally done.

FKT

Did you sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

You are just living in wonderland, climate change is costing us vast amount of money, it is huge enough to worry the insurers. Just google "climate change insurance". Even if you live in an air conditioned bubble, you are dependent of the environment outside, the most obvious instance is the food you eat. You can't grow food cheaply in a place were the climate is constantly evolving. It costs a lot to adapt constantly. The energy to power your air-cond is harder to get hold of if there are violent climatic events on a regular basis.

I live about 25 miles from Salinas, which has some of the best farmland in the world, some of the better farmland was north in the Santa Clara Valley, it's been replanted with industry and housingthat you know as Silicon Valley. 

The climate evolution of which you speak is imperceptible to the farmers. They are far more concerned about the state's water politics and wastewater runoff nonsense (you don't want to see the forms). We generally don't need AC, as the good insulation allows a balance of evening cooling vs daytime (>40C in afternoon) heat. 

The amount of Solar power (we have 1kW on a condominium) around here is significant, such that the AC loading is not the peak demand of a few decades back in the rolling brownout era. It can't charge the commuting EV's but it does offload the generating plants. 

There is discussion that if the 1 deg C change that is forecast  over this century occurs that some of the varietals in the Santa Clara and Napa Valleys will need to be moved a few miles to be optimized for their degree days.

If Europe wants to commit economic suicide,  that's their choice, it's self limiting and self defeating, but no reason to try to stop them from doing it if they feel good about it, that seems to be more important than objective reality. They can sit hungry in the cold and dark and feel superior if that's what they prioritize. 

The development of plentiful Natural Gas which has minimal pollution, and the extraction of more petroluem by hydraulic fracking have boosted the US economy to allow it to be free from the influence of the Middle East, and to apply pressure to Venezuela, and Russia. The state of CA and local municipalities are trying hard to follow Caracas down the tubes, but so far have not made it to the tipping point. 

 

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

Did you sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back?  

Did you sprain yours in the Seattle Circle jerk ? 

If your experience is living in urban areas with hard surface roads, municipal water/sewer and reliable power, and plentiful food at the store down the street you are privileged. 

I certainly have been, and while I have lived in the woods with septic/well and wood stove, it's not a preference as I age. 

 

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

I have lived in the woods with septic/well 

 

You had septic well? Luxury. We lived in a cardboard box in the middle of the road. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LionessRacing said:

Did you sprain yours in the Seattle Circle jerk ? 

If your experience is living in urban areas with hard surface roads, municipal water/sewer and reliable power, and plentiful food at the store down the street you are privileged. 

I certainly have been, and while I have lived in the woods with septic/well and wood stove, it's not a preference as I age. 

My wrist is fine thanks.

Every one posting on this site is privileged.  Welcome to Sailing Anarchy. 

You are privileged in this world if you can falter and have a resource to fall back on.  Much of the world doesn't.  Doesn't have a septic system, clean water, a wood stove, wood to burn or the acreage to make that life work.  Much of the rest of the world also lives in an urban area with hard surface roads and reliable power and has an even harder row to hoe in life.  What we all have is a single planet with limited resources.  

Some of us have lived miles up a dirt road, some in Manhattan.  Some have picked beans and some have gone to grad school.  Some have worked in sub-Saharan Africa and some have sailed across oceans.  Some have run environmental organizations and some have made very stupid decisions about the use/abuse of land.  Some have done all those things.  Lessons learned in each circumstance are applicable to others.  Lessons about being reasonable occupants of the planet.  On the whole, I will readily admit, I can do better.  I take up way more space, resources and wealth than most.  So, I presume, do you.  

 

BTW.  You will have more success with your arguments in the future if you don't reference hydraulic fracking as a saving technology.  Just my two cents.  

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

I could have some sympathy for people who were in a situation where they had a to choose between survival and their immediate environment but that's mostly not the case. Most of the damage is done through greed.

Some sympathy? That's it, just some? You are one hard bastard, survival isn't always good enough a reason. So they should just die rather than hurt the environment. Yet you drive, use electricity, wear stuff made by machine and flown/trucked to shops near you. In general hurt the environment far more than some poor bugger who just wants to live. Ever felt that you should only get some sympathy for being privileged on where you were born and though I shouldn't do this any more and give up?

Nah, you have the luxury of doing enough to salve your little conscience and still stand in judgment of the guy just wanting to live. The guy who doesn't have the luxury to give up anything but his existence, something you appear to be happy to accept.

As for the greed etc. part, no problem with this at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Some sympathy? That's it, just some? You are one hard bastard, survival isn't always good enough a reason. So they should just die rather than hurt the environment. Yet you drive, use electricity, wear stuff made by machine and flown/trucked to shops near you. In general hurt the environment far more than some poor bugger who just wants to live. Ever felt that you should only get some sympathy for being privileged on where you were born and though I shouldn't do this any more and give up?

Nah, you have the luxury of doing enough to salve your little conscience and still stand in judgment of the guy just wanting to live. The guy who doesn't have the luxury to give up anything but his existence, something you appear to be happy to accept.

As for the greed etc. part, no problem with this at all.

Some sympathy because I have sympathy for many people and those have some of my sympathy and could because this question of preserving the environment versus survival is purely academic.

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

You had septic well? Luxury. We lived in a cardboard box in the middle of the road. 

Was it a gravel road and uphill in both directions to get there?  whilst barefoot in the snow?

Link to post
Share on other sites

SLV Arsebook updates...

 

La Vagabonde is currently 33°11’N 72°10’W . We’re safe and south of the 60 knot gusts and 6m waves according to all weather models we are running onboard. A massive thanks to PredictWind for helping us out here and our northern hemisphere man Christian Dumard. It’ll be a very rough night ahead but we’re looking good! #sailinglavagabonde

If you're interested in following our route, you can follow it on our website: http://www.sailing-lavagabonde.com

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 4.
We’ve had to keep a real eye on the weather the last few days, 3 reefs in the main last night with gusts to 38 beating to windward making all haste south to get out of the way of this system. We’re out the other side now though folks. Yeehah! #sailinglavagabonde IG @sailing_lavaga

Last night and this morning was a rough one, 30-35 knots of wind. We were close hauled and still getting 6-7 knots speed out of La Vaga! She’s really been showing off on this trip. Lenny’s sleeping like a log through all the bouncing around and craziness. Today Nikki and I showered in the rain and washed our hair. Killing it. #sailinglavagabonde #northatlantic IG @elayna.carausu

Check our LIVE progress here: sailing-lavagabonde.com

75625271_2698075396910951_47041819187179

 

78054694_2698075426910948_64570392728672

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 4

After a night of sailing into 25-30 knots of wind, and a morning of further gusts up to 40 knots - the weather came to an abrupt calm. A large cloud turned our washing machine-like experience even more real - the rinse setting was turned on. The heavens opened and it poured.

We collected the rainwater and topped up our water tanks, as well as grabbing a quick shower on deck (the snow on Day 1 now a distant memory). It was a stark reminder of how our precious resources like fresh, clean water are not in endless supply. Out here, there is no grocery store, no main water supply, no petrol station. It really hits home how lucky we are to have these things on our doorstep. How important it is for us not to waste them. And how deeply we should value them.

Showered, watered and fed - we settled down for an hour’s family time. Greta and Svante taught us how to play Yatzy, we cracked open a bar of chocolate and enjoyed the familiar warmth of each other’s company before bed.

Check our live position at https://sailing-lavagabonde.com/

 

73459010_120524732727296_246346376490149

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

Spring tides are happening more often than every 14 days? Wow. Strange that it isn't happening here in Australia. The office window I have stared out of for 20 years is 3 mtrs from the water front and 2 mtrs above HAT (You might call that a King Kong tide) You have been listening to too many 16 year olds mate. There is zero increase in either the frequency or height of spring tides. And just for the record, people aren't dying, entire ecosystems have been 'collapsing' since before the dinosaurs and the world won't end in 18 months. 

Any slight increase in the sea level over the next few weeks will caused by Greta puking her way across the Atlantic.

Who said anything about people dying?  Our typical tides flow a little under 6 feet, (about 2 meters).  We are experiencing 7+ tides that are not forecasted until the day of more and more often.  Yes- we are seeing coastal flood events at least once every 14 days at least in the past couple of months.  How's the Great Barrier Reef doing on your side of the world?

Probably don't give a rip.... 

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

74240774_2527171083984766_23642861968734

vxjmhhnn59y31.jpg

 

hang_in_Greta.jpg?ssl=1

So you are one of those people in the group who've said "The rest of them are getting ahead by trashing, so we might as well"..."the rest of them are cheating (on this exam/at golf/in business) so I am going to do it too."

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Panoramix said:

Yep she's having fun and it doesn't involve the burning of fossil fuel....

Yes and my Dad and the rest of the crew transported themselves to Virginia by flapping their wings.  

Dad was the most tired because he had the longest trip, but now he gets to rest. 

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

You had septic well? Luxury. We lived in a cardboard box in the middle of the road. 

Your road was big enough to have a middle?

I had to plow mine in the winter and grade it in the summer, one vehicle wide, never mind the branches... 

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

We are experiencing 7+ tides that are not forecasted until the day of more and more often.

and what is the variable that allows them to be forecast?

Presumably the harmonic components are well understood the last 100 years or so...

Are you getting strong coastal Lows or onshore winds? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

"Last night and this morning was a rough one, 30-35 knots of wind. We were close hauled and still getting 6-7 knots speed out of La Vaga! She’s really been showing off..."

Um, for a modern 40' range multihull that seems very slow.

My nearly 60 yr old monohull will do easily that or better in 30 kts with a small jib and the Mizzen only

 

Here's their "real time" update, 25+ kts wind and doing 8.8 kts on a 110 TWA

that's tragically slow... 

image.thumb.png.c463ceaf80bf2dd1562a128cf1ef561d.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, every 14 days higher than normal tides. New moon and full moon tides ring a bell? I have lived here my whole life of 70 years and these are normal events. Charleston floods when it rains and it is worse if that happens to be at high tide. Oh, and the beaches have been washing away as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Proneshooter said:

Gee, every 14 days higher than normal tides. New moon and full moon tides ring a bell? I have lived here my whole life of 70 years and these are normal events. Charleston floods when it rains and it is worse if that happens to be at high tide. Oh, and the beaches have been washing away as well.

Golly, it's almost like they call it the "low country" and have famous swamp dwellers or something around there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Um, for a modern 40' range multihull that seems very slow.

My nearly 60 yr old monohull will do easily that or better in 30 kts with a small jib and the Mizzen only

 

Here's their "real time" update, 25+ kts wind and doing 8.8 kts on a 110 TWA

that's tragically slow... 

image.thumb.png.c463ceaf80bf2dd1562a128cf1ef561d.png

When you load the shit out of a multihull (exceeding payload capacity),  it loses much of its speed characteristics and beating into a headwind close hauled is the slowest angle of sail as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

I live about 25 miles from Salinas, which has some of the best farmland in the world, some of the better farmland was north in the Santa Clara Valley, it's been replanted with industry and housingthat you know as Silicon Valley. 

The climate evolution of which you speak is imperceptible to the farmers. They are far more concerned about the state's water politics and wastewater runoff nonsense (you don't want to see the forms). We generally don't need AC, as the good insulation allows a balance of evening cooling vs daytime (>40C in afternoon) heat. 

The amount of Solar power (we have 1kW on a condominium) around here is significant, such that the AC loading is not the peak demand of a few decades back in the rolling brownout era. It can't charge the commuting EV's but it does offload the generating plants. 

There is discussion that if the 1 deg C change that is forecast  over this century occurs that some of the varietals in the Santa Clara and Napa Valleys will need to be moved a few miles to be optimized for their degree days.

If Europe wants to commit economic suicide,  that's their choice, it's self limiting and self defeating, but no reason to try to stop them from doing it if they feel good about it, that seems to be more important than objective reality. They can sit hungry in the cold and dark and feel superior if that's what they prioritize. 

The development of plentiful Natural Gas which has minimal pollution, and the extraction of more petroluem by hydraulic fracking have boosted the US economy to allow it to be free from the influence of the Middle East, and to apply pressure to Venezuela, and Russia. The state of CA and local municipalities are trying hard to follow Caracas down the tubes, but so far have not made it to the tipping point. 

 

Good post.... a few things to add.

Nuclear power is the only option that can increase our energy supply by a large margin without significant impact on either CO2 emissions or taking up large swaths of open land, or both.  It takes up a very small footprint, is not dependent on weather, can adjust output, and can be located closer to its demand, or can produce so much power that transmission losses are not such a problem.

But you just identified another reason nuclear is important, it is the only power source that can also be combined with desalination.  Desalination could dramatically increase our amount of arable lands available for farming.  In California, desalination could be used to clean up large swaths of former farmland that have become sterile due to salt build-up, and of course it use draw sea water to either substitute the instream flows in major rivers like the Colorado to help the environment in its riparian areas as well as the Sea of Cortez, but also irrigate new farmland, particularly if necessary as some farmland becomes inundated with rising seas.

The blatant ignorance about nuclear power and the false professing that its waste is a big problem is one of the worst problems we face relative to energy and the environment.  We are missing a huge opportunity because idiots professing themselves to be "green" don't see it as part of their religion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gissie said:

Some sympathy? That's it, just some? You are one hard bastard, survival isn't always good enough a reason. So they should just die rather than hurt the environment. Yet you drive, use electricity, wear stuff made by machine and flown/trucked to shops near you. In general hurt the environment far more than some poor bugger who just wants to live. Ever felt that you should only get some sympathy for being privileged on where you were born and though I shouldn't do this any more and give up?

Nah, you have the luxury of doing enough to salve your little conscience and still stand in judgment of the guy just wanting to live. The guy who doesn't have the luxury to give up anything but his existence, something you appear to be happy to accept.

As for the greed etc. part, no problem with this at all.

You do realise that the two of you actually agree on this, right? The "truckload convenience factor" which you mention is the same thing as Pano saying that the real damage is done my "greed."  That be the "big players"... so if you are like me and you watch this argument you see that in fact you are both right but only partially right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Left Shift said:

...

BTW.  You will have more success with your arguments in the future if you don't reference hydraulic fracking as a saving technology.  Just my two cents.  

Why?  Nothing has reduced CO2 production in the world more than fracking.  As the technology matures, the faults have been dramatically mitigated.  Of course that does not make sense to those who's religion tells them to condemn it.  Be objective and look into it with a mix of pro, negative, and "unbiased" research/publications, don't take any one person's word for it, consider the big picture and the little picture on a pro/con basis, then get back to us on how bad it is. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

Day 4.
We’ve had to keep a real eye on the weather the last few days, 3 reefs in the main last night with gusts to 38 beating to windward making all haste south to get out of the way of this system. We’re out the other side now though folks. Yeehah! #sailinglavagabonde IG @sailing_lavaga

Last night and this morning was a rough one, 30-35 knots of wind. We were close hauled and still getting 6-7 knots speed out of La Vaga! She’s really been showing off on this trip. Lenny’s sleeping like a log through all the bouncing around and craziness. Today Nikki and I showered in the rain and washed our hair. Killing it. #sailinglavagabonde #northatlantic IG @elayna.carausu

Check our LIVE progress here: sailing-lavagabonde.com

75625271_2698075396910951_47041819187179

 

78054694_2698075426910948_64570392728672

 

 

 

 

pert works in salt water. No need to wait for rain, Haha.

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

Who said anything about people dying?  Our typical tides flow a little under 6 feet, (about 2 meters).  We are experiencing 7+ tides that are not forecasted until the day of more and more often.  Yes- we are seeing coastal flood events at least once every 14 days at least in the past couple of months.  How's the Great Barrier Reef doing on your side of the world?

Probably don't give a rip.... 

The point is not that there isn't a rising mean sea level, it is that the way this is being reported and named is just a lot of utter nonsense. We already always had "spring and neap" to oversimply describe the quasiperiodic long term tide range variation. Then we get "King tides" and then "coastal flooding" as if the tide is somehow sinister...
Furthermore many areas that are getting more frequent flooding are actually sinking, or are being impacted by the loss of marshland (Louisiana) or the development was *never* prudent and it is finally biting them in the ass (Miami, anyone???)...
 

Apparent sealevel is rising at different rates in different locations. NOAA has a lot of data on this. Bridgeport CT for instance is 6" higher in apparent sealevel (against the datum point) than it was about 100 years ago. What about Charleston? I haven't looked it up.  "Apparent" because there is land mass movement as well as actual sealevel rise.

 

It isn't the tide that is sinister. Usually the only reason for a last minute flood is wind or low pressure or both causing a surge which can be very difficult to predict.
See the difference between the red line and the blue line:

image.png.272a0bc7816f71eddce1aea4f962b046.png

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

So you are one of those people in the group who've said "The rest of them are getting ahead by trashing, so we might as well"..."the rest of them are cheating (on this exam/at golf/in business) so I am going to do it too."

No, it's called calling out hypocrisy. If China wants to Run with the Big Dogs, she should be held accountable to the same rules!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Good post.... a few things to add.

Nuclear power is the only option that can increase our energy supply by a large margin without significant impact on either CO2 emissions or taking up large swaths of open land, or both.  It takes up a very small footprint, is not dependent on weather, can adjust output, and can be located closer to its demand, or can produce so much power that transmission losses are not such a problem.

But you just identified another reason nuclear is important, it is the only power source that can also be combined with desalination.  Desalination could dramatically increase our amount of arable lands available for farming.  In California, desalination could be used to clean up large swaths of former farmland that have become sterile due to salt build-up, and of course it use draw sea water to either substitute the instream flows in major rivers like the Colorado to help the environment in its riparian areas as well as the Sea of Cortez, but also irrigate new farmland, particularly if necessary as some farmland becomes inundated with rising seas.

The blatant ignorance about nuclear power and the false professing that its waste is a big problem is one of the worst problems we face relative to energy and the environment.  We are missing a huge opportunity because idiots professing themselves to be "green" don't see it as part of their religion.

The only way that Nuclear Power would work in the US is something like this: 

  • US Dept of Energy/Commerce analyzes demographic trends and forecasts energy needs
  • US Dept of Defense through the Army Corps of Engineers selects appropriate sites 
    • Federal agency chartered to manage large, long duration projects in ports and rivers 
    • As close to point of use as feasible to reduce transmission losses and infrastructure
    • Access to significant cooling water to avoid perturbation of local climate
    • COE initiates Eminent Domain proceedings to acquire land as needed
  • COE selects designs and establishes appropriate oversight on construction and design features
    • engages with appropriate subcontractors such as Westinghouse to build reactors
      • Oversees construction
      • Manages startup & licensing
  • Operating license is auctioned off with local power company likey first right of refusal

That breaks the endless NIMBY litigation nightmares, and allows siting where it makes sense.

In the SFBay, that would be Berkeley waterfront, East Palo Alto,  perhaps Treasure Island and up in Marin someplace like Belvedere, and perhaps Mare Island near Vallejo. 

In NYC, Philadelphia, Boston all of which had "Navy Yards" the sites would be similar and prospectively could use those older sites, many of which had Superfund pollution issues which make them unsuitable for other uses. Alameda NAS, Pease AFB etc. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

When you load the shit out of a multihull (exceeding payload capacity),  it loses much of its speed characteristics and beating into a headwind close hauled is the slowest angle of sail as well. 

there are 4 adults, 1 small teenager and a baby... how is that exceeding the payload capacity on a 40' boat with 3 double berths? 

Not sure which of the Outremers they have... 

but here's the 45 http://catamaran-outremer.com/en/outremer-45/

And  perhaps that's the clue... it weighs more than Lioness... 

 

LENGTH : 48 ft
BEAM : 23,3 ft
DRAUGHT : 3,3 / 6,7 ft
DISPLACEMENT : 8,2 / 11,1 t

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, toecutter said:

The man's a god, but be that as it may all those quotes are Greta's.

Piers Morgan is a god!!?? 

WTF! 
He’s a third rack hack that generates viewing numbers by inflammatory comments. Basically a fucking troll. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mad said:

Piers Morgan is a god!!?? 

WTF! 
He’s a third rack hack that generates viewing numbers by inflammatory comments. Basically a fucking troll. 
  

Are you speaking with authority on third rack hackery, inflamation and trolling? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Why?  Nothing has reduced CO2 production in the world more than fracking.  As the technology matures, the faults have been dramatically mitigated.  Of course that does not make sense to those who's religion tells them to condemn it.  Be objective and look into it with a mix of pro, negative, and "unbiased" research/publications, don't take any one person's word for it, consider the big picture and the little picture on a pro/con basis, then get back to us on how bad it is. 

ThIs “religion” talking point is getting really old.  Can’t troll-spiel headquarters come up with something new?

If fracking is going to save the world then why have so many countries placed a ban or moratorium on it?  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_by_countryhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_by_country

Is the threat to clean water and potential for increased earthquakes a reasonable trade off for the CO2 reduction?

 

Sounds like the folks on LaVagabonde know what they’re doing, however.  

Link to post
Share on other sites