| Author | Message | ||
     Ducbsa |
The last sentence is good advice: https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/10/relax-that -scary-fukushima-headline-was-fake-news/ (Message edited by ducbsa on February 11, 2017) | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brazil-supreme-court-ju dge-calls-drugs-legalization-beat-190403997.html From the land of great steak houses and crushing poverty and pollution that scared the Olympics. ... Legalization of drugs to disenfranchise drug gangs. Which would work but was delayed in the U.S. because the Clintons took massive bribes to keep the drug lords in power. Will legalization kill people? Oh, yes. Think of it as evolution in action. I admit that's not comforting if it's your kids overdosing on heroin. It will save many more. The hardest part of drug legalization is the stone age education system. It's been fear mongering misinformation since Nixon. During the Vietnam war Nixon started "The War on Drugs". Originally a drug abuse treatment program in response to the narco-terrorism where the N. Vietnamese govt. Pushed cheap heroin on U.S. troops and they brought their problems home. But Nixon was hated and a D Congress turned understanding & treatment into super profits for prison builders & theft of property into unconstitutional riches for police departments. Easily more than half of the local murder rate is drug dealer turf wars. What's the percentage of violent death in your town dictated by the greed of the politicians? I'm not saying it's a cure all. Legalization just gives you a new set of problems. IMHO starving organized crime may be worth it. After all, prohibition started the rise of the Mob, arguably the biggest bribe factory for politicians to keep their business protected and profitable. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/ How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Ros e.html Factual reporting returns. Not, alas, in the U.S.. | ||
| Zac4mac |
As far as the Brit's news, if you take the BBC to be the NY Times, the Daily Mail is the NY Post... | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-422 6566/Scientists-discover-massive-reservoir-greenho use-gases.html | ||
| Aesquire |
So the daily mail is the classic celebrity affair & flying car website? So.... far more believable than the lied for love of Stalin New York Times. I do expect the folk here to recognize the "Enquirer" flying saucer loving nature of the Daily Mail. Every! Disaster! Gets! Maximum! Hype!  | ||
| Falloutnl |
Yeah, Daily Mail is worthless far right tabloid drivel. Wouldn't put too much stock in their reporting. Also, even if there are inaccuracies in reporting on climate change, what's the harm in trying to create a cleaner and safer planet? Even if we are 'not entirely sure' - and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science actually is - why take a chance at all? I don't see why this - of all things - needs to be such a divisive issue. And I say that as a man whose single favorite thing in the world is burning fossil fuels in a big fat Buell. | ||
| Chauly |
We're all gonna die! Someday. three minutes of my life I'll never get back. Crap. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Falloutnl, the problem comes when you use environmentalism combined with bad science as a mechanism to control the actions of other people, or to forcibly redistribute other peoples money. And bad science can actually do more harm than no science. It's likely that moving from butter to margarine killed millions due to skin cancer, and that eliminating DDT killed millions more and didn't actually help birds. And then there is the whole "cry wolf" thing. If we are forever making stuff up about disasters, and then we finally hit the actual threat, we will have spent all our time, money, and emotional energy already. We do need to conserve fossil fuels. We are consuming them much faster than they are being created. It's not sustainable. The only real solution (aside from mass human extermination or sterilization) that works is nuclear, the math is pretty clear. And we are starting to see some real environmentalist scientists starting to say that, and they are getting crucified by the religious environmentalist dogmatics as a result. I've always considered myself an environmentalist, and was very disappointed in the 1980's when the environmentalist movement seemed to start abandoning scientific rigor and common sense. | ||
| Njloco |
If the Cap and Trade agreement ( having to due with Global warming )is signed by us, the USA, they are going to come and tax the crap out of me for using my wood stove to heat my house in the winter. They will then take that money and send it to third world countries for the purpose of them using it, not to pollute. However our Gov't has no control on what those other countries actually use it for. Also, one of those other countries would be China ! It's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth skeem in order to cram a global economy down our throats! (Message edited by njloco on February 16, 2017) | ||
| Macbuell |
I fundamentally reject any movement that is based on falsified data that is designed to manipulate emotions and behaviors. I'm one of those people that thinks we are polluting our planet and we need to do more to clean it up. However, I don't know that "man" is the primary driver of any climate change. There is this huge yellow orb in the sky that creates a tremendous amount of energy and it has cycles. Crazy, but Earth's temperature and climate changes seem to coincide with those cycles. Huh?! Who would have thought?! And lastly and most importantly, I do not like being lied to and manipulated over and over again. It makes me question the motivations of those doing the lying. And I long ago came to the conclusion it has little to do with the environment and more to do with forcing their way of life on the rest of us. | ||
| Aesquire |
At one time the "vast majority of peer reviewed science" was certain rocks could not fall from the Heavens. That would imply God's creation was imperfect. Now we argue which rock killed the dinosaurs. So majority opinion has zero. Nothing. Not anything. To do with science. Plus you can't get peer reviewed if you challenge the religious orthodoxy of the Greenies. ( a Soviet invention to ruin western industry ) Oh, and the whole thing where it's just a fact they lie to you. Period. Clean up the Earth? America! @#$& Yeah!. Modern Western civilization cleans up the Earth. Socialism kills it. See the last century of human progress. Where would you rather live? Boulder Colorado? Peking China? Which has air you can see? From space? Only lying greenies say we want more pollution. And of course we need to graduate from fossil fuels. The greenies want to use windmills and limit your diet. Cows fart greenhouse gas. I want orbital solar & cheap clean nuclear. Almost all human problems can be solved with cheap, plentiful, energy. Need fresh water? Desalination plants. .. we have oceans. Need food? Food takes energy to grow. Etc. I hate to tell you you've been lied to for years.... but it's fact. Lied to for power. See the quote from the EU politician that it's all about killing capitalism. Simply. They lie to scare you and take your stuff. Taxes, land, charge you to breath. Would you pay a tithe to the church down the street by government decree? Tithe or armed men will arrest you? Same thing. | ||
| Sifo |
Yeah, Daily Mail is worthless far right tabloid drivel. Wouldn't put too much stock in their reporting. Also, even if there are inaccuracies in reporting on climate change, what's the harm in trying to create a cleaner and safer planet? Even if we are 'not entirely sure' - and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science actually is - why take a chance at all? I don't see why this - of all things - needs to be such a divisive issue. And I say that as a man whose single favorite thing in the world is burning fossil fuels in a big fat Buell. I'm all for creating a cleaner safer planet. What are the odds of actually doing that if the entire "cleaner/safer" movement is based upon lies? We are focusing on CO2 as a pollutant, which is a joke at the levels we are talking about. We are talking about spending trillions of dollars per year to reduce the amount of warming 100 years from now by a small fraction of a degree that is far smaller than our ability to measure. That's not playing it safe. That's outright insanity. Of course there is a sane explanation. The sane explanation is that this is based on lies (quite well proven) and it's intent is to redistribute wealth (quite well proven). Then you question why this has become a divisive issue? | ||
| Aesquire |
I do love how "redistribute wealth" is supposed to be a feel good phrase for "take your money at gunpoint, keep most of it, and pass some to a politician in a poor country ( that gives us sweet deals in return for the bribe with your money ) & claim moral superiority. For robbery. One interesting part of the Daily Mail article is the amount of volcanic Carbon released yearly. I have no doubts they are correct about "carbon under western America" and hyping it as a disaster of the week. But they don't tell you in what form. Dissolved in lava is the probable answer. Thus the reference to Yellowstone. That type super volcano has CO2 dissolved in the molten rock. The sudden release of pressure turns the rock to fast expanding foam.... like a soda bottle hit with a bullet. That's what causes the huge amount of fine ash that makes one a planetary ecological disaster. ( exploding foamy melted rock..... bad ) | ||
| Falloutnl |
I think redistributing wealth is meant with regards to the way big multinational corporations currently get away with paying virtually no taxes and absolutely shit wages. That needs changing. And unless all of you guys are secretly filthy rich large industrialists here on BadWeb, that should improve your situations as well. As for the climate change thing and the science that covers it, man, you guys are cynical  . (Message edited by falloutnl on February 16, 2017) (Message edited by falloutnl on February 16, 2017) | ||
| Sifo |
I think redistributing wealth is meant with regards to the way big multinational corporations currently get away with paying virtually no taxes and absolutely shit wages. That needs changing. And unless all of you guys are secretly filthy rich large industrialists here on BadWeb, that should improve your situations as well. As for the climate change thing and the science that covers it, man, you guys are cynical : D. No, this is wealth redistribution between nations. As for the cynicism... That comes from being consistently lied to virtually my entire life. | ||
| Sifo |
But even it the wealth redistribution were what you described, it has NOTHING to do with the climate. Why do you support this sort of dishonesty? | ||
| Falloutnl |
A simple misunderstanding I think. I missed that it was wealth redistribution with regards to climate change specifically. In this context it's to encourage poorer nations to limit their emissions you mean? Then yes, I also think that's not necessarily the best way to go. | ||
| Sifo |
A simple misunderstanding I think. I missed that it was wealth redistribution with regards to climate change specifically. In this context it's to encourage poorer nations to limit their emissions you mean? Then yes, I also think that's not necessarily the best way to go. It's actually exactly the opposite. The poor countries get a pass on emissions. The "rich" countries, that are already much, much cleaner, are expected to reduce emissions even further AND pay cash to the poor countries. It's absolute insanity. We are actually talking about paying poor countries to build dirty infrastructure that will remain for generations. All in the name of cleaning up the world. NO... Strike that last part. It does nothing to clean up the world. It's to reduce the rate of increase of CO2 by a fractional amount that will literally be unmeasurable after a century of very costly world government programs. Of course, the climate side is all based on lies. Proven, verifiable lies. Decades of them. | ||
| Blake |
FalloutNL: Your argument, essentially a dichotomous dilemma, seems common-sense and logically sound; it's essentially the Pascal's wager of climate change, but just like Pascal's wager, it is a false dichotomy. It's really a trichotomy. The inconvenient but most probable third possibility in the dilemma (trilemma?) that you offer is that the "solution" causes much more harm than it prevents. We surely agree that most pertinent ought to be the actual hard science, the purely objective observation, recording, and soundly reasoned analysis of observed phenomenon, and then the strict rigorous statistical comparison to theory, namely comparing rigorously vetted scientific data to the predictions of theory. That just is the scientific method. Here's the high integrity observed data complete with a rigorous error analysis (uncertainty analysis); here's the theory and it's rigorous uncertainty analysis, and here's how well the theory statistically correlates to the observed data over a time interval comparable in length to the time span being forecast. (Showing good correlation over a few decades is insufficient for vetting the integrity of models that are being used to forecast double or moe decades into the future.) I'm an applied-science professional that is deeply intimately familiar with complex modeling, testing, and statistical correlation. I've spent a LOT of time looking at the AGW science. It's not what has been promoted by any so-called "consensus". In fact, even the "consensus" is a deceitful invention of advocacy. It has zero to do with hard science. Once a scientific theory has been falsified, no amount of consensus will render it true. The anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming (AGW) alarmist narrative has been soundly challenged, dare I say "refuted" in hard science on multiple fronts. The scheme proposed for combatting AGW has likewise through hard science been proved a sham, entirely ineffective and inconsequential to climate. The folks at the UN freely admit this, sharing that the entire scheme is intended to redistribute wealth around the world, as they see fit of course, cause they know best, of course. Do you trust them? Lots of people trust big govt. It's inexplicable given history. I digress. So you want to double the price of energy and send a bunch of your money to bureaucrats for redistribution to the less developed nations of the world (really their corrupt despotic leaders; hey kickbacks are highly profitable for big govt bureaucrats), less a significant cut for the bureaucrats and their corrupt crony carbon traders of course. Did you know that government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the AGW alarmist climate narrative? It's true. Virtually all the government grants funding the study of climate science are written such that AGW is pre-supposed, so all the research goes to trying to show AGW. They do not fund grants for research into the possible natural causes of climate change. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But thankfully, the AGW alarmist narrative is self-destructing on its own. The advocates and corrupt "scientists" are trying their best to keep their falsified theory afloat, but their malfeasance and corruption keep being exposed. A "scientist" who publishes work that employs cherry-picked data, or wildly unreliable data, or cooked analysis/results, or hides data that falsifies his theory must never be trusted; such an individual has proven that he is no scientist; but rather a paid propagandist. If you see scientific theory proclaimed, but no statistical correlation or coherence analysis of said theory to actual observations, well that ought to be a HUGE red flag. The scientists and hard science are winning though, it's how science has always worked, so take heart. There is a gem of a graph, a veritable hidden bombshell that was shrewdly inserted within the last (2013) report from the IPCC Working Group 1 (actual climate scientists).  The above shows the effects of varying cloudiness on the solar energy that reached and thus warmed one specific location on the Earth's surface, namely Stockholm, Sweden. It's impact becomes clear when you compare the recorded year to year and decade to decade variation in observed SSR (Surface Solar Radiation) in units of Watts per square meter (W/m2) to the equivalent solar forcing that the IPCC says is introduced by a doubling of atmospheric CO2, a mere 2 W/m2. Compare that to the peak to peak natural variation in observed SSR shown above, from 94 W/m2 to 135 W/m2, for a total variation of 41 W/m2! Gee golly. It must be the CO2 trace gas that's caused intermittent warming since the dawn of the Industrial Age? There is more scientific work to be done, but unfortunately, similar records of SSR for other points on the planet are few and far between, and of lesser duration. How convenient? Scientists skeptical of the AGW alarmism have been noting the,potential for slight variations in global cloud cover to greatly affect global average surface temperature (GMST). Whoever got the above graph into the IPCC report is trying to get people to notice that issue. If only there were govt funding to investigate such a natural cause of climate change.  . Other problems for the warmist narrative: 1) Multiple GMST proxy datasets (ice cores, lake sedimentation, tree leaf stomata) and observation indicate that changes in GMST tend to precede changes in atmospheric CO2, the opposite of what would expect if CO2 were as effective in influencing climate as the warmists claim. 2) The IPCC climate models and their model ensembles have diverged from reality to the point of being statistically falsified. The models are just plain unreliable, and the entire case for alarmism is based upon those very models and their premise, that a doubling of CO2 will result in 3°C of increase to GMST is grossly exaggerated. Well, until the data was yet again conveniently adjusted. See the above discussion about NOAA fudging surface temperature data. more later (Message edited by Blake on February 16, 2017) | ||
| Aesquire |
2017, the warmest year on record. Bet ya. While I only have basic meteorology, aviation weather, and micrometeorology on my academic resume, ( beating Al Gore by a bunch ) I've also followed the Global Cooling debate since it started, since my historical interest is tech, and tech in farming is directly related to climate. While the Global Cooling Panic was fairly short lived, about a decade, it was in most ways a more accurate take on Climate change in the past. Starting with a cold snap in the late 1970's the prediction was that we could be headed into a mini-ice age, and that would kill a billion people plus as crop shortages from the shorter and poorer growing season erased the gains made by the agricultural revolution of the 1960's & 1970's. All of this was based on accurate history, from the Fall of Rome to the Dark ages. We had warm spells 2000 odd years ago, leading to population growth, and better living conditions. Then it got cool, even cold enough to freeze the Danube river, giving the Goth hordes a pathway to take Rome. ( no not the eye liner guys, the tribes were trying to escape the crop failures and death winters of northern Europe ) Then 1000 years ago we had the Medieval Warming period, with bumper crops, population growth, the Viking voyages of exploration, ( from Turkey & Russia, to Canada ) then by 1350, the cold had returned along with plague, the death of the Viking Colonies on Greenland & Vinland, and generally bad times, planet wide. Look at very recent American History. Try hauling a one ton cannon across the Delaware river on the ice today. Go ahead. I'll notify your next of kin. ( or better yet I'll watch as they rescue you. Too bad about that cannon ) All those horror stories about Valley Forge? Truth. Climate Change. Fracking cold spell. Peak known recorded modern temperatures was in 1930's. ( Dust bowl... bad farming practice & drought in mid west. ) Another, slightly lower peak in 1998. ( this from original data. Unaltered by the Con ) Been slightly lower since. ( despite the lies you get each year on how it's the warmest ever ) And we are still 4 degrees COLDER than the medieval warm period. It's the FUNDAMENTAL difference between science and fraud. If the data doesn't fit the theory, change the theory. That is Science. If you change the data to fit the theory, that's Fraud. So.... I want the future powered by cheap, clean energy. That isn't going to happen if the science is fake and the assumptions are deliberately wrong to feed the massive theft that fear mongering is all about. OTOH.... Yellowstone is REAL. The only unknown is when. No need to panic, but IF the Yellowstone Caldera explodes, Again, it's a game changer on the level of an Asteroid strike. | ||
| Blake |
Someone noted that we will eventually need an alternative to fossil fuel. Well yeah. Once it starts to become more difficult to get then, the wonderful free market will respond with "greedy" vigor. Electric cars, nuclear power plants... problem solved. Any more questions? Hey some glib is fun once and a while.  Consider that a mere hundred years ago, all the horse manure piling up in the cities was becoming a serious crisis. Then Ford made cars affordable. Imagining that the future will be like the present in terms of technical challenges is really silly. I just wonder who's going to be first to Titan and its massive reservoir of liquid methane; and then I wonder where the heck all that "fossil" fuel came from on a sub-frigid lifeless moon like that's? | ||
| Blake |
So Patrick, more funding for caldera eruption prevention and asteroid/comet defense? I agree! | ||
| Falloutnl |
We surely agree that most pertinent ought to be the actual hard science, the purely objective observation, recording, and soundly reasoned analysis of observed phenomenon, and then the strict rigorous statistical comparison to theory, namely comparing rigorously vetted scientific data to the predictions of theory. Yes. If the data doesn't fit the theory, change the theory. That is Science. If you change the data to fit the theory, that's Fraud. And yes. Amen brothers. It just seems that the sources we think adhere to these principles appear to differ somewhat. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444942/john- bates-whistleblower-climate-scientist-smeared-glob al-warming-advocates Asteroid defense, sure. Don't see a viable way to stop volcanoes. Fill them with Occupy folk? Tell CNN that Volcanoes are racist Trump lovers, and watch them clog it with reporters? Pretty much the only hope is to actually have a space program so the folk on Mars survive. Besides, the last super volcano didn't kill all of mankind. Just almost all. ( when the entire genetic history funnels through one woman, based on mitochondria DNA, guesses are a few thousand folk survived. ) As to Titan. You don't need biological processes to make methane. CO2 & Hydrogen, mostly. The shipping costs will be high from Titan. Might be better to make methane from garbage. Seriously, sometime soon, our dumps will be the new mines. BUT, you need energy to process all that useful stuff from used up crud to useful raw materials. Simple matter of profitability. If it's cheaper to mine the town dump than to level a mountain... then we'll mine the dump. That energy has to come from Nuclear reactions. Either Thorium reactors or orbital solar. | ||
| Njloco |
dichotomous dilemma, holy shi-t that's as far as I got, I'm old I don't want to spend the rest of my time looking up whatever dichotomous dilemma means, I'm so happy I only speak English ! As far as Cap and Trade, they will tax you by your carbon print, or at least what they think it is, take that $ and send it to a third world country or and up and coming industrial country for the purpose of them hopefully using the $ to install technology that will help them pollute less. The EPA recently, either did or threatened to fine the state of Alaska for using wood to heat their homes, look it up, you can't make this shit up ! (Message edited by njloco on February 16, 2017) | ||
| Aesquire |
....take that $ and send it to a third world country or and up and coming industrial country for the purpose of them hopefully using the $ to install technology that will help them produce less. Well, first the money has to go to a large collection of Bureaucrats that will use most of the money to pay bureaucrats. Since it's the UN, another big pile will go right into the pockets of the leaders. What's left over will go to the leaders of little countries that support the UN bureaucrats with kickbacks and bribes. You can bet that not enough money will go to anti-pollution schemes to make any difference, at all, after the Glorious Leader's cousin gets the contract to clean up the environment. I admit that's cynical. Since the whole thing started as a scam to take my money and property, I feel that's justified. Skipping the politics, just look at the actual results of West vs. Collectivist policy over the last century. We made some big messes. Western civilization has feedback, so we then cleaned them up. The hated Nixon was big on cleaning up our messes. Today, with simple filters to block natural bacteria & parasites, you can drink the water in most of the streams in the U.S. Pretty darn good considering the Cuyahoga River actually caught fire when I was a kid. Repeatedly. https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63#.WKY BZtQrKWg Compare & contrast to the Difference between East & West Germany. Since WW2, the same people, the same lands, just different management. The Unified Germany has spent ga-jillion$ fixing the ecological disaster that was East Germany. http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/1005/100538.html Rather famously, the Soviets Killed a Sea. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfC hange/aral_sea.php We won't even count the Chernobyl reactor meltdown, the former island that is soaked in Anthrax & Smallpox & Redacted that was used as a biological warfare test site, ( Because of over irrigation you can walk to that island now. It's up to you. I wouldn't. ) or the general level of lung cancer in Soviet Bloc countries. And China? China's pollution can be seen from space, And it reaches us. Then consider China is all on board us paying them for our pollution sins, while they have declared they have no intention of changing their habits. ( they know it's a scam. So does Putin. For good reason. His agency was partially responsible for creating it. ) So even if they weren't lying to you, top to bottom, the money they take from YOU won't help mankind, just make the worst people on Earth richer. | ||
| Aesquire |
dichotomous dilemma Isn't that what we use for swimming pool filters? | ||
| Ourdee |
I would first like to present the noun that the adjective comes from; di·chot·o·my noun a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different. "a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism" Next we move on to the adjective; di·chot·o·mous adjective exhibiting or characterized by dichotomy. "a dichotomous view of the world" A word I come across too often not to know. | ||
| Njloco |
AE, that was very funny ! I thought it was some kind of hippopotamus that didn't have to come up for air when submerged. Ourdee, Me and my big mouth ! Figures, my wife knew exactly how to pronounce it and what it meant. (Message edited by njloco on February 16, 2017) |
