Slashdot Mirror
Geologists Warned of Washington State Mudslides For Decades
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The Seattle Times reports that since the 1950s, geological reports on the hill that buckled last weekend, killing at least 17 residents in Snohomish County in Washington State, have included pessimistic analyses and the occasional dire prediction. But no language seems more prescient than what appears in a 1999 report filed warning of 'the potential for a large catastrophic failure.' Daniel Miller, a geomorphologist, documented the hill's landslide conditions in a report written in 1997 for the Washington Department of Ecology and the Tulalip Tribes. Miller knows the hill's history, having collected reports and memos from the 1950s, 1960s, 1980s and 1990s and has a half-dozen manila folders stuffed with maps, slides, models and drawings, all telling the story of an unstable hillside that has defied efforts to shore it up. That's why he could not believe what he saw in 2006, when he returned to the hill within weeks of a landslide that crashed into and plugged the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River, creating a new channel that threatened homes on a street called Steelhead Drive. Instead of seeing homes being vacated, he saw carpenters building new ones. 'Frankly, I was shocked that the county permitted any building across from the river,' says Miller. 'We've known that it's been failing. It's not unknown that this hazard exists.'" (More, below.)
"The hill that collapsed is referred to by geologists with different names, including Hazel Landslide and Steelhead Haven Landslide, a reference to the hillside's constant movement. After the hill gave away in 1949, in '51, in '67, in '88, in 2006, residents referred to it simply as 'Slide Hill.' 'People knew that this was a landslide-prone area,' says John Pennington. Geomorphologist Tracy Drury said there were discussions over the years about whether to buy out the property owners in the area, but those talks never developed into serious proposals. 'I think we did the best that we could under the constraints that nobody wanted to sell their property and move.'"
And still not much is being done to stop it. Wait 30 years and you'll see this same article here, only referencing global warming.
So who do they sue ?
Having actions taken would destroy value of properties in neighborhood. And that would be catastrophic.
...is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - A. Einstein.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
"I wanna build that wood-made doll house on the side of the collapsing hill, on a shore of a constant tide, at the bottom of a restless avalanche, in the way of a hundred hurricanes, next to an ever-flooding river, at the feet of a volcano! And you ain't gonna stop me!"
Why do they hate our freedom to build somewhere incredibly stupid and dangerous?
New Orleans, Miami, to name but two cities that will be gone in 100 or so years from rising sealevels.
There are plenty of government reports that say all new construction should be banned in areas that will be flooded in a century... People want their oceans views though, and then there is the 'value in the land'. As soon as you order someone they can't do something with their land, they are at the very least entitled to compensation, and those costs, based on fair market value are just to high for the government to cover.
The most effective thing government could do in danger areas is require insurance companies decline coverage or keep cash available for the inevitable if they wish to insure the property(raising rates for those customers). The more timid, or poor will likely skip building their new home knowing those enhanced costs/risks.
Pollution aspects aside, there is no shortage of humans; when in the future millions are made homeless after X hurricane, perhaps just a stiff 'to bad so sad' attitude would be better, as they have plenty of warning.
Incidentally, I live on oceanfront property, and am 'now' taking measures to protect it for my maximum possible life expectancy.
Insurance is $500/year per $10,000 coverage; and doesn't cover vandals and a few other likely needs for insurance. I'm of the view that putting money into the property directly might benefit me more than giving it to some insurance company(That, lets face it, might not payout if something did happen).
At some point the urgency wanes, the storm turns at the last before landfall again, and fewer people leave their homes.
Since the '50's is way past most folks' attention spans.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
They were warning for *decades*? Wolf! Wolf!
Your transparent attempt at a forced analogy rides the fail whale big time.
Now this high falutin 'geomorphologist' has made himself a target for the local government and the victims who are looking for someone to sue.
No risk, no mad money. Sure, it's their risk and our money, but let's not dwell on details.
This is what happens because of all these reality deniers in the US.
They think they're being "skeptical" about science, but actually they're just willfully ignorant.
Climate change has become pretty much impossible to reverse, since it's been ignored for so long.
All kinds of horrible diseases are popping up again, because of all those anti-vaxxer morons.
"God bless America"
This guy was wrong. Then, finally, after decades of fear mongering, he managed to look like he was right. This is not science, this is a rain dance.
The story in the news was particularly "funny".
It starts with "and then the slope collapsed without any warning".
Later it stated that "scientists warned of the risk in a report 15 years ago".
So how is that "without any warning"?
And I hate it when they say "scientists". They don't say "celebrities", "politicians", "football players" - no, they use names. But scientists always remain nameless. Scientists are not amorphous magicians, they are people like you and me.
As a tech working in Southern California with a B.A. in Geology, I can tell you that most geologic reports that are prepared are typically all but ignored by developers, leading to many problems down the road, and occasional tragedies such as this. I know of a large building built in the San Andreas Fault Zone that did not have the proper footings in place, and has sunk as a result (not from any earthquake, but from the nature of the fractured strata beneath the site), costing more taxpayer money to save it (this being a state institution).
Geologist warnings serve more to set insurance rates then to avoid issues, and many lives have been lost, and will be lost as a result. Geologist by the nature of their science look at the land in terms of what will happen over time, while Developers are concerned with only if their investment will pay off in the short term, assuming the added risk as just an increase in insurance costs taken from their bottom lines.
Think of all of the warnings we hear from scientists/experts.
Mudslides, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes - there are lots of places we just shouldn't live because some day there will be a disaster.
Bridges, buildings, subways - there are lots of man-made structures we need to repair. some will collapse
Diet, medicine, excessive - it will harm society if we are allowed 20 oz drinks or salt at the table.
We could probably list legitimate warnings all day. And I'll probably experience dozens of things today that scientists have warned about. This situation is tragic but it doesn't mean anyone is to blame. With 1000s of warnings from scientists, some will happen - but most don't.
If there's anywhere to focus it's on how to evaluate and prioritize warnings across a wide variety of areas (natural disaster, diet, structures, etc). We don't have the resources to fix everything we are warned about - where do we start?
The other thing we may want to learn is that the media should not over-hype all warnings. People need to know better what warnings to pay attention to. When we watch the news and scientists say "just about everything you do today" may kill you (or the planet), why even try to fix anything?
Look at the story after this, California quakes.
I theorize that seismic activity shook the mud loose. I cite Samuel Clemens standing on Nicola Teslas vibrating platform as proof of concept.
California shakes and Washington took a dump.
Its Scienterrific!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
And we have a communist president now, so there's no chance for sanity anytime soon. At least 2016 he'll be gone.
...and, barring a Democratic candidate implosion, he will be replaced by someone from the same party. 2012 was the Republicans' election to lose (Obamacare, the economy, etc), but when you looked at the candidates they proffered it's no surprise they were crushed by Obama. Romney was about as exciting a candidate as the prospect of drinking a bowl of warm spittle. I still can't understand how the moron thought he had a chance of winning at any point after August. Did no one in his party read 538 or RealClearPolitics?
(One ironic outcome: Obama mocking Romney in the debate after Romney claimed correctly that Russia is a geopolitical opponent. Yes, I'm sure Putin's quaking in his boots due to your Crimea-related sanctions. That's why he deployed even more troops on Ukraine's border...)
Anyway, look at the GOP field. Check RealClearPolitics about prospective matchups. None of them stand a chance in hell of beating Hillary unless she guts herself somehow. Hell, practically none of them can beat *Biden*, and he is basically the red-headed stepchild of the Democratic party.
They ignore science when it doesn't suit their interests .... color me shocked
You fascist fuck. As if life is any better under private ownership, hahahahah good one! Next thing you'll tell me is work harder to get ahead, right? hahahahhaaha I'm not that stupid anymore asshole.
Why do they hate our freedom to build somewhere incredibly stupid and dangerous?
Because this mudslide was predicted by Liberal geologists who wanted grant money from the government.
The home builders were listening to the conservative geologists who recognized the alarmist sham of the mudslide warnings by those UnAmerican Liberal geologists who want to ruin our Way Of Life (tm).
This reminds me of the Corps of Engineers urging enlarging the levees on the Mississippi years before Katrina, and the coastal scientists at LSU warning what would happen if coastal erosion went unchecked. The issue here is that we have, and have paid for, the knowledge needed to take precautions in cases like these. Then don't do it. People who makes the decisions not to act on this knowledge out to be charged.
When it comes to beach houses, nothing can be done to protect them from hurricanes. But people still build huge homes there. A hurricane comes by and wipes them out, the President declares a disaster area, government (taxpayers) pays to rebuild - rinse and repeat.
See, the wealthy people who own beach houses also have the political clout to get us peons to pay for their luxuries.
What we need is to just say, "Sorry, you build on the beach and your house gets smashed by a hurricane, tough shit. Eat it."
But there is only 97% agreement that it is happening...
Never underestimate the stupidity of humans if they are getting something out of it or they have ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Since a report about it landed on President Johnson's desk we've already had the 30 years plus change.
"Hey Sharon! Come look at the crap I just took!"
Undoubtedly, some geologist, meteorologist, seismologist or other expert has condemned every hill, valley, riverside, coast, flood plain, swamp, open plain, and so forth in the United States. Undoubtedly, every square inch of the United States is uninhabitable. Still, you have to live somewhere.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The stupidity of a bunch of people that believe academics can afford better publicity people than oil companies is amazing. This is exactly the same thing. The geologist states facts once and thinks it's settled. The housing developers have a staff of people who keep asking different officials uni they find one who listens. Then they keep commissioning secret reports until they find a tame "expert" land slide denialist. When they find this person they pay a huge amount more to publish the report.
These are people who are killing people for money. Even of the denialist "expert" is an idiot who never realises what he's done, the industrialist behind him knows exactly what is going on. What should we do?
>What should we do?
Charge the developers with manslaughter, at least?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
But... but.. personal responsibility!
Currently the idea of being 'responsible' only covers your own life, whatever you do to others, as long as you made a profit, is their own fault.
Man keep up with the conspiracy theories! The intelligentsia illuminati KNOW global warming is real, but it will helpfully kill off most of the imbeciles with famine, drought, and pestilence on a biblical scale right about the time that automation put them out of work anyways. This prevent revolution, and allows the technocracy to implement "changes" that may deprive liberties but will allow the remaining knuckleheads to survive, which will encourage them to accept that privacy is dead, and that Zombie Lincoln is their new overlord.
</Tongue In Cheek>
Oh I'm sorry, did you want a serious answer? ;)
This is decades old news.
It's called "thinning the herd," or "culling." It weeds out the idiots so that, a) ...they may not reproduce; b) ...they, and their offspring, may not perpetuate that gene line forward. Either way, I consider the deaths a win-win for humanity.
There's a story in Washington State that all of the river names here, Snohomish, Skykomish, Skokomish, have the postfix "ish". Which is an Indian term meaning "This is a flood plain, idiot. Don't build your house here."
Have gnu, will travel.
Exactly. Did the developers make perfectly clear to the buyers what risks were involved? If so they're off the hook, if not...
Ditto on resale - did the fully-informed previous owners pass on the dire warnings to the new buyers? If not, then *they* are the ones on the hook for manslaughter.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not 30 years. 300 years. The great-great-great-great grandkids may just curse current generations for fucking up the world. And not just AGW.
Whether it's the regulators overseeing the Deepwater Horizon being captured by the oil and gas industry, or whether it's local politicians being captured by the Finance/Real Estate sector, the results are usually bad for the society. And occasionally, they becomes spectacularly lethal.
To overcome the persistent regulatory capture of the US government, two things must occur:
1) Overhaul of the campaign finance system (so politiicians will be more inclined to work for their constituents not their highest bidder).
2) Term limits (because power corrupts).
Western Washington has millions of people living in slide zones, living on old slide deposits, living in front of future slides. It's easy to point to one active slide area and say 'damn fools shouldn't have lived there' but the reality is that we live in the shadow of glaciers from the recent past that resulted in widespread deposits of soupy soil. Western Washington is also a high-hazard area for huge earthquakes, as are many parts of California. Do people expect everyone to move? Or what about Oklahoma or Kansas in the path of tornadoes? Or Minnesotans subject to stinging blizzards and arctic chill? Or...? You get the idea. You try and identify the hazards, mitigate them, and warn of them. In the case of the Oso landslide, there never should have been clearcut logging above the slide-prone area, there should have been monitoring of the water levels, and there should have been drainage mitigations installed years ago...as there have been in many other similar areas including just up the road from Oso. So...don't tell people to move until you're prepared to tell Californians or Oklahomans or English or Japanese or whoever to move.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History
Try centuries i.s.o. decades.
Uhmm... Money trumps everything. More people die from a lack of money than from mudslides... Wasting a few billion on inspecting shoes in airports means it can not go to disease research, or fresh water projects, or health care, or... Large amounts of money ends up being wasted in very unlikely but high profile disasters where "We have to do something!" Unfortunately, the money is not unlimited...
As a libertarian with a localist bent this is a issue I think a lot about. But if America wants a Nanny State....lets go full Nanny State where the Nanny can be fired if the kids go to the ER with a yard dart sticking out the side of little marys head.
If government worked as promised once a area becomes known as a slide, avalanche, wildfire, tusnami, tornado, sinkhole, earthquake or flood risk where the chance of total loss of the property or the occupants is a real number, permitting of new residences and major external improvements needs to stop immediately and insurance switches to high risk private insurance within the decade (or post bond equal to the value of your property).
Commercial property know are owned by people who know how to manage risk. (man I sound like a 1%er) The average citizen has no idea of the risks of home ownership until FEMA is tagging their house with spray paint. This will be beneficial to all of us who built and live in sensible locations and FEMA will have funds for the real freak events. (Johnstown Flood, Texas City, Dust Storm that swallows Phoenix, Yellowstone Super volcano, New Madrid) The plains and Midwest land in flood plains is for farming as it is most fertile and cheapest for the purpose and the risk is only a few thousand dollars per square km. Land near the seas is great habitat for birds and multiuse use parks. .
If a developer wants to attempt to improve area to mitigate the risk he can set a bond in perpetuity to pay for the losses on the high risk community and make the cost of the land closer to the true cost for the community. Corrective action may be attempted by developers but they are taking on future risk not the local, state and federal government. New Orleans, Florida, the foothills of LA, Sandy point, Martha's Vinyard and thousands of miles of coastlines will all still have there risky homes to buy but will be clearly a risky buy with not only high insurance premium but a declining value. Building on the side of a mountain or hill without rebar cemented into bedrock needs to be in the building code. Redlines will be back and drawn by Geologists, Mortgage Companies and Insurance Companies.
Wow, some people just don't like to face up to reality. The article talks about warnings for decades, about a devastating mudslide in the area. The people didn't move. Now after the mudslide happened, are they moving now? No. They're staying and rebuilding!
They don't have the right to put their children in danger, as other posters have said.
If the federal government gives them my tax money in the form of Federal Highway Administration money and FEMA aid, I wish the government would warn the people that this is the last aid the govt. will give them, if they continue living there. (Yea, I know, fat chance.)
Every place has its dangers (earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.). But living on a hill that is prone to huge landslides is being irresponsible.
When you are LUCKY enough to have a great leader who remains honest despite the pressures of the office and successfully navigates the inevitable compromising positions, you should KEEP them as long as possible! Get them body guards to protect against "accidents" too!
IT IS RARE TO FIND HONEST LEADERS; you can't replace them. More games of musical chairs played by crooks does not produce better results. Therefore, I am against term limits. I'm still for assuming politicians are guilty until proven innocent but I would rather not implement that precept with a zero-tolerance policy like term limits. think about it. term limits are zero tolerance thoughtlessness. I'm fine with changing the legal process so they are guilty until proven innocent (since that precept is the basis for term limits, separation of powers, etc.) but a rigid zero thought rule without any process for thinking; nope. Think about it, if they must prove their innocents-- maybe they'll put a webcam on their head 24/7 to protect themselves... and if anybody needs to lose ALL privacy it's the politicians... It's not like the NSA isn't blackmailing them already (notice how nobody will ever really touch the NSA.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
While it is true that it is impossible to build anywhere without some kinds of risk -such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanoes, people build there because there are measures that can be taken to mitigate the risk to property and/or save lives. Earthquake prone areas usually have architectural codes made to withstand some local quakes, hurricane-prone areas have evacuation plans and closely follow the weather, tornado alley houses SHOULD have basements to hide in (but I heard they don't) and warning systems, and volcanology has developed to the point where it can tell when a volcano is close to erupting. Not so with such a landslide, which truly happened without a chance for anyone to be alerted, resulting in the loss of many lives and not merely property.
'under the constraints that nobody wanted to sell their property and move.'
After all, eminent domain is restricted only to cases where you need to give the land to private development. :P
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Climatologists were warning of an impending ice age during the Johnson administration.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
With the guy that passed the first round of Obomneycare, Mitt Romney himself? How do you figure?
Exactly. Did the developers make perfectly clear to the buyers what risks were involved? If so they're off the hook, if not...
Ditto on resale - did the fully-informed previous owners pass on the dire warnings to the new buyers? If not, then *they* are the ones on the hook for manslaughter.
This is America. Nobody's off the hook when a lawyer is involved. Ever.
And still not much is being done to stop it. Wait 30 years and you'll see this same article here, only referencing global warming.
Odd, I thought that they'd been claiming that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years. I can pretty much find that in literature easily enough, including that: No glaciers by 2000, no snow falls by 2000, and 2010 in europe, no polar ice caps, and a whole pile of other things.
Om, nomnomnom...
It's hell on Earth here! Raining at the moment! When it stops it'll go back to our 9 straight months of greyness! No jobs! Unless hack sacking weed smoking hippies who make careers out of pan handling count! Furious volcanoes! Floods! People being chased by landslides! Don't move here! It sucks! Stay where you are! It's mostly just more pavement! Plus you can't pump your own gas! And you get a holy reaming on your property taxes! Here be dragons! And rabid beavers!
With the guy that passed the first round of Obomneycare, Mitt Romney himself? How do you figure?
Cf. "as exciting a candidate as the prospect of drinking a bowl of warm spittle" in my post.
It was the Republicans' election to lose in the sense that Obama had all this negative baggage (his keystone law was turned into an eponymous epithet, FFS) and practically nothing positive to point to.
However, the moment you looked at the potential GOP challengers in the primary it was obvious that Obama would win reelection despite all that. Yes, Romney was horrible, but basically there was no other pairing that could have won. Romney also managed to alienate the GOP base via his campaign's antics during the nomination. So, not only did he fail to recruit the independents necessary to win, he failed to excite his own party... that doesn't help turnout.
I'm just amused he was apparently honestly surprised he lost. My friends and I were all betting about the earliest time the election would get called for Obama. FWIW, I had a perfect score for my electoral college bracket, even before Nate Silver did.
Bullshit. Even in the 70s, the consensus was already leaning heavily toward warming.
A survey of climate science articles from '65 to '79 found seven that leaned toward global cooling, but they also found 44 articles on global warming over the same period. This notion of a "consensus" in the 70s about global cooling is simply a myth. The video linked above explains why and how. (Hint: the culprit is the media, not the scientists.)
Here's a little "thought experiment" for you... Imagine a "typical" English or Journalism major from your college days. How would you rate their understanding of science and engineering issues? Now imagine that person is writing for, say, Time Magazine...
Watch the video above to see how that works out. ;-)
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Climatologists were warning of an impending ice age during the Johnson administration.
Liar liar, pants on fire!
Exactly. Did the developers make perfectly clear to the buyers what risks were involved? If so they're off the hook, if not...
I'd say if they were clear about the risks, that is manslaughter. If they lied about the risks, murder 2.
Odd, I thought that they'd been claiming that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years.
That's because instead of listening to the predictions, you waved your hands without even knowing what the predictions were.
I can pretty much find that in literature easily enough, including that: No glaciers by 2000, no snow falls by 2000, and 2010 in europe, no polar ice caps, and a whole pile of other things.
What you failed to realize is that those were not the predictions of mainstream climate science, but of wackos were paraded in front of you as straw men. I call you on your bullshit and invite you to look up that "literature."
As if the climate is somehow open to achieving consensus if we can just act like it's a political opponent for long enough: "OK OK, we'll agree to a climate sensitivity of 1.8, NOT 2.3 but you have to agree to cuts in the budget for National Parks"..
Anyway, like I was saying, feel free to post you evidence.
That's because global warming doesn't exist... and the people whom voted up our score to insightful are the typical left-minded zombies that patrol Slashdot.
Same trolls that voted-up the root post have voted this persons downward. So typical of Slashdot. The comments are so one-sided toward socialism.... it's sad. I used to enjoy this forum. But it has no balance, just lefty coolaid drinkers.
Surely, you are being sarcastic and I've just been whooshed. Surely you aren't arguing that personal responsibility has anything at all to do with the tragedy here, because that would just be too fucking stupid. You know, to suggest that the residents would somehow "just know" that an entire mountainside might come down and flatten their houses and kill them.
A single idiot journalist looking for "balance" was warning of an impending ice age.
That is another lie! No matter how often you repeat them, they will remain so. Popular Science, Scientific American and many other periodicals had articles on the subject of an impending Ice age. According to NASA, the first governmental paper that suggested that warming was the likely outcome of man's pollution of the atmosphere was in 1979. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Funny how something that got so little attention and was mostly dismissed as bullshit back in the day is now being pushed by opportunists with an agenda as being more than a weird fringe view. Another annoying trick is deliberately getting mixed up with discussions about nuclear winter, I'll bet that was the next step.
And after being such an opportunistic revisionist you dare to call me a liar? What a disgusting piece of work you are. I hope you are getting promoted in the Party for pushing this rubbish. By showing you are able to leave morals behind are you hoping you will make it to Commissar?
Unlike you I can cite Scientific American to back up what I've written with an actual link:
http://www.scientificamerican....
Note the mention of President Johnson there. If that's not enough try google and you will find many others.
Anyway, like I was saying, feel free to post you evidence.
Not a problem I particularly like the ones on no glaciers in the Himalayas, that were based on no evidence by Greenpeace, with no scientific data. But were used as "factual information" to develop policy.
Om, nomnomnom...
1. You claimed "that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years." Cite this claim specifically
2. You claimed to have citation stating there would be "No glaciers by 2000" Cite this.
3. " no snow falls by 2000 and 2010 in europe," Cite this from peer reviewed material
4. no polar ice caps - provide this citation (Noting that it must be for both poles and must predict that would be no polar ice caps before 2014 to qualify per your criteria).
I particularly like the ones on no glaciers in the Himalayas, that were based on no evidence by Greenpeace, with no scientific data.
Your mistake. This doesn't qualify as an example of scientific literature (get a full understand of the composition of AR4 before mouthing off next time, moron), and they (the authors of the piece) didn't say "no glaciers in the himalayas" they made reference to one glacier completely disappearing. In an opinion piece.
Now get on with it.
Better learn you some geology! There is no direct connection between quakes in California and landslides in Washington state. Thie situation appears to be a well-known risk of incompetent geology managed by incompetant humans, county planning commission, real estate agents, home owners, incompetent all of them, The cause here is human failings, denialism, greed, evasion of responsibility, the same old human condition. As minkind gets more powerful, these failings in human judgement become more lethal.
There is nothing in geologic time or the history of the earth which spares Mankind from the ultimate fate of becoming extinct whether by accident or by his own error, and the earth and universe go on after that.
You realize that I posted the actual survey, including the methodology. If you did, then you'd know exactly how the numbers were fudged, and why it's a lie. You did take basic statistics right?
Om, nomnomnom...
The chicken little scientists were just drumming up fear off mudslides to ensure their grants would be renewed and the liberals all play along because they hate freedom. There are many scientists who are skeptical of mudslides but the media conspires with the scientific establishment to silence them.
It was all an inside job. Mossad.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You are the revisionist, and you remain a liar. Citing a secondary source is simply repeating someone else's lie, but it leaves you a liar nonetheless. Here is the speech: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/j... Scientific American says, "When a report on climate change hit the U.S. president's desk, ..." and it was not a report on climate at all - it was about pollution and it's health affects on humans. Yes, Johnson mentions carbon dioxide and not one word about its specific affect upon the environment. The particulate pollution and sulfur dioxide he mentioned were believed to cause cooling. Nowhere in the reports he was provided was there any mention of warming from carbon dioxide.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
You've misunderstood. I'm not interested in generalities and vague allegation.
Odd, I've made the same statements as those who give their own theories and given you their own sources including the source data. I guess that's your own problem if you don't want to read through it all.
Om, nomnomnom...
You've lied about the contents of that report.
It appears that you are the sort of person that needs to be dragged by the collar to your own piss on the floor, your nose rubbed in it, but then you still go and piss on the floor again the next day. We both know that your "Climatologists were warning of an impending ice age" is revisionist bullshit based on a hack that wanted to sell magazines yet you keep on bringing it up over and over.
What is your motivation for this revisionism? Is it following the party line in the hope that some day you may get rewarded with the post of Commisar or do you get paid as some sort of "social media" worker? This everyone over 40 was stupid enough to believe in a flat Earth style revisionist bullshit is incredibly annoying and is the tactic that was used in Stalinist USSR to discredit those that brought up historical examples.
Good luck at your promotion with the Party comrade.
Odd, I've made the same statements as those who give their own theories and given you their own sources including the source data.
Are you having trouble grasping the notion of "burden of proof"?
Cite specifically from AR4 where the following predictions are made:
1. You claimed "that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years." Cite this claim specifically
2. You claimed to have citation stating there would be "No glaciers by 2000" Cite this.
3. " no snow falls by 2000 and 2010 in europe," Cite this from peer reviewed material
4. no polar ice caps - provide this citation (Noting that it must be for both poles and must predict that would be no polar ice caps before 2014 to qualify per your criteria).
I guess that's your own problem if you don't want to read through it all.
Incorrect. Your inability to justify your assertions is your problem, not mine.
Republicans had no intentions of winning the 2012 election. Otherwise, they would have been tearing Obama a new asshole for taxing health care benefits after savaging McCain on the issue in 2008. Because why try and wrest back control of the White House when it's occupant is solidly committed to right wing Republican policies on taxation, regulation, economics, the environment, trade, and deficit reduction?
Wul , what if Yellowstone is pushing? WHut if fracking elswhere is causing a chain reaction that causes politicians to make geologists say stupid things in order to protect investment? In this day of pseudenlighenment science we have observed that facts remain true and untrue until acted on by a news program and then it becomes one or the other and will remain so until the market produces other needs for the industrial sector. This has been proven by firing politicians from an accelerator into a set of slits. Ideas and clothing appear to pass through one slit and feces passes through the other. The results are weighed for matter, anti-matter and it-doesnt-matter. The janitor comes in and mops up the poo.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Planning Commissions (PCs) and planning and zoning are where we wrest control from politicians who are beholding to money and developers. But PCs have to fight to use that limited power against people who make money by ignoring the science. The local planning commission should have stopped issuing permits to build or upgrade based on those old reports.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
I bandied this idea with my friends, and also did the same for 2008. However, I think it gives the GOP too much credit for being clever.
Furthermore, I simply don't believe any of their candidates could have won in a matchup with Obama. They were all uninspiring, and frankly most of them were reactionary... can you name any major proposals any of them were advocating? Instead, it was all "I'm not Obama, and I'm against his policies. Oh, and I'm against the bad economy that's totally his fault *cough*"
I just don't believe the party's insight is clever enough to desire to rule by proxy or their power strong enough to force every ambitious mainstream Republican to "take a dive" in the fight for the presidency.
Do you feel the same way about the 2016 matchups as you do about 2012? Look around... the GOP has nothing but losers in the field that will lose in the general election against any of the frontrunner Democratic potential candidates. Do you think those 2016 Dems are also GOP proxies, or at least enough so that the Repubs would want to take a dive again?
Does this mean that if we throw people particles at two slits that we will get a diffrackktion pattern? Maybe we should throw the Koch Bros. first, to see if they defrakk.
We could work with Joerg Sprave on an accelerator. https://www.youtube.com/user/J...
I think German engineering is called for. Kochs just chapped my ass with their so called Citizens for Prosperity campaign against Kansas Wind/Solar power initiative.
But, then when I pay my utilities, Kochs get richer. Kochs were outed, the initiative didnt change. So....Im guessing Joreg is up to a new challenge...
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Hey, wind back a bit there. FTFS, I see that the geologists were doing the right thing there. They were saying "this is dangerous ; this is not a safe place to live".
People chose to ignore them. That's not incompetent geology. That's incompetent town planners (maybe), corruption (between developers and town planners), and also incompetence on the behalf of the home owners who didn't do their homework before buying.
I am a geologist. I routinely get asked by people "is this area safe from flooding?", "is the ground stable in this area?" (not that building is my actual professional bag). And I give them my advice. And then they ignore me.
That doesn't make me incompetent : that makes them stupid.
We have a saying in Britain : you don't buy a dog and then bark for yourself. Unfortunately, people do.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Foaming @ the mouth: Witness the sheer intelligence (lol - NOT) of Sardaukar86 http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
I was really saying that in America scientists are increasingly pressured by people they work for to self-censor their advice, to go light on warning alarms if they happen to work for an energy company or if they work for government agencies, i.e. NOAA, WRT climate change, and in the case of the geologic hazards to not be too alarmist in the face of politicians and cities who are trying to booster real estate values and business. Were geologists more effective against business interests in America then practices like allowing for older structures to not be up to earthquake codes, gradfathered against newer building codes that incorporate adjustments to seismic risk, would be less acceptable. In San Francisco Ca. there are about 1000 structures that could collapse in a M= 7.0 on the Hayward or San Andreas Faults which is a expected risk in the next 30 years or so.
The pressures are very high to suppress warnings about landslides in Washington state against the interests of real estate interests and city planning commissions, who often cater to developers, real estate agents, tax assessors, remembering that in America it is property taxes that support many local jurisidictions.
In the San Franciscio Bay Area the property values are over inflated as are the rents because demand far exceeds supply and there are no incentives to discourage investment in tech. I wonder how may of those people know that the over-priced property they own in San Francisco, increasingly owned by Asians, would be serverly damaged or destroyed in an expected quake.
The Loma Prieta quake of 1989 was not the worst case situation by a long shot. It was centered in about the most remote place it could have been on the active faults of the Bay Area, so even though it was an M = 7.1, a quake that size on the Hayward Fault in Berkeley would have a much bigger impact on people and property.