Slashdot Mirror
National Geographic Releases Alarming Climate Change Movie 'Before the Flood' On YouTube (youtube.com)
dryriver writes: National Geographic's Climate Change movie "Before The Flood," featuring actor-activist Leonardo DiCaprio, can now be viewed freely on Youtube. One of the most interesting points in the movie comes at around the 23 minute mark. At 23 minutes, scientist Michael E. Mann, famous for co-discovering the "hockey stick graph" via eigenvector based climate field reconstruction (CFR), recounts how media like the Wall Street Journal demonized him for his research, how he received death threats from unknown sources, how Congress grilled him about whether his scientific methods are credible, and how he even received an envelope in the mail with strange white powder in it. The movie is worth watching because it shows very clearly that a) man-made climate change is happening and that b) the negative effects of climate change are already impacting many areas of the world.
Am I at risk of getting sued/DMCA if I watch this? What legal protections do I have against rouge filers unaffiliated with Nat. Geo, and what recourse do I have against these people when complain to my ISP?
I'm not sure watching this is worth the risk.
changes. If I wanted always summer I'd go to the Venezula, or if I wanted always winter I'd go to Canada. I like - I WANT - the climate to change! If God had wanted it any other way it would not happen!
was raked over the coals for fabricating data. boo hoo.
Waah waah waah tax money waah tax money waah waah tax money.
So now I hope we're spared with all this denialist crap: all has been said in this department, I hope :-)
This was the final piece of propaganda to convert me into the Cult of Climatology. Where do I send all my guilty money?
I'm sure Venezuela is all kinds of awesome.
The temperature "hockey stick" actually exists in one place: up Al Gore's rear end.
featuring actor-activist Leonardo DiCaprio
Is that the same Leonardo DiCaprio being investigated in Malaysia? The one being investigated for money laundering for the movie Wolf of Wall St.? The one that wants you to vote for Hillary the lying criminal? Oh yes, let me rush to watch it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
You don't get to just walk away and say "sorry about the shit we did to you, science corrected itself. Don't you Fucking Love Science?" In the realm of politics when you ideologically wreck the lives of a lot of people, justice demands you pay for it. So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
"venezuela", not "venezula"...
Can't get through one of these documentaries without someone pushing for a cradle to grave carbon tax. Taxation just for being alive, breathing air, and taking up space on our planet. I'm all for responsible environmentalism and living in harmony using sustainable resources but taxing people just for being born... no that's a scheme of the ultra rich to have a free steady source of income. It's like welfare for the elite and this is their method to sell it to the world.
"vuvuzela", not "venezula"...
changes. If I wanted always summer I'd go to the Venezula, or if I wanted always winter I'd go to Canada. I like - I WANT - the climate to change! If God had wanted it any other way it would not happen!
You want the weather to change.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
have come together to produce another episode of "the sky is falling" drivel.
I might have watched it did it not feature actor-activist Leonardo DiCaprio.
You will probably get envelopes with strange white powder in them for posting this to the happy go lucky, science denying Slashdot crowd.
I didn't believe in climate change before, but now that I see it on Youtube with Leonardo it makes it a) really real and b) happening as we speak.
Of course there will never be a punishment when decades from now absolutely fucking nothing the AGW religious freaks predict will happen does not happen.
We still have polar bears.
NYC is not under water.
Bangladesh is not under water.
Tuvalu is not under water.
Hurricane activity has decreased not increased.
Plants still grow. People are not starving en masse around the world.
The Arctic is covered by ice.
There is no northwest passage.
The Antarctic is covered in ice.
Greenland is covered in ice.
We still have as many glaciers as ever. They didn't melt.
But, we still have actor activists like Leo and Michael Mann running around making money telling us the sky is falling. Mean while these same people fly around the world on private jets to climate change boondoggle conferences.
Oh yeah, I'm obviously a clime change denier and a nazi and a racist and several other ists because I have been listening to their nonsense for decades now and not a single prediction has come true, so I must be stupid, uneduca6 and anti-science.
Oh! The irony!
They don't understand the youtube generation. I'll take a ten minute summary version, but if they can cut it down to 90 seconds that would be even better.
Oooh look, a cat video. I think I'll watch that.
National Geographic Releases Alarmist Climate Change Movie 'Before the Flood' On YouTube
There ... fixed the title for you...
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
A car has neither and the designers chose a metaphor. It's irrelevant
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
...in 3, 2, 1...
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Many people do not trust any science with a political agenda, and when they see all of the usual suspects lining up behind it, they rightly assume it is a scam like the rest of the things these people do.
If climate science is true -- a big if -- and if it fails, it will be because of (1) who promoted it (2) how they promoted it and (3) how they did similar things in the past that ended up being corrupt, and therefore instructed their audience to avoid such things in the future.
And what is this celebrity worship? These people are good at acting, not verifying truth. They are not our leaders or moral guardians, but rather, the opposite.
I think you need to go farther. Until people are willing to face jail time and restitution in the case that they are wrong, they are running your future on your dime.
Alternative Right.
God said that he would not destroy the Earth with a flood again, and indeed He won't.
This is my favourite cartoon concerning this subject: http://scienceblogs.com/starts... concerning a game-theoretic (if one wants to be pompous, and one does) aspect of this. That is, a low carbon, breathable air, greener world is a better world anyway, so we are right to start down this road, with or without AGW.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
And that is the problem. Scientists are people. People have motivations outside of the work itself, such as getting a promotion or being socially accepted. Groups of people are more often wrong than not, and they usually have a consensus about it. In fact, history is full of these upsets.
In a world where a scandal like this exists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...
How do you expect people to ever trust "the group"? Answer: they will not. And if bad consequences arise from that, well, the problem was that those who warned of those consequences were not trustworthy.
Alternative Right.
After years of bias, selective editing, source-policing to ensure cherry-picked data, etc. from Wikipedia editors, why would you even post a link to it?
Remember when they removed the global IQ chart because it was ideologically inconsistent for them, and then started inventing reasons why they should have done it, after the fact?
I sure do, and over the last ten years, many other events of this nature.
Alternative Right.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Alternative Right.
The following review (not mine) on IMDB sums it up quite nicely.
Al Gore says it's so and therefore it is?
1/10
Author: pete-801-834182 from United States
30 October 2016
Basically DeCaprio was told by Al Gore (who has made a hundred millions of dollars by preaching global warming after he retired from political life, gained a bunch of weight and had nothing to do) that anthropological global warming is real, and from that point onward DeCaprio was convinced. LOL! Then DeCaprio presents the ole "97% of scientists" lie that has traveled around the world. In reality 66% of scientists have no opinion about AGW -- Those opinions were conveniently thrown out of the messaged John Cook study. Then DeCaprio presents cherry picked anecdotal evidence, without ever questioning whether it's a case of Texas Sharpshooting. Why didn't he present the Vostok Station / Greenland ice core data to put the last 100 years IN PERSPECTIVE versus the last 5,000 years, 11,000 years and 420,000 years? And if he's such a big fan of anecdotal evidence over temperature data then why didn't he mention that Greenland used to be green? That 20,000 years ago New York was covered by a mile thick glacier? Why didn't DeCaprio interview Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, who is not part of "Big Oil" and doesn't buy into AGW? Because DeCaprio suffers from confirmation bias. The rest of this propaganda piece (I mean movie) continues under the ASSUMPTION that humans are causing the planet to warm and we all need to agree to tax ourselves more. No thanks.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
"Settled."
As in, "Well, that's settled then."
Actual meaning: all of us believe it, and per our usual begging-the-question fallacy/passive-aggressive attack, we are going to insist you believe it too and call you a bad person if you refuse.
It's a pathology. Leftism, I mean.
Alternative Right.
Promotion gets a bad name, but it is what one is doing when releasing one-sided or selectively chosen data.
I used to respect National Geographic, but after seeing one-sided political propaganda coming from them over the past few years, I throw them in the junkheap with most of the rest of media.
All you had was your good name, media. And now, that is gone.
Alternative Right.
Take your pick: hasbara, CTR and fuzzy bears.
Alternative Right.
Anything to take attention away from Hillary about to get arrested by the FBI? Clintons are in some seriously deep shit. Honestly I'd rather hear more news about the devices, servers, email, and all the tech related chaos caused by stonetear; one of our own that was corrupted by the darkside.
"Must be demonstrated in the past" -- without that, Rightists will "not believe" which actually means "not accept the ravings of other human beings as reality."
If we have regressed, it has been under the last 200+ years of manic Leftism. It seems Leftism has led us to regression then. Maybe we should go with a fact-based narrative and then reject Leftism?
Alternative Right.
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
Your car has "Automatic HVAC" which your vendor has chosen to market to you under the name "climate control" — I am in the same situation, but I do not mistake this for having some relevance when discussing climate change.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even when an existential threat stares them in the face, they deny it if it is just a few years away and not too immediate. (Just look at all the deniers posting here.) The human race is incapable of dealing with an existential threat that is a few decades away.
That said, maybe Trump will nuke the planet, thereby reducing the problem as nobody will be around to suffer the consequences...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You lie.
This language is designed to be vague so that anyone who "denies" climate change can be prosecuted. This is not private lawsuits; these are prosecutor-initiated government lawsuits. That is a criminal prosecution, since we are talking about corporations and not individuals.
Also of note:
http://www.overlawyered.com/20...
Alternative Right.
Only fools are cowed by a large number of sources when it is clear those have been selected for their agreement with a thesis.
Alternative Right.
...anything you touch will turn to lead.
Ten million criminals, liars, grifters, con men, frauds, and shysters agree on something.
Maybe they like the science, or maybe they are doing what they usually do, which is extract money from the sheep.
Either way, they destroyed their own credibility and that is why people do not trust them.
Alternative Right.
This thread will have lots, and lots, and lots, of flaming going on soon. The slashdot editor who let this through with that summary would have been wiser to post an article discrediting emacs as a useful and relevant editor.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
My Negroe.
When people show their hand so clearly
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
Your car has "Automatic HVAC" which your vendor has chosen to market to you under the name "climate control" — I am in the same situation, but I do not mistake this for having some relevance when discussing climate change.
No, no, the button in my car says it controls the climate: when I set it, the whole planet changes temperature to suit my comfort level. I saw it on TV./
Well it does when a pebble strikes your condensor and leaks POISONOUS REFRIGERANT into the atmosphere.
You realize you can purge any R134A AC system and fill it with propane who no loss in performance or seal integrity??
The weekend ratings are out, and they aren’t good news for Leonardo DiCaprio’s Global Warming Epic ‘Before the Flood‘, which we reviewed yesterday on WUWT. Showbuzz Daily has listed the top 150 TV and Cable programs for the weekend, and in ‘the hottest year ever’, discussing the ‘most important topic ever’, Before the Flood came in at #61 for the weekend.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/01/dismal-ratings-for-dicaprios-global-warming-epic-before-the-flood-beaten-by-bubble-guppies/
Step 1: Post item irrelevant to your site with known flamewar issue to your audience.
Step 2: Profit!
Step 3: Site erodes further into uselessness.
My biggest argument thus far is that so far I've seen absolutely NOTHING on the policy side which has a reasonable chance at doing anything other than marginally at the edges. The solution to this problem is not going to come from attempting to modify human behavior by carrot and stick. Sure, it can help but it's not going to solve the problem. The solution is going to come from some technical advancement that is cost effective for people to use vs what they already do now.
I wonder if there was a Slashdot back then when Noah was building the ark...
And wake me when there are penalties (fines/taxes/etc.) for having "too many" offspring, that is, when we address the ever-increasing hole in our resources bucket. Until then, doing anything else is only delaying the inevitable by a relatively small amount.
We see here yet another perfect example of big greedy rich companies influencing public opinion yet again by lying to them and spreading disinformation among them pretending to be normal users in order to keep on being greedy rich fucking companies and fucking us all over.
Man-made climate change is real, it's true, and there is no person on this planet with any real intelligence that doesn't have a fucking agenda that will deny it. But for richfucks, they'd throw their momma off a fucking building if it meant increasing their richfuck profits by even 1%, and they certainly don't give a shit about the future of this planet as long as they get rich now. And worse, they'll blame "liberals" or some other bullshit and argue that there is some fucking agenda from the other direction when that doesn't even make any fucking sense. This isn't about "liberal" or "conservative" or anything, it's about the goddamn future of humanity and the fact that most of us give a shit about the survival of our species, unlike you richfucks that don't care about anything but getting as rich as possible before you kick the bucket and leave the world in a pile of shit, because who the fuck cares, you got rich and enjoyed your fucking life. You fucking scum.
We should move to take away the "opinions" of these fucking idiots and just enact laws that favor truth and common sense without all the back and forth bickering with bullshit artists.
The "hockey stick" is partly the deception windowing down your data to the region in which you want to claim an effect, disregarding other regions with similar magnitudes of change outside of that window. When the hockey stick is placed in the larger context of historical climate change it no longer looks like a hockey stick.
Hockey stick is also inept statistics. Steve McIntyre demonstrated long ago that the statistical methodology in that hockey stick paper generates a hockey stick if fed synthetic climate data having no underlying trend. Mann's methodology has an in-built bias toward producing hockey sticks.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
When I serviced my AC, I did the same and filled it with propane. No problem at all -- this was four years ago.
or if I wanted always winter I'd go to Canada.
If you want always winter, we don't want you up here. We hate winter. It's why we're so nice - we use up all our hatred on the weather.
Why don't you loan your magic car to the government so it can be used to geoengineer the planet to a useful and stable climate?
This space intentionally left blank
Yes, and those are entirely reasonable things to do when people come up with "new statistical methods" and demand immediate action. Just look at the mess Li's Gaussian Copulas caused in the financial and mortgage markets. New statistical techniques require many years and many different test cases to validate.
Now, what is this activist crap doing on Slashdot?
By now, 99% of the people either think climate change and human's impact on it is clear or they - somewhat religiously - don't believe it and no documentary will change that...
I've been mitigating the effects of climate change by slowly turning the climate control knob in my Focus slightly colder whenever I hear the climate has warmed.
Your Welcome
Fiction
Why is he letting National Geographic spread these unpatriotic facts?!!!
He should be more like Florida Governor Rick Scott, who banned state employees from using the term "global warming".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
None of the things you list as things that were predicted but have not happened were predicted to have happened by 2016.
Some of them weren't predicted at all, and some were predicted as things that would happen by 2050, and quite a few were predictions for "by the end of the century."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Climate change alarmists are like the crazy people on the street corner holding the sign saying the world will end on a specific date. The reality is that climate change will not kill anyone in our lifetime. "Stop chasing ambulances and start chasing dreams."
Yes, and those are entirely reasonable things to do when people come up with "new statistical methods" and demand immediate action.
I'm sorry, but no.
Death threats are never an appropriate response.
If your side thinks that they need to issue death threats to rebut a scientific argument, this is basically evidence that they are not arguing with the science.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The problem we have in our modern world is that people believe what they want to believe. For the first time in history, nearly every person has the whole of human knowledge at their fingertips - you can find the answer to any question with 30 seconds of googling/wikipedia-ing.
This video tells "believers" what they already know - and will be completely ignored by those who don't.
"An Inconvenient Truth" set the stage - it may have swayed a few minds - but essentially, everyone who already knew and understood had their deepest fears confirmed - and the people who didn't want to believe simply dismissed it out of hand...possibly never even watched it.
This is everywhere these days. Donald Trump can say any lies he wants - people who support him will believe absolutely anything he says, no matter the evidence to the contrary. The people who were convinced to vote for "Brexit" in the UK were similarly immune to fact when the facts didn't fit their world view.
So what we need as a civilization is NOT more videos like this. What we need is to somehow awaken people's minds to the idea of seeking TRUTH. To think for themselves. To look up the fact - and if they doubt the fact, to follow the little blue numbers on the Wikipedia pages. To think for themselves. To believe what is actually true, and not what they want to be true.
For me - global climate change is very real. What's wrong is that we're trying to fix it by switching to LED lamps, recycling coke cans and driving hybrid SUV's. We need to look for changes that'll work...stop farming cows, for example. We can all, quite easily, give up beef and cow-milk. That alone would have more impact than replacing every incandescent bulb, replacing every car with a Nissan Leaf, and recycling every scrap of recyclable material to perfection. The second thing we need to do is to cut our population to maybe a quarter of what it currently is. This is REALLY hard to do. But that's the thing that'll ultimately do.
So even the promoters of fixing things need to step back from their current recommendations and check the facts. It's actually not that hard to figure out what's required.
www.sjbaker.org
How many billions of people should shiver in the dark this winter to prevent a few thousand tropical islanders from having to worry about the water? What's the scientific consensus on that?
Let's just say the one side is completely correct. So what? Do you think everyone will say "I want to help -- please let me shiver in the dark every winter and bake in the heat every summer until I die"?
You want to take "agressive action" to "fight climate change". Ok. What if people refuse to be subjected to your aggression and decide to defend themselves and their way of life? What's your plan for that?
I'd like to emphasis that just about in every 1st world country on the planet the general populace agrees and acknowledges the science that man-made climate change is real and happening. It is only in the US that anti-eco idiots appear in such numbers have such a widespread platform and that they are actually listened to. These crackpots would be laughed out of the room in just about any european country, by any party, left or right.
This all fits snuggly into the type of political debate taking place in the US right now, that has everybody outside the US shake their head in disbelief.
Just wanted to get that out.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
No one (except the really silly) deny climate change. They are skeptical of the MAN MADE portion of that.
If they were in fact skeptical, that would be fine. But there are far too many people who have one-sided skepticism: they are not merely skeptical but completely unwilling to listen to one side-- the actual science--but completely credulous to claims by people with no actual expertise at all saying that they science is wrong.
In fact, there are good reasons to think that human-produced carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere, has an effect on climate. The current measurements of about 1C increase in average global temperature is well in line with what you'd expect from the basic physics. So far, there really isn't a credible alternate model.
...We emit orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism and nobody questions whether volcanism influences the climate.
Well, yes... but primarily volcanoes affect climate by emitting volcanic aerosols, which reduce sunlight and cause temporary cooling. It's not due to their carbon dioxide emissions, which are (as you point out) very small compared to human emissions. The aerosols are, actually, an excellent natural experiment that allows us to see the effects of a reduction in solar input.
[snip] ... If you want to be taken for anything but a troll, your trolls are going to have to address these points directly, and not just go on a rant about Al Gore. That shit is old.
I will agree with that! Al Gore isn't a climate scientist, he isn't cited by climate scientists, he isn't even talked about by climate scientists. He's a politician who held the vice presidency, a not-very-important office, two decades ago. Really, if somebody's only contribution to talking about climate is to bring up Al Gore, about all I can think is that they don't know anything and don't have anything substantive to say about the subject.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
He should have done the whole movie flying around in a private jet, as he is wont to do.
All I hear from you guys is spouting the same rhetoric you read somewhere, Apply some independent thought for a change.
Let's put out some facts. Earth's weather is a chaos system. Chaos cannot be predicted. BTW, According to Al Gore, we are well past the Point of No Return, so enjoy the ride. CO is not a pollutant. It is the giver of life for every green plant on our home world. 10,000 years ago when the so called Native Americans moved on to the American continent from Asia, there were glaciers all the way down to Chicago. Now they are just big puddles we call the "Great Lakes". So yes, the planet is getting warmer, but it has been in life giving state for hundreds of millions of years and going through many cold and warm cycles. In 1883 Krakatoa, an island 10 miles across vaporized in an afternoon sending the entire planet into a volcanic winter that lasted for 4 years. Guess what, Earth recovered. (wiki volcanic winter to see much more.) We definitely have an effect on our environment, being the dominate species. But these doom and gloom end of the world predictions are just the WWW version of the crazy guy standing on the corner with the sign.
I hope your trolling. For the love of all things science, Canada is not winter all year round.
"Idiots! Idiots everywhere..."
Maybe the best way to get certain folks on board is to present information with a sense of self-skepticism and talk about the uncertainties rather than having movie starts tell us disaster is upon us and not even acknowledge those uncertainties.
Right there you're showing that you're not familar with the actual science. If you would read, for example, the IPCC Working Group 1 report, there is exhaustive discussion of the uncertainties-- the whole report repeatedly addresses how well do we know what we know, what are the sources of uncertainty, how much uncertainty is there, and what do we need to do to reduce our uncertainty.
If you want "talk about uncertainties", look at the actual science, where uncertainties are laid out in detail, not at the popular media (and certainly not at the blogger commentary.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Perhaps its all about presentation... It would have been a lot easier to believe if:
1. There had been less exaggeration in early predictions
2. They weren't saying "Vote for Me!" so loudly from their carbon burning private jets.
3. They weren't saying "Give me Money" so loudly from their carbon burning private jets.
It was poorly done and smelled very very fishy. Politicians used it to gain power, and we know how honest politicians are. What the people on the right heard was this: Science "proves" AGW, therefore let us tax you into poverty, remove your 2nd amendment rights, cram our social agenda down your throats and keep me in power indefinitely to fix it. Take it all or you are a climate heretic and will be punished accordingly. Then of course some political figures on the right took this feeling and ran with it only solidifying it. This controversy would never have taken off if it hadn't been for the politicians and their all or nothing approach to stuff. AGW's poster boy was a former democrat candidate, that was stupid.
So when somebody presents an idea and offers a solution in exchange for power and/or money, I can understand why there is resistance. If you want this to be heard and really fixed, the first step is to excoriate those using this issue for power on both sides, but I think the left has the lions share of the burden there.
Well it does when a pebble strikes your condensor and leaks POISONOUS REFRIGERANT into the atmosphere.
You realize you can purge any R134A AC system and fill it with propane who no loss in performance or seal integrity??
You realize that R134A is used in asthma inhalers? At least, the good ones? I've got one right here and It hasn't hurt me in the sli
No, but seriously, we don't use propane in automotive AC because it's a fire risk. It's used less and less commonly in general, and only in cases where if there's a leak it's not going to cause a fire.
ASE certified AC tech here
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Like so many other things, people slap a magnet on the back of their minivan to Raise Awareness, and then pretend they've done something. You being all alarmed or convinced or otherwise aware of the problem after seeing the movie, doesn't actually accomplish anything. DO SOMETHING. Plant a tree. Plant a thousand trees. Install solar panels. Change your light bulbs over to LED. Turn down the thermostat. Properly inflate your tires. Get a job closer to home. DO SOMETHING.
I've planted around 10,000 trees, and installed around 10KW of solar panels. The solar panels are on a 4-5 year schedule to pay back the money spent on them, after which it's pure profit. AND, all the CO2 emissions that have been avoided by having them producing energy. I changed jobs to reduce my drive by an hour a day. We even gave tree seedlings to our wedding reception guests. Maybe I don't have a magnet on the back of my car, but, to me, actually doing something about it is more important than "raising awareness".
Solar is a great way to do something, and, have a great investment. Where else can you put your money and get a ~5 year ROI?
No, no, the button in my car says it controls the climate: when I set it, the whole planet changes temperature to suit my comfort level
Well! Problem solved, I guess!
Yes, the AC will function. But the system is not designed to contain flammable gas, so there's that...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I've been undermining your efforts by spinning the knob the other way. Hey, I have potential beachfront property here up on the hill.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
...will sue you.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked." - George Carlin
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I live in North Central Texas. I haven't watered my lawn for two years (still pretty green). I recycle. I have my lights on timers so I never forget to turn them off. I adjust the timers as needed. I use low energy bulbs. I use a programmable thermostat and have gotten used to being a little warmer or a little colder as the seasons change. My wife and I both have to work but we own cars that are easier on the gas. I'm not going to list every lifestyle change I've made in support of doing my part. I am a reasonable person when it comes to conservation and being environmentally friendly. I think man does contribute to climate change. I think we can make reasonable changes to how we live and that those changes may negate some of the issues. But I also believe that some of us are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. Not all of the suggestions I've read for reducing our footprint are viable right now. Perhaps in the future we can (and should) revisit some of the less doable ideas. But an objection based on practicality or inability doesn't mean a person is an Earth burning ludite,lowIQ,moronic,sciencehatingidiot. That's where I get wrapped around the axle on this subject. When a nuanced opinion is categorized as being from a denier and when the mouthpiece for the message is a hypocrite. This all-or-nothing, burn em all to the ground attitude toward people that don't agree with you 100% is self-defeating.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
RIGHT. So I caught a bit of this. Leonardo needs to understand his surroundings better which is ripe given the whole movie is him going around checking out his 'surroundings'. Point is that in the movie he taks about shooting his move The Revenant in Canada, specifically Alberta. They were shooting there because they needed snow. They wake up one day and the snow is all melted. Leonardo acts like this is some 'grand climate change' thing...its NOT its called a freakin' CHINOOK. A warm wind that blows down off the Rockies, and they happen quickly. You can have -10 in the morning with a foot of snow, and +10 or 20 in the afternoon, snow melting all away etc. It's been happening there for ever (at least for as long as we've kept records).
Once I saw that, I thought 'hmm, well what else is in this propaganda film that he's misleading us about?'...That is not to say I don't believe the climate is changing. What I'm saying is that if you're going to mix falsehood or innuendo with truth you're going to cause more doubt and uncertainty than you should. But hey, THEY believe the rest of us are stupid and can't decide for ourselves what is happening & how we will react, we need to be have it spoon fed to us & our 'opinions molded'...good luck with that
Michael Mann, the fraudster.
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
What the hell does Leonardo de Caprio know about anything, living the life of a multi-millionaire, unlike the rest of us.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/01/dismal-ratings-for-dicaprios-global-warming-epic-before-the-flood-beaten-by-bubble-guppies/
Most of us are sick of 'Climatedot' and it's endless 'catastrophic man-made global warming' -sorry - 'climate change' bullshit, every single day...
It's a pathology. Leftism, I mean.
Indeed it is a form of suffering so many have to endure, I think you are right. Perhaps Rightism would be a psychopathy? Antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits. Don't take it personally all I'm saying is I don't think we have encountered a time when the term 'Right wing facist' has ever been an oxy-moron. I mean most of those guys were psychopaths, Hitler was a right wing facist, wasn't he?
Climate change is happening and has always happened since the beginning of time. Parts of the earth that were desert are now seas and vice versa. Ice ages have come and gone and will continue to do so. These cycles of climate change happened before mankind came along and will happen long after mankind is gone but there is no disputing that man is contributing to the current cycle of climate change. Generally, the cycles are so long (in time) that they're not easily recognized, but mankind has accelerated the change through industry and environmental disruption.
It is important, though, to understand _the other side of the equation_. We've been using coal to heat and power our homes, for instance, along with other fuels. If we did not use coal, how many millions of acres of trees would we have to burn to provide the same heat to the same number of homes? There's such a hue and cry about GMOs (and I believe there is GMO abuse, so I'm not defending that) but GMOs allow 1 acre of land to render double or triple the amount of non-GMO crop. Should we then not have GMOs and instead clear three times as much forest to grow crops to feed the growing population of the world? Which would be more catastrophic?
So, my point is, yes, mankind is contributing to climate change, but its happening with or without us and if we didn't do the things we are doing that contribute to climate change, doing something different would also have a negative effect, resulting in changes. If we want to eliminate the negative effects of mankind on our environment, including climate then we must eliminate mankind. If we want to reduce mankind's impact, we must reduce the population of mankind. Its simple arithmetic.
The naysayers, pessimists and alarmists seem to make all the headlines all the time but there are plenty of things happening that are cause for optimism. It's okay to raise the alarm about bad things happening but we need to balance those with acceptance of the good things that are happening all the time lest we wring our hands in dispair and resort to wailing and slashing our wrists. There is plenty of research, history a literature out there for those who are truly interested in the facts rather than being susceptible to only one-sided and incomplete context. If you're willing to be enlightened substantially and not just accept all the bad news as the only news I can recommend so great reading from a famous author, historian and researcher, Matt Ridley. As a starting point, read his book called "The Rational Optimist" - it'll give you a much needed perspective in this deluge of pessimism we're all subject to.
The minority is simply a vocal one. Every time an AGW story gets posted, they come out of the woodwork to deny it.
They come out of the woodwork to scream about Crooked Hillary and her criminal activities, too, yet she is leading the current /. poll by quite a margin. I find that amazing for a site that is supposedly so conservative.
Either that, or the poll is rigged.
The science says that doubling the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere results in 3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric forcing. This is generally held to equate to a 1 degree difference in global temperature. Water vapor is known to be an excellent greenhouse gas, and warmer air can hold an exponentially larger amount of water. There are vast reservoirs of liquid water on this planet. The feedback cycle is complicated but strongly positive. There are a number of other obvious feedbacks connected with melting ice.
You can talk about models and trust all day. People argued about Einstein too. His theories were even more controversial and less well-supported. You don't need rhetoric, you need facts. We've been looking for facts that would disprove AGW for about a century, and we haven't found them because they don't exist. Disputing global warming is very much like disputing gravity; you're inherently proposing wholesale violation of known physical laws.
Now, there is some room to argue about severity, but not much. Arrhenius calculated about a six degree increase per doubling of CO2, and a significant part of work of the last hundred years has been improving on that estimate. We know that the sensitivity cannot be less than 1 degree, and there are a bunch of really obvious reasons why H2O would magnify the effect. So now we've blown past 400ppm and show no signs of stopping. We don't need a model to figure out what's going to happen here. The model is to figure out how quickly this is going to happen. We're already seeing lots of melting glaciers. I grew up in Alaska, and even in the span of my life the change has been dramatic. When you're standing on the spot where several cubic miles of ice has been for the last few millennia, and that ice has completely vanished to the point where the glacier is no longer even visible, and that change happened in ten years, it becomes very hard to dispute that the world is changing dramatically. The entire state of Alaska is melting, particularly on the tidewater and low alpine glaciers which are more accessible and noticeable. The same thing is happening with damn near every glaciated area in the world.
It is not enough to suggest the models are inaccurate. You are in need of some fact which shows they are wrong. Then you can start trying to reconcile the observed warming with your theory. Alternately you could examine the published research to find out whether improvements could be made to the models. You know, like all the rest of those climate scientists. Your trust issues are the result of your choices. You have chosen to elevate your own doubt over empirical fact. So now you have put yourself in the position of picking and choosing what parts of the world to believe in. Personally I try not to get into arguments with reality, but if you do then being labeled a "denier" is probably the least of your problems.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You must be driving down the Antelope Freeway...
He's mentioned in the credits: Alexei Berteig. He does lots of commercial, documentary, and now entertainment video work. He recently moved to Vancouver from Beijing. You can check his stuff out at Fashioner Films.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
You're seriously complaining about one person and one jet? Kind of insignificant in relation to his helping raise awareness, don't you think? Well, you actually demonstrated that you probably don't.
Would it be better if he drove all that distance? Took a bus, maybe? Or are you just jealous because you don't have a private jet of your own?
Today's consensus is usually tomorrow's laughingstock.
There is also the tendency that, in groups, people react with herd behavior (panic or mania).
Alternative Right.
changes. If I wanted always summer I'd go to the Venezula, or if I wanted always winter I'd go to Canada. I like - I WANT - the climate to change! If God had wanted it any other way it would not happen!
Just be sure to bring your own toilet paper, that worker's paradise is out of just about everything related to civilized living.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Let me add some information for the tunnel-focused group that discards common sense and external data they prefer not to look at:
a.) man-made climate change is happening, BUT it is not the cause of global catastrophe in and of itself. Hell, if there were thousands of cattle (or related) creatures in a very unstable surface plate area (ocean on one side), and they were hunted by predators during the day but not at night; a massive plate shift accompanied by earthquakes one night happened and the plate developed a huge opening that was already in progress. Next morning, predators go out to hunt and have no way of getting to that area because of the land shift being too great for the predators to pass. If you want to argue the possibility of that happening, let's say the problem is that a river got diverted in the process and now it's impassible due to the current and size. Given resources (water, minerals, etc) for plants to grow, including grass, there is plenty of food for said animals. They multiply and multiply. After a few thousand years, there is a huge area that's a methane source large enough to say "cattle-made climate change is happening". What do the cattle do, kill themselves to reduce their "ecological footprint" so they have a happy place that doesn't change to live in for a few thousand more years? NO! They live and adapt to change or naturally die off. They have no freaking clue at all that they play a part in the global climate (let's say a .01% temperature increase every year). 3000 years later, the temperature has gone up 30 degrees! OH MY GOD! Pause. You're thinking in a linear fashion. There is a lot of other shit (pun intended) that happens in that 3000 year window and was, mind ya, happening before and at the time of the huge population divide mentioned above. Volcanoes, ocean vents, gas pocket releases, huge fires that burn for thousands of years (hey, without Humans the oil and gases underground don't just sit there; they grow deeper, higher in pressure). Natural "oil" spills from openings and vertical crust divisions. One night, several lightning strikes hit trees on the back-end of a powerful supercell thunderstorm. A fire spreads from tree to tree and eventually reaches the pools of oil. Whoosh. Let the emissions begin! Thought-check: were you thinking of the storm, spreading fire, successive oil ignition happening where the cattle were? I was mentioning someplace else on the planet, very far away from the cattle. Hell, the cattle, even if they had Human-level senses and ability to understand them, would have no idea that it happened. Oh, also a volcano just erupted in the opposite hemisphere, 9182 statute miles from the cattle when I'm asking this thought-check question.
b.) DUH. Self-centered, linear, tunneled, biased thinking again! The planet has climate shifts with regular cycles due to the polar tilt. In between those cycles are billions of events from "nearly insignificant" to "massive and Earth-shattering". Oh, I forgot to mention in the scenario above that a large meteor hit the planet somewhere in there. It was enough to darken the skies by a tiny 1% for 5 years before it was halfway mixed out of the stratosphere by natural progression. Oh, and that's just the dust, soot, gases, and other junk from that meteor hit, not the other emissions that were taking place at the time because of its shock wave triggering a couple more volcanic fissures to open on up that were building pressure. Aw, crap, oil was near that area, too, and several of the fissures let it burst to an area where magma is flowing from the new volcanoes that arose from the fissures that arose from the shock wave that arose from the meteor impact that, mind ya, all had absolutely nothing to do with the cattle and their methane-rich emission area. Oh, forgot to mention the fissures let carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide, helium, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, oxygen, hydrogen chloride, su
Those refrigerants are completely inert at normal conditions. Hell we really don't know if there effect on the ozone hole is even real for sure.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I really really really hope you are right, but your optimism omits too much evidence that the Earth is dying very very very soon.
Because soon (10-20 years) in many places that is all that will grow.
The current trend is no statisically significant warming for about 18 years,
No, it's not. You're quoting denier talking points from several years ago. The purported "pause"-- which never reached the level of statistical significance-- went back to a rising trend years ago. http://blogs.discovermagazine.... Get some up-to-date talking points, why not?
and considering how few sunspots there have been lately, it's likely to cool down a bit as well.
Considering that meteorologists and climate scientists have been looking for a link between sunspots and temperature for over a hundred years now, and have still failed to find any link, this is a speculation that doesn't seem to have any evidence. The latest solar cycle (24) was lower than the previous one... but the temperature rise during this cycle was more than during the previous one. So, if anything, the most recent solar cycles show the opposite from what you suggest.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I want to see the doom. I want to see the famines, the floods, the droughts, the hurricanes, the biblical flooding? Where are they? Why are coastal realestate pricest the highest they have ever been in history. Because nothing is happening! There is not a shred of any evidence that the climate is impacting our quality of life anywhere. If you happen to live in a flood plain, or hurricane zone and get hit. Tough life sucks sometimes! But its not because of global warming.
few problems with that..
Plants actually need CO2 to grow, as seen in africa, parts are now greening due to the extra rainfall due to mositure in the air due to warming and CO2..
Due to natural locking up of CO2, CO2 levels have been reducing for millions of years, estimates are that we had limited time before levels would have got to the 140ppm level where plants die off, then we would be totally fucked, releasing CO2 has actually extended the time when this will happen..
Ever since they switched from CFCs to HFA (c. 2008), I've had to stop using inhalers. I find that the new(ish) propellant is just as likely to make mild symptoms worse, so I only take it if I'm having a real hard time (triggered normally by allergies). The good news is that ever since I stopped working near refineries, my symptoms are fairly well controlled. Oddly, my son doesn't have any issues with his inhaler. Maybe because his body never knew the old propellant?? Who knows.
Canadians are known for being polite, not nice. There's a difference. Personally, I think it's because if you weren't polite, you'd all kill each other before the first thaw of spring.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
https://xkcd.com/1732/
While I don't disagree, physics? What does that have to do with anything? I guess at a certain level one could argue that everything is physics, but climatology isn't something I would first associate with the term.
Leonardo DiCaprio is a high school dropout with a GED. Why is it that when AGW proponents make their case their credentials are never questioned, but when skeptics speak they're shouted down for not being climatologists?
He got caught up in money laundering with ties to the Clinton foundation and has been the butt end of jokes on the internet for months. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/leonardo-dicaprio-malaysian-money-scandal-920199 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leonardo-dicaprio-backs-hillary-clinton-921326
The street art in LA about his sorry pathetic rear is especially hilarious: http://s22.postimg.org/gl9n1eeox/Sabo_640x480.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Anybody old enough and lucky enough to have children know that you'd give away everything you own to save your kid's life. How much would you give if a criminal had a gun to the child's head and was threatening (he might be lying) to kill the kid? What if just 33% of expert physicians (on some disease) you knew said that there was a disease that was going to kill your kid unless you addressed it now, while the other 66% of expert physicians weren't sure... and let's say the cure was non-invasive or dangerous to your child's health either way but was sometimes inconvenient.
I'm pretty darn sure making a better, safer, cleaner world, even if it cuts into our profits or conveniences, is the right way to do things. I don't care about political sides in this matter. We all live on this planet, and we should all hope to make it a better world for future generations.
Actually, that sums up the Global Warming deniers' newest scam. It's becoming impossible for any rational person to deny it's happening, so they're changing their prattle to, "It's already gone too far to do anything about it. We might just as well keep on the way we are and trust science to find a way to fix things when the excrement really hits the fan."
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
My some of my (older) family members are climate change skeptics. The most effective analogy I use is this. "Aunt Stacy, every week you fill up your truck with about 140lbs of gasoline. Then at the end of the week it's magically all gone, and you need to fill up again. What do you think happens to that 140lbs? Of course it goes into the air, all 140 lbs of it. And we know that stuff is bad news, because you don't want to be locked in the garage with the car running either" Now I know I'm conflating CO and CO2, leaving out the finer details of the combustion chemical reaction, but it makes the point to a 70 year old, that as an individual you are polluting the atmosphere. Trying to pollute less is better and more responsible.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...
"Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+
"Truthfully...white people are the problem"
I'm curious in what context such a statement (applying any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?
Let's see:
"Truthfully...black people are the problem"
"Truthfully...gays are the problem"
"Truthfully...jews are the problem"
And one wonders how the "Climate Change" message doesn't seem to resonate with the majority of Americans?
Perhaps patronizing racism *isn't* the kind of thing with which one builds consensus?
-Styopa
>Now I know I'm conflating CO and CO2,
You were better to "conflate" the two because of current emissions controls. The point of a catalytic converter is to make CO into CO2.
Unless your Aunt Stacy is running an antique from before the first gas crisis.
--
BMO
It is CYCLICAL and we entering a cooling trend. Fucking hipster libtards.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd disown a young idiot relative with arguments that idiotic.
How's THIS analogy:
"dude, every week you fill up your belly with many pounds of food and drinks. Then at the end of the week it's magically all gone, and you need to fill up again. What do you think happens to that stuff? Of course it goes into the sewer, all of it. And we know that stuff is bad news, because you don't want to be locked in the sewer with the toilets flushing either" so probably you should stop eating and drinking, polluting less is better and more responsible.
(sigh)
The planet will not be destroyed by global warming caused by cars and other conveniences - it will be destroyed by a generation of pompous idiots who think themselves wise but who have actually just been thoroughly propagandized. The plummeting national IQ is something our ancestors never saw coming. Next time, try having a real, solid, argument and don't be arguing in favor of harming millions of people today in the hopes of possibly knocking half a degree of the average temperatures a century from now when our descendants will be better equipped to deal with it IF if even happens and IF they even think there's somethng wrong with the climate they inherit.
That is, a low carbon, breathable air, greener world is a better world anyway, so we are right to start down this road, with or without AGW.
Billions of poor people would disagree with your breezy dismissal of their problems. Poverty is the obvious rebuttal to the unfounded assertion a greener world is a better world. Poor people are higher fertility than rich people and they care far less about the environment than about getting their next meal.
While the claim that a greener environment means less poor people has been sold hard, it remains in the real world that attempts to mitigate CO2 emissions result in the sort of stuff, like Denmark and Germany almost doubling the cost of their electricity, that makes more poor people rather than less.
Nobody watched it on television. Even "Bubble Guppies" beat it in the ratings. People just don't want to be preached to by a self-righteous hypocrite.
U R complete owned and manipulated by Rothschild Bankers
Since the Rothschilds own all of the media, which they bought in the early 20th century, it's easy to fool gullible retards into accepting a personal 'carbon tax'
exhale Co2? enjoy your tax. You are warming the earth!
Talk about chemtrails though, which are completely obvious to any trained meteorologist, and you'll get a complete silence about anything affecting the atmosphere.
I love "scientists"
Inert is a bit of a stretch. Exposure to HFC-134a causes relaxation of smooth muscle tissue, which may give an additional positive effect in asthma inhalers for those of us with activity-induced bronchial asthma. But the LD50 is massive, and the danger from inhaling it is that it is heavier than air and pools in the lungs if one does not breathe vigorously, or hang upside down. The same is true of Freon (R-12/CFC-12) which was formerly used in asthma inhalers, and which was phased out because of ozone damage due to the chlorine in the molecule and not because of toxicity. HFC-134a was eliminated from asthma inhalers allegedly over the global warming concern,* and will likely be replaced in automotive use by HFO-1234yf until automotive CO2-based systems become practical.
* The use in asthma inhalers is not a serious environmental concern compared to the amount which is commonly deliberately released by shadetree mechanics, or accidentally in automobile accidents
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So by your logic, Denmark and Germany should have worse poverty than less green countries such as the US and Somalia. Appears your reasoning is incorrect.
Man, you really need that seminar!
A rational person would see data collected over less than 200 years, half of it from very inaccurate instruments, and wonder about your panicking over variations in weather as being "climate change"
The positive effects of climate change. Everybody keeps going on and on about all the bad effects of climate change but my bet is there are way more positive effects than negative. Now for you people who say, "What about the oceans getting more acidic?" That is a pollution problem not a global warming problem. The earth getting warming is great.
And when a pebble strikes my condensor and leaks FLAMMABLE GAS instead, that's better how exactly? So I can have a gas explosion from my leaking AC unit..?
Bite my shiny metal ass!
So by your logic, Denmark and Germany should have worse poverty than less green countries such as the US and Somalia.
Not by my logic. But speaking of Somalia, what would happen should its electricity prices double? Are we going to see increased adoption and use of electricity by the poor?
To run your car analogy off the cliff...
Science is predicting a traffic jam on the highway, but it's over the horizon, so we can't see how bad it really is yet. We are in our car accelerating at the moment and we are debating whether to let off the gas or hit the brakes. Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it. There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip. We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Your car analogy is missing a couple key points. The problem is that the car hurtling toward the traffic jam has no brakes since we lack the technology to remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.* Also, the car is accellerating and will keep accellerating even if we took our foot off of the gas right now. That's because the quantity of CO2 in our atmosphere hasn't yet warmed up the planet as much as it eventually will. By "get off the road" are you suggesting colonizing other planets? Because we're definitely going to be stuck with this mess if we stay on Earth. Still think it's a good idea to keep business as usual?
*Don't even talk about trees. The CO2 they sequester is exactly the same quantity of CO2 that they release when they die and decompose. If trees were immortal and took up no space, they'd be great for sequestering CO2. Do you know what actually is great at sequestering CO2? Coal! Oil! Too bad we're burning them, huh?
That was if we did nothing. 25+ years ago we DID do many somethings and we see good results from it now. We got rid CFCs, PCBs, and a whole lot of other toxic products. We installed scrubbers on vehicles and exhaust stacks, and now the air in Chattanooga is no longer yellow and the house doesn't get stained brown. Acid rain is practically gone and the ozone layer has regenerated back to acceptable levels. Examples abound if you actually wanted to see them.
Know what I heard 25 years ago? That I'd have a flying car and people would have far superior IQs by now. -----You prove that wrong.
Sorry, guy. You lose via semantics.
but it sounds very much to me as if Senator Whitehouse is calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers".
"the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme."
He specified the denial SCHEME be prosecuted, not the deniers themselves. Now the bigger question is, WTF is a climate denial scheme?
That is interesting because I thought deforestation was a big problem in Africa like it is in South America particularly Brazil.
You make a valid argument. In my utility bills there is a fee for providing poor people with electricity and gas. I believe there is a similar fee on my cell phone bill.
Are you referring to the poor in the 3rd world? They have more kids because they have no social security. The idea is their children will support them financially in their old age. Plus if they own a farm or business they are free labor.
We in the West are going to be fine, sure we will probably end up paying more for food and water but that is nothing we can't handle. It is the 3rd world that will be hit the hardest, the ones who can least afford it, but then when have we ever cared about them?
How do you service an AC? Most of the ACs here need some servicing.
and therefore untrustworthy. Next.
They have more kids because they have no social security.
Last I checked, social security is not at the top of the green agenda for mitigating climate change.
Well it does when a pebble strikes your condensor and leaks POISONOUS REFRIGERANT into the atmosphere.
You realize you can purge any R134A AC system and fill it with propane who no loss in performance or seal integrity??
Except when a pebble strikes your condenser and leaks HIGHLY FLAMMABLE REFRIGERANT into the hood of your car.
Actually, just to answer myself and respond to some valid criticisms below, I shouldn't have said 'low carbon', a better description might have been 'less polluted', which would have included 'low carbon'. Politicians tend to fix on and sell one or very few things, they are value monists: http://plato.stanford.edu/entr... whereas it's probably more useful to use a basket of measures, be pluralistic.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
How do you service an AC? Most of the ACs here need some servicing.
You just put your lips together, and blow.
Very close together, as it turns out.
The result sounds like th-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pt!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ever since they switched from CFCs to HFA (c. 2008), I've had to stop using inhalers.
Get your physician to write you a paper prescription, fax it to Canada, and get back some real inhalers, eh? It's only here in the USA where they've outlawed medical use of HFC-134a. It can only have been done as a handout to Big Pharma; the same old drug with a new propellant is now a new drug which is patented. This was done specifically to crush the plethora of widely and cheaply available inhalers. Meanwhile, you can stroll down to the auto parts store and buy HFC-134a in cans, hook them up to your car with a leaky AC system and refill it, and not even be breaking the law. It's illegal to knowingly let the gas in your AC system into the atmosphere, but people do it every day because it's cheaper than having it evacuated at a shop.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sorry, dude. You need to get at least up to high school science level to understand this. More would be better.
Do you really think there's only 200 years of data contributing to our understanding of how climate works? You have a lot of catching up to do.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Last I checked, social security is not at the top of the green agenda for mitigating climate change.
Nor should it have to be at the top. Social security is only a top concern if you're not very productive (e.g poor) and can't save enough for retirement.
Under our glorious capitalist system, we consider the poor to be responsible for their own plight, and we have no obligation to help them. Just like how we don't give a flying fudge about those lazy entitled unionized first world unskilled labor losing their jobs to globalization and automation. The Luddites were wrong! People will find new jobs! Stop blaming our rich who are our job creators! etc.
http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Sorry, but that's just not the case. The problem in that statistical analysis is that the "pause" only exists if you pick exactly the right data subsetset. Pick the wrong start year, and it vanishes. But when you have to select a specific data subset to show an effect, and the only reason to pick that data subset is that this is the one that shows the effect-- that's not signal; that's statistical noise. The noise in the measurement is about 0.2C; the run of 18 years (or whatever run you pick) is simply mathematically not long enough to derive a local slope with high enough precision to reject a 0.015/year rise..
The fact that the deniers don't have a well-defined null hypothesis is a significant part of the reason that scientists don't consider their work science. Here is a good null hypothesis: "greenhouse gasses added by humans to the atmosphere do not cause an increase in the average temperature". This null hypothesis thus states that the rise in temperature from 1960 to present is statistical fluctuation (or, due to natural random factors not known, which is equivalent.) But, random noise will go down as much as it goes up. But the upward trend is significant. The graph trends up, but never down.
So, the null hypothesis is statistically rejected.
Now, rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the rise is due to human effects: it means that the rise is real, but does not say what causes it. So, the "human produced gasses do not cause warming" argument needs a different explanation of the rise.
So far, that different explanation simply has not been found, although there have been many many people looking for it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Under our glorious capitalist system, we consider the poor to be responsible for their own plight, and we have no obligation to help them.
It's worth noting that whatever the cause, there has been a huge decline in global extreme poverty. I believe capitalism, global trade, and use of fossil fuels deserve the lion's share of the credit for that. For example, in East Asia
Here's an amazing fact: The number of people in extreme poverty fell by 114 million from 2012 to 2013.
That is a simply massive one-year decline, and it's not even the biggest drop in recent years. From 2010 to 2011, global poverty fell by 132 million people. From 2008 to 2013, the number fell by an average of 88 million people per year. If that rate of progress keeps up, global poverty will be eliminated in less than a decade.
Spoiler: They don't expect the trend to continue because of Sub-Saharan Africa which is far less tractable than East Asia is.
The purple line representing East Asia shows the most striking trajectory. In 1990, a large majority â" 60.2 percent â" of people in the region lived in extreme poverty. In 2013, only 3.5 percent did. Thatâ(TM)s a shift of mind-boggling scale. And it means that extreme poverty in that area is now a rather small part of the overall global problem.
Of course, it's worth noting that China which has most of the population of the area introduced massive pro-capitalism and trade liberalizing reforms at the beginning of this period.
You can be as sarcastic as you'd like, but it doesn't change that the world is improving at an enormous rate due to the very systems you deride and the very fossil fuel use that is supposedly such a good idea to reduce. Yet as usual, we have a bunch of would-be environmentalists who remain ignorant of the most important improvement in the well-being of humanity in history.
Pride
Like the time when a friend of mine wanted a universal remote control?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Now, does anyone have a link to those charts which show the models continue to run much hotter than the real climate?
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment has it for you in Figure 11.9. They graph the instrumental record against an ensemble of 42 models and the instrumental consistently falls on the lowest end of the error margins for the predicted warming. IE, the very, very coldest models are the closest to matching the instrumental record.
Now, that is working from a short term prediction, which isn't where we expect the models to really start showing their promise, but the IPCC saw fit to print it regardless. You can compare the IPCC's first assessment from back in the 1990's, if you want a longer term prediction to compare against. The trouble is the IPCC back then hard referenced their predictions to the year 1975. Practice since then is to show anomaly against something like a 10 year average, so you don't cherry pick a particularly hot/cold year as your initial reference. IF you do use 1975 as the reference for the IPCC FAR predictions from 1990 though their predictions that come closest to the last 25 years are the ones using a CO2 sensitivity of 1.5C.
"...how Congress grilled him about whether his scientific methods are credible..."
How dare Congress question his methods before accepting the complete change in direction of the economy and obvious massive costs this will impose?
The only shocking thing here is that Congress actually did their job by verifying what he said.
oh i have post-graduate level understanding, I can assure you.
You allude to methods of ascertaining temperatures in the past that have huge margins of error outside the fractions of a degree over decades that is the current basis for claim to catastrophic climate change.
By the way, I won't deny that carbon pollution is very bad and we should stop it. I also won't deny increase in greenhouse effect. I will challenge the absurd extrapolations and doomsaying, however
It's worth noting that whatever the cause, there has been a huge decline in global extreme poverty.
I was not and am not contesting that poverty hasn't decreased.
This subthread started with you arguing that many poor people in developing countries might not find a greener world a better world, and how the green agenda doesn't put them as a high priority.
I'm pointing out that under capitalism, they have no obligation to care about those poor people, or any other group that disagree on what a "better" world means. As I alluded previously, many first world unskilled labor don't find our capitalist globalized world to be "better".
That poverty has decreased despite disagreement actually supports my argument. Your poor people might disagree today, but they'll figure out how to find new jobs.
I believe capitalism, global trade, and use of fossil fuels deserve the lion's share of the credit for that.
Only capitalism deserves credit. Capitalism is the framework. Global trade and fossil fuels are particular implementations following that framework. In other words, the successful implementations are simply examples of why the framework deserves credit.
The thing with implementations is that they can and do change. The old implementation that used more first world unskilled labor and manufacturing certainly didn't last. Even within fossil fuels, how it was implemented a century or two ago isn't the same as how is is implemented today
You can be as sarcastic as you'd like, but it doesn't change that the world is improving at an enormous rate due to the very systems you deride
I'm not deriding the system. I'm embracing it, even the traits that people criticize it for having. I'm saying "yes, capitalist is all those things people don't like... and that's why it works". The green agenda is succeeding because it is being more capitalistic than the opposition (more money is put into lobbying, more money is put into research, more money is put into brainwashing^H educating the new generation about thinking green, etc)
I would actually say you're the one deriding capitalism, because in the link you provided, it suggested wealth redistribution to speed up eliminating poverty
The market isn't going to naturally effect that kind of reduction; it requires government intervention and, ideally, lots of redistribution. And when countries have tried that approach, it's worked. The report includes a case study on Tanzania, a country that has experienced remarkably fast growth from 2004 to 2014: about 6.5 percent per year, on average. Poverty has fallen substantially as well, from about 60 percent in 2007 to under 50 by 2012.
It also had a bit on slamming fossil fuel subsidies
It's not just the World Bank pointing this out. Economists Andy Sumner and Chris Hoy have estimated that redirecting public subsidies for fossil fuels alone could eliminate up to 70 percent of extreme poverty. Doing that in concert with lower military spending and higher taxes would do even more.
The earth has been experiencing "Global Warming" since the entire fucking planet was covered in ice between 750 and 580 million years ago, monkey boy.
Is the warming accelerating? Perhaps, but that's inevitable as the ice that has been melting for centuries has revealed (wait for it) DARK soil and rock which get heated quicker by the big gassy ball in the sky. You might notice something similar at snow skiing resorts on the spring.
Can we humans treat the earth better? Of course. Can we slow down global warming? Not terribly. Blaming mankind (who has only been on this planet for a gnats ass in time units) for something that has been happening for a bazillion years is conceited.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not deriding the system. I'm embracing it, even the traits that people criticize it for having.
Maybe. Perhaps next time, you should say that instead of what you apparently originally posted.
I would actually say you're the one deriding capitalism, because in the link you provided, it suggested wealth redistribution to speed up eliminating poverty
I didn't link to the article for that reason and I routinely link to articles with which I don't wholly agree. But even so, how does that deride capitalism?
It also had a bit on slamming fossil fuel subsidies
Is that deriding capitalism either? And most fossil fuel subsidies, like most subsidies in general, are rather pointless.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If it were true you have a "post-graduate level of understanding", I'd have thought you would have written your comment very differently.
What "absurd extrapolations and doomsaying" are you referring to?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Why is this film alarming? All of this information has been out there for a decade or more. To me it seems like an overly optimistic summary of the last decade.
If you're just now learning about this, you're 10 years behind.
The protagonist is portrayed as a martyr. Those who suffer persecution, who have their jobs threatened, their lives threatened are not scientists whose findings accord with man made climate change, but those who challenge it.
Is it alarming because it shows how global warming (FTFY) is real, or because it shows how global warming is not real?
I mean, it could go either way.
Oh. DiCaprio. Never mind.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Why do you think Canada is not civilised enough??
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
The earth's biological productivity is rising rapidly (14% in 30 years) mainly due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere reports Matt Ridley in a Royal Society video with a transcript. Environmentalists may hate it, but it looks like good science to me. See it quicker (19 minutes), less political, and 3 years ago or for busy folk, in Snippets: (2 min) and (20 sec).
http://www.steynonline.com/6555/michael-e-mann-repudiates-his-own-hockey-stick
You're also ignoring the other major combustion product, H2O, which is not a pollution product (I don't consider CO2 a pollutant either, but YMMV). The approximate equation (from Wikipedia) is:
12 12 O2 + C8H18 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
Approx in part because gasoline isn't entire octane, and because there are other biproducts, mostly taken care of in her catalytic converter. Also, if I'd used a fraction in such an equation in chem class, I would have gotten points off, but I guess the point is still clear.
needing CO2 is not the same as "needing more co2".
the time scale of reaching 140ppm was in the millions of years.
it's not we were in a time crunch.
the earth was sitting at ~280ppm for several million years already.
and still vastly different from cranking it back up to dinosaur era levels in a mere 200 years.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
worker's paradise is a euphemism for communistic hell hole country, so that would be Venezuela..
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds