Slashdot Mirror
Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic To Lead EPA Transition (cbsnews.com)
Billly Gates writes: Trump's transition team is steamrolling ahead to transition the government. Trump chose Myron Ebell to oversee environmental policies. Myron Ebell is chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of climate change denialists and alarmists. Scientific American provides some background information about Ebell in a report from earlier this year: "In a biography submitted when he testified before Congress, he listed among his recognitions that he had been featured in a Greenpeace 'Field Guide to Climate Criminals,' dubbed a 'misleader' on global warming by Rolling Stone and was the subject of a motion to censure in the British House of Commons after Ebell criticized the United Kingdom's chief scientific adviser for his views on global warming. More recently, Ebell has called the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gases illegal and said that Obama joining the Paris climate treaty 'is clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate's authority.' He told Vanity Fair in 2007, 'There has been a little bit of warming ... but it's been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it's caused by human beings or not, it's nothing to worry about.' Ebell's views appear to square with Trump's when it comes to EPA's agenda. Trump has called global warming 'bullshit' and he has said he would 'cancel' the Paris global warming accord and roll back President Obama's executive actions on climate change."
Well the white baby boomers have now solved the problem of leaving a shitty planet to the next generation ... they are going to help end it themselves.by electing trump and his clown show. They don't give a crap they won't be around in 10-15 years anyway. They just want to go out on top, even if noone is left to see it.
So. Trump & Ebell? Whatever. Let them think themselves important.They are not.
Unfortunately, we have made them important
(assuming you are in US, that is).
I doubt that this will be the end of humanity, as we've lived through the ice age as well. But certainly parts of the planet that were inhabitable before will become uninhabitable in the future, and this will create wars and maybe our whole civilisation will collapse. Maybe we will lose everything industrialisation has brought us, and likely it will be harder in the future to get a similar industrialisation going due to the energy resources of the planet being depleted. But at least those coal miners could keep their jobs... or wait, they were replaced with machines. Well, whatever.
Here we go...
Indeed - all those people complaining about elites and insiders are in for a shock when such "think-tank" losers who have done nothing in their lives other than circle Washington like files end up suddenly getting put into positions where they are in charge of thousands despite zero useful experience.
We were going to ride it out to the end anyway. People don't stop breeding, and everyone wants to eat - how dare they!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The article is so non-newsworthy that I have NO reaction except "Of course." Alt-Right has the Trump card and they are going to play it hard until the rest of us drown.
I'm only reminded of a prediction webpage I wrote when Dubya staggered into the White House. My predictions were kind of broad, divided into the categories of education, federal courts, economy, environment, military, war, Internet, and public trust in government. No details, but just probabilities and some wild estimates of recovery times. Back then I though I was just being a gloomy Gus, but looking over the predictions after 15 years, it now makes me look like a Pollyanna with rose-colored glasses. Is it worth making such an effort for the Donald?
Right now a question of some interest to me is how long it will take the angry losers to learn they are still losers. Might make them angrier, but of course no one really cares about losers, especially losers who were stupid enough to believe silly promises for a vote. Even more obviously, no one cares about the mindless always-R (or always-D) voters. It's the cold-blooded haters who worry me.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
People don't stop breeding,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, between education, economics, and so forth, yeah they do. Several countries already have negative or neutral birthrates and are only net positive due to immigration.
There is no reason to beleive humans could not acheive equilibrium.
People don't stop breeding
Some of us don't breed, by choice. And I've been dumped over that particular issue, it's not for lack of opportunity. It's for lack of desire. I don't need to inflict myself on a child, a child on myself, a child on a world, or the world on a child.
I do like to eat, though
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
None of us alive now will live long enough to see any seriously negative consequences. Humans will still be around in a hundred years, a thousand years, maybe in ten thousand years. We adapt.
Oh, fuck you. The richest nation on the planet, with 4% of the population, produces a quarter of the world's pollution directly. And even the Indian and Chinese pollution you whine about is to power factories, producing your electronics and cheap shit for Wal-Mart for you to buy.
I didn't realize how political it had gotten. The Wicked Witch of the West probably got a better write-up from them.
As I said in a thread the other day the policy is unfortunately a choice between the US starving itself of resources and energy while the world keeps moving, or we try our best to move forward with a different mindset. Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues. They are more than happy to watch China build more and more polluting industry, and we even pay them to take all of our trash to dispose of as they see fit.
The power struggle is not simply a matter of fixing the West (US, UK, France) but a world wide issue. Are we demanding that the UAE stop destroying massive amounts of ocean with cool looking projects? Are we demanding that Saudi Arabia stop pumping oil? Why is it always one side being blamed by the people holding power? Then we get to hear all of he people claiming that the US needs to be punished, which if you wish to be an annex of China or Russia in the future is a good position to have.
Trump did tell people fair and square that he wanted deregulation to stimulate the wheezing and gasping US economy. That does not mean we stay that way forever, but in my opinion we could probably start with a clean slate given all of the cruft put into our regulations over the last 30 years.
Lets also not forget that a Free economy has a built in check and balance system. If you don't like pollution don't use products that pollute. People selling products will be forced to come up with better, cleaner solutions. Power plants product what people use, and very little more. Awareness and boycotts are very useful tools when used properly.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
India and China are both signatories to the Paris Climate Accord.
She exported fracking the world as Secretary of State. She waged war on Libya and Syria to keep the supply of energy moving. She was going to continue in the fine tradition of Obama - who was a bigger oil man than Bush and Cheney combined.
That's the problem with all the whining and bitching from Dems and the media, before the election, now, and after Trump takes the oath of office - every criticism you can make of Trump applies to Hillary Clinton, as much if not more so. The only "difference" here is that Hillary would utter the occasional platitude that we need to do something about climate change, while continuing to drill for more and more oil, and mine for more and more coal.
The Scientific American article is dated Sep 26th.
This post isn't news, just someone looking for today's "how fucked are we?" reaction in comments.
Meanwhile, I wonder Trump thinks he can cancel the Paris Climate Accord? WIll he take take some white out to cover over the names of the other signatories?
"a group of climate change denialists and alarmists."
The guy is a geologist, the enemy of WWF, Sierra club and Greenpeace. They explain that the climate is always changing because that is what humans have discovered after hundreds if not thousands of years of investigation. To toss that aside immediately because he disagrees with Obama's hand picked ex head of the UN WMO John Holdren?
But it also shows that you do not need to have any understanding of science, economics, history or even culture to post anything to /. and immediately assume it is correct.
Have these environmentalists proven there is a hot spot of CO2 feed backing heat to water vapour? UNSW has! They used wind-sheer off the coast of NSW to prove there is a hot spot over the equator. Sarcasm aside, no, we measure that area of air and it is either the same temperature or has actually decreased. Have you heard? If you havnt, you've been reading the MSM and /. and soylent news. It is as if these places are gatekept for consistency of this unproven science.
The inability to think is anti-science. Anti-philosophy. It is parallel to the inquisition where society all agreed that WITCHES caused the climate to change. These people need to be locked up before they ruin more lives on imaginary quests which only require more of your money to make happen - otherwise we'll threaten your children's unborn children with unjustifiable temperature or sea level rises. Or we'll rename man made global warming to something else and ask for twice the amount of money (83 trillion isnt enough?!)
Disgraceful.
People need to start thinking otherwise they will fall for other scams which use the same tricks.
This is one of the scare pieces the media ran to frighten liberals into destroying trump.
The article was written BEFORE Tuesday.
And judging from the cesspool responses in this thread, I'm also going to be exiting from reading and commenting here.
Beau, you should be ashamed of yourself. Either you aren't doing your job and being an editor, or you are abusing your job and being a jackass.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Slowing down population growth only postpones the inevitable. It does not avoid it. IF global warming is anthropogenic then it is a direct function of population size. The more people there are, the more goods have to be produced, the more land has to be farmed, the more pollution is created. But there is only ONE way to reduce population size in anything less than a period of thousands of years. Any volunteers?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Wrong. Coastlines are flooding now, desertification is already increasing, and massive populations are already moving on short notice as lands become untenable.
If you want to save people, work out a plan to deal with a Carrington event (look it up) or the super volcano under Yellowstone. Those actually matter more, because they would be sudden catastrophes with immediate widespread consequences, not something that happens gradually so there is time to mitigate. Plus if Yellowstone happens, all your climate science and anti global warming measures go right out the window, because the ash in the air overrides it. Plan for those, THEN talk to me about global warming. It might be a problem, but it isn't the problem to worry about first.
The US needs energy independence. Renewables are now providing some of the cheapest electricity (recent bids for offshore wind power in Europe are at levels below electricity from coal). Renewables employs more people than fossil fuels in the USA. Renewables don't rely on a politically unstable region of the world, where the US has had to spend huge resources to ensure continued supplies.
We need oil today, but our investment should be in renewables. Focusing on fossil fuels is not an economically sound decision, even if you discount global climate change.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Teach them scientists with their fancy book-learnin' a less, once and for all. Who's with me?
If ignorance was good enough for my daddy and my grandaddy before me, then by gum, it's good enough for me. Godspeed you Mr President.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Time to mitigate only matters if people are going to mitigate. They are not, so the time is irrelevant.
IF global warming is anthropogenic then it is a direct function of population size.
Nonsense. We could build things to last and keep them longer. We could use more insulation so that we use less heating oil. We could make hay while the sun shines not just literally but also in manufacturing so that we can use more wind power and the like which goes through production cycles. It's affected by population size, but there's a whole lot of other factors. Right now the primary driver is greed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm sure that Trump is just doing this to screw with those who still thought this country could be saved.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I realize this. I have two children with my first wife. My second wife chose not to have any which is fine because I got a vasectomy after the birth of my second anyway. I always felt I was entitled to replacement - a child for each parent, but that more kids was unreasonable in a modern technological world - and expensive to boot. So between my first and second marriages I've had below replacement value of children, on average.
But there are people who feel that it's not a problem or worse, that it's some sort of divine mandate to have as many children as they possibly can. Worldwide the global population is still exploding especially in the poorer countries. And unfortunately politicians panic, for very selfish reasons, when they see their country's fertility rates plummet (as is normal as high socio-economic development is attained). This doesn't work when you're running deficits and trying desperately to grow your tax base to make up shortfalls. So you import foreigners from poor countries to breed and keep your fertility rate HIGH. And then you complain about all the pollution, and how water has to be rationed because the water table is disappearing, etc...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
Wait for it...
"President Obama"
The world can fight climate change only if it can keep uninfluenced by the anti-science movement in the US.
That can happen only if we deny them influence over global politics and the global economy. The rest of the world has relocate its interests elsewhere, and learn to stand up and say no to USA.
It may seem radical and impossible and not particularly constructive.. but I don't see any other way forward.
The point is to allow the civilized world to stay constructive and progressive about the climate issue.
Trump and his supporters does not want global trade? Fine!
They want a wall against Mexico. Then let's build one along the Canadian border to USA as well.
Welcome Californa and New York as free states in the new world if they chose to leave the union. By all means, let the Red(neck) states keep to themselves as much as they want. They chose disaster for themselves. We should not let them chose disaster for us.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
I love skeptics. People should be skeptical of EVERYTHING the supposed world government is demanding of them.
The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse emissions, guess what - that still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions...it wouldn't be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world's carbon pollution comes from the developing world.
-- John Kerry
Well, it's a good thing that Trump wants to bring those factories back home where we can keep an eye on them. Plus, think of all the other good effects from making our own products again. Good thing Hillary the crooked globalist didn't win, eh? Her idea was to go ahead with TPP and shove even MORE globalism down our throats. Hurrah for democracy!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
How come the left accuses the right of fearmongering all the time, but when their puppet masters dish it out, they lap it up like a dog laps up its own throw up.
then you need to make more insulation. I looked at having my insulation increased in about a $5,000 deal. It would save me about $200/year. Probably making the insulation creates more polution than the energy wasted because I don't have it.
We could build things to last and keep them longer.
That fixes a problem with GARBAGE. How will you magically build these durable things without producing CO2? You still need to build the factories that build these durable things, and build the things themselves. Plus entropy works against you - there's no such thing as a product that will last forever.
We could use more insulation so that we use less heating oil.
That insulation has to be manufactured. It has to be shipped to where you need it. It has to be installed.
While you are suggesting techniques that would "stretch" our resources if they were even possible, this merely postpones the problem. As long as the population growth rate remains POSITIVE, we are inevitably going to hit the wall one way or another. Since killing millions or even billions of people is not an acceptable solution to our morality (unless their invisible sky wizard says something offensive about our invisible sky wizard), this problem is one we are irreversibly stuck with no matter what we do - especially IF we have already crossed this mysterious threshold that sends our planet into an irreversible plunge into greenhouse mode.
Right now the primary driver is greed.
Assuming you are not living in a hippy commune in the woods somewhere (and you're not, because you're using a computer and connected to the internet) you are guilty of that very same greed. Greed for the convenience of modern life. It's easy to blame it all on "the corporations" or "the 1%", but in reality we are to blame. You. Me. Each and every one of us. After all, if no one bought the products, no one would waste time selling them...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Bad news, those factories aren't coming back. And if they do, robots will work in them.
Right, that's where things like UN economic sanctions come into play. We can expect USA to be more on the receiving end of those than the giving end for the next four years or so.
Oh so very much this. We love to point at China and scream "It's all their fault", but those Chinese factories are predominantly making products for the Western world, and tailoring their processes to minimize the cost over all else as we specifically told them to do. If our companies were requiring them to have proper environmental controls and we were willing to pay the extra cost, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make their factories cleaner.
So let me get this straight. If you lived on a street where several of your neighbors were murderers, your solution wouldn't be to try to get them put away, your solution would be to grab an ax and join them in the frenzy?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You can't compare the price of coal in Europe to the price of coal in the US.
Or we could just move to alternative energy sources? Why in the fuck should we spend untold trillions on engineering the climate just so we can keep burning oil, when we could, you know, stop burning fucking oil.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Let's imagine if several other major trading partners started slapping tariffs on American exports as a means of making the US pay for its lack of action on climate change.
Are you going to bomb the EU into buying American goods?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
and it cost her Ohio. Coal's pretty worthless if you're not willing to allow massive pollution of the kind that has immediately negative consequences for people's quality of life. Sure, you can make steel with it instead of burning it for power, but there's a glut of Chinese steel that's not going away anytime soon.
The thing about Hilary is she wasn't going to make things better but she also wasn't going to make them worse. Trump will accelerate all the bad stuff while his running mate + supreme court picks take away women's reproductive rights. If you have a wife, girlfriend or daughter and no anything about the terror that is child birth left up to God's whim you know this is terrifying...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But the short term stimulation will come at medium and long term costs that will outweigh any short term benefit. It's like a guy who makes money selling blood who thinks if he just ups the amount he sells by a couple of pints a day, he'll have more money in his wallet. Well yes, for a very brief that's true, but then he's going to end up seriously anemic, extremely ill, and whatever he made in selling blood, and more than that, will have to spent to get him healthy again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
1. The SA article is dated September 26, but the submitter carefully worded the opening sentence to make it sound like a post-election event ("Trump's transition team is steamrolling ahead to transition the government"). Those people we call "editors" either didn't check it or didn't care.
2. The SA article presents this as an absolute fact, but then essentially says "a little birdie told me so." Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor.
But reversing population growth, where the death rate surpasses the birth rate, avoids the "inevitable" quite nicely. And that's happening in places, and the number of those places are growing.
Nonsense. We could build things to last and keep them longer.
We "could" do many things... but we aren't likely to do so...
You're just having a bout of wishful thinking...
Eating less beef
Do you know how energy and water intensive vegetable farming is? Do you know how much more energy and irrigation will be needed to grow succulents on the grasslands that now support cattle?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
he put cronies in charge that had no idea what the hell they were doing. That's a large part of why New Orleans was such a cluster fuck (aside from diverting billions meant for their levies to the war in Iraq). The Trump presidency won't just be about corruption. They'll be plenty of gross incompetence to go around. I pity anyone who lives in a state with real natural disasters. Jesus I hope the weather holds...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Old news, it is from almost two months ago. http://www.eenews.net/climatew...
You mean this EPA?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That's true, but the latest bids for European offshore wind power are at rates that are comparable to US prices for electricity from coal (less than .05 euro per kWh). Prices for solar and wind power are dropping very quickly, whether residential or utility-scale projects.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
According to Wikipedia he's got a BA in philosophy and a M.Sc in politics. Between getting out of school and setting himself as a climate expert he worked as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.
He has never done anything STEM related or worked in any other field but politics.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Unrelated to this article but thought others would find this interesting. It's only one lobbyist's opinion but...
"The chamber already knows there are certain items Mr. Trump has said he will not support, like the current versions of trade deals with Asia or comprehensive changes in the nationâ(TM)s immigration laws, which the chamber pushed during Mr. Obamaâ(TM)s tenure. But there are aspects of each of these plans, like increasing the number of visas for highly skilled foreign workers, that Mr. Josten said he expects Mr. Trump to endorse."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/lobbyists-trump.html
We pay about 2.5 cents per KWh for coal power (wholesale), give or take...
Wind may well get there, but it has another problem... 24/7 uptime...
And if your next reply is "but storage" or "but it is always windy somewhere", then you don't understand 2 things.
1. Math
2. Geopolitical borders on maps
You are attempting to compare apples to a literally hundreds of disparate communities. No, ou won't be able to do it with a car analogy either, because it's a complex social issue.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
... when now even biologists can detect the impact of global warming on the biosphere.
I am sure if we just keep ignoring the problem, it will go away.
America, in aggregate, actually chose the other candidate. But we've got this antiquated system that was designed to shore up the political power of slave holding interests and was quickly twisted for factional ends.
The people who argued for the electoral college were appalled by how it worked out. They intended as an exercise in indirect democracy, not some kind of broken popular election.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What you don't understand: weather forecasts and how costs reduce over time. We can forecast the wind, allowing wind power to be used effectively alongside other technologies. What's the real cost of extracting that coal, when all the effects on the landscape and the environment are taken into account?
Can wind power replace coal today? No. But how much electricity is generated by natural gas today? Wind power is potentially cheaper than natural gas today.
The issue is not what should be used today, but where should our investments be? You can invest in technologies that will make life much more difficult and expensive in the future, or technologies that will reduce global climate change and reduce global tensions.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
We might be able to adapt to climate change itself, but the biomes do not have that capability, and we cannot adapt to a failed biome... well we might be able to pull off a small populaion, but your descendents' odds of being in that population are pretty small, and that small population's ability to make technological progress will be rather limited.
Someone had to do it.
Trump is also floating the name "Ben Carson" as Sec'y of Health and Human Services. Ben Carson is a creationist who hawks vitamins to cure cancer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues.
From which orifice did you pull that "fact"?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
No, it's a direct function of the aggregate amount of heat-trapping gasses put into the atmosphere by all of the people on earth. If you could magically lower the rate of population growth to zero or below tomorrow, yet at the same time more and more of the developing world adopts more carbon energy demanding western lifestyles, you still won't have fixed the problem. Conversely, if we could magically make it so that we could have an equivalent lifestyle on a small fraction of the carbon-producing energy we use now, we could still maintain population growth with greatly reduced carbon output.
I'm not arguing in favor of continued population growth, anything but. But population alone is not the driving factor.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
because when your betters are pointing out how badly you are screwing things up, they have the facts to back it up. Unlike your fear mongering where they have facts that show you are full of it.
> But there are people who feel that it's not a problem or worse, that it's some sort of divine mandate to have as many children as they possibly can
Yeah, they make TV shows about those folks, and they're by and large Christian. You know, the dominant religion in the states that's against birth control, abortion, and just voted in the President?
"Old man yells at systemd"
People don't stop breeding,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, between education, economics, and so forth, yeah they do. Several countries already have negative or neutral birthrates and are only net positive due to immigration.
There is no reason to beleive humans could not acheive equilibrium.
The population decline is nearly worldwide. It may not be reversible.
Last one out turn off the lights
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html
specially in the poorer countries
This is a cultural result of lingering agrarian traditions, though poverty itself can be a contributing factor, in that these traditions still make sense if kids are the best way to ensure food security and health care into old age, or a source of free labor in mid-life. Providing social services could help make those traditions look sillier faster.
Someone had to do it.
The idiocy is pretty astounding, isn't it?
Someone had to do it.
Boy, you sure bought it hook line and sinker. Prepare for an extremely disappointing 4 years.
Someone had to do it.
If Trump throws away progress on carbon reduction his legacy will be to be remembered as outdoing the Nazi's in murdering people through the resulting climate change. Populist leaders with bad ideas have a history of doing very bad things. Sadly the USA is about to become the most despised and hated country on the planet.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Most of the gear I install to run the Internet is made in Asia. A lot of the firmware is written in other countries as well. And technical advances and new standards are also not "Made in the USA" so improvements in the Internet aren't "USA TECH". There was never any patent protection on "The Internet" and even were there, it has long expired. It belongs to the word at large now, as it should.
Someone had to do it.
Apparently unlike us, in a few months. Sad.
Someone had to do it.
Yeah. I'm going to walk outside and turn my back on D.C. come inauguration.
Someone had to do it.
Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues.
What is just maddening to me is the trend for using wood for heat and energy. While I'm not sure that deforestation is really an issue I do understand that wood is a multipurpose crop (and it is a crop, just like corn or watermelons are a crop) and burning wood means less of it for building material, paper, and Parmesan cheese filler.
I've seen AGW believers get pilloried by their own for advocating that trees should be grown and used for building material to sequester carbon. I guess, somehow, it's better for the carbon cycle or something to burn those trees for heat.
I do agree that carbon taxes are a loser, both as public policy and as a means to reduce carbon output. As a policy people don't want to see their costs go up for fuel (vehicle and heat), electricity, and everything really since most every product we buy needs to be shipped, refrigerated, heated, and all of those processes take energy. As a means to reduce carbon output it fails because energy use is a largely inelastic demand. Even if prices for fuel go up people still need to eat, drive to work, use lights, and so on. It might keep people from taking a drive to visit Grandma but then it's less about reducing carbon and really sinking into quality of life, mobility (social and transportation), and just generally making life worse.
After something like 40 years of being told to "reduce, recycle, reuse" we are running into diminishing returns. We've cut all the fat and now we're cutting into bone here. Don't tell me I need to reduce my energy consumption, tell me that we are going to see some nuclear power plants built. Nuclear power will save the trees, provide inexpensive energy, and replace dirty coal.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
What is the speculation based on?
Science.
It is too late. There is no going back. Now we ride it out to the end. The end of us.
If by 'us' you mean you, then by all means, feel free to ride it out any time. In fact, why wait?
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Let's push the true cost of our ignorance down to our kids and our kid's kids.
Don't worry - with the education they are getting they are sadly far better equipped to deal with ignorance than we were.
Donald Trump - the great filter...
I was wondering what the hair was for....
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Do you understand most beef comes from feedlots? Rangeland is just the nursery. Beef is "grain finished" by feeding it corn (which is a lousy food for cattle as they have a hard time digesting) in hyperpacked inhumane feedlots that concentrate pollution and require large amounts of water and waste disposal.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
It's not taxation. Just merely preventing externalization of costs. No more free rides.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The beauty of rising sea levels is that eventually there won't be any deserts left. :)
Most hated country? It won't be because we elected a populist leader, it'll be because we are about to shit can every crappy trade deal and treaty we've ever signed up for. The easy money from the US is about to dry up.
America, seriously, what in the actual fuck have you done.
What ever the fuck we want. If you don't like it you can go fuck yourself.
Yes, we know WHY you did it (you all think you're Texans).
The question was: "Do you know what you've done?"
No sig today...
What's really going on? There is so much nonsense being spewed...
Yes there is but the evidence that the climate is warming is pretty much incontrovertible. It also seems true that the rise in the last century or so has been extremely fast compared to changes over the past 100k years and the period of rapid rising coincides with our increase in fossil fuel burning so it seems reasonable to conclude that GHGs are responsible for a good deal of the warming.
At least that's my take as a non-climate related scientist.
I doubt that this will be the end of humanity...
Just wait until he appoints an anti-vaxer as head of the CDC. Life was so much simpler when the only anti-vaxers were those who hated VMS.
Ha, I know you're a phony! It's pronounced "pres'dent".
You know how much money we are going to save by stop paying the NATO bills that most of Europe has been welching on for the past 30 years? We won't need Europe to buy our goods on how much we won't be spending on their security.
It's unbelievable.
What you don't understand: weather forecasts and how costs reduce over time.
Wind could be free, it will never be base load. Or at least, not in my lifetime.
What's the real cost of extracting that coal, when all the effects on the landscape and the environment are taken into account?
That doesn't matter because I don't pay it.
Now you could debate if you like if I SHOULD pay it, but I don't, so that is a moot point.
Can wind power replace coal today? No. But how much electricity is generated by natural gas today? Wind power is potentially cheaper than natural gas today.
Natural gas is even less expensive than coal, at about 2.2 cents per KWh, coal is having trouble because of natural gas at the moment. Wind is about double the cost of natural gas, give or take.
In any case, natural gas is "cleaner" than coal, but not by enough to change the outcome.
The issue is not what should be used today, but where should our investments be? You can invest in technologies that will make life much more difficult and expensive in the future, or technologies that will reduce global climate change and reduce global tensions.
Did I say I was against wind and solar? I'm not, they are fine for producing perhaps 25% in the near term and up to 50% in the long term of our total power needs. Where do we get the rest from?
The primary problem is point 1 above, Math... people simply suck at it, unable to understand how much energy is used, consumed, and what it would REALLY take to stop the rise in CO2 levels.
It will take more than we're willing to do, full stop. Everything else is just fantasy and expensive.
The point of no-return probably passed 30 years ago, we are way, way beyond that point, adaption to the new world is where we should be putting our money, not trying to keep the Titanic from sinking after it has already hit the iceberg.
So what? The negative results of climate change are not going to significantly affect me or any of my relatives during my lifetime. It's not at all logical to care about people who aren't alive yet, and who may never be alive. And why should anyone living today care whether humans in the future will make any technological progress?
There are reasons to take care of the planet. Yours are completely illogical and rely purely on emotion.
It is too late. There is no going back. Now we ride it out to the end. The end of us.
Just because we're already in the rapids doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid the waterfall. Things can always get worse.
Oh, and in no way will this be the end for humanity, almost certainly not even for civilization. "Too hot to grow tropical crops in Antarctica" is way beyond any of the current predictions, and with wind and solar and batteries improving and cheapening by the year, we'll eventually drastically cut CO2 emissions if only out of greed.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
They both held a lid on the islamists in their countries, and the West had no business destabilizing them. The results of Western meddling in those shitholes is clear: they've become much, much worse shitholes.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
What can survive on the Montana grasslands with little human interaction?
A) A herd of cattle
B) A garden of tomatoes
C) A herd of bison
D) A vineyard
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Wrong. Their people decided to remove them. That is why they must be removed. All they require is military assistance to prevent civilian massacre and implement their will. It is in America's interest to provide it now, and they've waited too long because of fucking Republican cowards.
Now that Tesla's fucked all Elon's got left is his Mars project.
If you'd asked me last week if I'd go to Mars I'd have said "no way".
Where do I sign up?
Exactly, realistically Trump's policy mean that he's setting the US on a path to be left behind.
The US will still be digging coal, something that we started doing seriously in when America wasn't even a country, whilst the rest of the world will have whole new economies and industries based on renewable power.
It really is a journey back to the 17th century for America, whilst the rest of the world will see massive economic growth from the new and growing industry of renewables as fossile fuel use continues to decline everywhere else. America wont find many allies to invade middle eastern nations for oil and gas when no one else actually has much use for it anymore.
all those people complaining about elites and insiders are in for a shock
That's the problem with voting for "change." You are going to get it.
I was very surprised, just based off reading comments on this site over the past few days, how many ardent Trump supporters are here. I say surprised not because I am assessing a value judgement but because US presidential voting in recent years has become much more strongly correlated with education level, and I presumed that a tech site would reflect certain patterns as a result. (Full disclosure: I did not like any of the available ballot options and wrote in my presidential vote for Alexander Hamilton. I live in a solidly colored state on the West Coast and knew that my little exercise in protest would not have any meaningful effect on my state's electoral college votes, otherwise I would have voted seriously.)
At any rate, it turned out that many many more people than pollsters and the media expected cast their votes in the cause of upsetting the status quo. There's nothing wrong with being unsatisfied with the way things are and wanting to lob a big water balloon full of "f--k you" at the powers that be in this country.
When you vote for the loser, you enter a world of "coulda woulda shoulda" and you can just theorize how things would have been better. But when you vote for the winner, you have to own that vote because you're getting what you said you wanted. That's the price of winning. And it will be fascinating to see whether the people who cast a ballot to shake up the system like what they get when the system actually gets shaken up...
"95% of all Slashdot
Are you going to bomb the EU into buying American goods?
Fuck yeah, why do you think Putin got Trump elected? So they can requite their undying love for each other by divvying up Europe and "plundering the booty", so to speak.
I dunno, as a broke white male, I kinda like the sound of "The American Empire". It rolls off the tongue. Empire... Emperor Trump. Emperor Donald J Trump I of the Great American Empire. How's that for Making America Great Again, eh?
Seriously, let him roll back O's regulations on coal plants. At this time, they have done NOTHING. Prior to O, we were like China and was growing our coal plants. However, it was not O's regs that have stopped this.
It was 2 things which was the Mercury regs ( while we are already way below Europe, Asia, but this will bring our mercury down to near zero) being moved to end of 2016, along with W's push for drilling and fracking. That fracking provided CHEAP CHEAP nat gas at a time when coal plants had to decide on shutting down or putting on scrubbers. As such, we went from ~60% coal (and 15% nat gas) to 27% coal and 33% nat gas at end of this year. So, our fossil fuel has converted to clean fossil, but also dropped.
So, what will happen over the next couple of years? Trump and GOP want to push both COAL AND DRILLING. If both are done, then nat gas will remain low costs, and no American utility will want coal plant. OTOH, China, japan, and south korea might pick up more, but I doubt that it will be too much. Australia is now heavily automated on their coal. So, cheap coal is going NO WHERE in America.
UN-Subsidized Wind is already cheaper than coal. Solar is more expensive, but that is the average. Solar City has the lowest installed costs and with their new plant should be cheap than coal. So, America's electricity will continue to move towards being cleaned up over time.
That leaves vehicles. Tesla's M3 will be cheaper and superior compared to its ICE competitors. Who will want to buy a BMW 300 series when they can buy a Tesla M3? Few. The fastest competitor will compete with the slowest version of the M3. That will no doubt cause buyers of some of the most polluting cars (luxury cars such as Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Caddy, Porsche, Lexus, Infiniti, etc) to continue losing shares. As it is, Tesla MS already sells 1/3 of the full size luxury market and should move up to about 50% by summer 2017. Tesla MX is expected to hit 33% of is market by summer 2017. Basically, Tesla will force car makers to move to DECENT EVs or die. And by decent EVs, we are not talking the leaf, bolt, I3, i5 type garbage. All of those have been gutted so that they will not compete against ICE vehicles. Tesla will force them to produce cars that compete against tesla and will destroy their own ICE.
So, for those of you concerned with where America is going, do not fret. While we will likely drop paris, we will continue to clean up regardless of what trump and his ilk do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not My President, amirite?
And you don't understand how big the USA are. .... and those are at sea.
Yes, you always will have enough wind.
Just like Germany, which is how big? A 1/50th of the United States?
Wind less zones big enough to cover a whole country only exist on a few isolated places on the world
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You still have not grasped what base load is ... :)
Germany now is producing 'around base load' capacity with wind alone. Hence our base load - nuclear and lime coal - plants are becoming obsolete.
'Base load' does not mean what you think it means, I suggest to read it up. Probably from a lexicon and not wikipedia
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
All right.
https://thinkprogress.org/excl...
So what? The negative results of climate change are not going to significantly affect me or any of my relatives during my lifetime. It's not at all logical to care about people who aren't alive yet, and who may never be alive. And why should anyone living today care whether humans in the future will make any technological progress?
There are reasons to take care of the planet. Yours are completely illogical and rely purely on emotion.
Alright, let's shift it up. Let's assume you go to your local park, the one with a nice lake. Well, actually, it has dumped trash bags floating on the surface with their contents, is filled with chemical dumpings from the local factory, and was often used to dispose of leftover food scraps. The water looks dark brown, contains no living things anymore, and is unsafe for anyone to swim in it. The previous generation said when they were young, "I don't know if I'll ever have children, so it's illogical to care about my dumping my trash in it" - do you think your father was wrong?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
IF global warming is anthropogenic then it is a direct function of population size. ... which has an extremely small population and Kuwait which has a mini population.
No it is not. Most CO2 per capita is produced in the USA
CO2 production is tied to energy usage, industries, house heating, car travel etc.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We could build things to last and keep them longer.
That fixes a problem with GARBAGE. How will you magically build these durable things without producing CO2? You still need to build the factories that build these durable things, and build the things themselves. Plus entropy works against you - there's no such thing as a product that will last forever.
We could use more insulation so that we use less heating oil.
That insulation has to be manufactured. It has to be shipped to where you need it. It has to be installed.
While you are suggesting techniques that would "stretch" our resources if they were even possible, this merely postpones the problem. As long as the population growth rate remains POSITIVE, we are inevitably going to hit the wall one way or another. Since killing millions or even billions of people is not an acceptable solution to our morality (unless their invisible sky wizard says something offensive about our invisible sky wizard), this problem is one we are irreversibly stuck with no matter what we do - especially IF we have already crossed this mysterious threshold that sends our planet into an irreversible plunge into greenhouse mode.
Right now the primary driver is greed.
Assuming you are not living in a hippy commune in the woods somewhere (and you're not, because you're using a computer and connected to the internet) you are guilty of that very same greed. Greed for the convenience of modern life. It's easy to blame it all on "the corporations" or "the 1%", but in reality we are to blame. You. Me. Each and every one of us. After all, if no one bought the products, no one would waste time selling them...
Your arguments boil down to, "you can't completely eliminate it so there's no point in doing anything", "we're all to blame so everything is pointless", and "delaying the problem is as bad as speeding it up". Are those really the ones you intended to make?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
What if this has all been an elaborate set up for his latest Reality TV venture: Trump's the Boss. Cameras follow his every move, and various national situations are handled by Trump and two guest celebrity panelists, who must choose between various proposals. The proposals are the work of the contestants, the Interns. The interns must group up to form a possible response to the crisis.
I only hope I live to see Trump institute the Purge. It will be a glorious day indeed!
Clean energy is a huge opportunity for the US economy, not a threat. China is now doing more than the US to clean up, so don't give us that "it's futile if no-one else does it" shit.
If the US wants to build up manufacturing again it will either have to clean up, because the EU requires it if you want to sell your products here, or it will have to limit itself to selling into developing nations.
Plus, you should stop being selfish libtard fucks.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If this moron in Inferno had just introduced the virus he developed somewhere secretly instead of shouting about it all over TV and internet first he would have saved the world :-).
-- Cheers!
Anti-science comments surrounding AGW on slashdot were actually worse before 2003. Public opinion has changed for the better, eg: most people on slashdot would now accept the fact it's getting warmer, very few did back in 2003.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Straight from the gut, no doubt.
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by
this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten
future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is
ours, chew and eat our fill.
-- CEO Nwabudike Morgan,
"The Ethics of Greed"
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
So engineer the climate. Figure out the science to do it right, and do it, don't just push the line that the only answer is to take totalitarian control over everyone else's lifestyle and reduce their carbon usage. But shockingly nobody in the climate science community likes that answer... It doesn't give them an excuse to dictate how the rest of the world should live.
Nobody likes that answer because it's fucking unbelievable. You're against taxes on carbon emissions, investments in renewable energies, and subsidies so people can get more energy efficient, because doling out a little money here and there and recollecting it will be catastrophic to the human race. So instead, within 30 years, we're going to terraform the planet with technology that doesn't exist and doesn't appear to be even close to possible, force people to move off land that we're going to change and completely reshape, and somehow do this all without causing any kind of natural disaster. Oh, and uh, do this all without raising any extra money or without causing anybody any potential loss of theoretical profits.
Uh-huh.
What your ACTUAL answer is is, "Well, it's 'totalitarian control over everyone else's lifestyle' when it's me who has to potentially maybe pay a small tax, but if my children have to lose their homes, eh, it's alright. Not my problem".
You still stand by your point, yes?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse emissions, guess what - that still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. ... you are illusional. ...
It would
The USA produce more than 25% of the CO2 on the planet
Seems you did not know that.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions...it wouldn't be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world's carbon pollution comes from the developing world. :) And those are mostly installing renewable power to ... cough cough ... power their growth.
Of course it would not be enough. But luckily only a small percentage of CO2 production comes from the developing world
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You still have not grasped what base load is ...
Hello fool, still walking around thinking you know anything?
I figured you might have had a chance to buy a clue, but it seems not...
Germany now is producing 'around base load' capacity with wind alone.
You're going to bankrupt yourselves trying... Watch what happens when you actually have to defend yourselves and spend money on your military.
Trump just got elected, he likes Russia more than Germany, you will have to change your budget soon... the USA is not going to cover for you anymore, or did you miss the news?
---
Further point, if your tiny little brain can try and hear it... Germany is a small, wealthy nation, it does not reflect the world. Even if you turn off all your power tomorrow, it doesn't mean anything. We all share the same air. You REALLY fucking suck at math, you have no idea what it will take to stop CO2 rise in the air, it is simply not going to be stopped.
Come to the Netherlands to see what we did to protect our country against the consequences of climate change that we are dealing with we are facing NOW and then dare say that again you moron.
Islands in the pacific have disappeared because the sea is rising. Miami is brining and drowning but in your little part of the world nothing seems to have changed in your short live so there are no problems? It's an idiot like you who's in power now in the US and who will make sure that the US will have big problems due to climate change in the near future.
-- Cheers!
The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse emissions, guess what - that still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions...it wouldn't be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world's carbon pollution comes from the developing world.
-- John Kerry
Well, it's a good thing that Trump wants to bring those factories back home where we can keep an eye on them. Plus, think of all the other good effects from making our own products again. Good thing Hillary the crooked globalist didn't win, eh? Her idea was to go ahead with TPP and shove even MORE globalism down our throats. Hurrah for democracy!
Yeeeeeah. Because Trump and his partners are totalllllllly going to keep an eye on things. We're also going to accept a 30% price increase for paying a living wage, we're going to accept that we need massive amounts of tax investments at your expense to pay for these new factories, and you're personally willing to buy a gas mask for the days where there is no wind.
Oh, and when the rest of the world levies sanctions on us because we refuse to follow the environmental treaties we signed, followed by massive economic depressions, you're going to accept that, yes?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
And then you have conservative idiots who like to loathe over the poor masses and overpopulation but are against birth control and abortions because every sperm is sacred.
Well, they need a steady influx of poor black people to fill the jails with and keep the prison industrial complex running, so I guess it all does make sense.
At least China has a long term policy for 'greening' their country.
-- Cheers!
Then make up your mind ... ... so wind from A can not be transported to B
Wind is not working because:
1) there is no wind/might be no wind
2) the country is so small, that the whole country has no wind
3) there is no grid 'big enough'
Or any other bullshit? You are arguing against wind all the time ... ... surprisingly second world countries like, Rumania, Belarus, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Georgia (the country, not the stats) and a few dozens more are interconnected in an international grid, and you can not even manage a national one?
The lack of a national grid can be fixed
And that is your argument against wind and so,ar?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Don't bother looking when you're crossing the road because an an aeroplane might crash on your head. So develop a man portable air warning radar THEN think about getting new glasses.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You know how much money we are going to save by stop paying the NATO bills that most of Europe has been welching on for the past 30 years? We won't need Europe to buy our goods on how much we won't be spending on their security.
Oh, not really. We're still going to be spending that money because we want a strong military, which will still get involved in wars, so our bills won't decrease at all. If anything, they'll rise as per Republican advice, so the only change in that is that the European countries might have to pay more for themselves - but at no savings to you.
However, it is going to be nice to watch Apple's and Exxon's market values crash because they lost 50% of their customer base. When your megacorp starts laying off employees to pay for that, you'll be first in line to volunteer, yes?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
His what?
Care to elaborate?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
all those people complaining about elites and insiders are in for a shock
That's the problem with voting for "change." You are going to get it.
I was very surprised, just based off reading comments on this site over the past few days, how many ardent Trump supporters are here. I say surprised not because I am assessing a value judgement but because US presidential voting in recent years has become much more strongly correlated with education level, and I presumed that a tech site would reflect certain patterns as a result. (Full disclosure: I did not like any of the available ballot options and wrote in my presidential vote for Alexander Hamilton. I live in a solidly colored state on the West Coast and knew that my little exercise in protest would not have any meaningful effect on my state's electoral college votes, otherwise I would have voted seriously.)
At any rate, it turned out that many many more people than pollsters and the media expected cast their votes in the cause of upsetting the status quo. There's nothing wrong with being unsatisfied with the way things are and wanting to lob a big water balloon full of "f--k you" at the powers that be in this country.
When you vote for the loser, you enter a world of "coulda woulda shoulda" and you can just theorize how things would have been better. But when you vote for the winner, you have to own that vote because you're getting what you said you wanted. That's the price of winning. And it will be fascinating to see whether the people who cast a ballot to shake up the system like what they get when the system actually gets shaken up...
Education helps, but it doesn't do you much good if you're not voting rationally. I mean, picking a candidate who's primary selling point is "I'm different, in a way that you have no idea or even a guarantee that I am, but I'm different, believe it" isn't rational at all. On top of that, Slashdot has a pretty quirky crowd, and while we tend to be well educated and accomplished, we also tend to entertain things that are a little less... normal. Sometimes this is healthy, such as our general standards on civil and social rights or the outcry on mass surveillance back in 2013 - but sometimes it's not, such as, well, Donald Trump's popularity. However, it's alright - he's our president now, so there's no more uncertainty. With Republican domination at virtually every level of government, there is absolutely no excuse for his failures except himself and his party, so you can judge for yourself how Republican policies work out in practice.
Ultimately, I have serious doubt the Slashdot crowd will get what they want, but I'm keeping an open mind to Mr. Trump's presidency. If we do wind up dissatisfied, then I'm sure we'll be ready to vote for a progressive candidate, someone who'll probably be a younger version of Mr. Sanders, and hopefully a democratic senate and House of Representatives (as unlikely as that will ever be). And if/when we do, I'll be prepared to own my vote for that, much as I hold Trump supporters today to theirs.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
>Resources exist to be consumed
Citation needed. There is actually sweet fuck all to back this idea up. Resources existed before we got here and their reason for existing had nothing to do with us. If anything consumption of (some) resources may be the one thing evolution has no way to recover from.
>By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright?
Birthright ? ?You haven't proven that a right exists, let alone a birthright. And besides, if that's the basis of your claim about a billion people have a stronger birthright claim than you (all native peoples for one) and they, overwhelmingly, favor NOT burning CO2.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
whoosh
So the solution is buying grass-fed beef.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
There was about 280 ppm CO2 in 18th century. There is >400 ppm CO2 at voting booths now. At least, given that they are in closed spaces.
The stupid thing is that coal is dying in the USA for exactly the same reason it died in the UK; natural gas. In the UK it came out the North Sea, in the USA it is coming from fraking. It would be utterly stupid to try and roll back from this and go back to coal. It would make energy more expensive not less.
The other thing is that simply switching from coal to gas you lower your CO2 emissions (burning methane produces less CO2 per Joule of energy released), the tonnes of uranium (burn a million tonnes of coal and if uranium is present at 1 part per million in the coal then a tonne of uranium goes into the atmosphere), all that acid raid producing sulphur.
Reopening coal mines is simply not going to happen ever. Heck even China has realized that coal is not a good idea and is looking to migrate away.
I very much in principle would love to agree with you.
Unfortunately we've learned that democracy is not perfect. I call it the BoatyMcBoatFace effect. Left to our quixotic whims, we voters have a tendency to make some pretty silly choices.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Brawndo.
Because plants crave electrolytes.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I do like to eat, though
Children?
Silence is a state of mime.
Then make up your mind ...
You're still a fool? Yep, pretty sure on that one...
Wind is not working because:
You continue to not see it, either because:
1. You are an idiot
2. You choose not to see it
3. You're a troll
Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues.
From which orifice did you pull that "fact"?
Why? Is he wrong? Or are you just another one of those idiots like Trump who sit there with their hands over their eyes and their thumbs in their ears singing: LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA I CAN'T SEE YOU.!!
Deforestation is proceeding all over the world at alarming speed and pollution isn't helping either. To take just one example you cannot get any marine seafood anymore that isn't full of microscopic plastic particles and has chemical traces that are not normally found in nature. The result has been a massive extinction wave which makes deforestation and pollution at least as big a problem as climate change.
Assuming you are not living in a hippy commune in the woods somewhere (and you're not, because you're using a computer and connected to the internet) you are guilty of that very same greed.
If you think that, it's because you completely failed to understand what I'm saying. This is about the broken window fallacy. People make garbage that will fail so that they can sell more garbage that will fail. People then buy the garbage because it's all they can afford, and the end result is that the biosphere is a toilet. I do not do a shit job to produce more work, so no. I am not guilty of the very same greed, and fuck you sideways for suggesting that I am. My fucking hobbies are all about re-use; I wrench, I repair, I modify used beat-down things and then I use them. I am the opposite of this problem.
After all, if no one bought the products, no one would waste time selling them...
If no one were allowed to profit from making garbage, no one would waste time selling it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's a quote. It is from the game "Alpha Centauri", which contains a lot of other insightful quotes from different perspectives.
It was sort of an attempt at reductio ad absurdum on my part.
Read my comment history, we are on the same side in this debate.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Do you feel better now?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And then you have conservative idiots who like to loathe over the poor masses and overpopulation but are against birth control and abortions because every sperm is sacred.
Except you're completely wrong. See - you're arguing with yourself, not me. You don't know me. First I don't loathe the poor. In fact I have probably done much more to help the poor than you have. I also live in Latin America where poverty is MUCH more serious and widespread. In the US poverty is not being able to buy things. In Latin America poverty is about not being able to eat.
And second, I am absolutely not against birth control (reading failure, I stated that have a vasectomy and limited the number of kids I have. My wife takes contraceptives. That's birth control.). As a physician I AM against abortion as a form of birth control, however I recognize that in some cases it is better to terminate a pregnancy than to allow it to reach term with horrendous malformations or tremendous health risk to the mother. I think there are times when abortion is justified but there is a huge moral risk if abortion is made "too easy" that it becomes a solution just because someone is too lazy to use a condom or take birth control pills. And I am an atheist - by the way. Whoops - see how wrong you can be?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The idea that you won't breed will make the world ever so slightly better...
Thank you
You're welcome. The sad part is that most of the people who think they're making the world a better place by having children are dead wrong.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Children?
I was going to make a joke about being a crypto-Jew but it would have sounded a lot funny in an America without a president Trump. Suffice to say that I did leave that comment ambiguous for your amusement during the editing process.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What's the going price for a ticket to Mars these days, on ebay or elsewhere?
I think I might need one.
Are those really the ones you intended to make?
I realize I may not be the most effective communicator, and I am quite the cynic. Ultimately all our environmental problems are a consequence of our massive human population. Anything you propose is merely a rationing system, nothing more. Rationing does not solve problems therefore I hate seeing it portrayed as a solution. The ONLY solution is reducing the size of our population. There are ways to do that involuntarily at huge moral and ethical cost via war, hydraulic despotism, or just out and out murder. And there are ways to do it voluntarily and morally, through education - teaching people why it's important that many should abstain from breeding and encouraging them to abstain.
Unfortunately we live in a world where our leaders feel that investing in bombs and jet fighters is far more worthwhile in terms of return on investment than education. So for all you propose, and for all you complain - nothing is going to change - even under a rationing system.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You can't use logic or reason here. We are in the Great Dumbing Down period. You are going up against people who think they are geniuses. I tried to pull this exact same argument with a super smart fellow yesterday. This guy is so smart, he only reads things that tell him EXACTLY what he wants to hear. So free market forces or improving our trade imbalance be damned, it's all political. You can't go against 10,000 hours of Alex Jones with something sensible, here.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
>Resources exist to be consumed
Citation needed.
Important note: Nwabudike Morgan is a fictional character from the Civilization series meant to epitomize/caricature the ruthless/sociopathic entrepreneur. Quoting him, instead of Ayn Rand, should be seen as sarcasm.
Sorry, misunderstanding. I was not arguing -against- you, I was just adding a few additional considerations to what you said without intending to attack your arguments.
If no one were allowed to profit from making garbage, no one would waste time selling it.
True. But this would require re-working the economic models of our societies and re-educating our consumers. For example how can you have a society that discourages innovation (via a patent system) and yet penalizes less sophisticated products? If I make the best widgets and tomorrow you come out with a way to make better widgets then you have just put me out of business if you don't allow me to immediately upgrade my process and improve my widgets - since my product is now an inferior product.
And yet still, this is all just a rationing system. Resources are finite. Human expansion is infinite (or at least can theoretically reach the critical point where remaining resources per capita are simply no longer sufficient to sustain life). Rationing can help stretch out resources - as can technology. Slowing down the population growth rate can help us survive longer in time. But ultimately we are doomed as long as our growth rate is positive.
Heck we're doomed in all cases, but population is the more immediate problem. I don't care what the statistics say because statistics are political tools. I take a more empirical approach: When I was a kid there were almost 4 billion people in the world. Now we're closer to 8. You can argue percentages and rates and everything but reality is, we are doubling in size every 40 years or so. This is not sustainable. If we're affecting global temperature now and have been for some time according to AGW pundits, we won't be affecting it less in 40 years with 16 billion people. Taxes will not avoid the fact that people need to eat, people need to work, and people need to travel from A to B to do those things.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's the internet. I have thick skin :)
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Apparently, /. has decided to post every second or third article with a Trump headline to generate more clicks.
Better all head for Canada now. Your safe spaces are about to disappear.
Just another day in Paradise
No, you'd have to be a scientist with a working understanding of the greenhouse effect. You can measure the heat trapping ability of CO2 in a lab or test it yourself by building a greenhouse, we can do the math on it and figure out how much an increase in CO in the atmosphere traps more heat. It's not the only controller of heat in the atmosphere but it is the most prevalent and therefore most important
Do you understand that increasing the greenhouse effect has real life implications really fast: sea-levels rising, rainfall increasing in other areas whereas droughts will increase alsewhere, more and bigger storms etc. Plus there's the risk of chain-reactions occurring: once the northern permafrost starts to melt it will release methane which is 20 times stronger as a greenhouse gas the CO2, which will them increase the warming yet again melting more of the frost and creating an unstoppable feedback loop.
We're not in complete control of the climate but we're having a major impact on it in ways which do not bode well for the future. The oil and coal companies are racking up short term profit the total cost of which will be seen in the daces to come when coastal cities start to get flooded and people start dying more from food shortages and droughts. If the oceans get acidified enough for mass extinction of plankton to occur that puts a stop to major oxygen producer and has the change to quite literally wipe us out as well.
These being the realities of the situation anyone favoring oil or coal for energy production at this point has to be an idiot, ignorant or just self-destructive.
Wrong. Their CO2 emissions are rising because of among other things cars/traffic until 2030 when they're projected to peak and turn it around. Providing clean energy for over a billion people is not exactly a project you can achieve overnight. As for coal itself: they're already planning restrictions on coal mining/use because major cities have severe issues with smog/pollutants causing significant damage to the people and industries, they have a vested interest in fixing this stuff.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
The "solution" in the Paris accords are indeed taxation on the entire population to offset production of CO2 by industry not just in their own country but worldwide. I don't know how you solve the climate problem by extracting money, we all know government doesn't actually handle it all that well.
The solution would be to tax the producers but we can't enforce that in China or India, therefore China/India can promise to purchase offsets instead for every ton they produce and in theory for every offset purchased, the developed nation should produce less CO2. However China is never going to purchase any so we just tax the people to pay for the offsets. It's a huge scheme to pay for our trillions in Chinese debts by tax.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
In other words: I got mine, fuck you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
China is now doing more than the US to clean up
Jesus AmiMoJo why are you constantly talking about subjects that you know literally nothing about?
My source is that right wing nut job think tank known as greenpeace
Yet China has another 200,000MW of coal-fired capacity under construction, and a new Greenpeace analysis has identified a further 150,000MW of projects potentially able to enter construction — despite recent suspensions.
I have an idea though... why dont you just fucking stop making shit up on every story they you "feel" for?
"His name was James Damore."
Better all head for Canada now. Your safe spaces are about to disappear.
You reckon? Because your first lady to be wants to make the internet a safe place.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Shit, we've been saying that for years. You didn't need a Harvard study to tell us that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide turns people into morons, you can just open the journals and start reading. The apparent IQ of climate "scientists" is quite obviously inversely correlated, and has been since at least the 90s.
See that "Preview" button?
If something we understand reasonably well and can demonstrate reasonably well, and anecodtally can see happening isn't enough to convince people, then something that hasn't ever happened, and may never happen sure won't.
There is no reason to beleive humans could not acheive equilibrium.
Hooray!
A neutral and reasonably stated hypothesis that carries some weight!
I'd only correct the misspellings, and change "equilibrium" to "steady-state". Humans birth and die. If the two rates match, then we are in a steady state.
"Equilibrium" would imply interstellar maximization of entropy – in other words the heat-death of the Universe – so we won't go there today.
The problem is, a lot of people are 'adapting' by putting air conditioning into their houses. Once, we built houses out of stone and lime, and painted them white, and drew the curtains during the day. Now you can have a house made out of wood, paint it any colour you like, have the sun shining in and have a lower temperature inside, even on the hottest days of summer.
One method has a low carbon output but high up-front cost, the other has a high output, but lower up-front cost. One takes a small amount of 'adapting', the other takes almost none. I'd say we're a lot less adaptable than we might appear.
Are those really the ones you intended to make?
I realize I may not be the most effective communicator, and I am quite the cynic. Ultimately all our environmental problems are a consequence of our massive human population. Anything you propose is merely a rationing system, nothing more. Rationing does not solve problems therefore I hate seeing it portrayed as a solution. The ONLY solution is reducing the size of our population. There are ways to do that involuntarily at huge moral and ethical cost via war, hydraulic despotism, or just out and out murder. And there are ways to do it voluntarily and morally, through education - teaching people why it's important that many should abstain from breeding and encouraging them to abstain.
Unfortunately we live in a world where our leaders feel that investing in bombs and jet fighters is far more worthwhile in terms of return on investment than education. So for all you propose, and for all you complain - nothing is going to change - even under a rationing system.
Well, if your goal is to eliminate people, then investments in bombs and fighter aircraft are a very worthwhile investment for the environment :)
Speaking frankly, I agree with that sentiment. Our planet is overpopulated, and policies like insisting every married couple have children aren't helping with that. However, you also have a pretty nihilist attitude on this - even though encouraging energy efficiency isn't going to eliminate our pollution problems, it is going to slow them down and lessen their severity. Likewise, keeping garbage off the streets is healthier for our environment, even if it doesn't reduce Co2, it's still going to drastically improve the quality of life for not just humans but animals and plants as well. To suggest a darkly accurate metaphor, if you have cancer, that doesn't necessarily mean it's fatal if you attack it while it's still small, and even if it is, at least you can reduce the suffering. The alternative is either twiddling our thumbs and saying it's impossible or actively living in a delusional fantasy, and I'd rather be harpooned through the ear than sit around and die from a problem we could have prevented had we taken action sooner...
Of course, we all have to actually come together and want to save our planet, and I'm not really getting the impression that's the case...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
We need oil today, but our investment should be in renewables. Focusing on fossil fuels is not an economically sound decision, even if you discount global climate change.
Yep. Fracking wells tend to get tapped-out very quickly.
Some drillers simply "flare" off the natural gas that comes up because it's not "cost-effective" to pipe it to a near-enough LNG plant. And the helium that is sitting there with it goes up in that flare (some isotopes of which are critical to fusion power), but instead it just rises up-and-up into stellar space – irretrievable. Despite this fact, and that there is a US (global, too) shortage of the stuff, alternative-energy R&D suffers. What a surprise!
They just want that orangey-brown gooey juice.
Drown out the coastal blue states and profit!
Is it my fault, she literally stole the Democratic nomination from a very intelligent practical leader?
Is it my fault that the DNC itself uses "Super Delegates" to make sure that these types of events will occur with predictable frequency?
I voted for Johnson. The only candidate who is against war, understandable on immigration and free trade. Is it my fault, 95% of the country is locked into the Democrat and Republican mind control?
Frequently I rage that our problems are due to ourselves. In this case, I'm excluding myself. While I would much prefer Trump instead of the One World Order continuation I by no means liked him -- ever. Until more people think instead of react, nothing is going to get better no matter who or what is at the steering wheel.
Anyone who voted for Trump or Hillary is part of the problem.
I've seen AGW believers get pilloried by their own for advocating that trees should be grown and used for building material to sequester carbon. I guess, somehow, it's better for the carbon cycle or something to burn those trees for heat.
I don't claim to know what AGW believers you're talking about, or what goes on inside their heads, but one theory that springs to mind is that they're concerned that if heat isn't being produced by burning wood, it will inevitably be produced by burning fossil fuels. Burning wood at least has the advantage that it's net carbon neutral over the life cycle of the trees, while fossil fuels are carbon positive on any timescale less than geologic.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Dateline: Cape Canaveral, June 16, 2019
NASA's new anti-gravity spacecraft, the _Ivanka_, successfully began its first mission today, with an eerily silent liftoff in the early morning here at Cape Canaveral.
Perpetuation of the species and/or culture isn't illogical. Else we'd all be best off sticking electrodes in our brains and orgasming ourselves to death.
However, you also have a pretty nihilist attitude on this
Not really. Humans tend to think punitively. How can I make people obey. Force them. Punish them. I'd like to think the other way. What if somehow we could figure out how to reward those who choose to abstain from breeding. Reward them either with status, wealth, privilege or a combination of all. Then our collective need - reducing our population footprint - can be addressed in a morally acceptable way. Don't punish people for having kids with fines or mandatory sterilization or worse - like has been tried in the past. Educate people as to why it's necessary to reduce our vast numbers and then reward those who willingly make this sacrifice. I think it's possible but it requires a rethink of our priorities as a society.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Not real sure what the big deal is here. Trump never hid that he was a climate denier while he was running. That's who America voted for, so that's what they were asking for. From a political standpoint, it would be wrong for him not to appoint climate deniers to head environmental agencies. That's how Democracy is supposed to work.
I hope nobody thought all this was some kind of joke.
Oh so very much this. We love to point at China and scream "It's all their fault", but those Chinese factories are predominantly making products for the Western world, and tailoring their processes to minimize the cost over all else as we specifically told them to do. If our companies were requiring them to have proper environmental controls and we were willing to pay the extra cost, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make their factories cleaner.
They don't have to comply. They'd do it anyways and you know it.
China has not been know for it's clean air long before apple moved there.
We could save the trees for building material if we used nuclear power for heat instead. Of course we need heat but we don't need to burn wood, coal, or oil, to do it.
What we also see are AGW types that lobby against nuclear power as well. Some AGW types leave us in a corner of where we cannot burn fossil fuels, cannot use nuclear power, and so we are left with burning wood, which even then some are unhappy with. These kinds of AGW types are insane and cannot be reasoned with. The AGW types that advocate for nuclear power are at least reasonable since it leaves us with an "out" from returning to hunter gatherer society.
As you may have guesses I am skeptical of AGW but I will play along with the AGW theory so long as we can have nuclear power. No fossil fuels and no nuclear means living like cavemen or an environmental disaster as we fight over the last of the trees to cut down, and then we live like cavemen.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Everything is linear for small enough increments.
That's not fair. Germany was, until not so long ago, not even *allowed* to defend itself.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Nothing you just said contradicts the fact that you lied. You made shit up. You did it because you "feel."
China emits over twice as much CO2 as the US and the rate this growth of its emissions is still increasing you fucking fucktard lying twat.
My source is again that right wing think tank known as greenpeace.
Being a transvestite doesnt give you permission to lie about all the shit you feel for, fucker.
"His name was James Damore."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And just how much pollution do you think will be created by moving out of existing, useful buildings, hauling shit across the planet, and building new buildings just because?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Yay for being able to move two hexes per year!
Much more important than an extra energy per hex in one city, unless you're doing one city challenge.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Nuclear fission as an energy source. Eventually we will realize it's the only way forward and we will adopt it and perfect it and stop burning our plastic (er, I mean oil) for energy. We can keep denying this and put off the inevitable, or face the fact and start sooner. We need energy, period, and we're going to have it. Sooner we face that and then move on with the next step the better.
So let me get this straight. If you lived on a street where several of your neighbors were murderers, your solution wouldn't be to try to get them put away, your solution would be to grab an ax and join them in the frenzy?
You know the old saying, "When in Rome..." ;)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I dunno, as a broke white male, I kinda like the sound of "The American Empire".
You misspelt 'as a conscripted foot soldier'... still like the sound of it?
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
No matter what your political views are, those maps are very interesting. We have something of a culture war going on, and it may be about to escalate. War is the continuation of politics by other means...
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
In all those films, just substitute.
If you get a little bit of it on you somewhere, then you sell out too.
Those unwilling to sell out to cynicism, well..., keep fighting I guess.
They can't live forever.
We need to find ways to mitigate climate change despite the post war zombie generation.
Let them have their moment. But never forget.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Andy May (at Watt's Up with That)
Andy May
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
This begs the question whether corruption or plain old incompetence is better. After all, the corrupt ones may possibly still be frightened into doing a reasonable job when things get really bad, while no such possibility exists for the incompetent.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If no one were allowed to profit from making garbage, no one would waste time selling it.
True. But this would require re-working the economic models of our societies and re-educating our consumers
That is self-evident. However, it's going to have to happen barring the discovery of a science-fiction level clean energy source, a magic CO2 conversion process, etc.
Heck we're doomed in all cases, but population is the more immediate problem.
I agree that it is a problem, but the immediate problem is waste which exists specifically due to greed, namely to keep prices high. Not just building shit that will fail, but also things like building cars that nobody wants so that they can be registered by dealers to artifically inflate sales figures. Thousands of automobiles are created for this purpose every year. That has a measurable and significant environmental impact.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Bad analogy. If my neighbors threw their trash in the street, my solution would not be to pay a huge fine for all the trash I sent to the landfill. I would see what we could do to get them to use the landfill FIRST.
just because u dont understand something doesnt make it wrong
u fucking trumpite imbecile
but i repeat myself:-/
After all, the earth is only 6,000 years old. *cough*
We could build things to last and keep them longer.
That fixes a problem with GARBAGE.
The rate at which things turn into garbage directly affects the amount of energy that has to be spent replacing them.
How will you magically build these durable things without producing CO2?
There's nothing magic about it; you build less stuff, and you plant trees or bamboo or whatever it is that's convenient to fix the CO2 emitted by what you do produce.
Plus entropy works against you - there's no such thing as a product that will last forever.
Perfect is the enemy of good, and you are moving the goalposts. I never said forever.
insulation has to be manufactured. It has to be shipped to where you need it. It has to be installed.
Good news, everyone! Most of the houses built in the last forty years are total shit-shacks, and the nation has been hit with more and more flooding and earthquakes, so there is substantial turnover in homes. We can simply institute sane building codes and make a real substantive difference going forwards. Passive solar, meaningful insulation...
this merely postpones the problem. As long as the population growth rate remains POSITIVE, we are inevitably going to hit the wall one way or another
Yes, that's where education comes in, since educated people have less children and many nations are now actually having problems replacing their populations.
Assuming you are not living in a hippy commune in the woods somewhere (and you're not, because you're using a computer and connected to the internet) you are guilty of that very same greed. Greed for the convenience of modern life.
And yet, the situation can be improved considerably using technology and philosophy which has already been invented, and yet we're not even doing that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
so u r ok with rising sealevels drowning the worlds poorest peoples?
fucking selfish trumpites
You don't look very good here.
The point was that climate change over 100,000 years is less challenging to the biosphere than a similar amount of climate change occurring in 100 years.
That's not assurance that said 100-year change is going to actually happen as the various attempts at models depict -- those are predictions, and none of them take into account any ameliorative technolg(y/ies), because of course no one has any good way to measure what the impact of such things might be.
One thing I am pretty sure of is that we'll be transitioning to EVs fairly rapidly now (in terms of a 100 year time period) and that will push the rate of human-generated CO2 downwards by some significant amount [waves hands.]
Personally, that's what I'm looking for from whatever leadership we end up with next year: get us off the oil teat as fast as possible. For many reasons. It may be Trump and crew or it may not be, but whoever it is, that's the responsible thing to do.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Sea levels could rise 100 feet and not a single creature would drown.
Is this really an attempt at sarcasm/irony/comedy?
I'm hard core anti-Hillary, I love guns and big trucks, fast cars and horsepower and real freedom not the peecee liberal kind, but come on wake up and smell the coffee already.
The fact that climate change is happening is at this point beyond fucking undeniable to all but the most full-blown retard that is actively avoiding informing themselves with even basic reading about it at all. Please at least for the sake of not making everyone on the right all look like a bunch of dumb backward hicks, get an actual clue.
I totally agree with you we should be all-in on nuclear power, especially developing and deploying more modern, safer and cheaper fourth-gen plants, and building a waste reprocessing infrastructure. I also think AGW types who lobby against nuclear are silly. It's obviously because many are the same people who were worried about nuclear waste, etc., years ago, before AGW came on the scene as a concern. The old "greenies" are a big component of the new AGW movement and they've brought their biases with them.
However, I think you're silly to be skeptical of global warming. The evidence of warming, global and unusually rapid, is abundant. It's less certain (though very, very likely) that it's anthropogenic in nature, but that doesn't really matter. Regardless of the origin, it looks like it's going to cause us big problems so we should be working out what to do to prevent the worst of it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That's because climate science, in the sense of the "A CO2-induced catastrophe is imminent" message, predicts a future result that has no historical analog (we've never, ever seen this happen), and does so in such a way as to bring a message that massive financial and behavioral change is outright required.
You have to expect people to hold a prediction like that to a much higher standard of proof than either a claim that has no significant immediate consequences for individuals regardless of its factual nature, or not; or claims that have such impacts, but for which we actually have historical precedent, such as "Tsunamis here will destroy your beachfront house."
It's perfectly natural for people to resist those who insist they change their behavior when you cannot demonstrate the validity of the impetus -- there has been a lot of variability between the predictions and the actual circumstances, depending on which claims one looks at.
Expecting the "common person" to grasp the scientific arguments... that's so overly optimistic as to be fairly characterized as outright ridiculous.
Assuming the suggested consequences are coming and are pendent upon nearly or exactly the CO2 levels and rate of increase that we have now, there's a huge amount of physical inertia to the whole process, and between that and the social inertia inherent in a mostly non-scientifically literate populace, you'd best be thinking ahead, because there isn't any way to really put on the brakes at this point.
And as someone else noted above, if it's not going to proceed as predicted, then anything you do that has no other benefit to you... is a waste of your time and resources.
I honestly don't know why either side really expects the other side to grasp the arguments of the other. The one strongly resists anything that might interfere with their lives or cost them time and resources, the other relies on extremely technical arguments that are both hard to grasp in toto, more than a little vague in many ways, and suffer from no historical precedent to point to.
TLDR: Quit arguing about it. How often have you seen these arguments actually change anyone's mind? I don't think I've ever seen that happen.
You want to have an actual effect, convince a legislator. Bring an envelope full of money.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
What is just maddening to me is the trend for using wood for heat and energy. .
I and all of the people I have ever known who heat with wood burn scavenged wood which would otherwise have sat and rotted, returning the same carbon to the ecosystem as if burned.
burning wood means less of it for building material, paper, and Parmesan cheese filler.
No, it does not. Those end uses do not source the same lumber as is scavenged and burned. Commercial use is sourced from large-scale commercial producers. The farmer who saws up the fallen tree limb lying along his fence row and chucks it into his wood stove next January does not have as an option selling it to Kraft for Parmesan filler instead.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Well, if that happens, just remember: the cost of products like steel and phones and laptops and desktops and RPIs and toys and chips and televisions and audio systems and cars and so on are going to spike immediately. As in, the moment associated trade barriers, in whatever form, go up.
I'm not insisting that's a bad thing in the long run (I have mixed opinions on the matter, and they're far too involved to go into here), but you'd best be ready to reap what gets sown, because if nothing else, you're going to feel it. (BTW, my advice for keeping the personal impact lowish is to buy the stuff you want in the "made overseas" category now, before the impact of trade barriers makes them much more consequential to purchase.)
Trade between entities with unbalanced cost of production costs jobs on one side and gains them on the other, while providing less expensive products to the side that loses the jobs. That's pretty much right where the US is right now: cheap products and lost jobs.
Stifle that trade, or eliminate the disparity between cost of production with tariffs, and costs of products will go up, consumption of same will slow, and some jobs may return, depending on just how needful the market is for the product in question.
Right now, a TV can be had for $100, no problem. Balance the cost of production in China with the cost of production here using tariffs, or block such imports entirely, and a TV will become much more expensive. Probably a large number of people will buy them anyway, but I guarantee it will be a more carefully vetted and far less casual purchase when the entry cost rises to $200, $300 or even higher.
Same thing for everything else. You want jobs to come back here, okay, but don't run around thinking it's all going to be flowers and candy. It's going to hurt.
Also, there will be the amusement of watching China continue to sell televisions and the like inexpensively to everyone else: basically, it's going to be harder for consumers to swallow that they have to pay $2x or more for what people in the EU pay $1x for. The butthurt will be profound -- because if there's one thing I am absolutely sure of, it's that the average Trump voter doesn't see this coming at all. But come it will.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
What you're missing is that if the thing lasts longer, fewer of them will be produced, and that reduces the CO2 of manufacture, transport and so on.
What the GP is missing is that in a very large number of product categories, low endurance products are a significant part of keeping costs low and sales high, profits likewise. The consequence of that is it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to get manufacturers to actually make more durable products.
For instance, if we want our refrigerators to last longer, that can certainly be done, in the engineering sense. Those cheap little compressors and thin-walled heat exchangers will have to go, the seals around the doors will become much more expensive, the lighting and defrosting mechanisms will have to be changed, the hardware in the icemaker will no longer be able to use plastic gears, and so on. This will cost a lot more, and when it's done, far fewer refrigerators will be sold. Good for the environment; not good for the manufacturer. Guess what that means... Right: we get cheap refrigerators with short lifetimes. Welcome to profiteering 101.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So it's Bush all over again? And you're surprised by this because...?
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Those of us who remember history are doomed to watch everyone else repeat it.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
No, it's a good analogy, because basically the intent of saying "We shouldn't do anything because China and India aren't" (which isn't even true, they are signatories to the Paris climate accord) is to say "Because some of my neighbors are killers, I'm going to join them in the murderous orgy because, heck, what could me not being a killer do to the overall murder statistics on my block?"
Apart from the fact that the US does in fact generate a rather significant fraction of over-all green house gasses, so that if it did, all on its own, reign in emissions, it would have a measurable effect on the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's not idiocy. It's corruption based on pure selfishness in the form of influence flowing from oil interests into the legislative process. Money, favor, power... you name it, it's in play here. Re-election coffers swell, cousin Cletus gets a great deal on land / home / boat, etc., that post-political book deal, speaking tour, think-tank position... sexual favors, access to art, collectables, stock tips, club memberships "somehow" become readily available...
Yep, it's great to be in congress.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
to the Cabinet of Deplorables.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
u r a fucking moron
Even if you doubt the science and don't believe that humans are screwing up the planet, there are still plenty of selfish reasons to "go green"
First and foremost is money. At a personal level, solar panels are cheaper than coal-fired grid power for many people. On a broader scale, an energy company that has fewer options will charge more. Here in San Diego, they decommissioned our nuke plant a few years ago, and home energy prices have increased significantly as a result. People should be supporting alternative energy sources to reduce their bill.
Secondly is supply. We are going to run out of oil at some point. Coal, too. It's already getting harder and harder to dig up. Check out how deep the Deepwater Horizon drill actuall was. The oil pocket was 2/3 down the Mariana's Trench. That reeks of desperation. Fracking is even more desperate. It's like trying to wring the last few drops of booze out of a bar towel.
The sun, on the other hand, isn't going anywhere. Not for a few billion years at least. Wind, tidal, geothermal, and nuclear power are similarly long duration. Even if you believe that "clean coal" is actually a real thing, it would behoove you to move away from a power source that might not last your lifetime
Thirdly, smog. Have you been to Beijing? The air is insane over there. It's like London pea soup fog, except with dirt and soot instead of water condensation. There is seriously a business selling cans of air in China. Whether or not you think that's bad for the planet is immaterial. That's bad for YOU. And if you think "it's on the other side of the world, I'll be fine," I would like to introduce you to the concept of wind.
Be selfish. Go green.
This signature is false.
More like a sign of disgust at the country, not just the president. If you knew me you'd know how loathe I am to engage in any ritual or symbolism, so that's how bad I feel for this nation. I didn't do it for dubya either time even though I hated his guts. Trump is just beyond the pale.
Someone had to do it.
So, in other words, you do believe that if you lived on a block with some murderers, your solution isn't to call the police, but to pick up the ax and join them in the killing frenzy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Allow me to sarcastically paraphrase you:
"Ha ha, Russia is going to invade and tens of millions of your citizens will die! America could step in and stop that, but fuck you, we don't owe you anything."
The fact in question is "the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues". No argument about the need to combat deforestation and pollution.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Humans are a naturally tribal species. You can pick them from the savana and put them in a modern industrial setting, but the instincts will still assert. They will always divide into tribes - perhaps along racial lines, or political, or even over something as trivial as which football team to support. The members of any tribe will then always put the interests of tribe-members above those of outsiders, and at times may even be actively hostile towards rival tribes.
No, it's a good analogy, because basically the intent of saying "We shouldn't do anything because China and India aren't"
Except we have strict laws all over our industry WRT pollution, so we ARE following some rules (taking trash to the landfill) they need to catch up on. Then, once they get there, we can talk about further mutual compliance. So no, we are not doing nothing, we are insisting they do what we are already doing before we further hobble ourselves.
Because it's clearly easier to invent, design, engineer, and manufacture terraforming technology which doesn't exist that can reduce or outright reverse global impacts of 150 years of burning oil and coal than it is to just use technology we already have, and are already deploying on ever-increasing scale.
Duh!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I'm pretty sure even the lowliest creature on earth can outrun water rising at 0.04 inches per year. You're the moron who isn't capable of independent thought.
It's always funny people whine about the popular election when they lose the only metric that legally matters.
It's not like the rules changed all of a sudden. The Electoral College has been a thing for 233 years or so. Stop moving the goalposts and attempting to declare victory. It's not the fault of the Electoral College that the DNC nominated an even more flawed candidate than Donald Trump. If you want to complain about something, complain about that.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Nice country called Tuvalu, faggot. Also the droughts caused Sudanese instability long before any other elements. What the fuck do you think caused the 30 year drought?
Electronics is one of the least problematic issues - these days, you can get substantial benefits even with little of it, and anyway, the benefits are so large that not having it not an economic option. You just can't drop automation and expect things to become better because your environmental impact has slightly lessened (but productivity of work has dropped like a stone). Heating and cooling can be vastly improved by passive measures, such as those coming into place here in Europe starting in 2020. So car transportation really is the hardest the knack of those four. Fortunately, continuing urbanization significantly improves that.
Ezekiel 23:20
However, I think you're silly to be skeptical of global warming.
I'm okay with you disagreeing with me on AGW so long as we can agree on solutions. I believe that we have bigger problems with importing oil than the carbon output, if we can agree on strategies that can reduce oil importation then I don't care what you think about AGW.
What I have found out is that burning plant matter for energy is demonstrably bad for the economy and bad for the environment. People need to eat and people eat plant matter. Burning plant matter is burning food. The whole idea of "agricultural waste" is laughable. Those corn stalks and soybean hulls that some people want to burn is wasteful. That plant matter is erosion control, nitrogen fixers, and all kinds of good for the soil. If we don't put that plant matter back in the fields then farmers have to use artificial fertilizers, the kind made from natural gas mostly, to make up for it.
Ethanol is a real bad idea too, I'd go into it but this post is long enough already. Any kind of bio-fuel is a bad idea except perhaps those that are dangerous to human health in some way, like sewage and medical waste, I'm not terribly opposed to burning that kind of material generally because we will often burn it anyway to dispose of it so we may as well derive energy from it.
I can get along with AGW people, just so long as they don't lobby for things that destroy the economy and my standard of living to "save" the planet. The planet is going to be fine, it will still be here even if the seas rise and ice caps melt, it's people we need to worry about.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
^Doesn't know what "xenophobic" or "racist" mean.
You are welcome on my lawn.
no u r the moron who doesn't realize that rising sea levels increase the danger of typhoons' flooding:-\
I'm trying to get my neighbors to agree to slowly reduce their murder rates.
I bet most politicians have no idea what is meant by order of magnitude. They argue over millions and leave 10's of billions at stake. OK, we need a scientific equivalent of the supreme court. A completely (or as close to completely as possible) non-partisan group who are experts in a variety of scientific fields. Experts who know a little of politics and a lot of math. Their job will be to analyze disagreements pertaining to key issues that are scientific in nature being discussed in another branch of government. After hearing both sides of the argument they will perform a "peer reviewed" report of each side and cut through the bullshit. I'm just getting kind of sick of politicians arguing (half-assedly) about subjects which they cannot hope to understand because they have the wrong background. Even worse than arguing half-assedly about subjects they don't understand, politicians (predictably) politicize things that aren't even political!! Statements of fact should not be considered partisan, ever.
In this instance Trump can basically do as he please given the composition of both the senate and the house.
Ask and you shall receive
If you're a Trump supporter and you were hoping for you job back, yes.
Apple and Exxon going broke will not cause me any loss of sleep.
You're welcome. The sad part is that most of the people who think they're making the world a better place by having children are dead wrong.
The irony is that you finally said something I agree with!
See, goes to show that one of us is right from time to time.
The real trick is... which one? :)
"Ha ha, Russia is going to invade and tens of millions of your citizens will die! America could step in and stop that, but fuck you, we don't owe you anything."
Why should America care if Germany is under the control of Germans or Russians?
Why is the whole world's problems ours to solve?
I suppose we could rent out our military, how much are you offering?
Doing something drastic to yourself as a "cry for help" is always going to hurt.
Plus the "change", as seen with situations like this position, is a matter of replacing one bunch of professional political agitators who have never done anything else with a different bunch - so effectively no change at all with some things. The think-tank idiot mentioned above will have no clue on how to manage a handful of people and suddenly he's in charge of thousands.
Because ignoring his track record like that is just what got him elected in the first place.
That's not fair. Germany was, until not so long ago, not even *allowed* to defend itself.
It has been decades, they have had long enough...
Keep in mind that the main gun on the American M1 Abrams main battle tank is a German-designed gun. :)
Germany can take care of itself. If they like, I'd even sell them nuclear weapons from the American stockpile at this point if they'd rather avoid developing their own. A few hundred would be plenty...
since we produce way more steel than we need. We need to be able to export the stuff for it to be profitable and with China dumping steel that ain't happening. Maybe if we really did build that wall (it'd need tons and tons of steel rebar) but other than that...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1) You can't buy electronics that aren't made in China
2) You wont see me blaming Chinese people for it
Don't be a fucking dumbass, AC.
You blow off 4% of the population producing 25% of the world's pollution and then start going on about Trump? I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.
We "could" do many things... but we aren't likely to do so...
If we don't do those things, we will die.
You're just having a bout of wishful thinking...
At this point I'm just hoping that it doesn't all go completely tits up until after my death... which I am concurrently hoping will be at least some thirty years into the future, if not more. So far, I'm not encouraged by what I'm seeing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If we don't do those things, we will die.
Not all of us...
Frankly, the real solution is population control, much of the problem is really too many people.
Our rate of pollution per person wouldn't be an issue if we had 500 million total people on Earth. Cutting pollution by 50% per person, then doubling the number of people, doesn't actually solve anything.
If we don't do those things, we will die.
Not all of us...
No, but who suffers will be psuedorandom and chaotic.
Frankly, the real solution is population control, much of the problem is really too many people.
I am not against population control, but we do have the technology to have even more people on this planet without destroying it. What's missing is apparently the will to utilize it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, but who suffers will be psuedorandom and chaotic.
Not really, I'm rich, or at least "rich enough", that it won't hurt me.
I'm not quite to "fuck you money", but I'm getting there...
You'll probably think that is bad or something, but we each do what is in our own best interest...
What's missing is apparently the will to utilize it.
You are correct... it is human nature, you want a lot of people to pay a lot of money to help a lot of other people to harm themselves, that just isn't how humans generally work...
I don't have solar panels on my roof because they cost too much. I can afford them, but it isn't in my own interest to put them up. It might be in "everyone's interest", but I'm human
Yes, that's a possibility; it depends entirely on how congress structures any barriers and/or tariffs, assuming they even do. It's one thing to talk about it -- it's entirely another to do it. Lobbyists control what congress does. The process is that of an oligarchy. So in the crafting of any legislative policy, it's all about who has the deepest pockets. American corporations, or the Chinese and Japanese nation states.
We also have to keep in mind that China and Japan opening to our products coming in means they do damage to their own local production. That damage has to be less than the benefit gained -- it may not, in fact, be "half of something", it may be a straight-up loss. And China, at least, is enjoying the fruits of a large population combined with a roaring economic engine because they don't let in other products easily, or in some cases, at all.
It's not a given that any of this will work out well. It's popcorn time.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, that's not what I'm claiming you idiot. The greenhouse effect simply means that certain gases such as Co2 and methane bounce back k heat and thus warm the atmosphere, which can and has been easily proved in a laboratory setting. This effect is not in dispute among scientists.
Yes.
Based on the simple fact that it's the most prevalent greenhouse has in the atmosphere and thus has the most effect in the heat retaining capability of the atmosphere.
No you idiot, I never said that the original source of the heat is not the sun and neither did the scientists. The greenhouse effect works by binding/bouncing back heat from the sun thus warming the Earth. No-one's disputing that the heat itself is coming from the sun, the whole point of global warming is that dumping more greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere means it will retain more of the heat provided by the sun thus affecting the climate.
So the sun warms the Earth, and increasing the amount of greenhouse gases increases the rate of warming. There's nothing controversial or disputable about this, it's quite simple science.
More heat --> more energy in the atmosphere --> more rains and storms. This logic is not disputed among climatologists.
No, like such increased rainfall that crops will not grow where they now do. Too much rain will prevent normal food crops from growing, while places close to the equator will get so warm that nothing will grow there,
Yes, but that warming has usually occurred over several centuries and millenia. The problem is that the warming being caused by man is happening at a much faster rate t6han any natural cycles that plant/animal life does not have the time to a
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
No, but who suffers will be psuedorandom and chaotic.
Not really, I'm rich, or at least "rich enough", that it won't hurt me.
That's not how it works, and that kind of idiotic thinking is why we can't have nice things. None of the fucks responsible think it can happen to them. But that's what chaos means. It can.
You'll probably think that is bad or something, but we each do what is in our own best interest...
No. You're just being an idiot and making excuses. Cognitive dissonance is leading you to believe that acting like a shitheel is in your own best interest, but the fact is that climate change has already affected you negatively, and it's going to continue to do so.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's not how it works, and that kind of idiotic thinking is why we can't have nice things.
No, it is why you can't have nice things, I have plenty of nice things and can afford to move if for some magic reason the oceans rose 500 feet.
but the fact is that climate change has already affected you negatively, and it's going to continue to do so.
How so?
I have all the food and water I care to consume, I can heat and cool my home as much as I want. I can take vacations, drive and go anywhere I want, and do almost anything I want.
How exactly has climate change hurt me?
And Santa Clause is on target to deliver all his presents for Christmas. Quite the alternate reality you've constructed for yourself, relying on hand waiving.
Dumbfuckery. People have to be given an actual choice before you can accuse them of hypocrisy hypocrite.
Hand waiving. "You get what you pay for" applies to China as much as anywhere else. You want top of the line quality quality from a Chinese supplier not running on coal power - you can get it, as long as you're willing to pay for it.
The hell they did. This is as pitiful as continuing to insist in 2016 that Saddam had to be deposed because of his WMD's and ties to Al Queda, a full decade after even Bush flunkies stopped repeating those claims.
Guess what - that's still wankery powered by gross entitlement. India and China combined have 7 times the population of the United States, yet a fraction of our wealth. WTF should they be held to to the same standard as the get-rich-quick kid who gets to fuck over the rest of the planet but not have any responsibility for his actions?
Wind is not working because:
1. You are an idiot
2. You choose not to see it
3. You're a troll
Again: In your country, right now.
There is no reason it could work, as there are plenty of examples of countries where it does.
So in my eyes the troll and the idiot is you. Because you can not look over the brim of your plate. Or simply lack knowledge about simple laws of physics.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Against whom should we need to defend our selves?
Against Chinese? Or the Turkish soon?
On what planet do you live?
The German army/navy/air force is not very big, but belongs to the finest. And most of our stuff is designed for "home defense" and not to bomb third world countries into the Stone Age. In other words, systems like our helicopters and missiles are designed for our terrain. Heavy infantry etc. is basically anti tank defense.
Even if you turn off all your power tomorrow, it doesn't mean anything. We all share the same air.
It would change a lot. That is why you are not very smart. You still forget: 75% of all CO2 pollution comes form USA, EU, and niche countries like Kuwait, Russia ofc. If the developed world would over night go to ZERO CO2 (and Germany plans to reach that till 2030 at the earliest and 2050 at the latest) then only 25% is left. That is a HUGE difference.
You REALLY fucking suck at math, you have no idea what it will take to stop CO2 rise in the air, it is simply not going to be stopped.
Of course it will be stopped. Either when all energy production is green SOON, or after the fall of mankind when people only can burn wood. I hope / assume there is some middle ground in between. E.g. plenty of asian countries could install off shore wind plants. Some are experimenting with it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Depends on the year you pick :D that page lacks the recent years btw. I think peek exhaust of the USA was around 2010 or something, no?
Also most statistics cut out countries like Oceania or Kuwait etc. because they disrupt the big picture.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
On what planet do you live?
The same one you do, the one that passed 400 PPM CO2 and is never going back to 350 in our lifetime.
It will however, hit 600 PPM probably sometime next century, give or take a bit, and the human race will still be here.
You still forget: 75% of all CO2 pollution comes form USA, EU, and niche countries like Kuwait, Russia ofc
Really?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
Who is at the top of that list? Try again...
If the developed world would over night go to ZERO CO2
If unicorns flew out of my butt, that would be pretty impressive as well. Neither are going to happen...
I live in the real world, you live in fantasy land.
Of course it will be stopped.
Yep, you live in Germany where you are fed bullshit by the people currently in charge who are complete morons... In 20 years you're going to be really fucking sorry you let 1 million people from the Middle East in, by which point it will be too late...
So you're wrong, perhaps because you'd fed this nonsense and don't bother to fact check, perhaps because you don't care, and perhaps because the reality would scare you and you like your safe space.
So in my eyes the troll and the idiot is you.
And nothing short of violence will convince you otherwise...
You remind me of my 8 year old daughter when she's being stubborn, you plant your feet and ignore reality.
Think what you want, you're wrong and a fool, but there are many such people like you in the world.
Well, I just could quote you and say the same about you. :)
Unfortunately I have no 8 year old daughter to compare you with
As I pointed out several times before:
a) I worked in the energy business for about ten years - unlike you
b) I live in germany and we show the rest of the world how to do renewables - unlike you
So, my definition of idtiot/troll does definitely not match yours :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Please, don't link web pages that show that I'm right.
That makes you look very dumb.
Regarding the millions we let in form the middle east: sorry there is no way around that. Or we would be called Nazies and killers and ugly germans or swines or what ever. You can only keep them out by let them starve to death behind the boarder or shoot them.
In both cases you likely would be the first one calling us 'Nazis, ugly Germans, or Swines' again. Thank you.
Unlike your future and former president the High Chancelor of germany has a Phd in Physics. So thank you for your impression that we are 'fed bullshit'.
I'm soon 50, so I care since 40 years, unlike you. Facepalm. An I know about the problems since over 40 years, unlike you. Troll?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Translation: do all the work to prove that Santa is indeed on schedule, so you don't have to prove your assertions. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way - otherwise I'll casually assert that you've been getting it on with Donner and Blitzen, and leave you to prove that assertion false.
After Trump starts a nuclear war and nuclear winter sets in you'll all be glad that Trump turned up the global warming.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The argument to end all for all of these like topics.
Globalization and Environmentalism
Basically if you try to be a good environmental steward you put yourself at a disadvantage to places with no such restrictions.
You can apply that to just about anything. Until your market attempts to disadvantage other places for not being good stewards, said issue continues.
We can talk circles around the various topics involved, but unless that discrepancy is addressed little meaningful progress is going to be made.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...