Soybean Subsidies in the United States totaled $37.4 billion from 1995-2017
Corn Subsidies in the United States totaled $111.2 billion from 1995-2017.
Fun fact, guess what they feed lots of livestock? CORN! Most corn and soy goes into processed junk food. A lot of corn isn't for human consumption because it's explicitly for producing High Fructose Corn Syrup. So yeah, we shouldn't subsidize corn either (or at least not blindly)!
Livestock Subsidies in the United States totaled $10.8 billion from 1995-2017.
You have failed to include that grazing on federal land is $1/acre instead of the market price of about $20/acre.
There are a LOT of hidden subsidies with the livestock industry.
Surprise, beef is substantially subsidized by the US government. If you removed the subsidies then we would all save a lot of money, beef would be for the rich and we could have nice things like health care.
Did Democrats suddenly experience an outbreak of fiscal responsibility?
What do you mean sudden? Which party exploded the budget with $1.5T of tax cuts for the rich? Which party deregulated banks until it caused a collapse? Which party has continually made a total mess every time they have the majority?
I not a member of either party but even I can tell it's the Republican party that has unrealistic fiscal aspirations that have all but driven this nation into the ground.
None of those things are happening, so no it doesn't want. Your mental masturbation is unhelpful in clarifying what is and instead goes off to consider a hypothetical situation.
These virtual assistants don't want anything, they are literally incapable of wanting. However, the corporations behind them desperately want to integrate them into people's lives. To call their motives nefarious is an understatement because they are downright diabolical. Consider, really consider what they are trying to do with these devices. The growing reliance on smartphones was mostly a fluke that they exploited but this is an intentional effort to do something similar but exploit it in minimalist fashion. It seems hyperbolic on the firsthand but when you give it some thought about the total lack of boundaries these devices have (remotely updated without consent to do anything) then you can see the tip of the iceberg.
So that price is just added to the cost of everything depending on how much CO2 it takes to produce? A carbon tax?
There is more than just CO2 to consider but that would be an excellent start.
You said: "Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place."
I'm asking what specifically that entails.
Aside from working to reduce my own ecological impact and supporting environmentalists, I'm working to get this idea of paying upfront for environmental damage incorporated into a future environmental bill. I'm not claiming it will happen but you insisted on knowing. The free market only works if you know the costs.
No, I'm pointing out that it's impractical. Can you do it for say even half a dozen products? Probably not.
I don't think it's impractical and you haven't pointed out anything that would make it impractical. Obviously you are not going to want to charge people 100% of the cost overnight as it will take a bit of time for corporations to adapt to the new cost optimization paradigm. As I wrote, "The free market isn't perfect but cost optimization is something it does very well."
If you believe it is indeed that dire then again, what is it you're doing?
Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place.
Wrong. It includes things like water vapour increase with temperature increase.
Those are feedback effects but they are far from being runaway effects. Perhaps you define it differently but to me if it's a runaway effect that means it's self-sustaining.
There's no evidence this is net increase or decrease as increased water vapour implies increased cloud cover, which itself reflects sunlight.
Wow, you are arrogant to think you are the only person that has even consider this. Understanding hydrology is the cornerstone of weather prediction.
The tuning is against past data so the model looks like it's accurate. You show the graph without any divergence today because you fitted it to past data, so it looks "accurate". The prediction of future warming is way too hot because the feedback assumptions in the model are wrong
The problem with this idea is that the models have been overly optimistic and it's hotter now than it we previously predicted. Assuming they are just data fitting then it's going to be even worse than predicted.
My argument is that it's not politically correct to research positive changes from warming and CO2 fertilisation. If you want tenure, you won't do it. If you want research grants, you won't do it. If you want other academics to say hello to you on campus you won't do it. And if you don't want to be piled on by mobs of NGO supported tards on social media, you won't do it.
You have presumed people are researching positive or negative impacts but research doesn't assume what the value of the impact beforehand but rather explains what has happened and concludes possible futures. If there are tangible benefits of any kind then Oil companies will fund that research and spend millions advertising it.
Haha, don't be daft. The 7C mentioned earlier is absurd based on the physics. Almost all of that increase is "runaway effect" (positive feedback).
7C? Who's the daft one now? Both I and the article clearly state it's 7F. The only runaway is effect being calculated is our use of polluting fuels in addition to the damage already done (which yet to come to full fruition).
The models using this clearly diverge from actual reality, which is why they have to be "tuned" to past data periodically. It's an exercise in curve fitting. People like you seem to think they're making some kind of super-robust prediction. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You're right that it's perfectly accurate but the "tuning" is not arbitrary, it's identifying previously unknown factors and correcting data from previously unidentified ill-calibrated sensors. For every time it's been "tuned" it's always turned out our previous estimate was too optimistic.
How is an argument to doubt the science because the reality is worse than predicted supposed to convey that in the future reality will be better than predicted?
Let's put it this way: the evidence for warming from CO2 is good. The sensitivity is nothing like the scenarios you suggest. The evidence for all the feedbacks needed to generate "runaway warming" is flimsy to non-existent.
Nobody claimed it was a runaway effect. The estimate is based on past, present and projected pollution. The report has 500 pages explaining this or you could have simply read the article.
There's been a 14% greening of the planet over the last 33 years as a result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (from satellite studies). This remarkable fact has been almost invisible to the mainstream media, NGOs and other activist scientists involved in perpetuating the paradigm.
I'm aware that the planet is getting greener as a result of CO2 and climate change. It's understood that flora will flourish in some regions while dying in others. The issue with climate change has always been about the death of fauna and the migration of arable regions of land. It's when the weather becomes erratic that crops are threatened but some flora will thrive. This doesn't mitigate the damage of climate change.
I would suggest you turn down your hysterics knob a few clicks.
You dismiss science as being hysterical instead of pointing to research that counters the evidence put forth? You response is as sound as that of an anti-vaxxer who is certain autism is a just a shot away.
Right. You know, all a researcher has to do is be a "climate skeptic" and they get funded by any number of oil companies, they don't even have to be a climatologist. Have you considered that fact?
Well now you've convinced me! Obviously, people always support the actions of their government. I suppose we should nuke North Korea because after all, they aren't victims of their government, they totally back it 100%./s
What's more likely, that climate scientists who have studies the Earth for decades are correct or some fool on Slashdot knows better despite never actually studying the climate? Occam's razor does not favor you.
The real issue is that audio of a CAPTCHA (for blind accessibility) defeats the CAPTCHA. The second part is speech-to-text (for deaf accessibility) brings it full circle. What they really need is a true audio version of CAPTCHA that speech-to-text is likely to flub.
Slashdot Mirror
Soybean Subsidies in the United States totaled $37.4 billion from 1995-2017
Corn Subsidies in the United States totaled $111.2 billion from 1995-2017.
Fun fact, guess what they feed lots of livestock? CORN! Most corn and soy goes into processed junk food. A lot of corn isn't for human consumption because it's explicitly for producing High Fructose Corn Syrup. So yeah, we shouldn't subsidize corn either (or at least not blindly)!
Livestock Subsidies in the United States totaled $10.8 billion from 1995-2017.
You have failed to include that grazing on federal land is $1/acre instead of the market price of about $20/acre.
There are a LOT of hidden subsidies with the livestock industry.
Unless it's substantially cheaper than beef
Surprise, beef is substantially subsidized by the US government. If you removed the subsidies then we would all save a lot of money, beef would be for the rich and we could have nice things like health care.
"unrealistic fiscal aspirations"
Just ask Harold from Person of Interest, he'll do it for just one dollar but there is a catch. ;)
Who's holding who ransom?
Did Democrats suddenly experience an outbreak of fiscal responsibility?
What do you mean sudden? Which party exploded the budget with $1.5T of tax cuts for the rich? Which party deregulated banks until it caused a collapse? Which party has continually made a total mess every time they have the majority?
I not a member of either party but even I can tell it's the Republican party that has unrealistic fiscal aspirations that have all but driven this nation into the ground.
806,300. It's not in any one area of the US either: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Reproving a user for pointing out a dupe by telling they must be new here? You must be new here.
None of those things are happening, so no it doesn't want. Your mental masturbation is unhelpful in clarifying what is and instead goes off to consider a hypothetical situation.
These virtual assistants don't want anything, they are literally incapable of wanting. However, the corporations behind them desperately want to integrate them into people's lives. To call their motives nefarious is an understatement because they are downright diabolical. Consider, really consider what they are trying to do with these devices. The growing reliance on smartphones was mostly a fluke that they exploited but this is an intentional effort to do something similar but exploit it in minimalist fashion. It seems hyperbolic on the firsthand but when you give it some thought about the total lack of boundaries these devices have (remotely updated without consent to do anything) then you can see the tip of the iceberg.
I DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO MY PHONE. Is that not clear enough ?
Have you considered telling your phone that you don't want to talk to it? ;)
So that price is just added to the cost of everything depending on how much CO2 it takes to produce? A carbon tax?
There is more than just CO2 to consider but that would be an excellent start.
You said: "Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place."
I'm asking what specifically that entails.
Aside from working to reduce my own ecological impact and supporting environmentalists, I'm working to get this idea of paying upfront for environmental damage incorporated into a future environmental bill. I'm not claiming it will happen but you insisted on knowing. The free market only works if you know the costs.
Well can you calculate it for even one thing?
Sure, it's not very expensive to capture CO2: $94 to $232 per ton CO2 from the atmosphere
The question is what to do with it afterward but I'm sure there are good uses.
No I mean specifically on this issue?
Why are you asking me what you mean?
No, I'm pointing out that it's impractical. Can you do it for say even half a dozen products? Probably not.
I don't think it's impractical and you haven't pointed out anything that would make it impractical. Obviously you are not going to want to charge people 100% of the cost overnight as it will take a bit of time for corporations to adapt to the new cost optimization paradigm. As I wrote, "The free market isn't perfect but cost optimization is something it does very well."
If you believe it is indeed that dire then again, what is it you're doing?
Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place.
Wrong. It includes things like water vapour increase with temperature increase.
Those are feedback effects but they are far from being runaway effects. Perhaps you define it differently but to me if it's a runaway effect that means it's self-sustaining.
There's no evidence this is net increase or decrease as increased water vapour implies increased cloud cover, which itself reflects sunlight.
Wow, you are arrogant to think you are the only person that has even consider this. Understanding hydrology is the cornerstone of weather prediction.
The tuning is against past data so the model looks like it's accurate. You show the graph without any divergence today because you fitted it to past data, so it looks "accurate". The prediction of future warming is way too hot because the feedback assumptions in the model are wrong
The problem with this idea is that the models have been overly optimistic and it's hotter now than it we previously predicted. Assuming they are just data fitting then it's going to be even worse than predicted.
My argument is that it's not politically correct to research positive changes from warming and CO2 fertilisation. If you want tenure, you won't do it. If you want research grants, you won't do it. If you want other academics to say hello to you on campus you won't do it. And if you don't want to be piled on by mobs of NGO supported tards on social media, you won't do it.
You have presumed people are researching positive or negative impacts but research doesn't assume what the value of the impact beforehand but rather explains what has happened and concludes possible futures. If there are tangible benefits of any kind then Oil companies will fund that research and spend millions advertising it.
Haha, don't be daft. The 7C mentioned earlier is absurd based on the physics. Almost all of that increase is "runaway effect" (positive feedback).
7C? Who's the daft one now? Both I and the article clearly state it's 7F. The only runaway is effect being calculated is our use of polluting fuels in addition to the damage already done (which yet to come to full fruition).
The models using this clearly diverge from actual reality, which is why they have to be "tuned" to past data periodically. It's an exercise in curve fitting. People like you seem to think they're making some kind of super-robust prediction. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You're right that it's perfectly accurate but the "tuning" is not arbitrary, it's identifying previously unknown factors and correcting data from previously unidentified ill-calibrated sensors. For every time it's been "tuned" it's always turned out our previous estimate was too optimistic.
How is an argument to doubt the science because the reality is worse than predicted supposed to convey that in the future reality will be better than predicted?
It's only when people are lead astray that's it's bad. See, totally not intrinsic. ;)
Let's put it this way: the evidence for warming from CO2 is good. The sensitivity is nothing like the scenarios you suggest. The evidence for all the feedbacks needed to generate "runaway warming" is flimsy to non-existent.
Nobody claimed it was a runaway effect. The estimate is based on past, present and projected pollution. The report has 500 pages explaining this or you could have simply read the article.
There's been a 14% greening of the planet over the last 33 years as a result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (from satellite studies). This remarkable fact has been almost invisible to the mainstream media, NGOs and other activist scientists involved in perpetuating the paradigm.
I'm aware that the planet is getting greener as a result of CO2 and climate change. It's understood that flora will flourish in some regions while dying in others. The issue with climate change has always been about the death of fauna and the migration of arable regions of land. It's when the weather becomes erratic that crops are threatened but some flora will thrive. This doesn't mitigate the damage of climate change.
I would suggest you turn down your hysterics knob a few clicks.
You dismiss science as being hysterical instead of pointing to research that counters the evidence put forth? You response is as sound as that of an anti-vaxxer who is certain autism is a just a shot away.
Right. You know, all a researcher has to do is be a "climate skeptic" and they get funded by any number of oil companies, they don't even have to be a climatologist. Have you considered that fact?
Well now you've convinced me! Obviously, people always support the actions of their government. I suppose we should nuke North Korea because after all, they aren't victims of their government, they totally back it 100%. /s
How are you this dumb?
Wow, you look at scientists and scientific evidence and decide it's all politics. You have brilliantly deluded yourself, sir.
This is an action shot of a asteroid giving birth. ;) #MyIgnoranceIsAsGoodAsYourKnowledge
Hey, guys, remember back when there were people shouting that 2018 was "SIX DAYS AGO"? ;)
They've all been captured by this nonsense.
What's more likely, that climate scientists who have studies the Earth for decades are correct or some fool on Slashdot knows better despite never actually studying the climate? Occam's razor does not favor you.
The real issue is that audio of a CAPTCHA (for blind accessibility) defeats the CAPTCHA. The second part is speech-to-text (for deaf accessibility) brings it full circle. What they really need is a true audio version of CAPTCHA that speech-to-text is likely to flub.
YouTube is predatory on children. There are is a lot worse than this going on. [...] some of the other cr*p they run across is absolutely diabolical.
What is some of the diabolical stuff? I'm honestly curious.