patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
751,120 comments in 77,213 posts by 11,012 registered users, 5 online now: errc, FortWayne, RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks, rocketjoe79, Straw Man

new post

Does it feel warmer than you were told?

By HEY YOU   Jun 30, 11:53am   1 link   1,299 views   37 comments   watch (1)   quote      

"After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

Comments 1-37 of 37     Last »

1   Tenpoundbass   1417/1419 = 99% civil   Jun 30, 11:54am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Good I was getting cold anyway.

2   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jun 30, 1:20pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (4)   quote    

Tenpoundbass says

Good I was getting cold anyway.

Well, if you hinder climate change policy, then we'll just have to seize your wealth to pay for the effects of climate change. When it comes to paying for climate change, the wealth of the deniers shall be confiscated first.

3   Tenpoundbass   1417/1419 = 99% civil   Jun 30, 1:27pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Without any clear sensible plan of action they would be met with lead and dead.

So bring more than Skittles.

4   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jun 30, 1:48pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Tenpoundbass says

Without any clear sensible plan of action they would be met with lead and dead.

Seizing most assets does not require anything more than a keyboard. As for hard assets like your house, go ahead and shoot at the cops that evict you with a court order. Let's see how that turns out.

Your rebel fantasy is implausible.

5   Straw Man   718/723 = 99% civil   Jun 30, 6:01pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

Well, if you hinder climate change policy, then we'll just have to seize your wealth to pay for the effects of climate change.

"We"? You and what army? Or was it the royal "we"?

6   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 1, 2:52am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

Tenpoundbass says

Good I was getting cold anyway.

Well, if you hinder climate change policy, then we'll just have to seize your wealth to pay for the effects of climate change. When it comes to paying for climate change, the wealth of the deniers shall be confiscated first.

Spoken like a true conservative Dan8267. I suppose the "we" you refer to in "we'll just have to seize your wealth" are the imaginary people you believe can quantify the cost of every human action in terms of impact on the climate. Where are these mythical "we"? It's as if you think you are one of them?

So Dan, where is your verified testing on the true cost in terms of climate change of something simple like taking a cold shower vs the massive waste of showering with a coal powered/nuclear powered electric water heater? Surely you must have the data on the dollar value of the negative impact on the climate that warm showers represents in order to justly defend the wealth confiscation.

Furthermore you must also have a plan on specifically how the confiscated wealth you intend to collect will be used to reverse the impact of the millions of American warm showering climate change deniers. In our global economy, how are you or the mythical "we" you speak of going to actually and literally reverse the climate change? What is this sci-fi climate change reversal mechanism that will support the growing global human population?

In order to further your conservative ideals, you/"we'll" need specifics, not just the typical alarmist hot air.

7   drBu   136/136 = 100% civil   Jul 1, 7:28am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

PeopleUnited says

true cost in terms of climate change of something simple like taking a cold shower vs the massive waste of showering with a coal powered/nuclear powered electric water heater?

Would be good to know how nuclear is changing climate. As far as I know, it is THE most environmentally friendly method for power generation and is essentially carbon-neutral, while even solar is not carbon neutral. And before someone screams "Chernobyl" - please see eco-diversity near Pripyat.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/abandoned-city-of-pripyat

As it turns out, from the animals point of view, a nuclear disaster is preferable to normal human habitation.

8   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 1, 8:30am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

drBu says

PeopleUnited says

true cost in terms of climate change of something simple like taking a cold shower vs the massive waste of showering with a coal powered/nuclear powered electric water heater?

Would be good to know how nuclear is changing climate. As far as I know, it is THE most environmentally friendly method for power generation and is essentially carbon-neutral, while even solar is not carbon neutral. And before someone screams "Chernobyl" - please see eco-diversity near Pripyat.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/abandoned-city-of-pripyat

As it turns out, from the animals point of view, a nuclear disaster is preferable to normal human habitation.

With few exceptions animals are better off living in a world without humans. We are not an essential component of a balanced ecosystem. We usually work against balance by our very nature as we mine everything we find for every last drop of short term profit. It is possible that environmental balance can only be achieved with smaller human global population or an extreme form of central planning and resources allocation (or both). Neither of these is likely without a huge war or other world disaster to set the stage. But humans will always pose a risk as long as we walk this earth. Climate change is not necessarily such a disaster, it may even be a net positive once we learn to adapt to the new normal.

The potential risks of losing control of a nuclear plant or its waste are also a concern for humans. There is simply no way to be certain of containment in the event of natural disaster, human error or attack. It isn't just biodiversity that needs to be preserved, we also want the world safe for humans.

9   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jul 1, 10:55am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

PeopleUnited says

Spoken like a true conservative Dan8267. I suppose the "we" you refer to in "we'll just have to seize your wealth" are the imaginary people you believe can quantify the cost of every human action in terms of impact on the climate.

Well, if by conservative you mean believing in personal responsibility. Oh, you don't.

People who create a problem should paid to fix it. The alternative is either making innocents pay for it or making innocents pay the effects of the problem. Neither is moral.

PeopleUnited says

So Dan, where is your verified testing on the true cost in terms of climate change of something simple like taking a cold shower vs the massive waste of showering with a coal powered/nuclear powered electric water heater?

This is a straw man argument like every one made by team theft. I have never proposed that people give up cars, air conditioning, or showers. I have proposed that businesses that pollute should be made to either clean up the pollution they create or pay to have it clean up. This is the free market solution. Why do you hate free markets?

10   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 1, 9:28pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan said: "This is a straw man argument like every one made by team theft. I have never proposed that people give up cars, air conditioning, or showers. I have proposed that businesses that pollute should be made to either clean up the pollution they create or pay to have it clean up. This is the free market solution.

Dan in the context of your comment...

Dan8267 says

Tenpoundbass says

Good I was getting cold anyway.

Well, if you hinder climate change policy, then we'll just have to seize your wealth to pay for the effects of climate change. When it comes to paying for climate change, the wealth of the deniers shall be confiscated first.

You are threatening to take money from people who "hinder climate change policy." There is no mention of businesses or pollution. Your denial of the above is disingenuous and your straw man claim is a false claim. You are literally threatening to confiscate the wealth of people who disagree with your views, not businesses as you claim in your walking your shit back statement. This is not science, it is ideology. The further absurdity of your position is that you want us to believe that the "free market" can stop climate change. But you refuse to provide any answers on how an economy such as ours which is by and large literally fueled by burning fuel can somehow be made carbon neutral by increasing costs of doing business. Why not at least be honest and admit that achieving carbon neutrality will cost the consumer more money? Increased business costs must be primarily borne by the consumer. Since most Americans drive gas powered automobiles or rely on other means of transportation that rely on the burning of fossil fuels, we all will pay more for transportation and goods and services that utilize transportation. Drilling down a little more, if gas prices increase to the carbon neutral level, many Americans will no longer be able to afford to drive, meaning their gas burner car is now worthless (loss of wealth) and must be replaced by an electric car ( a further reduction in wealth) or if not replaced their standard of living is reduced. The carbon neutral economy will present an increased burden on the working class who will pay for it in reduction of standard of living, reduced wealth (as old technology becomes obsolete) and increased costs for everything that is currently part of the carbon emissions based economy.

Carbon neutral initiatives are not as much a war on fossil fuels and the businesses who depend on them as much as they are a war on the working class whose standard of living depends upon cheap fossil fuels.

According to the EPA, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are:

Electricity production (29 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 67 percent of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas. So costs to consumers of electricity and products whose production depend on electricity will rise.

Transportation (27 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes gasoline and diesel. So cost of transportation and goods that are transported will rise.

Industry (21 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials. Cost of products will rise and many will lose their jobs as companies (or even entire industries such as airlines) can no longer produce an affordable product go bankrupt.

Commercial and Residential (12 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste. Cost of heating and cooling go up.

Agriculture (9 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production. Cost of food will rise.

Land Use and Forestry (offset of 11.8 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit. Owners of large land parcels (primarily the wealthy and the state, see a net benefit from carbon credits.

Our current world economy which supports the over 7 billion people on planet earth, runs on fossil fuels. And Dans solution to climate change is to force fossil fuel based businesses to pay for the cost of doing business by offsetting carbon emissions with carbon sinks, and cleaning up any polution they cause. The thing is that ultimately these costs will be borne by the consumer. The only way to achieve that is to reduce carbon emissions because there are not enough energy efficient carbon sinks to offset current carbon emissions. In short, Dan's solution is to end the fossil fuel based economy that supports those 7 billion people. And he wants us all to go along with it because the theory is that fossil fuels are producing a change in climate that will have catastrophic consequences to humans. The thing is that removing fossil fuels from our economy will have catastrophic consequences to the standard of living of working class people around the world, and that is assuming that our current population can even be supported by a carbon neutral economy.

Why can't Dan and the climate change activists be honest enough to tell the truth: their plans will reduce the wealth and standard of living for most people? Furthermore, climate change mitigation policies may not even be compatible with maintenance of current human population let alone population growth. Your "free market" solution favors the wealthy and the state at the expense of the 99%.

11   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jul 1, 11:23pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

PeopleUnited says

Why can't Dan and the climate change activists be honest enough to tell the truth: their plans will reduce the wealth and standard of living for most people?

Wealth obtained by destroying the environment impoverishes all future generations. If material wealth is all that you care about, then protecting the environment is still critical. Of course, carrying only about dollars and impoverishing future generations for those dollars is immoral. So PeopleUnited, tell me what your god thinks about destroying the world he allegedly created simply to satisfy your greed. Typical Christian immorality.

12   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 2, 5:23am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

It is your "free market" solution that will force more and more people into poverty. Your policies will not just raise the cost of Luxuries like cars and airplanes, it will raise costs of essentials like food, clothing, shelter and healthcare. There is nothing greedy about maintaining affordable food, clothing,shelter and healthcare. What the greedy climate change alarmists assume is that their own standard of living hopefully won't be affected, but they know full well that for the poor, their policies will be devastating. Climate change policies are designed to benefit the elites and the state at the expense of those on the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid. It is a war on the working class citizens of the world.

We should be mindful of pollution and work to clean it up. We should provide safe habitat and wild areas for maintenance of biodiversity. But what is immoral is to value carbon neutrality more than the 7 billion souls on the planet, most of whom will suffer under the policies that you and the climate change alarmists are forcing upon us. Your conservative policies provide artificial scarcity which will hurt the most vulnerable citizens of the world. Why do you hate the poor?

Furthermore there is reason for optimism that climate change can provide a new normal and may in the long run be a net benefit to the 7 billion people living on planet earth. Adaptability is in our nature. The liberal thing to do is to use fossil fuels until cheaper viable alternatives replace them. Any other policy is conservative.

13   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jul 3, 8:27am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

PeopleUnited says

It is your "free market" solution that will force more and more people into poverty.

So you are saying that you don't believe in free markets.

PeopleUnited says

Your policies will not just raise the cost of Luxuries like cars and airplanes, it will raise costs of essentials like food, clothing, shelter and healthcare.

Actually, it would lower the cost and raise the price, and if you understood economics, you would not need to be told this.

The price is what people buying the good or service pays. The cost is what all people including those not buying the good or service pays. The cost includes all cost shifting via pollution, and that costs increases dramatically when paid for with environmental degradation instead of with dollars. It's like going into debt at a obscenely high interest rate. It's always a bad, bad decision.

As for the price of essentials like food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare, you are wrong again. Health care costs are high because of capitalism, plain and simple. Eliminate private insurance and have a national health insurance system, and costs for health care will plummet. Add in single payer, and they are reduced even more. Standardize billing and accounting, and the costs drop even more. Nationalize hospitals, and again, the costs plummet. Don't blame high costs of health care on wise environmental management when it's needlessly expensive because of capitalism.

The entire reason why housing is expensive is because of land and property hording. Tax rental income and capital gains on real estate at 100%, and housing costs will plummet. Non-profit rentals that exactly pay for their expenses would better handle those needing to rent, reducing their rent easily by over 50%, allowing renters to move to owning far more easily and without having to take on massive debt. Do this and tax land rather than the building and we'll have far better usage of the land.

The price of clothing is determined entirely by marketing and capitalism. That $200 shirt you bought actually costs less than $2 to make, and it's made in China. You have to pay $200 for it because that's the point of maximum profit for the seller. It has nothing to do with the cost of the production and shipping of the shirt. So even if those cost rise, it would not affect the price. If the seller could charge $220 for the shirt, he already would be.

The price of food actually increases due to pollution and climate change. Food scarcity caused by climate change could cause 500,000 deaths by 2050, study suggests

The effects of climate change on food production around the world could lead to more than 500,000 deaths by the year 2050, according to a grim new study. Climate-related impacts on agriculture could lead to an overall global decline in food availability, the research suggests, forcing people to eat fewer fruits and vegetables and less meat. And the public health impacts of these changes could be severe.

Climate experts have long predicted severe consequences for global food security if serious steps are not taken to mitigate climate change. Rising temperatures, more frequent droughts and more severe weather events are expected to cause agriculture in certain areas to suffer, all while the global population — and its demand for food — continues to skyrocket.

If you actually cared about food prices and food availability, you'd be shitting your pants and demanding that government address climate change right now. Somehow I suspect your objections were insincere.

Climate change is the greatest moral issue of our time, and it is the Christians who are failing that moral challenge. So much for your false religion promoting morality and community. If there were any value in your religion, it would be compelling you to object to screwing over the entire world and countless future generations in order for the rich to make a little more short term profit. It's your religion that says it's easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

14   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 4, 6:00pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Cool story bro'. For someone who claims not to believe fairy tells this is proof of just how full of shit the alarmists are.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

It is your "free market" solution that will force more and more people into poverty.

So you are saying that you don't believe in free markets.

No I am saying you are a conservative who doesn't believe in free markets. There is nothing "free market" about carbon neutral regulations. And because you are a conservative you are pushing an agenda that will force people to give up their wealth against their will, just because they don't believe your fairytales.

And there is good reason to discredit and disbelieve alarmists like you. You start with your standard semantic arguments. As usual they are a waste of time. But in a round about way you finally admit, your policies will increase the prices of everyday essentials. Which means you alarmists are advocating policies which will pose an undue burden on people at the lower end of the socioeconomic pyramid. Why do you hate the poor?

Healthcare (in a free market which as you rightly point out is not in the United States where insurance companies, employers, drug companies and other large corporations collude to set prices/reimbursement/kickbacks) services depend on the same fossil fuels to power, produce and maintain quality care. Carbon neutral policies will not raise the level of care nor increase access for those most in need.

In your cool story bro' you forgot that inexpensive building materials are dependent on fossil fuels. So housing prices and even rents can be expected to rise under carbon neutral policies.

Another part of your cool story bro' that you left out is that that Chinese made shirt, was built in a factor powered by fossil fuels, made by workers who are essentially corporate/government slaves, and made from materials that are produced by fossil fuel consumption. That $2 shirt costs way more than $2 under the current system. And its price will be even higher if carbon neutrality is forced on the world by conservatives like you.

You really ought to be ashamed. You have such disrespect for your fellow humans that you feel the need to force them to bow to your ideology. Your self righteous tone and preaching is a disgrace to our species. It is no coincidence that a man like Trump should rise to office, as you and him are two peas in a pod. Pushing an agenda for self promotion at the expense of decency, respect and humanity. You ought to care more about the 7 billion souls on the planet and how they are going to make ends meet than some silly idealogy of carbon neutrality.

And besides all that, there is reason for optimism that we the people of planet earth will adapt to the changes in our world and continue to prosper despite the doomsday alarmists who want to steal your wealth like Dan.

Dan8267 says

Well, if you hinder climate change policy, then we'll just have to seize your wealth to pay for the effects of climate change. When it comes to paying for climate change, the wealth of the deniers shall be confiscated first.

Like a true conservative.

15   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jul 4, 11:31pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

PeopleUnited says

In your cool story bro' you forgot that inexpensive building materials are dependent on fossil fuels. So housing prices and even rents can be expected to rise under carbon neutral policies.

You're full of crap. Housing isn't expensive because it costs a lot to build houses. Housing is most expensive where there is no land to build more housing. It's hording of land that causes housing to be expensive, not materials.

PeopleUnited says

You really ought to be ashamed. You have such disrespect for your fellow humans that you feel the need to force them to bow to your ideology.

Hypocrisy much? I'm advocating that we stop impoverishing future generations destroying the very world they will depend on. You are giving them a big fuck you for nothing more than chasing dollars. And I'm the one disrespecting human beings? What color is the sky in your world?

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Well, if you hinder climate change policy, then we'll just have to seize your wealth to pay for the effects of climate change. When it comes to paying for climate change, the wealth of the deniers shall be confiscated first.

Like a true conservative.

So being a conservative is wrong then, correct?

In any case, those who create the problem and prevent it from being solved while it's still cheap to do so, should be made to pay for the eventual far more expensive problem created. Why should my money subsidize your foolishness and bad policies?

In any case, the fact that you don't give a damn about the most important moral issue of our time demonstrates what a moral failure Christianity is. Jesus would be ashamed of you if he were real.

16   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 6, 5:01pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

You're full of crap. Housing isn't expensive because it costs a lot to build houses. Housing is most expensive where there is no land to build more housing. It's hording of land that causes housing to be expensive, not materials.

You're spewing crap. The materials to build a decent house are becoming more costly every year. Building material costs have risen faster than the rate of inflation.
http://nahbnow.com/2017/01/key-building-materials-prices-far-surpassed-inflation-in-2016/
Furthermore, the building features that were considered standard in years past such as hardwood floors are now considered luxury upgrades. Even factoring in inflation, it costs more than ever to build houses of the same quality materials as were they were built from a century ago. You are so full of shit your sweat must be brown.

As for hoarding of land, in my experience it doesn't require hoarding of land to push up the price. Scarcity can occur without hoarding, as long as there is population growth. Population growth has been steady in many many places throughout the nation and world. It is the population growth (AKA increased demand) that has been the primary driver of non-construction cost related price increases. Once again you fail to understand the big picture thanks to your ideology.

17   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jul 6, 5:14pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

PeopleUnited says

You're spewing crap. The materials to build a decent house are becoming more costly every year.

Oh facts, why do they stink the foolish so?

How much does it cost to build a house

The average cost per square foot for a manufactured home is about $28.00 -- almost one-third the cost of a site-built home. The average cost of a manufactured home in South Dakota is $34,600 constructed at an average square footage cost of $28. On the other hand, the average square footage cost for a site-built home is $68.

So, labor and materials cost $68/sq.ft. for traditional building. Reduce labor costs with manufactured homes, and the cost drops to $28/sq.ft. And that's still including some labor.

Now, how much does the following house in LA cost?

Here's some hints. It's 1,276 sq. ft., built in 1956, and the asking price is "cash only". No losers with mortgages need apply.

Answer: $475,000

But hey, it's the current price of materials that make this house so expensive even though the house was built 60 years ago.

18   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 6, 5:36pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

I'm advocating that we stop impoverishing future generations destroying the very world they will depend on. You are giving them a big fuck you for nothing more than chasing dollars. And I'm the one disrespecting human beings? What color is the sky in your world?

Let's start by not impoverishing this generation with your sky is falling ideology. Stealing from the poor to enrich the wealthy is exactly what you are promoting. In your fantasy, the sky is falling. Guess what, in my world the sky is blue and the grass is green. Has been, and will be. You have no proof to the contrary. The ecosystem has survived catastrophy after catastrophy. It can handle more than you alarmists give it credit for. I'm not saying we should lay waste to the landscape, but we need not fear carbon emissions. That is a fake enemy created by alarmists like you who promote an agenda of forced poverty and artificial scarcity.

19   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 6, 5:38pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

So being a conservative is wrong then, correct?

Forcing people the poor people of earth to pay for your alarmist ideology is wrong. Yes. You are so brainwashed you fail to recognize how conservative you are.

20   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 6, 5:45pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

How much does it cost to build a house

The average cost per square foot for a manufactured home is about $28.00 -- almost one-third the cost of a site-built home. The average cost of a manufactured home in South Dakota is $34,600 constructed at an average square footage cost of $28. On the other hand, the average square footage cost for a site-built home is $68.

So, labor and materials cost $68/sq.ft. for traditional building. Reduce labor costs with manufactured homes, and the cost drops to $28/sq.ft. And that's still including some labor.

Now, how much does the following house in LA cost?

Cool story again bro' but your cute laughing clip masks your silly apples and oranges comparison. Man up, Take a house built in 1917, count the cost. Now build that EXACT same exact house in 2017. Cost difference will outpace inflation by a great deal. Even a kindergardener knows this.

By the way how dense do you have to be to compare a mobile home to a real house? That is genius!!

21   HEY YOU   1062/1062 = 100% civil   Jul 6, 6:02pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Tenpoundbass says

So bring more than Skittles.

Now that's funny!

22   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 6, 7:48pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

In any case, the fact that you don't give a damn about the most important moral issue of our time demonstrates what a moral failure Christianity is. Jesus would be ashamed of you if he were real.

The most important moral issue of our time is that lies like these you are spreading today are believed and used to force people to submit to ideology of the puppetmasters who you unwittingly serve. The good news is that one day soon, you will get to meet Jesus yourself. You will find out first hand what emotions He is experiencing, my guess is that shame is not one of them, and that your conversation won't have anything to do with me.

23   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 6, 7:59pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Oh facts, why do they stink the foolish so?

How much does it cost to build a house

The average cost per square foot for a manufactured home is about $28.00 -- almost one-third the cost of a site-built home. The average cost of a manufactured home in South Dakota is $34,600 constructed at an average square footage cost of $28. On the other hand, the average square footage cost for a site-built home is $68.

So, labor and materials cost $68/sq.ft. for traditional building. Reduce labor costs with manufactured homes, and the cost drops to $28/sq.ft. And that's still including some labor.

Now, how much does the following house in LA cost?

Dan I must remind you of your silly premise before we go any further down this rabbit hole you have used to distract from the fact that your ideology represents a war on poor people.

Dan8267 says

You're full of crap. Housing isn't expensive because it costs a lot to build houses. Housing is most expensive where there is no land to build more housing. It's hording of land that causes housing to be expensive, not materials.

So you state that housing is expensive because of hoarding. Which is by and large FALSE.

I pointed out that population growth is the primary driver of price increases in housing, aside from the increases due to increased cost of building materials and labor, because as population increases DEMAND increases.

You counter with a rundown shack in LA which is confirming what I said all along. Increased population = increased demand. Or are you sticking to your lies that hoarding is the reason why that shack might sell for an insane amount? No as dense as you are I'm sure you agree with me, that the demand for that shack is high because there is a large population of people who want to live in that location not because of hoarding as you falsely claim above.

If you read the record, I never stated that there are not other forces besides increase in building material costs that affect housing price. I merely stated the fact that carbon neutral policies WILL increase the price of housing and rents because they will in fact increase the prices of building materials. This will no doubt pose a greater burden for people of lower socioeconomic status and you should be ashamed of your attacks on the poor. Besides that, you really are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and are bad at it and getting worse. It is probably because you are become more conservative as you age.

24   BlueSardine   836/854 = 97% civil   Jul 6, 8:15pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

I was never told, so have no reference...

HEY YOU says

Does it feel warmer than you were told?

25   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jul 7, 8:18am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

PeopleUnited says

Forcing people the poor people of earth to pay for your alarmist ideology is wrong.

That's a bullshit straw man. I'm forcing the rich to pay for the cleanup of the pollution they create. Right now the rich and you force poor people to pay for the cost of pollution and climate change. Every single study has shown that the poor are most adversely effected by pollution and climate change. You are using the poor as political pawn in promoting your lies, and you are hurting the poor by doing this. Utter hypocrisy. How Christian of you. Christians have always used the poor as pawns.

And calling acknowledgment of reality "alarmist" is also bullshit. The real world effects of climate change have been well documented. I could far more easily label you an "Islam alarmist".

PeopleUnited says

Cool story again bro' but your cute laughing clip masks your silly apples and oranges comparison. Man up, Take a house built in 1917, count the cost. Now build that EXACT same exact house in 2017. Cost difference will outpace inflation by a great deal. Even a kindergardener knows this.

Honey, with increased technology, it is far cheaper to build an equivalent house today. Hell, companies are already printing houses.

Of course, you wouldn't legally be allowed to build a 1917 style death trap house today because we have real building codes.

But even putting that aside, if building materials were the real cost in housing, then it would not be damn expensive to buy an old house. The example I gave completely disproves your lie. At this point, the only move you can make that would show any integrity would be to admit your lies and apologize.

Again, you demonstrate Christian "morality" perfectly.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

In any case, the fact that you don't give a damn about the most important moral issue of our time demonstrates what a moral failure Christianity is. Jesus would be ashamed of you if he were real.

The most important moral issue of our time is that lies like these you are spreading today are believed

Are you really so delusional as to think that thousands of lines of independent evidence all telling the exact same story have been faked by tens of thousands of scientists across the entire planet? @Patrick, this is exactly why Christianity is even more dangerous than Islam. Even ISIS does not risk the damage that Christians like PeopleUnited does by allowing lying, conniving politicians to destroy the world ecosystem. No wonder half of all wildlife has been killed off in the past 40 years.

PeopleUnited says

Dan I must remind you of your silly premise before we go any further down this rabbit hole you have used to distract from the fact that your ideology represents a war on poor people.

1. You are conceding that I've caught you in a lie.
2. Making theft and vandalism illegal is not an ideology.
3. Christianity is an ideology and a bad one at that.
4. It is YOU who is making war on poor people. You are literally causing the deaths of poor people.

National Geographic: See What Climate Change Means for the World’s Poor

Climate change has been linked to increased frequency and intensity of destructive weather events, such as floods and hurricanes. But the effects of a warming planet on crops may pose an even greater danger, especially for the world’s poor, according to the World Bank.

“Agriculture is one of the most important economic sectors in many poor countries,” says a report from the institution. “Unfortunately, it is also one of the most sensitive to climate change given its dependence on weather conditions, both directly and through climate-dependent stressors (pests, epidemics, and sea level rise).”

If you’re poor, you spend a higher percentage of your total income on food. In some regions, the poorest residents use more than 60 percent of their income to buy food while for the wealthiest, it’s less than 10 percent.

Food prices would increase the most in these regions.

There are health risks beyond malnutrition. Disease rates are expected to rise. World leaders are now meeting in Paris to negotiate plans to curb CO2 emissions in an effort to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius. The World Bank report says a small rise in temperatures “could increase the number of people at risk for malaria by up to 5 percent, or more than 150 million more people affected. Diarrhea would be more prevalent, and increased water scarcity would have an effect on water quality and hygiene.”

Newsweek: How Climate Change's Effect on Agriculture Can Lead to War

At this week's World Government Summit in Dubai, the subject of climate change had a prominent place in discussions led by the world's preeminent scientists, professors, business leaders and heads of state. In particular focus was the effect climate change could have on the world's food supply, which most agree will be catastrophic if both the public and private sectors don't do enough to combat rising temperatures.

"The implications are enormous," said Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon of the Waterloo Institute for Complexity and Innovation. "It affects every aspect of the global food supply around the planet."

We're finding that [climate change] a powerful factor in a number of cases [of violent conflict]. Often, the links are directly through food supply. One case that has been examined quite a bit—there is some controversy around this but I think it's quite clear—is the Syrian Civil War. You had a serious drought in the eastern Mediterranean in the years 2008 to 2010 or so, which produced an enormous impact on food systems and agricultural systems in the northern part of the country, which resulted in a flood of about 1-1.5 million people into urban areas in Syria. The people who weren't able to be absorbed by these economies, given the other factors and stresses within the country, could have contributed to a tipping of the society. Many of the cities who received the most migrants are where we saw the first revolts against the Assad regime.

But hey, while your inflicting war, famine, pestilence, death -- the four horsemen of the apocalypse -- onto the poor, be sure to virtue signal how holy your position is. Utter hypocrisy.

PeopleUnited says

I pointed out that population growth is the primary driver of price increases in housing

Your statement is an utter lie. Population increase does not explain the first or second housing bubble. Prices rose while population remained relatively stable. Prices also fell as population rose. There is not even a correlation between the great rise in housing prices and the U.S. population. There is a great correlation between speculation and rising prices.

26   Dan8267   3636/3684 = 98% civil   Jul 7, 8:18am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

PeopleUnited says

If you read the record, I never stated that there are not other forces besides increase in building material costs that affect housing price

You told the lie that stopping pollution and devastating climate change would increase housing costs. In reality, allowing tens of trillions of dollars of real estate from being destroyed by rising sea levels would increase housing costs. Everything that you have said has been the Bizarro World exact opposite of the truth.

PeopleUnited says

Besides that, you really are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and are bad at it and getting worse.

Another lie, just like your religion. I am making sure your lies do not go unchallenged. There are real world consequences for ignoring problems. Only fools allow problems to fester and grow.

PeopleUnited says

It is probably because you are become more conservative as you age.

Now you are indulging in your fantasies.

Climate change an environmental management is only a conservative right sore point because the conservative right is evil. To any sane person, preserving environmental wealth and preventing uncontrolled climate change has nothing to do with politics or culture and everything to do with protecting life, economic productivity, and preventing war and unrest.

27   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 7, 4:15pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

I'm forcing the rich to pay for the cleanup of the pollution they create.

No, you are threatening to cap carbon emissions which will create artificial scarcity and increased prices of everyday essentials. Your ideology will put an undue burden on people who are on the lower levels of the socioeconomic pyramid. No matter how long you bark, you still can't escape the fact that you and the elite puppet masters who you serve are desperately trying to force higher prices on everyone. You literally hate humanity so much that you seek to drive up prices on essentials like food, shelter, clothing and healthcare, let alone transportation!

Dan says "Honey, with increased technology, it is far cheaper to build an equivalent house today."

Sorry Sweetheart, it is not cheaper to build an equal house today. It is so expensive to build an equivalent house today that almost nobody even tries. When they do it looks like this.
http://hookedonhouses.net/2013/11/14/a-queen-anne-victorian-designed-in-1885-built-in-2002/
Originally built in 1885. Built again in 2002. In 1885 it cost $6500 to build it, which is about $120,000 inflation adjusted for 2002. Guess what it cost to build it in 2002? If you ask Dan it should cost less than $120,000. That is because his ideology has warped his brain.

28   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 7, 4:20pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

if building materials were the real cost in housing,

Yes they are a real cost in housing. Try building one with your fairytale dust sweetheart. Really you are just pathetic trying to say that building materials are not an important part of the cost of a new house. And the sad fact is that carbon neutral policies will make those materials even more expensive. Housing prices will rise, rents will soar, and the poor will bear the lion's share of the burden for your alarmist ideology.

29   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 7, 4:39pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Climate change has been linked to

Translation: Dan's ideology tells him that natural disasters are caused by carbon emissions.

Reality: There are more people than ever in the world, and more people means larger cities, and larger cities mean more property and when you add it all up it is harder for storms NOT to be a problem because people live just about everywhere now. But it is a function of population growth nothing more. The sky is not falling chicken little. The carbon boogie man doesn't exist. There is no need for your conservative ideology.

30   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 7, 4:47pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

At this week's World Government Summit in Dubai

Translation: My elite puppetmasters got together this week to preach the latest propaganda designed to fleece the sheep of the world and scare them into submission to our scheme of artificial scarcity and price increases.

Reality: The elites are afraid that the people will realize that the wealthy who run this world are fucking over the poor and working class, so they have created a scapegoat to distract everyone. The genius of the elites plan is that it will force even greater poverty, higher prices and artificial scarcity that will further solidify their control and influence over the masses. The elite/wealthy love carbon neutral policies. They invented them! You are a pawn of these elites.

31   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 7, 5:00pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

I pointed out that population growth is the primary driver of price increases in housing

Your statement is an utter lie. Population increase does not explain the first or second housing bubble. Prices rose while population remained relatively stable. Prices also fell as population rose. There is not even a correlation between the great rise in housing prices and the U.S. population. There is a great correlation between speculation and rising prices.

Population growth increases demand for housing. This is not even a point of contention were I talking to anyone else but a butthurt ideologue.
Increased demand pushes up prices. This is not hard even for a die hard conservative like you to understand. (i'm not interested in talking about bubbles, but I am certain that your alarmist ideology is creating many bubbles and areas of speculation). And remember, it is not just an increase in US population that drives up prices in the US, there are people around the world that buy property here. Increased global population has increased demand for housing. Take away half of the earth's population (something you alarmists would love to do) and I guarantee property values would not be where they are today.

32   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 7, 5:02pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

You told the lie that stopping pollution and devastating climate change would increase housing costs.

No, I told the truth, that your alarmist carbon neutral ideology will drive up prices and that the poor will bear an even greater share of the burden for your conservative policies.

33   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 7, 5:08pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

There are real world consequences for ignoring problems. Only fools allow problems to fester and grow.

And that is exactly why I will not suffer your lies to go unchallenged. We have every reason to believe that humanity, and the ecosystem is capable of adapting to climate changes and thriving. The population is booming and I expect scientists and engineers will continue to find ways to sustain more and more life, in bigger cities and in more numerous and diverse locations around the globe. Your alarmist ideology is a setback to human development and evolution.

34   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 7, 5:20pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Now you are indulging in your fantasies.

Climate change an environmental management is only a conservative right sore point because the conservative right is evil. To any sane person, preserving environmental wealth and preventing uncontrolled climate change has nothing to do with politics or culture and everything to do with protecting life, economic productivity, and preventing war and unrest.

No you are projecting. Hypocrite much?

Your ideology will lead to increased prices, increased wealth disparity, civil unrest, war, poverty and destruction. Thanks a lot chicken little, your policies will cause the exact things you claim to try to prevent. How can you not see the conservative ideology that you spout is playing right into the hands of the global elites? Your brainwashing is complete. You have become an enemy of your own self to the glee of the puppetmasters ready to shout: "your salvation is come" as they lead you away in shackles of artificial scarcity and increased prices. You have abandoned reason for madness, thinking you can control something you don't even come close to understanding the complexity of such as earth's climate.

35   PeopleUnited   434/434 = 100% civil   Jul 11, 1:22am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Supporters of the anthropocentric global warming (AGW) hypothesis assume a-priori that higher warming rates prove the human influence on climate, while 'skeptics' try to defend the lower warming rates as if these somehow disprove the AGW view... The reality is that warming rates by themselves provide no indication for the actual causes of observed climatic changes over recent decades. Climate is ALWAYS changing and I do not know any scientist, who would argue otherwise, which is why the term "climate denier" is such a misnomer... The real issue is not what the exact rate of recent warming is, but what physical mechanisms are driving the observed variations in Earth's climate on different time scales. Answering this key question requires a much more fundamental thinking and research than adjusting temperature data sets by a fraction of a degree...

For example, a new study based on objective analysis of vetted NASA planetary data from the Solar System suggests that the actual fundamentals in our current understanding of the so-called "natural greenhouse effect" (which forms the backbone of current climate science) might be physically incorrect. The study results indicate that the "greenhouse effect" is not a radiative phenomenon controlled by "heat-trapping" gases in the atmosphere (as currently believed), but represents a form of compression heating driven by total atmospheric pressure, which is independent of atmospheric composition! This is a PARADIGM SHIFT supported by empirical data from across the Solar System.

Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1:112.s. DOI: 10.4172/2573-458X.1000112
URL: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

36   HEY YOU   1062/1062 = 100% civil   Jul 11, 9:39am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

BlueSardine says

I was never told, so have no reference...

You're in good company.
Patnetters don't have a reference point. rofl

Comments 1-37 of 37     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home