patrick.net

jazz music says

It's happening, it's too late,

Yep. Let's enjoy life.

Peter P says

sbh says

Peter P says

I think cooking and sex would be a better combination.

Go with something Roman, then.

Commandment #1: Thou shalt not use cream in Carbonara.

Hey, this could be a Pastafarian sect. :-)

That's it! We're starting our own religion. Let's just admit, up-front, that it's about the money. Rules will only be created because they result in the highest returns.

The sad part is... there are people who would follow us.

Our planet is so fucked!

sbh says

and as long as I manipulate color in real time I ain't too bad for a Y chromosome.

I'm an XX and I'm not always great with color. I painted my entire downstairs "sinus-infection yellow" before I noticed the problem.

Remember folks, religion is a journey... not a destination. We are a very forgiving sect.... assuming your tithing is current.

sbh says

How much must I tithe in order to be made immune to the glycemic load of pasta?

How much have you got?

That's where the guilt comes in. Is it all just about you? Don't you have a responsibility to help your lesser-abled fellow man fight against the glycemic load of pasta? How much is a better world worth to you? Can you really put a price on that? Give, give, give.

sbh says

She was a triathlete. I was just a blue collar grunt.

It's a matter of framing. :-)

The Holy Pasta will have truffle!

turtledove says

You don't think that's worth questioning, Marcus? Because once the business side of it is set into place, interested parties will fight to the death to make sure that it continues undisturbed, irrespective of what science says at any time in the future. The very people I've heard you rile against will be the likely beneficiaries.

I think solutions are worth questioning.

I think that if we could all agree that AGW is happening and that it's man made, then and only then can we really start to have some meaningful discussions about what to do about it.

Any reasonable solution is going to put incentives on us getting off of fossil fuels sooner rather than later. This might be beneficial to a sustainable future anyway, because we will always be using some oil. It would be nice if it was fairly cheap. Even in the distant future.

The idea that there are already powerful liberals positioned to profit from AGW in ways that dwarf the profits currently being made off of fossil fuels is by far the most ludicrous claim that I frequently hear from the deniers.

Because once the business side of it is set into place, interested parties will fight to the death to make sure that it continues undisturbed, irrespective of what science says at any time in the future.

This makes little sense to me. Much of business is still determined by markets. Sure, it will be big corporate interests that invest in new utilities or whatever. And I guess markets that trade in carbon credits could take on a life of their own. But the net result is incentives for progressing away from the energy sources that are the cheapest in the short run near term, but most expensive to us all in the long run.

That's really the problem. Actually all of humanity is "profiting" off of the cheap energy we get from oil. But there is a price we are paying, or future generations will be paying. And that's being denied by many.

Truthfully I think that science is capable of answering many of the toughest questions. But there are many questions we don't really want to know the answer to, or that we aren't even willing to even ask.

marcus says

The idea that there are already powerful liberals positioned to profit from AGW in ways that dwarf the profits currently being made off of fossil fuels is by far the most ludicrous claim that I frequently hear from the deniers.

You see, here's the problem I have with your "religion." Anyone who doesn't agree with you, wholeheartedly, is a "denier." How, exactly am I a denier? Do I deny climate change? No....

Back in the middle ages, anyone who questioned the religious tenets of the dominant religion was called a "heretic." It didn't matter what portion they disputed. No one considered the potential validity of the argument. They were heretics, without question.

You call anyone who disagrees with any point a "denier" and claim, therefore, that they don't believe in science.

So from where you are siting, we are either -- right now -- all in.... or all out. I hate to break it to you... but that, is the enemy of science.

I'm AGW agnostic.

jazz music says

Here's some red meat for you right wingers

ah, 2012 was the all-time low. Got me worried for a moment.

"Although, the last two summers had seen greater coverage than the record-setting low of 2012, she cautioned that the long-term trend was still clear: September Arctic sea ice is declining in extent by more than 10% per decade.

"The eight lowest ice covers in the satellite record have now occurred in the past eight years."

There's a pizza place in San Jose that only plays Fox News on the TV, and the owner -- a very nice man btw -- likes talking politics and history to the patrons.

5 years ago or so he made the assertion that Antarctic ice was expanding (thus global warming was a fraud). I didn't know the right-wing information he was using for this so just said "hmm, that's interesting".

Actually, of course, now I've learned that land-ice is melting

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050

while sea-ice is expanding, due to something ice experts don't fully understand (either higher winds and/or lower salt content)

Sea ice doesn't stop sealevel rise, so the only thing that matters is water content of the land ice.

turtledove says

Anyone who doesn't agree with you, wholeheartedly, is a "denier." How, exactly am I a denier? Do I deny climate change? No....

Actually, I wasn't even referring to just you. But since you mention it, you not a denier? You could have fooled me.

turtledove says

I think climate change is the religion of the left.

turtledove says

The problem lies in the desperate need for a reason why.... even if we have to make one up

turtledove says

Mars is also suffering from warming.... well, forget about that because that fact goes against our argument that warming is manmade.

turtledove says

if it turns out that we, humans that is, aren't causing it.... Therefore, the science must prove the theory that keeps the climate players in power and allows them to control the money, which, of course, guarantees that they stay in power.

turtledove says

Perhaps they could start out by saying that it's getting cooler (1970s)... then when that doesn't pan out, they'll show how it's getting warmer.... then when that doesn't pan out, they'll say that cooling is part of the warming. See what I mean? Right no matter what.

You're pretty dug in to this,.. and "winning" in your mind, as if you have a reasonable position to stake out here. I believe that you don't. And not because I'm infallible or your BS that this is a religion.

Let me ask you this.

Lets say that 50 years from now, we get to where a much greater majority of us acknowledge not only global warming, but also that it's caused by man and that what man does in the future impacts it.(btw, to remind you, that's what anthropogenic means - you can't say that you don't deny AGW).

Will it still be a religion then, if we can get to the point of reaching that agreement ?

How great does the majority of people that accepts AGW have to be for it not to be a religion?

What is it that makes it a religion now? Is it simply that you don't believe that we know it's man made, and that reminds you of the time that you realized you didn't believe in religion or in god ?

Speaking of religion. I believe that the republican dogma which says government can not solve problems and can not do anything well (despite all the evidence to the contrary), is the root of the issue you have here.

And it is true, that republicans do make proving this one of their highest priorities. IF government is dysfuntional and doesn't work, it would seem to justify low taxes.

If AGW is real, solutions to this involve interfering with markets. Possibly getting us away from fossil fuels while they are still the cheapest source of energy.

turtledove says

from where you are siting, we are either -- right now -- all in.... or all out

I'm only all in on acknowledging what's true or what's likely enough to be true to take seriously.

turtledove says

I hate to break it to you... but that, is the enemy of science.

And you'r wrong. Many times in the past science has gotten to the point of 100% certainty on something. That's not anti science. I don't know that science has ruled with 100% certainty on AGW. I would say it is very close to 100% certain, that greenhouse gas levels are a big part of the cause, but the predictions they give us come from models, and are only educated guesses.

It's pro science to understand and accept that our best educated guesses are what we have to work with here. I'm not opposed to being careful about solutions.

But can we at least agree that there is a problem?

marcus says

Actually, I wasn't even referring to just you. But since you mention it, you not a denier ? YOu could have fooled me.

Every single thing I said attacked not the existence of climate change, but the reason why it occurs and the mandated solution. Show me where I ever said that climate change doesn't exist? I believe I said the opposite no less than two times in this very thread.

Are you suggesting that my comparison to a religion means that I'm saying that climate change doesn't exist? Please don't confuse my irreligiosity (I might have made up that word) with an outright denial of climate change... which, I might point out is an assumption on your part and not an explicit statement by me.

My comparison is not to say that neither exist. Believe it or not, my aversion to religion has nothing to do with God or the hereafter. I don't have enough information to say definitively that neither is possible. My aversion is to the institution. I see a parallel institution forming with respect to climate change.

marcus says

Lets say that 50 years from now, we get to where we acknowledge not only global warming, but also that it's caused by man and that what man does in the future impacts it.

Don't be absurd. If climate change is occurring because the golden retrievers of the world chew chair legs then that's something that we can change. Obviously, we should then discourage our goldens from chewing chair legs. But I'm not going to mandate that chair chewing goldens pay serious fines because you THINK they might be affecting climate change. The world's climate changes. We know this. It changed before goldens even walked this earth... even before the very first golden chewed his very first chair leg. Tell me something truly practical that can be done, and I will be first in line to try to make a difference. Tell me I have to pay for something that you think MIGHT be causing it when there is evidence that other things caused the same phenomenom in the past... I get suspicious of your motivations. I have to wonder... How does money solve the problem of climate change, exactly?

As a person who sits a little to the left, I would think that you would appreciate Marxist history. Marxist history is based on two ideas: 1) Money is what motivates people most. If you want to find out why something happened, 'follow the money.' and 2) History is not dominated by 'great men', but by different classes - different groups of people - competing against each other.

So why is Marxist history relevant here? Because money really motivates people strongly; 'greed' is the most sincere emotion there is.

Again, I ask... Why is the solution to climate change, money?

turtledove says

Every single thing I said attacked not the existence of climate change, but the reason why it occurs

Again, anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming refers not only to the warming trend, but also to the cause.

I'm not arguing for any particular mandated change. I'm just saddened that our government is so fucked up that it probably won't legislate anything meaningful as if AGW is real in my lifetime.

turtledove says

Why is the solution to climate change, money?

You answered this. Because money is a strong motivator.

We will eventually have energy sources that are not only cleaner, but also cheaper than oil. But only after decades of scaling up. You know, economies of scale.

By doing things like having high taxes on gasoline, and taxing entities that pollute, we expedite the change. That crossover point where the newer and cleaner sources of energy become cheaper than fossil fuels arrives sooner.

Yes, money makes the world go round.

If the changes required to cut carbon emissions didn't cost money, they would already be in effect.

(I can't believe I had to type that.)

marcus says

solutions to this involve interfering with markets

add that to my above "perfect shit-storm" list.

part of the deal with this 'religion' thing is that disagreeing about e.g. gay marriage, evolution or even abortion with the conservatives comes with a lot lower stakes.

a mature, data-driven approach to this issue has to factor in the incredibly horrific consequences coming to humanity if the science on this does in fact pan out.

scientists studying this could still be wrong, and big oil & coal could be in the clear to continue liberating fossil carbon into the environment. but if not . . .

oh yeah, add another item to the "perfect storm" list -- the solution requires collective action of changing our future behavior from past norms.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

and a foundational aspect of being stupid is not being able to accurately account for the possible future ramifications of one's present actions.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

as Forrest's mom said 'stupid is what stupid does', and killing your own planet's ecosystem ranks right up there!

which reminds me, another item for the list is that so many conservatives want the world to end so everyone can go home to Jesus and His flying ~1400 mile on a side Borg cube of gold.

http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/11/believers-sympathizers-skeptics-americans-conflicted-climate-change-environmental-policy-science/

Bellingham Bill says

as Forrest's mom said 'stupid is what stupid does', and killing your own planet's ecosystem ranks right up there!

But we can't make anyone pay for the unpriced externality of pollution, because that involves money. Somehow, through a mechanism that is not clear, this proves that carbon pollution is not the cause of global heating.

Funny how fast conservatives choose not to understand economics 101 when its precepts cause them discomfort.