patrick.net

tr6 says

FortWayne says

I don't know about inflation, but business will grow quite a bit with less regulation and more incentives to grow.

How did less regulation work out in 2000s? You have a short memory. Do you even know which regulations Trump is getting rid of?

I don't have to know, I trust they know what they are doing.

You'd never know that we were ruled by the Golden Child Community Organizer these past 8 years.

And Carlos Slim was the recipient of re-privatized ex-nationalized Telecoms, Banks, Etc. from his pals in the PRI.

40% of the value listed on the Mexico Stock Exchange, and the richest person in the world several years running. Still on the top 10.

Where's the profile of this man's shenanigans, NYT?

Dan8267 says

I am seeing 1 degree warming over the last century.

Which is damn significant. It's not how hot you feel. It's how the climate changes everything from sea levels to weather patterns to habitability zones for every creature on the planet.

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

You'd never know that we were ruled by the Golden Child Community Organizer these past 8 years.

Yes, I get the Obama criticism. Why are not criticizing Trump for trying to make corporations even bigger?

tr6 says

Yes, I get the Obama criticism. Why are not criticizing Trump for trying to make corporations even bigger?

You just don't understand lips world. Obama does it=bad. Trump does it=good. Really simple.

Hater says

Fear, Like how global warming will kill you if you don't give up money via taxes.

No, you're thinking of terrorism. Conservatives are always saying we have to pay trillions in taxes and debt and give up human rights to fight terrorism.

Liberals are saying we should stop letting corporations pollute the Earth. Pollution costs us wealth. Pollution is a form of theft that decreases the GDP and impoverishes us.

Dumping heavy metals into streams is not the most efficient use of resources. Whatever money is saved by polluters is more than lost by other people such as fishermen who lose their catch from the pollution to people who have to spend health care dollars fighting the negative health effects of pollution. And cleaning up after the fact is far more expense than not polluting in the first place.

Furthermore, allowing polluters to pollute is effectively undermining free markets by picking winners and losers. Allowing pollution is essentially subsidizing polluters at the expense of everyone else. This means that the cost of items made by polluters is less than their true cost while the costs of items produced by non-polluters is greater. Why do you hate free markets so much? Why do you believe in welfare for a select few?

Conservatives are just bad at business and economics.

Hater says

Uncertainty like when Al Gore said the arctic summer ice would be completely gone by 2013

Except that never happen. You are repeating another debunked lie. Go ahead, call my hand.

Hater says

When I was young the climatologists talked of the coming ice age; some still do.

Another debunked lie. Are you incapable of truth?

Hater says

Again, I have no doubt that increasing populations and pollution are not good for the future of the planet but this global warming hysteria is downright religious.

That's a cop-out. Hysteria is calling terrorism an existential threat. Hysteria is claiming that whistle blowers compromise national security. There is nothing hysterical about my claims.

Go ahead and try to refute any of my claims.
1. Rising temperatures will move the mosquito line upwards exposing millions of people to malaria.
2. Rising sea levels will endanger trillions of dollars of real estate along the coastal regions of the United States.
3. Previous productive farm land will be subjected to droughts or flooding.
4. Terrorism will increase due to the political instability created by climate change.

Go on, try and refute those things.

People who use the term "hysteria" to mask their apathy should get no say in climate change policy. The idea that we should do nothing about pollution or climate change is utterly ridiculous.

Pollution should be outlawed as much as is possible. Where it is not possible to outlaw it, pollution should be taxed the full amount it costs to clean it up. This includes carbon and methane taxes. The tax revenue should be used only to clean up pollution and repair the damage done by it. This is the free market solution.

Hater says

How fast is the sea level rising?

"Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."

from http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Interesting that they do not refer to themselves as a South Korean paper, only "Korean":

Korea’s leading daily,the JoongAng Ilbo publishes a high quality
English-language newspaper, Korea JoongAng Daily.
It provides you with not only the major articles of the JoongAng
Ilbo, but also in-depth reports on the foreign community in
Korea including business coverage and social activities plus an
introduction to Korean culture.

Hater says

Climatologists were wrong then (maybe) what makes them so right now?

First off, science is a self-correcting mechanism. It should be expected that scientific predictions get better with time. When hurricane predictions were first started they were barely accurate. The actual path deviated from the predicted path, not completely, but largely. As time went on, the predictions became more accurate. Today, the actual paths have almost no deviation from the predicted paths. It's called progress.

So even if scientists were predicting another ice age in the 1960s, that would not invalidate today's predictions. Science, technology, and measurements become better and more detailed with time. The very principle you are proposing is wrong.

Second, you once again have gotten the facts all wrong. Although a few climate scientists wrote papers stating that another ice age might occur, the overwhelming number, even in the 1960s thought that global warming was far, far more likely. This is reflected in the sheer numbers of papers written about the latter. As time progressed, the global warming evidence mounted and now all papers predict and measure global warming.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Of course, now that I have presented the evidence that contradicts your conclusions, your reaction will be
Oh, wow. I did not know that. You're right. The scientific evidence is, and has always, been that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution. Now that I have the evidence and that you have shown me that the bogus evidence I had read was debunked, I'll change my mind to reflect what dozens of reputable scientific organizations, thousands of independent lines of evidence, and millions of scientists around the world have concluded. After all, if I didn't change my mind at this point, I'd be a complete hypocrite using fake evidence I knew was fake to convince people of what I knew to be a lie.

I await your retraction of every claim you have made in this thread.

Hater says

Oh, I see. Al Gore said "could".

And he was right. Based on the evidence, the worst case scenario was what he presented as the worst case scenario. The best case scenario was also what he presented as the best case scenario. We are better off than that worst case scenario, but we are also certainly worse off than the best case scenario.

It's funny how this is almost always the case in reality. That reality falls somewhere between the worst and best cases. It's almost as if the two extremes represent upper and lower bounds.

So are you admitting that you were wrong about Gore? Or does that take more emotional maturity than you can muster?

Hater says

Dan8267 says

3. Previous productive farm land will be subjected to droughts or flooding.

and new farmland will open up.

So, how exactly will one farm in downtown New York City?

And have you thought that entire nations that are dependent upon their agricultural industry to feed themselves will experience mass starvation? Not every country has as much land as the United States, particularly at varying latitudes. But hey, fuck everyone who's not an American. They deserve to die for not having the intelligence of being born in America.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

4. Terrorism will increase due to the political instability created by climate change.

REALLY!!!

Where is your proof?

Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change

The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.

The report lays out a road map to show how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic military planning situations to a rethinking of the movement of supplies.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking Monday at a meeting of defense ministers in Peru, highlighted the report’s findings and the global security threats of climate change.

“The loss of glaciers will strain water supplies in several areas of our hemisphere,” Mr. Hagel said. “Destruction and devastation from hurricanes can sow the seeds for instability. Droughts and crop failures can leave millions of people without any lifeline, and trigger waves of mass migration.”

The report is the latest in a series of studies highlighting the national security risks of climate change. But the Pentagon’s characterization of it as a present-day threat demanding immediate action represents a significant shift for the military, which has in the past focused on climate change as a future risk.

Do you have the intellectual honest to admit you were wrong about this as well? Awaiting your sincere concession.

But hey, why believe the Pentagon? What do those people know about national security? Sounds like hippie hysteria over climate change, and career military generals are known for hysteria. Why, five star generals are like 1950s house wives screaming on a chair whenever they see a mouse.

rando says

"Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."

Just don't assume the rise in sea-levels will be linear. That would be batshit stupid. Nature rarely follows linear patterns.

The melting of ice creates a positive feedback which exponentially increases warming. Ice is white. When it melts, less sunlight is reflected back into space, and more warming occurs, melting more ice.

As for the significance of sea-level rises, how much does all the real estate in Miami cost anyway?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html?_r=0

With just a five foot rise...

So excuse me for giving a shit if the cities I live and work in are swallowed by the seas and all businesses in them cease. I think that would lower the fucking GDP what with the loss of production, massive unemployment, refugees, and destruction of infrastructure.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

The U.S. Navys Special Warfare Development Group, better known as the SEAL Team 6, will arrive in South Korea soon for joint military drills and take part in an exercise simulating the removal of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un

ha ha
I bet the fat brat is hiding in the bathroom.

curious2 says

If I may suggest we move on from whether the climate is warming and at what rate, can somebody please tell me whether any political party has any policy that would actually manage the climate?

Right now, neither of the two major parties has a plan. That is what needs to change. There are numerous policies we can implement to mintage climate change and pay for the damages we cannot avoid. This can be done with anti-pollution laws, fines, sin taxes, cap-and-trade, requiring environmental standards to be met for access to the U.S. market, efforts to clean up pollution, ending oil subsidies, subsidizing clean energy technology, changing laws so that anyone can produce and sell excess energy on our nation's grid, and so much more.

curious2 says

Has any American party, major or independent, proposed researching and developing the geo-engineering that would be necessary actually to manage the climate?

Yes, the Green Party, no surprise. Their platform lists various solutions.
1. Strong International Climate Treaty
2. Enact a Fee & Dividend system on fossil fuels
3. Elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear power, biomass and waste incineration and biofuels.
4. To prevent perverse incentives arising from higher carbon prices, the Green Party mandates clean fuels in
addition to pricing carbon.
5. Pay for adaptation to climate change in countries less responsibility for climate change
6. Provide a carbon neutral development path for those countries that can no longer be permitted to develop in the same way we did—by burning cheap fossil fuels
7. Adopt energy efficiency standards that reduce energy demand economy-wide by 50% over the next 20–30 years.
8. Build an efficient, low cost public transportation system.
9. Adopt a national zero waste policy.
10. Create an inclusive program to train workers for the new, clean energy economy.
11. Adopt a clean energy portfolio standard that rapidly replaces our combustion-based power sources with wind, solar, ocean, small-scale hydro, and geothermal power
12. End the use of nuclear power.
13. Convert U.S farm and ranchland to organic practices. Chemical and industrial agriculture produces 35-50% of climate destabilizing greenhouse gases.
14. Switch to local food production and distribution. Localized, organic food production and distribution reduce fossil fuel usage and enriches soil that sequesters more carbon dioxide.
15. Reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases by rapidly phasing out confined animal feeding operations, and encouraging a reduction in meat consumption.
16. Retrofit U.S. building stock for energy efficiency.
17. Energy efficiency standards similar to those in California to be adopted nationally.
18. A carbon tax
19. Increase funding of clean energy research and development
20. Policy tools to directly support the development of renewable energy sources, such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and Feed-in Tariffs
21. State-level financing policies like California’s AB 811 can help homeowners install expensive renewable energy where the county pays the up-front cost and the system is paid for via the homeowner’s property taxes.
22. Renewable energy certificates
23. Ban on the construction of large-scale and inappropriately-located, hydroelectric dams.
24. A formal moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants
25. A ban on mountaintop removal coal mining
26. The cessation of development of fuels produced with polluting, energy-intensive processes or
from unsustainable or toxic feed stocks, such as genetically-engineered crops, coal and waste streams contaminated with persistent toxics
27. Ban oil and gas drilling or exploration on our nation’s outer continental shelf, on our public lands, in the Rocky Mountains, and under the Great Lakes
28. Enact a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing
29. Decentralize the electricity generation and distribution
30. Implement more smart grids.
31. Tax-exempt bonds to finance public ownership of utilities and to allow publicly owned utilities to finance conservation and renewable energy projects.
32. Oppose efforts to deregulate the energy industry.

These are just a few of their platform points. I don't agree with some of the policies, as I look at things as an engineer, not as a social advocate, but mostly the Green Party is on track.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

US NAVY TAKES CUE FROM PATNET: SEAL TEAM 6 PLANNING TO ASSASSINATE UNHOLY FAT FUCK KIM JONG-UN

Seems like a waste of resources. Couldn't we just send the Berkley protesters to mob rush Kim Jong-Un sacrificing themselves one by one until they can stab him in the face?

Dan8267 says

I look at things as an engineer, not as a social advocate, but mostly the Green Party is on track.

I wish, but no. Nothing in the Green Party platform that you quoted can realistically be called a "solution" and none of it supports geo-engineering. To the contrary, read for yourself:

"26. The cessation of development of fuels produced with...genetically-engineered crops...."

In other words, the heretics and infidels genetically modifying algae or switchgrass to produce carbon neutral fuel would be stopped. Many in the Green Party and the independent news sites that support them have a mystical and quasi-religious bias against science and engineering, related to opposing capitalism. Similarly to how the Vatican denounces scientific advances in contraception, RU486, and IVF as tampering with "God's plan," Greens tend to denounce everything that involves human engineers tampering with "Mother Nature's plan" as a sin. There are also similarities and overlap with some subsets of feminists: engineers tend to be men, and geo-engineers would violate Mother Nature against her mystical will. Too many Greens tend also to identify with any superstition they consider sympathetic, including rain dancing native Americans and (most bizarrely) Islam. The Green Party does not propose any actual solution to climate change, but rather proposes a list of prohibitions and taxes that would impede the capitalists and (mostly male) engineers who, according to many Greens, have caused all these problems and must be stopped before they (you) do even more damage.

You guys are funny

Can't Trumpigula simply call in a favor from Putin to have Kim Jong-un assassinated with polonium? Putin will certainly it for his orange bear especially after all those all-night fisting sessions.

I've been sending great leader happy meals for the past 10 years. Eventually my plan to kill him will succeed. You can already see it working in his fat face.

Another repost

Hater says

Dan8267 says

So, how exactly will one farm in downtown New York City?

Window boxes?

Failed. Millions die. Good job.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

have you thought that entire nations that are dependent upon their agricultural industry to feed themselves will experience mass starvation?

That is another death scenario from the 70's, but we made it!

Are you seriously trying to refute the Pentagon's claims with that snarky comment? Sorry, but I'll listen to the experts rather than some ignorant armchair quarterback who has already presented so many debunked lies and refuses to admit that he's wrong even after being shown the real evidence.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.

Name one "humanitarian disaster" caused by global warming since Katrina?

You are a fool if you think that the crises created by climate change will have climate change stamped on them. That's not how reality works. Nonetheless, we can be certain that climate change is causing crises because of a little thing called statistics. It's amazing how powerful math is.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

With just a five foot rise...

at current rates that would take half a century.

Dan8267 says

rando says

"Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."

Just don't assume the rise in sea-levels will be linear. That would be batshit stupid. Nature rarely follows linear patterns.

The melting of ice creates a positive feedback which exponentially increases warming. Ice is white. When it melts, less sunlight is reflected back into space, and more warming occurs, melting more ice.

Reduce the population to 1 Billion by strict child licensing over the next century and 90% of the problems vanish.

All else is of minor importance.

Recycling Cardboard, Glass and Plastic Bottles, and separating yellow paper from white paper from non-yellow colored paper is to the Environment what the TSA is to security. And that's not fair to the TSA, which is far more effective with security theater in protecting from terrorism than recycling is 'protecting' the Earth.

Kim loves the toys. The fatty burgers are just a bonus.

Yes, overpopulation is a critical problem. However, I would not say it's the only problem. Even with a world-wide reduction of 90% of the population, coal power plants would still do great harm.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

I think a lot of people would pay for the chance to take out Kimfuck with a piece of lamp cord.

Who gets his pretty wife after the fat hubby is taken out?

Hater says

1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Climatologists were wrong then (maybe) what makes them so right now?

In the 70s, the concern that human activity would push the earth into a positive feedback loop of cooling was entirely reasonable based on projections of increased aerosol and particulate emissions which block at high altitude and/or reflect sunlight away from the surface. These smog components proved relatively easy to eliminate from smokestack and tailpipe emissions through emission control regulations and systems, leaving primarily CO2, a potent GHG.

Silly the way non-scientists consider this a contradiction or error in climate science, or proof that "scientists don't know what they're talking about."

He is a commie socialist libtard with your money, NOT his!

Automan Empire says

In the 70s, the concern that human activity would push the earth into a positive feedback loop of cooling was entirely reasonable based on projections of increased aerosol and particulate emissions which block at high altitude and/or reflect sunlight away from the surface. These smog components proved relatively easy to eliminate from smokestack and tailpipe emissions through emission control regulations and systems, leaving primarily CO2, a potent GHG.

If that is correct, then global warming is caused by environmental regulations imposed since the 1970s, and could be easily solved by repealing some of those. American voters recently elected a President who campaigned on repealing some regulations and restoring smokestack industries.

@Ironman is that a photo of the actual house in the original post above?

That would be unthinkably beautiful for $600K around the SF Bay Area. Maybe winter is worth it...

rando says

That would be unthinkably beautiful for $600K around the SF Bay Area. Maybe winter is worth it...

$600K in the SFBA? Maybe a one-bedroom condo in East Palo Alto.

Dibs, I'll take it. what's the preferred payment method?

a lot of irony in these gold sales...
- making a thread claiming it's "safe" to buy gold again then unloading his gold inventory shortly. really? are there other bad investments that need bailing out?
- so all these years he has been nervous and hoarding gold under Obama's regime and it's only now that he begins to have trust in the economy again. yet he refuses to admit Trump is a much better president???

Mother Nature is just getting started.

I'd be very happy if people would use patrick.net to sell more stuff.

Go for it! No fees from this site. But don't cross the line into spam, i.e. links to some viagra site.

Eventually maybe there would be revenue from relevant ads.

indigenous says

Where is the money trail on this?

The timing is conspicuous, if true is he that stupid or just doesn't give a shit?

Ironman says

His 3rd Home, was this a "pay-off" gift from Hillary??

Nothing like not knowing what you are talking about. But that is the natural state of some posters. His wife sold her family house in maine to buy this one. Duh. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2016/08/08/bernie-sanders-buys-a-summer-home-in-north-hero

“My family had a lake home in Maine since 1900, but we hadn’t had the time to go there in recent years — especially since my parents passed away,” she said. “We finally let go of it and that enabled us to buy a place in the islands — something I’ve always hoped for. ”

But hey don't let pesky facts get in the way of being an idiot.

Despite the ramblings of the oppressed left, the theme of the thread in all it's glory remains determinedly poignant.
The oppressed are homeless and starving while their great white haired spokesman can't seem to get enough residences to cover his ass...

Ironman says

The Man Of The People, Bernie Sanders, Buys $600K Summer Home

Some think that the bank regulations were designed not so much to avoid disaster but to deter competition. I don't know if this is true. I'm not sure about the repeal of the regulations but I hope it won't lead to another bubble.

Yes, actually the northern CA coast is very nice and not all that expensive either.

But there are not so many humans around, and very few jobs outside of marijuana cultivation.

I like people. Actually a smallish town might be ironically much better for meeting lots of people than a city. Maybe some place with a population of about 10,000.