patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,362,892 comments by 15,748 users - Blue, desertguy, Misc, stereotomy online now
« First « Previous Comments 127 - 166 of 205 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dan8267
2014 May 21, 11:10am
C'mon, pleeeese! Let's worry about untreatable disease instead.
Deadly by the Dozen: 12 Diseases Climate Change May Worsen by Scientific American
And they forgot malaria, which will spread considerably because many towns are built just above the mosquito line and that line moves up as temperatures rise.
Once more, your poo-pooing about the effects of climate change are based on your cultural preferences, not hard science.
It does not matter how bad the press is at reporting climate change. What matters is that scientists have now established that a sea-level rise of 5 to 15 ft. is inevitable in the near term. That is all that counts.
Near term?
They are saying it "may happen" 200-900 years in the future.
I think we will have plenty of time to outrun or stop it.
There are much bigger issues facing humanity to worry about in the near term IMO. By all means, lets continue exploring cleaner energies and conserve, but no need for massive forced energy austerity because you chicken-little's are nutso on the subject.
deepcgi
2014 May 21, 2:20pm
"MAY worsen" is your superior science trump card? Another hypothetical scenario based on a computer simulation of ANOTHER hypothetical scenario? I'm not supposing on the untreatable tuberculosis issue. This is Center for Disease Control, past-tense, MEASURED data...not the propaganda department's fishing trip advertisement for next year's fund raiser.
I've some people's hands I want you to shake, and some door knobs I want you to twist before you sell a beach house in Malibu. It seems to me, that now that there is no reliable religion to fall back on to reasonably assuage an aging person's fear of death, there has risen an equally powerful need in people to assure that everyone else shares in the same politically correct cocktail of fear.
If I have to grow old and croak without some scientific assurance of life after death, I want to make certain everyone else is worried sick about something I subscribed to. I'll take my big blue marble and go home.
Truth is...True Science doesn't make value judgements. As far as Science is concerned, the very best thing for "the planet" would be to kill off every last human annoyance. There is no morale treatise guiding the masses with regards to the environment. Al Gore's New Gaia Bible isn't quite ready yet (not enough crucified disciples yet, I suspect, but give it time). So fear mongering is the tried-and-true method of mass behavioral control. War on Terror fear must be wearing off?
Y
2014 May 21, 11:14pm
this is damning evidence...
If I have to grow old and croak without some scientific assurance of life after death, I want to make certain everyone else is worried sick about something I subscribed to. I'll take my big blue marble and go home.
Dan8267
2014 May 22, 2:14am
Near term?
They are saying it "may happen" 200-900 years in the future.
The 900 years figure is one guy being extremely conservative on the estimate. NASA figures 200 years max for a complete melting of the ice. However, the sea-level rise doesn't happen just at the last moment of melting. It happens the entire time.
Already sea-level rises have made inhabited islands uninhabitable. Given that every time a new study comes out, it concludes that melting is happening faster than we expected, I'd be surprised if we don't see studies in the next few years revising the complete melting time down from 200 years to 40 years. NASA is a very conservative organization and tends to understate things in order to not rock the boat. The fact that it's speaking out about sea-level rises says a lot.
And then there are many other sources of sea-level rise like the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets which would cause a 20 foot and 200 foot rise in sea-level if completely melted.
Your proposal is to say "fuck it, let future generations deal with the problem" and that's a bad proposal. The earlier problems are corrected, the cheaper it is to correct them. At best, your proposal of punting the problem to future generations will exponentially increase the cost of dealing with the problem. At worst, it will make the problem unsolvable. In any case, in the meantime we will and currently are experiencing lose of wealth as a result of climate change.
We feel better about driving a Prius even though we know the production process generates vastly more CO2 that normal internal combustion engines. But then that's not the real reason those are considered "green" is it?
Does it? Prove it. I've heard more bullshit concerning the Prius to last me a lifetime. The fact of the matter is that it- like all other cars- are made out of steel, plastic, aluminum, copper, and a wide variety of chemical compounds. If you're referring the nickel-cadmium battery well why the focus on that when in fact a huge amount of power tools, laptops, cell phones, and other devices use them as well. Oh- I get it.... the entire argument concerns the mining of nickel and cadmium... right? Ok, so let's say we decide to go that route. So the Prius at this point is roughly a medium sized sedan and it gets on average about 50MPG. Compared to the average conventional family sedan that's anywhere from 35-50% more efficient. So in the best case scenario the Prius would be using 50% less fuel. Take that into consideration and stretching out that situation for 12-13 years that means many thousands of gallons of fuel not burned.
Exactly what does it take to extract oil out of the ground? A whole hell of a lot, that's what. On top of that anytime you extract something out of the ground therein lies the fact that you will also bring a slew of other crap up with it too. So when you figure the total amount of hydrocarbons burned up in the process to deliver the approximately 35-50% more fuel that a conventional car would burn over a Prius, even when you consider the several pounds of nickel and cadnium contained within its battery, the net effect of the Prius is far, far less in regards to total pollutants thrown into the environment. Its simple math really...
smaulgld
2014 May 22, 3:19am
Doesn't the prius run on electricity, the bulk of which is generated from coal and nuclear power?
Doesn't the prius run on electricity, the bulk of which is generated from coal and nuclear power?
Are you being sarcastic? The prius generates its own power via regenerative braking.... not the power plant.
Your proposal is to say "fuck it, let future generations deal with the problem"
and that's a bad proposal. The earlier problems are corrected, the cheaper it is
to correct them.
You have it backwards. There is no "cheap" corrective solution to this problem in the here and now. It will cause billions of people to suffer going back to 3rd world conditions with limited access to power, clean water etc. I think we will have many more technological solutions to solve this problem in the next 200-900 years that doesn't stunt human development.
I think we should continue to make some modest attempts at curbing our carbon output in the meantime, but you chicken-little's keep acting like we all going to drown in the "near term" if we don't deindustrialize and eliminate all carbon burning in our societies instantly.
I think we should continue to make some modest attempts at curbing our carbon output in the meantime, but you chicken-little's keep acting like we all going to drown in the "near term" if we don't deindustrialize and eliminate all carbon burning in our societies instantly.
Herein lies the issue with the whole global warming thing. We have one side that wants to take drastic carbon and pollutant reducing actions and then the other side who wants to do nothing.
The reality is that whether you believe climate change is either caused by humans or its natural, it IS happening. The results of that change could very easily be catastrophic. As such its not very useful to bicker back and forth and turn this into another liberal versus conservative debate.
What needs to happen is that everyone should be monitoring the situation. if in fact sea levels are rising, then what does that mean 100 years from now? Its not like we will wait for 100 years and then Bang! Instant 5 feet of water. It will happen gradually. Meaning that the effects could soon start being apparent sooner than later. If so, then seeing as how long it takes to plan and execute major infrastructural plans it might be worthy to at least start making some initial studies for what might need to be done so that if those changes start to rear its head then a plan would be in place.
As far as human generated pollutants, well to me that's a no-brainer. We're only on this planet for a teeny amount of time. As such its imperative that the short time we're here is a time period where we don't have to worry about whether or not the air we breathe is full of heavy metals and particulate matter and soot. These days its also not nearly the US doing this so much as it is the developing countries. Look at it this way: compared to other 3rd world countries the US has far stricter pollution controls. But yet we are still one of the if not the most competitive country in the world. All of those regulations that companies and politicians said would hurt business did nothing of the sort. In the end everyone benefits.
his is one of the more profoundly stupid things I've had to read on the internet from a conservative and that's saying a lot
"Climate change" has been going long before any man made pollution.
There is nothing stupid about it.. but its your weakness you have no answer to.
Herein lies the issue with the whole global warming thing. We have one side that wants to take drastic carbon and pollutant reducing actions and then the other side who wants to do nothing.
Laughable.. once again... you want to stop global warming... go talk to the Chinese and Indians...
Laughable.. once again... you want to stop global warming... go talk to the Chinese and Indians...
Uh.... people have been talking with them. So what's your point? Oh yeah. I forgot. You don't have one.
smaulgld
2014 May 22, 4:53am
Doesn't the prius run on electricity, the bulk of which is generated from coal and nuclear power?
Are you being sarcastic? The prius generates its own power via regenerative braking.... not the power plant.
Sorry I meant the Volt or the Tesla or the Japanese one.
they use electricity which requires carbon.
The Prius uses gas to create electricity.
How about a fuel cell car?
http://japandailypress.com/toyota-to-launch-fuel-cell-car-by-2015-1747387/
As far as human generated pollutants, well to me that's a no-brainer. We're only on this planet for a teeny amount of time. As such its imperative that the short time we're here is a time period where we don't have to worry about whether or not the air we breathe is full of heavy metals and particulate matter and soot.
check the label of the pollutants... since the environmentalist have forced US factories to shut down, it stands to reason much of the blame goes to them for pollution. If your on the LEFT, be proud of what you accomplished. Yes its a no brainer alright!
Uh.... people have been talking with them. So what's your point? Oh yeah. I forgot. You don't have one.
you mean they dont care what you say ? is that it ?
How about a fuel cell car?
http://japandailypress.com/toyota-to-launch-fuel-cell-car-by-2015-1747387/
Energy independence ? everyone should be infavor of that... but are
those on the left ready to allow mining of all the needed minerals to create
fuel cells... from what materials are Fuel Cells manufactured from ?
How far will you go do allow mining of ores, and smelting to create FCs.
Mining and Smelting ... you do know what that creates ?
check the label of the pollutants... since the environmentalist have forced US factories to shut down, it stands to reason much of the blame goes to them for pollution. If your on the LEFT, be proud of what you accomplished. Yes its a no brainer alright!
There have not been any factories that have had to shut down in the US strictly over regulations. Second of all... what point are you tying to make? Yes- we all know China and India create a lot of pollution. Guess what? Both of their governments are getting ready to enact their own sweeping emission controls. Want to know why? Because the level of pollution in those countries is a health problem which in turns hinders business. So I find it interesting this so-called claim that creating environmental regulations would put everyone out of business when in fact that hasn't happened and yet we have an example of two huge countries actually creating regulations FOR business to succeed....
Both of their governments are getting ready to enact their own sweeping emission controls. Want to know why? Because the level of pollution in those countries is a health problem which in turns hinders business.
you seriously trust them when it comes to quality production... i doubt it.
Sorry I meant the Volt or the Tesla or the Japanese one.
they use electricity which requires carbon.
The Prius uses gas to create electricity.
How about a fuel cell car?
I've had to explain this thing about 1,000 times for the same lame argument. But here it goes... again.
Ok- so we have roughly 80% of the US states out there who basically have zero inspections or emission testing stations for their cars. I grew up in a state where it was perfectly fine to drive around in a truck that belched smoke. So imagine many millions of questionably maintained, grossly polluting privately owned cars out there belching crap into the air.
Now compare that to power that comes from a power plant which has to meet federal and state pollution and particulate matter requirements: We're talking about plants with numerous levels of screens, scrubbers, and reclaimers. Many of those power plants burn cleaner than those old beaters out there.
Simply put, from power plant to battery is much cleaner than gas going into millions of gross polluting, unregulated cars.
you seriously trust them when it comes to quality production... i doubt it.
That's not what I said. I said they are in fact passing new regulations. The fact that they are doing so shows that yes- it is a concern. How well they will implement it is questionable but it doesn't detract from the point I was making.
There have not been any factories that have had to shut down in the US strictly over regulations
short memory....
Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html
WINCHESTER, VA. - The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison's innovations in the 1870s.
What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.
The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.
Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.
Dan8267
2014 May 22, 5:25am
There is no "cheap" corrective solution to this problem
Pollution is a form of theft called "cost shifting". It's no different than your next door neighbor breaking into your house, stealing all your wife's jewelry and melting it down in order to decrease the costs of his gold business and increase his profit margins.
The costs of pollution are real regardless of whether or not we allow corporations to shift this costs from their books to ours. Allowing cost shifting increases costs as the corporations have no incentive to minimize these costs. Furthermore, the costs of cleaning up the environment and repairing the damage that can be repaired and accepting the lost that can't (health problems, death, etc.) is far greater than the costs of prevention.
If you conservatives actually believed in free market principles, you would insist on stopping this cost shifting whether by outlawing pollution, taxing pollution, or other means. You would insist on those businesses generating the costs to pay them so that the free market can decide if their products are truly worth what they cost.
Allowing pollution is forced wealth distribution from the general public to the corporations polluting. It is socialism for corporations and everything you say you hate about entitlements. And it is antithetical to the free market. Cost shifting is a subsidy and all subsidies distort and undermine the free market.
And one last thing, you can expect all those other entitlements from Obamacare to food stamps to assisted housing to foreign aide to go up as a result of climate change. Fucking with the world ecosystem is going to greatly increase the percentage of our GDP that we spend on social safety nets. So if you're not willing to fix climate change, then you don't get to bitch and moan about all the social spending we're going to incur because of it.
Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas
Nice try... but there were more reasons as to why that plant shut down: Simply put it couldn't compete against cheap overseas competition using new factories and cheap labor. That was the bulk of the reason that they shut down. But either way, I'm sure you'lll pick a few more random examples but the truth of the matter is that most factories in the US shut down due to cheap competition fro overseas... not from regulations...
Simply put it couldn't compete against cheap overseas competition using new factories and cheap labor.
whats there to compete about ? is it cheap labor or "dumping below costs"?
If we are to believe Labor costs are lower, than why dump below cost to produce ?
EU greenlights anti-dumping duties on Chinese light bulbs
LUXEMBOURG) - The European Union approved on Monday a one-year extension of anti-dumping duties running as high as 66 percent on Chinese-made, energy-saving light bulbs.
"The measures are aimed at addressing unfair competitive advantages resulting from the dumping of imports onto the (EU) market," the 27-nation bloc said in a statement issued at a foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg.
.
Y
2014 May 22, 5:40am
no....ya think??
if in fact sea levels are rising, then what does that mean 100 years from now? Its not like we will wait for 100 years and then Bang! Instant 5 feet of water. It will happen gradually.
whats there to compete about ? is it cheap labor or "dumping below costs"?
I'm glad you basically agreed with my response...
I'm glad you basically agreed with my response...
You do understand what "Dumbing below Costs" to produce means ?
The 900 years figure is one guy being extremely conservative on the estimate. NASA figures 200 years max for a complete melting of the ice. However, the sea-level rise doesn't happen just at the last moment of melting. It happens the entire time.
Per Nasa.... happening across the Solar System. I guess you blame US for Ice Caps melting on Mars as well...
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/
August 7, 2003: It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars.
You do understand what "Dumbing below Costs" to produce means ?
Yes.... its nothing new. Japanese companies did it for years. But I digress... this debate has gotten off of track.
Already sea-level rises have made inhabited islands uninhabitable. Given that every time a new study comes out, it concludes that melting is happening faster than we expected, I'd be surprised if we don't see studies in the next few years revising the complete melting time down from 200 years to 40 years. NASA is a very conservative organization and tends to understate things in order to not rock the boat. The fact that it's speaking out about sea-level rises says a lot.
What islands have been made uninhabitable, pray tell? That's one of those widely repeated rumors that's completely untrue, just like the other big one that polar bear population is in decline.
Look up sea level rise on wikipedia, and you'll see that we're in a tapering off period after a massive sea level rise after the last ice age 18,000 years ago. Antarctica, on net, is actually gaining ice volume, but it's also changing structure a bit and it is indeed losing some of the ancient ice that sits on land. Floating ice loss doesn't matter to sea level, because floating ice melting doesn't change water level. Losing ice on land is bad, since that raises sea level.
I'm not too worried about flooding in my lifetime, or my kids' lifetimes, the science doesn't support it. This imminent ice shelf collapse prediction is made by geologists, and to them, "sudden" means a thousand years. We can't extrapolate out that far because be then the climate will be different due to natural reasons, man made reasons, and our technology will be entirely different.
The earth was both much warmer, and much cooler than it is today during the period that humans had writing. We had prime wine making land in the British Isles, and there are cave paintings of lakes and forests in the sahara. Mankind survived both those periods, we'll survive this.
The earth was both much warmer, and much cooler than it is today during the period that humans had writing. We had prime wine making land in the British Isles, and there are cave paintings of lakes and forests in the sahara. Mankind survived both those periods, we'll survive this.
Your not making a good argument to allow some folks for a govt handout.
Thats what Dan wants... free stuff... forget about any solution for the next 10 years.. just pay me $$$$$.
deepcgi
2014 May 22, 7:12am
The way climate alarmists in here misinterpret painfully obvious sarcasm, it's clear I need to be more obviously insulting to counter the waves of left wing bullshit battering the Patrick coastline.
I actually read both sides of an issue, before forming an opinion, and when that comes to science, I leave it open ended.
I began (years ago actually) stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that humans make a LOT of it, that it contributes to global warming, and that warming has been increasing over at least a 25 year period. HOWEVER, the climate alarmist scientists, whose rings you are so willfully kissing, back in the late 1990's, had a real problem creating sufficient panic over the warming in order to profit from carbon credit schemes. The Medieval Warming Period, even if only relegated to the Northern Hemisphere, had far too high of both surface and atmospheric temperatures for CO2 alone to be the culprit. Scientists like Michael Mann (and I will not mince words here, because I now know I'm dealing with some diminished acumen in here) massaged the past temperatures into a flat line - which all know affectionately as the hockey stick graph. This is no longer conjecture. The proof of the poor statistics is why Dr. Mann has dropped so many of his legal, libel and slander suits in the past few years. He knows if he goes to court he'll be even more brutally exposed, if not as a poor scientist, then as a highly biased one. He continues to threaten legal action based on the use of his image and name, but being a public figure must prove actual malice to win the cases.
The curve is now a much more curvy affair showing a significant temperature decline after the Medieval Period but before our own warming. The computer models of the warmists are still based on the supposition that the climate has been largely unchanged for centuries upon centuries and so have been wildly inaccurate in predicting global surface OR atmospheric temperatures over the past fifteen years.
Please, please, please ask me to show you evidence of the climate model failures, because the predictions in temp rise were so overstated that they are virtually all wrong by significant margins. Unlike with real estate sales it's not convenient to blame their poor predictions on the weather, however, and so they instead resort to propaganda and fear mongering.
Remember, I believe the globe is warming, and I also believe humans contribute to it significantly. I am several thousand miles from being a republican (let alone a democrat), I put the onus on a candidates economic savvy rather than the color of his tie and voted rather evenly between the parties in the past few elections. Realize, please, that if I were a climate scientist, alarmists would be counting me in their 97% consensus. The science upon which we should panic is manipulated at best and wildly inaccurate at worst.
I dare you to read both sides. Investigate why a single lowly tree designated YAD06 was so wonderfully useful in exaggerating the end of the hockey stick and subsequently responsible for a decade and a half of dead wrong temperature predictions.
For the moment this is just fun for me to argue about, because I know that when the economic failures of the central banks become evident, you'll all throw Gore, Gaia, and Green politics out with the garbage.
Graphene research is probably a better center of r&d focus for the sake of the environment than most of the buzz word investments that are commonly thrown around, but the Fear Meisters don't know how to corner profit on carbon credits from it yet, so it gets no lip service. Typical.
Dan8267
2014 May 22, 8:17am
Per Nasa.... happening across the Solar System. I guess you blame US for Ice Caps melting on Mars as well...
Hey asshole, ultimately it does not matter who is responsible for all the damn pollution. The problem needs to be fixed now or we will fuck ourselves over big time. The economy will be ruined and all your precious stock will be worth shit. Mankind might even drive itself to extinction. So get off your "America can do no wrong" horse and think about how well off America will be without any humans populating it.
Dan8267
2014 May 22, 8:24am
What islands have been made uninhabitable, pray tell? That's one of those widely repeated rumors that's completely untrue, just like the other big one that polar bear population is in decline.
OK, now that I've proven that an inhabited island has disappeared due to rising sea levels, will you admit you were wrong?
And a lot more land is going underwater, including in the United States.
[J]ust a 1.5-foot rise in sea level would expose about $6 trillion worth of property to coastal flooding in the Baltimore, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Providence, R.I., areas. That raises huge questions about the fate of Boston Harbor, where developers have poured millions into construction projects. Planners are steeling for a future in which storm surges flood huge swaths of Boston. They have put together a climate action plan outlining how the city can better prepare for disaster.
There is no "cheap" corrective solution to this problem in the here and now.
Is a $6 trillion property loss just on the east coast of the U.S. "cheap"? And that doesn't even count lost productivity and indirect losses through economic downturn. Still think it's cheaper to pollute than to not?
Dan8267
2014 May 22, 8:28am
Thats what Dan wants... free stuff... forget about any solution for the next 10 years.. just pay me $$$$$.
Typical conservative lying bullshit. I have never asked for any "stuff" -- whatever the fuck that means -- from the government or anyone else.
The fact that you even attempted to turn wise planetary management into some bullshit argument about people trying to get free stuff shows that your opinion carries no weight.
What I want is for those making products to honestly count the full cost of their production in the price of their products instead of stealing from the rest of us to increase their profit margins. In other words, unlike you, I'm advocating free market economics. If a product costs too much, the free market says it should not be made; the free market does not say the maker of the product should steal from others to make the product cheap enough to be profitable.
I guess you really hate the free market.
Dan8267
2014 May 22, 8:32am
The way climate alarmists in here misinterpret painfully obvious sarcasm, it's clear I need to be more obviously insulting to counter the waves of left wing bullshit battering the Patrick coastline.
Climate change is a scientific fact. The very subject matter should be entirely science and engineering, not politics.
Furthermore, to call someone an alarmist for trying to fix a problem before its too late is just plain foolish. Are we alarmists for calling the Fire Department when our house is already on fire? Are we alarmists for calling 911 when a bank robbery is in progress? Are we alarmists for trying to stop Iraq from gaining nuclear weapons?
When shit is currently happening, like in climate change and sea-level rise, you should be pulling the alarm.
I live on the Florida coast. It's my fucking home that the conservatives have set on fire. Excuse me if I attempt to put the fire out before becoming homeless.
OK, now that I've proven that an inhabited island has disappeared due to rising sea levels, will you admit you were wrong?
I googled the geology of that island. It's a delta island made from silt, and several factors are at play - dams have changed water flows and the silt isn't being replenished, so all the islands in the area are sinking (just like New Orleans). A rising water level would, of course, hasten the demise of such an island, but I could not find how much of its disappearance is due to rising sea level, and how much is due to sinking land.
I also came across an article about the endangered Solomon islands. they're sinking due to plate tectonics, but are also a sea level rise poster child:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/south-pacific-islands-threatened-by-more-than-just-rising-sea-levels-a-838675.html
(Note, I'm not denying that sea level change can force people off low lying land, I just think I can infer that from the island you listed for the reasons that I cited).
I'll repeat what I said before. The IPCC says the climate is changing (agreed), and we may be responsible for some of it (hard to disagree). Before taking any drastic actions which benefit some people to the detriment of others, which is accomplished at government gunpoint, I'd like to see more science, and some realistic scenarios of what would happen if we do nothing. I'd prefer to see the enormous resources that are proposed for curtailing countries' economic growth instead be put to developing new carbon neutral energy, if that is indeed the fix.
Imagine what a few hundred billion dollars could do for nuclear power, solar power and solar energy storage.
Dan8267
2014 May 22, 9:01am
Before taking any drastic actions which benefit some people to the detriment of others, which is accomplished at government gunpoint, I'd like to see more science
Since when is not polluting a drastic action? And why can something as large as global climate change wait, but we couldn't wait after 9/11 before giving up all our human rights?
« First « Previous Comments 127 - 166 of 205 Next » Last » Search these comments
We're passed the point of no return.
Listen right now live on NPR.
All Things Considered
http://player.wlrn.org/