patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Tommy-boy, you dumb ass. I've never said the problem was solely the U.S., but because Afghanistan, Sudan, and the United States were the only countries not to sign the Kyoto Agreement, and the U.S. is the only industrialized country that didn't sign, our predicament is largely due to the U.S. federal government.

Kyoto is meaningless. The signatories aren't conforming to it. Meanwhile, non-Kyoto US has reduced carbon emissions due to shifting electrical generation from coal to gas, thanks to fracking.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/technologies-opposed-by-environmentalists-fracking-and-genetic-modification-have-cut-co2-emissions-to-20-yr-low/co2-7/

Here's a chart. I googled it, it happens to be on some conservative blog, feel free to google "united states carbon dioxide emissions" yourself and find an ideologically correct source if this one doesn't work. The graph will be similar.

Dan8267 says

hrhjuliet says

Politics should play absolutely no part in this issue.

Exactly. It is a matter of science and engineering. The fact that conservatives have turned it into a political subject and a culture war of rednecks vs. hippies is precisely the reason why conservatives should have no voice in this subject or in the legislation to deal with climate change. Conservatives are the environmental equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

Sad, but true.

Dan8267 says

Tommy-boy, you dumb ass. I've never said the problem was solely the U.S., but because Afghanistan, Sudan, and the United States were the only countries not to sign the Kyoto Agreement, and the U.S. is the only industrialized country that didn't sign, our predicament is largely due to the U.S. federal government.

Laughable...

There you go again, as if the pollution in China is again OUR fault because WE didnt sign Kyoto... What an idiot you are... Why do they need USA signature ? If they have problems and let them solve it themself, they dont need us in the loop.

Dan8267 says

America is already being hit hard by climate change in the form of droughts, flooding, severe winters, more frequent and powerful hurricanes, and agricultural problems. So, by denying climate change and action on it, you Tommy-boy, are assfucking America.

we had these climates in North America in the past 500 years long long before any pollution. you can even find whale bones in the mountains.
guess we are to blame for killing the whales atop mountains.

thomaswong.1986 says

we had these climates in North America in the past 500 years long long before any pollution. you can even find whale bones in the mountains.

guess we are to blame for killing the whales atop mountains.

Red Herring Whale bones on mountains do not in any way discredit man-made climate change or the severity of the consequences.

The evidence of man-made climate change and its impact is utterly indisputable. See this post.

However, once again, you have demonstrated that conservatives don't care how much America is being harmed by reckless pollution. All you give a damn about is your own selfish interests, and you're too damn stupid to realize that even those selfish interests are compromised by climate change.

thomaswong.1986 says

curious2 says

Thanks - I did forget to mention them. Even if McDonald's raises wages to $15/hr for the workers who peddle the subsidized cornfed beef, there will remain the serious problem of methane emissions.

you guys are something else... now blame MCD for all the global warming and air pollution problems... such cowards.

Yes, it takes such bravery to lick the boots of the powerful.

CaptainShuddup says

Without an alternative endgame, I personally don't give a fuck what the Liberals or Scientists have to say. They just trying to cash in on some of that ole black magic.

We all know what happens when an asteroid hits the earth, we all know what will happen if the sea level rises and floods every coastal region, we all know what will happen when the temperature rises and changes.

What we don't know, or have any of the foggiest slightest idea, is what in the FUCK (is, can, would) anyone do about it, when that day comes.

This is nihilism.

Or maybe philosophy borne of spite.

(I'm splitting hairs here.)

No it's not.
The Liberals are being like that (X) guy, who hangs out in parking lots of depressed areas where someshit head built a trendy restaurant. Who assures you if you give him $20 your car will be safe. But no sooner you walk out of site, he'll be gone with your $20, leaving your car to take it's chances in over-town.

"If the whole glacier system melts, Joughin says, it would raise global sea levels about 24 inches (60 centimeters), he adds. The process will take a while, roughly 200 to 900 years,"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140512-thwaites-glacier-melting-collapse-west-antarctica-ice-warming/

Looks like we have several centuries to adapt or reverse course. Then again Dan's subject heading wouldn't be as bed-wetting if it said we had centuries before the oceans might rise. Why are alarmist liberals such luddites? I have faith that humanity will find a way to adapt or ameliorate the worst impacts of climate change given hundreds of years to prepare or find alternative fuels.

I think many liberals confuse conservative's skepticism of the various carbon reduction scheme's futility to that of being "anti-science" or denying climate change all together.

But go ahead and try to convince BILLIONS of 2nd and 3rd world Chinese and Indians from stopping their evolution and progress (burning carbon) and send them back to eating dirt and famine. I'm sure they will voluntarily stunt their development because they are more concerned that Amsterdam was built below sea level and rich 1st world liberals like living on the coasts.

socal2 says

I think many liberals confuse conservative's skepticism of the various carbon reduction scheme's futility to that of being "anti-science" or denying climate change all together.

I fail to see how the left wing "the sky is falling" crowd is any different from the religious nuts who are proclaiming that the signs laid forth in Revelations are comming to fruition and the rapture is comming in the next few days/weeks/months.

socal2 says

But go ahead and try to convince BILLIONS of 2nd and 3rd world Chinese and Indians from stopping their evolution and progress (burning carbon) and send them back to eating dirt and famine. I'm sure they will voluntarily stunt their development because they are more concerned that Amsterdam was built below sea level and rich 1st world liberals like living on the coasts.

This is very good: it mixes the non-argument "nothing we can do, so it isn't happening" with the sneer at "librul elites".

Neither has anything to do with the question of whether or not warming is anthropogenic, of course, but this doesn't mean you're anti-science.

dodgerfanjohn says

I fail to see how the left wing "the sky is falling" crowd is any different from the religious nuts who are proclaiming that the signs laid forth in Revelations are coming to fruition and the rapture is coming in the next few days/weeks/months.

Bingo!!!!

Then you got Neil deGrasse Tyson painting him self into a corner, while trying so hard to prove that God doesn't exist. Then how does he leave the last question?

"...and where does it all come from? ...Nobody knows."

Yeah right Einstein God made it.

I watched his whole series, a minister could have told his whole series in the context of creationism. And would have probably done a better job at it to. As they wouldn't have had to defer to childish cartoons about ancient Zealots and Heretic Radicals that got them selves in a pickle for speaking out against the establishment.
Which had more to do with World History, than a smug condescending mansplaination of the Cosmos.

CaptainShuddup says

Then you got Neil deGrasse Tyson painting him self into a corner, while trying so hard to prove that God doesn't exist. Then how does he leave the last question?

"...and where does it all come from? ...Nobody knows."

Yeah right Einstein God made it.

Uh-huh.

And where does God come from?

Eric Clapton's Guitar silly.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

This is very good: it mixes the non-argument "nothing we can do, so it isn't
happening" with the sneer at "librul elites".

Neither has anything to do with the question of whether or not warming is
anthropogenic, of course, but this doesn't mean you're anti-science.

What the bed-wetters fail to understand is that the cure they are proposing (massive carbon reduction) could very well be worse than the disease of climate change......particularly for billions of people scraping out an existence in the 3rd world.

We can call the global warming alarmists a bunch of "reality deniers" since they refuse to even understand the human impacts of the policies they proposed like Kyoto.

Don't humans come before "the environment"? Our policies should be all about sustainability for the greatest number of human beings IMO.

And since Al Gore and other politicians and celebrities destroyed the credibility of the movement with apocalyptic predictions - it should be no surprise that the majority of the public has tuned out and rates climate change at the bottom of our concerns.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

socal2 says

Don't humans come before "the environment"?

Nature bats last.

No environment means no humans.

Glad to see you finally view assfucking as something detrimental.
Welcome to the Right side son! Welcome to the Right!

Dan8267 says

So, by denying climate change and action on it, you Tommy-boy, are assfucking America.

Do any of you know why YAD06 is called "the most influential tree in history"?

In the meantime, by all means clean up the air, reduce dependence on oil and develop new sources of energy, but do NOT shovel this carbon credit crap on me. That is a gargantuan tax on America and the scam of the millennium. If you truly believe the "scientists" have proven their point, then it's time to move on to the civil engineers and city planners. It would also be time to stop being disingenuous and start admitting that many feel good policies are actually no more helpful than traditional ones.

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?

We also know that new fertilizers that are rich in nitrogen (which is 200 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2) although a potential modern miracle for famine ridden countries, is being quietly lobbied against for the good of humanity. How ironic.

And as has been suggested...by all means, sell your Cali beach front properties cheap. My great, great, great grand children will appreciate it. I guarantee you!

deepcgi says

driving a Prius even though we know the production process generates vastly more CO2 that normal internal combustion engines

But do the environmental impacts of hybrid vehicle production outweigh the long-term benefits of driving a cleaner running automobile? That answer is a resounding "no." If you drive both a conventional and hybrid car for 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers), the conventional vehicle requires far more energy to operate and emits far more greenhouse gases over its lifetime, significantly canceling out any imbalance during the production stage

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits.htm

thomaswong.1986 says

you can even find whale bones in the mountains

this 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

SoftShell says

Glad to see you finally view assfucking as something detrimental.

Welcome to the Right side son! Welcome to the Right!

Dan8267 says

So, by denying climate change and action on it, you Tommy-boy, are assfucking America.

Unlike you, I differentiate between consensual assfucking and forced assfucking.

The problem with this issue is that both sides have invested so much ego and tribalism into their opinions that neither can be right.

(Except for my side, which is the conservative side, but I won't tell you that because I'm pretending to be above the fray.)

If the sea level is rising, then why are sinkholes empty?

Sinkhole dug out at APSU's Governors Stadium

John Bailo says

If the sea level is rising, then why are sinkholes empty?

Clarksville TN elevation 382 feet above sea level. Is this post sarcastic or profoundly ignorant?

Automan Empire says

Clarksville TN elevation 382 feet above sea level. Is this post sarcastic or profoundly ignorant?

Well, it's cold somewhere today, so nyah nyah nyah Al Gore is fat!

(But it's warming on Mars, too, so that proves it's not human caused, or something, even though it's not really warming anyway because fat Al Gore or something fuck it I have no idea how these people think)

Ahhh. another liberal high altitude lake denier...

Automan Empire says

John Bailo says

If the sea level is rising, then why are sinkholes empty?

Clarksville TN elevation 382 feet above sea level. Is this post sarcastic or profoundly ignorant?

John Bailo says

If the sea level is rising, then why are sinkholes empty?

There is absolutely no doubt this side of a Flat Earth Society meeting that sea levels are rising. It has been measured everywhere, and can't be explained away by a conspiracy theory.

Have you been huffing hydrogen out behind the H2 station again?

Well, the level of panic was sufficiently high on this issue as to force me to do an hour's worth of homework on the story. AS USUAL I was able to find astoundingly bad reporting going on in the name of climate science. It struck me as odd that the "inevitable collapse" stories hit with such force in the past month when I recalled the bigger news in the scientific journals on this issue happening in the mid 2000's at the latest.

When I ran across the name of the Antarctic Thwaites Glacier in the LA Times, New York Times, AP, UK Guardian, and Huffington Post articles something about that name rang a bell (other than Thwaites being the largest of the studied glaciers in question). With a few more minutes of searching I found what I'd remembered reading five or so years ago.

Active volcanos had been discovered directly under the region of that glacial system and a number of UN IPCC SCIENTISTS NO LESS had published statements that the discovered volcanic activity could well be accelerating the collapse of the Thwaites System in particular.

Funny that these tiny little amateur media outlets like the LA Times failed to mention the volcanic acceleration!

http://www.qando.net/?p=1946

Here's a 2009 link illustrating the issue back then (let alone today).

There are a lot better things to be alarmed about. I'll just pick one that doesn't get enough air time right now to start us all off, shall I? How about increasing incidents of EDR Tuberculosis 3 across Central Europe? That's a nasty one! Not just incurable, but UNTREATABLE and SPREADS LIKE THE FLU from contact as simple as shaking hands or turning a doorknob after an infected person has just done the same!

Thats a better one to be alarmed about trust me this once (what with boils, choking, and coughing up blood AFTER periods of feeling like you've finally gotten over it).

Let's worry about that one now, instead.

There are a lot more that could have a serious impact on you within a year or so (rather than hundreds of years like this sea level issue). I'd be happy to freak you out over them if you'd prefer a different branch of science, economics or sociology. Just let me know. I'm here to help. :-)

deepcgi says

AS USUAL I was able to find astoundingly bad reporting going on in the name of climate 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.

Now we have to adjust our behavior accordingly. I'm not going to buy that house near the beach. That's a practical financial decision based on this new knowledge.

deepcgi says

There are a lot more that could have a serious impact on you within a year or so

The sea-level rise will not all occur at the end of the century. It is already affecting people. Islands that have been inhabited for hundreds of years are being evacuated because they are underwater.

As in the case of buying a house, this subject matter is extremely important. When sea-level rises, your insurance will not compensate you for the lost of your house or the land under it. Neither will government. Since this is the biggest financial decision you will make in your life, it's worth getting right.

Climate change isn't about "the sky is falling" panic. It's about answers to practical questions that will very materially affect you. Ignore it at your own peril.

C'mon, pleeeese! Let's worry about untreatable disease instead. It makes a better movie, for one thing!

OK. lemme see then...how about something simpler? The fact that AGRICULTURE is the leading cause of global deforestation rather than road building or urban sprawl. I like that one too! Apparently, farmers like to put their crops right in the path of naturally flowing water, and in areas where lots of tree chopping isn't necessary. While this sounds quite "green" of them on the surface, the truth is that the sparse patches of trees between larger forest sections are critical to maintain fringes of dense forest land. Once the farms fence off and irrigate an area along a stream, the two parts of the larger forest become divided and begin to dwindle like a receding hairline. I would have thought farming was a more GREEN use of land than say a highway system, but scientists say that highways usually make overpasses and bridges over critical waterways where large farms do not. Hm. Who'd a thunk?

deepcgi says

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140512-thwaites-glacier-melting-collapse-west-antarctica-ice-warming/

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.

"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?

this is damning evidence...

deepcgi says

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.

socal2 says

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.

deepcgi says

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...

Doesn't the prius run on electricity, the bulk of which is generated from coal and nuclear power?

smaulgld says

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.

Next version of Prius...

Dan8267 says

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.