patrick.net

zzyzzx says

NPR is just another liberal rag.

Its at least real news and not right-wing entertainment, classified as political satire and hence not actually news...

CaptainShuddup says

gas gas harrumph harrumph 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.

Then there's the sheer hypocrisies, with these Greenie bastards, shit like We can't have plastic grocery bags blah blah snort gas harrumph...

How many electrons died to spread that rant? What a waste.

Keep this up and I may become an electron hugger - a particle rights activist!

Iosef V HydroCabron says

curious2 says

and neither major party has proposed anything that would stop the climate from changing.

Not only have many people in both major parties supported cap-and-trade applied to carbon emissions, but there are Republican supporters of carbon taxes, including Bob Inglis (former congressman from SC), Douglas Holtz-Eakin (McCain's economic adviser), Arthur Laffer, Gary Becker, Newt Gingrich, and George Schultz.

I do not know what to make of that comment. On the one hand, it doesn't seem sarcastic, but on the other hand, I haven't seen anyone anywhere seriously contend that any of those policies would stop the climate from changing. Also, if one is going to appeal to authority, I would not have expected Newt Gingrich. I guess I would have to ask, given that list, can you cite any instance where any of them has ever claimed those policies would stop the climate from changing?

curious2 says

I guess I would have to ask, given that list, can you cite any instance where
any of them has ever claimed those policies would stop the climate from
changing?

I can't speak for those peoples' claims across time, but to me it's obvious that cap and trade and carbon taxes incentivize switching to lower CO2 emitting energy sources and processes. It's a market solution; a user fee if you will. Very treasured concept by free market advocates such as libertarians and many Republicans. Very conservative too; putting one's great grandchildrens' and one's own genes' long-term needs ahead of short-term gains with great future costs.

Dan8267 says

You cannot get more unbiased, fact-based reporting than NPR and PBS. Yeah, these
news agencies may be boring as fuck because they don't sensationalize, but
that's the point.

I agree with their objectivity, but find their delivery, especially NPR, unlistenably dry on top of boring as fuck. One or two minutes in, I find myself thinking, SNOOOOOORRE!
They don't need to sensationalize, but FFS the presentation and production values can't be at least state of the art, if not pushing the envelope a bit? I mean, where is the big "Hollywood Left" that the right always speaks of? The artists, writers, producers, actors, choreographers, musicians, directors, scintillating journalists, sound and voice experts? NPR seems to go out of their way to make their material sound like it has no part of "the Hollywood Left."

Can't believe I have to explain this, but the climate will always change, and will never stop doing so. You are not clever for knowing this.

The usual gradual change rubs out some species, allowing others to arise and food chains to be preserved, albeit with different links in those chains. No big deal.

Rapid, Permian-Triassic type change, however, wipes out 80% of species and seriously threatens the existence of all complex life forms, because if most of the things you eat have nothing to eat, then YOU have nothing to eat, and you die. Some paleontologists believe that the Permian-Triassic extinction nearly ended all life on Earth. It took 10-20 million years to rebuild the biodiversity.

You don't get food at King Soopers. You get it from fields that billions of animals and plants have excreted and died on (or from petroleum-based nitrogen-rich fertilizers, which is much the same thing), or from animals who ate other animals who ate other animals who ate vegetation.

The indications are that we are headed for an extinction more severe than the Permian-Triassic. Humans are pretty resourceful, and will probably ride it out, but in severely-reduced numbers. Or not. And once the human race is gone, that's it for intelligent (ha ha) life around here, because the Earth will be sterile in about 500 million years anyway - not enough time to get lucky with primate evolution again.

Probably the only hope would have been a radical rethink of transportation and technology. I doubt it would have worked, given the size of the population.

But this does not mean that both sides are equally to blame because they bickered; sentient people of different ideologies proposed means which would mitigate this, but the coal and petroleum industries first spread lies that it wasn't even happening, and then that it wasn't manmade. They lied, and if you bought their bullshit then you are a dope.

Dan8267 says

Or in the case of climate change, because the same science that got us to the moon provides overwhelming physical and verifiable evidence and the same people who got us to the moon, NASA, confirms this science.

As long as you are bringing up NASA:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98168
Images Show Mars Has Extreme Global Warming

It might seem like the weather's getting warmer here on Earth, but Mars appears to have an even bigger global warming problem.

High-resolution images snapped by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor show that levels of frozen water and carbon dioxide at the Red Planet's poles have dwindled dramatically — by more than 10 feet — over a single Martian year (equivalent to 687 days or about two Earth years).

Touring Mars in a Parka?

Michael Caplinger of San Diego's Malin Space Science Systems points out that if the warming were to continue at the same rate (that's a big "if"), Mars could become a nearly inhabitable place for people within 5,000 years or so.

"Rather than wearing a spacesuit, you could get away with wearing just an oxygen mask and a thick parka," said Caplinger, who co-authored a study about the observations in this week's issue of Science. "It would be like standing on top of Everest."

The change in climate could also support the presence of more liquid water on Mars.

The evidence came by monitoring icy pits, ridges and mounds at Mars' south pole at the start and end of a Martian year. By comparing images in 1998 and 2001, the team noticed a dramatic widening of pits in the frozen mass and a shrinking of the mounds and ridges. The images were captured and relayed by NASA's robotic orbiter, the Surveyer, which was launched in 1996 and began orbiting Mars in 1997.

"We weren't expecting to see something nearly this large," said Caplinger.

Dan8267 says

Conservatives are so delusional they think that any source of information that isn't spoon-fed talking points by the Republican leaders is a "liberal rag".

Liberals are so delusional they think that any source of information that isn't spoon-fed talking points by the Democrat leaders is "faux news".

I'm not a liberal by any of Pat.net's standards, and I was a science major. Politics should play absolutely no part in this issue. Global warming is real, and we are expediting it. Evolution is also real, but the same types argued against that, and people were jailed and fined for their beliefs. At least we don't live back in the day where the scientists got put to death for believing in gravity. This tug of war between science and society is as old as civilization, but we must find a compromise this time.

For example: We shouldn't be forced not to use plastic bags, we should WANT to use reusable bags and choose that option as good citizens of an educated Republic. I have always used reusable bags, but I was still a little unnerved about the law that took away choice.

I believe in liberty, but it's selfish idiots that undermine liberty, because people feel the ignorant and selfish majority can't be trusted to make good choices for humanity or their country, and in most cases they would be right. So that's really the tough question: How do we find the balance between liberty and a free market and keeping the idiots from destroying the planet and humanity?

When will we take climate change seriously? When affects the uber-wealthy of course. When their timber or agriculture holdings are in jeopardy,condo developments on the beach flood,etc. This has always been the way..those with the gold make the rules.

In the long run though nature bats last and our wholesale destruction of planets will eventually catch up with us....maybe not in my lifetime but...

Automan Empire says

I agree with their objectivity, but find their delivery, especially NPR, unlistenably dry on top of boring as fuck.

Of course! That's how you know they are objective. News is supposed to be boring when done right. Same for accounting. If you find either exciting, it's not being done right. News is essentially accounting of world events.

zzyzzx says

As long as you are bringing up NASA:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98168

Images Show Mars Has Extreme Global Warming

It might seem like the weather's getting warmer here on Earth, but Mars appears to have an even bigger global warming problem.

Some dumb low-level journalist trying to get an audience writes that Mars has a global warming problem that's worse than Earth's and you interpret that as scientific evidence that we should ignore the very real and immediate threat of climate change on Earth and continue to pollute our planet unabashed. Only a conservative could be this foolish.

1. Amanda Onion, the writer, is just sensationalizing a science story she thinks the American public is too dumb and low-class to care about.
2. Mars does not have an ecosystem, so the very statement that Mars has a problem is meaningless. Mars supports zero life. Earth supports over seven billion humans.
3. Even if Mars is warming faster than Earth that has absolutely nothing to do with the urgency or importance of reducing climate change and dealing with the consequences that we can no longer avoid.
4. There is nothing in the article that even remotely implies that climate change isn't real, man-made, and significant or that NASA has not fully established that man-made climate change is happening right now.

You're really grasping at straws.

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

Conservatives are so delusional they think that any source of information that isn't spoon-fed talking points by the Republican leaders is a "liberal rag".

Liberals are so delusional they think that any source of information that isn't spoon-fed talking points by the Democrat leaders is "faux news".

I do not follow talking points, and NPR does not use them. Nor does PBS. You are simply lying here.

Also, I despise the Democratic Party and would gladly see it go as the vast majority of liberals would. See How voting should work. However, the Republican Party is orders of magnitude worse and is the greatest threat to the continuing existence of human beings. If man is to destroy himself, it will be at the hands of conservatives.

But make no mistake, there are damn few liberals holding office including under the Democratic Party. If you're pissing your little pants off because Obama is in office, just wait until a liberal gets in the White House. Obama has adopted every Republican policy from the past two decades including their plan for health care "reform". A true liberal would have removed private health insurance companies from the system altogether given the sheer number of Americans they have killed.

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.

zzyzzx says

Images Show Mars Has Extreme Global Warming

Is the sun getting hotter :-)

Dan8267 says

Exactly. It is a matter of science and engineering.

It's a political war on both sides, science be damned. The left wants global taxes and the bankers are drooling at the prospect of controlling a multi trillion dollar cap and trade credit market.
The right is denying anything needs to be done.
Both sides are driven by ideology not science.

Good news for the California drought.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

zzyzzx says

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

LOL I was just throwing something out there- seems someone has studied it

in following the debate I have noticed near intolerance on both sides

Global warming proponents use terms like "deniers" to describe global warming skeptics and try to have their points of view squashed.

Global warning skeptics often claim man can do absolutely nothing to influence the environment.

Both sides are very self righteous on something they have little personal scientific knowledge of or understanding other than the talking points their political bosses feed them.

casandra says

Was out on a boat off Florida a couple years ago and said to myself while looking back at it, had the ocean been just 10 or 15 feet higher none of this state would be habitable!

It wasnt ... how does one explain finding whale bones top of the mountains, Did they just walk there ?

smaulgld says

Global warming proponents use terms like "deniers" to describe global warming skeptics and try to have their points of view squashed.

Global warning skeptics often claim man can do absolutely nothing to influence the environment.

Unfortunately for you, a situation in which one side (not saying which) is largely correct and the other is out to lunch would also produce the situation you describe, so your remarks add nothing to the conversation.

EDIT - restoring my acidic remarks:

There are also the third-way, faux-neutral "both sides do it chanters" who pretend to be above it all.

As political bosses feeding everyone else but you, I just want to ask: Could you possibly be more condescending? I don't see how, but I'm curious if you have any ideas?

smaulgld says

Both sides are driven by ideology not science.

Yes.

smaulgld says

The left wants....

I love Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!," but her coverage on this topic shows a complex alliance with multiple demands. Poorer countries do want redistribution by taxing "perpetrators" of global climate change. The numbers being tossed around are very large, hundreds of billions of dollars, to compensate any less industrialized country injured by sea level rise or weather events of any kind, on the theory that these events result primarily from CO2. Nevermind that methane and sulfuric acid and soot and toxic chemicals are probably much more significant forms of pollution; I wonder what % of the audience even knows what % of the atmosphere consists of CO2. But there's more: geo-engineering is also ridiculed, because the enemy is industrialization and wealth disparity. In other words, you can't talk about solving the problem, you can't even really talk about what the problems really are, because the debate has been hijacked.

I read with interest Iosef's comment about the pace of climate change driving extinctions, but I note it's off topic compared to the OP, which was about sea level rise. Sea levels have always changed, whole continents have drifted for billions of years before humans got involved.

A different thread made excellent points about malinvestment driven by Fed ZIRP and QE, which enables speculators to buy essentially lottery tickets in whatever bubble happens to be the mania of the day. As that linked article reported, the malinvestment drives serious consequences, as speculators use cheap finance to idle or misdirect potentially productive resources.

But, like two rival religions, anyone who says they're both wrong is demonized by both sides. In an ongoing war between Catholics and Protestants, or Christians and Muslims, few dare be agnostic or atheist.

I lose patience with foolish comments copying and pasting "Both parties are exactly the same" as a sarcastic response to the fact that both major parties are wrong. Both major parties are wrong in different ways. That doesn't make them the same, but it does give them one thing in common.

The OP began by saying a range of sea level rise is inevitable. Inevitable means we can't change it, so jazz music is correct: if you can't change something, then don't waste resources on it; go out and enjoy your life. I tend to think we could manage the climate if we invested in learning how, and that we should learn how because climate change can happen suddenly for many reasons: volcanoes, asteroids, etc.

It is rather sad that issues of science and engineering devolve into tribal and sectarian warfare. The Republican party is motivated by religious fanaticism and the Koch Industries' petroleum interests, but the Democrats are motivated by some sort of intellectual insecurity driving a need to feel "superior" (when Iosef points a finger on that topic, he has three pointing back at himself). Democrats can't acknowledge that capping and trading CO2 was always primarily about money and power not climate.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

As political bosses feeding everyone else but you, I just want to ask: Could you possibly be more condescending? I don't see how, but I'm curious if you have any ideas?

Not trying to be condescending but it may come across that way when not trying to claim to know all there is to know on a very complex topic about how the earth works and humans' impact on it.
The people on both sides that insist they know the answers and that the science is "settled" are not speaking from any true knowledge or intelligence but rather from political bias.

The church and science once thought the sun revolved around the earth and insisted on that fact.

Conservatives deny global warming and liberals insist on it. Neither side will change their mind because to do so would be to abandon their tribe.

LOL! man made ?

Cows with Gas: India's Global-Warming Problem

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

There are also the third-way, faux-neutral "both sides do it chanters" who pretend to be above it all.

Agree, this is the cable news model where instead of actually analyzing things, you're lazy and use the he said/she said stuff. If you actually analyzed the scenario properly, you'd know that one guy's sin is not of the same magnitude as the other guy's, so saying they both equally sin is grossly incorrect. Faux-neutral is a good way to describe it. The talking heads on the news just try to say they're being "balanced" when in reality they are helping the guy who sins more.

thomaswong.1986 says

LOL! man made ?

Cows with Gas: India's Global-Warming Problem

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct.

What about the buffalo in their million hordes that used to tramp and burp across the US plains?

The theory discussed in the article from 2007 has been thoroughly refuted.

Numerous searches have been made to try [to] establish whether or not cosmic rays could have affected the climate, either through cloud formation or otherwise. We have one possible hint of a correlation between solar activity and the mean global surface temperature. … Using the changing cosmic ray rate as a proxy for solar activity, this result implies that less than 14% of global warming seen since the 1950s comes from changes in solar activity. Several other tests have been described and their results all indicate that the contribution of changing solar activity either through cosmic rays or otherwise cannot have contributed more than 10% of the global warming seen in the twentieth century.

I have a request: how about an argument between those who believe the Earth is not warming, and these solar-warming theorists? Since one side believes it's not happening, and the other believes it's solar cycles, they should be at odds, yes? But on the Internet, I sometimes see the same conservative pushing both theories.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Unfortunately for you, a situation in which one side (not saying which) is largely correct and the other is out to lunch would also produce the situation you describe, so your remarks add nothing to the conversation.

THAT is condescending! :When you dismiss someone else's opinion as adding nothing.

I thought Obama stopped the Oceans' rise, when the last superdelegate cast the vote:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

those who believe the Earth is not warming, and these solar-warming theorists? ... I sometimes see the same conservative pushing both theories.

Where?

curious2 says

I lose patience with fools copying and pasting "both parties are exactly the same" as their sarcastic response to the fact that both major parties are wrong. They are wrong in different ways. That doesn't make them the same, but it does give them one thing in common.

Careful you risk being called condescending or having your views being dismissed if you take that position!

thomaswong.1986 says

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct.

What about all the belching and farting from over 1 billion Indians?

smaulgld says

are not speaking from any true knowledge or intelligence but rather from political bias.

The church and science once thought the sun revolved around the earth and insisted on that fact.

Conservatives deny global warming and liberals insist on it. Neither side will change their mind because to do so would be to abandon their tribe.

No: liberals will abandon their tribe. I have done so on gun control and many market solutions, and the entire liberal establishment has moved well to the right since 1980.

Conservatives will not, because the essence of conservatism lies above the actual ideology: you do not speak ill of a fellow Republican (Reagan quote).

Loyalty to the group supersedes even the details of the ideology, because it has become a religion.

Analyzer says

Good news for the California drought.

I wish I could give them 1/2 our rain for the rest of this year!

curious2 says

that capping and trading CO2 was always primarily about money and power not climate

the cap and trade as THE solution is very problematic.
It's just too coincidental that bankers stand to make fortunes from such a scheme while saving the planet. Are there other solutions or does asking make one a "denier"?

smaulgld says

What about the buffalo in their million hordes that used to tramp and burp across the US plains?

Shouldn't you go back to posing as a disinterested sage, above it all?

These idiotic remarks do nothing to help your image as a fount of third-way wisdom; the reveal you to be the right-wing asshole you really are, who has to appear moderate to whore yet another goldbug blog.

smaulgld says

Not trying to be condescending but it may come across that way when not trying to claim to know all there is to know on a very complex topic about how the earth works and humans' impact on it.

Perhaps you should leave it to the scientific establishment, then?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

solutions, and the entire liberal establishment has moved well to the right since 1980.

Conservatives will not, because the essence of conservatism lies above the actual ideology: you do not speak ill of a fellow Republican (Reagan quote).

You have taken you individual change and ascribed it to the entire group of liberals and then ascribed fixed traits to an entire group of conservatives.

There are individuals liberals AND conservatives who will abandon their tribe. Citing Reagan doesn't mean all conservatives follow everything he ever said.

But you are making a similar point -once in a tribe it's hard to abandon it. Yet you seem to be saying liberals, using your self as an example, are more likely to be open minded to changing their views than conservatives. I don't believe it!

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Perhaps you should leave it to the scientific establishment, then?

Which one?

Dan8267 says

Or in the case of climate change, because the same science that got us to the moon provides overwhelming physical and verifiable evidence and the same people who got us to the moon, NASA, confirms this science.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

go tell the Chinese about it... your wasting our time here.

stop blaming the US for all the worlds problems.. which you constantly

do...

smaulgld says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Unfortunately for you, a situation in which one side (not saying which) is largely correct and the other is out to lunch would also produce the situation you describe, so your remarks add nothing to the conversation.

THAT is condescending! :When you dismiss someone else's opinion as adding nothing.

You are aware that you do just that ad nauseum with your "both sides do it" statements, yes?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

the reveal you to be the right-wing asshole you really are, who has to appear moderate to whore yet another goldbug blog.

Nice ad hominem attacks! Very credibility gaining indeed.