patrick.net

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.

socal2 says

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.

Bellingham Bill says

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.

edvard2 says

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...

thomaswong.1986 says

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.

edvard2 says

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.

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/

edvard2 says

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!

edvard2 says

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 ?

smaulgld says

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 ?

thomaswong.1986 says

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....

edvard2 says

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.

smaulgld says

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.

thomaswong.1986 says

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.

edvard2 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

thomaswong.1986 says

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...

edvard2 says

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.

.

no....ya think??

edvard2 says

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.