by mell ➕follow (9) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 27 - 66 of 852 Next » Last » Search these comments
And the reason why we need to waster perfectly good potable water by dumping into the ocean is?
Onvacation I don’t get your attempt at humor.
Reservoirs should be full to the brim but I'm sure politicians made sure there is enough drainage and poor planning so they can keep promoting state of emergencies and fuck over their constituents.
It appears he literally can't imagine someone rationally not agreeing with his existing worldview, so he has to invent a twisted caricature of those who disagree as "mindless Biden voters" then get pissy when people don't even respond because he's so far off in the weeds from their actual views.
Humanity can't simply reservoir our way out of this. If there was a PLACE to build another Lake Oroville, it wouldn't catch enough storm pulse to make a difference in summer-fall water demand, and there doesn't appear to be enough water being released from the dam to have both a healthy Sacramento river year round and also millions of acre-feet of impounded water.
It's YOUR fault that you're "misunderstood" - you want to be misunderstood, rather than just explaining your position and viewpoint.
richwicks saysIt's YOUR fault that you're "misunderstood" - you want to be misunderstood, rather than just explaining your position and viewpoint.
My problem is I HAVE explained my viewpoint.
I can understand his frustration with you, but I don't understand why he continues to interact with you. In my opinion, it's a waste of time.
My problem is I HAVE explained my viewpoint
These are classic bullying techniques. In person we could sort it quickly. Online I can't be arsed and will sooner disengage from or completely leave a community that tolerates bullies and demagogues in their midst. I expected better of YOU, Richwicks, than to act like a burned out teacher who can't be arsed to sort out a real conflict between her charges, so punishes the victim and bully alike which the bully relishes as a win state and the victim adopts a rightful "fuck this shit I'm out" mentality toward the entire space.
"global warming"
When it started in the late 70's it was actually global cooling.
This should be a place where people can discuss anything without being attacked for their beliefs.
Bd6r says"global warming"
When it started in the late 70's it was actually global cooling.
I expected better of YOU, Richwicks, than to act like a burned out teacher who can't be arsed to sort out a real conflict between her charges
Automan Empire saysMy problem is I HAVE explained my viewpoint
No. You never explained why you voted for Biden.
We don't have many dissenting opinions on subjects here on patnet. Would be nice when we do if people would remember not to take it personally and attack the dissenter. If you want to flame, go to reddit, or any other social platform where you can be as nasty as you want. This should be a place where people can discuss anything without being attacked for their beliefs.
The same "idiot case" keeps getting made, and it was the EARLY 70s when this one already got SOLVED. This is the environmentalism version of "There's no point working harder to earn a raise, this will only bump me into a higher tax bracket and I'll just make the same or less!"
then any new predictions coming out of that crowd
I just demonstrated, what you are calling "that crowd" is three completely different phenomena, the first two occurring 10 years earlier than you even claimed and more than 2 generations prior to the "warming" alarmists and genuinely concerned people of today.
if we refer to "climate scientists" making wrong predictions since 1970 (or even earlier) as a "crowd",
It's different scientists, making different claims, about different phenomena and potential sequelae, in a different era.
Literally every connection you try to make or equivocation you falsely assume betweem the two, has no connection to actual climate science or actual climate scientists.
Literally every connection you try to make or equivocation you falsely assume betweem the two
The connection perhaps is called "climate science" in both cases.
The medical system in America is broken in 1000 ways as well. Your argumentation is like saying medicine sucks today and modern doctors can't be trusted, because bloodletting and mercurochrome, then leaving it at that and dismissing anyone questioning the claim as some kind of shill.
Automan Empire saysThe medical system in America is broken in 1000 ways as well. Your argumentation is like saying medicine sucks today and modern doctors can't be trusted, because bloodletting and mercurochrome, then leaving it at that and dismissing anyone questioning the claim as some kind of shill.
We should question everything in science, including the currently accepted theory of global warming (and also the opposite). However, if a particular field becomes too politicized then we should be extra careful. I get that some of this panic is created by MSM journos who need audience to earn $$$, but even if we discount that, there were several relatively high profile cases where climate scientists of the global warming panic type were refusing to dissect their models etc. Any opposition is shouted down, and not in a very scientific way, which is irritating. With respect to medicine, the politiciza...
Then again, more CO2 means greener Earth and it is demonstrably better for plant life.
We should question everything in science
All things being equal, CO2 enrichment will only accelerate growth to the limits of some other factor, and if CO2 isn't the primary limiting factor for a given plant in a given microclimate, it won't help and may make the plant suffer, as from chlorosis if iron or magnesium isn't locally bioavailable. CO2 has been well known to "the left" for 30 years as clandestine pot growers developed the technology and technique. The optimum CO2 concentration for "ideal" plant growth is therefore well documented in actual practice, and it's nowhere near a desirable atmospheric level for the entire planet and everything in the biosphere, to say nothing of the warming that would occur should we reach a fraction of this amount.
Well because of Fukushima and chernobyl. Of course the degree of environmental and health impact of both has been debated and there is no clear conclusion.
Anyone who thinks we wouldn't be better off with more reservoirs has a hole in their head.
mell saysWell because of Fukushima and chernobyl. Of course the degree of environmental and health impact of both has been debated and there is no clear conclusion.
There is a hard number of deaths per produced unit of energy. Nuclear fares pretty well, so opposition is unscientific.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/?source=patrick.net
My argument isn't that we wouldn't be better off without more reservoirs
« First « Previous Comments 27 - 66 of 852 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,230,151 comments by 14,704 users - Ceffer, goofus online now