patrick.net

Hater says

Whenever someone says "the science is settled" I know they do not understand science.

Complete bullshit. Don't believe me, then jump off a tall cliff. See how unsettled the science of gravity is.

We literally sentence people to death on the basis of evidence orders of magnitude less certain than the evidence for climate change. We also bomb nations and individuals on the basis of evidence of terrorism that isn't nearly as certain as the evidence of climate change.

How about we call climate change "thermo-terrorism" and then all you dumb ass conservatives will get aboard with stopping it. You're cave man mentality can't understand any threats that don't happen suddenly and don't involve neighboring tribes clubbing you over the head.

Again, cursory Google searches reveal how much the global mean temperature increased over the past 20 years and how significant that is.

To visualize it, imaging four nuclear bombs like the one dropped on Hiroshima going off every seconds of every day of every year. That's how much heat has been added to the globe.

The fact is that you don't give a shit about climate change, so you are willing to let others suffer rather than having to give up stealing from them by not polluting as much. It's like an arms dealer who sells to everyone including terrorists and then denies that terrorism is real. The answer is that people like you should get no voice at the table when the world decides what to do about climate change.

Pollution is theft, plain and simple. Those who advocate it to increase their profits should be treated as the thieves they are.

Trumpligula needs a Truman Capote vocoder to really get his message across.

Hater says

Climate change is a scam to separate people from their money and freedom.

bingo.

actually if you watch the whole thing, you see it's a pretty reasonable comment in context:

www.youtube.com/embed/ZtJs8A0cYlI

What a mess. But eh, there's no free lunch.

errc says

in order to avoid the dividend

why would you want to avoid the dividend?

Entire polling firms spent $millions of dollars polling.

O"hillary spent upwards of $1B of funds on the campaign.

Polls were oversampled to the democrats by roughly 2-8%.

Demos declared the polls right, said that Hillary had it in the bag.

When polls were wrong, the Dems did not know who to blame.

They are now mad that the polls were wrong, not what the people wanted.

They believed that their will was right, and when proven wrong they had to be upset at Republicans, who already suffered misleading polls.

False polls, false feelings, false blaming, and false outrage. So many false news stories, so few people people to believe whats true.

$133

iPhone 7 didn't have that many upgrades and sales already broke record. can't imagine what the stock price will be when all 3 models are released next year.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/could-iphone-cost-1-000-023229920.html

Ironman says

Comment from the article (note, this is where Goatfucker Dan lives):

I see you have learned to accuse others of your own very obvious weaknesses. Trump does this with applomb. Glad to see you are learning something.

RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says

iPhone 7 didn't have that many upgrades and sales already broke record. can't imagine what the stock price will be when all 3 models are released next year.

Or they get a tax holiday and bring home all that money and do a stock buyback.

Heres Your Card says

Easy, now...

ARM! offshore banking nations to protect the 1%s money.
FREEDOM MUST BE PROTECTED!

landtof says

Hater says

Climate change is a scam to separate people from their money and freedom.

bingo.

Climate change denial is a scam to separate people from their money and freedom by letting others steal and vandalize public property, the oceans, the land, and the air.

Fixed that for you.

Hater says

How about in Fahrenheit or celsius instead of megatons?

And how much of a change in degrees would it take to be considered significant to you? Please make the argument that a one degree F temperature rise is insignificant and means we should ignore the problem. Please, please, please make that stupid argument. I've got hundreds of references ready to go showing how fucking wrong you are. Come on, call my hand.

How about you do-nothingers put your money where your mouth is? Take out a $50 trillion insurance policy on Florida that will pay each resident and business in the event that coastal flooding destroys homes and businesses. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, don't ask us to put our money and livelihoods on the line so a bunch of greedy ass, anti-American corporations can continue to pollute and destroy public property with impunity.

Uncontrolled climate change is devastating to the economy, fool.

Hater says

Given up your car yet?

OK, asshole. If your argument against fighting pollution and climate change is that we can't give up cars, then you are conceding that any plan I or anyone else can come up with that doesn't require giving up cars will be accepted. So here's my car-friendly plan.

1. Outlaw fossil fuel power plants.
2. Stop subsidizing oil in any way.
3. Fine polluters five times the cost of cleaning up the pollution they generate.
4. Tax each greenhouse gas in proportion to the amount of warming it causes. This includes both a carbon tax and a separate methane tax.

There, that's a free market solution to the problem, and it doesn't involve anyone giving up cars. Checkmate, bitch.

Hey Chucky, love your confirmation rules. Really working out well for you. Nice bed you made for yourself there.

Smooth move, Ex-lax!

Not sure why everyone is arguing about whether global warming is true or not. Really comes down to:
1) Why pollute if you don't have to?
2) What is wrong with making corporations and those who use the environment pay or mitigate their use of the shared resource (our planet)?
3) Doesn't this lead to new industries that provide for a smaller carbon footprint: windmill power, solar and so on. Even if this is "fake" - don't we want new opportunities in the economy?

I guess it really boils down to the timing of the approach. If the models are off (I don't know, seems like most agree it is on the low end of the prediction spread), then we have some time to proceed more naturally versus extreme approaches. I guess that is where the rub is: what is extreme to curb carbon emissions and what is not.

This is whachucal tied up in your own rigging.

No, stocks are higher based on the expectation that Trump will screw over Joe sixpack and let businesses run amok without regulations, oversight, and taxes.

We've seen this act before and it never ends well.

What did I predict?

Hater says

Let's get politics and name calling out of the debate.

You are the one who brings politics at the table.

As for name calling, it comes a time when things must be called with their real names - your questions above reveal ignorance and stupidity.

No, what did I predict above? You said "another" of your failed predictions. In order to be another, there had to be a prediction in that post.

"Are you that fucking stupid that you can't click on the link I gave you??"

I clicked on it. It doesn't answer my question. Let me ask again:

What did I predict on this post:

"No, stocks are higher based on the expectation that Trump will screw over Joe sixpack and let businesses run amok without regulations, oversight, and taxes."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/10/513963490/1-000-years-ago-corn-made-this-society-big-then-a-changing-climate-destroyed-the

Here's an article from NPR that details the reality of the little ice age and the preceding Middle Ages warming period. Apparently the warming period made Missouri great again for corn farming and Indian culture blossomed there for a couple hundred years. Then the little ice age happened, causing weather patterns to shift. This made Missouri and plains areas dry and unsuitable for corn growing, while making the western states flood with water. Perhaps the Anasazi civilization flourished at those times when the American west was fertile and had lots of rain. Perhaps Cahokian Indians went there.

Point is: climate change that affects arable land has and will continue to happen regardless of man. Right now, we may be entering a colder period. As we speak, the west is becoming rainier and the middle of the country is drying a bit. We will see if that's carried out once summer gets here. If so, it may be part of a general trend.

Do you know what the word "another" means?

Quigley says

Point is: climate change that affects arable land has and will continue to happen regardless of man.

Irrelevant.

The relevant question - does man cause a systematic climate change?

I'm pretty convinced that global warming is real, but not convinced it's an epic disaster for the world.

In fact, simply looking at the truly vast amounts of land in Canada and Russia that are experiencing longer growing seasons, I think total global food production might go up with increased warming.

Not that that's much comfort to countries like Bangladesh.

I hope the Irony isn't lost on you phony bastards!

FP says

The relevant question - does man cause a systematic climate change?

nope.

Hater says

Can't people move up the hill when their feet get wet?

And how much will that cost the US economy?

Maybe an "Illegal Immigrant Rapist Full Scholarship Fund" for NCU.

Makes about as much sense as any of the the other libby delusions.

Ironman says

I'm sure they're just "misunderstood" and are really nice guys. Please let your daughters date them.

What basis do you have for this strawman line? Who actually thinks this? Most pro immigration reform people have no problem charging and deporting known criminals, and NOBODY is in favor of child abuse.

rando says

Not that that's much comfort to countries like Bangladesh.

Also not much comfort to coastal cities like Miami and New York. Trillions of dollars of economic loss may not be an "epic disaster for the world", but it makes 9/11 look utterly insignificant, and how much did we sacrifice to fight terrorism? Far more people will die and far more economic loss will occur due to climate change than due to terrorism. Hell, the spread of malaria alone will kill more people than all of terrorism in all of history put together.

So we should treat a climate change attack -- and yes, let's start calling it an attack because essentially that is what it is, intentional or not -- we should treat a climate change attack with the same seriousness as a major terrorist attack. The stakes are higher in climate change even in the mildest scenario.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

Please make the argument that a one degree F temperature rise is insignificant

Has it been that much over the last 20 years?

About twice that.

Our Planet’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone

Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until last October to reach the first 1.0 degree Celsius, and we’ve come as much as an extra 0.4 degrees further in just the last five months.

Hater says

Okay maybe you can answer the questions?.

The trajectory of a dynamical system in its phase space is determined by a set of non-linear differential equations. If you take the simplest system, a point moving in 1-D (e.g a pendulum) with energy conservation (closed system) you have a 2-d phase space (coordinate and momentum) and a system of 2 non-linear differential equations (Hamilton's equations). This already results in a number of stationary points, their basins of stability and phase space trajectories.
When I teach theoretical mechanics, this is one of the hardest topics for the students. Yet it is only the simplest, idealized system.

Do you know what I am talking about? Because if you don't, if you have never studied non-linear differential equations, you wouldn't understand how stupid your questions are.