This is for my buddy Brian.
I fell off my chair laughing but, be warned, the language is foul!!!!
It is too bad that tender ears are missing out on that.
Whether you are an environmentalist or not, it makes sense. Just because God gave you "dominion" over the Earth and all living things does not mean you should SHIT all over it. In fact, when is this EVER an acceptable way to treat a gift?
That's like if someone bought you a Model S. How do you think they'd feel if they came back and found that you'd driven it in a demolition derby, or just plain treated it like crap? I'm pretty sure you could expect that that person would NEVER give you another nice gift again.
Foulmouthed and stupid as most warmism. As it happens, corn is bred, a human derivative of a wild plant with a tiny fraction of modern productivity. Same with wheat. And 40% of all grain farming is now done for mandated and over-compensated biofuels, which return far less energy than that burned in fossil fuels to grow them. Even Agg Lore admits it was a stupid idea.
In the last decade, grain prices have doubled, twice. Millions have been pushed over the edge. F'ng warmists. Mass killers, deliberate 'de-populators'.
Here's a real joke. Some industrial users are mandated to use an increasing % of cellulosic ethanol -- which exists only in quart quantities in a few laboratories, only. All attempts to produce it commercially have failed. But the users are fined with increasing severity for failing to buy and burn it.
The dimmest of the doofuses are in charge of the madhouse.
@lolachampcar Maybe you can move this thread to the "General" forum, since it's not related to the Model S?
I'm with you on the non-sense of growing food for fuel. Hopefully an alternative like growing algae instead will prove vital.
So, Brian, you are looking for someone on this forum to defend politicians?
It is a good idea but I never spend any time there and would miss responses. It is a bit selfish but easier for me to keep track of it.
@Brian Turning food into fuel is silly, I agree. Corn-based ethanol is a joke. But cellulosic ethanol is a bit beyond "quart quantities", and is expected to begin rising sharply as more plants come online. Here's an article with metrics of 500,000 gallons in 2012: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-11/cellulosic-biofuel-to-surge-in-...
Brian is trying to muddy the water.
He can't defend the science on climate so he says "misguided but well intentioned environmentalists in the past advocated bio fuels which BIG AG then exploited to line it's pockets. All environmental policies are terrible."
I believe the word "dominion" was mistranslated from the original word which had a meaning much closer to "stewardship". The difference in meaning is tremendous.
@SamoSam: "All environmental policies are terrible."
Brian never said any such thing. It is much easier to put ridiculous words in someone's mouth than to refute their actual points, but it's not very convincing.
he didn't say any of those words directly. my point in quoting was to paraphrase the logical reasoning he was employing.
His argument for doing nothing is that people have made mistakes in the past.
I did not advocate for biofuels. Nor did anyone else here. So this is a straw man.
If Elon didn't exist, neither would Tesla. If Tesla didn't exist, there would be no competitive threat from EVs to traditional auto makers. So no, the free market cannot solve our problems. We need environmental policy on some level because a free market, capitalistic economy only cares about money and profits - not about how many trees and plants and animals are being sacrificed to create those profits.
Our environment is a finite resource and it must be managed responsibly.
Even if it was warmer in the past?
Jk, totally agree with you!
If Elon didn't exist, neither would Tesla.
Well he does exist, and so does Tesla. That means that the rest of what you wrote based on that conditional is true by the rules of logic, but only in the same sense that the following statement is true:
"If a Model S has a gas tank, then I am the King of England."
Decision tree is not binary, but let's say god is coming back. He's gonna be pissed when he see's what we've done. Or there is no god and we drown in our own waste.
Either way, makes sense to not foul our nest.
The environmental "cost" for conservation leads to growth in industries like Solar City. So one person's cost is another person's job. And a clean environment has health benefits. We should consider that in the equation.
@jbunn: Agreed. I don't think anyone (including Brian) wants dirty water, air or food.
One thing I will point out though, is that creating jobs is not a sufficient reason for an environmental "cost". Whatever policy that creates the job should also effectively address whatever environmental concerns it was intended to fix. Unfortunately, history tells us that many such policies have been ineffective or even counterproductive, and their unintended consequences far outweigh any good they do.
That's not to argue we should do nothing, just that we take a hard look at policies before they are implemented.
This is going to come across a little odd but let me give it a go....
Those that do not create value can only create jobs be redistributing wealth.
Those that do create value create jobs.
We need to reward those that add value and do so with a good moral compass.
Although there are many examples of people adding value, creating jobs, consuming too many resources and trashing the nest, I reject that statement that all who add value trash the nest. Again, we need to focus on those that add value in a sane rational way as opposed to doing so simply out of greed. I believe Elon is a good example of how it should be done.
WRT to this whole climate science debate, the concept of critical scientific review belongs in the scientific community and not in the land of public opinion. The scientific community will bounce out false experts and BS arguments. The land of public opinion will embrace them. Those that feel we are treating out nest just fine simply moved the debate from the scientific community (where they were getting their butts kicked) to the broader public arena where you can spout BS and someone will listen to and even believe you.
It worked. Nice move. Bad results. Yes, it pisses me off but then I just got out maneuvered. Live and learn.
that's pretty good!
The cleanest environments are the wealthiest ones; it's a luxury good. You want devastated environments, make the population poor and desperate.
@Brian H....if u r trying to argue there is no global warming, u deadly wrong....big time dude!! Ask farmers anywhere in the world who know much better about climate issues than most! They will tell u w/o exception there is indeed significant warming -- whether they are farmers in developing world such as in Africa or farmers in Kansas and Texas who have been suffering from recurrent droughts! It's true croplands must not be converted to bio-fuel production at significant levels. The result would be skyrocketing food prices and food riots. And it's true in many ways as u said an undeveloped, poor society is more likely to abuse the envrironment than a rich, prosperous society. A household which doesn't have affordable access to electricity is likely to utilize wood products which r produced by cutting trees for energy. A farmer which doesn't use modern technology such as fertilizer and select seeds is likely to expand his farmland by leveling forest land to makeup for his for low crop yields. But it's also equally true developed or highly developing nations can wreck havoc to the enviornment if their progress is based on processes that not enviornmentally....releasing tons of Co2 every year is one of them.......hope ur not following Rush Limbaugh types on this issue...Rush when it comes to this issue is a total buffoon! A complete Neanderthal Joke!
Oyster farmers on the west coast will also tell you the pH of seawater is decreacing. Its killing oyster larva. CO2 is disolving into seawater and creating carbonic acid, lowering pH, as it buffers the atmosphere.
Of course the climat is changing. It always has. But mankind can't possibly be the cause. AGW has nothing to do with science anymore. It's a religion.
Remember the global cooling warnings in the 70ies?
Hard, as usual, to decipher your grammar and logic, but satellites observe the world is greening as CO2 rises, and find little or no recent warming. The graphs you're used to seeing were manufactured by systematically deflating earlier readings and inflating later ones.
In any case, warming would, as has been the case ever since the ice sheets retreated 12000 years ago, be hugely beneficial. There's been a little rise since the "Little Ice Age", coldest centuries since then, ended about 150 years ago, and pray that it continues. You wouldn't enjoy the alternative.
@Brian H...U can mock and deny the data all u want but it will not change reality! I am not surprised a bit it's hard for u to decipher reality as fringe DENIER who believes 99% of scientists r frauds who manufacture data such as this: http://t.co/84aaENHDaT!
Not a bit because logic and science is a bane of fringe deniers ala Rush Limbaugh and Creationists!! Though the earth temp has steadily risen every decade as the data in the article shows, no, it's fiction according to u and Rush! Though underground water level and rain amount critical to farming is declining, everything is peachy according to u and fellow fringe deniers! Though farmlands across the globe including in Texas and Kansas r turning into dust bawl deserts, nothing is wrong!! Nothing to worry about!! Though the Science unequivocally says temp increase over 2 degree centigrade will result in significant rain and fertile farmland shortages, u argue it's good for us.........NOPE...NOPE...we rather trust the Science than blind or short sighted deniers!! It's a free country...u can believe anything u want no matter how off base! But we r not interested in signing a suicide pact! Hopefully the majority will not do so as well and will save current and future genrations from the deadly folly of Science and Reality mockers!!
This debate will never end, The deniers and the alarmists are both misguided. This dialog detracts from the real issues which have infinitely less speculation:
We are going to poison every resource we have long before warming kills us. Water will be unfit for consumption, air unbreathable, and food inedible. Cancer rates will continue skyrocketing as the western diet grows around the world. Some backwoods jackaninny will shoot every polar bear before they all drown due to warming issues. That goes for about every other stuffable , fishable, or edible species as well (plant and animal).
This is exactly why we need strong environmental policy. Not to control warming, but to keep our resources safe, clean, sustainable, and usable (I also like to go camping, fishing, hunting, and really like vacations in national parks and forests).
The focus currently is squarely on the wrong issue. I wish people would wake up. Global warming, is the new acid rain. its real? yeah.part of a cycle? that too...man made? who knows. Should we try helping? um yes....the alternative of being wrong seems like it has more downside to me.
I worked in environmental remediation dealing with pesticides, leaks, "unknowns", UST tank spills, PCBs, pipeline mishaps and so on. This is the stuff of nightmares. It just freaks you when you see how close to home and your kids it is. When politicians keep redefining the definition of the words "clean air" and "Clean Water" it kind of tells you where the problems are. (When they work on redefining "warming" and "cooling" we need to start worrying).
Its time to stop letting the "global warming profit machine" from diverting the focus on the immediate issue. Us and our profound ability to poison our nests, not heat it up or cool it.
For those on this forum who would like an accessible link to some science on the matter, here is a link to get you started http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Climate Change is not something you need to 'believe in'. It is something that you can examine with a critical mind, and then hopefully accept the (overwhelming) evidence.
"But mankind can't possibly be the cause."
An unshakeable conviction without any evidence to back it up = religion.
@mackhmike....the science clearly shows if the temp rises over 2 centigrade overall, the negative effect on the world is going to be very significant. U r truly underestimating the seriousness of global warming...and global warming is a reality...it is happening and it will keep going to a point of catastrophic level unless there is drastic change is implemented soon in the developed and fast developing countries like China....i suggest u research what over 2 centigrade global warming will do to different sectors of society including the agriculture industry....the cost to human and financial terms in huge...it's disasterous! And I will guarantee u one thing....the fossil fuel industry will never let u know this...........
The solution is simple... AWG isn't worth the risk, go solar, drive electric and be happy :)
Stuffed to the gills with idiot stereotypes, aincha?
The earth has fortunately been warming up from the depths of the LIA since the late 1800s. Nothing to do with humans, except to make life far easier and safer. Long may warming continue! There's a long way to go before we get back to the lovely Medieval, Roman, Minoan, or Holocene Warming levels.
@Brian H.....the earth has also suffered catastrophic natural events which can't be avoided, some weather related..but to let a man made catastrophic event is what is truly IDIOTIC!
You blame science all the time for being wrong in spite of all evidence collected. Do you have anything better to offer?
How can you foresee that it is beneficial to all around the globe? Global warming does not mean, that you'll be able to comfortably sit in your garden all year long. Instead storms will get more powerful due to more evaporation, while other regions may get longer draughts or severe winters, without elNin* phenomena.
Major insurance companies, like Munich Re, acknowledge that global warming is happening since the '70s to help their risk management analysis. Or is that for you just another conspiracy to raise insurance fees by bad companies?
What do you think you could personally benefit from climate change?
You seem to be thinking that the mere existence natural variations is proof that AGW can not happen. The opposite is true: the climate has changed in the past, so it can change again. All the climate needs is a forcing.
Past climate changes were natural and not anthropogenic because there were simply not enough humans. The Mauna Loa measurements clearly show that we now are in a position to make significant changes to the composition of the atmosphere. Over the past few centuries, humans have acquired the numbers and technology for the first time in the history of this planet.
We are already above MWP levels and unstoppingly heading for temperatures well above anything witnessed during our 10,000 year history. As far as this planet goes, we are going into uncharted territory, largely ignorant of how the planet will react. You will not witness the full consequences, they will become clear only after you have lived your life. Nonetheless, you seem to be hellbent on pushing this irreversible experiment forward. That is not something to be proud of.
As Elon said, GW aside, we are in the middle of a huge experiment with the only possible good outcome being very short term gain.
Rich or poor, anyone with common sense does not crap where they sleep. I'm sure there is a bunch of science to back that statement up but you do not need it. It is simple common sense.
Yawn. Actual, real climate science informs us that warmth reduces the gradient from tropics (stable) to poles (variable), and reduces and calms severe weather. The storminess of the LIA, e.g., exceeded anything in more recent history. And we are currently setting new records for consecutive days (almost 3000) without US Cat 3 or greater landfalling hurricances. And tornado frequency (F3 or higher) is also way down for the last 10 years. Etc. Even droughts and floods, if you look at the real numbers, are way below average.
Obeano's "Accelerating warming" etc. is 180° off the truth. As usual.
typo: hurricances hurricanes
Cherry picking a short timeframe again?
Hurricane windspeeds alone do not mean that less damage is done, see Sandy (2012), Ike (2008), Dolly (2008) etc.
Costliest recent years were e.g. 2004 and 2005; 7 or 8 of those hurricanes made landfall (Katrina amongst those) and amounted to USD ~195 billion of damages (without inflation).
Hurricanes (cat. 3,4,5) that made landfall by recent decades:
Also, both the average numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes are going upwards (since 1850s).
Sources: NOAA (USA, 2011)
This data can be found in mere seconds.
Brian H knows less about climate change than newb tesla troll knows about the Model S.
Please stick to the Tesla, where your knowledge is prodigious.
Your understanding of the science is a huge fail.
Actually, I was as unknowing as you years ago, then got into a discussion dispute, which caused me to do my own investigation. I warrant I've read and studied as much or more material than all the posters on this thread put together.
AGW theory is a moribund horse, and no amount of "stick" will revive it.
Another thread devolved into a Global Warming debate, awesome.
I dont believe in Macro-evolution, anyone want to flame me with "evidence" it does exist? Thats another fun topic to superfluously argue about. :)
Please refrain from posting 'facts' which are nonsense.
Your quote 'Actual, real climate science informs us that warmth reduces the gradient from tropics (stable) to poles (variable), and reduces and calms severe weather. ' is a typical example.
Have a read of this:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/30/2064511/the-jet-stream-how-i...
How much reading of the actual science have you done? When I say science, I mean published papers with raw data; I do not mean denier blogs.
At the end of the day though, you are more interested in holding your (erroneous) opinion, than taking a prudent considered position given the possible costs and benefits. The benefits of moving to a sustainable, renewable economy are worthwhile regardless of the issue of Global Warming. Why spend your time trying to stop a move to a better world?
Some people define themselves by being against. Logic, common sense or basic rational thought does not matter as to abandon the path is to loose what "makes you different".
Sleep in crap if you must just do not expect me to respect you for the decision.
"Moving to a sustainable" green economy was the position I used to espouse. When I deconstructed the per-job and per-product costs etc. I realized what a loser the idea was.
It's bafflegab, essentially. Nothing is infinitely sustainable in the material world -- and trying to preserve past practice is a fool's errand.
You are wrong again. There are many examples I could give you, but how about this one.
I am currently installing a solar PV system for my home in New Zealand. There are absolutely no subsidies or incentives available to me so I am paying the entire cost myself. The system should more than cover my electricity requirements including charging my Tesla S (when I get it). The payback will be be between 7 and 10 years depending on how you calculate everything out. After that I will be saving about $2500-$3000 per year in power costs.
How can you reasonably describe this personal example as babblegab and a fool's errand?
Unless the oil/gas industry will flood markets with natural gas, all oil-derived products' prices can only go up in the future. I won't argue here that it will happen soon or even in both our lifetimes, but it's a future certainty. At that time everyone, customers and industry alike, must act upon higher prices and economically decide for green(er) solutions. And when the resources are completely gone (or no longer feasible to produce), it's over.
Better to start way ahead of that, get problems solved and be prepared, if not for our own sake, at least for the next generations to come.
(1st sentence: oil/gas are different sectors, but still)
because running a house on private power doesn't a) begin to address the system needs, b) still depends on the grid at night, etc., c) if implemented on a large scale (>~15% of system load) deranges and destabilizes the grid, d) doesn't apply well above moderate latitudes, e) has at best (even making all sorts of dubious assumptions) immeasurably small and far in the future benefits, f) does not address the fundamental "sustainability" and "renewable" logic and category errors. Etc.