Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Having just read the last page or so I find the climate hand-wringing rather dubious...
Was it not the belief in the 70's that the world was undergoing global cooling? A scant few decades later the panic is in the opposite direction? And I do mean 'panic.'
Why? The real problem is incredibly complicated and even the most conscientious climate expert will tell you that there are so many variables they can't possibly be sure what is going on. The biggest contributor of heat to the earth is the sun. Solar flares that grow and ebb, usually over about an 11 year cycle. But even that is debated. The icebergs are melting. No wait, the ice shelf in Antarctica has grown considerably since the late 70's. Look it up if you think I'm lying. Or does not this fact fit your paradigm?
Coast lines change ALL the time. Some models 10 years ago predicted the Marshall Islands would almost vanish by now...except they have more land mass/shoreline now. A single volcano in a day dwarfs the planet's man-made emissions in a year.
I would never say that we should not be more conscientious about how we treat our environment. But the Chicken Little crowd needs to get a serious reality check.
So you big proof is a global warming denial think tank?
Seventy-Five people responded in the study.
75.
It's a bogus stat and anyone pushing this should feel bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Wow that's great news Whembly! You should head on down to the southeast and tell people their homes are not underwater due to the effects of global warming that isn't real! I'm sure they'll be very happy to laugh at their mistake and move right back in. Or if the tropics are more your taste there are plenty of islands in southeast Asia with the same not-real problem. I know there's at least one sinking town in Alaska too. Clearly the water covering the land their ancestors inhabited without issue for generations isn't there, because the minority of scientists that disagrees with Global Warming could be as high as 5 or even 10 (TEN!!) percent rather than 3.
Musky. I'm NOT saying the effects of global warming isn't real.
What's unclear is how much is it's caused by human activity.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/01 19:25:07
Well, since the news broke about the "new" emails, and the polls are showing a tightening race, the stock market has managed to shrug off an impressive US GDP number and head south this week. Watch what the money is telling you about how it feels with the prospect of a Trump Presidency. Interesting read below.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Wikileaks is claiming that the questions in the Bernie-Hillary debate were leaked to the Clinton campaign prior to the debate.
Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
From:donna@brazileassociates.com
To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com Date: 2016-03-12 19:54
Subject: Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
I rarely hear it. I'll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com><mailto:jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>> wrote:
Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it.
Betsaida - can you send her answer on death penalty?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Donna Brazile <donna@brazileassociates.com><mailto:donna@brazileassociates.com>> wrote:
Here's one that worries me about HRC.
DEATH PENALTY
19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
Already posted earlier... Donna is no longer with CNN because of this.
So you big proof is a global warming denial think tank?
Seventy-Five people responded in the study.
75.
It's a bogus stat and anyone pushing this should feel bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Wow that's great news Whembly! You should head on down to the southeast and tell people their homes are not underwater due to the effects of global warming that isn't real! I'm sure they'll be very happy to laugh at their mistake and move right back in. Or if the tropics are more your taste there are plenty of islands in southeast Asia with the same not-real problem. I know there's at least one sinking town in Alaska too. Clearly the water covering the land their ancestors inhabited without issue for generations isn't there, because the minority of scientists that disagrees with Global Warming could be as high as 5 or even 10 (TEN!!) percent rather than 3.
Musky. I'm NOT saying the effects of global warming isn't real.
What's unclear is how much is it's caused by human activity.
Once again climate change denial think tank is your proof says more about you than me
amanita wrote: The icebergs are melting. No wait, the ice shelf in Antarctica has grown considerably since the late 70's. Look it up if you think I'm lying. Or does not this fact fit your paradigm?
You forgot that Antarcita isn't only place with ice? Fact: Total ice in BOTH poles is melting. Fast. Even if antarctica has grown doesn't mean iceberg's aren't melting. DUCY?
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what you mean. The established facts clearly contradict the general Republican view of the issues, but Republicans generally continue to support their own position. There isn't any doubt about this.
Perhaps you could offer some issues where the general Democrat view is held in defiance of the established facts.
Not to "gun" the thread, but perhaps the thought that gun free zones or the like will make an area safer?
whembly wrote: Musky. I'm NOT saying the effects of global warming isn't real.
What's unclear is how much is it's caused by human activity.
Not really. If you actually looked at the reports coming out, it's pretty clear we are the pusher. Not the only cause, the climate was going to warm slowly anyway, but nowhere near this fast.
And you are just proving KK's point. It's the change in the Republican line from "Climate change isn't real" to "It isn't caused by humans."00
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
amanita wrote: The icebergs are melting. No wait, the ice shelf in Antarctica has grown considerably since the late 70's. Look it up if you think I'm lying. Or does not this fact fit your paradigm?
You forgot that Antarcita isn't only place with ice? Fact: Total ice in BOTH poles is melting. Fast. Even if antarctica has grown doesn't mean iceberg's aren't melting. DUCY?
To be clear, one of the mysterious of climate change right now is that surface ice in Antarctica has increased (only slightly), while the Arctic has taken huge losses to it's ice mass. They don't measure out to be even, and even if they did that's not the point. The arctic melting is a big deal, and the antarctic growing just a wee bit doesn't disprove climate change even remotely. The best explanation for why the south pole has more ice on it is that all the melting ice in the north has altered the ocean's overall salt content and risen sea levels. The warm waters of the Gulf Stream still flow north, helping to melt the Northern ice cap while the melted ice lowers salt content and makes it easier for cold water flows in the southern oceans to freeze water in the south.,
Kilkrazy wrote: Why then is it that Republicans favour voter ID when it involves another layer of bureaucracy, costs more money, and isn't needed?
Because small government is their top priority.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, I'm not really interested in specific issues, I am interested in the fact that such issues exist and why have they become so polticised?
Let's drop climate change and look at voter ID. The facts surely are not in any dispute.
Why then is it that Republicans favour voter ID when it involves another layer of bureaucracy, costs more money, and isn't needed?
Because it is offered as The Solution to an ill defined 'voter fraud' problem. One side seems to use Voter Fraud in the legal sense (must have fraudulently voted) the other side includes a much more encompassing definition for which IDs are not the full solution set.
Voter fraud is legislating to defend against an issue where there is none. It's like giving the military $100mil to create defenses against cyber-cats from the future. In-person voter fraud (the only kind this defends against, and only some of that) it so rare, that more people are going to find themselves not able to vote because they don't have an ID with them or can't get one than fraud it will stop.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
amanita wrote: No wait, the ice shelf in Antarctica has grown considerably since the late 70's. Look it up if you think I'm lying. Or does not this fact fit your paradigm?
It's worth noting that the ice shelves comprise an area of 1,541,700 km², and the above 2 count for nearly 2/3rds of the area.
The 3rd largest is Amery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amery_Ice_Shelf Major cracks are currently forming, BUT: "However, the head of research believes that it is too early to attribute the cause to Global Warming as there is the possibility of a natural 50-60 year cycle being responsible"
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, I'm not really interested in specific issues, I am interested in the fact that such issues exist and why have they become so polticised?
Let's drop climate change and look at voter ID. The facts surely are not in any dispute.
Why then is it that Republicans favour voter ID when it involves another layer of bureaucracy, costs more money, and isn't needed?
Because it is offered as The Solution to an ill defined 'voter fraud' problem. One side seems to use Voter Fraud in the legal sense (must have fraudulently voted) the other side includes a much more encompassing definition for which IDs are not the full solution set.
Yet the Rs look at stories like that and 'know voter fraud (though that does not meet the actual definition of voter fraud) is occurring.
The R's are the reason for stories like that. They raided those offices because they were getting minorities to register to vote. Like the R's admitted to, voter ID laws are meant to suppress the vote.
They raided the office to look for evidence, in other words, they have no evidence, there was no reason to suspect any wrongdoings. It's the same as them pulling raiding your house to see if you're up to no good.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what you mean. The established facts clearly contradict the general Republican view of the issues, but Republicans generally continue to support their own position. There isn't any doubt about this.
Perhaps you could offer some issues where the general Democrat view is held in defiance of the established facts.
Not to "gun" the thread, but perhaps the thought that gun free zones or the like will make an area safer?
Is that a Democrat/Republican division?
Eh... kinda. Mostly it's a pro/anti 2nd amendment division.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, I'm not really interested in specific issues, I am interested in the fact that such issues exist and why have they become so polticised?
Let's drop climate change and look at voter ID. The facts surely are not in any dispute.
Why then is it that Republicans favour voter ID when it involves another layer of bureaucracy, costs more money, and isn't needed?
The thing is, Voter ID isn't just "show ID, get ballot on voting day". It's more than that....
It's also a state legal statute to mandate and fund periodic review/purging of the voter rolls.
It also provide means and structure for things like poll station observers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 20:50:10
Musky. I'm NOT saying the effects of global warming isn't real.
What's unclear is how much is it's caused by human activity.
Which doesn't matter one fething bit. You either want a cleaner, better world for your children, or you don't. Part of his comments were quoted earlier, but here is the full text:
I don’t give a **** if we agree about climate change.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER·MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2015
I see your questions.
Each and every time I post on my Facebook page or tweet about my crusade for a clean energy future, I see them.
There are always a few of you, asking why we should care about the temperature rising, or questioning the science of climate change.
I want you to know that I hear you. Even those of you who say renewable energy is a conspiracy. Even those who say climate change is a hoax. Even those of you who use four letter words.
I've heard all of your questions, and now I have three questions for you.
Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right.
First - do you believe it is acceptable that 7 million people die every year from pollution? That's more than murders, suicides, and car accidents - combined.
Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers?
Now, my second question: do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future?
Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out. What's your plan then?
I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels.
A clean energy future is a wise investment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either wrong, or lying. Either way, I wouldn't take their investment advice.
Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don't have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country. We were an early-adopter of a clean energy future.
Our economy has not suffered. In fact, our economy in California is growing faster than the U.S. economy. We lead the nation in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, entertainment, high tech, biotech, and, of course, green tech.
I have a final question, and it will take some imagination.
There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.
I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.
I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice - who would ever want to breathe those fumes?
This is the choice the world is making right now.
To use one of the four-letter words all of you commenters love, I don't give a damn if you believe in climate change. I couldn’t care less if you're concerned about temperatures rising or melting glaciers. It doesn't matter to me which of us is right about the science.
I just hope that you'll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.
So, which is it, Whembly? Which door do you choose? And which door is your party choosing?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Musky. I'm NOT saying the effects of global warming isn't real.
What's unclear is how much is it's caused by human activity.
Which doesn't matter one fething bit. You either want a cleaner, better world for your children, or you don't.
I'd tell Ah'nuld to get off his sanctimonious high horse and to go pound fething sand.
Part of his comments were quoted earlier, but here is the full text:
I don’t give a **** if we agree about climate change. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER·MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2015 I see your questions. Each and every time I post on my Facebook page or tweet about my crusade for a clean energy future, I see them. There are always a few of you, asking why we should care about the temperature rising, or questioning the science of climate change. I want you to know that I hear you. Even those of you who say renewable energy is a conspiracy. Even those who say climate change is a hoax. Even those of you who use four letter words. I've heard all of your questions, and now I have three questions for you. Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right. First - do you believe it is acceptable that 7 million people die every year from pollution? That's more than murders, suicides, and car accidents - combined. Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers? Now, my second question: do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future? Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out. What's your plan then? I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels. A clean energy future is a wise investment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either wrong, or lying. Either way, I wouldn't take their investment advice. Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don't have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country. We were an early-adopter of a clean energy future. Our economy has not suffered. In fact, our economy in California is growing faster than the U.S. economy. We lead the nation in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, entertainment, high tech, biotech, and, of course, green tech. I have a final question, and it will take some imagination. There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast. I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask. I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice - who would ever want to breathe those fumes? This is the choice the world is making right now. To use one of the four-letter words all of you commenters love, I don't give a damn if you believe in climate change. I couldn’t care less if you're concerned about temperatures rising or melting glaciers. It doesn't matter to me which of us is right about the science. I just hope that you'll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.
So, which is it, Whembly? Which door do you choose? And which door is your party choosing?
I want a reasoned approached.
I don't mind the kitchen sink approach.
I don't mind seeing more Telsa and Volts on the road.
I don't mind seeing innovative ideas like the Telsa Powerwall and things like that...
We ought to liberalize the onerous nuke commission so that we can build more nuclear reactors. (the greenest fething energy source we have today)
What I *do* mind is reacting for the sake of 'WE MUCH DO SOMETHING NOOOOOOOOOOOW!'
-The Carbon tax bs -Mandating LED lights over incandescent (I'm looking at you California) -Kyoto and Paris Climate UN treaty... don't get me started. -all of this is steaming pile of BS with a heaping dose of hubris.
We can do all of these things if we take a measured approach and be pragmatic with our actions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 21:06:47
Next time, Whembly, you can just say "no" and save yourself the effort.
I'm certainly going to save myself the effort from now on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 21:09:46
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
They also only convert around 5 percent of the energy you put into them into visible light at max. So you need to use way more energy to get the same light output.
They use more energy and need replacing more often. They are the very definition of false economy
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/01 21:29:07
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
