It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:04 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:25 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24098
Everything is point scoring to you Foota.


What a boorish fellow.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:12 am 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16649
barcelona wrote:
Everything is point scoring to you Foota.


What a boorish fellow.


If you are going to slag on America for carbon per capita - I think it is more than reasonable to point to the size of our economy per capita as well.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:23 am 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
I’m neutral on this until SG chimes in.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:30 am 
Online
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 31908
PBFMullethunter wrote:
I’m neutral on this until SG chimes in.


It's a bit of a pointless discussion until he does tbh

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:39 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
Foota wrote:
Holyman wrote:
Read the fucking report Foota.

The Planet is *ALREADY* sick... Already suffering from the effects of Climate Change... And very large numbers of human beings are already suffering the painful consequences.


Only got so many hours in the day and have read enough climate change garbage over the years to make my head spin. I'm pretty busy working real environmental issues like clean water.


Making your own contribution to cleaning this filthy Planet of ours up then. Well done.

But look, here’s the thing:

Of all the topics we discuss around here, this one is purely scientific. There’s no room for opinion, ideology or politics in discussions about the Planet’s Environment and Ecology.

You either bring facts to the table, or you STFU. Save your opinions and beliefs for discussions on just about every other topic that comes up at the OP.

Now you’ve just acknowledged right there that you don’t have enough time to read the latest “climate change garbage”.

That’s fair enough.

But you *DO* seem to have enough time to routinely dismiss and denigrate any discussions around Environmental Science and the impact of human activities on the Earth’s Ecosphere.

How do you square that?

You don’t read any of the science yourself; but you compulsively dismiss any of the science that other OP’rs *ARE* reading.

Wouldn’t that be the same as you and me arguing about atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, but with me refusing to read-up on anything he may or may not have done?

As I recall, our discussions on Saddam and the necessity to take “decisive action” to address the threat he posed to the World, went on for quite some time.

How long would you have continued to engage with me if I admitted I hadn’t read anything at all about him, what he had done, or was doing?

I’m not talking about me reading the “wrong” stuff about Hussein. I’m talking about me not reading anything at all. Just pulling my opinions out of my belief-shaped arsehole.

The whole Iraq Invasion *WAS* about politics, opinion and ideology. I presented secondary source material that I believed was accurate; and you would challenge that with secondary source material that you believed was accurate.

But when it comes to the issue of “Climate Change” (@Midnight: think of that term as a “Placeholder”), myself and more or less everyone else around here produce scientific source material we’ve found and understood sufficiently; and your only response is a consistent, “I don’t believe it.”

No deconstruction of the evidence (like you can always rely on me to do when you provide “evidence”…), either by your own efforts, or the efforts of others you’ve found via Google.

You’re not even ashamed to admit that you don’t read any of the science, much less try and understand it.

So, how exactly are we supposed to proceed on this basis?

Foota wrote:
Surely you can provide a sentence or two of real honest to God human suffering caused by climate change occurring TODAY. What you previously quoted from the report were just more projected forecasts.


Of course I can provide a sentence or five hundred on the “…suffering caused by Climate Change occurring TODAY”. And knowing me, that’s almost certainly what I’m about to do…

But before I do, I must strongly emphasise that I do *FULLY* understand what a pointless and futile exercise it will be.

Climate Science is just about as complicated as it gets.

The need to predict weather patterns has driven (and continues to drive) the development of Computing Capability more than any other human initiative (including Space exploration). Because the ability to predict weather patterns has a direct impact on commercial bottom lines, and consequently gets a *LOT* of Private Sector funding.

So… It’s complicated, right?

And yet at every turn of your ideologically-driven mind, you insist upon brief soundbites that won’t cause your mental metabolism indigestion.

So we rational, pragmatic, evidence-based types are required to reduce the massive complexities of Climate Science down to over-simplified phrases… Which you will then dismiss as being not fully accurate, or wholly inaccurate.

You ask for explanations and evidence. You are pointed at the wealth of evidence available to you on the Web. You say you don’t have time to read it. You are given a few lurid “headline items” absent the scientific context within which they were found. And you then dismiss those Misfortune-Cookie-sized statements as having no merit.

Shortly, I’ll start listing some of the human suffering that is being caused “TODAY” by Climate Change fuelled by human activities…

…And immediately after reading that list, you will respond that there isn’t any evidence that the changes in the climate creating this suffering is caused by human activity.

Because you haven’t been reading any of the scientific material that fully predicted that these events would occur; and the research that demonstrated clearly that, whatever else is driving changes to the Earth’s climate, these events have only occurred *BECAUSE* of the human contribution to those changes.

Scientists know far more than a Fox News or Talk Radio presenter that the Earth’s Climate changes naturally over time, without human assistance. And these scientists also know how to separate naturally occurring contributions to Climate Change from Humanity’s contribution.

Sorry Foota, but if you want to participate in any meaningful way in a discussion on contemporary scientific research, you *ARE* going to have learn about the topic you want to participate in.

If you do that, you might just stop making foolish statements like the one you made about the permafrozen landscapes of Canada and Russia becoming fit for human habitation.

Meanwhile, as requested, some examples of how Climate Change is negatively affecting human beings today, presented in a form that my four-year old son can comprehend:

Shall we start with the fact that 17 of the hottest years recorded since records began in the late 19th Century, occurred in the last 18 years?

And that the three hottest years ever recorded, were the last three years?

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-01-18/ ... est-record

Now… How much suffering can you recall being caused by these heatwaves?

If *I* recall correctly, ragging on the French (and other European nations) for the number of their citizens dying during heatwaves, used to be a favourite theme of yours. So I *KNOW* you know that all this heat causes suffering.

But have you also connected the increasing heat with increased electricity consumption, which in turn requires increased GHG emissions?

So let’s not bother with the path that leads us through the rain-parched, tinderbox forests within your own nation, and just think about the misery and deaths caused by relentless heat-waves. All of which were predicted by Climate scientists as being the direct consequence of human activities.

What about the effect of sea level rises, which are rising fastest along the East Coast of the United States and in the Gulf of Mexico?

Has that caused any suffering yet?

Oh, but wait, those sea level rises are just a part of the Earth’s Natural Cycles, right?

Wrong.

Scientists can predict fairly easily how the Climate would warm and sea levels would rise, if our Planet was left to its own devices. They’ve got no-end of ice-core samples that go back millions of years, to use as data for their extrapolations. So it is just a question of subtracting that data from current climate temperatures and sea levels, to see how much of it is caused by human activity.

It’s all there in the “Wrong” hyperlink.

If you want to dispute it, you are going to have to do so scientifically. ‘K?

What about ”Extreme Storms” then?

D’ya reckon they’re causing any suffering? (Has your Government managed to turn the lights back on in Costa Rica yet?)

Given that scientists are reporting that hurricanes and cyclones appear to be shifting pole-wards from the equator, and actually appear to be converging on North America, isn’t this an aspect of Climate Change you should be particularly mindful of?

Now how much do you know about Ground-level Ozone Pollution?

Well, as a parent, you should know that it causes all sorts of health problems, particularly among children and the elderly.

Now if I tell you that warmer temperatures increase ground-level ozone… Can I leave you to join the dots?

OK then.

Now I realise you have precious little time available to read all this science-y stuff, so I’ll end my list there. And this is the bit where you say:

I accept that the suffering listed is caused by rises in the Planet’s temperature. I just don’t accept that those temperature rises are being caused by the amounts of carbon dioxide human activities are adding into the Ecosphere.

(Or words to that effect.)

And when you’ve written your version of that, I will respond with:

But I already provided you with the scientific research, evidence and explanation of how the human contribution to Climate Change can be easily separated from Nature’s contributions.

You just couldn’t be bothered to read it, or couldn’t understand it.


There! Howzat for saving you Time..! ;)

Foota wrote:
Holyman wrote:
But if the U.S. Government acts now, it can ease that pain, save lots of money, and generate vibrant new sectors in the U.S. Economy.


America is already leading the entire "Civilized WorldTM" in carbon reduction. Time for China, India, Russia........and France to get busy.


No it isn’t.

And for the reason you regularly trumpet around here:

”The United States is now the largest global crude oil producer”

Do you see it?

Ultimately, human beings living in whatever nation they have the misfortune to be identified with, can only consume what has been produced.

Like most everyone else, I purchase the petrol for my motorbike and diesel for my car, from my local gas station. I’m not drilling or fracking for oil myself, and refining it for my own purposes. The CO2 emissions I generate, are the result of my being able to buy stuff that produces carbon-dioxide as a by-product of my consuming it.

Therefore whoever is responsible for extracting the most “Fossil Fuels” from the Planet’s safe-keeping, must be equally responsible for facilitating the greatest production of carbon-dioxide.

But I’ve explained previously why it is pointless to consider or keep score on responses to Climate Change on a Nationalist basis.

Individual human beings are real (for a given value of “real”, leastways). The Planet’s Environment and Ecology are real things too. Fossil fuels are real, so is carbon-dioxide. Drought-ridden landscapes, shrinking forests, desertification of once fertile lands: all real.

Nations = not real.

Just something we humans came up with to separate ourselves from one another.

If “Nation” was a standard unit of measurement, then it might have some purpose. But it isn’t, is it?

How do you compare a nation of 1.5 billion humans with a nation of 350 million humans?

When we peaceful Europeans are trying to get you to see the abject horror of living in a Society that has a mass-shooting (4 or more killed) virtually every day… You respond that the U.S. has a much bigger population than any European nation, and therefore any comparison is moot.

Why do you not apply the same ruling when considering how human activities (not Nations’ activities) are negatively impacting the Environment on which all humans depend to survive?

You (and many other USAmericans) need a Reality Check Foota.

Between 1970 and 2005, U.S. fossil fuel production averaged a steady-ish 55 quadrillion BTU’s each year.

But since the Rest of the World really started getting serious about “Climate Change”, the U.S. has been steadily increasing its fossil fuel production, and is now extracting 75 quadrillion BTU’s of fossil fuels per year (with further rises currently inevitable).

And it is here that the undoubtedly International problem does crystallise down to a national problem.

In the years 2015 and 2016, oil corporations spent $354 million lobbying U.S. politicians.

In return, those private oil companies received $29 billion in subsidies. A return on investment of about 8,200%. Not bad going, eh?

But it isn’t just the Corporate Welfare they received that made it such a good investment. It is also the fact that those political “contributions” (in the Real World, we would call them “bribes”) persuade U.S. politicians *NOT* to back legislative initiatives aimed at reducing pollution and GHG emissions.

Moving out of the Beltway, “Big Oil” has also been spending (and continuing to spend) similar amounts of money on “persuading” the American Public that “Climate Change”/”Global Warming” is a hoax.

It’s basically just an assault on the American Way of Life, right? A plot by tree-hugging communists to deny you your God-given right to drive an SUV with a gas-guzzling engine.

Yale is one of your nation’s better universities, right?

In a 2017 study carried out by Yale: three out of every ten Americans surveyed say that Climate Change is mostly due to natural changes in the Environment; one in eight say that “Global Warming” is *NOT* happening; and only (a presumably different) one in eight Americans understand and accept that nearly all Climate Scientists are convinced that human-caused global-warming is happening.

That seven out of eight Americans are not aware that 97% of Climate Scientists agree (with “high confidence”) that human activities are the greatest driver of Climate Change, must be explainable.

Just about everywhere else in the World, that ratio is the reverse: only a few hold-outs still denying that the Global Community of Scientists are more united on this point than on any other scientific subject.

So what gives?

Money.

It is the Religion of the United States.

And like any Religion that builds a pyramid of status hierarchy around itself, it is seriously damaging U.S. Society, and in turn, seriously damaging Global Society.

Just as U.S. tobacco-goods manufacturers spent billions of dollars trying to suppress and dismiss the science that showed how spectacularly damaging smoking is to human health; and just as U.S. auto-manufacturers spent fortunes suppressing research into just how dangerous their vehicles were to human beings…

…So too are the major fossil-fuel corporations spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to conceal the scientific evidence behind Anthropogenic Climate Change.

This isn’t Tinfoil-Hat-Style Conspiracy Theory. It’s all perfectly observable, and indeed, makes perfect sense.

“Big Oil” executives have a legal duty to put the interests of the corporations they serve ahead of all other interests. That’s the Law.

And if they do nothing to prevent the use of fossil fuels going the same way as the use of cigarettes, the corporations they are responsible for will go out of business.

They will lose their status of privilege and wealth in Human Society; and could even be prosecuted by holders of their corporation’s stocks, for failing to act sufficiently in their corporation’s best interests.

So they use whatever means are at their disposal to try to stop that happening.

And since the major threat to “Big Oil” is the massive and accumulating amounts of scientific evidence demonstrating just how much damage their product is doing to the Planet, all they *CAN* do is to try and suppress or delegitimise that evidence.

The result of which is the sort of drivel that you spout off around here about “Climate Change”.

Because you have been taught to think of it as a Nationalist and Economic issue, rather than about the extinction of our species.

Now…

I realise that this must be *FAR* more information than you have time to read… But as ever, I am quietly confident you’ll read through it all, because you’ll be looking for any direct assaults on your ego that you will be obliged to respond to. (There’s one, right there!)

But even if you don’t… Please can I encourage you to get a proper command of your brief?

By all means continue to question the validity and effectiveness of corrupt politicians’ “responses” or “solutions” to Anthropogenic Climate Change.

But if you’re going to attack the Science, you really do need to be armed with Science of your own.

Otherwise, you just make yourself look foolish.

And really, that’s my job.

B-)

_________________
Image

"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:33 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
DECEMBER 7, 2018

The Deathly Insect Dilemma

by ROBERT HUNZIKER


Image

Insect abundance is plummeting with wild abandon, worldwide! Species evolve and go extinct as part of nature’s normal course over thousands and millions of years, but the current rate of devastation is off the charts and downright scary.

Moreover, there is no quick and easy explanation for this sudden emergence of massive loss around the globe. Yet, something is dreadfully horribly wrong. Beyond doubt, it is not normal for 50%-to-90% of a species to drop dead, but that is happening right now from Germany to Australia to Puerto Rico’s tropical rainforest.

Scientists are rattled. The world is largely unaware of the implications because it is all so new. It goes without saying that the risk of loss of insects spells loss of ecosystems necessary for very important stuff, like food production.

Farmland birds that depend upon a diet of insects in Europe have disappeared by >50% in just three decades. French farmland partridge flocks have crashed by 80%. Nightingale abundance is down by almost 80%. Turtledoves are down nearly 80%.

In Denmark (1) owls, (2) Eurasian hobbies, and (3) Bee-eaters, which subsist on large insects like beetles and dragonflies, have abruptly disappeared. Poof, gone!

Krefeld Entomological Society (est. 1905) in Germany trapped insect samples in 63 nature preserves in Europe representing nearly 17,000 sampling days (equivalent to 46.5 years). Krefeld consistently found massive declines in every kind of habitat they sampled. Up to 80% wipeouts.

As for one example, Krefeld data for hoverflies, a pollinator often mistaken for a bee, registered 17,291 hoverflies from 143 species trapped in a reserve in 1989. Twenty-five years later at the same location, 2,737 individuals from 104 species or down 84%. (Source: Gretchen Vogel, Where Have All The Insects Gone? Science Magazine, May 10, 2017)

A shortage of insect pollinators in the Maoxian Valley in China has forced farmers to hire human workers at $19 per worker/per day to replace bees. Each worker pollinates 5-to-10 apple trees by hand per day.

Jack Hasenpusch of Australian Insect Farms, which collects swarms of insects, says: “I’ve been wondering for the last few years why some of the insects have been dropping off … This year has really taken the cake with the lack of insects, it’s left me dumbfounded, I can’t figure out what’s going on.” (Source: Mark Rigby, Insect Population Decline Leaves Australian Scientists Scratching For Solutions, ABC Far North, Feb. 23, 2018)

According to entomologist Dr. Cameron Webb / University of Sydney, researchers around the world widely acknowledge the problem of insect decline but are at a loss to explain the causes.

Functional Extinctions

Today’s Sixth Extinction is so prevalent that scientists prefer to designate species loss as “functional extinctions,” which means functionally extinct animals and plants are still present but no longer prevalent enough to affect an ecosystem. Not only, seed dispersal and predation and pollination and other ecological functions are also lost.

“More than three-quarters of the world’s food crops rely at least in part on pollination by insects and other animals,” (Source: Pollinators Vital to Our Food Supply Under Threat, FAO/UN).

But, already some insect populations have dropped by as much as 90%, e.g., (1) the Monarch butterfly in North America and (2) the great yellow bumblebee in Europe.

One of the biggest drivers of decline is loss of wild flowers. Here’s the problem: Low-intensity farming of small fields lined with weeds and flowers (think: “American Gothic” by Grant Wood circa 1930) have been overrun by vast industrial crop monocultures with fields stretching to the distant horizon with not a weed or a flower in sight, which paradoxically serves as evidence that the overused maxim “the good ole days” shows true grit.

Additionally, herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) allow industrial farming to grow perfect monocultures of crops, as everything else is wiped out. But, where does the glyphosate ultimately go? Breakfast anyone?

The world is rapidly filling up to its brim with insecticides that are toxic to pollinators. For example, neonicotinoids (agricultural insecticides) are meant to kill specific insect pests but invariably get into plant tissue and nectar and pollen and kills insects carte blanche, across the board. Thus, ironically, farmland ecosystems are poisoned by industrial farming practices.

Neonicotinoids are a divisive issue worldwide: “The European Union today expanded a controversial ban of neonicotinoid pesticides, based on the threat they pose to pollinators. The decision pleased environmental groups and was greeted with trepidation by farming associations, which fear economic harm.” (Source: European Union Expands Ban of Three Neonicotinoid Pesticides, Science Magazine, April 27, 2018)

As of August 2018, the EPA has scheduled “planned completion” of a “Review of Neonicotinoid Pesticides” for sometime in 2019. A coalition of food safety and environmental groups delivered 219,210 public comments to EPA earlier in the year, urging the agency ban neonicotinoid pesticides, which they view as a leading cause of pollinator decline. Additionally, more than 4.4 million Avaaz members have called for a ban on neonics (Avaaz, est. 2007, is one of the world’s largest most powerful online activist networks).

“People from around the country have made it clear: The EPA must act now to save our pollinators. No matter what Scott Pruitt’s industry friends say, this is a problem we can’t ignore. The health of our food system depends on it,” said U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). (Source: Environment America, News Release, 219,210 Americans Call on EPA to Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides, April 21, 2018).

“Neonics are 5,000 to 10,000 times more toxic than DDT,” according to Jean-Marc Bonmatinof of The National Centre for Scientific Research in France,” Ibid.

Rachel Carson (Silent Spring, 1962) would be horrified. As far back as the 60s she warned about indiscriminate use of pesticides and accused the chemical industry of disinformation, and she scolded public officials for accepting the chemical industry’s claims; ultimately, her efforts led to a nationwide ban on DDT and inspiration for creation of the EPA. (The ban on DDT saved America’s national bird since 1782, the bald eagle.)

Similar to concerns about use of synthetic pesticides, sensitivity of insects to global warming has only recently been exposed in new studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showing alarming losses of insects in pristine tropical rainforests over a multi-decade study that has rocked the science world.

Over that same 40-year time period, the average high temperature in the rainforest increased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Which negatively impacts insects because after a certain thermal threshold insects will no longer lay eggs, and their internal chemistry breaks down.

“Without insects and other land-based arthropods, EO Wilson, the renowned Harvard entomologist, and inventor of sociobiology, estimates that humanity would last all of a few months,” Ibid.

Well then, the number of insects still out there qualifies as one of the most puzzling questions of the 21st century.

Postscript: “Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.” (Source: The Extinction Crisis, Center for Biological Diversity, biologicaldiversity.org) Whew!

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:52 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
Insecticides, herbicides and rodenticides need to be eradicated ASAP.

Who the fuck ever thought it was a good idea to poison stuff?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:59 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 6601
Location: Close to where I want to be
Yeah...industrial farming is pretty f'ing gross. So stupid that we have grass in our back and front yards when we could be using that space to make a veggie garden and augment our food consumption. Once you eat veg from your own garden there's no going back. Love going out and tending my crops.

_________________
What you have taken, Has been from here
What you gave has been given here
What belongs to you today
belonged to someone yesterday
and will be someone else’s tomorrow

Change is the Law of The Universe

-------------------------------------------------

“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Tzu


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:16 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
I should get chickens...


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:19 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 6601
Location: Close to where I want to be
I want chickens.

_________________
What you have taken, Has been from here
What you gave has been given here
What belongs to you today
belonged to someone yesterday
and will be someone else’s tomorrow

Change is the Law of The Universe

-------------------------------------------------

“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Tzu


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:27 pm 
Online
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 31908
I want fried chickens

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:44 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
I want ham & eggs.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:45 pm 
Online
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 31908
Not tossed salad and scrambled eggs?

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:52 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
Bacon wrapped sausages with gravy and syrup and chocolate dip.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:05 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16649
Holyman wrote:

You don’t read any of the science yourself; but you compulsively dismiss any of the science that other OP’rs *ARE* reading.


Oh - I do read alot of it. I just get tired of their bullshit. The US Climate report you are citing is bullshit. Just like many of the Climate models are bullshit.

It's embarrassing. 16 degree Fahrenheit warming? For real?

Image

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/statu ... -donors%2F


For the millionth time, I believe the climate is changing and I believe Man plays a part with CO2.

What is under debate is how bad it will be and what we *DO* about it.

I simply don't think the problem is so dire and immediate that we need to "Fundamentally transform our societies" as the Marxist dopes at the UN were arguing last week.

Meanwhile, the US should continue burning the shit out of cleaner natural gas and export more of it around the world to get the "eco-terrorists" in Europe and Asia off dirty coal and oil and lower their carbon emissions as the US has been doing. I know Putin and OPEC aren't keen on that, but its the right thing to do for the future children - right?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24098
Ohh he does read... It's just that he gets tired of the science facts and dispels anything that goes against his party's thinking..





:))



III/O




=))

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:12 pm 
Online
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 31908
I'd have thought it would be better to make green publix transport a lot cheaper. I still can't fathom how expensive it is to get around on the train in the UK. I'm catching the train a lot to work at the moment, and having done the math we've found its going to be cheaper to get my wife a small runaround for the school run and getting to work (local) while I drive to work. Quicker and faster too - but again, if it was a lot cheaper it would be my preferred mode of travel.

Luxembourg seems to think do - they're making all public transport free next year to dramatically reduce emissions.

Quote:
Luxembourg is set to become the first country in the world to make all its public transport free.

Fares on trains, trams and buses will be lifted next summer under the plans of the re-elected coalition government


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... sport-free

Probably not a cheap thing to do, but the indirect benefits of getting people mobile and spending money on stuff other than transport isn't to be sniffed at.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:44 am 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
Slacks wrote:
I'd have thought it would be better to make green publix transport a lot cheaper. I still can't fathom how expensive it is to get around on the train in the UK. I'm catching the train a lot to work at the moment, and having done the math we've found its going to be cheaper to get my wife a small runaround for the school run and getting to work (local) while I drive to work. Quicker and faster too - but again, if it was a lot cheaper it would be my preferred mode of travel.

Luxembourg seems to think do - they're making all public transport free next year to dramatically reduce emissions.

Quote:
Luxembourg is set to become the first country in the world to make all its public transport free.

Fares on trains, trams and buses will be lifted next summer under the plans of the re-elected coalition government


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... sport-free

Probably not a cheap thing to do, but the indirect benefits of getting people mobile and spending money on stuff other than transport isn't to be sniffed at.


Luxembourg. Well, I suppose when your country is only one square mile, free public transport is not such a big expense.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:53 am 
Online
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 31908
PBFMullethunter wrote:
Slacks wrote:
I'd have thought it would be better to make green publix transport a lot cheaper. I still can't fathom how expensive it is to get around on the train in the UK. I'm catching the train a lot to work at the moment, and having done the math we've found its going to be cheaper to get my wife a small runaround for the school run and getting to work (local) while I drive to work. Quicker and faster too - but again, if it was a lot cheaper it would be my preferred mode of travel.

Luxembourg seems to think do - they're making all public transport free next year to dramatically reduce emissions.

Quote:
Luxembourg is set to become the first country in the world to make all its public transport free.

Fares on trains, trams and buses will be lifted next summer under the plans of the re-elected coalition government


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... sport-free

Probably not a cheap thing to do, but the indirect benefits of getting people mobile and spending money on stuff other than transport isn't to be sniffed at.


Luxembourg. Well, I suppose when your country is only one square mile, free public transport is not such a big expense.


I'm not necessarily saying it scales up particularly well, but significantly cheaper and reliable public transport would make a big difference.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:24 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 6601
Location: Close to where I want to be
Train is very affordable, convenient, fast, reliable in Japan. No plans to get a car if I live there again ...


Wait did Slacks just prove Foota's argument?

_________________
What you have taken, Has been from here
What you gave has been given here
What belongs to you today
belonged to someone yesterday
and will be someone else’s tomorrow

Change is the Law of The Universe

-------------------------------------------------

“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Tzu


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:28 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24098
tgrant wrote:
Train is very affordable, convenient, fast, reliable in Japan. No plans to get a car if I live there again ...


Wait did Slacks just prove Foota's argument?



Not in the slightest.. European countries I've visited have far more reliable and efficient railways.

U.k is just a bit shit.

_________________
Empir immoto


Last edited by barcelona on Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:29 am 
Online
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 31908
tgrant wrote:
Train is very affordable, convenient, fast, reliable in Japan. No plans to get a car if I live there again ...


Wait did Slacks just prove Foota's argument?


Gawd hope not! Cheap public transport requires subsidies, so I suspect Foota won't agree with that. Communism!

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:34 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 6601
Location: Close to where I want to be
The part about people not choosing what's best for the environment for economic reasons.

_________________
What you have taken, Has been from here
What you gave has been given here
What belongs to you today
belonged to someone yesterday
and will be someone else’s tomorrow

Change is the Law of The Universe

-------------------------------------------------

“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Tzu


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:38 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19625
Public transportation is ineffective in the US owing to its geographic size. Bus fare alone is preposterous if you're traveling interstate, it cost about as much as cheap airfare. And it's much slower than air.

Same with trains.

But driving is pretty much just the cost of fuel and how long you want to take to get there. No schedules other than your own, no security checkpoints other than what you make them to be, no relying on specific infrastructure other than a simple road and you have a much wider variety of food on the way.

Plus, many areas of the country have long distances between towns, there's no way in Hell you're gonna have regular and frequent bus or train runs between say Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Too much distance to have regular and frequent service. You'd be running stuff every 2 hours at most frequent.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:09 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24098
SomeGuy wrote:
Public transportation is ineffective in the US owing to its geographic size. Bus fare alone is preposterous if you're traveling interstate, it cost about as much as cheap airfare. And it's much slower than air.

Same with trains.

But driving is pretty much just the cost of fuel and how long you want to take to get there. No schedules other than your own, no security checkpoints other than what you make them to be, no relying on specific infrastructure other than a simple road and you have a much wider variety of food on the way.

Plus, many areas of the country have long distances between towns, there's no way in Hell you're gonna have regular and frequent bus or train runs between say Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Too much distance to have regular and frequent service. You'd be running stuff every 2 hours at most frequent.


Some times life out of Colorado might be a good thing

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Slacks and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited