SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.
Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.
Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".
[...] After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.
The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.
Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and clear.
"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to two degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who co-chairs the IPCC.
"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."
The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.
Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.
We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by black6host on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:33PM (28 children)
Pay now or pay later but we're going to pay. The problem with paying later is that there always seems to be interest tacked on. Probably very high interest in this case. Unfortunately money rules and short term planning has become the norm for many. As long as we make a buck today we'll worry about tomorrow when
it comesit's too late.(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:48PM (6 children)
It's better to burn through those fossil fuels now, because not only does that raise people out of poverty, but it literally gives us the energy to pursue better energy technologies and conservation/reclamation methods.
Also, science isn't a democracy. Consensus has nothing to do with science, especially when going against that consensus can ruin your career and even your social life. One side of the debate gets more money and power; the other side of the debate gets maligned as cooky "Climate Deniers" who should lose all they've achieved in life... hmmm... I wonder which side to trust...
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:51PM (5 children)
I wonder why this is always the case when people complain about global warming and are anti-vaccine but not against other sciences.
Why aren't they anti-gravity, anti-momentum, anti-special relativity, etc. It's not like we have perfect understanding and consensus on anything in science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:45AM (1 child)
Because there aren't people making money hand over fist off of anti-gravity, anti-momentum, etc.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:05AM
All the money and control over people's lives is decidedly on the side of those who support "climate change".
Governments want to tell you how to live, what kind of light bulbs to by, how your car should run, and to gain control of entirely new energy sectors. That's why they cannot abide "deniers".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:50AM (1 child)
Here's a presentation [youtube.com] and associated paper [vixra.org].
It's just that there's no power or money to be gotten from supporting special relativity; ergo, nobody gives a shit that some "cranks" are disputing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:09AM
Apparently, that link to the paper is incorrect; it's some abridged version or something.
This looks more like the right one [sciencepublishinggroup.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:58AM
Proponents of global warming and vaccination want to force themselves into peoples lives. Not so much regarding gravity, although I bet you'll find very few global warming or vaccine skeptics who also find dark matter acceptable once its explained to them. But even so, there isnt much reason to care about it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:28PM (7 children)
It's better to burn through those fossil fuels now, because not only does that raise people out of poverty, but it literally gives us the energy to pursue better energy technologies and conservation/reclamation methods.
Also, science isn't a democracy. Consensus has nothing to do with science, especially when going against that consensus can ruin your career and even your social life. One side of the debate gets more money and power; the other side of the debate gets maligned as cooky "Climate Deniers" who should lose all they've achieved in life... hmmm... I wonder which side to trust...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:33PM (6 children)
We already have the technologies. You advocate burning through all the oil, gas, and coal? You shouldn't even be allowed to use the word "science".
Go circle jerk with the other consensus-loving sheeple who think they are oh-so-insightful but are really oh-so-brainwashed.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:39PM (4 children)
If you've got a viable alternative, then what are you waiting for??? Go deploy it! If it's viable, then it'll work—that's what "viable" means.
Subsidizing an alternative doesn't count, because it hides the true costs (and, yes, I realize that fossil fuels are subsidized, too). The only way we can get a solution is to stop the subsidies, and let the free market do its work—let individuals make their own damn choices about which solution is worth their resources.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)
That is beyond stupid as usual vim guy. The market will decide that all the infrastructure is too costly to replace or remove so the ststus quo will co tinue as that macimizes profits while minimizing costs. Future consequences are not even considered. History shows that i am right and you are a deluded anarcho-capitalist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:04PM (1 child)
If you've got a problem with the way infrastructure is managed, then you've got a problem with government—you know, the organization that pretends to manage lots of infrastructure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:59PM
You seem like a crappy chatbot now.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday October 10 2018, @10:04PM
So does continually ignoring the external costs of continuing to maintain or worse, expand fossil fuel use.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:51PM
If you've got a viable alternative, then what are you waiting for??? Go deploy it! If it's viable, then it'll work—that's what "viable" means.
Subsidizing an alternative doesn't count, because it hides the true costs (and, yes, I realize that fossil fuels are subsidized, too). The only way we can get a solution is to stop the subsidies, and let the free market do its work—let individuals make their own damn choices about which solution is worth their resources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:52PM
Meh. My guess is that the nukes will fly in the next 10-20 years. On the bright side, if there's a nuclear winter (another "controversy" that's controversial only for certain people who really really really want the USA to blow its nuclear wad and don't give a shit what the consequences are so want to convince us that there will be no consequences when N-day happens, just like any consequences for pumping sequestered carbon from an era way before humans evolved out of the ground and burning it are just a controversy and science is not a democracy!!eleven!1! and can't we kill all men already so angelic women can implement anarcho-capitalism and save the Earth Mother from the evil not-angelic men?) *breathes*.... it might correct AGW.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by looorg on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:36PM (8 children)
Might not the issue be that they have been preaching the same doom and gloom scenarios now for about four or five decades. It's bordering (or already crossed over into) becoming a cry wolf scenario (even tho it might not be false) and normal people (or the "idiots") have pretty much stopped paying attention to this a long time ago and they can call out the issue however many times they like and that just won't change. One might even say that if you have not managed to convince someone in four or five decades then well the issue might be with you and the way you are going about it and not only being an audience or receiver issue. Not to mention that they do seem to be a bit light on actual real world solutions, it's a bit sketchy or lacking in substance. Just telling us that we have to lower the temperature (somehow via one of the more or less vague suggestions) is not really a solution. Are they even offering any actual solutions or is that up to the idiots to figure that one out to? It's not that I don't believe that global warming is (or might be) real but the way they are going about it seems all wrong and pointless.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:55PM (2 children)
Yes, it is up to the idiots to figure out. A climate scientist is no more qualified to dictate economic policy than an economist is qualified to pass judgement on a climate science. Nor are they in a position TO dictate policy because they arn't privy to all the possible variables that a politician gets bombarded with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:56PM
According to the nutjobs round here they are already being bombarded with all the variables politicians deal with, AKA money!
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:12PM
The climate scientists aren't qualified to dictate economic or public policy. They'll just tell you to get ready to multiply most of your spreadsheet's variables by (current_temperature +3C)/current_temperature.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:24PM (1 child)
No. It's largely because extremely wealthy interests have an interest in propagandising against the climate science and have been very successful. They have also used their money to dictate US energy policies.
This piece lays it out pretty clearly. [newyorker.com] When your big political donors tell you what your policy is going to be, you'd better listen.
This is not new, George Bush II had his energy policy written for him by the oil companies who helped get him elected, and did not even deny it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:02AM
Withdrawing from the Paris agreement was a Trump campaign promise. He is not aligned with the Kochs. And don't pretend this was so unpopular. It was a big part of Trump's platform, and he got elected.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:30AM (2 children)
You can't say it's crying wolf when many of the predicted outcomes are already occurring. Ask the inuits how they like their permafrost melting. Ask the people of Venice how they like their ocean levels rising. Ask everyone on a coast how they like more frequent and severe hurricanes. You only don't see it because it isn't affecting you right now.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:36AM
And the children of the UK will never see snow again, and we’ll have six super storm Sandy’s every year!!!!1!!1
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ilPapa on Wednesday October 10 2018, @06:21AM
Hurricane Michael, which is now hitting the Gulf Coast, is God's wrath on red states for electing Trump and supporting a rapist judge going onto the Supreme Court.
Prove me wrong.
https://goo.gl/images/k1Z92a [goo.gl]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:49PM (2 children)
It's better to burn through those fossil fuels now, because not only does that raise people out of poverty, but it literally gives us the energy to pursue better energy technologies and conservation/reclamation methods.
Also, science isn't a democracy. Consensus has nothing to do with science, especially when going against that consensus can ruin your career and even your social life. One side of the debate gets more money and power; the other side of the debate gets maligned as cooky "Climate Deniers" who should lose all they've achieved in life... hmmm... I wonder which side to trust...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @11:27AM (1 child)
Spamming the forum only harms your credibility. If you have something to say let it stand or fall according to its merits. If you don't then shut the fuck up.
I guess netiquette is different in soviet russia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:06PM
Get it yet?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:37PM (34 children)
I hope this really is the final call. Everyone already knows about this climate theory of theirs. Regardless of whether it is correct they've presented no viable plan to do anything about it, but all the plans revolve around raisng taxes and giving the money to themselves and friends.
So, regardless of their "calls", people are just going to have to adapt to whatever happens as has been done for thousands of years. And preparing for other disasters like nuclear war or asteroid strikes is probably going to also work as well as anything else you could do specific for climate change, so just general preparedness seems to be the best plan.
Please do make it the final call.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:44PM (32 children)
Build solar, nuke and wind plants. How's that for a plan?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:53PM
People would/are already building them when it makes sense, unless prevented by the same organizations behind these calls. Who do you think is against decentralized electricity generation?
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:54PM (3 children)
Who's building nuclear plants other than China? Last I heard, everyone else was shutting theirs down.
US standard quality of life is 250kwh/person/day. Increasing the number of nuclear plants in the US by 10x would deliver this much energy.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:16PM
India, Russia ink action plan to set up 6 more nuclear reactors in India [indiatimes.com]
India nearing completion of 500 MW commercial fast breeder reactor [nextbigfuture.com]
Japan Court Allows Nuclear Reactor to Reopen in Boost to Abe’s Energy Push [bloomberg.com]
Article from 9 hours ago:
GE Says It Wins $700 Million Order for First Egypt Nuclear Plant [bloomberg.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:15PM (1 child)
I was looking at this table a few days ago [world-nuclear.org]; can anyone provide corroboration on it? I can't tell how reputable the website is.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:21PM
In retrospect, it would seem like this information would be really difficult to falsify. Still, who knows how far fake news can go. Maybe they're actually coal plants or stage sets deepfaked as nuclear plants -- or maybe they just deepfaked the inspectors.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:22PM (7 children)
I for one would welcome a nuclear plant in my back yard, unfortunately my backwards state (Oregon) is completely uninterested in a real solution to the issue because of the NIMBYs. I think it would be wise for the species to draw down use of fossil fuels and transition to newer forms of power generation so that we have traditional fuel reserves if something goes horribly wrong.
I have stated before that the biggest problem as I see it with the movement to dump traditional power sources is that it is not being sold well by the left. People respond better to positive incentives (profit motive) than they do to possible bad things (fear motive). We see this with smoking (paying someone to quit vs telling them they will get cancer) and other health issues.
Want to create a demand for electric cars and trucks? Show that they can achieve higher torque numbers and win some race competitions. Tax incentives work to get people to switch to solar.
I am also okay with shifting subsidies toward research into alternative tech.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:12PM (2 children)
That is all fine and good, but until somewhat recently there was no profit motive. The market made fossil fuels cheaper. Hell, we have tried the arguments of self-sufficiency and sustainability but that never got any traction. Only now that climate change is undeniable are you jerks getting with the program and still you try and pass the blame on to the ones calling for change. What a bunch of overly sensitive cretins who can't handle saying "we were wrong!"
Why don't you take up the banner of support since you are so in-tune with what the conservative mindset will respond to?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:15PM
What has changed recently regarding the deniability of climate change? Most people have always thought the climate always changes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:32AM
How do you make something cheaper than energy literally flowing out of the ground in many places for free?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:28AM (2 children)
I would take nuclear over fossil fuels, but as Fukushima showed, it's dangerous. Much rather see more renewables.
Although we can operate nuclear power safely, that we know how to do it, the biggest risk is that bad actors will eventually be placed in control, and will start cutting corners on maintenance and safety to boost profits, without understanding the magnitude of the risks they are taking. The Fukushima disaster could have been prevented, easily. It's much the same story with offshore oil drilling. Deepwater Horizon was another story of people refusing to listen to warning after warning, dismissing and minimizing problems, cutting corners, skimping on safety and jumping past bothersome checks, until it ended in disaster. There were a few honest mistakes too, but the reckless and risky moves dominated.
For that reason I'd rather not see any nuclear power or offshore oil drilling ever again. The consequences of getting slipshod are very severe-- land rendered uninhabitable for centuries thanks to radioactive pollution, entire fishing industries destroyed and large bodies of water polluted for decades. There's still oil from the Exxon Valdez sliming the Alaska coast, over 25 years after the accident. True, the Valdez was not offshore oil drilling. But since that accident, oil tankers have been made safer, with double hulls having become standard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:49AM (1 child)
Seems more like 5-10 years:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-fukushima-returnees/six-years-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-residents-trickle-back-to-deserted-towns-idUSKBN16F083 [reuters.com]
Also, I guess some people went back to the contaminated Chernobyl area within a couple months without huge problems:
http://chernobylplace.com/people-live-chernobyl-possible/ [chernobylplace.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:26PM
Living vs. living?
You can live fine in contaminated areas, the problem is you do not want to eat food that's been grown on that land. But then you have shit ton of pollution already with lead, mercury, cadmium getting into foodchain with causing problems.
To me it's more interesting how https://www.worldcoal.org/ [worldcoal.org] has changed to be "green" and 'reducing emissions to 0' baloney.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:20AM
Washington almost has one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNP-3_and_WNP-5 [wikipedia.org]).
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:43PM (17 children)
That's a good start. Some other things that should be on the list:
1. Bring building insulation up to modern standards more universally. Even if you think AGW is complete nonsense, this is a worthwhile spend for building owners this applies to, for the simple reason that it will cut utility bills and thus pay for itself.
2. A push for telecommuting as a replacement for physical commuting. Why are we spending all kinds of time and money and carbon on getting people into a special building to do work they could do just as easily from their living room? Again, even without AGW this is probably a good move, since it means folks are saving the expense of commuting, and rush hour got a bit less painful for everyone who does still have to go into work.
3. HVAC systems upgrades to take advantage of newer technologies such as geothermal heat pumps that are 2-4 times more efficient than the alternatives. Another utility bill savings, even if you think AGW is a lie.
4. Vehicle emissions standards improvements. We already have the technology to make more efficient engines, we should be using it. And of course, without AGW that means we're all saving on gas money, oh noes.
5. Plant trees in cities with the kind of climate that normally supports forests. It's relatively cheap, it makes the city prettier, it reduces the "heat island" effect and thus summertime cooling costs, and of course the trees act as carbon sinks.
Notice that nowhere in there was a plan to give lots of tax money to Solyndra or something like that: We can do a great deal by applying existing technology on a larger scale than we have been to improve the efficiency of our big carbon emissions sources.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:38PM (16 children)
1 and 3 imply you know more about the economics of retrofitting an existing building than the owners with actual money on the table instead of bullshitting. If you were only bullshitting it wouldn't matter but people like you tend to want laws to make other people be as smart as you when your genius isn't properly recognized. The truth is is building owners could realize significant savings they would. They like money.
2 has been tried by many companies large and small with mixed results. Again you seem convinced you know more than people who have actually done the experiment and imply that force be used to 'encourage' people to realize your genius.
4 Vehicle design is a compromise among many factors, most important of which being sticker price, safety and efficiency. Again, you seem to object to the industry's consensus of where those compromises should be and want to force them to adopt your preference. So enlighten us, which one gets sacrificed for greater efficiency? Since people only keep a new car a few years it would need be a LOT more efficient to pay off much of an increase in sticker price so are you suggesting we lower safety and pay in blood and brains splattered on our roads?
5. So great idea! Whose building do we bulldoze for the new park? I suppose it will be political opponents, the ones who won't "invest" in new tech you want them to?
Taxing and spending is so old school Progressive, the new hotness is borrowing from the Fascists and simply having government dictate to industry what it should be doing "for the common good."
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:40AM (2 children)
I'm guessing, based on your comments, that you live in a major city, and rent rather than own your home.
More? Maybe not. But I do know something about it, because I've been in the process of retrofitting an existing building that I own, namely my house, with my actual money on the table.
Regarding my insulation suggestion: My direct experience as of this year is that bringing attic insulation up to code set me back about $1K (a dumpster rental to get rid of the old insulation, and the new insulation delivered to my front door) and a couple weekends worth of manual labor. It's very possible that I will recoup that entire cost in heating oil savings this winter, and if not next winter will do the trick. As for your thinking that building owners are smart enough to do this math and respond accordingly, well, the previous owner of this building had decades to make the same calculations I did and didn't, most likely for the reason that the question never entered his alcohol-addled head as something to think about.
The heating system investment is longer-term, so I'm still number-crunching, but I have good reason to think it will work in my favor over something like a 5-year run.
Mixed results would indicate being no better and no worse than making people get to an office every day. Which means that it wouldn't take much to nudge things in that direction.
The kinds of measures I'm proposing would gain fuel efficiency at the expense of sticker price. When that becomes a long-term win depends on a bunch of factors in addition to the car's price, such as the price of gasoline and how long you hang onto the car. Also, I'm definitely going to contest the "people only keep a new car a few years" issue: According to the articles I just looked up, people hang onto their new cars about 7 years these days, and that number is trending upwards as car quality improves. And then those cars typically last 5 more years on the used market.
Nobody's: In a lot of cities, there are lots of places to plant trees that aren't where a building already exists. For instance, you can replace a section of sidewalk concrete with a tree, put them on the tree lawns between the street and sidewalk, and of course put them on any lawns and other green space.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:09AM
I live in a city where they love planting trees on too narrow sidewalks. The result is that the roots cause huge bumps, and you're screwed if you use a wheelchair.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:58PM
Mixed results might mean it works well in some industries and badly in others. Applying it where it works would be a big win. Applying it where it doesn't would be stupid.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:01AM (5 children)
Your faith in the sensibility of vehicle design is touchingly naive. Price, safety and efficiency, you say? Wow, just wow. You totally overlooked appearances, which is stunningly important to most people. I am constantly amazed at the importance they place on appearances. The paint may not make the car go, but their attitude is it ain't worth going if the paint is bad. And what people want for the most part is what they know, whatever is conventional no matter how dated. We're still lugging spare tires around. At least most aren't full sized any more, but still, the practice continues despite little need for it thanks to tires having become far better. Also, roadside assistance is a lot better and more common. I have had badly designed tires fail on me-- had 2 of those infamous Firestone 500s as spares, and when used, one lasted 8000 miles, and the other only 13 miles. Another bum one was a defective Pep Boys store brand tire. The last time I had a defective tire surprise me with a sudden blow out was over 20 years ago. Well, I refuse to ever buy Firestone again, which may well have saved me some trouble.
Further, a little more spending up front can more than pay for itself, but manufacturers won't do it, because the public won't go for it. For instance, consider the undersides. There's no cover, and just about no one cares, it's very much out of sight, out of mind. Instead there's all kinds of stuff hanging down, contributing to drag. We have hoods to cover the top of the engine. They aren't absolutely necessary, cars can run fine without hoods, but they are a good idea. But we won't insist on the same for the underside, although covering it is as good an idea. Every time a car splashes through a big puddle, some of that gets thrown on the engine. Can get the belt wet, and cause slipping and squealing. It can get into more important places and cause the engine to stall. Also a good idea to put skirts on the wheels, and shrink the grill opening. Some of these changes would actually reduce costs as well as save gas. But people won't accept it because it's "ugly".
What cars should look like is this: http://edison2.com/very-light-car-overview/ [edison2.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:33AM (3 children)
Like I said, your kind want to rule and force the "stupid people" to obey you. For our own good of course. I'll be one of the mob outside your palace shooting at you with a nice big coil of rope along for the festivities after we get in.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:16AM
Your paranoid fantasies are finally leaking out as violent dreams. Good stuff. Your most deeply buried fantasies will also come true if you pull off your little shooting spree and get a life sentence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:49AM
And, you want to force the consequences of your actions (for your own short term gains) upon everyone else. Stealing from us, our freedom to live quality and healthy lives.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends a couple feet away from my nose-- your freedom to destroy our shared environment ends where your actions affect anyone besides yourself. E.g., I don't care if you swallow poison, but I do care if you dump poison in our rivers or oceans.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @08:51AM
+Informative on what excites jmorris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:57AM
I guess you haven't looked underneath most cars built in the last ten years. Most of them have plastic fairings underneath them now. They can't cover the whole underside - you can't cover an exhaust pipe with a plastic cover, or suspension with much of anything - but they do cover most of the machinery. They have plastic fairings under the hood, too, to direct the airflow to where it needs to go instead of letting it blow around inside the engine compartment causing drag.
You probably haven't looked at the grille much either. Most cars today have mostly cosmetic grilles and take in only the amount of air they need for cooling and combustion. This was true even decades ago. It's true that people like the looks of them. So they are still there - in fact much bigger than before - but just for show.
For me the poster child for this grille inflation is the Hyundai Elantra. Compare the second generation car of the late 1990s, which essentially had no grille [wikipedia.org] to today's model [wikipedia.org]. This grille is not real. It's just for looks, and it contributes almost nothing to drag. With the computer modeling they have now, it might even improve the drag.
Fuel economy standards are serious business, and manufacturers take them seriously. Today's passenger sedans have better drag coefficients than most sports cars or economy cars had even 20 years ago. Heck, even today's *minivans* have better drag coefficients than most sports cars or economy cars did 30 years ago.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:11AM (6 children)
In a good amount of cases, the owners aren't the occupiers. So, as long as the occupier pays for the energy, the owners have absolutely no incentive to invest making the home more energy efficient because... they like the money.
In the cases of owner occupiers, note the evolution of the cost of living and the availability of disposable income that can be invested in making the home more energy efficient.
I certainly could afford it when I bought the home off-the-plan and, yes, the extra insulation pays off. Over 6-7 years in comparison with a home with less insulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:45AM (5 children)
The super majority (67%) are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:16AM (4 children)
Cf linked, 67% are the owner occupiers. I'm calling the rest of 23% a significant enough amount where "energy-waste proofing" is unlikely to happen - because the occupier has little interest to invest on behalf of the owner and the owner has no interest to invest if the home brings him income as it is.
Even for the 67% of owner occupiers - an interesting fact "However, homeowner equity has fallen steadily since World War II and is now less than 50% of the value of homes on average." This reflects the "yeah, I'm theoretically the owner, but practically I still need to pay the mortgage. Can I afford to invest in the energy efficiency of my home and pay the mortgage in the same time?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:22AM (3 children)
If you have a mortgage the bank owns the home and lets you live there. You do no "own" it. It is all very simple really.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:34AM
Technically, you are right.
This doesn't preclude you to act as an owner in regards with the investment of "your" home - unlike renting, as long as you pay the mortgage withing the contracted conditions to the bank, the bank can do nothing with the home or cannot stop you behaving as the owner.
And we are in the "investment in energy efficiency for homes" context, are we not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bootsy on Wednesday October 10 2018, @09:20AM (1 child)
Well the bank owns some of the equity and if you paid a deposit you own some equity as well. The more you pay off the more of the equity you own. You own 100 percent of the appreciation in the asset price of the property ( and in the UK you also "own" any depreciation, unlike US mortgages you cannot walk away and post the keys ). If you have insulated the house any future owner will benefit so the price should rise in a normally functioning housing market ( or fall less in a correction or downturn). Given how poor the return on savings is with historically low interest rates, the decision to insulate a property more is currently a complete no-brainer. The reduced heating bills will easily give you a better rate of return.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:09PM
If you can afford to do it (or convince a lender to let you have the money for the job in one go).
For instance, I'm waiting for the LiFePO4 batteries prices to come down to install an energy buffer. It's really a no-brainer since I sell the energy from the solar panels a wee over wholesale prices (6.5c/kWh) but I'm buying it at retail prices (33c/kWh). A battery to last me for 2 days with no input will mainly make me "independent" of the grid for most of the year; but at the current prices such a system means about 12 years to RoI. I decided that no, in my circumstances, I can't yet afford it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:33PM
Stop bullshitting that CO2 is our enemy, bad carbon, when all terrestrial life depends upon carbon, and all plants are much happier with higher CO2 content in the atmosphere. Planet's actually greener because plants love more CO2. You know, like it used to be a lot of times in our planet's history. The climate clowns that preach their shitty climate computer model gospel that supposedly can predict a complex non-linear chaotic system decades and a hundred years into the future can take their so-called science and shove it up theirs with their never-question-our-supreme-nutty-religious-climate-certainty faith. The fuckers better pray that the interglacial period we are in right now doesn't end soon or Sun has a hiccup because then we will be burning all the fossil fuels and dumping all the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere faster than lightspeed on crack to try and stave off the ice age. Nobody knows one way or the other. Plenty evidence pointing in the other direction. Fuck the liars and their alarmist rotten anti-scientific anti-open-inquiry greed. You all seen to follow suit around here like morons on Slashdot and public raio ignoramuses. Learn something, for fuck's sake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:47PM
The final final call, so soon after the last one [soylentnews.org] too! Are we green or are we being duped :P
(Score: -1, Redundant) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:44PM (52 children)
Our funding is running out, let's see if we can get some panic back in the headlines /sarc
Seriously, climate science is in such a pathetic state that it's impossible to take it seriously. Lost date, secret algorithms. Poorly positioned stations, unexplainable corrections. With all the hype, the number of climate monitoring stations continues to decrease, especially in critical areas like the arctic.
Most recently, a PhD student did a formal audit of Hadcrut, the most-used data set, and found it riddled with errors. [wattsupwiththat.com] Based on this, we are supposed to spend untold trillions?
If climate scientists really want to be taken seriously, they need to stop with the tabloid articles, and start doing some serious science.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:52PM (22 children)
So if climate change results in mass starvation or displacement you'll be the first to offer your home and provisions right? I mean really, we want to hold our politicians accountable but how about the hordes of idiots that promote such politicians? That give the stupidity legitimacy through the often maligned "group think". The irony on the group think or consensus bit would be funny if the situation wasn't so fucked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:56PM (20 children)
Yea, if the climate ever changes in a way that makes things worse for someone itll be bradley13's fault...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:10PM (18 children)
Yes it will be. At least he'll share the blame with millions of other morons, but yes. Why have we had so little action? Because a good portion of the population bought the propaganda from the oil companies, and even now after those same companies admitted to lying about climate change we STILL have bradley_mindofa13yearold holding the dogmatic line.
All I'm asking for is that he put his money where his mouth is. If he isn't willing to take that chance then why not promote a more sustainable energy future? Why continue obfuscating the problem and preventing people from galvanizing on the topic?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:13PM (2 children)
Climate change concern has no necessary relation to a sustainable energy future. In fact, you would be best off dropping the climate change angle altogether if that is your true concern, since it only confuses/obfuscates the actual issue.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:40PM (1 child)
No, the actual issue is that our current methods of power generation are destabilizing the global climate much quicker than the natural oscillations that occur. Just because you are a cynical fool who has bought into the "liberal climate change conspiracy" does not make it less valid a reason to reduce carbon fuels.
YOU are the one confusing and obfuscating here. Seriously, you lot are getting unbearable with your requirement that we not discuss topics that offend your delicate sensibilities. If you only care about the renewable/sustainable energy aspect then fine, just discuss that. Don't try and rope people into your own delusions about climate conspiracy because that only obfuscates and confuses the issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:50PM
Here is what was written:
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:24PM (12 children)
When the people telling me to change my way of life give up meat, cars, air conditioning, almonds, heaters, private jets, etc then I will consider making the change. Those in power that are legitimately concerned need to walk the talk.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:07PM (5 children)
Or instead of passing the buck along you can make whatever incremental changes you are OK with. Maybe eat a little less meat? Have one day a week meat-free? Try to drive less and carpool more? Plan your activities to reduce last-minute drives to the store? Upgrade to more efficient appliances and vehicles? Or just install solar? Try and eliminate use of disposable containers and products by getting a reusable coffee cup and using reusable containers?
So many items you can work on if you care, but from the tone of it you're more outraged that anyone expects you to care about the environment in a way that needs the slightest change to your daily life. I'm not a perfect environmentalist either but I don't try and pass the blame on to anyone but myself.
I think someone nailed it climate deniers simply don't want the convenient life to change and there is really nothing else to it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:19PM (4 children)
Actually if they eat almost only meat but cut out grains and sugar many people will eat a lot less (fewer hunger cravings). If you want people to stop overeating the best way (for many) involves a high percentage of meat in the diet.
So, I don't know how it would work out but your plan of cutting out meat may end up having the exact opposite effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:59PM (3 children)
BZZZZT WRONG
You can achieve the same thing with plant proteins. No one should substitute their meat protein for carbs.
Here, get informed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:04PM (2 children)
It is probably possible, but a vegan-low carb diet sounds really annoying. How are you going to eat a vegetarian diet with under 50 carbs per day?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:19AM (1 child)
It is 100% possible, plenty of people do it. It is probably a bad idea to switch your diet immediately, I suggest slowly reducing the amount of meat you eat until you have just a few meals a week with it. We really don't need to eat meat on a daily basis, nutritionally speaking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:25AM
I know plenty of vegetarians, they eat craploads of carbs. Most people on the standard diet also eat craploads of carbs, vegetarian is probably healthier than that.
However, I am talking about reducing peoples appetites by having them eat very few carbs (under 50 g per day). I think this would be difficult to do without eating meat.
Do you know of anyone eating a vegetarian/vegan diet who consumes less than 50 or even 100 g of carbs per day?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:14PM (1 child)
It seems very unlikely that any meaningful walking-the-walk of the powerful will ever happen. They're almost never first in these things; in fact they're almost always last. They live lives of privilege because they intend to live lives of privilege, not because they're inclined to sacrifice things for the likes of you and me.
Either we change our lives at the level of the common man, or we face whatever consequences are coming down the pike because "those in power didn't, so we didn't."
It might also be worth keeping in mind that those in power will have far more ability to deal with said consequences than the common man will. They would be the ones with the huge A/C plants, the high walls, the big guns, the armed and armored storehouses. The rest of us would be left scrabbling for whatever scraps or power and resources left over, because we simply can't pull that kind of resource-collection off.
Finally, reducing emissions makes sense on a number of levels quite aside from any threat of climate change. We should do it anyway. It's obvious. If you actually think it through.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:38AM
When the SHTF their money will stop being green. That scares the pants off them.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:52PM
Ah yes, the "Al Gore does it, so it must be OK" defense. I'll freely admit the dude is a bit hypocritical, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about global climate change.
Well, I'm going to suggest you change your way of life a bit, and I don't generally eat meat, don't use AC, have never owned a private jet, and don't particularly like almonds. I do own a car, which I need to living well outside public transit coverage, but I don't drive it all that much. As for giving up heating, no, I'm not going to do that, because plumbing + temperatures below freezing = major problems. Instead, I'm trying to reduce my usage of heating fuel by making my home hold heat better than it used to, and replacing the oil-based heating system with something more efficient when my money situation allows.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)
No Almonds for Sulla! Let him eat figs instead! Good enough for Augustus. (And, oh, we're coming for your capital gains, Chuck!)
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:25AM (1 child)
I'd gladly pay capital gains if only I had some capital to gain!
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:36AM
Fair enough. But pass on the figs, I hear they are poisoned!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:48AM
And where have you put your money?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:28PM
What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? [pics.me.me]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:09PM
No it won't. Everybody knows it'll be janrinok's fault!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:03AM
And you'll do the same, if some short-sighted climate mitigation approach does the same, right?
Back at you.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:57PM (15 children)
How do you trust a field that can't see the obvious staring them right in the face? They are acolytes of the Prince of the Power of the Air.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
ipfs.io [ipfs.io]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:16PM (14 children)
I shoulda been more careful about clicking that link. Don't get too crazy, there isn't much point in debating whether we live in a simulation or not. What does that change about your daily life? If everything is an illusion except you then that is a recipe for sociopath/psycho behavior. If everything is an illusion but other people are real inside the simulation then you still want to treat the illusion like reality.
It doesn't matter either way, you should still be a decent human being. Even proving we live in a simulation would do nothing unless you can somehow break out of it. The whole concept is just a useless mind-fuck like Inception or The Matrix. Interesting but not worth basing your life around.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:28PM (13 children)
There is no simulation. But atheists are more amenable to evidence suggesting there is a simulation, than the actual reality behind it. And once you see the evidence, you can not un-see it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:28PM (11 children)
Just for the record, I'm an atheist, quite hard-core as atheists go, and I think the idea that we live in, that is "we are a", simulation, is both both entirely ridiculous and roundly hilarious. For one thing, as there is no evidence at all, it's impossible to be "amenable" to it. For another, there's no indication at all that a system able to support such a simulation is practical, not only using any technology we have, but also any technology we can extrapolate to, no matter how far we go ahead using what we know.
The simulation idea isn't quite as ridiculous as the various "god" ideas, as it actually might be just possible (although never practical) with "unknown science", but it's very close, as it shares all of these characteristics: no evidence, no supporting science, untestable, no tenable excuse for the broken results of either the "godly creation" or the "simulation", and of no practical value whatsoever outside of trying to influence behavior via a nice smelly dose of bullshit.
But hey. Keep on pointing at atheists. I guess it lights your fire somehow?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:53PM (5 children)
I call bullshit on this. Have you seen the level of detail and complexity of *our* video games, *today*? How much of the world around you really needs to be simulated, and in how much detail, for it to be believable?
There certainly doesn't need to be a simulation of every particle in the universe, as some assume to be the only possible way such a simulation could be implemented. Really, only those objects observed need be simulated accurately, and even then only in as much detail as is required to fool the observer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:06PM (3 children)
That is because you are easily wowed and have zero concept about the limitations behind *our* video games. To simulate a universe where the people inside can verify "physical reality" with a variety of experiments would be insanely hard. It goes way beyond just simulating reality at the Large Hadron Collider. You are trying to say it is possible, and no one yet has said it isn't.
Just not practical. Why invest all the money and effort into simulating reality? Why do it without the inhabitant's knowledge? Probably easier to dump a bunch of humanoids on a planet. So again, sure it may be possible but it is so ridiculous and impractical that it makes no sense. Why bother wasting your energy on the idea? Give the idea a spin, enjoy the mental games, then let it go unless it somehow becomes more relevant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:45AM
I'll say it's not possible then. The data storage requirements would be physically prohibitive. You would need less matter to actually make this universe than to store every particle in it's state.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:36AM (1 child)
The thing with a simulation is that while simulating our universe within our universe seems impossible, we don't know anything about the universe that's running the simulation. It could be that other universe operates under entirely different physics, making things possible that would impossible in our universe, and in comparison our universe is actually very simple and thus easy to simulate. And we'd have no idea because this universe is all we know.
To use the video game analogy, the video game characters would only know the in-game universe, and wouldn't know anything about the universe that's running their simulation (game) and what's possible in our universe. For example, to run a simulation you'd need a computer - a CPU, some kind of storage, and something like electricity to make it go. I don't know any game engines that support the physics do something like that at any kind of scale, and such concepts would be completely alien to the characters in the game. Even for game engines where an intelligent in-game character could create a very rudimentary computer such as Minecraft, said character might realize that theoretically one could build a computer to run Minecraft out of redstone in their universe, but would logically conclude that would be completely impractical to do so and thus "impossible".
That's not to say I believe that our universe is a simulation, but like trying to prove there's no God, there's really no way to completely disprove it.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:39PM
IOW, it's all made-up nonsense. No science, no evidence, nothing. Pretty much just like any other religion. That was my point.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:49PM
And there is the explanation why the Universe expands and the expansion is accelerated: the observation power of humanity increases and more needs to be eliminated from the observable field to keep up the veracity of the simulation within the same computation power.
This is also why the gyroscopes of the Hubble telescope are failing - stopgap solution for those running the simulation to slow down the increase computation complexity - but be prepared for a jolt in the acceleration of Universe expansion with the launch of James Webb telescope.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:09AM (3 children)
The no evidence part is where I think you are wrong. (And I don't mean for a simulation, rather for a powerful delusion.) Testable? No. Because of the same problems you are going to run into if it was a simulation. But you can establish that something is off. So take a look.
What is Winter Sunlight?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:11AM (2 children)
Evidence which is impossible to test? How about you come up with something that isn't dumb?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:51AM (1 child)
What is Winter Sunlight?
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:38AM
A yellow-colored cleaner suitable for smearing smudges on glass. Glad I could help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:51AM
And free will does not exist. There is nothing you can do but sit back and enjoy the ride
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:23AM
Wake me up when hacker tools are available.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:10PM (5 children)
Oh fuck off already. Just admit that you will NEVER accept climate research because you have some kind of perverse emotional investment in the status quo and are unwilling to accept that you might possibly be responsible, even indirectly, to the fact that in less than a century the world as we know it will be so disrupted that it will cause untold economic loses, war, and a heck of a lot of human suffering in general.
Seriously, you hold up one random student's supposed audit of data (from some blog that doesn't even say what kind of PhD the student is working towards) and claim that that is enough to invalidate the work of hundreds of scientists from all over the world?
Never mind that we are *already* seeing the results of climate change with multiple back to back record temperatures, increasing # of storms and increased storm intensity. But no, like a typical right-wing denier you desperately cling to every lie you can get your hands around because you, to quote, can't handle the truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:17PM (2 children)
I grew up with liberal parents in a very liberal area and the late teen and early adult years were rough ideologically because I still had to learn how shitty the world was, how many bad things are done by the government. I always figured the government was too big to get away with the horrors that it does, that someone would SAY SOMETHING.
My point is that the world is a pretty crazy place and fully accepting the depth of the shitshow can be more than one mind can take. It takes time and at least the majority of counter arguments are no longer "climate change isn't real!" That doesn't excuse the person you are railing against, I just wanted to share my little insight into how humans come to terms with "the truth". It is often a slow process, more so for society at large due to the group effect.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:23PM
Who argued this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:36AM
Don't worry. We understand. You illustrate this truth every time you post. So when do we kill all men, who are not angels, so that angelic women can implement an anarcho-capitalist utopia? We're going to need to do it quickly, because the last time capitalism, as implemented by men, who are not angels, was at this level of crisis, nobody had nukes. Now everybody has nukes, and while I realize that N-day won't be the end of all life on earth (look at Chernobyl), I think we need to step up the timeline. I'm deeply concerned for the Earth Mother, and anarcho-capitalism seems like the perfect system to enable angelic women to begin fixing the damage men, who are not angels, have caused. The angelic nature of women will guide them to a deep understanding of enlightened self-interest that men, not being angels because they lack wombs, cannot ever comprehend.
/s
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:29AM (1 child)
What exactly is the problem here? Let's read the complaint rather than issue yet another argument from authority.
While some of that is just shoddy data collection, some of it is possible evidence for biases that would exaggerate warming since the beginning of the industrial era.
And? It's not that much to go on since none of those observations, such as they are, tell us how fast warming is occurring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:41PM
You remind me of someone that argued how seat belts are idiotic and cause deaths because you will not be able to escape a burning wreck as you get tangled up in them.... I've heard that over and over and why that person never wears seat belt.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-126.18,21.63,592/loc=139.301,8.652 [nullschool.net]
See the "data"? Seems it's kind of warm out there?? I see a lot more red than blue. Yeah, magic data page.... who would have thought!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:21PM (6 children)
Ok, let's take this seriously. Stop ALL rocket launches, ALL commercial flights, and remove ALL i-c-e's over 3.0L from the roads. Sorry Bubba, no more v8 5.7L trucks. No more AMG 6.3L Mercs, no more Dodge Vipers, no F1 or F-anything racing. In terms of trade and services, what stops, stops. Tough. We re-invent and are forced to go local.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:30AM
And if you have more than two children the extra ones have to be killed. I mean, if we're taking AGW seriously...
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:33AM
If you have more than two children, the extra ones need to be killed. I mean if we're taking AGW seriously...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by arslan on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:05AM
No no no no... everyone knows the solution is massive amount of government spending on trickle down economics, after all why just solve a problem when you can solve it and line yours and your cronies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:28PM
This would be reasonable. It's not like the system wouldn't work without all that, in fact it has for thousands of years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:49PM (1 child)
Except you didn't take it seriously at ALL. It has nothing to do with F1 racing or rocket launches or v8 10L trucks. It has everything to do with lack of policy so that on average we are not driving V8s but electric, and V8s are banned from *MASS MANUFACTURING*.
If I take a dump on the street, someone may post it on youtube how an idiot took a dump in the street. If 1000000 people do that in one city one day, you probably have a major fucking problem. Scale. That's the problem. 1 Bubba with a pickup is not a problem. 100 million Bubbas with their pickups are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:50PM
San Francisco?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-francisco-poop-problem-inequality-homelessness [theguardian.com]
I read one story about how so many people pissed and shit on a lightpole at one corner that it collapsed. It was nearby where a tree had no branches because crackheads kept cracking them off to declog their pipes. The tree had already been replaced 4 times due to this.
I wonder what the opinion about climate change is in San Francisco.