Jump to content

Wtf


sburke

Recommended Posts

It is classic crappy/dishonest headline writing. One of the problems with journalism is sensational headlines. If there is a serious dead line - such as the 12 years to make significant progress or face problems that are not reversible - and some important meeting is coming up in a year and a half suddenly some dumb ass headline writer says "well that just means the real dead line is only 18 months away". No it is not you idiot! So, they write a headline like that and after people realize that the 18 month deadline is not real they are less inclined to accept that the 12 year dead line is.

It is a boy who cried wolf problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 3:25 AM, Erwin said:

Phew...  that was fun.  Rant over...

Real solutions don't come from government, because by design they can only think far enough in the future to the next election day.

We're better off investing in private industry, and working to promote a market demand for common sense solutions to problems.

For example, look at how cheap home solar installation has become. What ten years ago was a prohibitive expense solely for million-dollar homes, is now so common Home Depot is selling solar roof panels for as little as a hundred bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bit oversimplified, perhaps?  Your address says you live on an air force base.  The air force has survived past a number of election days. Free market is not a magic unicorn pony, and neither is govt.  we need both.  Without Medicare, how would old people get health care?  It's a sure money-loser unless premiums are insanely high.  No one could afford it and life expectancy in US would drop 10 years in no time.  And govt played a big role in getting solar panel industry moving by providing incentives to both industries and home/business owners.   Too much govt is bad.  Not enough govt is bad.  Same thing with free market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Oh, right, that pic -- is that Dr Strangelove?  Dang, I kinda look silly now :)

 

But your point is still valid.  Even if I am not drinking at the bar now. And if anyone is so confused to think that climate issues are somehow not going to be a problem in 10 years ...... science. It is a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got fooled by the AFB too, but looked that one up.

I don't disagree per se on environmental worries, but there are lies, facades and mangled data all around. The ones bringing you the worrysome data don't have enough credibility to make one upset. Don't expect that to ever improve, what remains is a personal choice on what to do with it. Maybe just try to be contructive on a very local level and that will also work best for well-being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is a global problem, not just a national one. So, is all that trash in the ocean (including pirates). It's hard for something constructive to happen, with finger pointing and chest beating alone. I realize that an effective UN is a pipe dream, but can we at least have superpowers competing for who has the best looking back yard?

Another space race would be nice. Either way you cut it, Earth has an expiration date -- and you know what they say about eggs and baskets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Either way you cut it, Earth has an expiration date -- and you know what they say about eggs and baskets.

Good point, and I have a sneaky hunch that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are thinking along those same lines. But I have another hunch that they are not thinking of fitting us all into the lifeboat.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thinking locally on big issues is not enough.  In fact, I will dump all my sewage into the river right where it leaves my county.  Local river clean :)  I am good.

The 'both sides' argument is ridiculous on climate change, all the evidence shows clearly what's happening.  Deniers cherry pick data or just lie outright.  They go to a haystack, pull out a needle out of millions of straws of hay and say "look, it's a needlestack!".  Take the 1 out of 1000 piece of data and show it 1000x and folks think it's the truth of the dataset.  The truth is not the midpoint between facts and lies. 

But hey, a rising tide raises all boats.  True.  Except that many, many folks don't have boats. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

thinking locally on big issues is not enough.  In fact, I will dump all my sewage into the river right where it leaves my county.  Local river clean :)  I am good.

The 'both sides' argument is ridiculous on climate change, all the evidence shows clearly what's happening.  Deniers cherry pick data or just lie outright.  They go to a haystack, pull out a needle out of millions of straws of hay and say "look, it's a needlestack!".  Take the 1 out of 1000 piece of data and show it 1000x and folks think it's the truth of the dataset.  The truth is not the midpoint between facts and lies. 

But hey, a rising tide raises all boats.  True.  Except that many, many folks don't have boats. 

 

Then go beyond local. See how the upper levels welcome new ideas, and find they don't want to hear it, but one is free to be very upset. 

Climate change is one of those concepts that is hard to prove and hard to disprove. ( I haven't even tried , or just a little maybe ). One can spin it at wish. The ones that shout the hardest have been caught lying about simpler things before.

Who is a "denier"? it is a spin.

I have a rather small carbon footprint anyways. Do you like me now? ;)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kevin2k said:

Then go beyond local. See how the upper levels welcome new ideas, and find they don't want to hear it, but one is free to be very upset. 

Climate change is one of those concepts that is hard to prove and hard to disprove. ( I haven't even tried , or just a little maybe ). One can spin it at wish. The ones that shout the hardest have been caught lying about simpler things before.

Who is a "denier"? it is a spin.

I have a rather small carbon footprint anyways. Do you like me now? ;)

Actually no it isn’t hard to prove. There is plenty of data. The scary part of our models is we are only beginning to realize there are accelerants we missed. Meaning the target dates and goals were likely far too optimistic and the reality is the tipping point isn’t ahead, but already behind us.  Now it is simply a question of adapting  

Examples.

   Permafrost melting is releasing masses of trapped methane on a scale unexpected  

  underground melt of Greenland glaciers was something not factored in so the amount of fresh water hitting the North Atlantic is higher than expected reducing salinity  

Antartica which seemed to be countering some arguments is now shrinking its ice surface just like the arctic

people can argue about cause and affect, but the fact is that the planet is getting warmer, ocean levels and temperatures are rising and that means coastal issues, agricultural problems, water shortages.  Something has to be done before it impacts wine country here! I am gonna be real upset if I can’t just saunter over to a winery  the horror......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another nasty thing about melting permafrost is that there is likely bacteria and viruses trapped in it for which our immune system has no "training" on. For example, anthrax can spring to life again on a large scale ☠️

What we really need is Capitalism 2.0, but everything from private consumption to governments taking appropriate action to incentives of large corporations and financial markets all make it an unlikely thing to happen in due time. It seems like pointing fingers elsewhere is the order of the day. Like a chicken race. Along with, "X won't solve the climate crisis" as the standard answer to suggestions for action, as if there was one silver bullet to solve it all. No, everything counts, large and small, all over the world - we just have to speed things up. Now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I am aware. Like 15(!!!) years ago I even calculated the amount water on the south pole and what it would do to the water levels on the ocean. Because someone said it would not be that much.

I am not writing what I write because I find it a convenient and easy way to feel better about things. Which is a very common thing. But I have many reasons to believe that there is deliberate effort to make people confused and upset. And my two cents are; Don't be any more confused and upset then strictly necessary, beware of your well being.

So what is more upsetting, that the world may end sooner then you like, or that there are rulers that deliberately upset you? I don't know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Problem with sea levels is not only due to melting ice, but also that warmer water takes up a larger volume. 

Add warmer waters feed more intense storms.  Big win for me in California is climate change “probably” has no impact on earthquakes. Then again if the Yellowstone super dome blows it won’t matter. One nice thing about being old. Nature only has so much time left to mess with me. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

What we really need is Capitalism 2.0 ....  suggestions for action, as if there was one silver bullet to solve it all. No, everything counts, large and small, all over the world - we just have to speed things up. Now.

How about as little action and speed as possible. As in dail economic activities way down, let everyone stay home play on their tablet, or be to poor to do anything. Nature would love that?

How about increasing economic activity and burning up everything quickly, then go out with a bang? I once had contact with a guy who ended up with that as the best solution for nature to recover.

I am sure certain think-tanks already have loads of such scenarios worked out, decades ago. Not for public viewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem the world is is too many people - using up resources and polluting.  Have to find a way to reduce the number of people.  The problem is that nations (and perhaps capitalism itself) is a Ponzi scheme.  One needs more and more people at the bottom of the pyramid to support those at the top.  Hence the dilemma.  Perhaps we have to rethink our concept of how our societies are structured in order to make it viable to reduce the world's population by several billion over the next decades (without bringing about societal collapse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Erwin said:

 Perhaps we have to rethink our concept of how our societies are structured.

Don't bother. You and I are not on a level that have any say about the structure. In fact you are not allowed to know the structure. So what kind of starting point is that. It is rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...