NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (1 Viewer)

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Local time
Today, 04:40
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
17,059
Galaxiom said:
The greatest myth is that economies would be destroyed by changing to renewable energy sources. In fact the change represents the greatest economic opportunity ever.
It might surprise you to find that I actually agree with the idea of finding renewable energy sources. The problem is that so far, a lot of the attempts have fallen flat. There was an article not that long ago in a UK periodical regarding "windmill farms" and the fact that current technology is inadequate to prevent the blades from falling apart, making the expense of the farms skyrocket. You would have to search to find it again, but I believe I saw that in this thread over six months ago, maybe more. There is a corollary to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And that is "if it breaks too often, don't fix it - scrap it and try something else."

My issue with things like reducing carbon footprints by switching to electric cars has to do with toxic battery disposal. Generating power without fossil fuels is great, as in building large scale solar arrays - but the byproducts of making photovoltaic cells are usually a very un-nice set of polluting heavy elements that are liver poisons.

If you recall, I favor environmental cleanup for disease/health reasons. So far, a lot of these schemes to push renewable energy have been examples of "robbing Peter to pay Paul." I would LOVE to see a good, long-term, non-polluting renewable energy source.

If you can get some new renewable energy source to work large-scale, GO for it. I am not opposed. But imposing Draconian measures on extant populations (e.g. as in the Paris or Kyoto accords) is a death sentence to the folks living marginally due to imbalance of wealth in the countries that would be penalized for having developed that far. Old folks who rely on energy to keep their household climate in a habitable range would die during extreme summers or winters if their energy allotments were cut.

OK, it comes down to "survival of the fittest" in action when that happens. But that somehow seems a bit callous, and I'm not advocating it. Do you not see the dilemma?
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:40
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,286
I think, the way I read it, Docs original (long) answer could have been 'yes, it comes down to money and the USA cares nothing of producing massive pollution '
I understand, in the USA, each main political party receives huge (like billions) of dollars for their costs of putting up candidates, in exchange for not changing anything in industry that might affect profit. Backhanders in brown envelopes go in and out of the White House on a regular basis.

Rightly or wrongly, that's the impression we get of the USA politics here in the UK.

Col
 

Mike375

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 19:40
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,548
I think, the way I read it, Docs original (long) answer could have been 'yes, it comes down to money and the USA cares nothing of producing massive pollution '
I understand, in the USA, each main political party receives huge (like billions) of dollars for their costs of putting up candidates, in exchange for not changing anything in industry that might affect profit. Backhanders in brown envelopes go in and out of the White House on a regular basis.

Rightly or wrongly, that's the impression we get of the USA politics here in the UK.

Col
I don't think that is unique to America and goes beyond donations. In Australia and I would assume America and the UK would be similar, very big business is a much bigger percantage of the economy that it was many many years ago.

In Australia if one of the two major parties went to the next election on the basis of stopping out ridiculous immigration they would win in a landslide. The fact that both majpr parties have the immigration policy that tells you there is an outside force at work.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:40
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,286
One example being the millions the NRA pay presidents not to ban guns or do anything to stop the serial killing sprees as they are good for business and gun sellers sell tons more guns after a dozen or so innocent children are murdered.

Col
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Local time
Today, 04:40
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
17,059
Col

You have one error in your statement about the NRA and payoffs. The NRA does not think that serial killing sprees are "good for business." They know all too well that such actions weaken their position. They are often cold and calculating, but they are not immune to feelings of sadness when children are killed. And the NRA isn't that strongly involved in the handgun trade. It is that weapon, a handgun of some sort, that provides more deaths than other kinds of firearms.

Now, it is true that the NRA will toss money into political ads at election time, and that money goes to any campaigns from president to municipal dogcatcher. But they don't give the money directly to the president. They donate to the committees to reelect the president. That type of donation has been tested in courts and found to be legal.
 

Mike375

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 19:40
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,548
99.99% of gun deaths in the US of A are with handguns. A mixture of acts of crime, suicide etc.

If AR 15s were banned tomorrow and then currently owned AR15s were handed in there would be virtually zero difference in gun deaths in in the US.

What no one wants to talk about in the new age "political correctness" is how many of the gun deaths are involving African Americans and Hispanics.

Sorry about that Col but you need to know the facts.
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Local time
Today, 04:40
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
17,059
I was going to avoid this, but perhaps it is important in this context. In a nationally reported story recently, the Mexican law enforcement folks were going to arrest the son of "El Chappo" as a drug kingpin. They had to let him go because they were outgunned. They even faced a twin-barrel .50 caliber heavy machine gun, what the soldiers in WWII used to call "ma deuce." That weapon can tear apart an armored car.

The problem that the USA has with immigration from South and Central America is caused by gangs with guns, gangs that kill indiscriminately. Look at the drug cartels and the killing that they do. Look at the people who are driven out of their homes by the drugistas and thugs. But you folks in the UK seem to think that WE are the gunslingers. If the immigrants thought we were more violent than where they were, they would never have attempted to immigrate to the USA in the first place.

Most of our deaths here in the USA are low-profile drug deals gone wrong, or turf wars between rival drug gangs. The shooting sprees are disturbing, true, but the numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the violence of third-world countries.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:40
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,286
I don't want to get into gun discussions, that's been covered.

What I was trying to say was that big businesses in the USA donate huge sums of money to political campaigns- a bit like a bribe if you like, in return, they expect little to change especially if it will cost them millions. If it's not a bribe, why do big businesses donate?
Pollution and climate change are two examples. If the US government forced businesses to drastically cut pollution by law, the two main parties know there would be a massive drop in their donations income and their corruption income.
Therefore, the USA pulls out of any international conferences and continues to pollute on a massive scale. Other countries tackle pollution head on.

I suppose you could say that whoever is president, their hands are tied, the White House and the senate are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Col
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 19:40
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
11,990
Most of our deaths here in the USA are low-profile drug deals gone wrong, or turf wars between rival drug gangs.
Maybe legalising drugs would be more effective at stopping the killing than banning guns?
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Local time
Today, 04:40
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
17,059
I have actually advocated decriminalization of at least some drug crimes over the years, including on the AWF forums. (Probably in the Watercooler, been too long for me to remember in detail.)

G., if we legalized some drugs and forced two things, it would kill the profit motive and make some of the drug wars die down. First, require a tax stamp similar to the way that liquor is taxed here. Alcohol here is sold with green, pink, or black tax stamps based on percent of alcohol by volume. Second, to qualify for that stamp, your product must undergo quality test to verify that it has not been "cut" with a dangerous substance. Some drugs have been found to have been mixed with other prescription or over-the-counter drugs such as colchicine, which is an anti-gout medicine that can be debilitating in large doses.

If you take the risk out of the drug trade and make it legally regulated and competitive, the drug wars maybe wouldn't go away - but they would diminish drastically. The illegal actions taht would replace the drug runners would be cheap bootleg stuff sold with no tax stamp - and the feds could go after the remaining drugistas for tax evasion. Which is actually how they finally convicted Al Capone. They never could get him on making the bathtub gin, but they got him for not paying taxes on the profits. Now THERE, the USA would have a money motive to control the drugs and folks would understand better.

Heck, it might even be a strange, back-door way to teach the gang members, who are usually disaffected young men, some basics about commerce and economic reality. What a strange benefit.

We are currently examining the marijuana problem because many states are defying federal law and legalizing medicinal MJ. I'm not going to worry about pot growers too much. It's the guys who work in back-yard meth labs with volatile solvents and the risk of explosions or fires, or the guys who bring in cocaine or heroin via fast boats and various convoys across the border.
 

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 04:40
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
Are humans causing global warming?
highly doubtful, as the so called "carbon footprint" of the entire human population can be compared to a spec of dust in the entire solar system. I think the natural environment is a much bigger factor. Saying that the human race is causing global warming is just as ridiculous as people claiming that using shorter URLs when browsing the internet saves significant amounts of energy. How in the world can that be possible!? Who comes up with these ridiculous notions!?

Is the cycles of the Sun a factor? What role does volcano activity above ground and underwater play?
Over the last 4.5 billion years of the Earth's existence, the geologists of the world have supposedly given us evidence of the planet going through numerous stages of warming and cooling. Heat cycles and ice ages. So I personally think that this whole fear about global warming is invalid, as if the planet is indeed warming, it is prolly just another cycle that it goes through.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 05:40
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,049
This morning Fox news had Peter Schweizer on. He discussed what the bond market is telling us regarding the believability of climate change. Basically, he stated that despite all the hysterical gloom and doom by elected officials; climate change is a non-issue.

Report Finds ‘A Gulf’ Between What Activist Cities Tell Investors, Courts About Climate Change Risks

"In their lawsuits, the cities argued that climate change was certain to cause billions of dollars in damages in the coming decades. When looking to sell municipal bonds, however, they were more coy, telling investors that the risks of climate change were impossible to predict."
"This might be because cities rarely mentioned climate change in bond disclosure documents. Disclosure statements for the 20 at-risk cities added up to more than 4,300 pages, but referenced phrases like “climate change” and “sea-level rise,” fewer than 100 times. According to the researchers, 12 of the 20 disclosures did not use climate language at all.

That’s not how activist city governments have been framing the issue for the press, however. NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has called climate change “a dagger aimed at the heart of New York City.” Meanwhile, the city of Baltimore filed a lawsuit against energy companies alleging that climate change was leading to “property damage, economic injuries and impacts to public health.”"
Please note, what is being stated above does not relate to hard science. Reality, such as it is, is based on the perceptions of all the participants in the financial system. For example if a trade agreement with China appears on the horizon, the stock market goes up. Should there be a snag, the stock market plummets.

As for the bond market, if there are material effects that could affect the price (investment potential) of a bond they need to be disclosed to the bond buyer so that the bond buyer can make an informed decision. Apparently, the risk of climate change is not considered to be a material factor and is not being disclosed. In financial speak that means all the gloom and doom hysteria of climate change is propaganda that is to be ignored.

Let me reiterate, what is written above is not based on scientific data that you can touch, but on the abstruse theory that millions (more or less) of individual decisions reveal whether a financial instrument is appropriately "priced". The financial market is telling us that climate change is not appropriately "priced" assuming that it actually exists..
 
Local time
Today, 02:40
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
2,207
Its really about moving 1/3 of the worlds wealth from its present form to a new model. You can't argue with science, so you have to capitulate to the data even if its tainted. "It's for the common good".
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Local time
Today, 04:40
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
17,059
You can't argue with science
Ah, but you CAN argue with science - by presenting contrary research or by questioning the legitimacy of the findings. Look at the way that tobacco and big oil have deflected lawsuits for damages brought about by the chemicals they release into the environment.

My thing is the disease associated with pollution, as many of you have read in my prior posts. The evasion techniques that are used to evade or diminish responsibility for deaths cause by tobacco or environmental poison are all of a scientific nature because there is no way to directly link a death to a specific company's product. All you can do is say that "Mr. X died of lung disease" but you can't prove who made the carcinogen that killed him. Thus, legal cause-and-effect can't be demonstrated.
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Local time
Today, 04:40
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
17,059
Sorry, AB - sometimes I'm a bit of a literalist, particularly before my coffee has kicked in.
 

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 04:40
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
before my coffee has kicked in.
I've never understood why coffee is such a huge craze. I have never had a single cup of coffee in my entire life and I function perfectly fine in the morning.

Even a 23 year old dental student told me in the gym today that before he goes in to workout he drinks like 3 cups of coffee. :rolleyes:
 
Local time
Today, 02:40
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
2,207
Sorry, AB - sometimes I'm a bit of a literalist, particularly before my coffee has kicked in.
Yeah, this form of media doesn't suite me well. I have the "attention span of a gnat" so most of the time i'm off the mark. :D
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom