“They're funny when said sarcastically.
"How gay are you, I mean, would you ever consider going out with me?"
"I might consider it if there were no other women on the planet."
"So you're saying there's a chance! YES!" ::fist pump::
“I agree, I like the integrated sink/tank arrangements and pre-soaped laundry water does a good job washing cars, driveways and the like if you don't have toddlers or younger.
As to the mercury, make standards too high or add a carbon tax and the big energy producers will switch to gas. This will drive up home heating to where wood/coal looks attractive and we're in an even worse situation as it doesn't take nearly as much small scale non-scrubbed to make more pollutants than a much larger scrubbed operation. Also consider China will ramp up operations with cheaper coal, if you tax it out of the ground they'll switch to the high sulfur domestically and we're still in the same boat.
It's going to take a lot of partial battle victories to win the war, be leery of complete victories as it's most likely going to cost a lot more elsewhere.”
“How so? Unstable climates have lower populations but higher diversity as few have advantage for long enough to crowd the others out. Look at all the megafauna and other species that disappeared when this unusually long interglacial period started. The exception to this is tropical rain forests where there's rarely a lack pressure so advantage is turned to poisons and the like.
Prominent means to stick out, in this case it's popularity among peers. Expertise is also judged in the same way, neither confer being right or correct. As to climate change caused by man, I have no doubt it is happening just due to our numbers and level of activity. The main problem is pinning it on CO2 production to the point of trying to make an exclusive argument for it. It's a single thing among the tens of thousands of activities people do to disrupt and destroy natural processes that regulate these things. Lack of marshes and swamps, denatured soil, lower water tables and decline in ocean life are going to play a lot larger role than most realize.”
“As quickly as things are recovering around nuclear accident sites...maybe that would be healthier for the planet than slowly killing off biodiversity even to the level of soil bacteria. 2 billion is very optimistic, I do hope they allow an implosion before surpassing that but they keep upping the tech to extract more chemically grown food from denatured soil, before long everywhere is arable and most will be warehoused in high rises. You're right about a major issue, Monsanto and co. will make money on the population run up, the war and the decontamination and cleanup after. It pays to have lobbyists. Put all this stuff together with Stefan Molyneux and we have a major blowout coming.”
“And more reading there will reveal gasses and other interrupted natural processes that are worse for warming than carbon, destruction of natural carbon sinks and many other things that are worse than burning fossil fuels. Ignoring the forest for the carbon tree isn't wise.”
“Replace prominence with popularity and expertise with support of popular viewpoint, in addition, the stable climate we've been experiencing is an outlier in the history of the world and leads to just as much destruction of plant and animal diversity as sudden change.”
“By the way, I checked out your link and have pasted a paragraph from that website below. As anyone with eyes can see it's garbage.
"Science magazines like "Nature", and popular media generally, have for a number of years shown "obvious" evidence and "scientists' reports" that converted many people from being sceptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, to believing it was true. This happened to me, watching Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth". However, further perusal of neglected and even suppressed evidence led me, and many others, to make a complete U-turn to the conviction that global warming has been largely a cyclical natural process, that humans exert a minimal influence on warming outside urban areas, and that there is nothing worth attempting to do, to change the climate. "”
“That's why the tax isn't necessary. If it's implemented, the price of coal will plummet making it even more attractive for home heating and China will have more of an exported goods advantage and will ramp up production. Tax it when it comes from the ground and China will use dirtier lower grade local sources. Better to burn it in the "cleaner than the alternatives" we have going now and China will focus more on sustainability than expansion, which will mean cleaner energy there and overall. Forcing it internationally would be even worse, it would push the fate of the EU directly into Putin's hands, giving them more money and likely a Chinese type production explosion in Russia.
“Let it happen sooner and slower rather than manage the climate and everything else so a super peak bust can happen later. Lower birth rate and a warm century vs 20+ billion dying in one shot in 2-3 centuries, I'd pick the former thank you.”
Molly D on Apr 18, 2014 at 19:41:22
“You're way out in front of everybody else here. But it's pretty much already set. Population goes higher from here by not more than 2 billion. And then a still pretty nasty bust. Progressives should be framing what they want to happen in exactly your terms. Keep on stringing along the status quo, until it inexorably breaks, or break it sooner, deliberately, under control.
Climate is just one symptom, which follows population. And that itself may be secondary to overall consumption and depletion. The feared "cascade of consequences" will not be just climate, one variable. No one variable operates in an otherwise constant human state. Who talks about "currency change", "warfare change", age change, health change, politics change, all in one equation? One or two of those will be a proximate trigger for a cascade of all of them together. Think of the Federal Reserve, desperately trying to string along its status quo, which is a currency system vestigial to the gold standard, now forty years after it was formally ended. They do fantastically well at it. So that just seduces the rest of the system to abuse the currency.
The worst potential bust of all is one we thought we'd dodged. The hyper-exponentially increased capacity to unleash damage in warfare. So far, that is a positive prognosis for humanity.”
“Look at the time scales, it won't be half dying, more like a slightly higher death rate over decades but most likely reproduction falling below replacement, like many developed countries.
"The 1% can't grow hybrid tomatoes... just a bank account. Even if they could, the hybrid plants wouldn't produce seed to keep them alive."
Exactly what I'm saying, heirlooms will take over again after the next "potato famine".”
Dewy Bradford on Apr 20, 2014 at 11:57:56
“"Slightly higher death rate" is very optimistic... and IF it works out like that, then our waste and excess is quantified in how many lives to pay for Americans getting a 3 gallon flush of fresh potable water with every pint of urine?
You cannot justify the WASTE of America. We need to quit exploiting our resources and poisoning our environment OR ELSE WE DIE. There are no "slightly higher death rates" to mercury poisoning. We DIE.”
“It likely would have been cheaper already if the subsidies and regulatory requirements were skipped. Dated processes and designs were ramped up to make oversized farms to feed long lines, just like wind. In a more natural progression, R&D would have went towards more distributed systems, eliminating most remote site transmission and making a lot of advances since the batches were small. Notice that's where Europe went, isolated sites along highways and shorelines, that's why they got ahead.
More progress is made allowing things to go in the correct direction rather than making them. It's heirloom seeds naturally tailored to specific environments vs. BT toxin, monoculture and roundup.”
Fietser on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:31:24
“"More progress is made allowing things to go in the correct direction"
I can't agree with you more! For instance the carbon tax, most negative views about it say it will make the poor even poorer. But I think only a small tax would be sufficient to nudge things in the right direction. Only the idea that saving energy will earn you money can steer things in the right direction, more energy efficient products will be made because people want them and not because the government says they should be made. If you create the demand, the market will respond automatically.”