' The truth - We will go extinct, very soon.' by reaverfan

There is blame to be placed for all the inaction.

We've done that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 12:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Congress is still controlled by Koch puppets. Climate deniers."

The office of president is a bully pulpit - a place from which to change the dynamic, not bow to it. If Obama really thought it was important he would have campaigned for it while in office, at least in his second term.

And, while I 100% disagree with the Koch agenda, one thing I have to say is that the brothers put (a lot of) their money (over a long time) where their mouth is. They truly committed to realizing their plans. Compared to democrats who couldn't even be bothered to put their mouth where their mouth is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 1:09 AM

Ludicrous.

Climate denial is 100% a Republican thing, and always has been.

The only party that ever tried to do anything was the Dems (and the Greens, of course, but like the Dems, they had no power or influence).

Pure climate denial propaganda, coupled with powerless, ineffectual, broke-ass opposition is what did this.

We should have been working on this since Exxon's own scientists told them what was going to happen 40 years ago. They instead decided that profit > survival of the planet's species.

Look at Republicans letting hunters kill whatever they want, today.

It's like they want everything to die. Maybe they're lizard people?

They don't seem to have a prefrontal cortex.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 2:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"powerless, ineffectual, broke-ass opposition"

Naw - it's intentional misleading lipservice (and a lot of times not even that) to cover up the fact that they're going along with it. The only one who really stepped up was Al Gore, and look how the democratic party left him twisting in the wind all by his lonesome.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:34 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"powerless, ineffectual, broke-ass opposition"

Naw - it's intentional misleading lipservice (and a lot of times not even that) to cover up the fact that they're going along with it. The only one who really stepped up was Al Gore, and look how the democratic party left him twisting in the wind all by his lonesome.

"We are seemingly in denial. It's time to break that taboo and have serious conversations about what we do now."
www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressi
ng-its-sending-people-to-therapy

The Climate Change Paper So Depressing It's Sending People to Therapy:
On average, three people read an academic paper. At least 100,000 have read this—and a lot of them haven't taken it very well.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:38 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just am extremely irritated by our resident idiots who think that Trump caused the entire global warming problem all by himself in just the last 2 years. REALLY? What kind of an idiotic nutcase do you have to be to think that?

? So I guess no one here actually said they think that Trump caused the entire global warming problem all by himself in just the last 2 years, right? You just made it up?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:39 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

"People who don't pay attention to it, or who are not experts, probably haven't read these scientific reports, rely on their leaders," he said. "On the Republican side, you're seeing the leader of the GOP, Donald Trump, coming out and saying this is a hoax, this is a Chinese hoax."

Seventy-one percent of Democrats polled said climate change was a "serious problem" that required action to be taken, while 15 percent of Republicans said the same, according to the report.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/432707-analyst-says-
gop-dems-are-most-divided-on-climate-change

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:

Seventy-one percent of Democrats polled said climate change was a "serious problem" that required action to be taken, while 15 percent of Republicans said the same, according to the report.

So 71 percent of one side believes what their side's leaders say, while 85 percent of another side believes what their side's leaders say. Sounds about even.

No mention of people who haven't picked a side though, huh?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:48 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:

Seventy-one percent of Democrats polled said climate change was a "serious problem" that required action to be taken, while 15 percent of Republicans said the same, according to the report.

So 71 percent of one side believes what their side's leaders say, while 85 percent of another side believes what their side's leaders say. Sounds about even.

No mention of people who haven't picked a side though, huh?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

The so-called Independents? The article said: "Forty-seven percent of independent respondents said they would call climate change a serious problem and indicated that action needed to be taken." It is pretty typical of an Independent to say "Am I for? Am I against? I'll flip a coin because I don't want to be predictable." Therefore they came out almost 50/50. It would have been exactly 50% but there is always that 6% who pick: "I don't know".

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:14 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

The only one who really stepped up was Al Gore, and look how the democratic party left him twisting in the wind all by his lonesome.

Gore could step-up because he was not running for office in the 21st Century. Elected and serving Democratic politicians have to bend to the will of the voters and Democratic voters don't want to be inconvenienced by Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". How about Republican voters? Truth has to bite their ass to get their attention. How do I know this? I can look at Europe to see it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

The United States has reduced per-capita carbon emissions slightly more than Europe, small thanks goes to the Democratic party and to me for being in the natural gas business instead of coal. In Europe, by contrast to the US, there is no equivalent to the Republican Party. Nobody denies that climate change is real, and there’s no monolithic political opposition to doing something about it.

In other words, it doesn’t seem as if either the Republican Party or America’s dysfunctional politics is really the whole problem. So what is? It must be something common to both Europe and the US, and the obvious answer is that we all live in democracies. Roughly speaking, our governments do what the public wants, and the public doesn’t have much interest in reducing carbon emissions. Oh, we say we do, and we’ll support minor things like ETS or CAFE that have a barely noticeable effect on us. We’ll support solar power — if it produces electricity nearly as cheaply as coal. We’ll all buy electric cars — but only when the price comes down and the batteries get better. We’ll check out the energy star rating the next time we buy a new refrigerator. And that’s about it.

As for the rest of the world, I won’t even show you the chart. It’s too depressing. Outside of Europe and the US, carbon emissions are just going steadily up, up, up. Even the Great Recession barely made a dent.

More at www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/02/heres-my-super-abridged-green-n
ew-deal/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 10:14 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Naw - it's intentional misleading lipservice (and a lot of times not even that) to cover up the fact that they're going along with it. The only one who really stepped up was Al Gore, and look how the democratic party left him twisting in the wind all by his lonesome.

Or...

https://environmentamerica.org/blogs/environment-america-blog/ame/pres
ident-obama’s-renewable-energy-legacy

President Obama’s Renewable Energy Legacy
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
By Rob Sargent
Senior Director, Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy

"Tonight, President Obama will deliver a farewell address in his hometown of Chicago. His two terms in office offer many examples of progress for which he deserves thanks and praise. Chief among these examples is the game-changing gains we’ve seen in renewable energy since he took office. Thanks to his commitment to tackling global warming and his leadership, the United States and the world are finally on a path to a future powered entirely by clean, renewable energy.

When President Obama took office in 2009, the U.S. had only 1.2 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity and 25 GW of wind capacity installed. Since then, there’s nearly three times as much wind power (75 GW), and solar power has increased by an astonishing 2500% clip to 31 GW.

These dramatic increases are, in part, a product of forward-thinking policies by the Obama administration that drove down costs. In early 2009, nearly $90 billion went to renewable energy from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2015, Congress extended renewable tax credits for solar and wind. Throughout the past eight years, the Obama administration actively supported the offshore wind energy industry, and ultimately oversaw the first offshore wind farm coming online in 2016. And they aggressively pushed energy savings by finalizing fifty efficiency standards -- more than any previous administration -- saving consumers $550 billion on their utility bills.

As a result of these actions, the cost of solar and wind has decreased in stunning fashion -- exceeding even the more optimistic projections. Land-based wind costs have dropped 41 percent since 2008, and wind now powers over 17 million U.S. households. The cost of rooftop solar has declined by 54 percent, and as of the beginning of 2016, one million households had solar panels. Finally, utility-scale solar costs have been cut by 64 percent, powering two million homes.

There is no denying that solar and wind are booming like never before under President Obama’s leadership. What’s more, a growing body of research indicates that the transition to a low-carbon economy is happening alongside a growing economy. Since the president took office, carbon emissions from electricity fell by 9.5 percent, while the economy grew by more than 10 percent -- and we’re seeing the same pattern on a global scale for the first time.

Of course, we need to go even farther and set even more ambitious renewable energy goals if we want to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. We echo the President’s optimism in a recently-published piece in Science Magazine that despite the uncertain energy policy of the incoming administration, the momentum of clean energy is “irreversible.”

So thank you, President Obama, for laying the foundation for the renewable energy boom. While much work is left to be done, you have helped chart a course for a 100 percent renewable energy future -- and it is crucial that the next administration embrace this path, for the sake of our kids and our grandkids."

So there's that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 11:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-
depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 7, 2019 1:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
When President Obama took office in 2009, the U.S. had only 1.2 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity and 25 GW of wind capacity installed. Since then, there’s nearly three times as much wind power (75 GW), and solar power has increased by an astonishing 2500% clip to 31 GW.

It's inscrutable. The US has the 'capacity' to generate a rate of 75 gw wind power and 31 gw of solar. But how much power is actually generated? For that we'd need to know the total gigawatt HOURS generated in (for the sake of argument) a year.

In 2018, the US generated 275 billion kwh of wind power and 63 billion kwh of solar electricity. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 But in 2017 the US used a total of 97.7 QUADRILLION BTUs.

Or, converting that to billion kwh https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/BTU_to_kWh.html 28,600 billion kwh.

The US generated about 338 billion kwh in solar and wind energy, but used 28,600 billion kwh total. In other words, solar and wind electricity generation accounted for appx 1.7% of total energy use.

Wow. (I'm being ironic.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just OOC I looked into the "deep adaptation" paper mentioned earlier (You can find a link to the paper itself here, I haven't been able to find a direct link yet)

http://www.scientistswarning.org/deep-adaptation-a-map-for-navigating-
climate-tragedy/

Curiously, it takes the same approach that I do: There will have to be a fundamental change in what we think is important, new set of ethics, and a whole new restructuring of our economies and societies if we are to adapt and survive.

Of course, REAVERBOT believes that survival isn't possible, and SECOND believes that change isn't posible, so these links aren't for them.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 11, 2019 10:33 AM

In that same vein, this is the "hopium" we're being sold by NPR.

It's 2050 And This Is How We Stopped Climate Change
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/11/688876374/its-205
0-and-this-is-how-we-stopped-climate-change

This is dangerous, because it makes people think all their problems will be solved. They will not. Not only would acting fast enough and finding all the solutions needed to get to net 0 by 2050 be nearly impossible, it simply won't happen.

We have a president and an EPA that don't acknowledge that climate change is even a real thing. They say it's a hoax, along with about 1/4 of our population.

We've got a war to wage in Venezuela to keep control of the oil so we can stay the world's sole military empire. Priorities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 11, 2019 12:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't understand why you think this is Trump's problem.

Quote:
We have a president and an EPA that don't acknowledge that climate change is even a real thing. They say it's a hoax, along with about 1/4 of our population.

Obama didn't even give it lip service. Or Clinton before Bush. Or Bush before Clinton. And so on. And our next president? What do you think she or he is going to do?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 11, 2019 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't understand why you think this is Trump's problem.
Quote:
We have a president and an EPA that don't acknowledge that climate change is even a real thing. They say it's a hoax, along with about 1/4 of our population.
Obama didn't even give it lip service. Or Clinton before Bush. Or Bush before Clinton. And so on. And our next president? What do you think she or he is going to do?

Trump is simply an idiot. He denies climate science, and appointed a bunch of people from the fossil fuel industries who do too, and they're laying waste to what regulation there had been for it.

Even Bush admitted it was a problem, but did nothing to address it.

Bernie Sanders is all on board with a GND, but even if he gets elected, he's got staunch opposition on the other side.

If we had listened to him 30 years ago, we might have had time to stop it, but it's too late now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 11, 2019 4:11 PM

You'll be fine bro.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 12, 2019 5:28 PM

No one will be fine. Everyone will be dead.

Might as well try to live on Mars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Even Bush admitted it was a problem"

Which Bush was that?

That aside - it doesn't matter. Don't let yourself get bamboozled by mere talk. Neither political 'side' has done anything to change our course, because that would defy their masters.

When it comes to who's done more to represent their interests - I have to give it to conservatives, the petroleum industry, and the Koch brothers specifically. Many many decades ago conservatives created a bunch of well-funded think tanks to determine the debate. The petroleum industry has been waging this war over many decades. And the Kochs have put a substantial amount of money where their mouths are.

If you compare that to the democratic party, the liberal organizations like the Sierra Club, and uber-wealthy individual democrats ... well, it's clear why the action went one way. There just wasn't any fight in the environmental side. And the people you presume are the good guys - the democrats - failed like tissue paper in a storm.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, this is a complete aide. But jack wondered how the anti-war party became the war hawk party. One could also wonder how the party that claims to represent the good of the people came to represent the multi-nationalist free-traders. Or how that same party went from protecting the environment to quietly joining the other side. Or from protecting people's bank accounts to giving away their assets to the bankers.

And I think that it's because most people really don't care if we start wars or remain peaceable. Or make goods in the US or buy things 'Made in China'. Or preserve the environment or do business as usual. Or care if many get poor while a few get far richer.

As a result, the democratic party doesn't stand for any vital thing, and doesn't hold itself accountable to fight for any vital thing, like peace, productive capacity, preserving the environment, or creating a fair society. Nope. What it stands for is 'we are the side opposed the republicans'. It's tribal. Republicans bad, democrats good.

And those poor democrats who actually mistook their party for one of principle, like McGovern or Gore, were left hanging around all by their lonesome, while the party retreated from those positions.

I read an interesting article, and it makes a historical case that the human species isn't particularly moral, or altruistic, or I would say even rational. humans are primarily tribal. https://qz.com/1562585/the-seven-moral-rules-that-supposedly-unite-hum
anity/ An Oxford researcher says there are seven moral rules that unite humanity

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:49 PM

I agree that the Democrats have been complete pussies.

They buckle to the bullies on the right constantly.

I think they want to lose. Give the illusion that "we tried to stop them," yet they take money from the same lobbyists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 12, 2019 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
I agree that the Democrats have been complete pussies.

They buckle to the bullies on the right constantly.

I think they want to lose. Give the illusion that "we tried to stop them," yet they take money from the same lobbyists.

What the shit, dude. You just said:

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
"Both sides are just as bad." -Russian trollspeak.

I dunno. That sounds like Russian trollspeak to me.

Did Putin get to you in between the time you made these two posts or something?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 12, 2019 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, this is a complete aide. But jack wondered how the anti-war party became the war hawk party. One could also wonder how the party that claims to represent the good of the people came to represent the multi-nationalist free-traders. Or how that same party went from protecting the environment to quietly joining the other side. Or from protecting people's bank accounts to giving away their assets to the bankers.

And I think that it's because most people really don't care if we start wars or remain peaceable. Or make goods in the US or buy things 'Made in China'. Or preserve the environment or do business as usual. Or care if many get poor while a few get far richer.

As a result, the democratic party doesn't stand for any vital thing, and doesn't hold itself accountable to fight for any vital thing, like peace, productive capacity, preserving the environment, or creating a fair society. Nope. What it stands for is 'we are the side opposed the republicans'. It's tribal. Republicans bad, democrats good.

And those poor democrats who actually mistook their party for one of principle, like McGovern or Gore, were left hanging around all by their lonesome, while the party retreated from those positions.

I read an interesting article, and it makes a historical case that the human species isn't particularly moral, or altruistic, or I would say even rational. humans are primarily tribal. https://qz.com/1562585/the-seven-moral-rules-that-supposedly-unite-hum
anity/ An Oxford researcher says there are seven moral rules that unite humanity

Probably the most interesting post I've read here in a while.

Not far off from what I've thought about things for the last 20 years or something. There was a point in time where they were taking down quite a lot of high profile Mafia types, and I found myself thinking that this wasn't a good thing in general. Not that I support any Mafia types or anything, but I thought "great... it's like one huge and super-powered, and infinitely funded macro-gang is systematically wiping out all the little established micro-gangs"

We're well into the era of homogenized culture in the US, spurred on quite quickly by the internet and social media. When I grew up in the world pre-internet, there wasn't much inter-connectivity with much of the world as a rule. Everyone behaved much different because they had to live with the people they regularly conversed with, and all of their actions required to either be face to face with people, or at the very least over the phone. Those days are long gone, and you can see the decay of civility that has come along with social media becoming the public square.

I think that the internet, at least the way we use it under our multi-national corpo-capitalist masters today, will ultimately be the destruction of society that we've spent all of human history putting together.

As for the article, that was an interesting read.

I had just watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day that came to mind when I read this part of the article:

Quote:
“I was surprised by how unsurprising it all was,” he says. “I expected there would be lots of ‘be brave,’ ‘don’t steal from others,’ and ‘return favors,’ but I also expected a lot of strange, bizarre moral rules.” They did find the occasional departure from the norm. For example, among the Chuuk, the largest ethnic group in the Federated States of Micronesia, “to steal openly from others is admirable in that it shows a person’s dominance and demonstrates that he is not intimidated by the aggressive powers of others.” That said, researchers who studied the group concluded that the seven universal moral rules still apply to this behavior: “it appears to be a case in which one form of cooperation (respect for property) has been trumped by another (respect for a hawkish trait, although not explicitly bravery),” they wrote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
I agree that the Democrats have been complete pussies.

They buckle to the bullies on the right constantly.

I think they want to lose. Give the illusion that "we tried to stop them," yet they take money from the same lobbyists.

What the shit, dude. You just said:

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
"Both sides are just as bad." -Russian trollspeak.

I dunno. That sounds like Russian trollspeak to me.

Did Putin get to you in between the time you made these two posts or something?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

You are very, very dumb.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:06 PM

An extremely powerful cyclonic storm will plow through the Plains and Midwest tomorrow. May see major flooding across parts of Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota as all the snowpack melts abruptly on top of up to 2-3 inches of rainfall in 48 hrs...all while the ground is still cold and below freezing, not allowing for faster infiltration of high precipitation rates. Meanwhile, the High Plains, which have actually missed on a lot of snow will face snowfall amount of 2 feet+ over 48 hrs and gusts of 60-70 mph! The southern Plains will have those gusts without the snow and some severe weather is possible over parts of Texas today and then into Arkansas and Louisiana tomorrow.

This is what you get with a destabilizing jet stream as a result of abrupt climate change...very prominent lobes of cold air blasting south at the expense of the Arctic, interacting with very abnormally warm air, generating these extremely intense storms capable of destroying infrastructure. The Plains and Midwest get intense storms like this, but we are seeing more and more of them now, causing more damage to roads, bridges and livestock which will be in danger tomorrow.

This is the direct result of rapidly-increasing global warming. It will never get better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 13, 2019 6:08 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Only yesterday Trump tweeted:
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” @foxandfriends Wow!
5:29 AM - 12 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1105445788585467904

This was mentioned in an article: 2 charts refuting Trump’s claim that “airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly”
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18261985/trump-boeing-737-ma
x-8-automation-tweet-debunked

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 13, 2019 7:39 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Only yesterday Trump tweeted:
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” @foxandfriends Wow!
5:29 AM - 12 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1105445788585467904

The response from twitter user WTFGOP was my favorite: "I seriously could shit a more intelligent President"

JIC....

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

"Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace

Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes the use of nuclear energy because it is a dangerous and expensive distraction from real solutions to climate change.

Greenpeace and the Green New Deal

In 2019, Mr. Moore has been misrepresented as a Greenpeace spokesperson on the Green New Deal resolution, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). In contrast to Mr. Moore’s comment, please see Greenpeace’s response to the Green New Deal.

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF).

Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry

In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.(1)

Patrick Moore Has Provided Inaccurate Information on Nuclear Power

In 2004, Mr. Moore published an article in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) journal entitled “Nuclear Re-think.” According to Mr. Moore, “Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment.”(2)

Contrary to Mr. Moore’s claim, the damaged reactor spewed radiation into the environment for days. It appears that Mr. Moore didn’t even bother to check his facts. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fact sheet on Three Mile Island (TMI) acknowledges that the meltdown resulted in “a significant release of radiation…”(3)

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency, which published Mr. Moore’s article, acknowledges that the TMI meltdown released radiation into the surrounding community. As a result, the IAEA ranks the accident as a Level 5 on a scale of 7, an Accident With Wider Consequences. (Only Chernobyl & the Soviet nuclear waste tank explosion in 1957 rank worse than the Three Mile Island meltdown.)(4)

According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the damaged reactor core. However, nuclear engineers who reexamined the accident estimate that as much as 150 million curies of radiation may have escaped from the reactor.(5) The meltdown at Three Mile Island turned a multimillion dollar asset into a multibillion dollar liability overnight and helped seal the fate of nuclear power in the United States. To claim otherwise is nothing but public relations spin.

Unfortunately, Mr. Moore’s pro nuclear spin is not confined to the Three Mile Island meltdown. While praising the Bush Administration for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol(6), Moore promotes nuclear power as a solution to global warming because,”(i)t produces no harmful greenhouse gases…”(7)

However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) already determined in 1999 that the Nuclear Energy Institute’s claims touting nuclear power’s supposed environmental benefits were misleading because it did not disclose the fact that the production of nuclear fuel produced greenhouse gases. The FTC concluded that NEI’s claims could not be substantiated, “(s)ince there is not yet any permanent disposal system for radioactive waste and since the process of uranium enrichment that fuels nuclear reactors emits greenhouse gases…”(8)

Patrick Moore’s Own Words

Consider Patrick Moore’s own words when considering his claims and those of the nuclear industry: “It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in the sexiest smile,”(9) he wrote before becoming a spokesman for polluters."

When you quote someone as tainted as that as an expert... 'nuff said. Patrick Moore is just another one of these freaks that seem weirdly attracted to Dump. Birds of a feather.

Conclusion: Trump is still a lying sack of sh*t.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
I agree that the Democrats have been complete pussies.

They buckle to the bullies on the right constantly.

I think they want to lose. Give the illusion that "we tried to stop them," yet they take money from the same lobbyists.

What the shit, dude. You just said:

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
"Both sides are just as bad." -Russian trollspeak.

I dunno. That sounds like Russian trollspeak to me.

Did Putin get to you in between the time you made these two posts or something?

Do Right, Be Right. :)
You are very, very dumb.

LOL.

That's all you got? You don't care to back up your hypocrisy or anything?

You and T are funny. Screaming about the end of the world, every day, all day... Doing nothing at all to improve your own situation in life. And you try to bring down everyone around you.

You're worthless, Marcos.

A garbage human being, with nothing to offer the world.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:17 PM

"A myth that many uninformed people hold is that biospheric health will quickly bounce back after we humans get our act together. Nothing could be further from the truth."
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2019/03/13/18821899.php

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:18 PM

10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
https://phys.org/news/2012-05-million-years-recover-mass-extinction.ht
ml

Life was nearly wiped out 250 million years ago, with only 10 per cent of plants and animals surviving. It is currently much debated how life recovered from this cataclysm, whether quickly or slowly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:27 PM

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_03.html

These recovery intervals average about 10 million years.

Whether extraterrestrial impacts or drastic climate changes are to blame, mass extinctions are evolutionary events that alter the history of life. Which species or groups survive a mass extinction, while not entirely random, often has little to do with the factors that promote survival during normal times.

Mass extinctions are ecological disasters. Yet they also create evolutionary opportunities by removing once-dominant groups.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 15, 2019 8:04 AM

Sounds like it doesn't really matter then.

If we didn't screw it all up, we were just living on borrowed time until the next football arena sized meteor wiped everything out again anyhow.

Oh well. I'm not going to lose any sleep.

Do try to enjoy your day, Marcos.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 16, 2019 11:19 AM

Arctic now locked into devastating temperature rise, UN report says
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-warming-locked-in-1.505654
8?fbclid=IwAR0Ls2AigDq19efig8jHdJ_2jl5kAFira3Oa6V6kRwo2ylvBofBbJdsJizA

The Arctic is now locked into a destructive degree of climate change regardless of what measures are taken to halt global greenhouse gas emissions.

This conclusion comes out of a new UN environment report on the Arctic, which describes scenarios where Arctic winter temperatures increase by three to five degrees by 2050 compared to 1986-2005 levels, and by five to nine degrees by 2080. This temperature rise is expected to happen regardless of the success or failure of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

This would, according to the report, devastate the region while "unleashing sea level rises worldwide."

They leave out what this is going to do to plants and animals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:32 AM

The climate strike is a source for hope – but new research shows it might be too late
In the short to medium term, there are dark questions about the political future. In the long term, the chances for human survival are very slim
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/climate-strike-protests-arctic-me
lting-a8825936.html?utm_source=reddit.com

The end of the world is no longer a fanciful hypothesis. It is the most plausible scenario.

The loss of ice-cover reduces albedo, wherein solar radiation is reflected back into space. More dark water surface absorbs heat rather than deflecting it. Thawing permafrost releases warming methane into the atmosphere. The warming of the oceans, coupled with their ongoing carbonic acidification due to carbon emissions, will kill off a lot of marine life. The last of the remaining coral will be bleached, thus destroying one of the most biologically productive areas of the planet. It will also kill much of the phytoplankton that produce about half of the oxygen we breathe. The simple act of breathing will most likely become far more effortful, far more of a struggle, in the future.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 4:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

fire in Houston
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62997

I was musing on the regulatory approach to mitigating our planet's destruction.

Some places seem to have done it quite successfully, at least in some areas. For example, with the US as a per capita benchmark 15.7 tons CO2 per year, the EU average is 7, Denmark is 5.9, France is 5.2, Sweden is 5.1, and Switzerland is 4.7.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emis
sions
But these places I believe have not only specifically focused on reductions, but also have particular factors that make this possible, like smaller size and a lack of heavy industry (or even a lack of fossil fuels like France, that led it to focus on nuclear energy).

When I look at the US, I think that most regulatory efforts have gone to merely curbing extreme excesses. The Cuyahoga River had to burn for at least the 13th time in 1969 before people began to think 'maybe rivers shouldn't burn' and the government was pushed into action.
So for example, looking at the naphtha fire in Houston - the EPA monitors ambient toxics. The DOT regulates transport by common carrier. OSHA regulates workplace safety. There are state and local regulations in place to try and prevent the very worst problems, but only the very worst.

And the petroleum/ petrochemical industry is a global behemoth. Petrochemicals alone are an annual 300million tons of product industry Global oil demand is 100million barrels per day.
And every well, every pipeline, every tanker, every storage tank, every underground fuel tank, every physical transfer from one to the next - leaks - in immeasurable ways.
There is simply no way to maintain the global industry at that size without leaving a huge global footprint. There's simply no way to regulate away the damage on a global scale. It's simply too entrenched in the nature and scale of the business.
And the same case could be made about the plastics industry, the agro-chemicals industry, the fishing industry, and so on.
As long as industries can profit by strip-mining the planet - and if their profit-motive has any say it will be indefinitely - we'll continue to destroy the planet.
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2018/1019_003.html
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 4:55 PM

Salvini supporters are publicly calling for Greta Thunberg to be assassinated
https://infinite-coincidence.com/2019/03/18/salvini-supporters-are-cal
ling-for-greta-thunberg-to-be-assassinated/

This article (in Italian) details the comments made by several pro-Salvini personaggi, some of them prominent in the Italian media, over the last few days. The writer and TV personality Maria Giovanna Maglie called for the Swedish teenage activist to be “mown down by a car”, while the former pop star Rita Pavone called her “a character from a horror movie”. Diego Fusaro, a political philosopher whose self-definition as a “Marxist” should be taken with un grandissimo pezzo di sale, accused the 16-year-old of being part of a plot by the “cosmopolitan elite” (hem hem). The well-known climate liar and founder of the daily newspaper ‘Il Foglio’, Giuliano Ferrara, tweeted “I don’t want to be accused of pedophobia, but I detest this idolatrous figure Greta and her disgusting braids, and the false world of lies she weaves round herself”. The hashtag #nogreta was trending among supporters of Salvini’s neofascist Lega party and its fellow travellers/coalition partners in the Five Star Movement, some of whom still, bizarrely, style themselves as environmentalists and even, in some outlandish cases, anti-racists. Salvini himself joined in with a typically puerile Trump-style tweet welcoming global warming as it will mean more “herbs”, a comment which will delight those among the Five Star Movement who aren’t in outright denial about Salvini’s being in power. A Five Star supporter I spoke to on Friday confirmed what I’d heard elsewhere, in that he felt that Salvini and the Lega “weren’t really” in control of the Government and that the self-confessed fan of Mussolini should be given “more time” to implement his agenda, which includes forcibly evicting and deporting hundreds of thousands of neri, protecting the Mafia by removing police protection from journalists who investigate them and building a global far-right alliance with Putin, Trump, Le Pen, and all the other names far too depressing to mention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 5:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I honestly don't care what people mouth. The fact is that so-called environmentalists don't walk their talk. NO ONE is going to address global petroleum /petrochemicals /plastics /agrochemicals /fishing /mining /lumbering /steel /agriculture ...

btw, of the two coalition ruling parties in Italy, Five Star is on a rapid decline while The League is rising quickly.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I honestly don't care what people mouth. The fact is that so-called environmentalists don't walk their talk.

Oh, really?

Quote:
btw, of the two coalition ruling parties in Italy, Five Star is on a rapid decline while The League is rising quickly.

Your fascist heroes are going strong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 5:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I honestly don't care what people mouth. The fact is that so-called environmentalists don't walk their talk.

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Oh, really?

Show me Obama's greenhouse gas reductions. Or Norway's. Find me Germany's.
Better yet, show me the overwhelming effect of western liberal influence in this list of greenhouse gas reduction superstars:
Rank Country Greenhouse Gas Emission Changes Since 1990
1 Ivory Coast -78%
2 Suriname -75%
3 Iceland -75%
4 Moldova -70%
5 Guyana -63%
6 Papua New Guinea -62%
7 Georgia -62%
8 Latvia -59%
9 Kyrgyzstan -59%
10 Estonia -58%

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-greatest-decrea
ses-in-greenhouse-emissions-over-the-last-26-years.html

Quote:
btw, of the two coalition ruling parties in Italy, Five Star is on a rapid decline while The League is rising quickly.

Quote:
Your fascist heroes are going strong.

You mean I can't REPORT the results of ITALIAN POLLS without being considered a supporter? Did being corrected on a fact tweak you so much you had to get personal?

You have not a shred of honesty, do you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 5:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I honestly don't care what people mouth. The fact is that so-called environmentalists don't walk their talk.
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Oh, really?
Show me Obama's greenhouse gas reductions. Or Norway's. Find me Germany's.
Better yet, show me the overwhelming effect of western liberal influence in this list of greenhouse gas reduction superstars:
Rank Country Greenhouse Gas Emission Changes Since 1990
1 Ivory Coast -78%
2 Suriname -75%
3 Iceland -75%
4 Moldova -70%
5 Guyana -63%
6 Papua New Guinea -62%
7 Georgia -62%
8 Latvia -59%
9 Kyrgyzstan -59%
10 Estonia -58%

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-greatest-decrea
ses-in-greenhouse-emissions-over-the-last-26-years.html

Quote:
btw, of the two coalition ruling parties in Italy, Five Star is on a rapid decline while The League is rising quickly.
Quote:
Your fascist heroes are going strong.
You mean I can't REPORT the results of ITALIAN POLLS without being considered a supporter? Did being corrected on a fact tweak you so much you had to get personal?

You have not a shred of honesty, do you?

I'm far more honest than you'll ever be, troll.

Now, how come we didn't get anywhere under Obama? Hmm?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 8:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Since you failed to refute my post or even address it, it still stands:

I honestly don't care what people mouth. The fact is that so-called environmentalists don't walk their talk. NO ONE is going to address global petroleum /petrochemicals /plastics /agrochemicals /fishing /mining /lumbering /steel /agriculture ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 11:16 PM

You just spewed reichwing pablum, troll.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 11:17 PM

I hope that in the future, billions of years from now, another sentient species will arise, figure out how we destroyed ourselves, and not make the same mistakes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 18, 2019 11:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:54 AM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Show me Obama's greenhouse gas reductions.

You did already - that chart you posted was conclusive, thanks.

Now show us Trump's.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Better yet, show me the overwhelming effect of western liberal influence in this list of greenhouse gas reduction superstars..."

Did you read about these at all, or just grab some quick stats? Did you notice how many had been influenced (helped) by the United Nations, or "western liberal influences?"
"Africa has been able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by an astounding 78% by working with the United Nations Environment Program." I would bet if you looked further you might find that is pretty common for these small nations. I would bet as well, that since these are such small nations with small industrial footprint, that it doesn't take much to reduce their GH output. Yet another example where citing percentages can be misleading.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You did already - that chart you posted was conclusive, thanks."

Yes, that chart conclusively showed that dubya, by crashing the US economy, achieved significant greenhouse gas reductions starting in 2007.

Unless you're telling me that Obama, before he was even sworn in, somehow magically reduced greenhouse gas emissions ... that cause doesn't happen before effect. Is that what you're saying?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:07 PM

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You did already - that chart you posted was conclusive, thanks."

Yes, that chart conclusively showed that dubya, by crashing the US economy, achieved significant greenhouse gas reductions starting in 2007.

Unless you're telling me that Obama, before he was even sworn in, somehow magically reduced greenhouse gas emissions ... that cause doesn't happen before effect. Is that what you're saying?

One of your charts (the other is the same):

From 2009 through 2016, CO below 7,000 MMT, which was the trailing decade, '98 - '08. Not only reducing GHE but reversing the prevailing, worsening direction left to his admin.

Unless you're telling me that Dubya was president from 2009 - 2016?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:09 PM