Brontoforumus Archive
Discussion Boards => Thaddeus Boyd's Panel of Death => Topic started by: Thad on June 02, 2008, 07:26:40 PM
-
NYT: Senate Opens Debate on Politically Risky Bill Addressing Global Warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/washington/03climate.html?ref=environment)
Highlight:
Opponents argue that the bill would direct the largest changes in the American economy since the 1930s and should not be rushed through without painstaking debate.
I wish they'd give names and quotes. Because seriously. "Oh no! It'll be an economic change like the one we had in the 1930's!" Really? REALLY? I know it's chic for modern Republicans to dismiss the New Deal, but I think they may be overplaying their hands.
Anyhow. Obviously something has to be done about our energy situation, and at first blush this seems like a decent start.
Obviously any kind of environmental standards will have some impact on the economy, but letting the oil companies set the price to four dollars a gallon while their execs swim in their Scrooge McDuck money bins has a pretty fucking big impact on the economy too. The suggestion of tariffs on goods from nations that don't meet our standards has the benefit of helping keep US jobs, and of giving companies like Mexico and China incentive to modernize. I don't know any details on the bill beyond what I've read in that article, but as I say, it seems like a decent start.
-
Environmental legislation is all well and good, provided that it's intelligently conceived. A separation of the question of climate change and the hysteria thereupon is a solid foundation. I'm not sure I like the "We've got to do something" rhetoric, because that way lies overcompensation or ineffective techniques with harmful side effects. But if it's debate that's opening, and one that's getting some media attention, rather than forcing a bill through, I think there's an appreciable chance of this turning out a smart law after all.
-
Bongo, when people say "We have to do something" it is because what we are doing right now is ineffective at best, society ending at worst. The 'do something beneficial' is implied.\
More to the point, debate may not actually be a good thing. This isn't something that's really debatable. We know there are environmental problems, and there is proof that we're the cause. Decades of lackluster protection laws and unrestricted deforestation and drilling and polluting our fucking things up big time. The only people who take an advantage from an ongoing dialog are the oil companies and the ones at the top, who can utilize any doubt as a reason to justify doing anything they want. The time for debate on the subject was 20 years ago, now is the time for direct action.
-
The debate, I am assuming, will be about how to do it. Hysteria won't help anything. If "we have to do something," then it's that much more likely that a hasty, hysterical, useless measure will be passed in lieu of a more reasoned and effective one.
-
The time for debate on the subject was 20 years ago, now is the time for direct action.
CAPTAIN PLANET!!!!!
-
Unfortunately, the decision is in the hands of politicians, rather than geniuses.
-
Unfortunately, the decision is in the hands of politicians, rather than geniuses.
Thanks for putting a awesome fictional political system in my mind. Where the fourth branch of government is the council of nerdsSCIENCE!!!
These would be ultra nerds kept separate from common society to be completely politically impartial and would look at a situation as if it were from a struggling alien civilization of little amazingly cute puffball creatures. (I needed some reason in my analogy for them to want to help.) They would also have a section of every university on earth double check all of their findings to avoid errors/corruption. Then they would have a representative present their findings and suggested course of action. Then it would take an agreement of 2/3rds of congress to modify said action beyond a a certain specified degree.
-
(http://detonator.pyoko.org/pics/godwin.png) Sounds good!
-
I just love the name of this article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)
-
I don't think Kazz was trying to argue that it's a bad idea because Hitler did it, though, I think he's trying to say Hitler did it, and it was a bad idea.
-
These would be ultra nerds kept separate from common society to be completely politically impartial and would look at a situation as if it were from a struggling alien civilization of little amazingly cute puffball creatures.
Isn't this basically the way the Universe is governed in the Hitchhiker's Guide series?
-
I don't think Kazz was trying to argue that it's a bad idea because Hitler did it, though, I think he's trying to say Hitler did it, and it was a bad idea.
Be that as it may, I still love the title of that article.
-
Ditto. Also this: "The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam."
-
Wasn't that called The Republic?
-
These nerds have loads of sex and groom their superior offspring for the role they're destined to take.
-
Look, I know the sheer hatred radiating from Hitler is as toxic as any pollutant!, but he really doesn't have that much to do with our current global situation. Let's get back on the topic of evil oil barons by Lee Raymond could double as a Scrooge McDuck Money Bin.
-
I don't think Kazz was trying to argue that it's a bad idea because Hitler did it, though, I think he's trying to say Hitler did it, and it was a bad idea.
Honestly, I didn't know that it had ever been done. I've never had any good history teachers. Nor have I shown any strong interest.
These would be ultra nerds kept separate from common society to be completely politically impartial and would look at a situation as if it were from a struggling alien civilization of little amazingly cute puffball creatures.
Isn't this basically the way the Universe is governed in the Hitchhiker's Guide series?
Goddamn, I really need to read more.
-
These would be ultra nerds kept separate from common society to be completely politically impartial and would look at a situation as if it were from a struggling alien civilization of little amazingly cute puffball creatures.
Isn't this basically the way the Universe is governed in the Hitchhiker's Guide series?
Goddamn, I really need to read more.
True. See also:
Honestly, I didn't know that it had ever been done. I've never had any good history teachers. Nor have I shown any strong interest.
-
Hrm, well that didn't last long.
As election-year wedge issues go, it's nice seeing the Dems use this one; it rather tends to defy the conventional wisdom that the environment's not important to most people (which is the kind of attitude that gave us the neutered version of Al Gore 8 years ago). Obviously most people don't see it as important as the economy or the war, but it's certainly gained traction.
-
Wasn't that called The Republic?
Do you mean, Plato's idea of the ideal government and society? Yeah.
Also, yeah, I only made this post to take an other jab at Catloaf for presenting an old idea as new.
That's right Catloaf, PLATO OLD.
bwahahaha
-
Caribbean Monk Seal declared Extinct. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jG7KS792s_njtUMaxoi66jmWRqgwD9154DUG0)
:sadpanda:
-
D:
-
Sorry, what?
-
Your insatiable appetite for seal blubber doomed them, LD.
Doomed them.
-
:facepalm: Kazz was found... too late.
-
Oh dear. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080819.wfish0819/BNStory/National/home)
A real life blinky.
(http://www.funbumperstickers.com/images/Blinky.gif)
-
Oh, are we doing the ocean?
Regarding biomass decline of several species. (http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2008/08/this_post_might_make_you_cry.php)
Dead zone expansion. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/science/earth/15oceans.html)
Yeah, doing the ocean. So, uh, about that old rain forest conservation push—how did that go?Where's your Captain Planet now?
-
She probably doesn't like Diablo 3 either (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URVHFraEZGI)
She probably doesn't like Diablo 3 either
-
I bet I know what it is. (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=993.msg22143#msg22143) :imagination:
-
So God's destroying New Orleans again.
What the fuck, man? What's your fucking problem?
-
God is punishing us for Sweden's homosexuals.
Again.
-
At least it'll get rid of that urine smell. Again.
Not doing much for the stench of rot and death, though.
-
SFGate: Warmer ocean leads to fiercer hurricanes (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/04/MN6T12MQFI.DTL).
WSJ story on same (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048285366996835.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) -- not because I feel the need to give equal time (there's no real dispute within the scientific community about human-caused climate change, and granting equal weight to people who claim that there is is simply misleading), but because there's value in knowing how the right wing's going to spin a story.
-
RE: "no dispute within the scientific community"
Got a link handy that explains the extent of consensus in depth? There's someone I need to forward it to.
Also, can someone explain the red tendency towards denying it? Is it that environmentalism interferes with corporate interests, that environmentalists want to prevent the world from ending in line with biblical prediction, that they're struggling to deny science any explanatory power wherever possible, or something else?
The answer I sometimes get is, "50 years ago, we thought the Earth was in danger of freezing." (I'd pick that apart, but the other end of the dialog doesn't really respond to logic, only (perceived) authority. Ever.)
-
RE: "no dispute within the scientific community"
Got a link handy that explains the extent of consensus in depth? There's someone I need to forward it to.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) should have what you need.
Science Magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) also has the numbers -- 928 peer-reviewed studies between 1993 and 2003, 75% arguing man-made global warming, 25% taking no position one way or the other, 0 claiming it's an entirely natural phenomenon.
Also, can someone explain the red tendency towards denying it? Is it that environmentalism interferes with corporate interests,
I think that's the biggie. It's certainly why you see so many skeptics given airtime by the MSM.
that environmentalists want to prevent the world from ending in line with biblical prediction
Maybe on the fringes, but I've never met anyone who argues that. It's much more common to say it's not real (or is a natural phenomenon) than to say it's God's method of trying to kill us all.
that they're struggling to deny science any explanatory power wherever possible
Not directly, but I've often commented that you can't explain scientific consensus to someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
-
Aw, no free drugs in the Phoenician water table. (http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_10441857)
-
Wow, an environmental test where Phoenix water was chalked up in the "good" column?
Let's savor this.
-
is it being compared to hot lava, or actual, raw sewage?
-
Dems cave on offshore drilling. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gB6bi0EyTozdEPy0KGisTQNaS2PQD93CUKU00)
Ahh, THERE'S the Democratic Party I know. I was sort of confused when they kept acting like they had balls for a couple days there.
-
Are they actually caving, and agreeing to let the ban permanently expire? Or are they holding off on renewing until they have a President that won't veto it, because attaching it to stuff that needs to happen, like stuff dealing with this banking crisis, will do more harm than good?
'cause the text of the article makes it sound more like the latter. Even if the ban isn't in place for all of the three months between its expiration and an Obama administration, I'm not sure how much environmental rape the oil companies will be able to pull off.
-
Are they actually caving [...] Or are they holding off [...] until they have a President that won't veto it, because attaching it to stuff that needs to happen [...] will do more harm than good?
This has pretty much been the excuse they've used for every single one of their failures for the last two years. "Sorry, we CAN'T do what you elected us to do, we need a bigger majority and a Democrat in the White House."
I've earlier referenced a story I read in Rolling Stone last February(?) that posited this was their plan all along, to deliberately fail on everything and use that as a wedge to get more seats and a Democratic President. I've said that at the time I thought that was a little cynical even for my tastes, but that I'm beginning to believe it.
-
I've earlier referenced a story I read in Rolling Stone last February(?) that posited this was their plan all along, to deliberately fail on everything and use that as a wedge to get more seats and a Democratic President. I've said that at the time I thought that was a little cynical even for my tastes, but that I'm beginning to believe it.
I was going to say that requiring a high majority in two of the three government branches in order to get anything done shows a fundamental flaw in our governmental process. Then I realized that's the most obvious thing anyone has ever said.
:slow:
-
"Flaw" is subjective. It's an inherently conservative -- in the traditional sense, not the "$700 billion bailout" sense -- tool to prevent a slim majority from doing something controversial.
Where it breaks down is when the opposition party is a bunch of fucking pussies and one party controls all three branches of the government. This, of course, is exactly what happened between 2003 and 2006.
I recall thinking, back in '05 when the Republicans sought the so-called "nuclear option" of declaring filibusters unconstitutional, "Wow, you know, that's going to suck for the next couple of years, but in the long run they'd really be fucking themselves, because the filibuster is an inherently conservative weapon."
Sure enough, if the Republicans weren't filibustering pretty much EVERYTHING that hit the floor, we'd likely be better off right now. Of course, that doesn't solve the veto problem, but of course veto power cuts both ways and we'd be happy to have it if we had a Republican Congress and Democratic President.
Assuming, of course, it were a Democratic President who actually EXERCISED his veto power. Yeah, I'm still pissed at Clinton for signing the DMCA.
-
I'd just as soon call the Democrats on their bullshit at every opportunity. They should spend the time, resources, and tax payer dollars to push a bill through that Bush would veto. That way they can place blame for things like kids not getting health care squarely on the president. Instead, they give up at the first opportunity.
Maybe a letter to Nancy Pelosi containing the words "hatchet-faced cunt" would make me feel better.
:gameover:
-
Obama to let (14) states restrict emissions standards. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXq1q6AKvBA-k1ERygn4l0T2Ax0A)
The Bush Administration's Environmental Protection Agency could claim to be the only agency as neutered as the State Department. Funny how Republicans are opposed to State's Rights whenever it doesn't fall neatly into their agenda.
-
Blrf. I'm not sure I like the idea of state-specific emissions standards. Strict emissions standards seems like it should be federal, if only to avoid the situation of a car suddenly ceasing to be street-legal on crossing a border.
Then again, I'm pretty not-a-fan of states' rights in general, but this seems to be something inextricably tied to interstate commerce.
-
As much as I like state's rights, I have to agree; this falls under interstate commerce, and it's also a good example of why that clause exists. Emissions requirements on immobile things are fine, but this would be nightmarish for the already-ailing automotive industry on a logistical level. Better to just put one set of good federal rules in place.
-
a car suddenly ceasing to be street-legal on crossing a border.
From my reading, it simply states that manufacturers must meet state emissions standards if sales are to be made there. No apocalyptic border traveling oddities included. Emissions standards are not priority in states with small populations per square mile, but in California the national standard is producing safety hazards. Leading the way, they are to prove that such standards are viable on the national level.
-
But the auto industry still has to either conform to fifty discrete sets of regulations or not make some cars available in some states.
-
Not quite. Going below the national standard will still not be permitted, and the majority of states are likely to stay within this set. At most, we're looking at 15 sets of standards, many of which will likely equal one another. A higher tier has been created, but likely not one that exceeds the standards found in the majority of the first world.
-
Another way of putting it:
Better to just put one set of good federal rules in place.
Of course it is. But that's going to take time. This is a stopgap.
-
Hah, I knew we had an environment thread.
Anyway,
Plankton - bedrock of both the ocean's food supply and the planet's CO2-to-Oxygen conversion process - has nearly half-disappeared since 1950. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/plankton-the-base-of-the-oceans-food-web-steadily-declining/article1654702/)
There's been a lot of environmental stories in the past several decades. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that this is at least the most important one since the Ozone Hole story broke, and is possibly even bigger.
-
Since I've moved out to the Capital Region, I've been able to be in close company with one of the former Senior Scientific Advisors in the civil service with a MSc in Oceanography, which is a lot more than I know, as I really never knew that oceans had graphs... (applause)
When I showed him the link (thank you, Mongrel) the first thing he said was "I told you so". He reminded me that when I visited once in 05, he was talking about one of the side effects of climate change, and something he refers as the "ocean gradient". It is changing pretty drastically, and while he pointed out that this temperature gradient has changed many times before to temperatures well above and well below, no one believes it has done this so fast. Something I remember from the conversation is that as a result, the acidity of the ocean floor has changed - the PH scale has decreased and that's what people feared might be killing the photoplankton, if that was the case.
Dalhousie has proven now that they are dying, and acidity being the chief culprit seems to be the next thing they may look at.
What it comes down to in our world is that many people did not fear the destruction of the remaining rainforests as "the real CO2 sink was in the oceans" and now we have this bad news.
He ended the night saying that we still have centuries upon centuries of O2 in the atmosphere left. I take that as three, knowing the guy.
As this is science, and that I am not the foremost scholar on the stuff, my word here is not gospel, but it should give people an idea of what the eggheads are looking at next. Fun times.
-
Perri-Air (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiabeNR_q0U#)
-
But why is it disappearing? Shouldn't it be thriving thanks to all the overfishing we do?
-
But why is it disappearing? Shouldn't it be thriving thanks to all the overfishing we do?
Exactly! Wouldn't the answer to low plankton levels be more whaling? Fuckin' whales with their baleens trying to asphyxiate us all.
-
JDigital, it is believed (but not completely proven yet) that the fast change in the ocean gradient of temperature is a major factor in a rise in acidity in the water. Acidity makes it harder for the plankton to live.
-
I think they're dying off just to spite us, those fuckers.
-
Kind of a cutting off the face to spite your nose policy! I like it!
-
The biggest
average larger cargo ships each emit as much pollution as fifty million cars (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1020063_pollution-perspective-one-giant-cargo-ship-emits-as-much-as-50-million-ca)
EDITED link title for some context. Apparently, this applies to just the largest ships, of which there are currently 57 in service worldwide. Smaller ships* are still very bad, given that they still have large engines, also burn bunker fuel, and have no emissions restrictions on their engines either. They're just not "a multiplier of fifty million" bad.
*Not the smallest diesel or gas-turbine ships, but other large cargo vessels.
-
57x50million is still 2.85 billion.
-
Well, yes, either way it's still more then the entire world's automotive fleet. I'm just wondering if the smaller ships I mentioned are actually a greater contributor overall, since there's thousands of those.
-
Maggie Koerth-Baker at BoingBoing has an interesting article up titled 3 things you need to know about biofuels (http://boingboing.net/2011/08/05/3-things-you-need-to-know-about-biofuels.html).
-
New Orleans levees still not up to code. (http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/08/new_orleans_levees_get_a_near-.html)
-
WELL AT LEAST NEW YORK IS SAFE
-
Obama nixes EPA ozone regulations.
Maybe THIS capitulation to big business at the expense of his base will be the one that finally gets them to like him!
-
Guys maybe if we open up more ozone holes, the greenhouse gases will vent out through them! It's the perfect plan
-
Keystone XL Pipeline rejected (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-rejects-keystone-xl-but-lets-transcanada-reapply/article2306625/)
Caveat: The White House has encouraged TransCanada to re-apply with an alternate route.
-
NC legislature proposes making it illegal to predict rising sea levels (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/) using anything other than a straight line starting in 1900.
-
I reject your reality and substitute my own. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s#)
-
ICE CREAM SHORTAGE GRIPS NATION (http://www.weather.com/news/ice-cream-shortage-20120621)
-
Thank goodness for Dutch Dreams (http://www.dutchdreams.ca/).
-
ICE CREAM SHORTAGE GRIPS NATION (http://www.weather.com/news/ice-cream-shortage-20120621)
unexpected spike in demand
it's summer you idiots.
-
It's raining spiders in Brazil. (http://gawker.com/5982891/meanwhile-in-brazil-its-raining-spiders)
-
I can never stop screaming.
-
Rains of small animals or bugs are in fact "normal", albeit highly unusual. Happens when a colony of some kind (bug nest, school of fish, pond of frogs, whatever), gets caught up in a freak wind event, not unlike a tornado.
Sometimes mudda nachoor makes weird shit happen, yo.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442384/Swarms-deadly-hornets-kill-42-people-injure-1-600-China.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442384/Swarms-deadly-hornets-kill-42-people-injure-1-600-China.html)
Kabbage was on to something, you guys.
-
jesus christ I hate regular yellowjackets enough
somebody needs to invent the anti-hornet equation already
-
PELIGRO ABEJAS
(I guess peligro avispas but that's no fun)
-
http://boingboing.net/2013/11/06/western-black-rhinoceros-decla.html (http://boingboing.net/2013/11/06/western-black-rhinoceros-decla.html)
Another species down the drain of history.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/jI7GoJf.jpg)
'tis the season (http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/)
-
The best one is Trump citing extreme weather patterns (like snow in Egypt, not seen for over 100 years) as proof GW is fake
-
YOU SAY BEES ARE GETTING MORE AGGRESSIVE? WELL THESE BEES STINGING THE INSIDE OF MOUTH RIGHT NOW ARE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY
-
My favourite part of the Trump one - which was definitely among the best - was the MAKE U.S. COMPETITIVE he nonsensically crams in there.
-
wouldn't it be funny if it turns out all the weather oscillations will freeze humans to death before global warming hits 2 degrees