Brontoforumus Archive

Discussion Boards => Thaddeus Boyd's Panel of Death => Topic started by: Thad on June 02, 2008, 07:26:40 PM

Title: The Environment
Post 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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Bongo Bill on June 02, 2008, 07:43:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Royal☭ on June 02, 2008, 07:50:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Bongo Bill on June 02, 2008, 08:03:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Brentai on June 02, 2008, 08:35:29 PM
The time for debate on the subject was 20 years ago, now is the time for direct action.

CAPTAIN PLANET!!!!!
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Kazz on June 02, 2008, 08:36:25 PM
Unfortunately, the decision is in the hands of politicians, rather than geniuses.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Catloaf on June 02, 2008, 08:53:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Kazz on June 02, 2008, 08:55:46 PM
(http://detonator.pyoko.org/pics/godwin.png) Sounds good!
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Bongo Bill on June 02, 2008, 08:57:10 PM
I just love the name of this article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Brentai on June 02, 2008, 09:18:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on June 02, 2008, 09:22:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Bongo Bill on June 02, 2008, 09:24:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: sei on June 03, 2008, 04:47:00 AM
Ditto.  Also this: "The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam."
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Sharkey on June 03, 2008, 08:41:37 AM
Wasn't that called The Republic?
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Classic on June 03, 2008, 11:50:01 AM
These nerds have loads of sex and groom their superior offspring for the role they're destined to take.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Brentai on June 03, 2008, 12:11:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Catloaf on June 03, 2008, 12:24:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Norondor on June 03, 2008, 01:26:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on June 06, 2008, 09:34:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: James Edward Smith on June 06, 2008, 09:52:41 AM
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
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Büge on June 07, 2008, 06:45:24 PM
Caribbean Monk Seal declared Extinct. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jG7KS792s_njtUMaxoi66jmWRqgwD9154DUG0)

 :sadpanda:
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Lady Duke on June 07, 2008, 09:36:34 PM
D:
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Lady Duke on June 07, 2008, 09:40:35 PM
Sorry, what?
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Niku on June 08, 2008, 08:34:52 AM
Your insatiable appetite for seal blubber doomed them, LD.

Doomed them.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Classic on June 08, 2008, 09:04:29 AM
 :facepalm: Kazz was found... too late.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Mongrel on August 19, 2008, 02:37:43 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: sei on August 19, 2008, 03:13:14 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: James Edward Smith on August 19, 2008, 03:45:54 PM
She probably doesn't like Diablo 3 either (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URVHFraEZGI)

She probably doesn't like Diablo 3 either
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Brentai on August 19, 2008, 03:54:13 PM
I bet I know what it is. (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=993.msg22143#msg22143)   :imagination:
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Brentai on August 30, 2008, 07:44:52 PM
So God's destroying New Orleans again.

What the fuck, man?  What's your fucking problem?
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: JDigital on August 31, 2008, 12:12:55 AM
God is punishing us for Sweden's homosexuals.

Again.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Koah on August 31, 2008, 10:08:11 AM
At least it'll get rid of that urine smell.  Again.

Not doing much for the stench of rot and death, though.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on September 04, 2008, 01:11:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: sei on September 04, 2008, 02:15:53 PM
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.)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on September 04, 2008, 03:16:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on September 13, 2008, 02:14:08 AM
Aw, no free drugs in the Phoenician water table. (http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_10441857)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on September 13, 2008, 12:19:30 PM
Wow, an environmental test where Phoenix water was chalked up in the "good" column?

Let's savor this.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Norondor on September 13, 2008, 02:08:31 PM
is it being compared to hot lava, or actual, raw sewage?
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on September 24, 2008, 12:19:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: TA on September 24, 2008, 09:52:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on September 24, 2008, 02:23:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Detonator on September 24, 2008, 03:58:34 PM
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:
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on September 24, 2008, 04:29:54 PM
"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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Royal☭ on September 24, 2008, 05:17:01 PM
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:
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Arc on January 25, 2009, 08:32:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: TA on January 25, 2009, 10:38:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 25, 2009, 11:06:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Arc on January 25, 2009, 11:08:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 26, 2009, 12:16:09 AM
But the auto industry still has to either conform to fifty discrete sets of regulations or not make some cars available in some states.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Arc on January 26, 2009, 12:39:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on January 26, 2009, 06:07:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Mongrel on July 28, 2010, 09:56:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: SCD on July 28, 2010, 06:24:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Smiler on July 28, 2010, 06:52:53 PM
Perri-Air (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiabeNR_q0U#)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: JDigital on July 29, 2010, 07:17:25 PM
But why is it disappearing? Shouldn't it be thriving thanks to all the overfishing we do?
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: clutch on July 30, 2010, 01:46:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: SCD on July 30, 2010, 01:56:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Ted Belmont on July 30, 2010, 02:18:39 PM
I think they're dying off just to spite us, those fuckers.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Classic on July 30, 2010, 02:52:21 PM
Kind of a cutting off the face to spite your nose policy! I like it!
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Mongrel on November 24, 2010, 07:22:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Ted Belmont on November 24, 2010, 07:50:56 AM
57x50million is still 2.85 billion.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Mongrel on November 24, 2010, 08:10:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on August 05, 2011, 12:13:28 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Büge on August 30, 2011, 06:15:32 AM
New Orleans levees still not up to code. (http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/08/new_orleans_levees_get_a_near-.html)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Disposable Ninja on August 30, 2011, 09:47:29 AM
WELL AT LEAST NEW YORK IS SAFE
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on September 02, 2011, 12:39:10 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: LaserBeing on September 02, 2011, 03:05:58 PM
Guys maybe if we open up more ozone holes, the greenhouse gases will vent out through them! It's the perfect plan
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Mongrel on January 18, 2012, 02:00:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Thad on May 30, 2012, 12:40:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Büge on May 31, 2012, 05:25:35 AM
I reject your reality and substitute my own. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s#)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Büge on June 22, 2012, 01:55:00 PM
ICE CREAM SHORTAGE GRIPS NATION (http://www.weather.com/news/ice-cream-shortage-20120621)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Mongrel on June 22, 2012, 02:05:20 PM
Thank goodness for Dutch Dreams (http://www.dutchdreams.ca/).
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Shinra on June 23, 2012, 03:05:23 AM
ICE CREAM SHORTAGE GRIPS NATION (http://www.weather.com/news/ice-cream-shortage-20120621)

unexpected spike in demand

it's summer you idiots.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Büge on February 08, 2013, 07:12:58 PM
It's raining spiders in Brazil. (http://gawker.com/5982891/meanwhile-in-brazil-its-raining-spiders)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on February 08, 2013, 09:20:32 PM
I can never stop screaming.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Mongrel on February 08, 2013, 09:25:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Büge on October 03, 2013, 11:47:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Friday on October 03, 2013, 12:03:43 PM
jesus christ I hate regular yellowjackets enough

somebody needs to invent the anti-hornet equation already
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Esperath on October 03, 2013, 12:48:59 PM
PELIGRO ABEJAS

(I guess peligro avispas but that's no fun)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Büge on November 06, 2013, 12:07:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Esperath on January 06, 2014, 03:43:55 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/jI7GoJf.jpg)

'tis the season (http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/)
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Friday on January 06, 2014, 07:56:28 AM
The best one is Trump citing extreme weather patterns (like snow in Egypt, not seen for over 100 years) as proof GW is fake
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Friday on January 06, 2014, 07:57:14 AM
YOU SAY BEES ARE GETTING MORE AGGRESSIVE? WELL THESE BEES STINGING THE INSIDE OF MOUTH RIGHT NOW ARE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Mongrel on January 06, 2014, 11:50:24 AM
My favourite part of the Trump one - which was definitely among the best - was the MAKE U.S. COMPETITIVE he nonsensically crams in there.
Title: Re: The Environment
Post by: Zaratustra on January 07, 2014, 07:40:13 AM
wouldn't it be funny if it turns out all the weather oscillations will freeze humans to death before global warming hits 2 degrees