Global Warming - Discussion-Rant

Want to pledge allegiance to the Drumpf? Clash with Caspian? Scared of the stickers on your mailbox? Let's hear it.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42432
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Yea bring the population down to a reasonable 1B and things will improve ... :triggered:
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... airy-tale/

They corrected a mistake that many other studies and model forecasts leave uncorrected: First, they used only satellite data, the most comprehensive and accurate temperature numbers available.


Then, they took out the temporary, yet significant, impact of both volcanoes and the El Niño and La Niña climate episodes that periodically wreak havoc on weather around the world.

Once removing the influence of those naturally occurring events, the study's authors were able to come up with a stable base temperature for the world. Doing this, they found that the rate of global warming currently was 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade — exactly what it was 23 years ago.
And by the way, this is a published, peer-reviewed journal study
holessssssss
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
KYGTIGuy
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 5536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm
Drives: Mazda6

Big Brain Bradley wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:34 am https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... s-a-fraud/

I believe I addressed this at some point and people called bs on me, but here it is from IPCC itself.

UN basically admits that even if paris climate accord is 100% successful it still dooms the planet by their numbers.
Do you try to do things that are good for your health?
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

KYGTIGuy wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:44 pm
Big Brain Bradley wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:34 am https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... s-a-fraud/

I believe I addressed this at some point and people called bs on me, but here it is from IPCC itself.

UN basically admits that even if paris climate accord is 100% successful it still dooms the planet by their numbers.
Do you try to do things that are good for your health?
You are baiting me, and it worked

:triggered:

Demonizing carbon and/or taxing it to levels that would affect 'change' will kill more people than its saves on 20 year time scales at our current state of the art.

Look, im all for using our carbon energy responsibility. Coal sucks for lots of reasons outside Co2 emissions. Cross ocean shipping vessels that burn unrefined heavy fuel oil are just as bad. Those are REAL pollution sources.
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
KYGTIGuy
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 5536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm
Drives: Mazda6

Big Brain Bradley wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:52 pm
KYGTIGuy wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:44 pm

Do you try to do things that are good for your health?
You are baiting me, and it worked

:triggered:

Demonizing carbon and/or taxing it to levels that would affect 'change' will kill more people than its saves on 20 year time scales at our current state of the art.

Look, im all for using our carbon energy responsibility. Coal sucks for lots of reasons outside Co2 emissions. Cross ocean shipping vessels that burn unrefined heavy fuel oil are just as bad. Those are REAL pollution sources.
It was a slow news day.
User avatar
Tar
Chief Master Sirloin
Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 14126
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:06 pm
Drives: Beige Family Sedan sans Dent
Location: Canuckistan

Big Brain Bradley wrote:
KYGTIGuy wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:44 pm Do you try to do things that are good for your health?
You are baiting me, and it worked

:triggered:

Demonizing carbon and/or taxing it to levels that would affect 'change' will kill more people than its saves on 20 year time scales at our current state of the art.

Look, im all for using our carbon energy responsibility. Coal sucks for lots of reasons outside Co2 emissions. Cross ocean shipping vessels that burn unrefined heavy fuel oil are just as bad. Those are REAL pollution sources.
:dat: I get pretty worked up when .govs come up with these carbon taxes. Hogwash!!
User avatar
coogles
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 4985
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:52 am
Drives: Hooptie Crotchfruit Carrier
Location: Indianapolis

I must say, I don't understand how everyone gets all :triggered: about the idea of a carbon tax. It seems pretty well established at this point that there are negative externalities to our usage of fossil fuels, so providing some negative feedback to those who use carbon-producing energy the most makes some sense to me. "Tax what you don't like, don't tax what you do" sort of thing.

If you have a person in an urban area who walks to the grocery, has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income. The person in the urban area is producing no emissions for her commute, the person driving 100 miles/day most certainly is and is damaging roads that everyone think should be free but in actuality cost real money. Why is this such a crazy idea? The revenue generated from such a tax could then go to reducing income taxes. Taxing work makes economists nuts, why do we punish people for being productive? If you use fossil fuels and generate carbon emissions you give that money back to the gubmint, if you don't, you keep that money in your pocket. :mindblown: :science:
dubshow
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 11074
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:18 am
Drives: All of them

Thedude wrote: Wed May 03, 2017 7:45 pm
Irish wrote: Wed May 03, 2017 7:22 pm

I have watched documentaries on Netflix about this..... totally fuqued up.....
Damn. What documentaries? As you know, I'm watching Archer on Netflix.
The Magic Pill is another good one out right now. :mindblown:
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

coogles wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:56 am I must say, I don't understand how everyone gets all :triggered: about the idea of a carbon tax. It seems pretty well established at this point that there are negative externalities to our usage of fossil fuels, so providing some negative feedback to those who use carbon-producing energy the most makes some sense to me. "Tax what you don't like, don't tax what you do" sort of thing.

If you have a person in an urban area who walks to the grocery, has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income.
Im gonna stop you right there.

you clearly don't know much about energy and where it comes from.

Transport costs in terms of energy use are only like a third of our use. FWIW, I 100% agree that fuel taxes should be higher to cover the cost of roads and encourage better behavior, 100 mile commutes are stupid, etc, etc. Its an argument I stand behind. But the larger ENERGY picture in regards to AGW is much bigger:

Image


Let's just say for the sake of argument that they throw a 30% tax per kwhr on all carbon energy. So 20% of our energy is non-carbon based, the other 80 is. Thats a 24% tax on all energy overall.

EVERYTHING from soap to medical supplies to CITY WATER (look up how chlorine is made not to mention pumping energy) will get 24% more expensive at a minimum.

You wont make 24% more money. Where are you going to cut a quarter of your spending?
brain go brrrrrr
dubshow
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 11074
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:18 am
Drives: All of them

[user not found] wrote: Thu May 04, 2017 12:39 pm
Thedude wrote: Wed May 03, 2017 4:45 pm

I agree.
You should have to apply to :baby:
I did nazi that one coming... :rolleyes:

Muh freedoms.
dubshow
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 11074
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:18 am
Drives: All of them

coogles wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:56 am

has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income. The person in the urban area is producing no emissions for her commute, the person driving 100 miles/day most certainly is and is damaging roads that everyone think should be free but in actuality cost real money. Why is this such a crazy idea? The revenue generated from such a tax could then go to reducing income taxes. Taxing work makes economists nuts, why do we punish people for being productive?
1. do you know where your electric power comes from?

2. do you know how many resources are used to produce a product for end users?

3. Use taxes already exist and are poorly utilized for ALL FUELS CONSUMED.

:rolleyes:
dubshow
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 11074
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:18 am
Drives: All of them

[user not found] wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:15 pm
dubshow wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:13 pm

I did nazi that one coming... :rolleyes:

Muh freedoms.
:triggered:

But seriously, passing some basic human healthcare questionnaire before having a baby should be... something. I mean, we test people for driving, right?

Waaaaaay too many idiots having kids. And then those kids take after their parents, and so on and so on. Generations upon generations raising kids :wrong:

:doomed:
but again, they are free to be stupid. I should be free to not worry about it.

Its a pure (albeit shitty) world, if you were a low performer having too many kids you couldnt feed/care for, you and or kids kids would suffer/die. This is common in 3rd world countries. droves of orphans roaming the streets. We are extremely filtered from that mess. The idea of helping your fellow man only propagates the issues (over population) you take offense to.

So 1st world do-gooding is actively :triggered: you.

:impressive:
dubshow
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 11074
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:18 am
Drives: All of them

1. remove welfare.

2. Become elitst AF.

3. ???

4. profit

hint: ??? = people die.
dubshow
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 11074
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:18 am
Drives: All of them

Big Brain Bradley wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:12 pm
coogles wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:56 am I must say, I don't understand how everyone gets all :triggered: about the idea of a carbon tax. It seems pretty well established at this point that there are negative externalities to our usage of fossil fuels, so providing some negative feedback to those who use carbon-producing energy the most makes some sense to me. "Tax what you don't like, don't tax what you do" sort of thing.

If you have a person in an urban area who walks to the grocery, has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income.

You wont make 24% more money. Where are you going to cut a quarter of your spending?
muh steaks.

:wasteful:

also dem :fax:
dubshow
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 11074
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:18 am
Drives: All of them

[user not found] wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:32 pm
dubshow wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:23 pm

but again, they are free to be stupid. I should be free to not worry about it.

Its a pure (albeit shitty) world, if you were a low performer having too many kids you couldnt feed/care for, you and or kids kids would suffer/die. This is common in 3rd world countries. droves of orphans roaming the streets. We are extremely filtered from that mess. The idea of helping your fellow man only propagates the issues (over population) you take offense to.

So 1st world do-gooding is actively :triggered: you.

:impressive:
It's the burden on society that :triggered: me. The generations of welfare-riders that know no different because their parents knew no different, and their parents before them did the exact same thing.

Welfare shouldn't be a permanent bus ride. It should be a safety net for if :poop: hits the fan. You then bounce back and try again. You don't just keep sitting in the net, popping out kids like a Pez dispenser.
so why do we keep expanding this social welfare, endlessly, and hoping for a better resolve? The problem can't shrink if you keep feeding it.

It ends in 2 ways: Full socialism with no :waxers: and everyone makes just what they need to exist "for the greater good". After massive class warfare of course. Money would be taken at gun point.
or
The slow spiral into more unsustainable fiat magic debt money where we get our bluff called and the rest of the world finds a knew currency scheme. Which would probably result in an epic ww3 thing.
User avatar
Apex
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 29815
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:36 pm
Drives: Abominable
Location: NJ

[user not found] wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:32 pm
dubshow wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:23 pm

but again, they are free to be stupid. I should be free to not worry about it.

Its a pure (albeit shitty) world, if you were a low performer having too many kids you couldnt feed/care for, you and or kids kids would suffer/die. This is common in 3rd world countries. droves of orphans roaming the streets. We are extremely filtered from that mess. The idea of helping your fellow man only propagates the issues (over population) you take offense to.

So 1st world do-gooding is actively :triggered: you.

:impressive:
It's the burden on society that :triggered: me. The generations of welfare-riders that know no different because their parents knew no different, and their parents before them did the exact same thing.

Welfare shouldn't be a permanent bus ride. It should be a safety net for if :poop: hits the fan. You then bounce back and try again. You don't just keep sitting in the net, popping out kids like a Pez dispenser.
:bravo:
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

[user not found] wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:32 pm
dubshow wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:23 pm

but again, they are free to be stupid. I should be free to not worry about it.

Its a pure (albeit shitty) world, if you were a low performer having too many kids you couldnt feed/care for, you and or kids kids would suffer/die. This is common in 3rd world countries. droves of orphans roaming the streets. We are extremely filtered from that mess. The idea of helping your fellow man only propagates the issues (over population) you take offense to.

So 1st world do-gooding is actively :triggered: you.

:impressive:
It's the burden on society that :triggered: me. The generations of welfare-riders that know no different because their parents knew no different, and their parents before them did the exact same thing.

Welfare shouldn't be a permanent bus ride. It should be a safety net for if :poop: hits the fan. You then bounce back and try again. You don't just keep sitting in the net, popping out kids like a Pez dispenser.
I can't disagree with any of this, however i don't think government sponsored birth licensing is the solution.
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
KYGTIGuy
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 5536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm
Drives: Mazda6

Got a modest proposal to bring these 2 conversations together.


Burn poor people's babies for energy..


Win win.
User avatar
KYGTIGuy
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 5536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm
Drives: Mazda6

[user not found] wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:12 pm
KYGTIGuy wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:58 pm Got a modest proposal to bring these 2 conversations together.


Burn poor people's babies for energy..


Win win.
Just make sure the bags that the babies are burned in are carbon-neutral.
It also eliminates an entire subsection of the population that can't afford a Prius, thus reducing the carbon footprint of the US per capita
User avatar
Melon
Trollistrator
Trollistrator
Posts: 10884
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:09 pm
Drives: Blue things, Orange thing
Location: 2' Underwater

The only way to prevent people from having kids is to sterilize them.
This was done once, and yeah...
4zilch wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:46 am I'm a fucking failure.
User avatar
coogles
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 4985
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:52 am
Drives: Hooptie Crotchfruit Carrier
Location: Indianapolis

Big Brain Bradley wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:12 pm Im gonna stop you right there.

you clearly don't know much about energy and where it comes from.

Transport costs in terms of energy use are only like a third of our use. FWIW, I 100% agree that fuel taxes should be higher to cover the cost of roads and encourage better behavior, 100 mile commutes are stupid, etc, etc. Its an argument I stand behind. But the larger ENERGY picture in regards to AGW is much bigger:

Image


Let's just say for the sake of argument that they throw a 30% tax per kwhr on all carbon energy. So 20% of our energy is non-carbon based, the other 80 is. Thats a 24% tax on all energy overall.

EVERYTHING from soap to medical supplies to CITY WATER (look up how chlorine is made not to mention pumping energy) will get 24% more expensive at a minimum.

You wont make 24% more money. Where are you going to cut a quarter of your spending?
Oh my. Couple things. 1 - Why pick 30%? The percentage applied using a carbon tax wouldn't even be flat, for goodness' sake. It would vary based on the ratio of carbon emissions against kwh or some other unit of measure. 2 - Obviously energy prices go beyond just personal spending habits. :derp: But when energy costs become a bigger weight on a company's COGS, they'll do what they can to reduce them. Businesses will compete to bring costs back down to where they were prior to the carbon tax. Gubmint could reduce company paid payroll taxes, siphon off some of the carbon tax to replace the employer-paid portion of the social security tax, further reduce the corporate tax rate...any number of things to keep the tax changes revenue neutral while encouraging a shift away from carbon-based fuels. There are brilliant actuaries and economists who can and have figured this shit out.
User avatar
Melon
Trollistrator
Trollistrator
Posts: 10884
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:09 pm
Drives: Blue things, Orange thing
Location: 2' Underwater

Nuclear Energy.

/thread
4zilch wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:46 am I'm a fucking failure.
User avatar
Melon
Trollistrator
Trollistrator
Posts: 10884
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:09 pm
Drives: Blue things, Orange thing
Location: 2' Underwater

coogles wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:31 pm
Big Brain Bradley wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:12 pm Im gonna stop you right there.

you clearly don't know much about energy and where it comes from.

Transport costs in terms of energy use are only like a third of our use. FWIW, I 100% agree that fuel taxes should be higher to cover the cost of roads and encourage better behavior, 100 mile commutes are stupid, etc, etc. Its an argument I stand behind. But the larger ENERGY picture in regards to AGW is much bigger:

Image


Let's just say for the sake of argument that they throw a 30% tax per kwhr on all carbon energy. So 20% of our energy is non-carbon based, the other 80 is. Thats a 24% tax on all energy overall.

EVERYTHING from soap to medical supplies to CITY WATER (look up how chlorine is made not to mention pumping energy) will get 24% more expensive at a minimum.

You wont make 24% more money. Where are you going to cut a quarter of your spending?
Oh my. Couple things. 1 - Why pick 30%? The percentage applied using a carbon tax wouldn't even be flat, for goodness' sake. It would vary based on the ratio of carbon emissions against kwh or some other unit of measure. 2 - Obviously energy prices go beyond just personal spending habits. :derp: But when energy costs become a bigger weight on a company's COGS, they'll do what they can to reduce them. Businesses will compete to bring costs back down to where they were prior to the carbon tax. Gubmint could reduce company paid payroll taxes, siphon off some of the carbon tax to replace the employer-paid portion of the social security tax, further reduce the corporate tax rate...any number of things to keep the tax changes revenue neutral while encouraging a shift away from carbon-based fuels. There are brilliant actuaries and economists who can and have figured this shit out.
What do you plan on powering your nation with? Hopes and dreams?

Image
4zilch wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:46 am I'm a fucking failure.
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

KYGTIGuy wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:58 pm Got a modest proposal to bring these 2 conversations together.


Burn poor people's babies for energy..


Win win.
You would get better efficiency from a wells to wheels standpoint if you ate them.
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
Apex
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 29815
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:36 pm
Drives: Abominable
Location: NJ

Melon wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:37 pm
coogles wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:31 pm

Oh my. Couple things. 1 - Why pick 30%? The percentage applied using a carbon tax wouldn't even be flat, for goodness' sake. It would vary based on the ratio of carbon emissions against kwh or some other unit of measure. 2 - Obviously energy prices go beyond just personal spending habits. :derp: But when energy costs become a bigger weight on a company's COGS, they'll do what they can to reduce them. Businesses will compete to bring costs back down to where they were prior to the carbon tax. Gubmint could reduce company paid payroll taxes, siphon off some of the carbon tax to replace the employer-paid portion of the social security tax, further reduce the corporate tax rate...any number of things to keep the tax changes revenue neutral while encouraging a shift away from carbon-based fuels. There are brilliant actuaries and economists who can and have figured this shit out.
What do you plan on powering your nation with? Hopes and dreams?

Image
:thanksobama:
Post Reply