Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 2:37 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
social justice.
Explain what you mean by social justice.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 4:29 pm 
WANative wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
social justice.
Explain what you mean by social justice.
What am I? your fricking social studies teacher? Start here

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 9:20 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
WANative wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
social justice.
Explain what you mean by social justice.
What am I? your fricking social studies teacher? Start here
I can't see how lowering carbon output, which will cause a huge increase in the price of energy, would have anything but a negative impact on "social justice".

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostMon Aug 29, 2016 2:28 pm 
Quote:
The technology exists today to move from fossil fuels to other forms of energy.
You can only do this well on a large scale if you use nukes.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Aug 29, 2016 3:27 pm 
WANative wrote:
I can't see how lowering carbon output, which will cause a huge increase in the price of energy, would have anything but a negative impact on "social justice".
Perhaps for lower income rural residents of the United States -- who by world standards are relatively weathy -- but what of the social justice for citizens of Bangladesh -- who will lose the little land they have and who have a tiny carbon footprint compared to a US citizen. A good friend of mine was a Peace Corp volunteer in Ecuador during the '80s -- after he came back he observed: "The homeless people in Seattle are well fed and have pretty decent clothing compared to 'middle class' Ecuadorians" We have it so good here in the USA that we don't even know how good we have it.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostMon Aug 29, 2016 8:46 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
We don't even know how good we have it.
Speak for yourself. Not everyone is as aloof on the issue as you apparently make yourself out to be.
RandyHiker wrote:
but what of the social justice for citizens of Bangladesh -- who will lose the little land they have and who have a tiny carbon footprint compared to a US citizen.
Assuming they wouldn't have lost their land anyway and assuming that reducing consumption here in the U.S. would let them keep their land. That's too much assumption. Probably better for them to start drilling for oil in their own country then use it to power equipment to build dikes and run pumps and even add soil to their low lying areas.
RandyHiker wrote:
The homeless people in Seattle are well fed and have pretty decent clothing compared to 'middle class' Ecuadorians"
I don't share your disdain for our "spoiled homeless" but I would agree with your insinuation that we need to reduce welfare spending. Cheap energy is the reason for our wealth. Take away the cheap energy and you'll get homeless in seattle that have a lifestyle which you believe they deserve: One that is on par with that of the "middle class Ecuadorians". But, the 8 track tape that this thread is on has reached the end of it's loop and is playing over again.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 8:27 am 
WANative wrote:
Cheap energy is the reason for our wealth.
This is true as far as it goes but the cost of energy is not solely the money we pay for it. Energy has also costed us wars and now global warming. The cash cost of purchasing energy is easily measure. The cost of global warming is not so easy to measure but is very real. You ask Bangladeshis to build infrastructure to protect them from global warming, but infrastructure is one of the things that nature, with assistance from GW, destroys quite frequently in parts of the world where the funds to replace dearly constructed stuff may not exist.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 10:44 am 
The industrial effects which will slowly threaten the livelihood of millions of coastal residents has already dramatically improved the standard of living of pretty much the entire planet. gotta break a few eggs to make a nice omelette. If you too rapidly try to get rid of fossil fuels to try to save some Bangladeshis 100 years from now, how many Indians and Africans starve next week?

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
contour5
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 2962 | TRs | Pics
contour5
Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 10:46 am 
Quote:
Cheap energy is the reason for our wealth.
Slavery, ruthless conquest and empire building also provided immeasurable assistance in gathering together the immense plunder now held by America's financial elite. A great deal of our "cheap energy" was essentially extracted at gunpoint, as we knocked over one fledgling democracy/ socialist workers paradise after another, installing dictators and despots as we went along, in order to ensure a continuing, favorable investment climate. Cars can drive themselves nowadays, and will soon be able to self-replicate; making humans more-or-less redundant. Space travel, time travel or annexation by a benign alien civilization are probably the only remaining hopes available for the survival of human life forms. Personally, I favor Terrence McKenna's "God Whistle" theory of time travel where the entire future arrives back at the inception point in a matter of milliseconds.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 10:50 am 
Parked Out wrote:
There was a post yesterday on the blog Watt'sUpWithThat where Andy May compares two very similar 35-year warming trends, 1910-1944 and 1975-2009, and speculates that based upon the difference in trends and CO2 levels between the two, we might only be responsible for 25% or less of the modern warming, the rest being due to natural variability. It doesn't prove anything, but it's just as plausible as anything the IPCC has come up with. The IPCC is specifically charged with investigating man-made effects on climate but they really have no clue about what drives the natural climate, and their models employ speculative positive feedbacks that are the source of most of their projected warming. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but the models haven't done very well so far which means the theory they're built on is inadequate. You can tune a 5-day weather forecast every five days so those have improved a lot, but you don't get that luxury with a model that's trying to see 50 or 100 years into the future. So they really have no idea what's going to happen or what effect our carbon emissions will have.
There is almost nothing in the above paragraph that is true (hint/example: the positive feedbacks in the models are not "speculative" - there is loads of evidence for them, and science does have a "clue" about what drives climate, etc, etc, etc), but spending the time looking up the links to prove that is a case of been there, done that. Many times. You just see the same claims again and again, and eventually you get tired of the effort which seems to convince nobody anymore. Anybody who is truly interested in deciding based on science is already convinced. I understand that some people fear the solution more than the impacts, and that is a very different class of debate. Not trying to group everybody in one box. But I've spent too many hours over the years debating points like the above to be drawn into that rabbit hole again. Note: NASA just released a study showing how recent warming is unprecedented in the last thousand years. It's not a new conclusion, just more evidence upon the mountains that already exist.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 11:45 am 
WANative wrote:
I don't share your disdain for our "spoiled homeless" but I would agree with your insinuation that we need to reduce welfare spending. Cheap energy is the reason for our wealth. Take away the cheap energy and you'll get homeless in seattle that have a lifestyle which you believe they deserve: One that is on par with that of the "middle class Ecuadorians".
You speak like someone that has never traveled outside the USA. The "Middle Class Ecuadorians" that my friend lived with had a concrete block house with a packed dirt floor, no electricity and no running water. The younger kids (under ten) didn't have shoes. They did own the land they lived on and were able to raise enough crops to feed the family and have a bit to sell. Still they were better off than the poor Ecuadorians living in shanty town areas of Quito, where chronic malnutrition affects 25 percent of children under five. Compare that to problems in the USA where poverty and obesity are correlated. The quality of foods available through food banks and SNAP might make a foodie cringe, but lack of sufficient calories isn't really an issue in the USA.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 11:47 am 
WANative wrote:
Assuming they wouldn't have lost their land anyway and assuming that reducing consumption here in the U.S. would let them keep their land. That's too much assumption. Probably better for them to start drilling for oil in their own country then use it to power equipment to build dikes and run pumps and even add soil to their low lying areas.
The depth of ignorance displayed here is impressive.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 11:54 am 
WANative wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
We don't even know how good we have it.
Speak for yourself.
The fact that you have the time, energy and technology access to waste time with such things as posting on internet forums puts you -- on a world scale -- among the very fortunate. Typical Ecuadorians make between $120 and $480 a month, but an internet connection still costs around $40/month in Ecuador. But the Ecuadorians are far better off than the Bangladesh -- where monthly incomes are more like $20.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 11:55 am 
RandyHiker wrote:
The depth of ignorance displayed here is impressive.
Reminds me of a brilliant scientist "(in the field of computers) who once said we don't have to worry about droughts in the western US because we can just build a canal from the Mississippi River. Just build your way out of every problem.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Aug 30, 2016 12:01 pm 
drm wrote:
Reminds me of a brilliant scientist "(in the field of computers) who once said we don't have to worry about droughts in the western US because we can just build a canal from the Mississippi River. Just build your way out of every problem.
I believe he was referring to this crazy plan
Quote:
The total cost was estimated in 1975 as $100 billion, comparable in cost to the Interstate Highway System

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum