Former model Amy Dorris alleges Trump sexually assaulted her in 1997

[johnnyAU 3,637]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

For the record, I just want clean air, clean oceans, clean rivers, etc. 
Anything that will save a forest from paper industry destruction. And Yes, I have two BILs now unemployed from the Paper Industry. 
And I will, and do, and have been,  $$$ supporting any organization to help get us there. 

Nature Conservancy, WWF, TheOceanCleanup, etc.

 

Absolutely. Clean, efficient, and available energy should be the goal.  The problem with the focus on the current "renewables" (ruinables) like wind turbines, solar panels and biomass, is not only are they terribly inefficient, intermittent, and cannot sustain large grids without fossil fuel backup power, they also have a tremendous environmental cost associated with manufacturing and disposal.  They take up large swaths of land that could be used for growing food. They cannot be replicated without using fossil fuel energy at the moment as they use a ton of energy to make the massive amounts of steel and concrete. Maintenance alone, like de-icing turbine blades, cannot be done without fossil fuel powered helicopters.  They have a relatively short lifespan compared to fossil fuel plants.  The deforestation it takes and would continue to take for biomass production is staggering.  All this to accomplish something we don't know can be accomplished.  We simply do not know the real climate sensitivity of C02, as we still do not fully understand the vastly complex, non-linear, chaotic system that is the Earth's climate. There are tons of intertwined variables and many, like the variability of cloud cover are extraordinarily difficult to model with any degree of accuracy. 

Hey, but pumping out hyperbolic articles with unsubstantiated claims, staging dramatic costume-filled protests while gluing your hands to the road (Extinction Rebellion) and making ridiculous long term predictions of Hell fire and brimstone are the tools of the current media...because they trigger emotion and garner votes. 

[DKW 86 7,438]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Do you believe that climate is changing and that it's primarily due to the result of carbon emissions starting at the beginning of the industrial age?

If not, I have little interest in trying to convince you otherwise.  It would be an exercise in futility.  (Been there, done that.)

Otherwise, I suppose we could debate the speed of such change and it's significance to our lives and long term future, but I have come to understand that committed skeptics will not change their minds within the time it takes for the consequences to manifest themselves in an undeniable way, even though the consequences are now beginning to be felt.

(P.S.: You don't seem to know very much about human sexuality either. Your dismissive statements on that science only confirm the futility of arguing with you about AGW.)

 

Now for the"Excuse me Stewardess, but I speak jive....translation." 

"I am afraid you would eat my lunch, So I will serve up a huge portion of Dismissal Pie and runaway and hide. That way I do not have to offer any real stats, facts, research, etc. I can just claim a bunch of s*** I hallucinated in my head about you and not actually have to engage you at all."  

[DKW 86 7,438]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Oh, I forgot to mention:  From the statement above, you apparently don't understand my position in the first place. 

It's not that we should lower the earths average temperature 1.5-2 degrees - which I seriously doubt is possible at any price.  What's done is done.

My argument is we should immediately start mitigating future increases in average temperature, hopefully preventing it from reaching existentially threatening levels - say an additional 3 to 4 degrees C on average more than it has already risen.  This is certainly possible - if not probable - without immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And keep in mind future increases in the average temperature may not occur in a linear way.  For example, at some point the methane held in permafrost will be released in huge quantities, a process which is just beginning. It's called a positive feedback loop.  https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

Dang homey,. you actually did something real here. You put forth ideas, how unlike you. 

 

[auskip07 930]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

Oh, I forgot to mention:  From the statement above, you apparently don't understand my position in the first place. 

It's not that we should lower the earths average temperature 1.5-2 degrees - which I seriously doubt is possible at any price.  What's done is done.

My argument is we should immediately start mitigating future increases in average temperature, hopefully preventing it from reaching existentially threatening levels - say an additional 3 to 4 degrees C on average more than it has already risen.  This is certainly possible - if not probable - without immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And keep in mind future increases in the average temperature may not occur in a linear way.  For example, at some point the methane held in permafrost will be released in huge quantities, a process which is just beginning. It's called a positive feedback loop.  https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

 

 

I did misread the goal of the climate agreement   instead of lowering the temp 1.5 - 2 degrees the goal was to keep it from climbing above that goal  in an unstated time period by donating 10 billion total dollars (3 billion from the US) to LDC( lower/lesser developed countries) for implementing renewable energy.   China was a part of that agreement in name  and they are also the most polluting  but somehow got out of any pledge of reducing emissions or money. 

Yes climate change is happening   its always happened  warming trends and cooling trends, Milankovitch cycle,  ice ages and  CO2 following temperature increases historically  and now since the industrial revolution CO2 is leading temperature change which has never happened so we have no reference for what it will actually do long term. 

Good read if you care to click

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle 

If 3 billion dollars needs to be donated  it should be kept inhouse to develop more affordable renewable resources instead of shipped off to other countries where their leaders will probably squander it.  (although the US does a pretty good job of squandering money)        donating the technology to LDC's for their use would be a be better than just shipping them crates of money to do what they want.   

Thats why the paris climate agreement sucks and im glad trump got out of it. 

 

[AUDub 11,164]

1 hour ago, auskip07 said:

Yes climate change is happening   its always happened  warming trends and cooling trends, Milankovitch cycle,  ice ages and  CO2 following temperature increases historically  and now since the industrial revolution CO2 is leading temperature change which has never happened so we have no reference for what it will actually do long term. 

Good read if you care to click

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle 

That is a good read, but I don't think it proves the point you were trying to make. Climate change when it occurs naturally is not a fast process. We're talking seriously deep time here. The current warming is occurring too rapidly for the environment's buffers to absorb.

CO²'s properties as a forcing agent are quite well understood, and have been since the Civil War, the oceans are undergoing acidification, etc. 

We may not know all of the finer point yet, but it's abundantly clear that it's going to suck unless we act to limit the potential change within an envelope. 

[AUDub 11,164]

3 hours ago, AUDub said:

CO²'s properties as a forcing agent are quite well understood, and have been since the Civil War, the oceans are undergoing acidification, etc. 

As an aside, I hate that subscripting that ² isn't an option. 

[TitanTiger 20,509]

13 minutes ago, AUDub said:

As an aside, I hate that subscripting that ² isn't an option. 

I've added that to the toolbar, at least if you're on a laptop.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

It may depend on the size of your screen as to whether it shows up.

[homersapien 11,423]

18 hours ago, auskip07 said:

I did misread the goal of the climate agreement   instead of lowering the temp 1.5 - 2 degrees the goal was to keep it from climbing above that goal  in an unstated time period by donating 10 billion total dollars (3 billion from the US) to LDC( lower/lesser developed countries) for implementing renewable energy.   China was a part of that agreement in name  and they are also the most polluting  but somehow got out of any pledge of reducing emissions or money. 

Yes climate change is happening   its always happened  warming trends and cooling trends, Milankovitch cycle,  ice ages and  CO2 following temperature increases historically  and now since the industrial revolution CO2 is leading temperature change which has never happened so we have no reference for what it will actually do long term. 

Good read if you care to click

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle 

If 3 billion dollars needs to be donated  it should be kept inhouse to develop more affordable renewable resources instead of shipped off to other countries where their leaders will probably squander it.  (although the US does a pretty good job of squandering money)        donating the technology to LDC's for their use would be a be better than just shipping them crates of money to do what they want.   

Thats why the paris climate agreement sucks and im glad trump got out of it. 

 

First, no one said we should "ship them crates of money for them to do whatever they want."    That would be stupid.

The atmosphere doesn't really distinguish were the greenhouse gases are coming from nor does it selectively affect specific countries with the subsequent warming.  You don't seem to understand the meaning of a global problem. 

So addressing current "hot spots" of greenhouse gas emissions with relatively small amounts of our money - especially when you consider we are one of - if not the - major historical contributor to the problem, is a smart thing to do.  Sorry you don't appreciate that.

Ask your children if you have any.  Perhaps they'll get it.

 

 

[homersapien 11,423]

17 hours ago, AUDub said:

That is a good read, but I don't think it proves the point you were trying to make. Climate change when it occurs naturally is not a fast process. We're talking seriously deep time here. The current warming is occurring too rapidly for the environment's buffers to absorb.

CO²'s properties as a forcing agent are quite well understood, and have been since the Civil War, the oceans are undergoing acidification, etc. 

We may not know all of the finer point yet, but it's abundantly clear that it's going to suck unless we act to limit the potential change within an envelope. 

I am soooooo tired of the "climate has always changed" argument. 

It's about as clear of an indicator as possible that a person really has no appreciation or understanding of the fact and science of AGW.  It makes about as much sense as arguing the sun will eventually swallow the earth, so why bother?

That argument always reminds me of the graphical representation of the earth's history at the Smithsonian which consists of a time line that winds up several floors of the building.  The human part of that graph is like the final few inches (as best I remember). 

And here we are at the beginning of the Anthropocene.

 

[AUDub 11,164]

I always liked this one, which dates to 20000 years. Randall is good at this. 

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[homersapien 11,423]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I always liked this one, which dates to 20000 years. Randall is good at this. 

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Hmmmm, looks a lot like a "hockey stick" to me.   (Sorry)

Regardless, a good graph is worth thousands of words in terms of understanding.

[AUDub 11,164]

43 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Regardless, a good graph is worth thousands of words in terms of understanding.

Data visualization is an art in its own way. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

On 9/21/2020 at 12:54 PM, Brad_ATX said:

Certainly.  I just think a lot of hyper-partisans only look at the win or lose instead of understanding the deeper trend line.  It's like masking a bad defensive football team with an amazing offense that makes up for their deficiencies.  No one pays attention to that D until losses start mounting up.

Exactly what I say to Mrs. Loof if we go on too long of a dry spell. Hey-O!

Further to your other comments, I have to think that the Boomers dying off will not be good for the GOP. But I ask that as a political noob compared to some of you guys. Has that same thing been said about prior generations, and do people tend to become conservatives as they get older and more affluent? I could see that. 

[homersapien 11,423]

13 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Data visualization is an art in its own way. 

As you are probably aware, Minard's visualization of Napolean's invasion of Russia is widely considered the best example ever. 

(Too large for this format of course.)

https://thoughtbot.com/blog/analyzing-minards-visualization-of-napoleons-1812-march

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Exactly what I say to Mrs. Loof if we go on too long of a dry spell. Hey-O!

Further to your other comments, I have to think that the Boomers dying off will not be good for the GOP. But I ask that as a political noob compared to some of you guys. Has that same thing been said about prior generations, and do people tend to become conservatives as they get older and more affluent? I could see that. 

LOL at your first comment.

Boomers dying off is definitely a bad thing for the current iteration of the GOP.  Do voters become more conservative as they age?   Depends, but largely yes.  However we haven't seen that shift happen dramatically with Gen X at all, which should be a frightening sign for the GOP.

[AUDub 11,164]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As you are probably aware, Minard's visualization of Napoleans invasion of Russia is widely considered the best example ever. 

(Too large for this format of course.)

Yep you've brought it up in the past. 

One of the best examples of tasteful data presentation out there. 

[homersapien 11,423]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

LOL at your first comment.

Boomers dying off is definitely a bad thing for the current iteration of the GOP.  Do voters become more conservative as they age?   Depends, but largely yes.  However we haven't seen that shift happen dramatically with Gen X at all, which should be a frightening sign for the GOP.

I think this is generally true, but certainly not for me.

I guess everyone's experience is different, but I became progressive/liberal in the early 60's - along with a large number of fellow boomers who were mostly reacting to the 50's.  (See hippies )  And I haven't changed much.

Just goes to show you there are a lot more cultural aspects within a given generation than you might assume. (see "Young Voters for Nixon").  Bottom line, the most hyped or publicized cultural segment doesn't necessarily represent the majority of a whole generation.

(But as a generalized statement, our music was definitely better than today's.  )

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I think this is generally true, but certainly not for me.

I guess everyone's experience is different, but I became progressive/liberal in the early 60's - along with a large number of fellow boomers who were mostly reacting to the 50's.  (See hippies )  And I haven't changed much.

Just goes to show you there are a lot more cultural aspects within a given generation than you might assume. (see "Young voters for Nixon").  Bottom line, the most hyped or publicized cultural segment doesn't necessarily represent the majority of a whole generation.

(But as a generalized statement, our music was definitely better than today's.  )

 

Except for Bob Dylan.  Fricking awful.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except for Bob Dylan.  Fricking awful.

Brilliant songwriter though.  Just should have handed them off to better singers.

[homersapien 11,423]

17 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except for Bob Dylan.  Fricking awful.

 

[homersapien 11,423]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Brilliant songwriter though.  Just should have handed them off to better singers.

That's part of the appeal.  (Just as it is with John Prine.)  And Dylan's voice was perfect for the message he delivered in the 60's.  It defined the zeitgeist of the time.  

It's all about the lyrics, music and emotions.  They both wrote musical poetry.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's part of the appeal.  (Just as it is with John Prine.)  And Dylan's voice was perfect for the message he delivered in the 60's.  It defined the zeitgeist of the time.  

It's all about the lyrics, music and emotions.  They both wrote musical poetry.

John Prine is (was - dammit covid) a much better singer than Dylan.

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

One thing about Dylan and adults who don't like Dylan is you'll never get them to suddenly start liking Dylan by turning them on to some undiscovered (to them) gem of a Dylan song. The dislike is genuine by the time a person reaches adulthood. They know the general sound. They know that the lyrics are esoteric and prolific, and that the arrangements and instrumentation are sometimes deceptively complex and original. They know that there is actual great technical skill in his singing. They just don't enjoy listening to it. 

[homersapien 11,423]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

One thing about Dylan and adults who don't like Dylan is you'll never get them to suddenly start liking Dylan by turning them on to some undiscovered (to them) gem of a Dylan song. The dislike is genuine by the time a person reaches adulthood. They know the general sound. They know that the lyrics are esoteric and prolific, and that the arrangements and instrumentation are sometimes deceptively complex and original. They know that there is actual great technical skill in his singing. They just don't enjoy listening to it. 

I guess so. 

But if you were a teenager who listened to say, "Positively 4th Street" and didn't feel some serious, formative emotion from it, I feel sorry for you.  Like I said, zeitgeist of the time. 

I still feel it too.