Watch the video and we'll discuss that.
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Then you can't claim bias from my part given I don't even know what you are accusing us from.
When Morbad (and apparently you) can't bring himself to watch the video because it goes against his preconceived ideas than that is indeed bias whether I specify it or not.
I'm going to assume you mean "scientific consensus on climate change" when you say "official party line".
Either way, your statement is clearly disingenuous, because I can reference several posts in this thread where I have responded to some positively ludicrous assertions, articles, and papers, that I clearly read...posts that you were witness to.
Why you would suddenly think I'm adverse to viewing conclusions contrary to my own escapes me, unless you're letting unrelated personal biases against posters dictate your position on these issues.
I don't think you understand that reference and the irony of your use of it when you are suggesting I take RT seriously is acute.
This is not a valid interpretation of my position and even if it were, would be hypocritical in the extreme.
If an ad hominem attack is the only argument you have, you could at least make it an accurate one.
I am highly biased against misinformation and correspondingly suspicious of sources that were created to peddle it.
If you have an alternate source for whatever the content of that video may be, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
Sorry Morbad, but that's a steaming pile of nonsense that you fabricated from lala land. You dismissed the video out of hand without watching it for the simple reason that you figured (based on me liking it and 6xes posting it) that it couldn't possibly align with your own view point and therefore was worthless. If that isn't (and an accurate summation of what happened) an example of bias, I don't know what is.
Now you're trying to dictate my reasoning to me. If you don't believe that I believe what I say, then that is an unbridgeable impasse and there is no point in us engaging further. You can go on making up whatever you think I mean and I can put you on ignore.
For the record, I refrained on clicking the video because of the "RT" and "RT.com" in the preview. I know RT has a YouTube channel and if that video links to that channel, I am not clicking it because I do not want to patronize them. If you knew anything about them, I suspect you'd feel the same way.
Of course, 6xes posting it is a strong contraindication that it will be something meaningful, especially on the topic of climate or science, which he appears to be wholly ignorant of (no offense intended 6xes), but I've read plenty of his posts and clicked plenty of his links.
Go ahead and put me on ignore if that's your flavah. That would make my day.
False, I merely avoid media outlets that are unrealiable to say the least, once more, you can't claim bias because I don't even know what sort of ideas are communicated in that video to begin with. Why do you think I asked the previous question Jason?
http://awesci.com/the-astonishingly-funny-story-of-mr-mcarthur-wheeler/
Jason.
This is for you.
Please, gain some insight.
Jason.
This is for you.
Please, gain some insight.
The ironic part is that this article does sort of apply to you, Robin.
Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is "believed in" by this or that segment of this population or that population is irrelevant, the real issue is the response.
Given that climate projection models have substantially different outcome profiles 10, 20 and 50 years out - it is problematic to devise quantitative responses designed to reduce CO2 effects that will have predictable outcomes. Placing your attention on austerity is a flat out no go. Californians vote every year for gas taxes, "road diets", extra bike lanes etc., but 57% of car registrations are for SUVs. Austerity is not a sexy choice for wealthy people.
The chicken little Gretta ranting at no one that matters (the UN) after a carbon-fiber sailing yacht pleasure cruise is defocusing our attention from change effect mitigation.
Do you really want to screw Joe Blow commuter trying to get to work at his wage slave job by carbon taxing the manure out of his transportation expenses (the guy still has to work you idiots, and geography in other parts of the world is not equivalent to your dinky backwater island)?
Lobby for canceling insurance in floodplains. Lobby for canceling building permits and insurance along coastlines. Lobby for energy distribution infrastructure. Lobby for agricultural research, lobby for updated building codes that include better insulation - better storm tolerance - include passive heating and cooling etc. Positive responses people can get behind.
Jumping up and down screaming you Americans are rich, and everything is your fault, and you need to suffer because waaaa is less effective than an Open letter to FDEV.
Change the narrative. Go for what people can do, not what they can't do.
Given that climate projection models have substantially different outcome profiles 10, 20 and 50 years out - it is problematic to devise quantitative responses designed to reduce CO2 effects that will have predictable outcomes. Placing your attention on austerity is a flat out no go. Californians vote every year for gas taxes, "road diets", extra bike lanes etc., but 57% of car registrations are for SUVs. Austerity is not a sexy choice for wealthy people.
The chicken little Gretta ranting at no one that matters (the UN) after a carbon-fiber sailing yacht pleasure cruise is defocusing our attention from change effect mitigation.
Do you really want to screw Joe Blow commuter trying to get to work at his wage slave job by carbon taxing the manure out of his transportation expenses (the guy still has to work you idiots, and geography in other parts of the world is not equivalent to your dinky backwater island)?
Lobby for canceling insurance in floodplains. Lobby for canceling building permits and insurance along coastlines. Lobby for energy distribution infrastructure. Lobby for agricultural research, lobby for updated building codes that include better insulation - better storm tolerance - include passive heating and cooling etc. Positive responses people can get behind.
Jumping up and down screaming you Americans are rich, and everything is your fault, and you need to suffer because waaaa is less effective than an Open letter to FDEV.
Change the narrative. Go for what people can do, not what they can't do.
There should be little compassion for anybody's precious hurt little feelings, when extinction is facing us. And it is.
The problem is bigger than the political/tribal element so many are crying about here.
It's a Science and Engineering issue.
Yes, there will need to be diversion of funds to solve it, as there is with every such problem. But- I've never understood the suggestion that the problem could be tackled by taxation. No LAWYER ever solved an Engineering problem AFAIK- we sort of need the actual engineers.
But we simply can't buy a new planet. No matter how much money is available. Think you can escape this problem with money? Nope.
The approach cannot be made on an individual basis, it has to be done by policy at an international level. Let me illustrate:
Every molecule of ammonia made generated a molecule of CO2.
The chemistry is the Haber process: https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/haber.html
The source of Hydrogen here is Natural Gas, or Methane: CH4. And Nitrogen from the atmosphere- N2.
Ammonia is NH3. To get the 3 H per half a Nitrogen molecule, the process byproducts are CO2 and 1/2 H2O.
Or:
A sizeable chunk of that nitrogen goes into soybean and corn feed, for animal protein biosynthesis in the meat industry. Yes, you may be eating our Trinidad & Tobago methane if you buy meat from the US, or feedstock from their farms- some of it is going to feed Hogs in China too. Some goes into the leafy greens eaten by Vegans.
It is all deliciously flatulent. Some of it gets recycled into methane by the animals. Or by the humans that ate the animals, that ate the feed, that grew off the fertilizer that came from the methane.
That's another problem. Farts. Let's leave that out.
This problem affects food supplies, international trade, the chemical industry, the shipping industry, restaurant chains, groceries, and livelihoods in multiple countries, and can't be magicked away or altered by anything you or me could possibly do individually. If Governments do not act together, we are going to pay. It's a Game of Thrones situation, with no means of stopping the apocalypse. And since Governments get voted in, people's beliefs matter.
The best solutions are NOT going to be popular.
They are GMO plants that fix their OWN nitrogen from the air, and Thorium nuclear power supplies to generate electricity. Renewables are insufficient, and not fast enough.
The problem is bigger than the political/tribal element so many are crying about here.
It's a Science and Engineering issue.
Yes, there will need to be diversion of funds to solve it, as there is with every such problem. But- I've never understood the suggestion that the problem could be tackled by taxation. No LAWYER ever solved an Engineering problem AFAIK- we sort of need the actual engineers.
But we simply can't buy a new planet. No matter how much money is available. Think you can escape this problem with money? Nope.
The approach cannot be made on an individual basis, it has to be done by policy at an international level. Let me illustrate:
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!! Or we were. It's nothing to be proud of, let me tell you. The CO2 output is equivalent to 900 cars. And that is merely ONE industry we have here burning our methane.
On the local roads, there are 1 million vehicles registered, with a population of 1.3 million people, which includes people under 18 and over 90 who are obviously not driving, averaging out to 1.something cars per driver in my little country. We are too rich for our own good, and we need to invest in a train system or we shall die of road traffic. There isn't enough road to accommodate the cars. It can take 4 hours in traffic to cover 30 miles.
Every molecule of ammonia made generated a molecule of CO2.
The chemistry is the Haber process: https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/haber.html
The source of Hydrogen here is Natural Gas, or Methane: CH4. And Nitrogen from the atmosphere- N2.
Ammonia is NH3. To get the 3 H per half a Nitrogen molecule, the process byproducts are CO2 and 1/2 H2O.
Or:
A sizeable chunk of that nitrogen goes into soybean and corn feed, for animal protein biosynthesis in the meat industry. Yes, you may be eating our Trinidad & Tobago methane if you buy meat from the US, or feedstock from their farms- some of it is going to feed Hogs in China too. Some goes into the leafy greens eaten by Vegans.
It is all deliciously flatulent. Some of it gets recycled into methane by the animals. Or by the humans that ate the animals, that ate the feed, that grew off the fertilizer that came from the methane.
That's another problem. Farts. Let's leave that out.
This problem affects food supplies, international trade, the chemical industry, the shipping industry, restaurant chains, groceries, and livelihoods in multiple countries, and can't be magicked away or altered by anything you or me could possibly do individually. If Governments do not act together, we are going to pay. It's a Game of Thrones situation, with no means of stopping the apocalypse. And since Governments get voted in, people's beliefs matter.
The best solutions are NOT going to be popular.
They are GMO plants that fix their OWN nitrogen from the air, and Thorium nuclear power supplies to generate electricity. Renewables are insufficient, and not fast enough.
Last edited:
Wait, what? LOL no.
Of course it's "lol no." How very dare he propose actual PRACTICAL real world solutions! That just isn't dooms day-ish enough, is it?
Read the bolded part.
So transportation is necessary. Not everyone lives in a neat little railway accessible space in a beehive complex. We are not all going to live in Megacity one, the need for individual transportation will always exist.
You're a Doctor, would you every prescribe artery narrowing as a strategy to move resources and wastes into and out of vital organs? Of course not, but we choose to eliminate roadways, and purposefully slow traffic to create inefficiencies and waste. As a California city native, I've spent more of my life in traffic than you can imagine.
We need the Haber process, there is no alternative for industrial scale nitrate soil enrichment. We'd better be forward thinking about phosphate production as well, the nexus between our needs there and population demands are not promising. We are not giving up Haber, ever. Go ahead kill billions and give up Haber. China just lifted its tariffs on American Soy and Pork - people put eating above hot summers and always will.
Do you live near a decommissioned nuclear reactor? I do. It will be there for more than a thousand years because no one wants to store the waste or the irradiated building materials. Is that cost factored into the "cleanliness" of nuclear power? No, it is not. Irrespective of whether it is a Thorium reactor or conventional, the parts still get irradiated.
We have tremendous wind power generation potential in the US, but lack the grid infrastructure for its distribution. Constructing and maintaining distribution grids is a job creator and will have powerful positive benefits for decentralized power generation. No one is selling that as much is "we're going to take away your car".
Raising temperature is not an apocalypse. We've had global temperatures that far exceeded our current averages in geologic history and life flourished. Alarmism provokes foolish emotional responses. Settle down, worry less about cow farts. Remember the great plains had Bison herds that covered multiple states in the US. Spectacular farts. We survived. We'll see greater methane release from permafrost melts anyways. We will not starve our way to survival.
Well, you should know that's how the climate change movement is perceived here; punish America. Secondly, why not snip the rest of the post and focus on that part, if that was your only take away from his post? The way the quote shows up on my page has all but the first paragraph buried.
Rising temperatures will be an inconvenience for some. On the other hand, if we experienced massive global cooling that would be a completely different story.
Podcast: Synthetic fertilizer pollution threatens our ecosystems. Are nitrogen-fixing microbes the answer?
Farmers need nitrogen fertilizer to maximize crop yields. Without it, our food supply would be nowhere near as abundant as it is today, and natural
geneticliteracyproject.org
Industrial chemistry or any other technology from WW2 era is not a permanent solution to any problem.
Genetically modified food sources are probably inevitable, but is only the most likely replacement tech.
Animal food sources with direct nitrogen fixation, myostatin receptor knockout, IGF hyperexpression etc would rapidly run existing natural sources into bankruptcy because they could not match the production efficiency.
Adding rhodopsin receptor protein as mitochondrial outer membrane protein elements would drastically reduce the need to feed, and speed up growth but that is something best kept for transhuman changes. The effect on food consumption isnt something I can calculate.
The point of Thorium reactors is the use of the waste. They can consume the Plutonium, which is the primary problem.
Irradiated materials are hazardous, and constitute a problem probably suitable for future fusion tech to dispose of. Thorium tech is only suitable as a bridging tech to better sustainable sources.
An alternative feedstock for Haber could be H2 from electrolysis of water, if power becomes cheap and plentiful.
Two links this morning, the first a look at the kind of situation we will see as the new normal under AGW:
'Northern California hit by mega power cuts over wildfire fears':
www.bbc.com
Roughly 800,000 people forced to have no power from the grid due to the extreme conditions that could lead to massive fires. AGW is right here right now with all those people. Fingers crossed they all get through it ok (no playing of Elite though, unless you have your own energy supply).
And the second story looks like a big editorial look at the companies (private and state owned) we could (and should) be putting much of the blame on for the current growing AGW crisis:
'Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions':
www.theguardian.com
lots of graphs and tables and links to pleanty of info around the subjects discussed. It's an informative read.
'Northern California hit by mega power cuts over wildfire fears':
Northern California hit by mega power cuts over wildfire fears
In a bid to stop wildfires, San Francisco Bay Area residents could be denied power for several days.
www.bbc.com
Roughly 800,000 people forced to have no power from the grid due to the extreme conditions that could lead to massive fires. AGW is right here right now with all those people. Fingers crossed they all get through it ok (no playing of Elite though, unless you have your own energy supply).
And the second story looks like a big editorial look at the companies (private and state owned) we could (and should) be putting much of the blame on for the current growing AGW crisis:
'Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions':
Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions
New data shows how fossil fuel companies have driven climate crisis despite industry knowing dangers
www.theguardian.com
lots of graphs and tables and links to pleanty of info around the subjects discussed. It's an informative read.
- Status