Obama on Twitter: “Gravity Exists. The Earth Is Round. Climate Change Is Happening.”

And the right wing anti-science kooks turn out in force
Environment • Views: 20,767

Perhaps in reaction to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s idiotic statement that “global warming is a total fraud,” the official Barack Obama Twitter feed gets snarky:

The replies to these tweets are a deluge of impenetrable wingnut stupidity, of course — mixed with a few left wing libertarians yelling “DRONES!”

UPDATE at 8/12/13 12:29:00 pm

I now see why there are so many nasty and stupid replies to these tweets: the ignorant anti-science wingnut mob was called out by Michelle Malkin’s Twitter-trolling site, twitchy.com: #ScienceSaidSo: Iowahawk, Others Offer Historical Perspective to @BarackObama’s Settled Science | Twitchy.

Jump to bottom

306 comments
1 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:23:43pm

Countdown to a word-crafty right wing apologist complaining about “appeals to authority” in 3… 2… 1…

2 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:29:22pm

I now see why there are so many nasty and stupid replies to these tweets: the ignorant anti-science wingnut mob was called out by Michelle Malkin’s Twitter-trolling site, Twitchy.com: #ScienceSaidSo: Iowahawk, Others Offer Historical Perspective to BarackObama’s Settled Science | Twitchy.

3 Lawrence Schmerel  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:30:15pm

I support the battle against climate change denial. Sadly, it probably will be easier than the battle against climate change itself, but it is a necessary part of what needs to be done.

4 Ace-o-aces  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:31:35pm

Gravity iz a librul cunspircy to stop the rapture!!!!!!

5 CODaniels  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:31:41pm

Climate change is happening as the world around us is dynamic and not static, so of course it is happening.

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

And if the correlation between emissions and climate change is pointed to, why are we not experiencing increasingly violent weather year over year instead of sporadically?

I am all about accepting reality of dynamic change, but can you ascribe all of this to man? Hardly not.

6 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:32:51pm

re: #5 CODaniels

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

.

I am all about accepting reality of dynamic change, but can you ascribe all of this to man? Hardly not.

“You’ll never hear scientists say for sure whether or not it’s people”… “but I can definitely say for sure it’s not all people”.

Which is it, friend?

7 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:33:03pm

re: #5 CODaniels

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions.

This is science, not law. You’re wrong.

8 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:34:08pm

re: #5 CODaniels

Climate change is happening as the world around us is dynamic and not static, so of course it is happening.

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

And if the correlation between emissions and climate change is pointed to, why are we not experiencing increasingly violent weather year over year instead of sporadically?

I am all about accepting reality of dynamic change, but can you ascribe all of this to man? Hardly not.

“Watch as I build this likeness of a human out of dried grass! See the ease with which I knock it over!”

9 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:34:28pm

re: #5 CODaniels

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

I have checked it out for myself, in great depth, and what you say here is simply false. There’s a very broad, nearly universal scientific consensus that human beings are now the dominant force causing climate change.

Why are you spreading misinformation?

10 Gus  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:34:57pm

re: #2 Charles Johnson

I now see why there are so many nasty and stupid replies to these tweets: the ignorant anti-science wingnut mob was called out by Michelle Malkin’s Twitter-trolling site, Twitchy.com: #ScienceSaidSo: Iowahawk, Others Offer Historical Perspective to @BarackObama’s Settled Science | Twitchy.

11 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:35:19pm

re: #5 CODaniels

Climate change is happening as the world around us is dynamic and not static, so of course it is happening.

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

And if the correlation between emissions and climate change is pointed to, why are we not experiencing increasingly violent weather year over year instead of sporadically?

I am all about accepting reality of dynamic change, but can you ascribe all of this to man? Hardly not.

Alright, let’s humor you for a sec and say you’re right, that the science is not rock solid. Does that justify in-action? How sure do you have to be that the science is right before you feel we can take action to curb man’s influence on global temperatures?

12 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:35:27pm

re: #5 CODaniels

Climate change is happening as the world around us is dynamic and not static, so of course it is happening.

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

I have, and you’re wrong. 97% of climate scientists say that AGW is real and happening. If you’re trying to make the ‘but there’s always a small chance of being wrong in science!” then sure, there’s a very small chance. Who gives a shit.

And if the correlation between emissions and climate change is pointed to, why are we not experiencing increasingly violent weather year over year instead of sporadically?

Because climate change theory doesn’t predict increasingly violent weather year over year at this point— in fact, the violence of the weather is outpacing most of the models considerably at this point.

The fact that you say this tells me you don’t actually know anything about the major climatological models.

13 CODaniels  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:35:32pm

re: #6 erik_t

Not really sure you are using my words there, are we my friend?

14 engineer cat  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:35:58pm

re: #5 CODaniels

Climate change is happening as the world around us is dynamic and not static, so of course it is happening.

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

And if the correlation between emissions and climate change is pointed to, why are we not experiencing increasingly violent weather year over year instead of sporadically?

I am all about accepting reality of dynamic change, but can you ascribe all of this to man? Hardly not.

where do you stand on the pythagorean theorem?

15 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:36:14pm

Never mind - it’s a wingnut sock puppet, now blocked for the second time.

16 Gus  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:36:25pm

WE WERE WRONG ABOUT LEACHES AND LOBOTOMIES THEREFORE YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!!

17 blueraven  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:36:56pm

re: #5 CODaniels

Climate change is happening as the world around us is dynamic and not static, so of course it is happening.

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

And if the correlation between emissions and climate change is pointed to, why are we not experiencing increasingly violent weather year over year instead of sporadically?


I am all about accepting reality of dynamic change, but can you ascribe all of this to man? Hardly not.

You waited 8 months to post, and this is what you come up with?

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to post and remove all doubt.

18 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:38:10pm

re: #16 Gus

WE WERE WRONG ABOUT LEACHES AND LOBOTOMIES THEREFORE YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!!

“THE BIBLE HAS STAYED THE SAME FOR 2000 YEARS SO WE KNOW ITS ACCURATE!”

19 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:38:18pm

When you choose to duel with words, please do try to pick up the blunt end of the rapier. Pointy end out.

This rhetorical PSA brought to you by erik_t.

20 Lawrence Schmerel  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:39:03pm

I wonder if Iowahawk’s fetish for automobiles compels him to deny that fossil fuels are a problem.

21 Sol Berdinowitz  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:41:01pm

Obama has waited until most reasonable people are convinced that climate change is happening and that it is proably influenced by our activities.

He is now going to cause the absolute denialist idiots, who have been quietly tolerated and even accepted in the party, to scream even louder and insist that everybody actively take their side in this pointless argument.

A well thought-out strategy on Obama’s part.

22 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:41:19pm

Also part of the problem:

austinist.com

23 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:42:07pm

Obama is feisty today. I like it. Maybe Matt Damon will want to date him again now.

24 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:43:02pm

re: #5 CODaniels

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”— Neil DeGrasse Tyson

25 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:43:16pm

re: #18 Kragar

“THE BIBLE HAS STAYED THE SAME FOR 2000 YEARS SO WE KNOW ITS ACCURATE!”

I still love the idea that unchanging means accurate. Shit, to me unchanging just means obstinate and/or lazy.

26 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:43:39pm

re: #18 Kragar

“THE BIBLE HAS STAYED THE SAME FOR 2000 YEARS SO WE KNOW ITS ACCURATE!”

King James is a myth!
///

27 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:43:49pm

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

28 Bulworth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:43:51pm

re: #1 erik_t

When it comes to science, evolution, climate change, RWNJ demand absolute uniform, unanimous option from ALL scientists of whatever form before they accept it.

When it comes to their religion, however, their beliefs must be accepted by everyone else without any evidence even if only a very few people share their beliefs. Varieties of belief, differences of opinion in the religious world don’t dent their certainties.

29 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:44:10pm

re: #23 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Obama is feisty today. I like it. Maybe Matt Damon will want to date him again now.

Did Colbert let him out of the dance booth yet?
:)

30 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:46:14pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

Catastrophic natural events can, indeed, occur.

In the meantime, let’s both rig up our bathtubs and taps to both fill and drain at one gallon per minute. You add a hose from your sink that adds an additional fluid ounce per minute; I won’t.

Let’s do science and find out what happens! In the interest of scholarly solidarity, I’ll lend you a towel.

31 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:46:45pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

2 seconds of using that Google thing got me this:

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

32 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:48:09pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

Image: CO2_vs_Volcano.gif

33 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:48:27pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

And there’s the next bit after “the science isn’t solid,” namely the “nature defeats our efforts.” It shouldn’t matter what nature does, it should matter what we do and what we can do to fix the problem. Saying that the problem is unsolvable because nature will go behind our backs is not an answer, it’s an excuse.

34 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:48:29pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

Huh?

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

From here

35 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:48:31pm

Why look. My surprise, let me show it to you.

36 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:49:42pm

re: #10 Gus

Burge is a nincompoop. Ehrlich’s prediction probably would have come to pass, IF WE HADN’T DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Specifically, this means the work of Dr. Norman Borlaug in making the Green Revolution possible and the collective efforts of government, business, and NGOs to spread his developments to the remotest corners of the Earth. Imho, Dr. Borlaug was one of the very greatest scientists who ever lived.

37 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:50:37pm

DAMN IT PEOPLE!

You’re supposed to just accept the idea that we can’t do anything!

Why do you hate apathy so much?
///

38 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:51:11pm

Cripes, the debunked Denialist talking points are bubbling up like backed-up sewer line, aren’t they?

39 Gus  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:51:20pm

re: #36 Shiplord Kirel

Burge is a nincompoop. Ehrlich’s prediction probably would have come to pass, IF WE HADN’T DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Specifically, this means the work of Dr. Norman Borlaug in making the Green Revolution possible and the collective efforts of government, business, and NGOs to spread his developments to the remotest corners of the Earth. Imho, Dr. Borlaug was one of the very greatest scientists who ever lived.

BUT DR. BORLAUG BELIEVED IN GMOs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

40 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:51:48pm

re: #37 Kragar

DAMN IT PEOPLE!

You’re supposed to just accept the idea that we can’t do anything!

Why do you hate apathy so much?
///

It’s not a big deal.

But if it is, it’s all natural, and we can’t do anything about it.

But if it’s not, well it would still be too expensive.

But if it wouldn’t, well damnit shut up it would cost the “job creators” short-term profits.

41 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:52:22pm

The only science that matters is that which is personally beneficial.

Anything requiring any change in my behavior must be rejected, for the good of humanity.

42 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:52:31pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

This isn’t true. Citation:

Although volcanoes are active around the world, and continue to emit carbon dioxide as they did in the past, the amount of carbon dioxide they release is extremely small compared to human emissions. On average, volcanoes emit between 130 and 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. By burning fossil fuels, people release in excess of 100 times more, about 26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere every year (as of 2005). As a result, human activity overshadows any contribution volcanoes may have made to recent global warming.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

That’s NASA. They know this shit.

43 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:52:59pm

re: #31 wrenchwench

In the link you gave me there there was interesting piece of info in the comments where they said that if only surface volcanoes are included in the equation, then yes human output beats them. But if underwater volcanoes are included as well then in total humans lag far behind, the info was compiled by the Scripps Institute and MPI

44 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:53:16pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

Mt. Pinatubo emited .05Gt of CO2. Cars/Trucks alone emit 3.0Gt per year.

Gt = Billion Metric Tons

Science

45 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:53:42pm

Argument that Scientists all lie so they can keep getting that sweet, sweet grant money, coming in 3…2…1…

46 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:54:39pm

re: #43 GatorsEatsTaters

In the link you gave me there there was interesting piece of info in the comments where they said that if only surface volcanoes are included in the equation, then yes human output beats them. But if underwater volcanoes are included as well then in total humans lag far behind, the info was compiled by the Scripps Institute and MPI

How do you like these apples:

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

From Here

47 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:54:47pm

re: #43 GatorsEatsTaters

In the link you gave me there there was interesting piece of info in the comments where they said that if only surface volcanoes are included in the equation, then yes human output beats them. But if underwater volcanoes are included as well then in total humans lag far behind, the info was compiled by the Scripps Institute and MPI

Also not true, as cited in the same fucking article.

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

48 jaunte  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:55:06pm

re: #45 GeneJockey

What I wouldn’t do for that sweet, sweet grant money.

49 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:55:37pm

re: #43 GatorsEatsTaters

In the link you gave me there there was interesting piece of info in the comments where they said that if only surface volcanoes are included in the equation, then yes human output beats them. But if underwater volcanoes are included as well then in total humans lag far behind, the info was compiled by the Scripps Institute and MPI

Obviously you didn’t read the whole thing. You were picking cherries, and you all you got were pits.

Try clicking on the ‘intermediate’ tab.

Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means “under the air”, refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).

50 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:56:15pm

re: #43 GatorsEatsTaters

the info was compiled by the Scripps Institute and MPI

Read: “I’ve seen this argument posted on my favorite wingnut talking-point site, and I’m mostly repeating what they said verbatim, but they didn’t actually post the citation to this alleged research, probably because the research either says something completely different or does not actually exist”

51 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:56:22pm

I’m waiting for the denialists to fall back on the historic blaming of cows and trees as the cause of all the air pollution…

52 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:56:22pm

re: #47 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Also not true, as cited in the same fucking article.

But, but—-the comments!!!! that’s where Truth is found!!!

53 Interesting Times  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:58:29pm

re: #36 Shiplord Kirel

Burge is a nincompoop. Ehrlich’s prediction probably would have come to pass, IF WE HADN’T DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Specifically, this means the work of Dr. Norman Borlaug in making the Green Revolution possible and the collective efforts of government, business, and NGOs to spread his developments to the remotest corners of the Earth. Imho, Dr. Borlaug was one of the very greatest scientists who ever lived.

Did Borlaug have any opinions on climate change and sustainability? For some reason, the deniers have glommed on to him as supporting their alternate reality.

54 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:58:38pm

The good news is that overall pollution rates in the USA and Europe have been reduced dramatically in the last half century. Just look at Los Angeles smog from 30 years ago compared to now.

(Hell, if you wanna see the worst effects, look at the former Soviet Union where they had literally whole lakes and oceans disappear)

The bad news is most the dirty shit being pumped out is in places like India and China, and if anyone here tells them to stop making factories they will just laugh at us and tell us to fuck off

55 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:58:51pm

2 possible paths:

Path 1) Climate Change doesn’t exist, but we act like it does.

We spend billions of dollars, clean up the environment we live in, develop alternative energy freeing allowing us to reduce dependency on foreign sources, improve our infrastructure, create new jobs and industries. All that and we have nothing to show for it.

Path 2) Climate Change does exist, but we act like it doesn’t

Worldwide starvation, mass migrations, scarcity of resources, millions of dead, possible collapse of all higher life on the planet, but we save a few bucks in the short term.

56 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:59:05pm

Youtube Video

Religious people think a tree is crying god’s tears. It’s actually aphid honeydew, which comes from the butt area.

58 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 12:59:16pm

re: #43 GatorsEatsTaters

So, you’re positing that there were no underwater volcanoes prior to the advent of human fossil fuel use, and they all suddenly kicked in then, and just by chance have consistently added CO2 to the atmosphere in an amount consistently equal to 40% of human emmisions, and paradoxically with a 13C/12C ratio that suggests plant, rather than volcanic origins?

You see, when you posit an hypothesis, like “It’s all volcanoes”, that hypothesis makes testable predictions, like those above.

59 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:00:45pm

re: #54 GatorsEatsTaters

The good news is that overall pollution rates in the USA and Europe have been reduced dramatically in the last half century. Just look at Los Angeles smog from 30 years ago compared to now.

(Hell, if you wanna see the worst effects, look at the former Soviet Union where they had literally whole lakes and oceans disappear)

The bad news is most the dirty shit being pumped out is in places like India and China, and if anyone here tells them to stop making factories they will just laugh at us and tell us to fuck off

I think you need to address/retract your original posts above before heading down another (likely incorrect) path.

60 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:01:29pm

re: #54 GatorsEatsTaters

First, CO2 rates haven’t dropped, that’s just a lie.

We have to pour money into green tech, so that we can can spread it throughout the world.

But China isn’t laughing, they’re wincing because they’re already feeling the effects of over-pollution but the government is afraid that any shake in the economy will shake them from power. It will probably happen eventually: China’s economy is the poster child for ‘unsustainable’ right now, in places just physically literally, as worker hours drop off as they are too sick to work. Not to mention their housing bubble.

Do you care to take note that your arguments are getting slapped down? it seems pretty psycho to just go on spouting the next post as though there was no response that showed you were wrong, kinda robotic.

61 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:01:30pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

Your figures are completely wrong. No single volcano contributes anywhere near the amount of carbon humans inject into the system. The amount of CO2 in the system went from an average of 278ppm in the late 19th century to an average of 400ppm currently. At no time was there a spike from any volcano that added 122ppm to the atmosphere.

In fact if you add up all of the CO2 from all volcanic eruptions since the 19th it comes nowhere near 122ppm. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has been stable, hovering around 300ppm for several million years, so unless you are suggesting we have more active volcanoes now than in the last several million years, you can not claim volcanoes add a significant amount of carbon to the system.

62 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:03:20pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

BTW, your source for this shit, Ian Plimer, was debunked by the USGS.

63 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:03:38pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

False.

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

64 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:04:07pm

re: #54 GatorsEatsTaters

The good news is that overall pollution rates in the USA and Europe have been reduced dramatically in the last half century. Just look at Los Angeles smog from 30 years ago compared to now.

(Hell, if you wanna see the worst effects, look at the former Soviet Union where they had literally whole lakes and oceans disappear)

The bad news is most the dirty shit being pumped out is in places like India and China, and if anyone here tells them to stop making factories they will just laugh at us and tell us to fuck off

Since the US produces the majority of greenhouse gases, perhaps you should keep your gaze focused here.

You want to say it’s worse elsewhere. Why don’t you want to face the fact that the air still sucks in So. Cal?

65 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:05:18pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

Ahhh….It all makes sense. He’s reading from a script:

ruthfullyyours.com

66 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:05:26pm

re: #15 Charles Johnson

Never mind - it’s a wingnut sock puppet, now blocked for the second time.

Haywood?

67 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:05:49pm

Every time, the same bogus talking points. Sure gets old.

68 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:05:52pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.

69 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:06:01pm

re: #66 Vicious Babushka

Nope.

70 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:07:21pm

good grief…this is happening in a nearby county…

Cross Lighting Event in the Louisa/Yatesville area

71 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:07:50pm

re: #10 Gus

[Embedded content]

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch! So now the Right is OPENLY attacking Scinence in favor of Ignorance? THERE’S a great beacon of hope for humanity.

72 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:08:08pm

re: #65 geoffm33

Ahhh….It all makes sense. He’s reading from a script:

ruthfullyyours.com

What a blogroll that guy has. Why are climate deniers also likely to be haters?

Blogroll

AMERICAN CENTR FOR DEMOCRACY
AMERICAN FREEDOM ALLIANCE
ATLAS SHRUGS
CLIMATE DEPOT….DEBUNKING THE GOREONS
DIANA WEST
EYE ON THE UN…ANNE BAYEFSKY
FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS
FRONTPAGE
IBD EDITORIALS
INFIDELS ARE COOL
ISLAM IN EUROPE
ISRAELCAMPUS
JIHAD WATCH
MIDEASTOUTPOST
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
PAJAMAS MEDIA
STEVE PLAUT FROM ISRAEL
STOP THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
SULTAN KNISH
THE RELIGION OF PEACE
TOM GROSS
Translating Jihad
Z STREET

73 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:08:47pm

Not even rephrasing, to defeat a quick and casual google?

The deniers are certainly getting lazy.

74 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:09:09pm

re: #60 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

We have to pour money into green tech, so that we can can spread it throughout the world.

powerlineblog.com

spectrum.ieee.org

When making electric cars causes more pollution than just driving normal cars and when Europe as a whole is rejecting the green pyramid scheme, you need to think you might be down the wrong path…

75 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:09:24pm

re: #45 GeneJockey

Argument that Scientists all lie so they can keep getting that sweet, sweet grant money, coming in 3…2…1…

All that sweet, sweet grant money from the last 10 years combined can’t compete with that sweet, sweet payout to denialists from the Kochs.

76 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:10:19pm

re: #74 GatorsEatsTaters

powerlineblog.com

spectrum.ieee.org

When making electric cars causes more pollution than just driving normal cars and when Europe as a whole is rejecting the green pyramid scheme, you need to think you might be down the wrong path…

And what is the “right path”?

77 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:10:36pm

Pollution emitted overseas comes to the US eventually. Pollution in the West Coast ends up over NJ eventually. Anything downwind of the emitter will eventually see that pollution. The particulates may have settled out (because they’re heavier) or broken down (due to chemical reactions) or they continue to increase their presence in the atmosphere.

CO2 levels continue increasing, and natural processes do not produce the kind of increases we are seeing by themselves. We as a species are doing so through our technological and mechanical implements.

At the same time, deforestation is further reducing the planet’s capability to store CO2. The higher levels of CO2 are having an effect, and the concern is that it’s reaching a tipping point with dire consequences for agriculture (which is the keystone for society to be able feed itself and from which everything else flows). If agriculture breaks down, it’s a matter of time before you get food shortages and the likelihood of conflict rises.

The American West is already in a long term drought. That is likely to get a whole lot worse. Higher temps, less water, means that those areas will not be able to support existing populations without significant changes to how water is procured/processed/stored/recovered.

The costs of doing nothing is huge. The cost of listening to the denialists is even higher, not when we know that there are steps that can be taken to reduce the emissions that are sensible and cost-efficient over the long run.

78 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:10:52pm

re: #74 GatorsEatsTaters

You’re quoting Powerline as a legit source?

Image: trolling.jpg

79 Justanotherhuman  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:10:53pm

From the annals of famous idiocies…

7. “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

With that mouth, she spews enough of it. Image: michele-bachmann-nuts.jpg

80 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:11:09pm

Ruse: ‘Most Of The People In The United States’ Would Agree With Russia’s Anti-Gay Law

C-FAM president Austin Ruse is standing by his firm defense of the Russian law criminalizing speech that is deemed “information about non-traditional sexual behavior” to minors, which he said would even have the support of the American public. While filling in for American Family Association talk show host Sandy Rios today, Ruse discussed the “homosexual propaganda” law that is part of a growing and violent crackdown on the Russia’s LGBT community, arguing that it is “a good thing that there are laws against proselytizing the homosexual lifestyle to school children.”

He then argued that most Americans would be just fine with a ban on pro-gay rights speech: “I dare say that most of the people listening right now and most of the people in the United States would say that it would be inappropriate to proselytize the homosexual lifestyle to school children and that’s what they are doing in Russia.”

Ruse even said that the law was a fair compromise for a parent who “does not believe that this way of life is appropriate or healthy and you do not want this presented in a positive manner to your children,” while on the other hand doesn’t believe “homosexuals should be discriminated against in an unjust way.”

81 Dr. Matt  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:11:25pm
82 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:11:27pm

re: #76 Targetpractice

And what is the “right path”?

Drill baby drill!

83 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:11:30pm

re: #76 Targetpractice

I do not know, but making more pollution to try to stop pollution is literally suicide

84 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:11:36pm

re: #65 geoffm33

Ahhh….It all makes sense. He’s reading from a script:

ruthfullyyours.com

LOL. He didn’t even bother changing any of the words. Just pure copy pasta.

85 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:12:08pm

re: #74 GatorsEatsTaters

powerlineblog.com

spectrum.ieee.org

When making electric cars causes more pollution than just driving normal cars and when Europe as a whole is rejecting the green pyramid scheme, you need to think you might be down the wrong path…

POWERLINE as a source? POWERLINE?

And IEEE? Again with the fucking engineers?

86 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:12:48pm

re: #85 GeneJockey

Because engineers are totally climate scientists!

87 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:12:58pm

re: #43 GatorsEatsTaters

In the link you gave me there there was interesting piece of info in the comments where they said that if only surface volcanoes are included in the equation, then yes human output beats them. But if underwater volcanoes are included as well then in total humans lag far behind, the info was compiled by the Scripps Institute and MPI

news.discovery.com

88 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:14:04pm

re: #85 GeneJockey

I think an engineer is qualified to say “the factory making this electric cars gives off more % of gases than a normal car emission”

89 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:14:07pm

re: #83 GatorsEatsTaters

I do not know, but making more pollution to try to stop pollution is literally suicide

So you don’t know that there’s a “right” path, but know that green technology is the “wrong” one?

90 Dr. Matt  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:14:14pm

re: #74 GatorsEatsTaters

When making electric cars causes more pollution than just driving normal cars and when Europe as a whole is rejecting the green pyramid scheme, you need to think you might be down the wrong path…

1. Please provide peer-reviewed proof that: “electric cars causes more pollution than just driving normal cars.”

2. Please provide peer-reviewed proof that: “Europe as a whole is rejecting the green pyramid scheme”.


I’ll wait….

91 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:14:27pm

re: #74 GatorsEatsTaters

You’re citing to a legal blog as a authority on green energy? NOAA it isn’t. They make legal arguments. Sometimes they might be good ones.

This one isn’t. This is an appeal when the facts aren’t in their favor. They’re left with pounding on the table.

As for the other site, the electric car isn’t the only solution. It’s a solution since it reduces tailpipe emissions and can shift electric production onto those sources that are less polluting. Solar is less polluting than coal - so if your electric car is charging from a solar source, it’s far cleaner than burning gas or diesel directly in the car.

92 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:14:58pm

re: #90 Dr. Matt

How about reading the links I provided?

93 Dr. Matt  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:15:35pm

re: #88 GatorsEatsTaters

I think an engineer is qualified to say “the factory making this electric cars gives off more % of gases than a normal car emission”

No, an engineer is not qualified to make such a statement unless he used a well-designed study, with a null hypothesis, to determine if a factory making this electric cars gives off more % of gases than a normal car emission.

94 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:15:52pm

Yeah Matt, how about it?
///

95 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:15:58pm

re: #88 GatorsEatsTaters

I think an engineer is qualified to say “the factory making this electric cars gives off more % of gases than a normal car emission”

Over what time length?

96 Dr. Matt  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:16:02pm

re: #92 GatorsEatsTaters

How about reading the links I provided?

Those links do not provide peer-reviewed evidence. How about re-reading my reply. Derp

97 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:16:07pm

re: #91 lawhawk

You’re citing to a legal blog as a authority on green energy? NOAA it isn’t. They make legal arguments. Sometimes they might be good ones.

The Powerline wingnuts are hard-core climate change deniers.

I always laugh when climate change deniers cite other climate change deniers to back up their climate change denial.

98 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:16:15pm

IEEE is a good source for discussions of, you know, electrical engineering. Just because an electric car has ‘electric’ in the name doesn’t mean it’s particularly relevant to electrical engineering. The names of the game there are chemistry, material science and geology/mining. There are relevant environmental concerns pertaining to electric cars, both on the construction and power side, but IEEE isn’t a fucking reputable source for them.

99 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:16:42pm

I love pwning wingnuts.

100 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:16:42pm

re: #86 Lidane

Because engineers are totally climate scientists!

Reminds me of that Physicist who was certain that the Climate Scientists were analyzing the instrumental temperature record all wrong, so he was going to do his own analysis!

Result: Physicist discovers Climate Scientists had it right.

Corolllary: Physicist, formerly Hero of the Denialists, declared to be ‘In On It’, becomes persona non grata.

101 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:17:16pm

re: #92 GatorsEatsTaters

How about reading the links I provided?

Are you receiving any compensation for posting to blogs?

102 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:17:18pm

re: #88 GatorsEatsTaters

LOL no. Engineers aren’t scientists. Try again.

103 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:17:26pm

Also where did that GENOCIDE thing come from? Weird.

104 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:17:41pm

re: #74 GatorsEatsTaters

Do you notice I’m citing scientific sources and you’re not? Why do you think that is?

I’m not even sure what the fuck you were trying to say, except perhaps summing up research into green tech as ‘electric cars’, which is like thinking research on how to get to the moon was centered around how to blow that hatch off. It’s a teensy bit of the whole, and all green tech is immature. That’s because we need to pour tons of money into green tech.

You’re really bad at this.

105 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:18:02pm

For those who did not read the link about the cars I provided, basically what it says is that the manufacturing of the batteries for electric cars and also the making of additional infrastructure for the electric charging stations is overall using up more resources than a normal car.

As far as solutions, the best and cleanest energy we have is Nuclear, but so many people are still scared of it, despite the fact that France has used, I believe 80% of it total for their nation, and have done so for decades

106 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:18:38pm

re: #95 b_sharp

Over what time length?

Indeed, as getting a general estimate is rather dicey. IIRC, the “average” car’s lifetime is 20 years. I somehow doubt that the production of one electric car produces as much pollution as one IC car over 20 years.

107 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:19:17pm

re: #105 GatorsEatsTaters

For those who did not read the link about the cars I provided, basically what it says is that the manufacturing of the batteries for electric cars and also the making of additional infrastructure for the electric charging stations is overall using up more resources than a normal car.

As far as solutions, the best and cleanest energy we have is Nuclear, but so many people are still scared of it, despite the fact that France has used, I believe 80% of it total for their nation, and have done so for decades

So, you’re proposing nuclear cars? Or is this just another Gish Gallop?

108 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:19:18pm

re: #105 GatorsEatsTaters

As far as solutions, the best and cleanest energy we have is Nuclear, but so many people are still scared of it, despite the fact that France has used, I believe 80% of it total for their nation, and have done so for decades

France has used 80% of all the nuclear energy? Shit, we better grab some before it’s GONE!

109 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:19:39pm

re: #99 Vicious Babushka

I am amused by wingnuts talking up the light rail in Houston. When I was growing up in Houston, any mention of light rail was met with ZOMG SOSHULIST TYRANNY and ZOMG GUBMINT HANDOUTS.

110 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:20:32pm

re: #105 GatorsEatsTaters

For those who did not read the link about the cars I provided, basically what it says is that the manufacturing of the batteries for electric cars and also the making of additional infrastructure for the electric charging stations is overall using up more resources than a normal car.

Presuming that this were so, the humble Model T was also a much less efficient vehicle than a Ford Fusion. A great deal of investment, especially infrastructure, could benefit arbitrarily awesome electric cars using techniques that are not yet available (ultracapacitors, say, with essentially zero rare earth metal content). That the very first examples of a type are not very good is unsurprising: the very first examples of anything tend to be pretty crappy compared to what will follow.

111 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:20:34pm

re: #108 wrenchwench

France has used 80% of all the nuclear energy? Shit, we better grab some before it’s GONE!

It will never be gone. 100% of all available Nucular energy will always be available.

112 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:20:51pm

re: #86 Lidane

It’s funny. You know who else like to cite electrical engineers as scientific authorities for their piles of bullshit?

Holocaust deniers

113 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:21:41pm

re: #105 GatorsEatsTaters

For those who did not read the link about the cars I provided, basically what it says is that the manufacturing of the batteries for electric cars and also the making of additional infrastructure for the electric charging stations is overall using up more resources than a normal car.

As far as solutions, the best and cleanest energy we have is Nuclear, but so many people are still scared of it, despite the fact that France has used, I believe 80% of it total for their nation, and have done so for decades

Ok, seriously, do you think we just adopted internal combustion powered automobiles last decade? That the infrastructure just sprung up like Athena from the head of Zeus? Of course it’s taking time and resources to set up a whole new support infrastructure to support a whole new class of vehicles. That’s like saying that we should never have converted over to jet airliners because the cost of building them is more than that of reciprocating engines.

114 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:21:42pm

re: #93 Dr. Matt

Not only that, but compare the power/emissions requirements for an electric car factory to those of a conventionally powered car factory, then compare the tailpipe emissions of each fleet of vehicles produced.

The results? Definitely don’t favor the conventionally powered car-factory (life-cycle).

At most, factories contribute 13% to the life-cycle of the vehicle produced (and more details here on hybrids like the Prius v. Hummer).

115 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:21:54pm

re: #111 geoffm33

It will never be gone. 100% of all available Nucular will always be available.

I almost used that spelling myself….

116 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:23:24pm

re: #115 wrenchwench

I almost used that spelling myself….

It’s fun :)

117 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:23:51pm

re: #109 Lidane

I am amused by wingnuts talking up the light rail in Houston. When I was growing up in Houston, any mention of light rail was met with ZOMG SOSHULIST TYRANNY and ZOMG GUBMINT HANDOUTS.

Any reason to post a picture of a Detroit slum and compare it infavorably with a picture of another city’s thriving neighborhood.

Detroit has nice scenes too.

118 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:25:14pm

re: #117 Vicious Babushka

STOP MESSING UP THE NARRATIVE LIBTARD!

119 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:25:39pm

The discussion reminded me that back in the 70’s there was a plan to put giant, and I mean giant, solar satellites in orbit to beam the energy down to earth. Carl Sagan loved the idea and the NSS backed the plan fully. Problem was the plan conflicted with the other green ideas at the time, like wind power, so it’s opponents put out false info that these microwave beams would zap through planes and give people cancer and that it would fry birds in mid-air, so the plan never even got to Carter’s desk for approval

120 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:25:55pm

re: #113 Targetpractice

Ok, seriously, do you think we just adopted internal combustion powered automobiles last decade? That the infrastructure just sprung up like Athena from the head of Zeus? Of course it’s taking time and resources to set up a whole new support infrastructure to support a whole new class of vehicles. That’s like saying that we should never have converted over to jet airliners because the cost of building them is more than that of reciprocating engines.

This guy is using standard Gish Gallop techniques, and pouring out a blunderbuss full of nonsense, much of which sounds convincing to laymen, from sources which sound convincing to laymen (“Electrical engineers? they must be the experts!”). He then refuses to engage when questioned, but rather moves on to the next spew.

I begin to think it’s not a person, but rather a subroutine. A Bullshit-Bot, if you will.

121 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:26:06pm

re: #118 geoffm33

STOP MESSING UP THE NARRATIVE LIBTARD!

122 Sol Berdinowitz  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:26:29pm

re: #117 Vicious Babushka

Any reason to post a picture of a Detroit slum and compare it infavorably with a picture of another city’s thriving neighborhood.

Detroit has nice scenes too.

because Twitter is a fucking useless platform to discuss anything that requries nuance, multiple references or a big-picture overview.

But you know that, and you also know I love reminding you of that.

123 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:26:36pm

re: #53 Interesting Times

Did Borlaug have any opinions on climate change and sustainability? For some reason, the deniers have glommed on to him as supporting their alternate reality.

Borlaug believed population growth had to be brought under control, which certainly implies that he did not believe in indefinite sustainability. The deniers are probably picking up on his long running conflict with certain environmentalists and taking it out of context.

124 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:26:47pm

re: #119 GatorsEatsTaters

Again, just posting yet another inane yawlp without acknowledging your previous point just got busted makes you look desperately pathetic.

125 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:26:50pm

re: #108 wrenchwench

Japan also had a significant portion of their power grid powered by nuclear reactors (about 30%). That’s all changed following the Fukushima disaster and TEPCO’s incompetence, negligence, inability to follow safety protocols, and inability to get the ongoing nuclear disaster safely under control. Prior to the disaster, the Japanese government was looking to increase the percentage of power generated by nuclear, but now it looks like they’re going to drop their power generated by nuclear to 15%.

126 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:26:58pm

re: #119 GatorsEatsTaters

The discussion reminded me that back in the 70’s there was a plan to put giant, and I mean giant, solar satellites in orbit to beam the energy down to earth. Carl Sagan loved the idea and the NSS backed the plan fully. Problem was the plan conflicted with the other green ideas at the time, like wind power, so it’s opponents put out false info that these microwave beams would zap through planes and give people cancer and that it would fry birds in mid-air, so the plan never even got to Carter’s desk for approval

I like stories.

127 engineer cat  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:27:18pm

re: #105 GatorsEatsTaters

For those who did not read the link about the cars I provided, basically what it says is that the manufacturing of the batteries for electric cars and also the making of additional infrastructure for the electric charging stations is overall using up more resources than a normal car.

As far as solutions, the best and cleanest energy we have is Nuclear, but so many people are still scared of it, despite the fact that France has used, I believe 80% of it total for their nation, and have done so for decades

the biggest selling point for electric cars, as far as i am concerned, is that they are not producing pollution at the physical location where they are driving around

electricity can be produced 1) at centralized locations, far away from where your children would be breathing, and 2) from any number of different sources

128 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:27:22pm

re: #119 GatorsEatsTaters

The discussion reminded me

Really? It wouldn’t remind me of that at all, since as near as I can tell that thought is 100% disconnected from any of your previous thoughts.

129 Dr. Matt  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:27:26pm

re: #119 GatorsEatsTaters

The discussion reminded me that back in the 70’s there was a plan to put giant, and I mean giant, solar satellites in orbit to beam the energy down to earth. Carl Sagan loved the idea and the NSS backed the plan fully. Problem was the plan conflicted with the other green ideas at the time, like wind power, so it’s opponents put out false info that these microwave beams would zap through planes and give people cancer and that it would fry birds in mid-air, so the plan never even got to Carter’s desk for approval

Please provide relevant citations.

130 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:27:42pm

re: #126 geoffm33

I like stories.

I like pie.

131 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:28:07pm

re: #119 GatorsEatsTaters

[citation needed]

132 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:28:21pm

re: #129 Dr. Matt

Google is your friend

133 Dr Lizardo  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:28:29pm

re: #130 erik_t

I like pie.

I love lamp.

134 Dr. Matt  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:28:44pm
re: #126 geoffm33

I like stories.

re: #130 erik_t

I like pie.

I like turtles

Youtube Video

135 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:28:56pm

re: #107 GeneJockey

So, you’re proposing nuclear cars? Or is this just another Gish Gallop?

Fuck nucular cars, we need pedal cars.

136 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:28:59pm

Good freaking grief.

137 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:29:10pm

That sound you hear is a bunch of derptards calling Huckabee a RINO:


138 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:29:16pm

re: #131 Internet Tough Guy

nss.org search the energy pdf section

139 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:29:30pm

re: #132 GatorsEatsTaters

Google is your friend

Galloping from “here are some sources” to “here’s a cover story in a magazine” to “go use google”.

Next I suppose your reply will be SHUT UP, BECAUSE UM MAGNETS.

140 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:29:37pm

re: #132 GatorsEatsTaters

NO U

You made the claim; you back it up.

141 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:29:42pm

re: #119 GatorsEatsTaters

The discussion reminded me that back in the 70’s there was a plan to put giant, and I mean giant, solar satellites in orbit to beam the energy down to earth. Carl Sagan loved the idea and the NSS backed the plan fully. Problem was the plan conflicted with the other green ideas at the time, like wind power, so it’s opponents put out false info that these microwave beams would zap through planes and give people cancer and that it would fry birds in mid-air, so the plan never even got to Carter’s desk for approval

And here, by “plan”, you mean somebody said, “Gee, maybe we could…”, not something that anyone actually evaluate, with costs and such, especially considering the cost of lifting anything into orbit.

Another spew from the Bullshit Blunderbuss.

142 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:29:53pm

Isn’t that odd that I didn’t use the word Pwn3d in my Tweet about Houston, but used it here? So “Bud Fox” must have read my comment here. Stalker?

143 gwangung  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:29:57pm

re: #92 GatorsEatsTaters

How about reading the links I provided?

If you knew what you were talking about, I’d see links to journals and peer-reviewed research.

You DO know what they are, don’t you?

Go primary…it’s a lot less troublesome.

144 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:30:11pm

OUTRAGE!

145 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:30:16pm

re: #119 GatorsEatsTaters

The discussion reminded me that back in the 70’s there was a plan to put giant, and I mean giant, solar satellites in orbit to beam the energy down to earth. Carl Sagan loved the idea and the NSS backed the plan fully. Problem was the plan conflicted with the other green ideas at the time, like wind power, so it’s opponents put out false info that these microwave beams would zap through planes and give people cancer and that it would fry birds in mid-air, so the plan never even got to Carter’s desk for approval

And your point is???

Or do you actually have one?

146 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:30:20pm

re: #126 geoffm33

Hey, there was a story way back when that humanity came from Cardiff, NY. And they were giants. Want proof? Come to Cooperstown to see the proof.

147 darthstar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:30:24pm

Climate change is just a distraction to keep us from talking about Glenn Greenwald the NSA!!!

148 darthstar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:31:08pm

re: #144 Lidane

OUTRAGE!

[Embedded content]

Did they ban the announcer?

149 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:31:11pm

re: #146 lawhawk

Taller than Goliath!!

150 Dr. Matt  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:31:12pm

re: #132 GatorsEatsTaters

Google is your friend

You’re the derptard that is making up the stories. Unless you can provide evidence, then you are a lowlife liar.

151 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:31:21pm

re: #132 GatorsEatsTaters

Google is your friend

Obviously not yours, else you’d be able to back up your shit. We’re not your research staff.

152 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:31:29pm

re: #144 Lidane

Dude now has a steady income for life as right-wing martyr.

153 Jack Burton  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:31:34pm

re: #139 erik_t

Galloping from “here are some sources” to “here’s a cover story in a magazine” to “go use google”.

Next I suppose your reply will be SHUT UP, BECAUSE UM MAGNETS.

How do they work??!?

154 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:31:37pm

re: #127 engineer cat

electricity can be produced 1) at centralized locations, far away from where your children would be breathing, and 2) from any number of different sources

This is really the important point: electric cars offer the opportunity to decouple energy production from energy usage, both geographically and in terms of mobility and process.

Big X is almost always more efficient than Small X, and Heavy Stationary X is almost always more efficient than Lightweight Moving X. Even if we don’t get super magical awesome fusion whatsit, large central power generation stations are dramatically more efficient than internal-combustion cars.

155 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:32:00pm

re: #127 engineer cat

the biggest selling point for electric cars, as far as i am concerned, is that they are not producing pollution at the physical location where they are driving around

electricity can be produced 1) at centralized locations, far away from where your children would be breathing, and 2) from any number of different sources

Also a lot easier to put up a single complex CO2 capture system in a fixed location than trying to miniaturize it and put it in thousands of autos where it will not get the proper maintenance.

156 gwangung  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:32:15pm

re: #138 GatorsEatsTaters

nss.org search the energy pdf section

In other words, you don’t have the citation. ANd you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

157 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:32:19pm

*FACE PALM*

158 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:32:49pm

re: #139 erik_t

Galloping from “here are some sources” to “here’s a cover story in a magazine” to “go use google”.

Next I suppose your reply will be SHUT UP, BECAUSE UM MAGNETS.

Don’t you dare bring magnets into it. Nobody will understand a thing.

159 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:33:44pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

Before you continue, I have one question. Can you explain who “the above poster” is and what the actual comment you are referring to was:

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right.

160 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:34:06pm

Ron Paul is talkin’ bout a revolution with the launch of internet based news service, the Ron Paul channel

The service costs $10 a month, and 200,000 people expressed interest when the project was announced this summer.

161 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:34:50pm

re: #153 Jack Burton

How do they work??!?

magic…

162 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:35:05pm

re: #160 NJDhockeyfan

Ron Paul is talkin’ bout a revolution with the launch of internet based news service, the Ron Paul channel

A fool and their money…

163 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:35:15pm

re: #161 Backwoods_Sleuth

magic…

They suck your brains.

164 Bulworth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:35:18pm

re: #144 Lidane

I can’t wait until president Ted Cruz Paul is in office in 2017 and we can go back to the good old days when anything hostile or critical is said about a (Republican) U.S. president we’ll be reminded by patriotic conservatives that such disrespectful behavior is treasonous and will result in our records being smashed (if we’re lucky).

//

165 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:35:20pm

re: #132 GatorsEatsTaters

Google is your friend

Google hates your guts.

166 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:35:41pm

re: #160 NJDhockeyfan

Ron Paul is talkin’ bout a revolution with the launch of internet based news service, the Ron Paul channel

Ten thousand? We could buy our own ship for that!

167 lawhawk  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:35:53pm

re: #153 Jack Burton

I don’t get the attraction. /

168 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:36:02pm

re: #159 geoffm33

Before you continue, I have one question. Can you explain who the poster above is and what the actual comment you are referring to was:

The point here was very obviously to inject as much misinformation as possible into the discussion.

169 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:36:43pm

re: #165 wrenchwench

Google hates your guts.

Even worse than that - Google is indifferent to you.

170 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:36:44pm

When you idiots in Texas poison all your water, you will come begging to buy fresh water from Michigan & Canada.

On second thought, idiots in Texas will try to conquer Michigan & Canada WITH THERE GUNZ and steal all our waters.

171 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:36:52pm

re: #168 Charles Johnson

The point here was very obviously to inject as much misinformation as possible into the discussion.

Yeah, I know. Would love to see a mea culpa vis-a-vis the copy pasta.

172 sagehen  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:37:06pm

re: #148 darthstar

Did they ban the announcer?

from the article:

“The rodeo’s announcer — whom some media initially identified as making the comments about Obama — sought Monday to distance himself from the clown’s actions.”

173 Lidane  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:37:13pm


Dear San Diego,

Plz to recall and/or force this total fucking sleazebag out of the mayor’s office.

Kthxbai.

Sincerely,
Me

174 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:37:14pm

re: #168 Charles Johnson

The point here was very obviously to inject as much misinformation as possible into the discussion.

Ink clouds belong on squid.

175 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:37:42pm

re: #169 Charles Johnson

Even worse than that - Google is indifferent to you.

Waaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

176 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:37:49pm

re: #174 erik_t

Ink clouds belong on squid.

Evolution?

177 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:38:05pm

re: #138 GatorsEatsTaters

That’s interesting; according to Wiki, space solar research was killed by Reagan.

The last report by OTA was in 1981.

Thanks for playing.

178 sagehen  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:38:06pm

re: #170 Vicious Babushka

When you idiots in Texas poison all your water, you will come begging to buy fresh water from Michigan & Canada.

[Embedded content]

On second thought, idiots in Texas will try to conquer Michigan & Canada WITH THERE GUNZ and steal all our waters.

And they’ll cart it away In 5-gallon jugs?

179 Jack Burton  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:38:12pm

re: #160 NJDhockeyfan

Ron Paul is talkin’ bout a revolution with the launch of internet based news service, the Ron Paul channel

Provider One wagers 2000 quatloos that he very first article posted on that site is riddled with easily refuted or previously debunked conspiracy theory talking points.

180 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:38:12pm

re: #170 Vicious Babushka

When you idiots in Texas poison all your water, you will come begging to buy fresh water from Michigan & Canada.

[Embedded content]

On second thought, idiots in Texas will try to conquer Michigan & Canada WITH THERE GUNZ and steal all our waters.


Plenty of Oil, but No Water

Please proceed.

181 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:38:13pm

re: #170 Vicious Babushka

When you idiots in Texas poison all your water, you will come begging to buy fresh water from Michigan & Canada.

On second thought, idiots in Texas will try to conquer Michigan & Canada WITH THERE GUNZ and steal all our waters.

Los Angeles was much more subtle.

182 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:38:22pm

re: #173 Lidane

[Embedded content]


Dear San Diego,

Plz to recall and/or force this total fucking sleazebag out of the mayor’s office.

Kthxbai.

Sincerely,
Me

I’m unclear on that part, is he subject to recall? Because if so, I’d like to know just how far down the rabbit hole we have to go before the angry mob with torches and pitchforks makes its appearance.

183 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:38:45pm

re: #173 Lidane

[Embedded content]


Dear San Diego,

Plz to recall and/or force this total fucking sleazebag out of the mayor’s office.

Kthxbai.

Sincerely,
Me

They’re working on it.

184 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:39:07pm

re: #170 Vicious Babushka

When you idiots in Texas poison all your water, you will come begging to buy fresh water from Michigan & Canada.

And dipshit Harper will set a precedent by selling some to them.

On second thought, idiots in Texas will try to conquer Michigan & Canada WITH THERE GUNZ and steal all our waters.

185 Decatur Deb  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:39:18pm

Done arguing with climate deniers. Most are invincibly ignorant, a significant share are paid corporate shills. The few “Others” are sad and unreachable.

186 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:39:45pm

re: #170 Vicious Babushka

When you idiots in Texas poison all your water, you will come begging to buy fresh water from Michigan & Canada.

[Embedded content]

On second thought, idiots in Texas will try to conquer Michigan & Canada WITH THERE GUNZ and steal all our waters.

Aren’t the Great Lakes already at record low levels?

187 Interesting Times  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:40:07pm

re: #185 Decatur Deb

Done arguing with climate deniers. Most are invincibly ignorant, a significant share are paid corporate shills. The few “Others” are sad and unreachable.

It’s still important to rebut their derp for the benefit of bystanders caught in the way.

188 engineer cat  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:40:15pm

re: #165 wrenchwench

Google hates your guts.

google is yet another media company that provides things to you for free so that you can become the product that it sells to its customers who buy advertising from it

189 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:40:26pm

re: #186 Targetpractice

Aren’t the Great Lakes already at record low levels?

Extraterrestrials sucking our water.

190 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:40:52pm

Limbaugh: Christians ‘cannot believe in manmade global warming’

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh advised his religious listeners on Monday that “intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming” and also believe in God.

At an event on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry had said that climate change was “a challenge to our responsibilities as the guardians-safe guarders of God’s creation.”

“What about God’s creation called a fetus?” Limbaugh asked on Monday. “See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming.”

191 Spocomptonite  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:41:54pm

re: #27 GatorsEatsTaters

The above poster talking about nature kicking our ass in the “does more climate damage than we do” department is actually right. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland recently has totally erased every single effort any of us have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon in the last few years. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. AND I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. So unless we have technology to shut down volcanoes, any plan we think of will be, pardon the volcano pun, blown up.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

USGS: Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview:

While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.”

The bolding and emphasis was not mine.

192 Decatur Deb  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:42:08pm

re: #187 Interesting Times

It’s still important to rebut their derp for the benefit of bystanders caught in the way.

More useful to get stats and physics concepts into the lower grades. And to prevent the TPGOP from destroying public education.

193 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:42:11pm

re: #185 Decatur Deb

Done arguing with climate deniers. Most are invincibly ignorant, a significant share are paid corporate shills. The few “Others” are sad and unreachable.

This one was not very good at it. I wonder if corporate shills should be expected to perform better.

194 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:42:15pm

re: #177 Internet Tough Guy

spacejournal.ohio.edu
“They had convinced President Carter … to kill the program”

Retard

195 sagehen  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:42:45pm

Louie CK on climate change:

Youtube Video

196 engineer cat  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:43:13pm

re: #190 Kragar

Limbaugh: Christians ‘cannot believe in manmade global warming’

Limbaugh

intellectually

two words that do not belong in the same sentence

197 Ace-o-aces  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:43:26pm

re: #183 Kragar

They’re working on it.

Yeah. There is a process we have to observe and the recall efforts can’t officially begin until Filner is given a chance to respond. Also they weather has been really nice out this past week so were a little behind on things….

198 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:43:55pm

re: #184 b_sharp

And dipshit Harper will set a precedent by selling some to them.

So Keystone II will be the water pipeline from Lake Superior to Texas. And it shall never mix with Keystone I.
;)

199 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:44:05pm

re: #190 Kragar

“What about God’s creation called a fetus?” Limbaugh asked on Monday. “See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming.”

Holy non sequitur Batman!

200 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:44:30pm

re: #179 Jack Burton

Provider One wagers 2000 quatloos that he very first article posted on that site is riddled with easily refuted or previously debunked conspiracy theory talking points.

Guess who his very first guest is going to be?


LOL!

201 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:44:47pm

re: #194 GatorsEatsTaters

You of all people should not throw that word around lightly.

202 Gus  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:44:49pm

re: #142 Vicious Babushka

Isn’t that odd that I didn’t use the word Pwn3d in my Tweet about Houston, but used it here? So “Bud Fox” must have read my comment here. Stalker?

Will the real Bud Fox please stand up!

203 Ace-o-aces  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:45:20pm

re: #199 geoffm33

“What about God’s creation called a fetus?” Limbaugh asked on Monday. “See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming.”

That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

204 Bulworth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:46:49pm

re: #196 engineer cat

Also, too: Christian

205 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:47:25pm

re: #202 Gus

Will the real Bud Fox please stand up!

It’s a stalker. Has the usual suspects in its timeline.

206 EPR-radar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:47:26pm

re: #190 Kragar

That’s idiotic, even for Limbaugh.

He’s actually arguing that humanity can’t wreck the climate (for us) because we can’t create or completely control it.

Limbaugh has deliberately forgotten that of course destruction is easier than creation.

207 Patricia Kayden  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:47:31pm

re: #2 Charles Johnson

I now see why there are so many nasty and stupid replies to these tweets: the ignorant anti-science wingnut mob was called out by Michelle Malkin’s Twitter-trolling site, Twitchy.com: #ScienceSaidSo: Iowahawk, Others Offer Historical Perspective to BarackObama’s Settled Science | Twitchy.

Well maybe Obama should take a different tactic and say that climate change is not happening, is a fraud and is unscientific. Rightwingers will suddenly realize that climate change is for real.

208 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:47:31pm

re: #201 wrenchwench

You of all people should not throw that word around lightly.

He’s run out of bogus arguments, so is now spiraling down the drain of last gasp (and painfully unimaginative) insults.

209 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:47:57pm

re: #204 Bulworth

Also, too: Christian

Nothing more Christian than Viagra-fueled orgies with underage hookers in Costa Rica.

211 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:48:06pm

Shooting sports super-gouger Cheaper Than Dirt! (aka Cheating the Dupes!) thinks the high school rifle range in Georgia is really cool.

Okay, CTD, just how are they going to afford, or even find, ammunition to use on this range when you and your fellow profiteers have incited the nutcases to pay astronomical prices and monopolize the supply?

212 Jack Burton  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:48:09pm

re: #185 Decatur Deb

Done arguing with climate deniers. Most are invincibly ignorant, a significant share are paid corporate shills. The few “Others” are sad and unreachable.

When you are inundated with bullshit telling you what you want to hear daily, and only hear opposing viewpoints through the spectrum of ridicule and from people you don’t trust to begin with for whatever reason, it’s not that hard to become apparently ‘unreachable’.

Confirmation bias is a bitch and just about *everyone* falls prey to at some point on some issues. Remaining diligent against it requires a lot of mental work and this mystic sorcery known as critical thinking, and most people can’t be assed to do it.

213 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:48:31pm

re: #208 Backwoods_Sleuth

He said Reagan killed it with no proof and i just showed that it was Carter. So I guess I just won the bragging rights prize

214 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:48:42pm

re: #208 Backwoods_Sleuth

He’s run out of bogus arguments, so is now spiraling down the drain of last gasp (and painfully unimaginative) insults.

prelude to a grand flounce, perhaps…

215 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:49:08pm

re: #206 EPR-radar

That’s idiotic, even for Limbaugh.

He’s actually arguing that humanity can’t wreck the climate (for us) because we can’t create or completely control it.

Limbaugh has deliberately forgotten that of course destruction is easier than creation.

So, according to Rush, the GOP should stop trying to control women because they can’t create them.

216 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:49:13pm
In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy, a federal judge has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in New York, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.

In a blistering decision issued on Monday, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department had “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling” that targeted young minority men for stops. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said the city would appeal the ruling, angrily accusing the judge of deliberately not giving the city “a fair trial.”

217 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:49:21pm

re: #213 GatorsEatsTaters

He said Reagan killed it with no proof and i just showed that it was Carter. So I guess I just won the bragging rights prize

You do this for ‘bragging rights’? You work cheap!

218 Dr. Matt  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:49:35pm

re: #194 GatorsEatsTaters

spacejournal.ohio.edu
“They had convinced President Carter … to kill the program”

Retard

Speaking of being retard….you should have read the rest of your link, you drooling doofus:

Four major stumbling blocks arose. The first was the political opposition orchestrated by the Nuclear Fusion advocates in the Department of Energy. They had convinced President Carter … to kill the program. The second was a lack of understanding among the scientific community about how commercial production programs would be able to reduce manufacturing costs. For example, in their cost analysis of the system, evaluators looked at the laboratory cost of manufacturing solar cells, which was quite high at that time with very limited production. They then multiplied the cost of those cells by the millions that would be required for the size and number of satellites proposed, and concluded that the cost would be prohibitive. In their critiques, they reported that energy costs were too high to be competitive with terrestrial sources, which at that time were still quite cheap. Mainly, they did not understand, or did not take into consideration, how mass production could dramatically reduce production costs. The third stumbling block was the general feeling that nothing in space could be low cost: “just look at all of NASA’s program cost over-runs,” was a typical comment. The fourth concern was the high initial cost of space infrastructure, the up-front cost of creating a reusable transportation system.

Are you pretending to be a retard?

219 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:49:54pm

re: #217 wrenchwench

So your ignoring that he was wrong and I was right?

220 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:50:24pm

re: #219 GatorsEatsTaters

So your ignoring that he was wrong and I was right?

See above. Mr. Timing.

221 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:50:30pm

re: #213 GatorsEatsTaters

He said Reagan killed it with no proof and i just showed that it was Carter. So I guess I just won the bragging rights prize

Youtube Video

222 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:50:32pm

re: #218 Dr. Matt

It still says Carter stopped the program, not Reagan, that was the whole argument

223 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:50:42pm

re: #194 GatorsEatsTaters

NO U.

God knows what those ellipses replaced.

Besides:
A. That part was uncited, even though other claims in the article had citations, so it’s garbage.
B. You called out wind power advocates for trying to kill SPS, even though this article (baselessly) called out nuclear fusion. Did you even read your source?
B. If Jimmy Carter killed the program, why was the OTA doing work on SPS early into the Reagan administration? Did OTA violate an order from the president?

224 EPR-radar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:50:49pm

re: #215 Kragar

So, according to Rush, the GOP should stop trying to control women because they can’t create them.

And every murder serves as a brutal counter-example to Rush’s silly ‘reasoning’.

225 GatorsEatsTaters  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:51:46pm

re: #223 Internet Tough Guy

The guy writing the article was a lead director of the program so I would hardly call it “garbage”

226 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:52:10pm
They had convinced President Carter … to kill the program.

What was ellipsed out, I wonder?

227 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:52:32pm

re: #219 GatorsEatsTaters

So your ignoring that he was wrong and I was right?

What is that, right once out of several thousand?

Do you need recognition of your stopped clock status?

228 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:52:32pm

re: #222 GatorsEatsTaters

No, that was your argument. Everyone else just thought you were full of shit from the get go.

229 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:52:49pm

re: #219 GatorsEatsTaters

So your ignoring that he was wrong and I was right?

You’re ignoring everything I asked.

Are you paid to do this?

230 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:52:53pm

re: #219 GatorsEatsTaters

So your ignoring that he was wrong and I was right?

So, in your mind…In this thread…are you 1 for 4 in your arguments? Or do you think you are batting a thousand?

231 Interesting Times  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:53:41pm

re: #229 wrenchwench

You’re ignoring everything I asked.

Are you paid to do this?

You would think the Kochs of all people could afford better shills.

232 gwangung  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:53:42pm

re: #225 GatorsEatsTaters

The guy writing the article was a lead director of the program so I would hardly call it “garbage”

That doesn’t necessarily follow.

You don’t have a good grasp on logic, do you?

233 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:54:31pm

SPS is much like nuclear fusion, namely a pipe dream. It’s a paper project that never goes anywhere except to the scifi section of your local media outlet. Considering all the headaches NASA has had in the time since 1980, whether it be two shuttle disasters, various and sundry satellite failures, or monstrous cost overruns, is it any wonder that the experts took a look at the numbers and decided it was best forgotten?

234 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:55:00pm

re: #229 wrenchwench

You’re ignoring everything I asked.

Are you paid to do this?

OF COURSE he ignores everything you said. That’s what he does - spew a blunderbuss of bullshit that he copied somewhere and don’t defend it. Get us to run around spending out time debunking it while he fires another blunderbussload.

235 Interesting Times  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:55:37pm

Shorter shill: all my denialist talking points got reduced to flaming wreckage, so i’m going to cherry-pick a shiny distracting side issue and hope it hides all the other stupid crap i spewed.

236 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:55:54pm

OT (and current discussion) question. Thinking of starting to read Iain Bank’s non-SF novels. Worth the time, mixed bag, or to be avoided?

237 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:56:23pm

I’m still curious what the SPS program has to do with AGW.

238 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:56:35pm

re: #235 Interesting Times

Yeah, I pretty much am done and sorry I got caught up in this distraction.

239 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:56:54pm

re: #184 b_sharp

And dipshit Harper will set a precedent by selling some to them.

And dipshit Snyder will sell it MOAR CHEEPER.

240 Interesting Times  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:57:09pm

re: #237 GeneJockey

I’m still curious what the SPS program has to do with AGW.

See #235

241 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:57:14pm

re: #213 GatorsEatsTaters

He said Reagan killed it with no proof and i just showed that it was Carter. So I guess I just won the bragging rights prize

He cited the OTA report. How is that “with no proof”?

242 engineer cat  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:57:26pm

re: #225 GatorsEatsTaters

The type of food eaten by alligators depends upon their age and size. When young, alligators eat fish, insects, snails, crustaceans, and worms. As they mature, progressively larger prey is taken, including larger fish such as gar, turtles, various mammals, particularly nutria and muskrat, as well as birds, deer and other reptiles

243 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:57:37pm

re: #222 GatorsEatsTaters

It still says Carter stopped the program, not Reagan, that was the whole argument

The program was discontinued by the Reagan administration. Period, full stop. Are you embarrassed yet?

Space-Based Solar Power

Between 1978 and 1981, the Congress authorized the Department of Energy (DoE) and NASA to jointly investigate the concept. They organized the Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program.[4][5] The study remains the most extensive performed to date (budget $50 million).[6] Several reports were published investigating the engineering feasibility of such an engineering project. They include:

Resource Requirements (Critical Materials, Energy, and Land)[7]
Financial/Management Scenarios[8][9]
Public Acceptance[10]
State and Local Regulations as Applied to Satellite Power System Microwave Receiving Antenna Facilities[11]
Student Participation[12]
Potential of Laser for SBSP Power Transmission[13]
International Agreements[14][15]
Centralization/Decentralization[16]
Mapping of Exclusion Areas For Rectenna Sites[17]
Economic and Demographic Issues Related to Deployment[18]
Some Questions and Answers[19]
Meteorological Effects on Laser Beam Propagation and Direct Solar Pumped Lasers[20]
Public Outreach Experiment[21]
Power Transmission and Reception Technical Summary and Assessment[22]
Space Transportation[23]

The project was not continued with the change in administrations after the 1980 US Federal elections.

244 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:58:00pm

re: #237 GeneJockey

I think he was trying to blame environmentalists for keeping us from having our cheap energy utopia, cuz planes or something.

Maybe if he actually read his sources, he could have come up with a better argument, but was too much of lazy ass to be bothered to do it.

245 geoffm33  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:58:08pm

re: #237 GeneJockey

I’m still curious what the SPS program has to do with AGW.

Ahh you see, therein lies the rub. I suppose if SPS were successfully implemented we would not be dependent on fossil fuels. Which lead to man made global warming? Wait, fuck!

246 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:58:48pm

re: #242 engineer cat

The type of food eaten by alligators depends upon their age and size. When young, alligators eat fish, insects, snails, crustaceans, and worms. As they mature, progressively larger prey is taken, including larger fish such as gar, turtles, various mammals, particularly nutria and muskrat, as well as birds, deer and other reptiles

So, nothing about taters?

THIS SON OF BITCH HAS BEEN LYING THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME!

247 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:59:29pm

re: #246 Kragar

So, nothing about taters?

THIS SON OF BITCH HAS BEEN LYING THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME!

Fries on the side with ketchup to make the muskrat taste better.
/

248 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:59:50pm

re: #243 Charles Johnson

Are you embarrassed yet?

Would require a personality transplant implant.

249 steve_davis  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 1:59:56pm

re: #14 engineer cat

where do you stand on the pythagorean theorem?

my guess would be in the obtuse angle.

250 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:00:18pm

re: #246 Kragar

So, nothing about taters?

THIS SON OF BITCH HAS BEEN LYING THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME!

You’ve been prawned.

251 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:02:53pm

re: #237 GeneJockey

I’m still curious what the SPS program has to do with AGW.

Chaff, that’s all it is. Throwing out these “green energy wonders” that were “killed” on the orders of some green energy cabal, rather than because the actual experts looked at the figures, looked at the steps involved, and shit-canned the whole thing. I’ve heard similar accusations that nuke regulations passed under Carter that effectively killed new reactor production was pushed by green tech companies, rather than public reaction to the very real dangers of Gen-2 nuclear reactors.

252 A Man for all Seasons  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:02:57pm

Well maybe Climate change is a complete fraud. You know, if NASA could offer any proof from Sat. Data. Or those dang supercomputers..If only we could believe the results. There are almost 100% of all Scientific studies that show issues with our climate..Why not 100% ? 97.5% doesn’t cut it. If a 100% doesn’t agree then it’s a fraud.
Everybody is in on it..The BIG FRAUD! Why do we even trust Scientists? Everybody knows they lie. Just because most Farmers who’s livelihood depends on Climate stability are noticing drastic changes? They are great big frauds that are in on it also.
Everybody is a fraud!

It reminds me of the late 70’s when you couldn’t breath the air in LA..
Rivers were catching fire..Cars were dirty.. hundreds of Super cleanup sites existed with chemicals mixing with the ground water table..
The Government led by the Republicans cleaned up our air and water and chemicals.
Look at the progress we have made..
Oh, how far you have fallen GOP from grace…It is you that are frauds..

254 Political Atheist  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:04:08pm

Yeesh. Jusat stopping by on break. I smell something in here… Old amphibian?

255 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:05:07pm

re: #253 Kragar

Olympic Committee: Athletes Who Speak Out Against Russian Anti-Gay Law Could Be Disqualified

*headdesk*

Time for another boycott.

256 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:05:17pm

re: #253 Kragar

Olympic Committee: Athletes Who Speak Out Against Russian Anti-Gay Law Could Be Disqualified

The IOC is damned near as corrupt as the Russians, so maybe I am not surprised.

What an absurdity.

257 Just Here for the Cookies  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:06:08pm

re: #254 Political Atheist

Yeesh. Jusat stopping by on break. I smell something in here… Old amphibian?

Cleanup still going on.

258 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:07:43pm

re: #255 Targetpractice

*headdesk*

Time for another boycott.

The easy, obvious, correct approach that hurts nobody but the Russians is to backtrack and just hold them in Vancouver again.

This is so easy, obvious and correct that it has no chance of actually happening.

259 Bulworth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:07:52pm

re: #253 Kragar

All this talk about Russia and their anti-gay law and anti-gay violence and stuff is just a distraction to distract from GG and NSA super surveillance spying. //

260 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:10:13pm

re: #251 Targetpractice

Chaff, that’s all it is. Throwing out these “green energy wonders” that were “killed” on the orders of some green energy cabal, rather than because the actual experts looked at the figures, looked at the steps involved, and shit-canned the whole thing. I’ve heard similar accusations that nuke regulations passed under Carter that effectively killed new reactor production was pushed by green tech companies, rather than public reaction to the very real dangers of Gen-2 nuclear reactors.

The great thing about these ‘plans’ is that they never had to deal with reality. For example, on SPS there’s the issue of cost to lift all the hardware to orbit. Proponents (and this Nansen reads as a guy who got his Cheerios pissed in and never got over it) will say, “Economies of scale! It wouldn’t cost nearly as much as was projected!”, for example.

261 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:10:52pm

re: #253 Kragar

Olympic Committee: Athletes Who Speak Out Against Russian Anti-Gay Law Could Be Disqualified

What? Fuck them crosswise with rusty razors.

262 Bulworth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:12:42pm

You people talking about climate change and Russia’s anti-gay policies and culture, don’t you realize that what Big Brother CIA and NSA could do someday, maybe, is the only important matter facing this country right now?

//

263 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:13:28pm

A boycott isn’t good enough this time.

If they really do this, the US should consider pulling out of the IOC altogether. Permanently losing the American money and audience might be the only thing the committee would really fear.

264 Political Atheist  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:13:59pm

re: #261 GeneJockey

I’m sympathetic so just take this as FYI-
Any and all overt political statements by athletes are against the rules. Possible disqualification. You have to remember the Olympics attempts to be above all that in the spirit of unfettered athletic competition. It’s a very long term policy.

265 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:14:43pm

re: #5 CODaniels

Climate change is happening as the world around us is dynamic and not static, so of course it is happening.

The jury is really out when it comes to proving that is due to man-made emissions. Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you will never hear the scientists say definitively that it is because of humans. Check it out for yourself.

And if the correlation between emissions and climate change is pointed to, why are we not experiencing increasingly violent weather year over year instead of sporadically?

I am all about accepting reality of dynamic change, but can you ascribe all of this to man? Hardly not.

Are you telling me we humans can dump megatons of junk into the air, ground and water without having any effect on the climate?

Jesus! Are you stupid.

266 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:15:26pm

*crickets*

*tumbleweeds*

*mournful howl of coyote*

267 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:16:14pm

re: #264 Political Atheist

I’m sympathetic so just take this as FYI-
Any and all overt political statements by athletes are against the rules. Possible disqualification. You have to remember the Olympics attempts to be above all that in the spirit of unfettered athletic competition. It’s a very long term policy.

Human rights trump athletics.

268 engineer cat  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:16:43pm

re: #254 Political Atheist

Old amphibian

ignatz cat’s favorite bourbon

269 Decatur Deb  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:16:45pm

re: #267 Kragar

Human rights trump athletics.

Image: 56779294.jpg

270 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:18:38pm

re: #264 Political Atheist

I’m sympathetic so just take this as FYI-
Any and all overt political statements by athletes are against the rules. Possible disqualification. You have to remember the Olympics attempts to be above all that in the spirit of unfettered athletic competition. It’s a very long term policy.

The entire environment in which the games are to be conducted is an overt political statement, a statement contrary to basic human rights. No attempt whatsoever is currently being made by the IOC to change that.

This status is not acceptable.

271 GeneJockey  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:19:04pm

re: #264 Political Atheist

I’m sympathetic so just take this as FYI-
Any and all overt political statements by athletes are against the rules. Possible disqualification. You have to remember the Olympics attempts to be above all that in the spirit of unfettered athletic competition. It’s a very long term policy.

Oh, I understand that. It’s just that as far as I’m concerned, human rights aren’t politics. They’re far more basic. I understand the IOC feels the need to be neutral and all, but there has to be at least some point at which human rights are more important.

272 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:20:01pm

re: #266 Charles Johnson

*crickets*

*tumbleweeds*

*mournful howl of coyote*

The natives are getting restless…

Youtube Video

273 Decatur Deb  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:20:25pm

Betting on a lot of rainbow spandex in the Men’s Figures.

274 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:20:34pm

re: #265 Romantic Heretic

Are you telling me we humans can dump megatons of junk into the air, ground and water without having any effect on the climate?

Jesus! Are you stupid.

We kinda figured that out with his very first comment because…. VOLCANOES!!11!!

275 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:22:24pm

re: #273 Decatur Deb

Betting on a lot of rainbow spandex in the Men’s Figures.

I LIKE that idea!

276 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:22:41pm

re: #264 Political Atheist

I’m sympathetic so just take this as FYI-
Any and all overt political statements by athletes are against the rules. Possible disqualification. You have to remember the Olympics attempts to be above all that in the spirit of unfettered athletic competition. It’s a very long term policy.

It’s a lie, though. Political nationalistic statements by athletes are allowed. That’s always bugged me. The Olympics is saturated in politics: The people competing come from different states. They were one of the biggest weird political propaganda areas in the Cold War.

What they mean is that the only political statement you’re allowed is nationalism.

277 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:23:59pm
278 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:24:09pm

How Two Reservoirs Have Become Billboards For What Climate Change Is Doing To The American West

Lake Powell, and its downstream cousin, Lake Mead — formed by Hoover Dam — are the two largest reservoirs in the U.S. They are the main plumbing fixtures for dividing up Colorado River water under a complex set of agreements known as the Law of the River. The Colorado River Compact is the most important of those agreements, and requires that the lower basin states and upper basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) each get 7.5 million acre feet a year. Mexico gets another 1.5 million under a 1944 treaty.

All good in theory, but the river was divided up in the 1920’s, a wet period when river flows were high. Times, and flows, have changed.

Now, the two reservoirs are giant flat water billboards advertising what climate change is doing to the American West. Persistent drought, and diminished snow runoff in the Rocky Mountains, have drastically shrunk the two reservoirs. Both are now less than half full, and both sport bathtub rings that show in dramatic fashion how high the waters used to be. Inflows to Powell this year are about 42 percent of average.

Some people believe that Lake Powell is toast, that it will never fill up again. For a lake that attracts a couple of million visitors a year who spend lavishly on houseboats, fishing gear, sun tan lotion and beer, that has some serious economic implications.

It could get worse.

Lake Powell is a moneymaker in other ways. Glen Canyon Dam and its hydroelectric turbines, produce 1320 megawatts of electricity, enough for about 1.3 million people. That yields something like $125 million every year, and that pot of money pays for the operations of much of the entire Colorado River Storage Project, and a host of vital environmental restoration programs.

Droughts do happen from time to time. But the hydrological cycle is being stressed by more than just natural variations. As greenhouse gases trap more heat in the atmosphere, dry areas like the Southwest will get drier and drier.

Last month, Eric Kuhn, the general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District in western Colorado, which looks out for the state’s interest in river issues, sent a memo to his board of directors outlining the likelihood of a shortage declaration by the Bureau of Reclamation.

“A one year shortage is probably not a big deal,” wrote Kuhn. But he made it clear that a multi-year shortage, and some very serious repercussions, are quite possible. In 2015, Kuhn wrote, the water level in Lake Powell may fall low enough — below what is known as minimum power head — to shut down the production of hydroelectric power. “The financial impacts could be substantial,” he wrote.

“The scary scenario for the Lower Basin is a multi-year shortage,” according to Kuhn’s memo. Among the impacts: big water delivery cuts to Nevada and Arizona, power production from Hoover Dam is “dramatically reduced,” recreation on Lake Meade “becomes marginal.”

Long term, the outlook is particularly grim. Late last year, a joint study by the Bureau of Reclamation and the seven river basin states looked at water supply prospects over the next half century. It projects average yearly imbalances between supply and demand of 3.2 million acre feet by 2060. An acre foot is about what a typical suburban household uses in a year.

279 makeitstop  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:24:17pm

Wow, a denier shows up here to attempt to muddy the waters?

Obama seems to have struck a really sensitive nerve, yeah?

280 Targetpractice  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:26:13pm

re: #260 GeneJockey

The great thing about these ‘plans’ is that they never had to deal with reality. For example, on SPS there’s the issue of cost to lift all the hardware to orbit. Proponents (and this Nansen reads as a guy who got his Cheerios pissed in and never got over it) will say, “Economies of scale! It wouldn’t cost nearly as much as was projected!”, for example.

Then there’s fusion power, which is always “50 years away.”

281 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:26:39pm
282 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:27:17pm
283 Kragar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:27:38pm

re: #281 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

“RUN SHADOWFAX!”

284 wrenchwench  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:29:19pm

Comment at TPM:

Hreb N. Dorf
• an hour ago

Comment on Huffington Post: “‘Anti-Obama rodeo clown’ is just another name for a Republican.”

285 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:30:09pm

re: #280 Targetpractice

Then there’s fusion power, which is always “50 years away.”

“Run your car using plain water for fuel!”

286 erik_t  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:31:35pm

re: #280 Targetpractice

Then there’s fusion power, which is always “50 years away.”

Well, it’s “50 years away (at the funding levels indicated in this memo)”.

Gutting program funding and then mocking the predictions of the program is not really fair.

287 Gus  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:32:23pm

!

But they can fight. You, an executive in one of those companies, can fight. You’ll probably lose, but you need to take the stand. And you might win. It’s time we called the government’s actions what it really is: commandeering. Commandeering is a practice we’re used to in wartime, where commercial ships are taken for military use, or production lines are converted to military production. But now it’s happening in peacetime. Vast swaths of the Internet are being commandeered to support this surveillance state.

288 engineer cat  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:33:36pm

re: #280 Targetpractice

Then there’s fusion power, which is always “50 years away.”

i need to get my “mr fusion” fixed, but the company tells me i have to wait until it’s invented

289 urbanmeemaw  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:33:54pm

re: #181 Feline Fearless Leader Actually, the strategy is to employ “FUGS” (Fetuses With Guns) to serve in the Water Wars.

291 Bulworth  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:34:53pm

re: #279 makeitstop

Whatever Twitchy demands..

292 Gus  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:35:40pm

!

The NSA isn’t going to remain above the law forever. Already public opinion is changing, against the government and their corporate collaborators. If you want to keep your users’ trust, demonstrate that you were on their side.

Collaborators!

293 Gus  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:39:02pm

Rise up revolutionaries! The government has commandeered the internet! Rise up against the government and their collaborators!

294 EPR-radar  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:41:31pm

re: #293 Gus

Rise up revolutionaries! The government has commandeered the internet! Rise up against the government and their collaborators!

Why must everything be a competition? The wingnuts should be allowed to occupy the Throne of All Stupid without a contest.

295 Gus  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:43:43pm

re: #294 EPR-radar

Why must everything be a competition? The wingnuts should be allowed to occupy the Throne of All Stupid without a contest.

We are all Glenn Beck now.

Fear the government commandeering of the internets and their corporate collaborators!

//

296 urbanmeemaw  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:45:11pm

re: #262 Bulworth

Correction (with all due respect): “Don’t you realize that what Glenn Greenwald claims Big Brother CIA and NSA could do someday, maybe, is the only important matter facing this country right now?” Please get your priorities straight, Bulworth! Thank you!

//

297 Charles Johnson  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:50:15pm

re: #290 Gus

THE GOVERNMENT HAS COMMANDEERED THE INTERNETS! STAND UP AND RISE AGAINST THIS TIDE OF TYRANNY!

Wow, that one’s really over the top. I have to admit I’m surprised to see Bruce Schneier going this far out - he’s a very smart writer on computer security normally.

298 Internet Tough Guy  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:56:51pm

You’ll probably lose, but you need to take the stand.

While I watch and applaud from the sidelines.

lel

299 AlexRogan  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 2:57:53pm

re: #66 Vicious Babushka

Haywood?

I see Heywood/WinstonDodson as more of a glibertarian moonbat, not a RWNJ.

300 AntonSirius  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:05:36pm

re: #264 Political Atheist

I’m sympathetic so just take this as FYI-
Any and all overt political statements by athletes are against the rules. Possible disqualification. You have to remember the Olympics attempts to be above all that in the spirit of unfettered athletic competition. It’s a very long term policy.

If Western countries aren’t going to boycott, I would like to see at least one of them change their uniforms to incorporate a rainbow color scheme.

Call the IOC’s bluff and force them to disqualify an entire country’s athletes.

301 AlexRogan  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:15:55pm

re: #119 GatorsEatsTaters

Brick Tamland, is that you?

302 AlexRogan  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:19:22pm

re: #160 NJDhockeyfan

Ron Paul is talkin’ bout a revolution with the launch of internet based news service, the Ron Paul channel

The only revolution that I see Ron Paul getting behind right now is the one that sees lots of zeroes going into his bank account, just like Limbaugh and Beck before him.

303 Decatur Deb  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:26:09pm

re: #299 AlexRogan

I see Heywood/WinstonDodson as more of a glibertarian moonbat, not a RWNJ.

Thought so until he reached back for an anti-Clinton shtick. He’s a shill.

304 A Mom Anon  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:38:06pm

re: #113 Targetpractice

And those lovely Uranium mines don’t do anything at all to the environment.
Or when those unregulated or barely regulated plants have a disaster, why, there’s simply no consequences to that, everything just glows like a little firefly for a million years.

305 Decatur Deb  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:45:43pm

re: #304 A Mom Anon

And those lovely Uranium mines don’t do anything at all to the environment.
Or when those unregulated or barely regulated plants have a disaster, why, there’s simply no consequences to that, everything just glows like a little firefly for a million years.

The Navy knows how to build and run nukes safely. Mafia-ridden power companies? Less so.

306 A Mom Anon  Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:51:40pm

re: #305 Decatur Deb

Just the mere fact that regulatory agencies have little if any power, have had funding slashed to bare bones and fewer than needed inspectors, let alone trained inspectors is enough to give any thinking person pause.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 444 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1