The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26810559
We don't need anymore doubting.
Printable View
The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26810559
We don't need anymore doubting.
Time to Consider Ecocide a Crime?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgHsTPuAsZ8
The core of the problem is the market system. In that it ignores external costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Now the external cost is to future generations. I mean, we are, collectively, saying, because of global warming, that future generations just have no value. None. And as Chomsky explicates that's inherent or deeply rooted in the market system. You consider the cost to you. Not to others. And those others are future generations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJCLErHORI
It's quite pathological. There's an interesting book called: Sociopathic Society. And the system is sociopathic in that respect. As we don't take into consideration future generations. Ya know, we just totally ignore the consequences -- long-term -- of our selfish actions.
Cash,
You can't really judge a Man, if you were him you'd do Exactly as he does.
But you can measure his money down to the point zero zero.
Years ago, when I was suffering from depression, I told my shrink if I had eight million dollars, I would be completely well. He said NO, I'd still have lots and lots of problems.
Of course he's right, but I can't tell my doc that if I had eight million dollars I wouldn't CARE if I had problems!! That would make ME the bad guy!!!
Sure I can. I can line his DNA up next to mine and point precisely to those genes where he is deficient. :)Quote:
You can't really judge a Man
Cash is what wealthy men wield to compensate for their deficiencies, the way a poorer man might use a big gun; or a whole collection of guns. The insecure among us, who would impress us with their power and potency, can never have enough money, enough profit, enough displays of wealth and status to fill the hole, to compensate for their lack. Fuck the future. The pit they face in the here and now is bottomless. Rosebud!
Sometimes I wonder who's got it better, the young transsexual minx that can command a thousand dollars for an hour's time, or the fat old businessman who can afford to pay it.
You would be upgraded from crazy to eccentric. Crazy people end up on skid row but eccentric people have insanity insurance still remaining in their homes after screwing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
If I had money I would make the Jacksons look normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
Trish, if your Mom and Dad had sex in a position 180 degrees different from when you were conceived, you would be Asian downstares, and Black upstairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Your screen-name would be RICK!!!!
If God hadn't intervened, I might be my dumb sister!!!
That would be a WRONG a million times worse than global warming!!!
-------
Six years of Obama and I don't see any big Environmental Headlines.
When I was a kid the Potomac River was a sewer. They passed legislation to clean it up, now you see bald eagles and herons, all kinds of wildlife came back.
But the creek I used to play at with all the kids, nobody plays there. All the kids are watching cable TV or playing video games.
I'm not even sure I understand this point though. You mean if you had his mind in his body with his circumstances you'd do as he does? But you judge people with your mind. You only lose the right to criticize someone if with your mind and the other person's identical circumstances you would do exactly as they do. But I don't think everyone would react the same way to the same circumstances (again if your own personal psychic features are spared; otherwise the argument is circular).Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
I like that. Good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Janet Jackson 'slaps' Paris Jackson - YouTube
Nonsense. I simply would not have been conceived. That would've been somebody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
I mean yes, you can judge anybody you want, you can even get to know a pet so well you know when they're out of character. But no way can you ever get into his skin.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
There is no such thing as the same circumstances.
No Judge in Court would buy this, of course,
Judges see guys because of actions they do on the worst day of their life.
But if you're on a jury, you might get four guilty, four innocent, and four undecided.
When you're asleep you see people do all kinds of things, but you don't prosecute because it's all imaginary.
When you're awake, you see people do bad things, and you call em on it, or even call the cops.
But your judgement is only as wise as your are.
There was a guy at work who was a complete and total asshole. Eight out of ten agreed and the other two were too polite to say. Something was obviously wrong with the guy, he eventually got booted out. I don't know what idiot hired him, but when it comes to running a business, it's not so much judging as making a business decision. In school, you grade on ability.
So my point is judgement is ALWAYS flawed, and flawed is bordering on wrong.
You can not judge a man, you make an educated guess based on the available facts. Just like the doctor when you're sick.
take it, Hank
Hank Williams "Mind Your Own Business" - YouTube
You can't be certain you know what someone else dealt with I agree. I was just saying it's a bit extreme to say you can never judge anyone no matter what they've done. You cannot literally superimpose your psyche on theirs or know precisely what decisions you would make under a set of constraints you haven't experienced.
You can for instance guess that you would not stab someone because they mocked you or massacre a crowd of people over some imagined grievance. Again, if you have to account for the subjective experience of the other person you leave no variable to consider. For every person who does something worthy of condemnation there are people who experience similar though not identical circumstances who made different choices.
This is what Republicans complain about(or should complain about) when they talk about moral relativism. To say that nobody can ever be judged by anyone else is to completely give up on making any sense of the world.
Edit: and yeah I realize this is the climate change thread so we're off track a bit. Substitute out the stabbing and massacre examples with spilling oil all over the coast and emitting a lot of greenhouse gases.
Now you're catching on.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Some A-rab is going to decide all us Americans are Devils and explode a few atomic bombs in the states, the politicians all know this, that's why they drink champagne and tell everybody whatever they want to hear.
So don't sweat the pollution. We got forty, fifty years max.
So what's the difference between 1) a businessman judging that a certain employee's reliability isn't worth the paycheck he's getting, and 2) a jury judging that a woman is innocent (or guilty) of the crimes for which she's being prosecuted? They're both judgments. They're both made with imperfect knowledge by people who are engaged in making the best decision they reasonably can. In the first case the motivation may be provided by profit and in the second by a sense of duty. But in practice I don't think juries are any less seriously engaged than a mid level management man behind a desk.Quote:
There was a guy at work who was a complete and total asshole. Eight out of ten agreed and the other two were too polite to say. Something was obviously wrong with the guy, he eventually got booted out. I don't know what idiot hired him, but when it comes to running a business, it's not so much judging as making a business decision. In school, you grade on ability.
So my point is judgement is ALWAYS flawed, and flawed is bordering on wrong.
Profiting from Climate Change:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/31-6
You don't care, you just get off busting my chopsQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
A man is not a job, or an arm, or a leg, or an ambition. Or daily actions. These are parts that when taken together become a life.
This life here.
You can not judge a man. Correctly.
Until the game is over.
Judgements, people, mistakes, events, sins, they all come in thousands of flavors, Am I responsible for every little thing that passes by my eye?
And what about trannies? (as a topic) Are they women in men's bodies? Weird-os? Are they responsible for being trannies? Or was it the mirror that led them to it???? If there are 13 people in a room, twelve of them are eying the tranny. And you've got twelve different judgements. Are any of them correct?
All too clever for me. Climate change is a much more tractable problem.
"I have experienced the judgement of a lot of people - and deservedly so."
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
And lo, as the end times draw into view, otherwise sensible people start to talk total nonsense in a place where a serious issue was once being debated.
On a given day, in the same hour, twelve different people with meter sticks are asked to judge my height as accurately as they can. In increasing order their judgments (in meters) are 1.6751, 1.6752, 1.6753, 1.6753, 1.6754, 1.6755, 1.6756, 1.6756, 1.6757, 1.6758, 1.6759, 1.9203. Twelve judgements, most of them different. Except for an obvious outlier they are all within one millimeter of each other. Are any of them correct? All depends on whether accuracy to within one millimeter serves the purposes of your inquiry. If you ask them to judge whether or not I'm a woman, I would ask the purpose of your inquiry. If, say, you wish to court me, you have to regard yourself as male, straight and accept me as I am. If your purpose is to put to death all transgender weirdos, then you're going to need restrain me.Quote:
If there are 13 people in a room, twelve of them are eying the tranny. And you've got twelve different judgements. Are any of them correct?
We got on this sidetrack examining the issue of how capitalism binds one's purposes to the immediate moment and the near future. Libertarians tell us how free markets seek an equilibrium that fairly optimizes everyone's freedom, opportunity and well being. If everyone looks out for himself, everyone will be looked after. Of course this leaves out anyone who is not here yet (future generations) to look after their opportunity and well-being. Unregulated systems (like free markets) seek local equilibria which are not necessarily optimal points of stability. Every steam engine needs a governor, every market needs regulation. We need to regulate the output of greenhouse gasses before it's too late. We need to get serious about regulating against spills in our oceans, bays and waterways, before it's too late.
The invisible hand of the market has no eyes. Theoretically it feels around, judging the slope in each direction and takes a step in the direction that optimizes profits (good luck getting a solid handle on exactly what "optimizing profits" means). In this way it may find a nearby equilibrium and stay there for awhile, but it never looks beyond the immediate range of hills and valleys. It's just a hand. It has no eyes. But what about the humans who operate all this financial and economic machinery? Don't they have eyes? And if they don't give a shit about the future are we not to judge them? If we don't pressure them and pressure our government to pressure them, are we not to judge ourselves?
Hey, butt out, LIMEY, I'm trying to give Trish some RELIGION here!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
ha ha, yeah, I took this thread way off point, but let me say one last thing then I'll butt out, when it comes to JUDGING, or POLITICS, it is wise to keep a firm yet relaxed grip on the reins. This goes double if you are the one holding the reins and someone is trying to knock you off the horse.
If you truly want to save the planet, you have to either come up with a couple trillion dollars on your own, or you have to convince somebody else to part with their hard earned coin. Divert cash from welfare, defense, social security, education, it's a JUDGEMENT call. It goes to the HEART of the matter, when does one person impose his will on another? Am I my brother's keeper?
I'm very content to pay my damn taxes and let a panel of brainiac whizz kids decide how to cut up my donation. Is that snippy upstart Trish trying to say she's wiser than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas when it comes to allowing people to spend THEIR money anywhere they like???
No, luckily that's a job for his eight peers.
OK, Prospero, youre right as usual, but I honestly doubt anything we say here will change anything when it comes to Climate Change. The Polluters know exactly what they're doing. They know they're going to lose in the end, they're just getting money while the getting is good. Even the tree-huggers might turn down assistance from "THE HUNG ANGELS" coalition.
This forum is just about opening some eyes, that's all.....folks.
As long as we're talking RELIGION, I believe Jesus's answer to this question is a YES, YOU ARE.Quote:
Am I my brother's keeper?
No one has to try to say that, it's a given that most of us are wiser than Clarence Thomas. Thank GOD there are eight other Supremes. Too bad that three of those are activists who's vision is stymied by goggles of ideology.Quote:
Is that snippy upstart Trish trying to say she's wiser than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
You're discounting chaos. A butterfly's wings can call up a windstorm.Quote:
I honestly doubt anything we say here will change anything when it comes to Climate Change.
Markets, like evolution, are blind.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Well, they are fictional characters :)Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
I stand corrected. Or kneeling if you prefer.Quote:
Most systems (because of limited resources) are mean-reverting. No separate governor as on steam engines.
Exactly. We agree on the crucial point.Quote:
Markets, like evolution, are blind.
Apparently some among us prefer to govern blind as well.
The analogy to evolution is apt, yet often libertarians will even bring up survival of the fittest as if that concept vindicates free market idiot-ology. Too often the lay population fails to realize that evolution is not the unfolding of a story of progress, but simply the blind zigs and zags of self-reproducing populations responding to immediate selection pressures.
It's a wind turbine but better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kldA4nWANA8
OK, here's my shot at getting the last word over Trish.
Will Climate Change mean the extinction of our species?
Some Paleontologist found a cockroach that was 49 million years old, they named it after him. There will still be cockroaches 50 million years from now, but no humans, too many moving parts. We are designed to die. By Nature.
Nature has a way of correcting itself, nature always balances the books, and I am of the mind that if you think it's bad, it's worse.
The USA is one California earthquake away from complete financial disaster. Totaled.
In 1614 North America was a pristine Eden.
What do you honestly think 2414 is going to look like?
Don't worry about the Planet, it will be here in 49 million years. It might be glowing rock, but it will be here.
It might be a glowing rock. It might be home to a thriving civilization of our humanoid descendants who are grateful we stepped back from the cliffs of extinction. Pessimism is not an excuse for bad action.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
But look, no one's asking that we plan forty nine million years in advance. Certainly, if we play our cards right we shouldn't go extinct within the next century...and yet we have the capacity on that timescale to make life for humans pretty terrible if we don't play our cards right.
If this is a Star Trek future, we're OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
But if it's a Twilight Zone, we're fucked.
House of Commons - all hell breaks - Nigel Evans roars! - YouTube
Interesting concept: go to the elevation where the wind is. I'm wondering if the developers imagine fields of these "blimps". If so, is entanglement a foreseeable problem? And how are these less of a threat to migrating birds?Quote:
Originally Posted by dderek123
I am inclined to think we can milk more energy from the temperature gradient between high and low elevations. A space elevator might be both a cheap way out of the gravity well and a conduit of power.
MartinQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
There was a discussion on another site about these things that pointed out a few potential weaknesses. First, the gas they use for levitation is helium which there is a limited supply globally. Prices of helium have been rising pretty steadily. So the cost of creating each one of these, in theory, will keep going up. Hydrogen would be a cheaper option. But you know it's kind of dangerous unless the thing is engineered properly. Also, the power output is rumored to be 30kW which is not that much for wind turbines. Therefore the cost per kw wouldn't be very attractive. A diesel generator would be a much cheaper alternative for remote power generation. And finally, the video puts out a kickstarter vibe with very few details offered to the public. Everything is a bit vague which could make most people suspicious that it's a sham. But this is all just speculation on the internet take it for what it's worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comme...urbine_brings/
Fictional characters sometimes make up fictional numbers, but the point of the fiction is not the numbers but to present the idea that "correct" is a relative notion. Is it correct to treat the Earth's surface as a sphere? It depends on the purposes of the treatment. Is it correct to criticize (judge) industry and government when they ignore the problems of climate change? Yes, if you want to minimize that change and the costs it will incur down the road in money and lives. No, if you don't care so much about things that far down the road. (Next time, I won't just use real numbers, I'll use realistic numbers.)Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Well said. :Bowdown:Quote:
The concept of "survival of the fittest" is often misunderstood. It is not the Wolf of Wall Street, but the best fit to the environment for long term survival. If we properly used Darwin's term, the survival of the fittest would give a very different capitalist system - we would survive. Many of us and not just a very few, as at present.
Addendum: The above is not meant to endorse wild, laissez-faire, post-modern relativism. It is merely a concession that claims about the world are at best approximations and one expects each to have a limiting range of application. This doesn’t make it unreasonable to assert that some claims can be correct and other claims wrong. It shouldn’t prevent a reasonable person from judging that some of the behaviors of our government leaders and leaders of industry to be near sighted, profit driven and greedy. It is a refreshing counter to the straight-jacketed view (seemingly made by at least one of our number) that no claim is correct because it cannot address every detail and consequently no one can in good conscious judge the actions of another.
Reminded of Charles Babbage's letter to Lord Tennyson - the value of approximation.
Sir:
In your otherwise beautiful poem "The Vision of Sin" there is a verse which reads – "Every moment dies a man, Every moment one is born." It must be manifest that if this were true, the population of the world would be at a standstill. In truth, the rate of birth is slightly in excess of that of death.
I would suggest that in the next edition of your poem you have it read – "Every moment dies a man, Every moment 1 1/16 is born."
The actual figure is so long I cannot get it onto a line, but I believe the figure 1 1/16 will be sufficiently accurate for poetry.
I am, Sir, yours, etc.,
Charles Babbage
(Too much culture on this site)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Charles Eisenstein: Living Without Economic Growth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDGh58khe_c
The Daily Telegraph today published a book review article by Charles Moore -former editor of the paper and most recently the biographer of Margaret Thatcher -I won't copy and paste the whole review and it starts with such a howler I would expect even the anti-science deniers to be embarrassed:
Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast. If it says it will rain in your area tomorrow, it probably will. But if it says the same for a month, let alone a year, later, it is much less likely to be right. There are too many imponderables.
The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction.
The review is of a book written by an associate of the Centre for Policy Studies, a think-tank created in 1974 by Keith Joseph, also known as the 'mad monk' who converted Margaret Thatcher to monetarism (as it was known in those days), and who set up the CPS because he believed, as Margaret came to believe, that his own party's Research Office was intellectually bankrupt.
The author of the book chooses various historical moments and claims to prove that predictions often go wrong, and the tone is set with this:
The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government.
Thus a man who has no interest or expertise in the science of climate change reinvents it as a political movement which by definition is against everything he believes.
I think these people almost want to see a sequence of catastrophic events take place to prove Global Warming is happening, whereas I think the reality is going to be localised but incremental changes taking place over the next 50-100 years, by which time the actual impact of 'global weirding' will be more evident.
The review is here...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...believers.html
My furnace and hot water heater and stove and car engine are basically all powered by "FIRE" ....serving mankind faithfully for over ten thousand years. If scientists can develop the atomic bomb in two years, I don't see why we can't take some military money and come up with some frightening new source of energy that is CLEAN like sunshine.
Although even the Sun is fire now that I think of it.
What scares me more than an inability to predict the weather in 100 years is the inability to predict the cost of a movie with popcorn and a coke in 100 years,
or the price of 4 years of college,
or any of the thousand calamities that might occur in that time.
One giant earthquake in California and the economy of the USA is toast.