I hate fucking deer ticksdead man walking wrote: (like deer ticks)
hot enough for ya?
Moderator: Dux
Re: hot enough for ya?
Don’t believe everything you think.
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
i've gotten 5 or 6 bites so far this spring and have removed at least that number of ticks before they got their mouthparts into me. if i go into the woods, i'll come out with at least one on me.
my wife plucks them daily from herself and the dogs. some of the dogs' ticks are dead from flea medicine and some are on the lookout for a victim.
we didn't have these particular ticks around here a decade ago, and this year is the worst. absolutely the worst.
but i shouldn't complain. my brother in pa has had lyme disease twice.
my wife plucks them daily from herself and the dogs. some of the dogs' ticks are dead from flea medicine and some are on the lookout for a victim.
we didn't have these particular ticks around here a decade ago, and this year is the worst. absolutely the worst.
but i shouldn't complain. my brother in pa has had lyme disease twice.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
p.s. check out the emerging threat: powassan virus. it can be deadly, and deer ticks can tranmit it.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Re: hot enough for ya?
Once again you are confusing the real issue of pollution with the pseudo-science of CO2. There are numerous reasons to move away from coal and oil, with CO2 not even being the last item on the 20-page list. As far as floods and disease vectors - they obviously never happened before.dead man walking wrote:mr. bastard's graphs show a correlation between the growth in co2 emissions and increased prosperity. that's accurate. fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution which brought longevity, wealth, and leisure.
we unknowingly made a bargain with the devil, though.
ask the people in miami, fl; wilmington, nc; virginia beach, va who today regularly experience flooding. or ask people who are now coping with disease vectors (like deer ticks) that have significantly expanded their range as temperatures have warmed.
coal and oil seemed cheap, but we'e only made the down payment on their long-term costs.

Re: hot enough for ya?
NASA satellite data suggest that for more than two decades there’s been a gradual greening of the northern latitudes of Earth.

Must be a bad thing.
Researchers confirm that plant life seen above 40 degrees north latitude, which represents a line stretching from New York to Madrid to Beijing, has been growing more vigorously since 1981. One suspected cause is rising temperatures possibly linked to the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Over this same time period, parts of the Northern Hemisphere have become much greener and the growing season has increased by several days. Further, Eurasia appears to be greening more than North America, with more lush vegetation for longer periods of time.

Must be a bad thing.

-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
you missed the point about routine flooding where it has not previously occurred.
as for your post about greening of the north, that's old news. thanks for the reminder.
the arctic is the fastest warming region on the planet. with warmth comes melting of permafrost resulting in the release of methane (a potent ghg) and melting of glaciers.
the planet will be fine. many human settlements won't, including those that have recently become subject to regular tidal floods.
as for your post about greening of the north, that's old news. thanks for the reminder.
the arctic is the fastest warming region on the planet. with warmth comes melting of permafrost resulting in the release of methane (a potent ghg) and melting of glaciers.
the planet will be fine. many human settlements won't, including those that have recently become subject to regular tidal floods.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Re: hot enough for ya?
It may be something new to you, but the weather has always been changing. So, it floods where it hasn't before, rains where it hasn't before and there is drought where it hasn't been before. Similarly, greening of the North may be not be new but it doesn't make it less real. So, you can now grow carrots where previously you could not. Not a bad thing, but never mentioned among the news of dread.
No offence - I mean it - but you are falling for the climate discourse like an Asian girl for a new line of Louis Vuitton bags. They have some value for carrying small items around, but aren't worth a fraction of the price the poor girl has to pay. There are real issues and problems that the humanity can efficiently deal with right now. As in right fucking now. Pollution contributes - apparently - to over 12 million deaths worldwide. Lots of them - such as curable cancers, atherosclerosis, malaria, tuberculosis - just a few examples of diseases that can be dealt with right away in a relatively simple way. Hunger - another potentially manageable issue, given the fact that in our society tons of food are thrown to the bins every fucking day. Real solutions to real problems.
Climate science is nothing other than the sister show of The Voice or The Bachelor. Small talk, small action, few people making big bucks and forget about it the next day. Pollution is a real issue that is easy to demonstrate and relatively easy to legislate against. Why don't they tax cars exponentially to their engine sizes? That would solve a lot of pollution - and CO2 if you are still worried. Why is food so cheap that three quarter of the population chronically overeat and overload health care, making it less affordable? While, as I already mentioned, we throw away tons of produce that took valuable resources. Why is over half of the population medicated? I am not even starting on political issues, such as endless wars and conflicts initiated for profits.
What I am getting at is that it's important to choose correct battles - those that are potentially winnable. it's not CO2 that's destroying the environment and the Planet, it's never ending consumption. My grand-grandfather probably was buried in the same suit he was dressed in for high school graduation. Now it would be out of fashion in six months. Good for the economy, not so good for the planet. I am not self-righteous and not an angel: I drive a 4.0 liter car that can carry eight people, most of the time alone. Make me change my habit rather than annoying me with some dubious sciency theories.
No offence - I mean it - but you are falling for the climate discourse like an Asian girl for a new line of Louis Vuitton bags. They have some value for carrying small items around, but aren't worth a fraction of the price the poor girl has to pay. There are real issues and problems that the humanity can efficiently deal with right now. As in right fucking now. Pollution contributes - apparently - to over 12 million deaths worldwide. Lots of them - such as curable cancers, atherosclerosis, malaria, tuberculosis - just a few examples of diseases that can be dealt with right away in a relatively simple way. Hunger - another potentially manageable issue, given the fact that in our society tons of food are thrown to the bins every fucking day. Real solutions to real problems.
Climate science is nothing other than the sister show of The Voice or The Bachelor. Small talk, small action, few people making big bucks and forget about it the next day. Pollution is a real issue that is easy to demonstrate and relatively easy to legislate against. Why don't they tax cars exponentially to their engine sizes? That would solve a lot of pollution - and CO2 if you are still worried. Why is food so cheap that three quarter of the population chronically overeat and overload health care, making it less affordable? While, as I already mentioned, we throw away tons of produce that took valuable resources. Why is over half of the population medicated? I am not even starting on political issues, such as endless wars and conflicts initiated for profits.
What I am getting at is that it's important to choose correct battles - those that are potentially winnable. it's not CO2 that's destroying the environment and the Planet, it's never ending consumption. My grand-grandfather probably was buried in the same suit he was dressed in for high school graduation. Now it would be out of fashion in six months. Good for the economy, not so good for the planet. I am not self-righteous and not an angel: I drive a 4.0 liter car that can carry eight people, most of the time alone. Make me change my habit rather than annoying me with some dubious sciency theories.

-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
two observations, and then i'm done with you.
anyone who has worked in the climate field knows that agriculture will change. sure, you will be able to grow some crops in places where you cannot today. at the same time, warming will mean some crops will not longer be suited to their current locales. this matter has been much discussed and some agricultural communities are deeply unsettled.
as someone who has worked on air pollution at both the national and state levels, i've seen how work to address climate change has also been aimed at addressing criteria air pollutants, and i've seen how work to address, say, nox, a precursor to smog and a killer, has also complemented work to address climate. emissions limits on vehicles address both no and co2. trump plans to make the standards more lax. undoing the clean power plan will result in more pollution and a significant number of deaths annually. his charade with coal comes at a cost to the health of vulnerable old people and infants. it's a cynical and ugly ploy.
distinguishing between pollution and climate is nonsensical, as anyone working in those fields knows.
anyone who has worked in the climate field knows that agriculture will change. sure, you will be able to grow some crops in places where you cannot today. at the same time, warming will mean some crops will not longer be suited to their current locales. this matter has been much discussed and some agricultural communities are deeply unsettled.
as someone who has worked on air pollution at both the national and state levels, i've seen how work to address climate change has also been aimed at addressing criteria air pollutants, and i've seen how work to address, say, nox, a precursor to smog and a killer, has also complemented work to address climate. emissions limits on vehicles address both no and co2. trump plans to make the standards more lax. undoing the clean power plan will result in more pollution and a significant number of deaths annually. his charade with coal comes at a cost to the health of vulnerable old people and infants. it's a cynical and ugly ploy.
distinguishing between pollution and climate is nonsensical, as anyone working in those fields knows.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
- Top
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
I don't think you're supposed to fuck them.nafod wrote:I hate fucking deer ticks
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman
― William Tecumseh Sherman
Re: hot enough for ya?
Hurtful...as Shape would sayJimZipCode wrote:I don't think you're supposed to fuck them.nafod wrote:I hate fucking deer ticks
Don’t believe everything you think.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opin ... .html?_r=0As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, "I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation." The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren't.
Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That's especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn't to deny science. It's to acknowledge it honestly.
By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn't, because there's another lesson here -- this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate "not only didn't fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public."
Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one's moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.
It's scientists and skeptics vs the true believers.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
1--actually the termperature has increased 1.5 degrees CelsiusTurdacious wrote:
Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable. . .
Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science
2--no serious climate scientist is claiming 100 percent certainty
bad facts and strawman argument, but he fooled you
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Re: hot enough for ya?
IPCC Summary for Policy Makersdead man walking wrote:1--actually the termperature has increased 1.5 degrees CelsiusTurdacious wrote:
Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable. . .
Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science
2--no serious climate scientist is claiming 100 percent certainty
bad facts and strawman argument, but he fooled you
Page 1.
As per 2 - yes, climate information is presented in the media in the measured and careful way. Intelligent argument is invited and is ongoing, and the opponents of the current theories are welcomed and treated with respect.The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist (Figure SPM.1a). {1.1.1, Figure 1.1}
Last edited by Sangoma on Tue May 02, 2017 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: hot enough for ya?
CARBON DIOXIDE
The good news
Indur M. Goklany
The good news
Indur M. Goklany
Summary
1. This paper addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall.
2. Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels.
3. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide con- centrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields.
4. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild.
5. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types.
6. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems.
7. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environ- mental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming.
8. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere produc- tivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors.
9. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms.
10. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the ben- efits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.

Re: hot enough for ya?
Citation for 1?dead man walking wrote: 1--actually the termperature has increased 1.5 degrees Celsius
2--no serious climate scientist is claiming 100 percent certainty
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"


-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Re: hot enough for ya?
Not BOOM! Rather "plop..."nafod wrote:BOOM!
The IPCC report for policy maker quoted by the venerable (possibly illiterate) DMW says:
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}


-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
from the get go, i got topsy turvy with celsius and farenheit.
i'll go back to my lair under the bridge.
i'll go back to my lair under the bridge.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Re: hot enough for ya?
Two Videos That Illuminate Energy Poverty
Many developing countries are turning to coal and other low-cost fossil fuels to generate the electricity they need for powering homes, industry, and agriculture. Some people in rich countries are telling them to cut back on fossil fuels. I understand the concern: After all, human beings are causing our climate to change, and our use of fossil fuels is a huge reason.
But even as we push to get serious about confronting climate change, we should not try to solve the problem on the backs of the poor. For one thing, poor countries represent a small part of the carbon-emissions problem. And they desperately need cheap sources of energy now to fuel the economic growth that lifts families out of poverty. They can’t afford today’s expensive clean energy solutions, and we can’t expect them wait for the technology to get cheaper.
Instead of putting constraints on poor countries that will hold back their ability to fight poverty, we should be investing dramatically more money in R&D to make fossil fuels cleaner and make clean energy cheaper than any fossil fuel.
These two videos featuring the Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg illustrate the connection between energy and poverty. Bjorn created the Copenhagen Consensus meetings, which bring together prominent economists to rank solutions to global challenges. I certainly don’t agree with Bjorn (or the Copenhagen Consensus) on everything, but I always find him worth listening to. He’s not an ideologue. He’s a data-driven guy who cares about using scarce resources in the smartest possible way.

-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
The idea that governments should invest in the clean power sector is a little outdated- the private market sees the need to invest in clean power for their own benefit (cell phone batteries, electric cars, etc...) which far surpasses the ability of governments to pick winners (i.e. ethanol).
Allowing people to choose clean power is the best way to increase clean power consumption.
Allowing people to choose clean power is the best way to increase clean power consumption.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Re: hot enough for ya?
Sangoma wrote:Not BOOM! Rather "plop..."nafod wrote:BOOM!
The IPCC report for policy maker quoted by the venerable (possibly illiterate) DMW says:
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

Don’t believe everything you think.
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
that's a nice idea but not how it works in the world. the amount of clean power brought online by choice is tiny compared to the amount developed because of mandated markets (like portfolio requirements) and subsidies.Turdacious wrote: Allowing people to choose clean power is the best way to increase clean power consumption.
the only way you can have an honest power market is if all the cost of fossil fuels (including health and environmental costs) are reflected in the price in the marketplace. those costs remain hidden in many cases. you can compare the price off coal to gas to wind, but those comparisons are warped by hidden costs that show up elsewhere (like hospital admissions for asthma or loss of habitat).
this is an old argument that should be familiar to all. it's true, yet still not the way our market is structured.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 11367
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
You're writing this as if you're unaware of the massive government substitutes to the fossil fuel industry. The solar/wind crowd have long said they'd happily compete on a level playing field.Turdacious wrote:The idea that governments should invest in the clean power sector is a little outdated- the private market sees the need to invest in clean power for their own benefit (cell phone batteries, electric cars, etc...) which far surpasses the ability of governments to pick winners (i.e. ethanol).
Allowing people to choose clean power is the best way to increase clean power consumption.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.