- Forum
- Lounge
- Linux Sucks
- Page 6
Linux Sucks
yep.
I post this for us boomers to laugh at, so if you get bent out over this stuff, skip this link :)
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/
I post this for us boomers to laugh at, so if you get bent out over this stuff, skip this link :)
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/
Actually, prompt action based on scientific predictions has worked effectively in the past. Despite some of the crap in that link:
- acid rain was very real: whole forests in northern Europe were dying because of it; fit flue-gas desulphurisation (and remove the dependency on coal) and those forests are recovering again;
- the expansion of the ozone hole was very real; a ban on CFCs has managed to reverse that trend;
- a few weeks of lockdown and air quality in many asian cities markedly improved: now they are back to square one.
I don't particularly like Greta Thunberg - I think it's time she got a job. However, the direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures is pretty compelling and you ignore it at your peril.
- acid rain was very real: whole forests in northern Europe were dying because of it; fit flue-gas desulphurisation (and remove the dependency on coal) and those forests are recovering again;
- the expansion of the ozone hole was very real; a ban on CFCs has managed to reverse that trend;
- a few weeks of lockdown and air quality in many asian cities markedly improved: now they are back to square one.
I don't particularly like Greta Thunberg - I think it's time she got a job. However, the direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures is pretty compelling and you ignore it at your peril.
I don't particularly like Greta Thunberg - I think it's time she got a job.
she has one. I'd bet you she makes more than either of us.
But you nailed the real rub. I am an environmentalist -- I believe in recycling and scientifically proven technology that uses less energy, produces 'free' energy, pollutes less, and so on very much. But the whacks have ruined the whole idea of doing things better with the junk science, crony-payoff 'technology', political nonsense, etc. And the countries that are trying to do better are not the big pollution creators directly anymore -- the industry in those countries sent all the pollution to places that don't give a rat's rear. All the bans, fines, and regulations did is move the problem to a place where we can't do anything more about it. Good job, government.
My city is a prime example. Its midsize, used to be an industrial area, now there are abandoned factories dotted all over the town and we produce nothing except tourism, no durable goods. Many of the decent wage jobs poofed as well. Our river is nice and clean now, and that is awesome, but ... the solution was worse than the problem. If govt had paid the corps to clean up, instead of fines coupled with regulations that cost a bomb to implement, we would have a clean river and jobs and so on and some place in the world would still be clean too because we didn't move our mess there.
she has one. I'd bet you she makes more than either of us.
But you nailed the real rub. I am an environmentalist -- I believe in recycling and scientifically proven technology that uses less energy, produces 'free' energy, pollutes less, and so on very much. But the whacks have ruined the whole idea of doing things better with the junk science, crony-payoff 'technology', political nonsense, etc. And the countries that are trying to do better are not the big pollution creators directly anymore -- the industry in those countries sent all the pollution to places that don't give a rat's rear. All the bans, fines, and regulations did is move the problem to a place where we can't do anything more about it. Good job, government.
My city is a prime example. Its midsize, used to be an industrial area, now there are abandoned factories dotted all over the town and we produce nothing except tourism, no durable goods. Many of the decent wage jobs poofed as well. Our river is nice and clean now, and that is awesome, but ... the solution was worse than the problem. If govt had paid the corps to clean up, instead of fines coupled with regulations that cost a bomb to implement, we would have a clean river and jobs and so on and some place in the world would still be clean too because we didn't move our mess there.
Last edited on
| lastchance wrote: |
|---|
| Actually, prompt action based on scientific predictions has worked effectively in the past. |
It has. Unfortunately, the "scientific predictions" involving global warming don't have a lot of credibility, like @jonnin indicated with the link he posted (I laughed, by the way).
| jonnin wrote: |
|---|
| I believe in recycling and scientifically proven technology that uses less energy, produces 'free' energy, pollutes less, and so on very much. But the whacks have ruined the whole idea of doing things better with the junk science, crony-payoff 'technology', political nonsense, etc. |
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. China and India are the biggest polluters now– China because they just don't give a crap, and India because they just don't have the infrastructure/resources to upgrade.
Last edited on
| I laughed, by the way |
Only a sucker would take economist-gender equity Prof Perry seriously. He's the same as Greta except for being at the other nuisance end of the spectrum.
No, I mean I thought it was really funny that anyone would believe the media anymore, after their predictions have all failed.
the media certainly has its bias on that topic but its an easy win for them when they can just quote big name doofi (is that the plural of doofus?!). The news is the big name guy + the quote, right or wrong, and with a prediction, if its wrong, the liability is much lower than other headlines. We need to go back to the idea of execution (perhaps now, just cancel?) of false prophets who's predictions don't come true...
What is the plural of doofus? - WordHippo
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-plural-of/doofus.html
Doofus Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doofus
Personally I use more archaic terms than doofus. Clodpate or dulbert are especially choice IMO.
Ye Olde Nincompoop: Old-Fashioned Words for 'Stupid'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ye-olde-nincompoop-old-fashioned-obscure-words-for-stupid
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-plural-of/doofus.html
Doofus Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doofus
Personally I use more archaic terms than doofus. Clodpate or dulbert are especially choice IMO.
Ye Olde Nincompoop: Old-Fashioned Words for 'Stupid'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ye-olde-nincompoop-old-fashioned-obscure-words-for-stupid
Political posturing behind the religion of human-caused climate change has become a cult, the Church of Climate Scientology. With its own impossible to refute catechism because there is no unbiased rationale for it.
And anyone who rejects in the slightest The One True Faith is a heretic and blasphemer.
And anyone who rejects in the slightest The One True Faith is a heretic and blasphemer.
| agent max wrote: |
|---|
| Unfortunately, the "scientific predictions" involving global warming don't have a lot of credibility |
OK, not predictions, DATA. You can draw your own conclusions from it.
World temperatures in the industrial age:
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/global-land-ocean-temperature-index/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Atmospheric CO2 in the last century:
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2764/Coronavirus-response-barely-slows-rising-carbon-dioxide
The historical link between atmospheric CO2 and polar temperatures (note that we are now 100ppm above the top of that scale):
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
Sea-level rise since we have had satellites capable of monitoring it:
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/1551/2018/essd-10-1551-2018.html
This year's Nobel Prize winners in Physics were also nominated for their work on it:
https://www.iop.org/about/news/climate-change-pioneers-recognised-nobel-prize-winners-announced#gref
Last edited on
The other day I over heard some people talking about how bad experts were at making predictions and you couldn't trust them. They used examples such as the millennium bug, ...they said there would be massive disruptions and nothing happened. One thing in common with all the examples is that people took notice and made changes to avoid the issues making the prediction inaccurate.
When it comes to climate change, do the scientists know everything? No.
Are the models they base their predictions on accurate? No.
Is it better to take a pessimistic view of the future climate and try to avoid the shit storm that might be heading our way or just wait and see what slaps us around the face and try to deal with it later? I'd rather clean up the crap now, even if it is wrong the worst thing is we would have a cleaner planet to live on.
When it comes to climate change, do the scientists know everything? No.
Are the models they base their predictions on accurate? No.
Is it better to take a pessimistic view of the future climate and try to avoid the shit storm that might be heading our way or just wait and see what slaps us around the face and try to deal with it later? I'd rather clean up the crap now, even if it is wrong the worst thing is we would have a cleaner planet to live on.
| Grey Wolf wrote: |
|---|
| Is it better to take a pessimistic view of the future climate and try to avoid the shit storm that might be heading our way or just wait and see what slaps us around the face and try to deal with it later? I'd rather clean up the crap now, even if it is wrong the worst thing is we would have a cleaner planet to live on. |
Good point. Although, I would point out that completely eliminating coal/natural gas/other stuff that the Blob frowns on/ would cause a lot of countries, India for example, to have massive energy crises, because they rely on coal for pretty near all of their electricity.
Recycling, definitely. Cleaning up the ocean, for sure! Saving endangered animals, fine– so long as we don't put animals above humans. Eventually switching to cleaner energy sources, e.g. hydropower, nuclear power, wind/solar, absolutely!
But we don't want to cause massive disruptions in a country's economy. Here in the US, we've already seen what a somewhat small-ish disruption to the economy did– do we want that to happen to India or some other country? China would be fine– they're just Communists.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.