Latest from the IPCC

[tkhayes 126]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

If you’re too embarrassed to say why you really started posting here, why do it at all?

why does there have to be a 'why'?  Pretend you have the answer to 'why'.... what difference would it make and what would you do with that information?  see where that goes into an endless counting of jabs with no outcome or purpose

[JoeWeber 2,299]

7 hours ago, jakee said:

If you’re too embarrassed to say why you really started posting here, why do it at all?

Because I lost my mobius strip and need a distraction.

[jakee 1,255]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Because I lost my mobius strip and need a distraction.

And yet it still never crossed your mind to talk about a topic for once. Why is that?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

And yet it still never crossed your mind to talk about a topic for once. Why is that?

How can you know that? If you do know that then you would also know why, wouldn’t you?

[jakee 1,255]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

How can you know that? If you do know that then you would also know why, wouldn’t you?

So you consciously decided that engaging with the topic of any thread on this forum would not interest you, and you did this instead? Why is that?

[wmw999 2,122]

Ok enough I know I am but what are you

Wendy P. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

22 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Ok enough I know I am but what are you

Wendy P. 

Obviously as a woman you do not understand the nature of a pissing contest and the need of a man to get the last squirt in.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Ok enough I know I am but what are you

Wendy P. 

Aw, come on Boss, where will I go for abrasion therapy?

[billvon 2,400]

And the latest from the real world:

After several days of 80+ degree temperatures in the area around Amarillo TX, a brush fire started.  It is now the worst fire in Texas history, and is still only 15% contained.  It has killed two people and destroyed 500 buildings so far.

And in the Atlantic, last year's record high water temperatures were followed by - even higher temperatures.  Since temperatures have never been this high before no one knows for sure what will happen, but stronger storms are very likely, since storms are driven by temperature differentials between the upper atmosphere and the surface.

The warmer waters have already caused the collapse of many of the Atlantic's cod fisheries, and Maine had its worst lobster season in over a decade.  Fishermen are pulling in far fewer fish - and the ones they pull in are smaller - but mixed in with those fish are tropical species.  Which, of course, are upending the local ocean ecosystem.

The AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) current is getting steadily weaker as melting ice and warmer waters reduce the forces that drive this current.  If it stops, then Europe will see a several degree drop in temperatures, and the weather along the Eastern seaboard in the United States will become more severe - colder winters, warmer summers, less rain in the summer.  East Coast summers will become more like LA's than Boston's.

Conservatives, even now, are flexing their fingers and getting ready to type thousands of words describing how none of that has anything to do with anthropogenic global warming.

[gowlerk 1,912]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

Conservatives, even now, are flexing their fingers and getting ready to type thousands of words describing how none of that has anything to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It is no longer fashionable to deny our role in climate change. The new (really old but being brought forward) tactic is to convince the population that it is a done deal and that there is no use wasting resources to try to change it.  
 

The beauty of this argument is that it is far harder to dispute. You can’t really prove the effects of making efforts to change. The best answer is to make clear that limiting the damage as much as possible is still worthwhile. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The best answer is to make clear that limiting the damage as much as possible is still worthwhile. 

And how do you do that? I mean it's easy to say and as good as any other non-solution on offer but when most people didn't give a crap to start with, have been dragged along kicking and screaming since then, how do you persuade them that spending money on a failing venture makes sense from a single, or fraction of a single, lifetime basis?

[billvon 2,400]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The beauty of this argument is that it is far harder to dispute. You can’t really prove the effects of making efforts to change. The best answer is to make clear that limiting the damage as much as possible is still worthwhile. 

Texas is fighting climate change using a time honored technique honed by conservatives over the years - thoughts and prayers.  That way they can say they are doing something while doing nothing.  

The Texas Farm Bureau has been helping out, sending a sack of feed to farmers who have lost almost everything.  "But it’s more than a round bale or a sack of feed.  It’s hope and faith rolled up tight along with prayers for a better tomorrow.”  Needless to say they will also be working against that better tomorrow, but at least there are prayers.

Up next - Trump supporters pray for peace and bipartisanship while invading the Capitol, attacking police officers and trying to kill Mike Pence.

[billvon 2,400]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

how do you persuade them that spending money on a failing venture makes sense from a single, or fraction of a single, lifetime basis?

1) You make sure they're not failing ventures
2) You explain to them the costs of not doing anything vs the costs of doing something.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

1) You make sure they're not failing ventures
2) You explain to them the costs of not doing anything vs the costs of doing something.

How you make sure they're not failing ventures will be tricky. How you explain they won't fail in Mandarin, Bahasa, Farsi and 200 other important languages will be even trickier.

[gowlerk 1,912]

12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

And how do you do that? I mean it's easy to say and as good as any other non-solution on offer but when most people didn't give a crap to start with, have been dragged along kicking and screaming since then, how do you persuade them that spending money on a failing venture makes sense from a single, or fraction of a single, lifetime basis?

The same way that the other side does it. You repeat it over and over again. It has always worked before and there is no reason it can’t work with this. It sounds plausible and is easy to implement in tiny steps. It is essentially what is being done anyway. It’s only a question of how to present it. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

13 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

How you make sure they're not failing ventures will be tricky. How you explain they won't fail in Mandarin, Bahasa, Farsi and 200 other important languages will be even trickier.

Take care of your own backyard first. Remember, the idea is not to solve the whole problem all at once. If BH insists that he needs an F-350 at least his wife might get a Prius and his kids will probably follow her, not their dinosaur dad.

Edited March 3 by gowlerk

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Take care of your own backyard first. Remember, the idea is not to solve the whole problem all at once. 

Look, I am in agreement that humans are warming the planet. But if we believe our own science then we also agree that a small percentage of humanity, our own backyard, sacrificing to not fix the problem is windmill tilting at it's finest. We're just a crappy species plagued by absurd belief systems, it seems to me; like scorpions that kill the turtle before crossing the stream. I don't like thinking this way but more and more I think we are screwed no matter what we try.

[wmw999 2,122]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I don't like thinking this way but more and more I think we are screwed no matter what we try

Well then party on, I guess. Or are you trying your own schadenschade approach to the ecology movement that Brent approaches with such schadenfreude?

Wendy P. 

[kallend 1,623]

34 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Well then party on, I guess. 

Wendy P. 

Warmest February in Chicago  since records began. 

70 degrees (F) in Chicago right now.  This is more like May.

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Take care of your own backyard first. Remember, the idea is not to solve the whole problem all at once. If BH insists that he needs an F-350 at least his wife might get a Prius and his kids will probably follow her, not their dinosaur dad.

Says to take care of your own backyard first, then immediately proceeds to tell Brent how his family can take care of their own backyard, first.

Typical liberal.

[tkhayes 126]

29 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Says to take care of your own backyard first, then immediately proceeds to tell Brent how his family can take care of their own backyard, first.

Typical liberal.

That;s a pretty slanted skew on what was said - typical conservative.....

[gowlerk 1,912]

35 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Says to take care of your own backyard first, then immediately proceeds to tell Brent how his family can take care of their own backyard, first.

Typical liberal.

I was telling Brent nothing at all. I was telling Joe what Brent is likely to do. Try to keep up.

Edited March 3 by gowlerk

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Well then party on, I guess. Or are you trying your own schadenschade approach to the ecology movement that Brent approaches with such schadenfreude?

Wendy P. 

I'm sure I've done more than my share of tree hugging etc. over the years to help out and I've paid a hell of a lot of school taxes for other peoples kids. If we here at home weren't being overwhelmed by Republican Party antics, selfishness, and flat out stupidity and if we didn't have Trump or our openly partisan Supreme Court and if racism, autocracy, the diminution of women's rights, and other complete nonsenses weren't ascendant, then I might still have my cheery, positive attitude about the future. Brent and I diverge in that I do not think this is funny, what liberals or immigrants deserve, or the way it had to be. But until I see something that portends a direction change I'm going with what is.

Edited March 3 by JoeWeber

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, tkhayes said:

That;s a pretty slanted skew on what was said - typical conservative.....

The difference may be in the fundamental difference in how conservatives vs liberals see families.

To a conservative, Brent effectively is his family.  He determines what people drive, what they do, and how they live.  So when Gowlerk talks about what Brent's family might do, Coreece sees it as telling Brent what to do with his family.

To a liberal, Brent's family is made up of several people, including his wife and kids, each with their own agency.  So when Gowlerk talks about what Brent's family might do, he is talking about how they may make independent decisions on their own cars/energy/recycling etc. even if Brent is opposed to such progress.

I have seen the second interpretation in action.  A neighbor's daughter was driven around in Mom's Rav4 EV for a while, and she's told me several times she's getting an EV because it just makes more sense.  Several of the kids I work with talk a lot more about EVs than gas cars, even though most of them have two parents who drive gas cars.

I knew a few families back in the 1980's who fit the first interpretation, but none lately.  I'm sure they exist, though.

[jakee 1,255]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

To a conservative, Brent effectively is his family.  He determines what people drive, what they do, and how they live.  So when Gowlerk talks about what Brent's family might do, Coreece sees it as telling Brent what to do with his family.

Though for the sake of balance Brent himself has been very clear that his wife is an independently successful woman making her own decisions, vehicular and otherwise (IIRC).

Edited March 4 by jakee