metalslug

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    1,153

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by metalslug

  1. 1 minute ago, GeorgiaDon said:

    Also anyone who is familiar with the Canadian Shield will know that there is a limit to how far north agriculture will be able to shift with a warming climate.  You can't grow a crop on bare rock and lakes.

    'shift' or 'extend' ?  Is there a reason they cannot continue agriculture in the present southern locations?

  2. 4 hours ago, olofscience said:

    You do realise they're two separate things, right? Even if the mainstream media hypes it up, it has nothing to do with the scientists who actually do the research.

    Brent and I are different forum members responding to different posts. In other news; Water... wet ! 

    6 minutes ago, billvon said:

    Actual study:

    More than five million extra deaths a year can be attributed to abnormal hot and cold temperatures, according to a world first international study led by Monash University.

    The study found deaths related to hot temperatures increased in all regions from 2000 to 2019, indicating that global warming due to climate change will make this mortality figure worse in the future.

    How does that value compare to global population growth over the same period? ...and what was their 'cause of death' determination based on? How about this;  

    Quote

    NOAA’s take: heat is the bigger killer
    NOAA’s official source of weather-related deaths, a monthly publication called Storm Data, is heavily skewed toward heat-related deaths.... Storm Data is often based on media reports, and tends to be biased towards media/public awareness of an event.

    Quote

    CDC’s take: cold is the bigger killer
    In contrast, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database, which is based on death certificates, indicates the reverse—about twice as many people die of “excessive cold” conditions in a given year than of “excessive heat.”

     

  3. 15 hours ago, billvon said:

    This topic made me want to look up past predictions and see how well they did.

    1973, John Sawyer of the UK Met office.  He predicted that between 1973 and 2000 the climate would warm by approximately .6C.  Actual value - .56C

    1975, Wally Broeker of Columbia.  He claimed that "a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide."  He was, of course, ridiculed.

    1981, James Hansen, NASA.  In his fast-growth scenario (i.e. rapid economic growth, minimal attempts to reduce CO2) he predicted .75C between 1981 and 2020.  He was almost dead on - his (smooth) curve goes right down the center of the peaks and valleys of the actual climate in the past 40 years.

    1988, James Hansen, NASA. This was the first detailed climate model that took into account individual areas of the globe and what would happen with them.  His midrange scenario B was within 20% of the warming we are seeing today.

    1990, first IPCC assessment.  Their business-as-usual model mean was accurate to within 15%.

    So even going back 49 years, predictions (and then later models) have been remarkably accurate.
     

    Thanks for finding these and due credit to these forecasters. It would be great if we could have reliably similar forecasting today in the mainstream media instead of the kind of forecasts that bring impressionable children and nutters to tears of despair over their own imminent doom in their lifetime.  From the scattergun of forecasts out there some pellets have hit the target. That NASA guy got it right twice, if not yet retired he'd be good enough to work for SpaceX now.¬¬

  4. 3 minutes ago, jakee said:

    Let’s assume for just a moment that respectable, long established textbook companies might have some small inkling of how children learn and what helps them retain information. 

    Yet books exist from respectable companies that don't have that content, possibly one's now adopted by Florida. Will this mean that Florida students will be incapable of learning mathematics without the banned content?  Time will tell, I suppose, but I doubt it.

  5. 8 minutes ago, billvon said:

    Absolutely.  The topic is "what is age appropriate" - with the understanding that non-age-appropriate things will be banned.

    OK, you may need to help me here; Is mathematics a mandatory subject for Florida students at any stage in their curriculum?  By comparison; is scripture or religious studies mandatory  for Florida students at any stage in their current curriculum?  Surely you concede that difference is important is determining what to ban?

    11 minutes ago, billvon said:

    This is really what needs to be banned?  Was it because "disagreeing respectfully" was too woke?  Or was it that the second kid was portrayed as black?

    Why would a mathematics textbook need to introduce that context at all?  Why does it require visual cartoons? Is it relevant to the mathematical problem as to what race the characters are?  The "Joe wants to buy a book..."  scenario would seem perfectly adequate, the reader is free to make their own (imagined) determinations as to the race or even the gender of 'Joe', if they somehow felt that it was relevant to the mathematical solution.

    "Disagree respectfully"?  Certainly that's a fine attitude to have, but it has no place in a mathematics textbook, so why introduce it in the content?   If Florida had accepted a mathematics textbook containing visual cartoons of exclusively white males they would get absolutely panned for that, so leave them all out I say.

  6. 10 hours ago, billvon said:

    Now just consider what sort of violence we would see from the right if anyone suggested banning the Bible.

    Are you seriously comparing a mathematics textbook to the Bible in that context?  Surely you would agree that there are many ways to teach mathematics without ever needing to reference scripture or politics or any ideology outside of the pure sciences.  Would you be happier if scripture were allowed in mathematics textbooks?  I have as much contempt  for scripture as you do but by comparison it would seem to absurd to ban scripture from the Bible because the entire book is scripture and it's optional reading as opposed to mandated curriculum.  Seeing the difference? 

  7. 11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

    New Florida election DeSantisgestapo.

    spacer.png

    Hmm.. you're not perhaps one who's quick to cite Godwin's law when it suits your purposes, right ?

    I would expect that skydivers from both sides of the argument have the same choices in Florida and that is to "go jump", either literally or metaphorically.

  9. Well, Joe B  is optimistic he can save a bit more of the earth with a climate friendly military fleet , considering all those recharge stations on the battlefield and the time that can be afforded to stop and use them. Or perhaps hydrogen?  Large tanks of it on a battlefield? Sounds splendid. Maybe the mid-air refuelling of other aircraft will soon be an electric cable dropped from a KC135 Tesla big battery...   'cause climate change is a graver concern than an enemy at the gate. ;)

    • Like 1

  11. 14 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

    I agree with the above, for the most part. Concommitantly, I believe we will be about 50 years into the millennium with Jesus the Christ on the throne in Jerusalem.

    I'm wondering if Ron is yanking their chain on this, as in; "If you believe that then you might believe this..."

  12. 8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

    Too bad you couldn't have stopped without the Will Smith nonsense and left the field with some credibility.

    After your history in this forum? I can afford to be wrong here. You'd like the 'win' on this one? Take it; bill is dead right. I concede that the mainstream understanding of cancel culture includes boycott action. I'm disappointed that it does but I'm unable to deny it. 'The right' is trying to 'cancel' Disney.

    3 hours ago, jakee said:

    So 'cancel culture' is decisions made by employers in the absense of wider social pressure? 

    Or in the presence of social pressure. The decision still falls to individuals in those cases.

    14 hours ago, jakee said:

    Exactly - and here you get the problem with all the complaints about so-called cancel culture.

    This is where I find myself now, feeling that cancel culture is neither good or bad. It's a synonym for common and predictable market phenomena and therefore quite uninteresting.

    • Like 1

  13. 7 hours ago, billvon said:

    Mike Lindell's company (MyPillow) was boycotted by democrats due to his support for Trump.  The conservative Washington Times used the MyPillow boycott as an example of cancel culture.

    Fair enough. 

    Quote

    If boycotts count as 'cancelling' then one might that say drivers who dislike Ford vehicles are 'cancelling' the Ford motor company.

    3 hours ago, jakee said:

    Exactly - and here you get the problem with all the complaints about so-called cancel culture.

    7 hours ago, billvon said:

    Nope.  That would be drivers who dislike Ford vehicles.

     

     

    Seems there's a few differing opinions on what constitutes 'cancel culture'. I concede I may be on the wrong side of what constitutes the more popular definition then.

    3 hours ago, jakee said:

    How can a single individual cancel a public figure?

    It is said that Will Smith now fears being 'cancelled' as several pending movie deals are now suspended or cancelled. The individuals making those contract decisions did not put out a national poll on the matter before deciding that. They subjectively determined that he was just not good business right now and unilaterally decided, as is their right. It's entirely possible for a handful of people to scuttle someone's career, whether deserved or not.

  14. 3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

    Batteries are chock full of valuable recyclables. The hardware is made of largely recyclable metals.... 

    You're sure?  I recall a separate thread on this subject mentioning (by bill or olof) that it was barely profitable to recycle them and that a only small percentage of existing batteries get recycled. Then there are solar panels and wind turbine parts, potentially many millions of them in a global future. A fair bit or extra landfill, excluding what ends up in the ocean. Not keen to rehash that same thread here though, may be better to go back to it if needed.

  15. 17 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

    Virtually every item on that list could just as well apply to "why automobiles will never replace horses" if written in the early 1800s.  "You would have to drill hundreds of thousands of oil wells, and build hundreds of refineries, plus we don't even know how to process oil into gasoline, and there's no way to get the gas to where it can be accessed by automobiles, and besides that all the roads are just mud so automobiles just get stuck.  Right now we already have plenty of pastures and hay fields, plus horses don't get stuck in muddy roads, and anyway horses are beautiful and automobiles are noisy, smelly, hard to crank-start, and they are always breaking down.  Only an idiot would think automobiles will ever replace horses."

    Hah !  I like that. Well played. However; Is the timeline fairly comparable? ..in so far as nobody at that time was declaring "Net Zero horses by 1830 !" Automobiles and fuels evolved over time at the rate determined by market and took several decades before automobiles surpassed horse & cart. The latter exists even today in a small number of rural communities as they were never outlawed. I have said at least once in this forum that I would be pleased to see green solutions if they were sufficiently economical and reliable. I don't imagine any one of us looks at smoggy skies or oil-soaked marine life or polymer pollution and thinks "Aah, great ! " . On some level I have to believe we all wish for something that is genuinely cleaner. My own concern is rather that proposed legislation is attempting to push the process faster than it can actually run and that there are negative impacts that have not been transparently accounted for.  Also; a hope that we won't see fossil-related pollution replaced by vast swathes of discarded batteries and 'green' hardware.

  16. 1 minute ago, jakee said:

    That's an odd thing to emphasize. What part of anything you might call cancel culture comes down to anything but people choosing to do something?

    In so far as most (if not all) 'cancelled' public figures were cancelled by a single individual or a small body of decision makers based on a small sampling of subjective judgement. If boycotts count as 'cancelling' then one might that say drivers who dislike Ford vehicles are 'cancelling' the Ford motor company. I don't regard the word as an appropriate fit there.  I also refer back to my Joe Rogan example; I would not accuse lefties of 'cancelling' Joe Rogan if they refused to listen to his work, but would if they fired or banned him.

  17. 12 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

    no you <insert whatever you wish here>, i am giving you an entertainment equivalent that you asked for.  then you moved the goalposts again. 

    ??  OK... to help you then; I'm using the OP as the goalposts; 

    Quote

    As most people know, the right wing is trying to cancel Disney....

     'The right' has not made any effort to dismiss Disney from their employ. Potential arguments so far seem to be that boycotts equate to 'cancelling' (which I'm not really convinced by,  listeners boycotting Joe Rogan does not equate to cancelling Joe Rogan.) and/or that the state governor might revoke 'special privileges' from Disney. The latter could be a good argument for the OP if we had a clear measure of what these 'special privileges' actually are. Comparable to child tax credit or something else?

  18. 28 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

    ok, it would be like 'rosanne' getting cancelled because of remarks supporting trump.  close enough for you?

    ?? Rosanne was cancelled by her employer. Are you implying that Disney is in the employ of 'the right'?

  19. 4 hours ago, billvon said:

    ?? Sounds like a governor using his political power to force companies to bow to his will - basically to choose winners and losers according to a political litmus test.  Isn't that what the right wing has been opposing for decades?

    Let's look at this in a different perspective.  Suppose Biden withdraws the child tax credit for anyone who publicly criticizes his presidency.  You OK with that?

    Is that a joke?  I am 99% sure you are just purposely misunderstanding, because the right has been fighting "cancel culture" for years.  You yourself have complained about it - and it would surely be odd for you to be railing against something you don't understand. 

    But just in case you really, honestly don't know, it's the mass withdrawal of support for a person or organization, done to support a political agenda.  They hope to bankrupt Disney by organizing mass boycotts.

    Yes, I'm against cancel culture, even against the left, although boycotts are not mutually inclusive with cancel culture as their success is largely determined by whoever chooses to participate. How does state government 'organize' mass boycotts?  By paying for rent-a-crowd?

    Your Biden analogy would be a comparatively 'shitty' move but can Disney's special privileges fairly be compared to 'child tax credit'?  I'm having a little difficulty trying to source what Disney's 'special privileges' are. I'd welcome anyone's input on that. I'd like to be fair on this so long as we're comparing apples with apples.

  20. 1 hour ago, billvon said:

    As most people know, the right wing is trying to cancel Disney.

    If media reports are to be believed; Disney has opposed the state’s 'Parental Rights In Education Act' and DeSantis has said he’s “receptive” to the state legislature revoking special privileges the company’s received. Sounds like standard 'tit for tat' at the moment. I'm not yet sure how the right can 'cancel' (ban?) Disney products, no more than a private corporation can veto a bill that may be democratically passed.  FWIW I have no problem with permanently archiving the older Disney works. In my youth a few of them seemed outright creepy to me anyway, I wasn't very receptive to fantasy themes and talking animals, I've had to acquire a liking. With regard to Disney's future it may surprise some here that I actually support their right to create whatever content they want as a private corporation. The market will decide their success in that regard.

  21. 2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

    Interesting observation from Mike Godwin (creator of Godwin's law):

    "--it's just science." Godwin's science credentials are even fewer than mine. Maybe I should use that tagline at the end of my posts.

  25. 2 minutes ago, billvon said:

    Nope.  I didn't decline anything.

    You're just making shit up now.  Good luck with your Chewbacca defense!

    You declined to ask me for a definition of a giraffe after I offered one, presumably because I had already indicated what sort I would provide. I had not meant to imply that you declined to provide your definition of a giraffe.  Better?  I do agree though that this debate is going nowhere.