Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718
Results 171 to 176 of 176

Thread: The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

  1. Top | #171
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,148
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,437
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Another false claim.
    How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?

    My intention all along was to show there are the limits to production, of any sort, peak production not only for food but exploitation of natural resources in general.

    If the paragraph you dispute did not convey that intention, it was probably the wrong quote to use. That's all. A minor thing. It doesn't change anything. What appears odd is your anal manner and attitude over posting minor errors or references in articles that are at times unavoidable given time constraints in composing a post, and that this is a casual discussion forum and not a testing ground for submitting one's thesis.

    Your posting style comes across like some sort of hysteria. All angst and resentment, hissing and spitting, If every dot and comma is not correct, look out folks, Jokodo comes in with all guns blazing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    Yes, that's what I said. And no, I didn't change my position, this has always been what I'm saying. Now who's misrepresenting who?

    Did I say that you had changed your position? Read more carefully and try again.
    No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

    But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

    bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.
    It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

    I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.
    And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.

    Pretending that the population is exploding like it's fucking 1969, or that we're running out of food because total production isn't growing as fast as it used to (but neither is population, so per capita production is still steadily up), or taking a single observation and pretending it supports your favored conclusion, aren't.

  2. Top | #172
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,762
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,975
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?

    My intention all along was to show there are the limits to production, of any sort, peak production not only for food but exploitation of natural resources in general.

    If the paragraph you dispute did not convey that intention, it was probably the wrong quote to use. That's all. A minor thing. It doesn't change anything. What appears odd is your anal manner and attitude over posting minor errors or references in articles that are at times unavoidable given time constraints in composing a post, and that this is a casual discussion forum and not a testing ground for submitting one's thesis.

    Your posting style comes across like some sort of hysteria. All angst and resentment, hissing and spitting, If every dot and comma is not correct, look out folks, Jokodo comes in with all guns blazing.





    Did I say that you had changed your position? Read more carefully and try again.
    No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

    But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

    bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.
    It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

    I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.
    And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.
    Building plants away from locations where natural events could compromise them wolud be nice. IOW spending the money necessary to ensure plants and procedures are damn near fool proof, not just showing that such are possible at some demonstration facility where demand isn't an issue would be nice.

    Another thing, choosing leaders who avoid destroying safety nets because they want to demonstrate the size of their national penises.

  3. Top | #173
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    10,677
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    16,383
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Of course, now Why didn't I think of that! AOC truly is THE American savior and much more than just a genius! Reduce American carbon emissions to zero [which are at approx 16-19% of the world's carbon emissions ATM] thereby destroying the economy completely by throwing millions of people on to food stamps and poverty that would make the poverty in India and Africa seem like middle class in comparison. The Americans are so lucky to have such a one as AOC...........not!
    Successfully substituting renewable sources won't cause a collapse of civilization.

    AOC herself has stated that the US ought not to imitate the worst of other nations, but instead be a leader of renewable-energy transition.
    Cutting out America's total emissions to zero will do absolutely nothing to the total world's output of emissions as can be seen in this link...................................... https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...re-of-co2.html

  4. Top | #174
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ
    Posts
    8,665
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,571
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?

    My intention all along was to show there are the limits to production, of any sort, peak production not only for food but exploitation of natural resources in general.

    If the paragraph you dispute did not convey that intention, it was probably the wrong quote to use. That's all. A minor thing. It doesn't change anything. What appears odd is your anal manner and attitude over posting minor errors or references in articles that are at times unavoidable given time constraints in composing a post, and that this is a casual discussion forum and not a testing ground for submitting one's thesis.

    Your posting style comes across like some sort of hysteria. All angst and resentment, hissing and spitting, If every dot and comma is not correct, look out folks, Jokodo comes in with all guns blazing.





    Did I say that you had changed your position? Read more carefully and try again.
    No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

    But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

    bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.
    It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

    I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.
    And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.

    Pretending that the population is exploding like it's fucking 1969, or that we're running out of food because total production isn't growing as fast as it used to (but neither is population, so per capita production is still steadily up), or taking a single observation and pretending it supports your favored conclusion, aren't.
    Where did I say the population is exploding 'like it's fucking 1969?' Can't you understand the distinction I made between population increase and rising consumption driven by higher income/affluence as living standards improve within the projected figure?

    I mean, I did actually say rising demand in relation to higher living standards within the projected figure of 9 billion probably ten to fifteen times . Maybe if I put it in really bright colours? Would that help you understand the distinction?

    That's another example of your misrepresentation. You put on a display, a holier than thou attitude, assuming perfection for yourself yet only seeing fault in your opponent, but making errors such this at every turn.

    Get off your high horse. Stop acting the Prima Donna.

  5. Top | #175
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,148
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,437
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?



    No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

    But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

    bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.
    It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

    I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.
    And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.

    Pretending that the population is exploding like it's fucking 1969, or that we're running out of food because total production isn't growing as fast as it used to (but neither is population, so per capita production is still steadily up), or taking a single observation and pretending it supports your favored conclusion, aren't.
    Where did I say the population is exploding 'like it's fucking 1969?' Can't you understand the distinction I made between population increase and rising consumption driven by higher income/affluence as living standards improve within the projected figure?

    I mean, I did actually say rising demand in relation to higher living standards within the projected figure of 9 billion probably ten to fifteen times . Maybe if I put it in really bright colours? Would that help you understand the distinction?

    That's another example of your misrepresentation. You put on a display, a holier than thou attitude, assuming perfection for yourself yet only seeing fault in your opponent, but making errors such this at every turn.

    Get off your high horse. Stop acting the Prima Donna.
    Hey, I've heard mirrors ate quite affordable.

  6. Top | #176
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Lebanon, OR
    Posts
    5,796
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    22,625
    Rep Power
    76
    Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale - About the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
    Category 5:
    People, livestock, and pets are at very high risk of injury or death from flying or falling debris, even if indoors in mobile homes or framed homes. Almost complete destruction of all mobile homes will occur, regardless of age or construction. A high percentage of frame homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Extensive damage to roof covers, windows, and doors will occur. Large amounts of windborne debris will be lofted into the air. Windborne debris damage will occur to nearly all unprotected windows and many protected windows. Significant damage to wood roof commercial buildings will occur due to loss of roof sheathing. Complete collapse of many older metal buildings can occur. Most unreinforced masonry walls will fail which can lead to the collapse of the buildings. A high percentage of industrial buildings and low-rise apartment buildings will be destroyed. Nearly all windows will be blown out of high-rise buildings resulting in falling glass, which will pose a threat for days to weeks after the storm. Nearly all commercial signage, fences, and canopies will be destroyed. Nearly all trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Long-term water shortages will increase human suffering. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months. Hurricane Andrew (1992) is an example of a hurricane that brought Category 5 winds and impacts to coastal portions of Cutler Ridge, Florida with Category 4 conditions experienced elsewhere in south Miami-Dade County.
    Imagine that happening to Miami.

    The $1 Trillion Storm: How a Single Hurricane Could Rupture the World Economy - VICE
    The catastrophe, if it comes, will first manifest as just a natural disaster. Floridians will flee the impending hurricane, emptying neighborhoods and clogging freeways. Some will stay in their homes, confident this hurricane will be no worse than previous years’ storms, while a smaller minority might be persuaded by far-right talk show hosts the whole thing is a left-wing conspiracy. Entire swathes of the state will be destroyed. People will die. But what might come next will be even more shocking. The storm’s financial aftermath could spiral outwards from Florida, creating conditions that inevitably draw comparisons to the 2008 Wall Street crash.
    That massive destruction would overload the insurance companies, and that would cause a cascade of financial failure that could produce a major economic slump.
    One version of a worst-case hurricane for Florida is a storm that makes landfall just south of Miami, heads slightly inland, then moves steadily up the east coast. This is the scenario of maximum devastation, explained Shahid Hamid, a finance professor at Florida International University’s International Hurricane Research Center, because part of the hurricane will be able to draw heat from the ocean while slamming Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach, Melbourne, Jacksonville, and Orlando with the strongest possible winds. “The hurricane is basically buzzsawing through the cities,” Hamid said.

    If this were to happen, it could also create a ten-foot storm surge that demolishes homes and blocks the streets with debris. “South Florida is not remotely prepared for a Category 3 or higher hurricane,” Bryan Norcross, who was a TV meteorologist in Miami during Hurricane Andrew, which killed 65 people in 1992, warned the Washington Post in 2017. “People will be stuck in buildings with no power, no water, likely little or no communications, and no way to get out or get people in with supplies and aid for an extended time after the storm.”

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •