@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

I've seen a lot of articles talking about soldiers having to face swarms of "loitering" drones. Many suggesting that it's a threat only the "good guys" have to face.

Meanwhile,
http://soldiersystems.net/2019/05/24/sofic-19-defendtex-drone-40/

Something tells me the "good guys" will have APS in place to counter small drones well before the "bad guys".

You'd be surprised.

Geothermal try to keep public exposure to less than 1 mSv per year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283106142_Natural_radionuclides_in_deep_geothermal_heat_and_power_plants_of_Germany

Living near a Nuclear Power station will get you about 0.00009 mSv/year.

Living in Fukushima will get you about 10 mSv in a lifetime, with life expectancy there at about 84 years that is 0.177 mSv/year.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

Even Chernobyl is almost entirely background radiation now. Radiation is all scaremongering and misinformation these days, so people freak out about it but it really isn't that dangerous. It takes about 100 mSv a year to have even the slightest statistically detectable health effect and far more than that to actually kill someone.

I think we are seeing things very differently.

How important do you think fossil fuels are to modern society right now and over the last hundred years? Do you believe that they have been net negative or net positive influence on humanity in that time?

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Interesting suggestion.

I believe that with 1/10 the population, near today's per capita resource usage would be sustainable....although there would be a necessary time period with net zero or better emissions required to return the atmosphere to "normal" before runaway greenhouse effects and feedbacks turn earth into Venus 2.0. After that, there is an amount of emission the planet can absorb, so resource usage need not be curtailed excessively, but it wouldn't hurt.

I'm all for the lottery system if everyone draws straws, no exceptions except those willing to just move to the reservation voluntarily.
Even a lottery system simply for procreation would do wonders, but remembering the outrage at China for just allowing one child per couple, I doubt that would fly either. Also, it does leave the possibility that the lucky procreators might all be imbecilic morons incapable of following/continuing the plan...we don't want to become a species that is dumber than our pets....or do we?

I think the priorities should be reversed too, what's best for life on earth first, humanity second.

It's an extreme solution certainly, but not without merit. I doubt there'd ever be a willing acceptance of such a plan though, so a slightly more realistic solution would need to be moderated some. How's this for dystopian-but-not-quite-genocidal:
Worldwide lottery, a small percentage (total of 500M - 1B maybe) wins the right to live in what will be the new model of the world: something like what we have now, but with drastically reduced usage of non-renewable resources (until they can be replaced completely) and a target of zero negative impact on the environment as a whole. Still some version of democratic (generally at least), freedom of whatnot and such, open travel to the degree that sustainable transportation options allow, all the (again, sustainable) mod cons. I suppose different countries / regions could still run things according to their preferences, as long as the net-zero goal remains.
The other lottery entrants, the non-winners, don't need to die, hooray! They will however live on something akin to reservations, as serfs, without the right to further reproduce. These poor bastards, in exchange for not being outright murdered to save civilization, are to be consolidated into agricultural communes to do whatever they can to regrow the world's flora and fauna until they all eventually die. Their goal is not net-zero, but as far into the positive as possible. It would all be overseen according to some grand scheme(s) to be as beneficial for the overall future of humanity and life on Earth in general as possible.

Probably also unworkable, but preferable to megamurder?

http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/grand-pigeons-duty/

If you're keeping track, the hashtag/pound sign is now a nazi symbol as well.

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/816fee6773b4fb9dbf30a78e0816fc790040b169e155ea07035946f018e97761.png

This will never end, stop accepting their reality.

So, you think, with no training, no equipment, no pay, and no oversight, I should become an armed vigilante, a punisher, and that somehow addresses police corruption? What?
Edit: I already do that when reasonable....when I see something I DO something. Where I live we have highway patrol and that's it. They don't show up when people are reported detonating huge explosives or shooting their guns rapid fire in the neighborhood, so I and others must investigate ourselves.

Police don't do those kinds of studies, why should I? They don't address corruption a bit.

Why?

Not a bit motivated to do meaningless busy work at your whim.
You do a study, it has nothing to do with solving police corruption and abuse, why would I?

Since it's your field, how about you do a study on how often police are given a pass on felonies that would put anyone else in prison. Then do another showing how often they get away with crimes that would cost anyone else their net worth. Then do one examining what happens to cops that turn in criminal cops. Then do a study about what happens to cops that threaten other cops off the force. Have your studies verified, repeated, and published, then if you aren't in prison on trumped up charges I'll give you that atta boy you didn't offer me before explaining what a waste of time that was.

Not a bit sure what your point could be. Cops do some needed work, so give all their crimes and abuses a pass?
What are you saying? Nothing rational or helpful that I discern.

Sounds like ' You need farmers to feed us all, so let them use deadly poisons and sell deadly, contaminated, even fake food without repercussions, or consider the implications of having no farmers.' Deep.....to a gnat.

Okay, the whole last statement is Bullshit.
"Americans are subsidizing the cost of drugs for the rest of the world." "The reason drugs are so expensive in the US, is becuase they are cheaper everywhere else."

BULL
Talk about shifting the blame.
The reason the drugs are so expensive is because the Drug companies are "for Profit" private companies, and they know people will die without their product so they also know there is an urgency for people to have the drugs. So they jack up the price for bigger profits. Stock owners want better return on their investments, so the board and CEO do everything they can/get away with to get as much as they think they can without breaking the bank. AKA, the consumer - of course, there is an acceptable death rate that they factor in, which they feel is safe to shield them from backlash, staying as close to that line as possible.

As always follow the money - see what these companies make in a year.

<iframe src='//players.brightcove.net/2111767321001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6007817856001' allowfullscreen frameborder=0></iframe>
http://players.brightcove.net/2111767321001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6007817856001


"As a result, even with major R&D spending, pharmaceutical companies remain highly profitable. They have the tenth highest average after-tax profit levels of more than 100 different industries. And according to figures from Axios, while drug companies bring in 23% of health care’s U.S. revenue, they make 63% of the total profits."

$30 Million Mueller investigation netted how many $$$ back from Manafort ALONE? $42 Mil. Mueller is helping the gov't take back a ton of hidden money.