I am certain. Science doesn't lie, and I don't have to take someone's word, I can examine data, understand chemistry, and see short and long term trends. The data is undeniable, the only thing wrong with what the media tells you is they paint FAR too rosy a picture. You would think, based on media reports, that if we did stay at only 1.5C above pre industrial levels all is fine, that's nonsense. Truth is 1.5C is where they theorized we lose all control and skyrocket up from there to....nobody knows where, but hot. I think we are on track to 1.5C before 2030, and the feedback loops are already kicking in now. Does that mean we die in 2030? No, but it means our collective fate is sealed and completely out of our control.

I do plant trees, I already have solar, I drive well under 4000 miles a year, in fact I haven't driven anywhere but the grocery store in the wife's car in over 6 month when my car broke, and I don't miss it, I don't have AC, and yes, I need to get on my bike more, for my weight and blood pressure. My money IS where my mouth is, and I still was willing to put it on the line....you aren't.

A big difference is, if somehow I am wrong, what I do is still proper, cleaner, safer, and actually cheaper. Your ideas and ideals lead to detrimental, polluting, dangerous, and more expensive actions and processes even if miraculously they don't lead to our extinction this century.

Are you snatching up cheap uninsurable coastline in Florida and Louisiana? Are you selling off your water rights because they're a dime a dozen? Are you short selling produce and grains on margin? Are you doing anything to risk your money based on what you say?

Your turn.

Edit: I don't do mobs. I prefer people who think for themselves.

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

I know, like the repeal of this: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-finalizes-stream-protection-rule-safeguard-communities-coal-mining

The repeal is here:
https://www.osmre.gov/programs/rcm/streamprotectionrule.shtm

I like that rules crafted over 5 years,
(2011) https://www.osmre.gov/resources/testimony/2011/110411.pdf
(2016) https://www.osmre.gov/resources/testimony/02032016.pdf
slowly & carefully, with the input of industry leaders and in a bi-partisan way, are treated like waste paper.

B/C, fuck water, right?? Ask the people in Flynt, you can get by without it. If they're inconvenienced, it's probably just because they are liberal frail snowflakes.

That's what they get for not being born into a millionaire's family.

Umm, you know that's not water, right?

I've run as far as that on a pontoon bridge (mind you in my case the pontoons floated a little better).

Bullet probably didn't continue very far in the water right? I wonder if they found it.

>> ^bamdrew:

give him a freaking bowl already


Most animals prefer non-still water. Health wise, moving water is less apt to be ridden with bacteria. You can preform this experiment with your own pets. If you have a dog and take him on a walk, have a bowl of water near a water faucet. Fill the bowl, set it to the side, but leave the faucet cracked open. Most likely, it will attempt to drink the water right out of the faucet, unless he is highly trained to drink from the bowl.

@ 3:39 some guy dumps water right in front of a car LOL

That woulda triggered my inner road rage.

I just took a swig of water right at that last scene and it took all of my being not to do a spit-take in public!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:


Well, three parties would not amount to any real change. That is hardly effective. When the corporations put out money to the "new" party, then that party is brought to you by Tampex, BP and Oxyclean. Also, think of this. Two parties cannot get anything done, you think three can?
The Tea Party is an example of this. They are a serious threat to the GOP and the GOP is masterfully (I hate it) re-absorbing them like flies to shit. The Tea Party came about because of perceived failures in the GOP and are much more libertarian than the GOP will ever be. Yet, the Tea Party members are flunkies to GOP now... Sad… That, and they became as extreme as the GOP overnight--and are going beyond them...


It'll be damn more effective than the democrats being unable to do diddly squat because the "far" left and conservative wing keep blowing each other out of the water. Right now ever Democrat can say "We have the majority, the voter wants what I have to offer, screw the weirdos in my party. Now imagine you'd have a coalition gouvernment with a say 25/35 percent split between the parties involved. A lot clearer who is junior partner and who isn't.

Is the whole process aggrevating? Yes. But there is this thing called "compromise" that can help in some situations. Some people in DC should look it up at some point.

And the Tea Party is... well, just because something is called a party doesn't mean that it's either fun or political. The "Tea Party" as it currently stands is a front for corporate interests, trying to pull wool over the eyes of the politically less educated and politicians. It may have started differently, but it certainly devolved into a corporatist machine over the last 12 months.

If you're really fed up, try starting your own movement. It'll be hard work, and it will take a few years, but you've got the net, and it can be done (see the Pirate Party). Just remain reasonable, don't start screaming and hollering and wailing "I want my country back", because that way you'll just attract the cooks (and you'll get enough of those in the beginning). You'll want to attract the reasonable people, who can get things done.

Yes, this is a fucked up situation (and not just in the US, a lot of other western "democracies" are starting to look like the US), and nobody is saying the solution is easy, fast or that in fact a good or even ideal solution can be had. But I'd rather have a semi-good solution ASAP and refine it to a good solution than wait for a good solution 30 years down the line while our entire world falls apart around us.

The answer to why it does that is because it only drinks water right after it's licking its own ass. Hence why the leg is up.

I've been hearing about the 8 glasses for years and have read what this Doctor is saying in a few places.

I've had a nutritionist tell me I needed to take a tablespoon of salt with a pint of water right after dinner. Gullible as I am, I found it an excellent way to get dinner into a toilet without the hassle of digesting it first.

Refreshness on theoretical physics should be always welcome , however to be technically careful with new proposals is mandatory !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Published: 6:02PM GMT 14 Nov 2007
Comments 596 | Comment on this article

The E8 pattern (click to enlarge), Garrett Lisi surfing (middle) and out of the water (right)
An impoverished surfer has drawn up a new theory of the universe, seen by some as the Holy Grail of physics, which has received rave reviews from scientists.
• Garrett Lisi: This surfer is no Einstein...
• Test tube universe hints at unifying theory
• Surfer Dude's Theory of Everything - The Movie
Garrett Lisi, 39, has a doctorate but no university affiliation and spends most of the year surfing in Hawaii, where he has also been a hiking guide and bridge builder (when he slept in a jungle yurt).

Related Articles
• 19 March 2007: Is this the fabric of the universe?
• College course to learn surfing
• Large Hadron Collider: What will it find?
• The Big Bang: what will we find?
• Tree man 'who grew roots' hopes to marry after 4lb of warts removed
• Monty Python theme tune: music to madness
In winter, he heads to the mountains near Lake Tahoe, Nevada, where he snowboards. "Being poor sucks," Lisi says. "It's hard to figure out the secrets of the universe when you're trying to figure out where you and your girlfriend are going to sleep next month."
Despite this unusual career path, his proposal is remarkable because, by the arcane standards of particle physics, it does not require highly complex mathematics.
Even better, it does not require more than one dimension of time and three of space, when some rival theories need ten or even more spatial dimensions and other bizarre concepts. And it may even be possible to test his theory, which predicts a host of new particles, perhaps even using the new Large Hadron Collider atom smasher that will go into action near Geneva next year.
Although the work of 39 year old Garrett Lisi still has a way to go to convince the establishment, let alone match the achievements of Albert Einstein, the two do have one thing in common: Einstein also began his great adventure in theoretical physics while outside the mainstream scientific establishment, working as a patent officer, though failed to achieve the Holy Grail, an overarching explanation to unite all the particles and forces of the cosmos.
Now Lisi, currently in Nevada, has come up with a proposal to do this. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.
"Although he cultivates a bit of a surfer-guy image its clear he has put enormous effort and time into working the complexities of this structure out over several years," Prof Smolin tells The Telegraph.
"Some incredibly beautiful stuff falls out of Lisi's theory," adds David Ritz Finkelstein at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. "This must be more than coincidence and he really is touching on something profound."
• Is this the fabric of the universe?
• Are we missing a dimension of time?
• Quantum genesis: How life was born on Earth
The new theory reported today in New Scientist has been laid out in an online paper entitled "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" by Lisi, who completed his doctorate in theoretical physics in 1999 at the University of California, San Diego.
He has high hopes that his new theory could provide what he says is a "radical new explanation" for the three decade old Standard Model, which weaves together three of the four fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force, which binds quarks together in atomic nuclei; and the weak force, which controls radioactive decay.
The reason for the excitement is that Lisi's model also takes account of gravity, a force that has only successfully been included by a rival and highly fashionable idea called string theory, one that proposes particles are made up of minute strings, which is highly complex and elegant but has lacked predictions by which to do experiments to see if it works.
But some are taking a cooler view. Prof Marcus du Sautoy, of Oxford University and author of Finding Moonshine, told the Telegraph: "The proposal in this paper looks a long shot and there seem to be a lot things still to fill in."
And a colleague Eric Weinstein in America added: "Lisi seems like a hell of a guy. I'd love to meet him. But my friend Lee Smolin is betting on a very very long shot."
Lisi's inspiration lies in the most elegant and intricate shape known to mathematics, called E8 - a complex, eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248 points first found in 1887, but only fully understood by mathematicians this year after workings, that, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan.
E8 encapsulates the symmetries of a geometric object that is 57-dimensional and is itself is 248-dimensional. Lisi says "I think our universe is this beautiful shape."
• The answer to the universe and everything?
• Trapped rainbow heralds computer revolution
• How About That: Unusual, funny and bizarre stories
What makes E8 so exciting is that Nature also seems to have embedded it at the heart of many bits of physics. One interpretation of why we have such a quirky list of fundamental particles is because they all result from different facets of the strange symmetries of E8.
Lisi's breakthrough came when he noticed that some of the equations describing E8's structure matched his own. "My brain exploded with the implications and the beauty of the thing," he tells New Scientist. "I thought: 'Holy crap, that's it!'"
What Lisi had realised was that he could find a way to place the various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points. What remained was 20 gaps which he filled with notional particles, for example those that some physicists predict to be associated with gravity.
Physicists have long puzzled over why elementary particles appear to belong to families, but this arises naturally from the geometry of E8, he says. So far, all the interactions predicted by the complex geometrical relationships inside E8 match with observations in the real world. "How cool is that?" he says.
The crucial test of Lisi's work will come only when he has made testable predictions. Lisi is now calculating the masses that the 20 new particles should have, in the hope that they may be spotted when the Large Hadron Collider starts up.
"The theory is very young, and still in development," he told the Telegraph. "Right now, I'd assign a low (but not tiny) likelyhood to this prediction.
"For comparison, I think the chances are higher that LHC will see some of these particles than it is that the LHC will see superparticles, extra dimensions, or micro black holes as predicted by string theory. I hope to get more (and different) predictions, with more confidence, out of this E8 Theory over the next year, before the LHC comes online."

I'm not sure if private property is the issue.

I think the main argument involves valuable, common resources that a community needs to survive being owned, manipulated, and exploited by a handful of private interests.

Does it really make sense for one person to own all of the land in a town, another person to own all the water rights, and another to own all the energy venues?

Does it really make sense for those three people to benefit, often handsomely, at the expense of everyone else?

Well, at least this conflict once again shows how rediculous the concept of UN resolutions has become.
The list of war crimes and crimes against humanity grows steadily, yet nothing is done about it, because a) the UN Security Council is blocked by the US veto (not that its resolutions would be worth anything anyway), b) the UN General Assembly's convictions aren't worth the paper they're printed on due to lack of enforcement and c) the International Criminal Court is out of the game, because Israel withdrew from the Rome Statute in '02.

Last I read, they were up to 500.000 without access to drinking water, right? Maybe Uri Avnery's comparison of Gaza with Leningrad wasn't so far fetched after all.