I don't know about everyone else, but I'm enjoying the heat.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by arvana.

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm enjoying the heat.


Enjoy your tornados.

The question with global warming to me is, are we even capable of reducing emissions and would we still be able to afford to feed ourselves if we did to the level it would require to reverse it.

Can't stand to read much on it because it's usually non-quantified changes they tell everyone to make, and you have to wade through all the nuts discussing it on both sides. There's almost no "practicality-tempered view" in everything that comes out.

IE
If we all are expected to take public transport, are they going to build public transport, is it going to be so restrictive as to be worthless? Or so costly as to be useless?

If we all are expected to get electric cars, how will we pay for them? How long do current one's last? If it's less than 10 years, how is it cost effective in both the monetary and environmental sense to replace a car that often?

Why do we have manufacturing laws that allow companies to pump out stuff that breaks and is too costly to repair creating a system of replacing whatever every 1-3 years? I've had these microwaves, the POSes don't even last 5 years, where my grandmother had one from the 80s that still works today. Granted it takes forever to nuke something, but good lord, not even getting a 5 year average out of microwaves is piss. And then we have cell phones, those things get replaced more than underwear by some people. Computers have mostly slowed down, where you don't need a new computer every 3-5 years to do simple things.....but you know we got a load of tube monitors and old computers just sitting wherever or shipped wherever because there is nothing to be done with them in the US...charities won't even take OLD machines most the time.

And is the environment impact greater importing things from China or manufacturing them here so they travel less distance and hopefully have better environment protections and more efficiency in place? It's certainly more economically sound, in the short term at least, to ship everything from China. But if we're going to do global warming fixes and this is one.......it would be a huge boon to the US population to actually have an abundance of jobs return. PLUS they can hopefully be told they have to make no planned obsolete cheap-shit products to fill the junkyards and landfills and require a new one to be made like is currently going on.

Got a fridge a few years back, it is craptacular compared to the fridge it replaced that was like 10-15 years old. Sure it keeps food cold, but it's ice maker sucks, it's been "repaired" at least twice and it still sucks. And again, the grandmother's fridge...no ice maker, but it still works to this day and it's an 80s model.

None of this can be productive. Like cash for clunkers......was it really productive destroying that many cars when you'd just have to make new ones to fill that gap? And the people who have old cars and couldn't afford to get new ones?....they still have old cars, perhaps worse than if they had bought one of those clunkers. They were purposefully destroying the motors in those cash for clunker cars by running the motors without oil until they froze, that is not good for the environment and has no productive worth.

When they start to explain things in terms you can look at your own house and property and say, you know...that does need replaced and it'll be so much better because it's guaranteed to perform better and not need replacing for 5-10 years with regular maintenance due the new standards.

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm enjoying the heat.


Well, as much as I like nice weather, here in Portugal, to go with the current shitty economical crisis, we now have a severe drought, going on extreme; forest fires have already started; and not a single drop of water from the skies.


So... yeah, turns out I actually prefer water. go figure.

I have a hard time listening to science when it's presented by pop culture figureheads like this guy, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, et al. I keep expecting him to say "really? really?" at the end of every mind-blowing statistic.

*eco
*politics

Adding video to channels (Eco, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

That's strange because, It's just plain cold here. Colder than normal this year and the weather sucks.

at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

It always seems to me that the problem with climate change debate is one side says such and such fluctuation shows that climate change is/isn't happening, and all this video does is repeat that yet again. But the thing about climate change isn't that it hasn't been like this in the past, because it has. The real problem is that since the human race started screwing with things, the climate is now changing around 200 times faster than it ever has before.

Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:

at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

>> ^Thumper:

at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.


What?

I meant around 3:45. Where he has the chart up with 2011 being a big red dot. And Yes, I think the chart data isn't indicative of anything other than our local weather history. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. We as an element on the Earth do not have the impact global warming suggests. At most we should be concerned with the pollution for our health reasons, not because we're throwing the Earth's climate out of whack. >> ^messenger:

Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:
at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm enjoying the heat.


If it would stay... About a month or so ago here we had 6-8" of snow, 2 weeks later 80+ degrees, another 2 weeks later in the 40s. Sheesh.

Not sure you understand that chart. It's actually two statistics about Texas which happen to correlate. The x-axis is rainfall, and the 2011 dot indicates that last summer was a wee bit drier than the driest ever -- significant. But the temperature is double the previous largest deviation from the average (previous largest deviation was 2.5 degrees; 2011 was 5 degrees) -- incredible. Now, this is interesting, but nowhere near conclusive on its own -- freak weather things happen all the time, but it is huge, and it is for a very large area -- all of Texas -- not just some statistically anomalous hole that was purposefully chosen to quotemine. Cenk's overall point here with the other freak weather states is that there is a massive increase in really freak weather incidents. I'm still not convinced, and would want some information on what the average number of heat records usually is in a given period. It could be that thousands of places reporting all-time weather highs is normal.>> ^Thumper:

I meant around 3:45. Where he has the chart up with 2011 being a big red dot. And Yes, I think the chart data isn't indicative of anything other than our local weather history. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. We as an element on the Earth do not have the impact global warming suggests. At most we should be concerned with the pollution for our health reasons, not because we're throwing the Earth's climate out of whack. >> ^messenger:
Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:
at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

That's weird. I guess I didn't notice that about the chart (woops). I think you are correct in that measuring average deviations is a better / more responsible way of using this information for the global warming debate. As you indicate, it still have holes in being presented as a definitive. The Earth is big and old and it has a lot of moving parts. >> ^messenger:

Not sure you understand that chart. It's actually two statistics about Texas which happen to correlate. The x-axis is rainfall, and the 2011 dot indicates that last summer was a wee bit drier than the driest ever -- significant. But the temperature is double the previous largest deviation from the average (previous largest deviation was 2.5 degrees; 2011 was 5 degrees) -- incredible. Now, this is interesting, but nowhere near conclusive on its own -- freak weather things happen all the time, but it is huge, and it is for a very large area -- all of Texas -- not just some statistically anomalous hole that was purposefully chosen to quotemine. Cenk's overall point here with the other freak weather states is that there is a massive increase in really freak weather incidents. I'm still not convinced, and would want some information on what the average number of heat records usually is in a given period. It could be that thousands of places reporting all-time weather highs is normal.>> ^Thumper:
I meant around 3:45. Where he has the chart up with 2011 being a big red dot. And Yes, I think the chart data isn't indicative of anything other than our local weather history. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. We as an element on the Earth do not have the impact global warming suggests. At most we should be concerned with the pollution for our health reasons, not because we're throwing the Earth's climate out of whack. >> ^messenger:
Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:
at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.