I totally disagree. Hong Kong and Ukraine are 1) issues that would be easily solved with comparatively little effort and mostly just the will to stand against our enemies and with our allies, and 2) are both issues that directly effect only a small human population.

She's a marketing tool in the same sense that the entire Republican party is nothing more than a tool of the fossil fuel industry, except their science and tears are totally fraudulent and only self serving.

Have you considered that the adults around her may be tools in her hands?

You are correct, I was using NOAA numbers, not realizing they use a different start point to compare from. I honestly thought both would use 1890, pre industrial era start points, since that's what the 1.5C limit is based on. Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic.

No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report. You can accept their current estimate, that's better than the average person. I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine.

I have no horse in this race. I hit my best by date next year, and don't have kids...got fixed in my 20's. What happens after 2050 isn't my concern, and I have no problem if humanity goes extinct. It's all the other life we will take with us, or worse, that we survive as the last species standing, that gets me upset.

If it's really Vantablack...No thanks..
Carbon nanotubes...
"These results suggest that carbon nanotubes are potentially toxic to humans and that strict industrial hygiene measures should to be taken to limit exposure during their manipulation."

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Respiratory-toxicity-of-multi-wall-carbon-Muller-Huaux/d045b356626d552c0d8d97b8d2117949e013ab40

I suspect this is a vanity armored car for vaguely disreputable sorts...lol

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

Having worked in the printing industry I heard about this years ago from a technician.

Yes, yes and no so much anymore. The delamination / damage from bumps and potholes have been pretty much resolved in the Michelin and Bridgestone designs (according to Michelin and Bridgestone - ahem...) Haven't seen any reports on whether running temps are worse lately, but hard to make the comparison (the #1 root cause of tire failure today is under-inflation so tires running hotter than design). Now with 10 or more of the big boys in the hunt for the best airless design, will be an interesting ride. The concept out of SciTech Industries in Florida is neato, but they are a (relatively) smaller startup, so might get lost in the scramble, though producing a lighter tire with less heat build (quite a different concept compared to Michelin). cheers

That's why you and Trump are leveraging everything you own and buying up cheap coastal properties that will jump exponentially in value right after this fraud is exposed, or when the sea doesn't rise....no? Why not? If you believed what you spout, it's an absolute no brainer, the fact you (and others like you) don't act on it is proof that you don't believe your own position yourself.

Perhaps it's because the people who tell you there's a vast scientific conspiracy perpetrated for the sole purpose of milking that sweet sweet research money are paid by fossil fuel industries. Perhaps it's because the Pentagon agrees with the science and even Trump agrees when his money is on the line. Perhaps because of the hottest 18 years ever recorded, 17 occurred after 2000. Perhaps it's because these immigrants you are so afraid of are migrating in part due to climate change already. Perhaps it's because numerous Pacific islands are disappearing. No matter why, it's clear you really do believe in climate change, or you would own a huge chunk of Florida coast already.
Pathetic, Bob.


*nochannel
*politics
*nature
*science

You must rate your experience as excellent? I never thought I'd see a connection between Uber and the medical device industry.

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."

I just tried to find any source for this and failed, so take the following with a pinch of salt, but...

My understanding was that this is an example of American automotive industry protectionism coming home to roost.

There was a time where the Japanese cars were viewed as more reliable, cheaper and more fuel efficient (as mentioned in the video). American companies became increasingly worried about competition so settled on the plan of changing American consumer preferences for ever larger cars through aggressive advertising.

This gave American companies a price advantage over foreign producers, as larger cars cost much more to transport, and created an unofficial import tariff. Other companies also did not have designs for big cars, as they are domestically unpopular and fuel is usually prohibitively expensive in their regions.

Now the same industries are calling protectionism as their designs don't match the preferences and fuel efficiencies expected by non US consumers.

Like I say, not sure about this, but if anyone knows something about this either way, I'd be interested to hear.

Yes agreed, extreme poverty is equally damaging when combined with industry, but bear in mind its been the giant corporations dropping poison on poor villages not the villagers themselves.. and the basic rules for much of the world are decided ultimately by US senators who are for sale to business for embarassingly low cost.

Nuclear energy is the only way we can do it, we can run the planet forever and do things cleanly and more densely to leave more of our planet for wildlife.

The trouble is almost everything we hold as common wisdom about it is completely wrong, using breeder reactors have enough uranium to run the planet forever leaving almost no waste and removing the possibility of big accidents which actually aren't as harmful as commonly believed anyway.

We have thorium too, and many designs of each that can do the job. In fact we have a wealth of of options, but also a decades old and highly effective PR campaign from the fossil fuel industry to convince us otherwise.

....he says devisively.

Since Faux and Murdoch invented the current partisan fake news industry, and other bastions of right wing media are Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones, all three bat shit crazy or insanely hard core drug addicts....or both....you really sound silly whining about leftist media, especially since what you're complaining about and seem to be comparing to right wing 'news' is actually leftist comedy.

Edit: That said, I never liked J.J., and I do think this is a chicken shit move by him.

Lol...an old Glen Beck video he himself has admitted is nonsense. Great proof there Bob....I thought you said yesterday that CNN videos are all bullshit lies, today you link one that's been denounced by it's own creator as pseudoscientific propaganda as your good supporting proof?! You are just too funny, buddy.

Are you really just trying to prop up weak straw men for us to knock down? Because that's what you're doing, and it makes you look pretty dumb or dishonest, your choice.

And this one, some random internet dude actually claims there's no decent temperature data before 1950. Also, note the thumbnail graph has one line go to 1974 and the other 2018 on a graph that ends in 1970. That's all the brain numbing stupidity I'm willing to stomach for this latest dishonest industry attempt at spreading unscrupulous nonsense.
Would love to see the facts on their funding, but we won't because they hide their funding by funneling it through private third party donation companies so oil, gas, and coal money can be hidden and claimed as "small donations on this blog" but are actually well organized industry funding of industry shills.
Just asinine.
*facepalm