The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
11-17-2016, 02:17 PM
#7521
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
Gotta do something quick to make that legacy actually happen:
Obama sets new record for regulations, 527 pages in just one day | Washington Examiner
Obama sets new record for regulations, 527 pages in just one day | Washington Examiner
President Obama has just set a new record for rules and regulations, his administration spitting out 527 pages worth in just one day, as he races to put his fingerprint on virtually every corner of American life and business.
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the administration has just shattered the old record for pages of regulations and rules published by the in-house journal, the Federal Register.
At 81,640 total pages for 2016, it ranks first and 235 pages more than all of those published in 2010, the previous record.
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the administration has just shattered the old record for pages of regulations and rules published by the in-house journal, the Federal Register.
At 81,640 total pages for 2016, it ranks first and 235 pages more than all of those published in 2010, the previous record.
Reply
0
0
11-17-2016, 02:33 PM
#7522
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
Sixshooter, so did human use of CFC's lead to ozone depletion or is that a myth too? Because if we can't have any sort of appreciable change...
You're conflating cyclical changes, which definitely occur, with changes since the industrial revolution. Looking at atmospheric CO2 levels (in things like ice caps) and using carbon dating, you can figure out what levels were in the time preceding the industrial revolution as well. The cyclical changes you describe are gradual and the changes in atmospheric CO2 and other factors at play. Evolution can play a significant role in how climate changes too, i.e. nitrogen fixing bacteria, availability of oxygen from more toxic cases millions of years ago etc.
That said, we can measure changes that took place in the cooling and warming spikes that you showed. Except those aren't spikes at all... they're gradual changes in temperature, CO2, what have you. The measurements in the years preceding the industrial revolution showed much more gradual changes than those in the 150 years following it. That's what is being pointed out as human influenced climate change. Is the climate still changing gradually by itself? Sure it is. Is human activity influencing it in a way that it didn't previously? Uh... yeah. We have accurate temperature records for a lot of places for quite a while. If you start seeing changes in patterns and those changes correlate to greenhouse gases and are measurable, where's the anti evidence?
The cyclical stuff doesn't hold up because it's gradual and hasn't ever been influenced by large scale human industrial action before. Natural systems are pretty good at compensating for gradual changes, but not when the change outpaces the adjustment capacity.
Wasting time on the internet gives me purpose in between lectures/studying.
You're conflating cyclical changes, which definitely occur, with changes since the industrial revolution. Looking at atmospheric CO2 levels (in things like ice caps) and using carbon dating, you can figure out what levels were in the time preceding the industrial revolution as well. The cyclical changes you describe are gradual and the changes in atmospheric CO2 and other factors at play. Evolution can play a significant role in how climate changes too, i.e. nitrogen fixing bacteria, availability of oxygen from more toxic cases millions of years ago etc.
That said, we can measure changes that took place in the cooling and warming spikes that you showed. Except those aren't spikes at all... they're gradual changes in temperature, CO2, what have you. The measurements in the years preceding the industrial revolution showed much more gradual changes than those in the 150 years following it. That's what is being pointed out as human influenced climate change. Is the climate still changing gradually by itself? Sure it is. Is human activity influencing it in a way that it didn't previously? Uh... yeah. We have accurate temperature records for a lot of places for quite a while. If you start seeing changes in patterns and those changes correlate to greenhouse gases and are measurable, where's the anti evidence?
The cyclical stuff doesn't hold up because it's gradual and hasn't ever been influenced by large scale human industrial action before. Natural systems are pretty good at compensating for gradual changes, but not when the change outpaces the adjustment capacity.
All I can say is you guys need to work more. The time you spend online arguing with one another you could be out actually doing something. Whether it be for yourself or someone else.
If you're at work wasting your time on this ****, then shame on your boss for being ignorant to it.
If you work for yourself and this is what you choose to do with your time, good luck with that!
If you're at work wasting your time on this ****, then shame on your boss for being ignorant to it.
If you work for yourself and this is what you choose to do with your time, good luck with that!
Reply
0
0
11-17-2016, 02:54 PM
#7523
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,897
Total Cats: 399
Apparently the closet Dems came out in my county. It was rare to see a Hillary sign when I would bike throughout my county, but Trump signs were common.
There were two openings on the Township Committee, but a tie for the second place. Not sure what happens now.
There were two openings on the Township Committee, but a tie for the second place. Not sure what happens now.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
0
0
11-17-2016, 02:59 PM
#7524
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
in 2012, i could count over 40 something signs for Romney on the way out each morning, and maybe 5-6 obama signs. this year there was like 3 trump signs and the same 5-6 obama ones :P
Reply
0
0
11-17-2016, 03:17 PM
#7525
On climate change:
I tend to be of the opinion based on what I read that it's happening, and we are at least partially to blame.
The questions that I have that I still haven't finished wrestling with are:
-What level of resources will be necessary to at least stop or slow the damage already done.
-Will the process of millions of people working their way out of poverty help or will it make the problems worse? (India/China etc).
-If resources are to be expended, where are the resources going to do the most good? (IE: going from average 25mpg cars to 45mpg, or helping poor Chinese heat their houses without having to burn lumber or whatever).
-Are there innovations that can be utilized to "hack" our ecosystem to buy us time in a more economical manner?
Other related thoughts:
-I fully expect that in 100 years humans will be eating very little if no meat that isn't grown in a lab.
-Conveyance will be mostly electrically powered. (duh).
-I fear the future that doesn't let me drive my own car. I know it's much much safer but I LIKE driving. It will be a sad day for me when my Miata becomes a closed course only vehicle, and I anticipate that happening within my lifetime.
I tend to be of the opinion based on what I read that it's happening, and we are at least partially to blame.
The questions that I have that I still haven't finished wrestling with are:
-What level of resources will be necessary to at least stop or slow the damage already done.
-Will the process of millions of people working their way out of poverty help or will it make the problems worse? (India/China etc).
-If resources are to be expended, where are the resources going to do the most good? (IE: going from average 25mpg cars to 45mpg, or helping poor Chinese heat their houses without having to burn lumber or whatever).
-Are there innovations that can be utilized to "hack" our ecosystem to buy us time in a more economical manner?
Other related thoughts:
-I fully expect that in 100 years humans will be eating very little if no meat that isn't grown in a lab.
-Conveyance will be mostly electrically powered. (duh).
-I fear the future that doesn't let me drive my own car. I know it's much much safer but I LIKE driving. It will be a sad day for me when my Miata becomes a closed course only vehicle, and I anticipate that happening within my lifetime.
Reply
0
0
11-17-2016, 04:44 PM
#7527
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,656
Total Cats: 3,011
And your CFCs are dumped into the atmosphere through natural volcanic activity in many times greater tonnage than humans ever produced prior to them being regulated. But now that CFCs are regulated, are we all going to freeze to death or burn up? Or both?
Reply
0
0
11-17-2016, 04:52 PM
#7528
Climate discussions by people who are not involved in the climate sciences is always funny.
"Rabble rabble? RABBLE! Rabble rabble rabble."
Does the climate change? Of course it does.
Do we play a roll in that change? Of course we do.
How much of a roll does the human species play? Well that's a much harder question to answer and is the topic of a lot of current study.
Not involved in that study? Then you're running your mouth. This goes for both sides of this silly argument.
"Rabble rabble? RABBLE! Rabble rabble rabble."
Does the climate change? Of course it does.
Do we play a roll in that change? Of course we do.
How much of a roll does the human species play? Well that's a much harder question to answer and is the topic of a lot of current study.
Not involved in that study? Then you're running your mouth. This goes for both sides of this silly argument.
Reply
0
0
11-17-2016, 05:25 PM
#7529
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
So there have always been cycles but you are claiming credit for this one? Even though the average temps have both gone up and down in the last 150ish years? Interesting. Did you also know that flies cause garbage? And that I can pay an Indian to do a rain dance and sooner or later it will rain and I will have gotten my money's worth. A broken clock is right twice a day so I guess it isn't always useless. Unless it's a digital clock.
So, is the temperature going up or down? You can't have both and claim the same cause. You are the one saying we have more "greenhouse gasses." Does that make us warmer or cooler? Because it was cooler in the 50s and 60s, warmer in the 80s and 90s, now cooler again in the 2000s. If they are the cause, I'd love to hear how they make it warmer and cooler at different times.
And your CFCs are dumped into the atmosphere through natural volcanic activity in many times greater tonnage than humans ever produced prior to them being regulated. But now that CFCs are regulated, are we all going to freeze to death or burn up? Or both?
So, is the temperature going up or down? You can't have both and claim the same cause. You are the one saying we have more "greenhouse gasses." Does that make us warmer or cooler? Because it was cooler in the 50s and 60s, warmer in the 80s and 90s, now cooler again in the 2000s. If they are the cause, I'd love to hear how they make it warmer and cooler at different times.
And your CFCs are dumped into the atmosphere through natural volcanic activity in many times greater tonnage than humans ever produced prior to them being regulated. But now that CFCs are regulated, are we all going to freeze to death or burn up? Or both?
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Graph here shows the variation cycles you're describing.
And here's the CO2 data including that from thousands of years ago.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Here's how close different models are by folks that work independently. When people cite infighting and disagreement in the field, they're talking about these variations...
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Re: warming/cooling/global warming/climate change. Again from NASA.
“Global warming” refers to the long-term warming of the planet. Global temperature shows a well-documented rise since the early 20th century and most notably since the late 1970s. Worldwide, since 1880 the average surface temperature has gone up by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), relative to the mid-20th-century baseline (of 1951-1980).
“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of the warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air. The terms “global warming” and “climate change” are sometimes used interchangeably, but strictly they refer to slightly different things.
“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of the warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air. The terms “global warming” and “climate change” are sometimes used interchangeably, but strictly they refer to slightly different things.
Reply
0
0
11-17-2016, 06:51 PM
#7530
Climate discussions by people who are not involved in the climate sciences is always funny.
"Rabble rabble? RABBLE! Rabble rabble rabble."
Does the climate change? Of course it does.
Do we play a roll in that change? Of course we do.
How much of a roll does the human species play? Well that's a much harder question to answer and is the topic of a lot of current study.
Not involved in that study? Then you're running your mouth. This goes for both sides of this silly argument.
"Rabble rabble? RABBLE! Rabble rabble rabble."
Does the climate change? Of course it does.
Do we play a roll in that change? Of course we do.
How much of a roll does the human species play? Well that's a much harder question to answer and is the topic of a lot of current study.
Not involved in that study? Then you're running your mouth. This goes for both sides of this silly argument.
Reply
0
0
11-18-2016, 07:45 AM
#7531
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
Trump is Hitler. Mexico is good.
Mexican Mayor Arrested After Hundreds Massacred and Cooked in Network of Ovens, Following Breitbart Report
Mexican Mayor Arrested After Hundreds Massacred and Cooked in Network of Ovens, Following Breitbart Report
Mexican authorities have arrested the former mayor of a rural community in the border state of Coahuila in connection with the kidnapping, murder and incineration of hundreds of victims through a network of ovens at the hands of the Los Zetas cartel. The arrest comes after Breitbart Texas exposed not only the horrors of the mass extermination, but also the cover-up and complicity of the Mexican government.
Reply
0
0
11-18-2016, 10:49 AM
#7532
Elite Member
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sunny Spanish speaking Non US Caribbean
Posts: 3,224
Total Cats: 3
Trump is Hitler. Mexico is good.
Mexican Mayor Arrested After Hundreds Massacred and Cooked in Network of Ovens, Following Breitbart Report
Mexican Mayor Arrested After Hundreds Massacred and Cooked in Network of Ovens, Following Breitbart Report
wow braineack, you're way too pissed.
What does Mexican corruption have to do with trump and hitler? Mexico is indeed corrupt that doesn't make it the source of all US troubles.
breath man, breath,
Don't take the news so seriously. Especially those coming from Breitbart news
How about trying to help me fix my MS2 issues?
hehehe
Reply
0
0
11-18-2016, 11:06 AM
#7533
Really? Those are factual statements. Maybe the aversion to the non-fiction part of science (lol) is what keeps me gainfully employed.
Our climate is a system and everything is an input and causes perturbations to it (Think solar flares, volcanic activity, dust on the ice caps, difference between solar reflection of a city vs. grassland, how big your vape cloud is dawg). That's why its so hard to model and why your weatherman sometimes messes up.
Denying that would be like denying that air temperature plays a "role" in the combustion taking place in your sik miata bro.
Our climate is a system and everything is an input and causes perturbations to it (Think solar flares, volcanic activity, dust on the ice caps, difference between solar reflection of a city vs. grassland, how big your vape cloud is dawg). That's why its so hard to model and why your weatherman sometimes messes up.
Denying that would be like denying that air temperature plays a "role" in the combustion taking place in your sik miata bro.
Reply
0
0
11-18-2016, 11:20 AM
#7534
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
(Remember my comments are almost always 1-liners, hyperbole, or satire)
Don't take the news so seriously. Especially those coming from Breitbart news
You do realize Breitbart is one of my main sources for information, right? Shocking to hear, I'm sure.
I'll take a look at your thread in a bit, but im not sure what sort of random voodoo he does with his units, so very hard to support them.
Reply
0
0
Props
11-19-2016, 08:18 AM
#7540
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushed back against critiques of her tenure as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, insisting she did not rig the primary contest against Sen. Bernie Sanders and argued she could have if she wanted.
“I will be frank with you — if I was trying to rig the outcome of the primary, trust me, I could have,” Wasserman Schultz told VICE News’ Shawna Thomas. “There are so many things that we — not I — we could have done to enhance the campaign of one candidate over another.”
She also disputed Sanders’ assertions she was tilting the scale in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by only scheduling a handful of debates during the primary season.
“I will be frank with you — if I was trying to rig the outcome of the primary, trust me, I could have,” Wasserman Schultz told VICE News’ Shawna Thomas. “There are so many things that we — not I — we could have done to enhance the campaign of one candidate over another.”
She also disputed Sanders’ assertions she was tilting the scale in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by only scheduling a handful of debates during the primary season.
Reply
0
0
