Federal Government Confirms Nearing Apocalypse -- it's very hard to dismiss this. - Page 47 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15064022
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 5,000 fluorinated compounds whose nickname as “forever chemicals” comes because they don’t naturally break down and there is no known way to destroy them. The ubiquitous compounds are used to make products water- and stain-resistant, and are commonly found in Teflon, Scotchgard, waterproof rain gear, dental floss, eyeliner, food packaging, carpeting, firefighting foam and a wide range of textiles.

The chemicals are particularly dangerous because they are water soluble and easily move through the environment. Landfills, military bases and industrial sites frequently contaminate soil from which the chemicals move into groundwater and aquifers, then pollute nearby wells or municipal drinking sources.
#15067509
Smoke may be more of a catalyst than flame. For much of the summer, a fog of soot has smothered Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. In Sydney alone, there were 81 days of hazardous, very poor or poor air quality last year, more than the previous 10 years combined.

Image
Bredbo, Australia.

The Fox Fake News propaganda monolith will say, "Hey it's just a fire. Nothing new. Just more leftist trash."
#15067510
Exploring Australia's east coast in 1770, Captain James Cook described the land as “a continent of smoke” and noted that “we saw smoke by day or fires by night wherever we came”.
#15067514
Sivad wrote:Exploring Australia's east coast in 1770, Captain James Cook described the land as “a continent of smoke” and noted that “we saw smoke by day or fires by night wherever we came”.


Fair enough, but just because there have always been fires on Australia (if that's what you are implying), it doesn't mean it's good/ok for our longer term survival. The planet is ever changing, so if we see that it might be going in a direction that might be inhospitable to us, should we not try to change it (i.e. terraform earth)?

Of course, the assumption there is that the climate models are right. Which, I know you believe they are not. Still, hypothetically, let's say the climate model were right, would you agree with terraforming earth?
#15067516
Rancid wrote:Fair enough, but just because there have always been fires on Australia (if that's what you are implying), it doesn't mean it's good/ok for our longer term survival. The planet is ever changing, so if we see that it might be going in a direction that might be inhospitable to us, should we not try to change it (i.e. terraform earth)?

Of course, the assumption there is that the climate models are right. Which, I know you believe they are not. Still, hypothetically, let's say the climate model were right, would you agree with terraforming earth?

Ever since it first emerged three and a half billion years ago, life has been terraforming the Earth. We are doing it ourselves right now, in fact.
#15067592
Potemkin wrote:Ever since it first emerged three and a half billion years ago, life has been terraforming the Earth. We are doing it ourselves right now, in fact.


Yes of course. My point is, previous life has transformed it in ways that cause the very same life that transformed the earth to become extinct.

I guessing you're saying we should just allow ourselves to kill ourselves?

My question to @Sivad is, hypothetically, if we know that we are doing that, should we bother to prevent it? I'm asking because it would help me understand his position better. Is it really just the faulty science that's the problem, or is against a deliberate/organized/planned manipulation of the planet (i.e. terraforming).
#15067608
Rancid wrote: Is it really just the faulty science that's the problem,


The faulty science itself, the massive dysfunction within the institution of science, and the uncritical acceptance of the faulty science churned out by the dysfunctional institution are all major problems. I would say that these problems are a bigger threat to the future of the human race than any of the environmental issues we're currently facing.

or is against a deliberate/organized/planned manipulation of the planet (i.e. terraforming).


If we even had good reason to think that our industrial civilization might be causing the kind of serious damage to the planet that could bring about our own destruction then obviously we should definitely take all due precautionary measures to prevent that.

In the case of global warming I think we do have reason to think that there may be a somewhat serious problem developing. It's not the full blown existential threat the alarmists are hyping it as but it could potentially cause a lot of chaos and suffering on a global scale if left unchecked.

One of the biggest problems I have with this whole business is the proposed solutions. I don't think extreme energy austerity and onerous technocratic regulation is either desirable or necessary. There are numerous solutions available to us that would be much more efficient and effective and don't involve imposing extreme rationing through managerial despotism over all the planet's resources.
#15067613
Sivad wrote:
I don't think extreme energy austerity and onerous technocratic regulation is either desirable or necessary. There are numerous solutions available to us that would be much more efficient and effective and don't involve imposing extreme rationing through managerial despotism over all the planet's resources.



Carbon Tax.
#15067619
Rancid wrote:Yes of course. My point is, previous life has transformed it in ways that cause the very same life that transformed the earth to become extinct.

I guessing you're saying we should just allow ourselves to kill ourselves?

"Caminante, no hay camino. Se hace camino al andar." - Antonio Machado
#15067626
late wrote:Carbon Tax.


regressive neoliberal taxes are a horrible idea. I'm talking about no-regrets solutions:

serious investment in technological research, development, demonstration, and deployment into the hundreds of promising technologies that will allow us to do far more with a lot less(ephemeralization)

stopping the massive wealth extraction from the developing world which prevents it from building the infrastructure necessary for adaptation, and which would allow it to create a middle class which in turn would greatly curb population growth

improving energy efficiency in the West by upgrading infrastructure, expanding public transportation, etc.

there are dozens of no regrets solutions that would not only improve our standard of living now but would also pay enormous dividends down the road even if CAGW turned out to be a false alarm. But for some reason the liberals and the commie kids and the woketard progs aren't interested in any of those, the only "solutions" they seem to be interested in are those that involve regressive taxation, onerous regulation, extreme austerity, and resource despotism. Now I wonder why that is?
#15067633
Sivad wrote:
regressive neoliberal taxes are a horrible idea. I'm talking about no-regrets solutions:

blah, blah, blah



You need a way to get there.

There's only one way to do it, and that's an incremental Carbon Tax. You'd need to offer a rebate for most people. That would take some of the sting out.

Wishful thinking ain't gonna cut it.
#15067642
Sivad wrote:The faulty science itself, the massive dysfunction within the institution of science, and the uncritical acceptance of the faulty science churned out by the dysfunctional institution are all major problems. I would say that these problems are a bigger threat to the future of the human race than any of the environmental issues we're currently facing.


This is an interesting paradox about science. It has issues, but somehow, it has helped us progress. Perhaps this subject is for another thread.
#15067645
Rancid wrote:This is an interesting paradox about science. It has issues, but somehow, it has helped us progress.


I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that most of our recent progress has been obtained from nature's low hanging fruit and now we're getting into areas that are so complex and of such daunting scale(the very large and the very very small) that any reasonable degree of certainty is exceedingly difficult to establish and that leaves a lot of room for the human element to come in and really muck things up by exaggerating what is known and understood. It's called "post normal science" if you want to look into it.
#15067648
Sivad wrote:
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that most of our recent progress has been obtained from nature's low hanging fruit and now we're getting into areas that are so complex and of such daunting scale(the very large and the very very small) that any reasonable degree of certainty is exceedingly difficult to establish and that leaves a lot of room for the human element to come in and really muck things up by exaggerating what is known and understood. It's called "post normal science" if you want to look into it.


Yea, I'm sure there is something to this. A lot of the larger/harder problems are multi-factored, like Climate. There are just too many variables to manage, so shit gets confounded together and its near impossible to come up with correct conclusions. That said, perhaps the realm of super computing and quantum computing can help with some of that.
#15067653
Rancid wrote:That said, perhaps the realm of super computing and quantum computing can help with some of that.


Absolutely it will, there are also a lot of advances hapenning in scientific instrumentation for observing and measuring the very large and the very small as well as the very complex and all that's gonna be a huge game changer too. The future on that front is very bright and I am very much looking forward to it.
#15068804
This explains why anti global warming propaganda is so vapid and mindless:

An analysis of millions of tweets from around the period when Donald Trump announced the US would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement found that bots tended to applaud the president for his actions and spread misinformation about the science.

The study of Twitter bots and climate was undertaken by Brown University and has yet to be published. Bots are a type of software that can be directed to autonomously tweet, retweet, like or direct message on Twitter, under the guise of a human-fronted account.

“These findings suggest a substantial impact of mechanized bots in amplifying denialist messages about climate change, including support for Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement,” states the draft study, seen by the Guardian.

On an average day during the period studied, 25% of all tweets about the climate crisis came from bots. This proportion was higher in certain topics – bots were responsible for 38% of tweets about “fake science” and 28% of all tweets about the petroleum giant Exxon.

Conversely, tweets that could be categorized as online activism to support action on the climate crisis featured very few bots, at about 5% prevalence.
#15068806
jimjam wrote:
This explains why anti global warming propaganda is so vapid and mindless:



"Koch Family Foundations have spent $127,006,756 directly financing 92 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2017."

They also have an army of paid Denier trolls.. Pretty sure we have one or two here.

You really can't appreciate how much damage those nuts have done unless you study it for a while.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/
#15069101
It may only be February, but 2020 is already “virtually certain” to be among the 10 warmest years on record, and has nearly a 50 percent chance of being the warmest ever, scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.

The predictions follow a January that was the warmest ever in 141 years of record keeping, Karin Gleason, a climatologist with the National Centers for Environmental Information, said in a conference call. Global average temperatures last month were 2.05 degrees Fahrenheit (1.14 degrees Celsius) above average, slightly higher than in January 2016, the previous record-holder.
  • 1
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50

The spiritual gracelessness that has developed in[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

One question that the overall numbers don't answe[…]

So herd immunity is still a long way off. Quite.[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_r0S0Ita4Q http[…]