US Politics Mega-thread - Page 856

On February 07 2014 02:41 Nyxisto wrote:

Besides the fact that you're blatantly ignoring my response to your "wake me up when scientists blablabla.. post" , let me explain it to you like this: Nuclear power, coal and gas are finite, they're going to be gone at some point over the next few hundred years. Solar, thermal, wind and tide energy won't. So even if you think climate change isn't happening, which is stupid, at least every sane person should understand that at some point every country needs to switch from energy sources that are dependent on fossil fuels to energy sources that are not.

And the sooner we'll switch the better it will be for coming generations. Of course that would require long term decision making which US conservatives seem to be incapable off.

On February 07 2014 02:41 Nyxisto wrote:

Besides the fact that you're blatantly ignoring my response to your "wake me up when scientists blablabla.. post" , let me explain it to you like this: Nuclear power, coal and gas are finite, they're going to be gone at some point over the next few hundred years. Solar, thermal, wind and tide energy won't. So even if you think climate change isn't happening, which is stupid, at least every sane person should understand that at some point every country needs to switch from energy sources that are dependent on fossil fuels to energy sources that are not.

And the sooner we'll switch the better it will be for coming generations. Of course that would require long term decision making which US conservatives seem to be incapable off.

On February 07 2014 02:57 WhiteDog wrote:

Just watch some picture of the earth from space at night, and see how we redefined our own earth in the last fifty years. Danglars, xDaunt & co don't need facts, because they don't care about them.

On February 07 2014 03:05 WhiteDog wrote:

Ho really ? lol tell me more about it.

You read a scientific research on the subject, with hard facts about it, and you (or one your mate) respond I DON'T THINK it is relevant.

On February 07 2014 02:15 xDaunt wrote:

The GOP offers plenty of ideas on energy policy. The problem is that the Democrats won't consider anything that isn't solar or wind.

Records obtained by TPM show George Washington Bridge traffic was a major factor in recent years as local officials and developers discussed a billion-dollar real estate project in Fort Lee, N.J.

In recent weeks, some have wondered whether the project was somehow linked to lane closures on the bridge in September, which snarled traffic for days in Fort Lee and have sparked multiple investigations into the administration of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R).

The development project is a massive residential, retail and hotel development planned at the foot of the bridge. It consists of two parcels, Hudson Lights, which is being built by Tucker Development, and The Modern, a pair of residential towers proposed by Fort Lee Redevelopment Associates. Meeting minutes from the Fort Lee Planning Board show traffic on the bridge was often a topic of discussion and concern. Developers attempted to allay these fears by conducting multiple studies and simulations to analyze traffic patterns as they attempted to obtain approval for the project.

Late last year, two of Christie's appointees at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey resigned as questions mounted about the lane closures. The scandal then reached a boiling point last month as emails became public showing Christie staffers had communicated with the Port Authority officials about the closures ahead of time.

"Traffic signalization and coordination is a big issue with this project," attorney James Demetrakis said at a Feb. 27, 2012 meeting. He was representing Fort Lee Redevelopment Associates.

The minutes obtained by TPM through a public records request showed a Port Authority official even met with Fort Lee's mayor about the project and discussed potential solutions to "reduce traffic" near the bridge. On Tuesday, Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich confirmed to TPM the Port Authority official was Bill Baroni, one of the Christie appointees who resigned last year amid the growing scandal.

On February 06 2014 20:08 Acrofales wrote:


I don't recall anybody saying that there is currently an increase in extreme weather events, and if there is that that can be contributed to man-made global warming. However, the studies talk about probabilities, as any good study should, and the odds are against us.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

The extreme winter and unpredictable pressure systems in the US are a direct result of an altered climate, so they actually help indicate that global warming and the resulting climate shifts that come with that are real

On February 07 2014 02:52 xDaunt wrote:

The real issue is the extent to which man is contributing

and whether anything can be realistically done to stop climate change, which is what I was addressing. .

On February 07 2014 05:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:
3: The notion that this science is unreliable because it relates to climate and we can't even predict the weather accurately two days from now. Here's the thing; climate scientists are not predicting stuff. Sometimes newspapers choose to write articles based on the worst case scenarios given by climate scientists, and I'm sure this also sometimes makes climate change activists phrase arguments that are doomsday'y in nature, but anyway. What would actually be a fitting comparison is; meteorologists make "predictions" all the time. But they do this based on probabilities, and they end up going with the one that seems more probable. But when they say it's sunny and it ended up being rainy, their model actually had a 20% chance of rain. Relating this to climate scientists, they have a 50% chance or whatever of x increase in temperature, they have a 5% chance of y change, they have 10% of z change, etc. Basically, if sun and 20 degrees weather is predicted, it never snows. Climate scientists know that temperatures will increase, but they don't know how much. Whether sea level changes and how much, whether further CO2 is emitted and how much and if that continues to accelerate the rate of "global warming", whether stuff like this ends up changing currents of gulf streams etc, that we don't know - but there are statistical probabilities.

And then when xDaunt ridicules the notion that we can "control" climate change, what the hell. People aren't claiming that. People are claiming that the more CO2 we emit, the higher is the probability of us reaching the worst case predicted scenarios. Like, we influence the climate, we know that one particular thing we do influences the climate negatively, and we know that some things we do influence the climate positively. We don't know exactly how much either actually does, but we know there is an effect. How can it be so bad then to insist that we do less of the harmful stuff and more of the beneficial stuff?

4: People with extremist viewpoints arguing against the polar opposite extremist viewpoints to validate their own extremist viewpoints. If your point of view is that no changes need to be made regarding emissions, that no political effort should be made to move towards "greener" technology, that everything is all fine and dandy and we should increase expenditures of fossil fuels to lubricate The Economy while focusing more on nuclear technology cuz that's the future or whatever it is you are arguing, then you're not arguing against the vegan army who want us to stop cattle production, stop building roads, decrease economic output by 20%, whatever, you're also in conflict with moderate voices who just want a bit more sensibility. Personally I think we're probably fucking ourselves pretty hard and 100 years from now, climate change denial of days of yore will be one of those things humanity will look back on while muttering "how could they", but I also realize that trying to mass convert an entire population into hippies is not really plausible, so I want to give economic incentives and tax breaks etc to push towards a greener economy cause having enough money seems to be the by far highest priority of most people and thus a principle we can't abandon during policy-making.

Patron Saint
If approved by voters, St. George, as it would be called, would be Louisiana’s fifth-largest city. Prospective residents hope its existence would provide political momentum for separate schools.

St. George would have about 100,000 residents, or a quarter of the population now governed by the combined city-parish government of Baton Rouge. It also would include much of the area’s retail and commercial development, including the Mall of Louisiana, which has more than 150 shops, among them department stores of Macy’s Inc. (M +2.24%, news) and Dillard’s Inc. (DDS +5.25%, news)

The area generates a disproportionate 40 percent of local government’s sales and use tax receipts, according to the LSU report. Removing that might mean the splintering of the unified government that now runs Baton Rouge, the researchers said.

They called the new-city method of creating a school system “costly and imprecise.”