|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 14 2014 11:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2014 01:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:BERLIN (AP) — The cost of keeping global warming in check is "relatively modest," but only if the world acts quickly to reverse the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change said Sunday.
Such gases, mainly CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, rose on average by 2.2 percent a year in 2000-2010, driven by the use of coal in the power sector, officials said as they launched the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's report on measures to fight global warming.
Without additional measures to contain emissions, global temperatures will rise about 3 degrees to 4 degrees Celsuis (5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 compared to current levels, the panel said.
"The longer we delay the higher would be the cost," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told The Associated Press after the panel's weeklong session in Berlin. "But despite that, the point I'm making is that even now, the cost is not something that's going to bring about a major disruption of economic systems. It's well within our reach."
The IPCC, an international body assessing climate science, projected that shifting the energy system from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power would reduce consumption growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year, adding that that didn't take into account the economic benefits of reduced climate change. "The loss in consumption is relatively modest," Pachauri said.
The IPCC said the shift would entail a near-quadrupling of low-carbon energy — which in the panel's projections included renewable sources as well as nuclear power and fossil fuel-fired plants equipped with technologies to capture some of the emissions. Source The IPCC, a never-ending source of entertainment. One part alarmism and another advocacy. This time I guess they noticed that their adherents were suggesting some pretty laughable solutions, so now they're trying a different tack. Show nested quote +"So many of the technologies that will help us fight climate change are far cheaper, more readily available, and better performing than they were when the last IPCC assessment was released less than a decade ago," Kerry said. Gotta feed the parrots.
Just so we're clear, which part do you think is alarmist? That the temperature will go up multiple degrees or that the temperature going up multiple degrees is bad?
|
To our international brothers I would recommend reading http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/ for their US politics reference. Nate silver is the guy who sold out to the house of mouse and now has his own website and staff.
According to him the republicans are more likely then not to retake the senate and hold the house in the fall midterms. Its VERY early in the game but thats where we're at right now.
Nate silver has been talking seriously about jeb bush over the last few days. As crazy as it might sound he probably does have as good shot as anyone else right now.
|
Say Jeb Bush gets the nomination which family members join him on the stage at the convention? There's your political pandoras box.
|
Most likely none. They'll wish him well if asked about it, and maybe talk to a few people and donors in private, but stay out of campaigning.
|
Exactly. The last name Bush is now associated with one man who almost destroyed the party. True, Conservatives love to compliment him but won't get caught being seen with him in public as it will be a political death sentence.
|
Which will mean that they'll be useful as fund raisers.
|
Probably the opposite, there's a reason the previous President hasn't appeared any in public political spotlights. it causes the opposite, hell in 08 he was going to the convention but was asked not to attend as the party didn't, and still doesn't, wanted to be associated with him.
|
On April 14 2014 14:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Probably the opposite, there's a reason the previous President hasn't appeared any in public political spotlights. it causes the opposite, hell in 08 he was going to the convention but was asked not to attend as the party didn't, and still doesn't, wanted to be associated with him.
Honestly I take the previous president at his word that its merely a matter of personal taste since Chaney is held in even lower esteem and he hasn't exactly been shy about coming out to talk and give interviews.
|
On April 13 2014 06:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Armed anti-government activists have forced federal authorities to stop their seizure of cattle that were illegally grazing on federal land in Nevada.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze said, according to ABC News.
Self-described militias had come to protest the government action against Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher who is feuding with BLM over his use of federal land. Source
Its around that point I would call the people with the big guns to make sure that the law gets enforced.
|
On April 14 2014 12:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2014 11:08 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2014 01:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:BERLIN (AP) — The cost of keeping global warming in check is "relatively modest," but only if the world acts quickly to reverse the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change said Sunday.
Such gases, mainly CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, rose on average by 2.2 percent a year in 2000-2010, driven by the use of coal in the power sector, officials said as they launched the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's report on measures to fight global warming.
Without additional measures to contain emissions, global temperatures will rise about 3 degrees to 4 degrees Celsuis (5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 compared to current levels, the panel said.
"The longer we delay the higher would be the cost," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told The Associated Press after the panel's weeklong session in Berlin. "But despite that, the point I'm making is that even now, the cost is not something that's going to bring about a major disruption of economic systems. It's well within our reach."
The IPCC, an international body assessing climate science, projected that shifting the energy system from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power would reduce consumption growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year, adding that that didn't take into account the economic benefits of reduced climate change. "The loss in consumption is relatively modest," Pachauri said.
The IPCC said the shift would entail a near-quadrupling of low-carbon energy — which in the panel's projections included renewable sources as well as nuclear power and fossil fuel-fired plants equipped with technologies to capture some of the emissions. Source The IPCC, a never-ending source of entertainment. One part alarmism and another advocacy. This time I guess they noticed that their adherents were suggesting some pretty laughable solutions, so now they're trying a different tack. "So many of the technologies that will help us fight climate change are far cheaper, more readily available, and better performing than they were when the last IPCC assessment was released less than a decade ago," Kerry said. Gotta feed the parrots. Just so we're clear, which part do you think is alarmist? That the temperature will go up multiple degrees or that the temperature going up multiple degrees is bad? It's predictions in the hockey stick vein, the substance of each of its reports from founding to today, and the computer models particularly from Working Group 2. The news article was on its second part, the tactics of its behavior as a political pressure group. One part alarmism, one part advocacy. The talk of modest costs and mild disruption for fixes is a marked departure from previous newsworthy elements. Just kidding guys--all these dire predictions only require a band-aid to fix if you slap that sucker on now.
|
So you don't think the temperature is going to rise or you don't think it will matter? Your last post is barely comprehensible to me.
|
On April 14 2014 15:37 IgnE wrote:
So you don't think the temperature is going to rise or you don't think it will matter? Your last post is barely comprehensible to me.
He doesn't believe in anything related to global warming. He just doesn't want to say it, because he know it's a pretty retarded point of view, so he question the way we measure and predict its evolution.
|
On April 14 2014 16:56 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2014 15:37 IgnE wrote:
So you don't think the temperature is going to rise or you don't think it will matter? Your last post is barely comprehensible to me. He doesn't believe in anything related to global warming. He just doesn't want to say it, because he know it's a pretty retarded point of view, so he question the way we measure and predict its evolution.
I don't think many are left with the impression Danglers wants to do much more than take a position so vague and amorphous that he can bend it to fit just about anything, while simultaneously attempting to undermine actual positions with snarky nitpicking.
It's the people who know better, disingenuously denying climate-change with arguments that only work on low information people that I find so reprehensible.
We could be so much further along this path if we didn't have so many science deniers and charlatans luring more ignorant people into their camp. (Ex. Ken Ham)
|
|
|
On April 14 2014 21:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2014 16:56 WhiteDog wrote:On April 14 2014 15:37 IgnE wrote:
So you don't think the temperature is going to rise or you don't think it will matter? Your last post is barely comprehensible to me. He doesn't believe in anything related to global warming. He just doesn't want to say it, because he know it's a pretty retarded point of view, so he question the way we measure and predict its evolution. I don't think many are left with the impression Danglers wants to do much more than take a position so vague and amorphous that he can bend it to fit just about anything, while simultaneously attempting to undermine actual positions with snarky nitpicking. It's the people who know better, disingenuously denying climate-change with arguments that only work on low information people that I find so reprehensible. We could be so much further along this path if we didn't have so many science deniers and charlatans luring more ignorant people into their camp. (Ex. Ken Ham)
I think there is a valid point behind scepticism toward anything, even "scientific" results. Our world has become so complicated, even belief in progress feels wrong, while thirty years ago scientists and innovations were still regarded as the solution to get humanity out of its misery. Now scientists are figure of power, and their language is the language who legitimate domination and suffering - think about "economists" for exemple - and offer "no alternatives".
The problem is, your need a certain lack of hearth not to be completly shaken at the idea of global warming.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if all we got out of global warming is the advancement of nucular power then i'd say it's a good deal.
i'm rather pessimistic about the prospect of reducing carbon emission politically. better relax the silly phobia driven stranglehold on nuclear and build some reactors. the capital cost will be less dramatic with more sensible radiation standards.
|
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP) — The man accused of killing three people in attacks at a Jewish community center and Jewish retirement complex near Kansas City is a known white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader who was once the subject of a nationwide manhunt.
Frazier Glenn Cross, 73, of Aurora, Mo., was booked into Johnson County jail on a preliminary charge of first-degree murder after the attacks in Overland Park on Sunday.
At a news conference Sunday afternoon, Overland Park police Chief John Douglass declined to publicly identify the man suspected in the attacks. But an official at a suburban Kansas City jail, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the case, identified the suspect as Cross.
Douglass said the suspect made several statements to police, "but it's too early to tell you what he may or may not have said" during the attacks. He also said it was too early in the investigation to determine whether he had an anti-Semitic motive. The Jewish festival of Passover begins Monday evening.
"We are investigating it as a hate crime. We're investigating it as a criminal act. We haven't ruled out anything," he said.
Source
|
On April 14 2014 15:37 IgnE wrote:
So you don't think the temperature is going to rise or you don't think it will matter? Your last post is barely comprehensible to me. I'm sorry if I can't pare it down to something concise. It's their body of work, particularly from working group 2, with attention to the size, scope, and basis for their predictions that leads me to my conclusions about alarmism.
Discussions have gone nowhere in the past, period. You either believe it with religious devotion or don't. It would be an exercise in futility to detail my top-3 or top-5 ridiculous IPCC reports, models & model reliance, and green activist bent compared to an interest in scientific discovery. It might get a one-sentence response but not change anyone's minds (even in the narrow focus of getting some in this thread to understand the other side and destroy their own stereotypes conceived for convenience).
|
On April 15 2014 00:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2014 15:37 IgnE wrote:
So you don't think the temperature is going to rise or you don't think it will matter? Your last post is barely comprehensible to me. I'm sorry if I can't pare it down to something concise. It's their body of work, particularly from working group 2, with attention to the size, scope, and basis for their predictions that leads me to my conclusions about alarmism.
What conclusions? Which basis and which scopes?
|
In its latest projections for Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has lowered the law's costs over the next 10 years by more than $100 billion.
Most of the change can be linked to lower spending on tax subsidies for coverage purchased on HealthCare.gov and its state counterparts, which can in turn be linked to lower-than-expected premiums.
CBO projected that the federal government would spend $164 billion less than previously expected on Obamacare subsidies by 2024. It appears that a number of factors contributed to that change. Premiums, especially in the near term, are expected to be lower than previously projected: The office estimated premiums would rise on average by about $100 in 2015. They are still expected to rise over the next decade, but at a lower rate than previously thought.
It's a combination of rising medical costs, a healthier enrollment population in 2015 and the make-up of the Obamacare plans, which have narrower provider networks and lower provider payments than their counterparts in the large-group market, that contribute to the CBO's calculations on premiums. Other changes, such as a smaller under-65 population, also factored into the revisions.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
