So the thoughts about climate change from 97% of climate scientists mean nothing because I haven’t provided any action behind their opinions based on studies? Think about what you said.
You work too hard to jump to wrong conclusions.
A friend of mine is a professor of environmental science. I value her opinion.
But yours? No. Because the amount of effort you’ve put in to forming it amounts to less than your favorite flavor of bubble gum.
2 Likes
My dad’s boss just bought a large chunk of land from a farmer who was desperate for cash. He bought it at the same price the farmer bought it for back in the day, then sold half of it for today’s price and made $500k out of the deal. Not sure how long ago the farmer had bought it but that’s a pretty huge difference.
1 Like
I can be kinda lazy about selling stuff. Sometimes I just want to get rid of it, but this guy was desperate for cash and it sounds like he sold it for 1 million under value if half was worth 500K. I am questioning if the farmer has some sort of cogitative issue?
Haha no idea. Might’ve just really needed it gone. Maybe some negotiating down happened too, I don’t know.
What about things in life that can’t be measured by wealth?
Coming from the guy who believes he is more knowledgeable on economics than the two guys who wrote a paper on the 29 trillion dollar bailout of the big banks.What a tard, bloated ego that helps to blind him.
Something you don’t understand how it works on the federal level. Believes that the federal budget works like a personal or business budget. Must love “the how ya gonna pay for it” question. Which is never asked about wars, only social programs.
Does she agree with the 97% of climate scientists? If not, what action has she taken to back her claims? Because if she hasn’t taken any action then her words mean nothing, according to you.
I already said that I value her opinion.
And not yours.
You just keep on with your reading and listening champ.
1 Like
You also said if there are no actions behind those words it pretty much means nothing. Didn’t ya, champ!
We can talk about those too. Like what children? How many do you have?
I question how all things by the government are paid for. I don’t agree with the disgusting spending for wars either - not just social programs. I’d rather see the warmongering money go towards infrastructure and back to the people personally.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what the fuck you think or who you quote or list - nobody gives a fuck because you are a poor nobody with ZERO influence in anything. That takes money which you don’t have.
That is correct!
Now, for the Jeopardy round- what conclusion can be drawn from this exchange about her, and not you?
If you guessed that she has plenty of action to back her words, You win!
But you didnt, because of your compulsion to jump to faulty conclusions. 
Waaaa-wooa.
You get 
.
1 Like
Definitive exposition on climate change in case anyone missed it.
2:30
Peace be with you all. When the Sun dies we will all be together in that wonderful cosmic stew. What’s a few billion years among friends?
2 Likes
I’ll still be kicking @castoli ass.
3 Likes
Policy ideas as above just don’t seem to get us there fast enough. Where are the bold ideas?
I don’t ever hear anyone pitching the idea of greatly increasing CO2e emissions instead of decreasing them to save the Earth. Given all the Earth’s wonderful feedback control loops, the sooner we get CO2 levels really up there the sooner Earth can eradicate all humans (or most). 95% will do. Then it (Mother Earth) can start the work to heal itself. Given the huge terrestrial CO2 sink, once humans are gone the earth will have armospheric CO2 levels back down in no time.
I guess it all comes back to time horizon and objective function.
RIP George. The Big Electron.
1 Like
See what you did, @castoli ?
2 Likes
Staying warm in winter is kind of a thing from my experience.
Europe better hold on tight. Have you hugged your Fossil Fuel lately?
1 Like
I’m way ahead of 'em.
2 Likes
A recent proposal, by Thomas L. Friedman, seems an appropriate finale to this report. He urges President Biden to sit down with the largest oil and gas companies, as well as top environmental and energy experts, and lock the doors until they come up with a strategy for a green transition. The goals of this confab could be:
“In the short term, we need more oil and gas produced in the cleanest ways, with the least methane leakage, to bring down prices at the pump and help dampen inflation. Also in the short term, we need to produce more oil and gas to export to our NATO allies in Europe that have vowed to get off Russian oil — because if the Europeans do so without an abundant alternative, the global price of oil could go to $200 a barrel next winter and force their citizens to choose between heating and eating.
Most important, for the short term and the long term, we need to produce as much renewable energy and efficiency as possible to help mitigate climate change, which is helping to ignite dangerously high temperatures around the world this month, among many other weird and scary weather phenomena.”
The brand new $433 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for a suite of energy and climate programs, announced today, plus the subsequent “reform bill to ease permits for domestic energy production and transmission” appear to be a good start in this direction.
Homework: see if you can make sense of last 4 paragraphs.
Mitigating Climate Change is about the journey not the destination while soaking everyone. The destination looks ugly which is why it wont happen unless we embrace nuclear and the risks that comes with it. Look up the term Exergy flow. Kinda handy. Or else we can go back to subsistence farming. Some of us understand how fun that is.
I asked what is her belief. Is it in tune with the vast majority of climate scientists or not? If not, what does she believe and why? What papers has she written on the subject or co-written? I don’t know her beliefs so I asked about them. And why does she have those beliefs? So show me some work that she has done. Don’t just make statements and expect me to believe them cause you said it. Especially when they go against what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe.
T Nation extra credit between sets for those that do actually rest between sets…
Conclusions
The current concept of “sustainability,” though almost acritically accepted by media and decision makers, is far too vague to be amenable to practical and meaningful scientific use. In a thermodynamic sense, a closed system is never sustainable (unless it is at equilibrium, i.e., “dead”), and an open one may be sustainable or not depending on whether the exergy input rate is higher (or not) than the sum of the exergy destruction and accumulation rates within the system, augmented by the exergy expenditure required by the environment to buffer the effect of the effluents. It is therefore important to realize that there are two facets to a “sustainable development”: the first is of thermodynamic nature, governed by the relevant system equations described in this paper, and the second described by socio-economical indices, whose interpretation is outside of the bounds of Thermodynamics. As for the former, it is convenient to adopt exergy as a general quantifier, because it not only attributes a thermodynamically correct value to any type of flux, but also directly relates irreversibility to unsustainability: reversible processes are intrinsically sustainable (too bad there is none known in the Universe!).
It is rather clear that the socio-economical interpretation must be supported by the thermodynamic one, in the sense that if a system “uses” the incoming exergy flow in a way that leads to a total net depletion rate of (fossil or renewable) exergy sources, no societal organizational form can survive in the long run unless new exergy inputs are provided at a sufficient rate. It is true that the specific form of the societal organization may affect -ceteris paribus- the exergy depletion rate, but this does not imply that such a “minimum exergy consumption” society may be acceptable from an ethical point of view: this decision implies a value choice and is outside of the realm of Thermodynamics. Studies that do not separate these two issues are therefore bound to reach wrong and misleading conclusions.
Indicators of the “resource efficiency” of a system (be it a production line, a natural species, a human settlement, an entire nation) can be defined only in the thermodynamic system logic and at the largest system physical scale: they are termed here “global.” It is important to realize that “local” indicators are completely legitimate, but since they are by definition concerned either with a set that generally includes non-thermodynamically relevant quantities or with a limited subset of the state variables of the system, they cannot be taken as genuine indicators of the degree of sustainability as formulated above.
At least you can tell the dude waiting, “hey, this is Science man, not Instagram!”