The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Allen Farlow on April 30, 2016, 06:31:16 AM
-
Hope you're sitting down, that way you'll be closer to the floor when you fall on it, laughing your ass off...
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278192-interior-chief-we-will-have-climate-refugees (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278192-interior-chief-we-will-have-climate-refugees)
-
Hope you're sitting down, that way you'll be closer to the floor when you fall on it, laughing your ass off...
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278192-interior-chief-we-will-have-climate-refugees (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278192-interior-chief-we-will-have-climate-refugees)
Actually, they're on the money, chances are there will be people who are displaced by rising sea levels caused by climate change.
There's a number of Pacific islands (i.e. Tokelau, Kiribati, Tuvalu) that are quite low lying and at risk if sea levels continue to rise.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/201789516/eye-of-the-storm-climate-change-in-the-pacific
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/population-of-tuvalu-kiribati-and-nauru-already-migrating-due-to-effects-of-climate-change/news-story/f90541a7704f43318dd87c4193896846
http://thestandard.org.nz/climate-change-killing-tuvalu-tokelau/
http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/299198/tokelau-calls-on-nz-for-more-help-in-climate-change-fight
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/will-tuvalu-disappear-beneath-the-sea-180940704/?no-ist
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/remote-pacific-islanders-at-risk-216825
It's not just the Pacific islands either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0
-
Okay, I don't disagree, but honestly, it's not as if this is an overnight disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
I see this as nothing but more of the liberal garbage thinking from an Obama official. First we have the Syrian 'refugees', and now this?
Hundreds of Alaskans may be displaced? They'll be 'refugees'?
Puh-leeze!
-
Okay, I don't disagree, but honestly, it's not as if this is an overnight disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
I see this as nothing but more of the liberal garbage thinking from an Obama official. First we have the Syrian 'refugees', and now this?
Hundreds of Alaskans may be displaced? They'll be 'refugees'?
Puh-leeze!
If you are a Pacific Islander whose nation no longer exists you need to find another nation that is willing to provide you with residency rights so that you can stay alive: that's called refugee status, whether it happens quickly or slowly. Many of them will probably go to New Zealand.
Mostly, of course, environmental problems don't destroy the land entirely but tend to lead to greater levels of poverty, hunger and water shortage, leading to civil unrest and civil war, leading to refugees. I don't know why you think things in Syria got so bad: the politics there hadn't changed for decades, but one of the things which precipitated the uprising there and subsequent civil war was a worsening economy partly caused by worsening environmental conditions.
As to Alaska, "refugee" can mean either an internal displaced person/refugee (ie moving from an unsafe part of a nation to a safer one) or an international refugee. So yeah, not so stupid to call people whose land is destroyed by climate change refugees.
-
It is clearly already happening regardless of a man made cause or not. Forget increasing intensity and quantity for a moment. As the earth is more populated, more displacement.
Why can we not see that and begin to make a plan now for what the data shows is an increasing likelihood? Why is this so funny? If they are safely removed before the land conditions forced their displacement, are they then not refugees? What, then, are they?
-
Okay, I don't disagree, but honestly, it's not as if this is an overnight disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
I see this as nothing but more of the liberal garbage thinking from an Obama official. First we have the Syrian 'refugees', and now this?
Hundreds of Alaskans may be displaced? They'll be 'refugees'?
Puh-leeze!
There's also the side effect of mother nature. As the climate changes and storms get worse, well that's one you can't plan for. There will be victims of hurricanes and other intense storms who's lives will be destroyed who will just try to relocate themselves to what they view as a better place since everything else they have is destroyed.
-
Okay, I don't disagree, but honestly, it's not as if this is an overnight disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Well, if someone is making 'plans to get the heck off it', that makes them a refugee, doesn't it?
By the way, here's a quote from the second link in my previous post (which I should add is from a News Limited publication):
“Many potential migrants however will not have the means to migrate. In these three island states the average monthly income is about $26 Australian dollars… people told us they didn’t feel that that kind of income would make it possible for them to move if they chose to do so.”
If someone is making $26 Australian (about $20 US) a month, it'll take them a long long time to save for a plane ticket elsewhere, even with a Mustachian savings rate.
-
Not sure what the joke here is. The impact on human settlements by climate change has been well known for at least two decades. Since the majority of the world lives in poverty, so the places where individuals can just up and leave are highly limited (and most places that can afford a luxury like a middle class are countries wealthy enough to combat the effects of climate change themselves through infrastructure and civic planning, meaning they will not have as many people wanting to leave due to climate change). Increased displacement is only to be expected.
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
-
If every piece of ice melts on the face of earth, which would be highly unlikely, the new mouth of the Mississippi river would be Memphis TN.
I think the next 50 years are going to be interesting to say the least. With more moisture in the air you can expect much larger and more dramatic weather anomalies. The coastal populations will have to pick up and find new places to build and live. Some deserts will become forests and some forests will become swamps.
Financially, buying large lots of land/farm land at certain altitudes could wind up being very lucrative. Stock markets will skyrocket and overall this is going to be great for our economy. We're literally going to have to rebuild 50-60% of our population's dwellings. The type of workers you need to do this are the very type of workers you want spending money.
Current infrastructure, dams, housing, water ways, will most likely not stand up to the severity of the storms and will need to be redone or rebuilt. I expect the amount of vegetation in the world to skyrocket also.
One thing is for sure, it won't be boring!
-
When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."
-
Yeah, I'm not buying that climate refugee talk either. It's utter crap. I might buy economic refugees, as their climate is being effected by a barely measurable amount over the last couple of decades. Also, it's highly unlikely that in the 100 years it takes for sea levels to rise 6-12 inches it'll catch us unaware and off-guard.
But as the temp heats up, 1 or 2 degrees in next 100 years, it'll aid in agriculture. Plants thrive on CO2 and higher temps. We need more fossil fuels. We need to stop this climate fear-mongering about overblown man-made impacts to the environment.
-
When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."
This. Not everyone has the same economic and social privileges as you (OP). Look up the average income of residents of places like Kiribati. Not that high. And if it were as easy as you suggest, why the refugee problem at all? Why don't people just up and move to the US? Or France? Or any one of a number of countries?
-
Allan, you are fortunate if you live such a sheltered life that you can't comprehend this.
Australia has a conservative government and is talking about this. Kiribati and Tuvalu are looking like their entire populations will be displaced, and possibly in this generation. It's challenging for the people living there as their high tides are already inundating islands. The changing climate is also bringing stronger and more frequent storms, so it's actually quite possible that it could be a freak event that causes a need for sudden evacuations. Have you read about the number of people in PNG who have died due to the drought they are experiencing? And do you know about the political situation in many Pacific nations that could create political refugees when under pressure from a changing climate? Real people, real lives, real trauma, and they are entitled to more than the mockery of a sheltered Yank.
-
It is clearly already happening regardless of a man made cause or not. Forget increasing intensity and quantity for a moment. As the earth is more populated, more displacement.
Exactly right. In the past several decades 70 Million people have been displaced due to hydroelectric dam building. The populations of a few small pacific islands and a few block of Miami will be nothing in comparison.
The good thing is, there's plenty of room for all of us.
-
The good thing is, there's plenty of room for all of us.
Yes, if everyone cooperates there should be no problems.
There's plenty of food to feed every person on the Earth right now. The good thing is, due to all that food and cooperation nobody ever starves. Oh, wait. . .
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
-
When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."
This. Not everyone has the same economic and social privileges as you (OP). Look up the average income of residents of places like Kiribati. Not that high. And if it were as easy as you suggest, why the refugee problem at all? Why don't people just up and move to the US? Or France? Or any one of a number of countries?
[NOPE -- The 'refugee problem' you speak of, if you are referring to the 'Syrian refugees' they are not refugees at all. They are islamic fighters intent upon taking over non-islamic lands. They are 90% young, strong, healthy men, many of who are already veterans of war in the Middle East. People DO just 'up and move' to the U.S. They are coming across the U.S. Southern border - a few have been caught, that's how we know. Islamic prayer rugs and materials in Arabic have been found lying in the dirt. That's fact, I'm not just saying it. ]
[MOD NOTE: You can knock off the citation-free bigotry any time you like. That's a fact, and I am saying it.]
As for social and economic advantages, what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.
-
Allan, you are fortunate if you live such a sheltered life that you can't comprehend this.
Australia has a conservative government and is talking about this. Kiribati and Tuvalu are looking like their entire populations will be displaced, and possibly in this generation. It's challenging for the people living there as their high tides are already inundating islands. The changing climate is also bringing stronger and more frequent storms, so it's actually quite possible that it could be a freak event that causes a need for sudden evacuations. Have you read about the number of people in PNG who have died due to the drought they are experiencing? And do you know about the political situation in many Pacific nations that could create political refugees when under pressure from a changing climate? Real people, real lives, real trauma, and they are entitled to more than the mockery of a sheltered Yank.
I was not mocking those who are living with rising tides and droughts, I was mocking Interior Secretary Jewell for calling them 'climate refugees', on the heel of the 'Syrian refugee' label. Instead of calling the so-called 'Syrians' (which also includes many from other nations than Syria) what they truly are, illegal immigrants, they call them 'refugees'. Everyone is a 'refugee' today. It's ridiculous.
Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.
And since when did personal responsibility for oneself disappear? If people can't read the writing on the wall and make plans for the near future why should the rest of the world be forced to take care of them due to their inaction and lack of foresight?
-
Allan, you are fortunate if you live such a sheltered life that you can't comprehend this.
Australia has a conservative government and is talking about this. Kiribati and Tuvalu are looking like their entire populations will be displaced, and possibly in this generation. It's challenging for the people living there as their high tides are already inundating islands. The changing climate is also bringing stronger and more frequent storms, so it's actually quite possible that it could be a freak event that causes a need for sudden evacuations. Have you read about the number of people in PNG who have died due to the drought they are experiencing? And do you know about the political situation in many Pacific nations that could create political refugees when under pressure from a changing climate? Real people, real lives, real trauma, and they are entitled to more than the mockery of a sheltered Yank.
I was not mocking those who are living with rising tides and droughts, I was mocking Interior Secretary Jewell for calling them 'climate refugees', on the heel of the 'Syrian refugee' label. Instead of calling the so-called 'Syrians' (which also includes many from other nations than Syria) what they truly are, illegal immigrants, they call them 'refugees'. Everyone is a 'refugee' today. It's ridiculous.
Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.
And since when did personal responsibility for oneself disappear? If people can't read the writing on the wall and make plans for the near future why should the rest of the world be forced to take care of them due to their inaction and lack of foresight?
Chemtrails LOL.
-
The 'refugee problem' you speak of, if you are referring to the 'Syrian refugees' they are not refugees at all. They are islamic fighters intent upon taking over non-islamic lands. They are 90% young, strong, healthy men, many of who are already veterans of war in the Middle East. People DO just 'up and move' to the U.S. They are coming across the U.S. Southern border - a few have been caught, that's how we know. Islamic prayer rugs and materials in Arabic have been found lying in the dirt. That's fact, I'm not just saying it.
As for social and economic advantages [from being born a US citizen], what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.
Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.
(no text)
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
-
...
I was not mocking those who are living with rising tides and droughts, I was mocking Interior Secretary Jewell for calling them 'climate refugees', on the heel of the 'Syrian refugee' label. Instead of calling the so-called 'Syrians' (which also includes many from other nations than Syria) what they truly are, illegal immigrants, they call them 'refugees'. Everyone is a 'refugee' today. It's ridiculous.
Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.
And since when did personal responsibility for oneself disappear? If people can't read the writing on the wall and make plans for the near future why should the rest of the world be forced to take care of them due to their inaction and lack of foresight?
AlanF: chemtrails-really? I was willing to entertain your ideas and ask for links-etc but, no, not after chemtrails and the assertion that they can be used to create droughts. And I thought chemtrails were for mind control not weather control.
-
And I thought chemtrails were for mind control not weather control.
That's what they want you to think.... :D
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
-
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
I cannot reconcile how this statement jives with what you said earlier:
I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.
This suggests that you think people should be able to leave their country as they please and (by extension) that they should be allowed into other countries.
-
If every piece of ice melts on the face of earth, which would be highly unlikely, the new mouth of the Mississippi river would be Memphis TN.
I think the next 50 years are going to be interesting to say the least. With more moisture in the air you can expect much larger and more dramatic weather anomalies. The coastal populations will have to pick up and find new places to build and live. Some deserts will become forests and some forests will become swamps.
Financially, buying large lots of land/farm land at certain altitudes could wind up being very lucrative. Stock markets will skyrocket and overall this is going to be great for our economy. We're literally going to have to rebuild 50-60% of our population's dwellings. The type of workers you need to do this are the very type of workers you want spending money.
Current infrastructure, dams, housing, water ways, will most likely not stand up to the severity of the storms and will need to be redone or rebuilt. I expect the amount of vegetation in the world to skyrocket also.
One thing is for sure, it won't be boring!
Small clarification here. Wet areas will get wetter, while dry areas will get drier. That's (partially) why California and the rest of the southwest U.S. is in such dire straits right now. Also (partially) why the Sahara Desert is getting larger. Obviously it's complicated because you have local and global factors in play, but the general trend is for extremes to get... extremier. Weather (be it rain, snow, wind, etc.) is also largely driven by heat, which is why storm activity is expected to increase on a global scale.
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
The first statement says that you do not need governments help, the second acknowledges that if no foreign government is willing to grant you residence (aka 'help'), you would not leave the island.
Please help me understand how the two statements above (see bold type) are not in contradiction to each other.
-
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
It never ceases to amaze me that there is always a story of extreme poverty, living on the streets, eating dirt and minutes from starvation behind every comfortably middle class person anonymously posting on the internet about how those refugees/poor people/bludgers/whatever should just pull themselves up by the boot straps with no help from anyone and if they are not willing to do that then that is their problem.
-
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
It never ceases to amaze me that there is always a story of extreme poverty, living on the streets, eating dirt and minutes from starvation behind every comfortably middle class person anonymously posting on the internet about how those refugees/poor people/bludgers/whatever should just pull themselves up by the boot straps with no help from anyone and if they are not willing to do that then that is their problem.
Adding: If somehow I could choose which country I was dirt poor and living in extreme poverty in, I'd probably go with Denmark or Canada, but the United States wouldn't be far behind. EVen when you have nothing in these developed nations you still reap benefits. I would definitely not choose Syria or Libya or North Korea.
-
The 'refugee problem' you speak of, if you are referring to the 'Syrian refugees' they are not refugees at all. They are islamic fighters intent upon taking over non-islamic lands. They are 90% young, strong, healthy men, many of who are already veterans of war in the Middle East. People DO just 'up and move' to the U.S. They are coming across the U.S. Southern border - a few have been caught, that's how we know. Islamic prayer rugs and materials in Arabic have been found lying in the dirt. That's fact, I'm not just saying it.
As for social and economic advantages [from being born a US citizen], what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.
Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.
(no text)
Does anyone know if there's a way to stop getting notifications about a post you've already posted on? Aside from turning off the notifications on the top right, I mean. It still shows up in my "new replies to your posts" feed.
Serious question.
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html
Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.
Or open a scuba diving business.
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html
Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.
Or open a scuba diving business.
TIL that there are people who don't understand you can't just choose to move to another nation unless they are willing to allow you in.
AKA: TIL there are people who do not understand what the word "refugee" means.
-
I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html
They would be disappearing anyways due to inherent ongoing global climate change independent of any man-made impact. I think it's idiotic to live near the coast at sea level for any significant period of time and NOT plan for this, but to each their own. Also, the majority of the 'refugees' flooding into Europe are economic migrants from North Africa (http://nos.nl/artikel/2082786-timmermans-meer-dan-helft-vluchtelingen-heeft-economisch-motief.html (http://nos.nl/artikel/2082786-timmermans-meer-dan-helft-vluchtelingen-heeft-economisch-motief.html)). People usually lump them together, but they're vastly different. They move towards the 'better off' countries deeper into Europe (Germany, Denmark, UK, Sweden), trekking long miles not to escape from war, but moving towards the countries with the greater social benefits.
(https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/PaleoTemp_EPICA_610.png?itok=arlXENwG)
BTW, I think it's irresponsible to propose legislation and regulation regarding cutting back fossil fuel energy without adequate means of generating cheap alternative power. Fossil fuels remain the most cost efficient method and an attempt to lower our usage will just push more Americans into poverty (and death) and accomplish nothing as foreign interests pick up the demand from America's lost productivity.
-
BTW, I think it's irresponsible to propose legislation and regulation regarding cutting back fossil fuel energy without adequate means of generating cheap alternative power. Fossil fuels remain the most cost efficient method and an attempt to lower our usage will just push more Americans into poverty (and death) and accomplish nothing as foreign interests pick up the demand from America's lost productivity.
Took me a while to understand that graph, aka the last thousand years are the very tiny span on the right and why the majority of the graph was under that line. That being said, except for one small portion about 110,000 years ago, the "modern era" looks nothing like the rest of the graph. Also, a vast plethora of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening. Without sounding dismissive, but do you have a degree related to the science of climate? So many people look at their opinion as fact when they know nothing more than the propaganda they want to hear.
And that being said, I personally feel it to be more irresponsible to see a potential cataclysmic event and do nothing. Worst case, we die. If act on climate change and eliminate fossil fuel, maybe it's a hoax, but the clean air provided fixes a whole lot of other issues. There are at least benefits to it. Doing nothing keeps us on a potential catastrophe and holds in place countless medical issues. We can at least get rid of one by encouraging clean energy. Maybe it's because I've lived in SoCal for far too long now but I've seen the central valley and LA. I'm sorry but I would do whatever I could to change the air and get it clean again.
To your point regarding foreign powers, if America says we will do nothing, do you expect any of them to lead the way? We may not be the largest producer (or at least getting there) but we've lead the way for years. If we as a country choose to ignore this problem, why should they do any better? To be a leader, one actually has to lead. We have to show others that it can be done and how it can be done. It takes risks and it takes guts. If one of the largest countries out there says ah fuck it, what incentive do the others have to even try? That would be irresponsible.
-
BTW, I think it's irresponsible to propose legislation and regulation regarding cutting back fossil fuel energy without adequate means of generating cheap alternative power. Fossil fuels remain the most cost efficient method and an attempt to lower our usage will just push more Americans into poverty (and death) and accomplish nothing as foreign interests pick up the demand from America's lost productivity.
Took me a while to understand that graph, aka the last thousand years are the very tiny span on the right and why the majority of the graph was under that line. That being said, except for one small portion about 110,000 years ago, the "modern era" looks nothing like the rest of the graph. Also, a vast plethora of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening. Without sounding dismissive, but do you have a degree related to the science of climate? So many people look at their opinion as fact when they know nothing more than the propaganda they want to hear.
And that being said, I personally feel it to be more irresponsible to see a potential cataclysmic event and do nothing. Worst case, we die. If act on climate change and eliminate fossil fuel, maybe it's a hoax, but the clean air provided fixes a whole lot of other issues. There are at least benefits to it. Doing nothing keeps us on a potential catastrophe and holds in place countless medical issues. We can at least get rid of one by encouraging clean energy. Maybe it's because I've lived in SoCal for far too long now but I've seen the central valley and LA. I'm sorry but I would do whatever I could to change the air and get it clean again.
To your point regarding foreign powers, if America says we will do nothing, do you expect any of them to lead the way? We may not be the largest producer (or at least getting there) but we've lead the way for years. If we as a country choose to ignore this problem, why should they do any better? To be a leader, one actually has to lead. We have to show others that it can be done and how it can be done. It takes risks and it takes guts. If one of the largest countries out there says ah fuck it, what incentive do the others have to even try? That would be irresponsible.
You ARE dismissive, questioning the validity of my opinion and then offering up an opinion with no supporting evidence or claim to being a climate scientist. Climate change is happening, it's been happening through all of earth's history. What the evidence doesn't show is why the earth has naturally cooled in our past in a cycle like clockwork. I don't understand when you say the modern era looks nothing like that graph, how so?
Just for giggles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes)
https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c (https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c) <-- decent video (MIT atmospheric science professor, thought it did a pretty good job of portraying 3rd party alarmism)
People like you are hypocrites. You SAY that you'll do everything you can to reduce pollution and obtain cleaner air, but I doubt you're half as willing to consign huge swathes of the population to crushing poverty, starvation, and death. Cheap energy UNDERLIES everything we do. Medical, agriculture, communications, transportation, etc. EVERYTHING you enjoy from an advanced society is dependent on affordable energy. We can talk about nuclear power, which runs a cheaper KW/hr than fossil fuels, but realistically even if we could build enough nuclear plants it would take decades to achieve. Renewable sources aren't even close to the capacity needed or at a low enough cost to provide scale-able cheap power.
Encourage the use of fossil fuels to provide cheap energy. Promote the capitalist process of innovation and technology improvements that develop better, more efficient energy solutions and companies will naturally shift to them. Your irrational fear will only result in negative consequences for the economy and the people, and 'leading' a change with no efficient alternatives will be incredibly destructive. A wealthier society is better able to combat man-made impacts, don't consign people to poverty by forcing a 'solution' that doesn't work.
-
Allan, you are fortunate if you live such a sheltered life that you can't comprehend this.
Australia has a conservative government and is talking about this. Kiribati and Tuvalu are looking like their entire populations will be displaced, and possibly in this generation. It's challenging for the people living there as their high tides are already inundating islands. The changing climate is also bringing stronger and more frequent storms, so it's actually quite possible that it could be a freak event that causes a need for sudden evacuations. Have you read about the number of people in PNG who have died due to the drought they are experiencing? And do you know about the political situation in many Pacific nations that could create political refugees when under pressure from a changing climate? Real people, real lives, real trauma, and they are entitled to more than the mockery of a sheltered Yank.
I was not mocking those who are living with rising tides and droughts, I was mocking Interior Secretary Jewell for calling them 'climate refugees', on the heel of the 'Syrian refugee' label. Instead of calling the so-called 'Syrians' (which also includes many from other nations than Syria) what they truly are, illegal immigrants, they call them 'refugees'. Everyone is a 'refugee' today. It's ridiculous.
Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.
And since when did personal responsibility for oneself disappear? If people can't read the writing on the wall and make plans for the near future why should the rest of the world be forced to take care of them due to their inaction and lack of foresight?
Reufee = a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
So yeah, Syrians and Pacific Islanders can both be refugees for different reasons Allan.
PNG's drought is not "human designed". Do you actually believe that there are sociopaths controlling the weather to create havoc?
Are you suggesting that you'd like to see a mass migration of highly motivated Pacific Islanders to your location? Get a change.org petition going to get that idea going... A lot of people are going to need to move to higher ground.
It's interesting that there is a debate about "personal responsibility" when it comes to poor people having to move. How about your "personal responsibility" to not contribute further CO2 emissions?
-
Careful. There are a lot of people on this forum who don't like to think about the massive subsidies that some people in the world end up paying for their ability to drive around all the time. Ironically, they are often the ones most critical of other's 'personal responsibility'.
-
Careful. There are a lot of people on this forum who don't like to think about the massive subsidies that some people in the world end up paying for their ability to drive around all the time. Ironically, they are often the ones most critical of other's 'personal responsibility'.
Massive (~$130B/yr) public spending on roads and bridges (https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/new-department-transportation-report-highway-transit-conditions-points-need-more) so that people can drive their cars = good!
Massive (~$58B/yr) public spending on public transit systems (http://www.publictransportation.org/news/facts/Pages/default.aspx) so that people can ride trains, buses etc = bad!
-
From what I have seen lately I have to conclude that solar is basically a viable power source. It may not be best in all cases but it has moved from an "also ran" to "contender". If someone can provide a credible counter to this please by all means, give me a link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/)
nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html
Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.
Or open a scuba diving business.
TIL that there are people who don't understand you can't just choose to move to another nation unless they are willing to allow you in.
AKA: TIL there are people who do not understand what the word "refugee" means.
Tell that to those so-called 'Syrian refugees'...
-
I shouldn't be but I'm continuously amazed at people's lack of compassion on these boards lately. This cavalier attitude and judgements towards others whose positions certain individuals don't understand is sad to see.
Just because you don't understand what they're going through or all their options doesn't mean you have some easy solution in hand nor that they aren't going through hardship.
TLDR get your head out of the sand and follow some old advice about having anything nice to say.
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html
Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.
Or open a scuba diving business.
TIL that there are people who don't understand you can't just choose to move to another nation unless they are willing to allow you in.
AKA: TIL there are people who do not understand what the word "refugee" means.
Tell that to those so-called 'Syrian refugees'...
I'm detecting a complete and total lack of empathy. If your home was being destroyed by forces that you could not control, you would try to move to a place where hopefully your family and children could have a better life (or live at all for that matter). Refugee problems are serious and we should not just open the doors to everyone, but there needs to be some considerations made and attempts to help resolve the source of the problem.
-
nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.
That was exactly my intention. I was building on what GuitarStv had said upthread. We have a segment of our society that is very vocal against spending on public transit but is openly supports spending on our roads and bridges. We spend more on building and maintaining public roads than anything else in the discretionary budget. What's missing from the dialog is any discussion on the relative levels of utilization.
-
nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.
That was exactly my intention. I was building on what GuitarStv had said upthread. We have a segment of our society that is very vocal against spending on public transit but is openly supports spending on our roads and bridges. We spend more on building and maintaining public roads than anything else in the discretionary budget. What's missing from the dialog is any discussion on the relative levels of utilization.
Copy that, I did not read your post in the right frame of mind.
-
From what I have seen lately I have to conclude that solar is basically a viable power source. It may not be best in all cases but it has moved from an "also ran" to "contender". If someone can provide a credible counter to this please by all means, give me a link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/)
nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.
Little to no real information in that article. Things that underlie that argument: India likely pays more for fossil fuels than the US, India is closer to the equator and better able to effectively use solar compared to the US, and India has a lower per capita usage of electricity which makes it easier to supply with solar.
Here's the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States)
By all means we should continue to develop newer, better, more efficient and capable technology. Regardless, it's not available now, or likely to be, so unless we go nuclear it's unlikely that we'll beat a reliance on fossil fuels in the next 20-30 years.
-
From what I have seen lately I have to conclude that solar is basically a viable power source. It may not be best in all cases but it has moved from an "also ran" to "contender". If someone can provide a credible counter to this please by all means, give me a link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/)
nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.
Little to no real information in that article. Things that underlie that argument: India likely pays more for fossil fuels than the US, India is closer to the equator and better able to effectively use solar compared to the US, and India has a lower per capita usage of electricity which makes it easier to supply with solar.
Here's the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States)
By all means we should continue to develop newer, better, more efficient and capable technology. Regardless, it's not available now, or likely to be, so unless we go nuclear it's unlikely that we'll beat a reliance on fossil fuels in the next 20-30 years.
Well played. Thank you for the counter points.
-
From what I have seen lately I have to conclude that solar is basically a viable power source. It may not be best in all cases but it has moved from an "also ran" to "contender". If someone can provide a credible counter to this please by all means, give me a link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/)
nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.
Little to no real information in that article. Things that underlie that argument: India likely pays more for fossil fuels than the US, India is closer to the equator and better able to effectively use solar compared to the US, and India has a lower per capita usage of electricity which makes it easier to supply with solar.
Here's the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States)
By all means we should continue to develop newer, better, more efficient and capable technology. Regardless, it's not available now, or likely to be, so unless we go nuclear it's unlikely that we'll beat a reliance on fossil fuels in the next 20-30 years.
From the article
... At a recent government auction, the winning bidder offered to sell electricity generated by a project in sunny Rajasthan for 4.34 rupees (6 cents) per kilowatt hour, roughly the same price as some recent coal projects.
Looks like in the US best case you pay ~50% more than that for traditional home grid connected power. Hawaii has some of the most expensive power in the US but is at a similar latitude. But that one sentence says that their coal power is cheaper than ours and their solar is still cheaper. But yes there are a 1001 details that we may be missing but the larger point is that solar is not some hippy pipe dream.
I would like to read more on your wiki link later tonight.
Sorry but your list of objections made me think of (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physicists.png)
FWIW, I am basically in favor of nuclear. As an engineer I find it painfully stupid that we as a planet have walked away from it.
-
FWIW, I am basically in favor of nuclear. As an engineer I find it painfully stupid that we as a planet have walked away from it.
Honest question: Do you know how much of the cost of nuclear is simply security (keeping radioactive material away from 'bad people')? It seems like we have to spend orders of magnitude more to protect all aspects of nuclear plants (from generation to disposal) compared to our coal and natural gas fired plants. But I'm just armchair guessing here...
-
FWIW, I am basically in favor of nuclear. As an engineer I find it painfully stupid that we as a planet have walked away from it.
Honest question: Do you know how much of the cost of nuclear is simply security (keeping radioactive material away from 'bad people')? It seems like we have to spend orders of magnitude more to protect all aspects of nuclear plants (from generation to disposal) compared to our coal and natural gas fired plants. But I'm just armchair guessing here...
No, I dont know but is an interesting question. I wonder how much of the security is really 'needed', was a level of security established to prevent any and all trespassing onto any part of the grounds where really it does not matter if Green-Peace can slap a bumper sticker onto a shed a mile from the reactor building.
Just to make sure we are 10000% OT :-)
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/January/10/Secret-no-fly-zone (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/January/10/Secret-no-fly-zone)
-
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
FWIW, I am basically in favor of nuclear. As an engineer I find it painfully stupid that we as a planet have walked away from it.
Honest question: Do you know how much of the cost of nuclear is simply security (keeping radioactive material away from 'bad people')? It seems like we have to spend orders of magnitude more to protect all aspects of nuclear plants (from generation to disposal) compared to our coal and natural gas fired plants. But I'm just armchair guessing here...
No, I dont know but is an interesting question. I wonder how much of the security is really 'needed', was a level of security established to prevent any and all trespassing onto any part of the grounds where really it does not matter if Green-Peace can slap a bumper sticker onto a shed a mile from the reactor building.
Just to make sure we are 10000% OT :-)
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/January/10/Secret-no-fly-zone (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/January/10/Secret-no-fly-zone)
Ignoring security, accidents, nuclear weapons issues, and waste . . . The real problem with nuclear is fuel. At current consumption rates for nuclear power we have about 80 years of fuel available. Scaled up to world wide consumption we've got about 5 years. There are some alternative theories about how we could extract more uranium from sea water, but they wouldn't stretch the supplies much longer. At best, nuclear can function as a temporary stop gap while we figure something else out. It can't be relied on long term. http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html (http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html)
-
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.
Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?
So your solution is for everyone to break the law?
I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.
Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.
I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html
Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.
Or open a scuba diving business.
TIL that there are people who don't understand you can't just choose to move to another nation unless they are willing to allow you in.
AKA: TIL there are people who do not understand what the word "refugee" means.
Tell that to those so-called 'Syrian refugees'...
Are you implying that you would enter another country illegally, then?
-
Ignoring security, accidents, nuclear weapons issues, and waste . . . The real problem with nuclear is fuel. At current consumption rates for nuclear power we have about 80 years of fuel available. Scaled up to world wide consumption we've got about 5 years. There are some alternative theories about how we could extract more uranium from sea water, but they wouldn't stretch the supplies much longer. At best, nuclear can function as a temporary stop gap while we figure something else out. It can't be relied on long term. http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html (http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html)
Very interesting about the fuel limitations.
Upon reading the article I can't help but instantly question a lot of the author/article's conclusions. For example, the idea that the replacement rate for 15,000 nuclear reactors is unrealistic. You could find analogies with similar numbers, construction time and costs of many other things in the world, like skyscrapers, large bridges or dams. It doesn't matter that a new one needs to be built every day to replace the old ones, because hundreds are in the process of being built simultaneously all over the world. It's just a question of scale. Cars might last only ~14 years but we have no problem building 178,000 new ones every single day.
The accident rate is also overwhelmingly based on reactors built decades ago (e.g. Fukushima was commissioned in 1976, Chernobyl in '72 and 3 mile in '68). That isn't to say accidents wouldn't still happen, but I doubt they'd happen anywhere close to the same frequency.
-
When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."
...
As for social and economic advantages, what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.
Your entire quote is an example of that social and economic advantage, dude. You were born in a country that engages in ridiculous international interventions that result in practically no abject poverty (like, third world, where your family dies of hunger, parasites, or war) and gives its citizens visas on-demand in most major countries.
Allow me to explain: if you're born in most of the world, you cannot legally enter other countries without demonstrating significant financial assets and going through a complicated application process and background checks. So even educated middle-class people can't follow the laws, because the laws are designed to stop them from traveling.
(On the other hand, even a homeless, disheveled, half-braindead American can travel the world for the cost of a TV and not be arrested at the border. Amazingly, we even have words like "backpacking," which is when broke, jobless American college kids vagabond through other people's countries without even getting arrested or raped.)
If you do enter illegally, you're at significant risk of violence, exploitation, or incarceration, as well as death during the border crossings themselves. Even in the US, we imprison small children fleeing violence and pretend that they're competent to defend themselves alone in court proceedings in a foreign language. http://www.npr.org/2014/08/14/340118824/young-migrants-may-request-asylum-but-its-hard-to-get
And if there's an emergency, like a famine or war, that forces many of you to evacuate your country all at once, you can be captured by soldiers by the tens of thousands and put into concentration camps, where you and your descendants will be held at gunpoint because no government cares enough to vouch for you. Here's a picture of such a camp: http://www.borgenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/10-Largest-refugee-camps.jpg
Thought exercise: If you were suddenly caught by soldiers during a border crossing and thrown into a tent city, what would you say? If it sounds anything like "I have rights, I'm an American," then that's your social and economic advantage right there. Try saying, "I have rights, I'm Sudanese" and see what happens.
All of these people, the imprisoned children, the people trapped at gunpoint for decades, the people working menial labor under threat of deportation, the poor people who can't afford to travel but are having their nations sink, the people fleeing famines caused by droughts, are refugees.
You may be a survivor, but thanks to your giant government subsidy, you'll probably never be a refugee. So be grateful.
-
When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.
Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."
...
As for social and economic advantages, what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.
Your entire quote is an example of that social and economic advantage, dude. You were born in a country that engages in ridiculous international interventions that result in practically no abject poverty (like, third world, where your family dies of hunger, parasites, or war) and gives its citizens visas on-demand in most major countries.
Allow me to explain: if you're born in most of the world, you cannot legally enter other countries without demonstrating significant financial assets and going through a complicated application process and background checks. So even educated middle-class people can't follow the laws, because the laws are designed to stop them from traveling.
(On the other hand, even a homeless, disheveled, half-braindead American can travel the world for the cost of a TV and not be arrested at the border. Amazingly, we even have words like "backpacking," which is when broke, jobless American college kids vagabond through other people's countries without even getting arrested or raped.)
If you do enter illegally, you're at significant risk of violence, exploitation, or incarceration, as well as death during the border crossings themselves. Even in the US, we imprison small children fleeing violence and pretend that they're competent to defend themselves alone in court proceedings in a foreign language. http://www.npr.org/2014/08/14/340118824/young-migrants-may-request-asylum-but-its-hard-to-get
And if there's an emergency, like a famine or war, that forces many of you to evacuate your country all at once, you can be captured by soldiers by the tens of thousands and put into concentration camps, where you and your descendants will be held at gunpoint because no government cares enough to vouch for you. Here's a picture of such a camp: http://www.borgenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/10-Largest-refugee-camps.jpg
Thought exercise: If you were suddenly caught by soldiers during a border crossing and thrown into a tent city, what would you say? If it sounds anything like "I have rights, I'm an American," then that's your social and economic advantage right there. Try saying, "I have rights, I'm Sudanese" and see what happens.
All of these people, the imprisoned children, the people trapped at gunpoint for decades, the people working menial labor under threat of deportation, the poor people who can't afford to travel but are having their nations sink, the people fleeing famines caused by droughts, are refugees.
You may be a survivor, but thanks to your giant government subsidy, you'll probably never be a refugee. So be grateful.
**applause**
-
here is a short article about a proposal to re-settle America's first climate refugees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/resettling-the-first-american-climate-refugees.html
-
This forum came to mind today for me. The comments that people should just leave there is not such thing as Climate refugees.
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Currently the whole town, all 80000 people, are evacuated. All be it they did not have to go to another country, but they are all refugees from their home town.
Now two points to make:
1. OP - how was this supposed to be foreseen? When should have those people left, knowing that this was going to happen?
2. Alberta, and Canada have a very generous heart. We step up to help those in need, often without regard for our own safety, or our own financial health. Can anyone guess the first group of people to step up here? It was a group of Syrian Refugees that settled in Calgary about 5 months ago. They don't have much, but each gave $5 to help. They did this because they know how hard it is to lose everything.
My point of mentioning point two is simple to get people to back off. These refugees have come here as a last resort because they cant go home safely. Back off and accept these people, I bet you will be surprised at what good they will do.
-
This forum came to mind today for me. The comments that people should just leave there is not such thing as Climate refugees.
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Currently the whole town, all 80000 people, are evacuated. All be it they did not have to go to another country, but they are all refugees from their home town.
Now two points to make:
1. OP - how was this supposed to be foreseen? When should have those people left, knowing that this was going to happen?
2. Alberta, and Canada have a very generous heart. We step up to help those in need, often without regard for our own safety, or our own financial health. Can anyone guess the first group of people to step up here? It was a group of Syrian Refugees that settled in Calgary about 5 months ago. They don't have much, but each gave $5 to help. They did this because they know how hard it is to lose everything.
My point of mentioning point two is simple to get people to back off. These refugees have come here as a last resort because they cant go home safely. Back off and accept these people, I bet you will be surprised at what good they will do.
That's simply not true for the majority of these 'climate refugees'. The majority of the refugees moving into Europe are economic refugees, moving en masse towards the countries with the best social benefits like Sweden, Germany, and the UK. That doesn't scream people fleeing for safety, that's simple exploitation. If you were really concerned about the refugees, you'd stop the chaos at home killing them in the thousands in their home country, before making them trek thousands of miles through dangerous country with nothing but the clothes on their back. You're also contributing to the economic collapse of their home country as generations of able workers flee for better opportunities elsewhere, which adds to the poverty and strife.
I wish we'd stop generalizing and pulling at the heartstrings while encouraging hypocritical behavior. The simple fact is, YOU can donate as much of your money as you want to take care of these people. Feel free to be your moral voice in helping these people better themselves by taking your money. Other's don't want to use their tax-dollars to do so, and they shouldn't have to. Compassion is making a personal sacrifice, not forcing others to.
-
I'm so proud of the folks on this forum! Y'all got an invitation to a troll party and turned it into a great discussion on both renewable energy and refugees of climate change! <smile>
-
I want to be the first with a link to the obligatory for the OP:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/contrails.png)
-
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.
-
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.
Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now. 10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban. This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here. May fifth average is 15. Record high is +33.2 set two years ago. I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.
-
Meanwhile at the Pentagon:
http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery
DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S. interests globally. The National Security Strategy, issued in February 2015, is clear that climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water. These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time.
Increased wildfire risk including risk earlier in the year are a consistent feature of climate change predictions. Whether one specific incident is 100% attributable to climate change is debatable, but at the macro scale these types of events are more frequent. If every single event is treated as, "but this specific event may not be 100% climate change" misses the point. The climate change debate has been beaten to death many times on this forum, and is not worth redoing here.
As to the Syrian refugees... 470,000 people have been killed in a country of (originally) 22-23 million people. 1.9 million have been injured. That's ~10% of the population. 45% of the population has been displaced. The country is gutted and things continue to get worse. If I could, I would run like hell from that, borders be damned. Many Syrians simply don't even have the resources and ability to get away from the destruction.
-
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.
Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now. 10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban. This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here. May fifth average is 15. Record high is +33.2 set two years ago. I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.
Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997 Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc. It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.
This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.
-
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.
Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now. 10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban. This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here. May fifth average is 15. Record high is +33.2 set two years ago. I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.
Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997 Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc. It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.
This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01660.x/full
As to things getting drier, the occurrence of hot/dry weather (which if repeated more frequently over time is a change in climate) is more important than if there is more/less precipitation. For example, in Washington the amount of precipitation is not expected to change much, or may actually increase slightly, but our spring will arrive earlier and our summers will be drier, which is associated with projected increased fire risk.
-
The weather here is much more unpredictable then it has ever been. Massive rains and flooding, drought, record high temps, record low temps. It has been weird to say the least.
-
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.
Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now. 10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban. This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here. May fifth average is 15. Record high is +33.2 set two years ago. I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.
Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997 Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc. It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.
This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.
I agree that it's not possible to point to any single event and say 'yep, that's climate change'. As you said, the weather varies from year to year. On the whole though, across the Earth things are getting much warmer. The warmest years Earth wide from 1880 to present read as follows:
Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 1998 0.63 1.13
6 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 2003 0.61 1.10
9 2006 0.61 1.10
9 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 2004 0.57 1.03
13 2011 0.57 1.03
15 2001 0.54 0.97
15 2008 0.54 0.97
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513)
Notice how they're all pretty recent? It's not unreasonable to assume that this clear evidence of change will impact the weather.
-
Question: Can't anyone be a plain, old "immigrant" anymore? You know, like, "This place sucks--I'm outta here and going somewhere better!"
Everyone has to be special--"asylum-seeker", "refugee claimant", "foreign national", "undocumented migrant". For Pete's sake many of these people don't speak fluent English so it certainly wasn't them that came up with these BS terms. When did saying "immigrant" become dirty? Immigrate/emigrate are decent old-standing words. My relatives who cam over on the boats a long time ago weren't called, "malnourished potato-seekers" (who like beer).
-
I'm so proud of the folks on this forum! Y'all got an invitation to a troll party and turned it into a great discussion on both renewable energy and refugees of climate change! <smile>
So much trollbait, indeed.
Question: Can't anyone be a plain, old "immigrant" anymore? You know, like, "This place sucks--I'm outta here and going somewhere better!"
Everyone has to be special--"asylum-seeker", "refugee claimant", "foreign national", "undocumented migrant". For Pete's sake many of these people don't speak fluent English so it certainly wasn't them that came up with these BS terms. When did saying "immigrant" become dirty? Immigrate/emigrate are decent old-standing words. My relatives who cam over on the boats a long time ago weren't called, "malnourished potato-seekers" (who like beer).
Do you have a problem with adding descriptive details, or do you think the additional details are somehow inaccurate in specific case(s)?
I don't think it's just PC shit, although that plays a role. Functional distinctions affect perception, which influences action. And so on.
-
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.
Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now. 10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban. This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here. May fifth average is 15. Record high is +33.2 set two years ago. I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.
Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997 Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc. It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.
This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.
I agree that it's not possible to point to any single event and say 'yep, that's climate change'. As you said, the weather varies from year to year. On the whole though, across the Earth things are getting much warmer. The warmest years Earth wide from 1880 to present read as follows:
Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 1998 0.63 1.13
6 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 2003 0.61 1.10
9 2006 0.61 1.10
9 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 2004 0.57 1.03
13 2011 0.57 1.03
15 2001 0.54 0.97
15 2008 0.54 0.97
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513)
Notice how they're all pretty recent? It's not unreasonable to assume that this clear evidence of change will impact the weather.
Hotter does not mean drier. Weather will be impacted by higher temperatures, but stating that this forest fire was worse because of climate change is misleading.
And thank you Glenstache; it is an important point to make that even if average total rainfall does not change, the pattern of when and how it falls can massively impact burning, storm and crop growing conditions. Looking at simple total rainfalls for the area would not reveal this; great catch.
-
Question: Can't anyone be a plain, old "immigrant" anymore? You know, like, "This place sucks--I'm outta here and going somewhere better!"
Everyone has to be special--"asylum-seeker", "refugee claimant", "foreign national", "undocumented migrant". For Pete's sake many of these people don't speak fluent English so it certainly wasn't them that came up with these BS terms. When did saying "immigrant" become dirty? Immigrate/emigrate are decent old-standing words. My relatives who cam over on the boats a long time ago weren't called, "malnourished potato-seekers" (who like beer).
Kaspian - I think this gets to the heart of our immigration policies. If you plan to immigrate to most developed worlds, you need to show that you have a job or financial means not to be a burden on the society, typically for several years. Often if you've been offered a job it can't displace a citizen's job (at least in theory). Your place in line is determined by whether you have immediate family there, and if you have a sponsor, and your age and education level.
An immigrant by definition is someone who WANTS to go toward that particular country. Most immigration policies are far from "open door"
In contrast, a refuge is someone simply wants to go AWAY from their country. By definition they feel that they are unable to be protected by their home country. It's a meaningful distinction from "Immigrant". Anytime someone says they are a refuge the next question is: What are you fleeing FROM. That's why we label them "Political/Economic/Climate/Ethnicity etc".
-
In 2011, there were 10,249 wildfires caused by lightning, but 63,877 wildfires caused by human error (as reported to the National Interagency Fire Center). Humans cause the vast majority of wildfires. It makes sense that as the human population grows and expands you'll have more frequent wildfires. To claim that climate change is a dominant factor in wildfires is misleading.
I'd also like to point out that climate change has positive impacts on the environment that can and do deter wildfires. If there's more CO2 in the atmosphere plants will tend to grow larger, fuller, and greener. Plant growth has been surging as CO2 levels have risen. Higher temperature (outside of extremes) tends to lend itself towards increased plant growth as well.
-
Whether or not the first spark came from heaven or someone throwing a cigarette out of a car window, that's really beside the point . . . the current conditions of the local climate determine if a forest fire will spread.
Some in California would probably challenge the idea that climate change always leads to lush green plants and increased plant growth.
-
Do you have a problem with adding descriptive details, or do you think the additional details are somehow inaccurate in specific case(s)?
I don't think it's just PC shit, although that plays a role. Functional distinctions affect perception, which influences action. And so on.
I think they're definitely inaccurate in the majority of cases. If we're going to use specific descriptors, then at least it should be include all truthful labels:
Question: Why are you applying for status?
Answer: Because I paid good money to be "people trafficked" into what I thought was a better place.
Human Trafficking: The Second Largest Industry in the World (http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2013/10/human-trafficking-second-largest-industry-world)
These giant criminal enterprises are trolling everywhere from Russia, India, Pakistan, to Kazakhstan promising people a better life if they only just hand over their entire life's savings. Total badness.
-
In 2011, there were 10,249 wildfires caused by lightning, but 63,877 wildfires caused by human error (as reported to the National Interagency Fire Center).
Slightly an aside, but I'm curious whether "human error" includes arson. Back in 2003 or thereabouts, there was a guy who went around with a blow torch, intentionally starting wildfires. Supposedly he was doing it because he was a fire fighter and wanted to ensure his job security.
-
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.
Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now. 10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban. This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here. May fifth average is 15. Record high is +33.2 set two years ago. I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.
Canada has about 9,000 forest fires per year on average. In 2014 for example, there were 611 forest fires in Saskatchewan. This current fire just happened to hit a town instead of an isolated area where it would not have been newsworthy.
As to "record" high temps...they have no records older than 100 years and the planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, so one warm day is statistically insignificant.
-
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire. Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.
Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.
Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now. 10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban. This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here. May fifth average is 15. Record high is +33.2 set two years ago. I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.
Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997 Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc. It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.
This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.
I agree that it's not possible to point to any single event and say 'yep, that's climate change'. As you said, the weather varies from year to year. On the whole though, across the Earth things are getting much warmer. The warmest years Earth wide from 1880 to present read as follows:
Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 1998 0.63 1.13
6 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 2003 0.61 1.10
9 2006 0.61 1.10
9 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 2004 0.57 1.03
13 2011 0.57 1.03
15 2001 0.54 0.97
15 2008 0.54 0.97
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513)
Notice how they're all pretty recent? It's not unreasonable to assume that this clear evidence of change will impact the weather.
Ah yes...the "adjusted" NOAA temperature data.
-
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.
-
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.
HAHAHAHAHA
-
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.
The 97% claim was debunked years ago by several sources....many of them smarter than you.
Without fail, it's always the alarmists who display the greatest lack of knowledge.
-
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.
97% of climate scientists do NOT think that human factors are significant. Most of the talk about climate change and the human contribution towards it are made by politicians, government agencies, activists, and scientists outside of the atmospheric science fields. They are not part of the UN's IPCC Working Group 1 or opposite skeptic scientists, who claim that there are a myriad of other potential causes that we don't yet understand, that work in the atmospheric sciences.
There is significant debate going on in the scientific community about these issues and they are still working on understanding the basics. Any push for curtailing the use of fossil fuels is premature and potentially harmful for the people that rely on cheap energy. Please, don't buy into the fear-mongering and demagoguery when contemplating policies that can potentially negatively impact the lives of millions. Emotional overreactions can have severe, negative consequences for the poor.
-
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.
The 97% claim was debunked years ago by several sources....many of them smarter than you.
Without fail, it's always the alarmists who display the greatest lack of knowledge.
NASA says differently. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
let me guess though NASA is biased some how.
-
NASA says differently. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
let me guess though NASA is biased some how.
The fallacy of equivocation. Even looking at this from a lens of normalcy, 97% of scientists agreeing on ANYTHING is a skeptical claim all in itself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#9df4bf87187f (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#9df4bf87187f)
-
NASA says differently. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
let me guess though NASA is biased some how.
The fallacy of equivocation. Even looking at this from a lens of normalcy, 97% of scientists agreeing on ANYTHING is a skeptical claim all in itself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#9df4bf87187f (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#9df4bf87187f)
This is why I also have a deep distrust of: plate tectonics, gravity, evolution, an approximate age of the earth of 4.6 Ga, Maxwell's equations, etc. If a large number of scientists agree, it must be problematic. /sarcasm
-
This is why I also have a deep distrust of: plate tectonics, gravity, evolution, an approximate age of the earth of 4.6 Ga, Maxwell's equations, etc. If a large number of scientists agree, it must be problematic. /sarcasm
Yup, that's why we continue to look into the factors underlying the science. We continue to study the causes behind shifts in plate tectonics, gravity, evolution, because we don't know everything. Welcome to the evolution of scientific theory and why challenging assumptions plays such a vital role.
The public shouldn't be afraid of skeptics and challenges, it should be open to challenge. It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing is more damaging to progress than groupthink.
-
The public shouldn't be afraid of skeptics and challenges, it should be open to challenge. It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing is more damaging to progress than groupthink.
I agree with you completely. With the caveat that sceptical theories be treated scientifically. Those who are are interested only in tearing down commonly accepted theories and are unable to provide stronger research to support a sceptical point of view should be derided for the crackpots that they are.
-
The public shouldn't be afraid of skeptics and challenges, it should be open to challenge. It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing is more damaging to progress than groupthink.
I agree with you completely. With the caveat that sceptical theories be treated scientifically. Those who are are interested only in tearing down commonly accepted theories and are unable to provide stronger research to support a sceptical point of view should be derided for the crackpots that they are.
It is also frustrating to continually deal with skepticism from those who are smart and engaged, but ultimately do not have adequate knowledge of the subject to be effective skeptics. There is a distinction between actually being an informed skeptic who can make a contribution and being an opinionated skeptic without enough subject understanding to know if their skepticism is misunderstanding of the material or an actual flaw. A common thread on the climate science discussions is stovepipe style arguments in which a system is reduced to a single line of evidence to make a point (ie, CO2 makes plants grow more).
I am not a climate scientist, but have been in their labs, and working with them for 20+years. I have watched them grapple with, test, and be incredible skeptical of every new idea coming out. The picture painted by some corners of the media as religious zealots is tough to stomach when you've seen the sense of purpose and desire to understand a difficult issue honestly first hand.
-
The public shouldn't be afraid of skeptics and challenges, it should be open to challenge. It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing is more damaging to progress than groupthink.
I agree with you completely. With the caveat that sceptical theories be treated scientifically. Those who are are interested only in tearing down commonly accepted theories and are unable to provide stronger research to support a sceptical point of view should be derided for the crackpots that they are.
It is also frustrating to continually deal with skepticism from those who are smart and engaged, but ultimately do not have adequate knowledge of the subject to be effective skeptics. There is a distinction between actually being an informed skeptic who can make a contribution and being an opinionated skeptic without enough subject understanding to know if their skepticism is misunderstanding of the material or an actual flaw. A common thread on the climate science discussions is stovepipe style arguments in which a system is reduced to a single line of evidence to make a point (ie, CO2 makes plants grow more).
I am not a climate scientist, but have been in their labs, and working with them for 20+years. I have watched them grapple with, test, and be incredible skeptical of every new idea coming out. The picture painted by some corners of the media as religious zealots is tough to stomach when you've seen the sense of purpose and desire to understand a difficult issue honestly first hand.
I agree with you. However, this is an issue that has reverberations throughout our entire society. If you're going to support public policy changes that restricts the use of carbon emissions in electrical power generation, for instance, this is a value-based balance between a WIDE range of positive and negative effect ranging from the availability of substitute technology, economics, the environment, fairness, etc.
Just to understand the problem a little more, in 100 years what be the effects of sea level change and temperature increase from purely man-made effects on the climate, discounting the natural climate change and assuming current trends remain unchanged?
-
I agree with you. However, this is an issue that has reverberations throughout our entire society. If you're going to support public policy changes that restricts the use of carbon emissions in electrical power generation, for instance, this is a value-based balance between a WIDE range of positive and negative effect ranging from the availability of substitute technology, economics, the environment, fairness, etc.
Just to understand the problem a little more, in 100 years what be the effects of sea level change and temperature increase from purely man-made effects on the climate, discounting the natural climate change and assuming current trends remain unchanged?
No one really knows what the effects will be. There are many predictions, but so far almost none of them have been observed. Storm activity is not increasing in severity or frequency, sea level rise is below prior expected levels and even temperature increases have not been as severe as predicted. This could all come to pass, but it's a complex issue with so many variables that making predictions that far in advance is difficult.