htownbrown
-
Posts
2,262 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by htownbrown
-
-
7 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:
And your schtick is very clear as well too...
Point being, if a portion of this country doesn't even think climate change is happening, they aren't going to vote in the people that can actually make a difference. It isn't because joe blow eats a burger or drives a truck, it's because he thinks climate change is a hoax and votes for politicians bought by the oil and gas lobby.
You and I both know that's not why you attempt to guilt people about climate change. You don't have to support cap and trade, the progressive agenda, to believe in climate change. It's not a genius idea to have the consumer pay more for less, for little progress. The change will come organically in the private sector if the government manages to not interfere. Anything else will be a disaster. Your ideology isn't superior enough to warrant a pass on hypocritical finger pointing.
I'm pointing out individuals beliefs and subsequent actions around climate change, not just driving a truck. See how one can ultimately be more detrimental than the other?
I can hear the back door creaking open with that one.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:
You think that's the reason I went there? Ha, alright buddy...
Yeah.
Real, meaningful change comes through regulating and innovating at large companies. The source of the vast majority of the negative effects on our climate. The attempt to push it back on individuals is just a tactic by these large companies to avoid blame.
Not sure what this had to do with what I said? My point was, who are you to blame other individuals? This is your attempt at pushing it back, not mine or some nameless company on your shit list. I'm not posting at people like their ruining MY planet with their choices, that's your shtick.
Lame ass whataboutisms because someone drives are car are just that.
I know, right?
But I'm sure you scored some points on here.
Who cares?
-
-
4 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:
Whatever. All I know is that we are currently breaking average daily temp records going into a 4th month now in the state and a drought record about to fall as well since the worst I ever saw in the state in 2011. More importantly it is so dry here that this 500 acre wildfire is within a mile of the homes of both of my kids and about 1 1/2 from my home. But the good news is we get to watch multiple airplanes and choppers dropping water and retardant right from our yards.
Quite a show. 😱🤠🛬🔥🚁
This is typical for la nina.
-
-
The hypocrisy in this thread is amazing!!
I mean, you'd think everyone here just randomly drives their fossil fuel burning vehicle out of state to the creationist museum for no useful reason other than to troll a former poster on this board. But as it turns out, it was just one oblivious global warmer.
-
Isn't part of the appeal of the sport the sound of the engines?
-
I'm willing to wager Hunter was a towel boy on Epstein Island...he's always in the middle of a sticky situation.
-
15 hours ago, nickers said:
Hey all of the people who sit there and laugh can go look it up.. For me it's not Democrat or Republican issue.. It's a basic Human life survival issue.. I have watched and read countless documentaries on this... Go ahead and laugh all you like... Your grandchildren and future generations will be the ones to suffer for your arrogance... And ignorance...
When it comes to data, there are only two real factions of scientific opinion.
First, you have to understand that IPCC uses roughly about 100 models to create multiple scenarios each. With this data they create a spaghetti plot and output a median range. The discussion of this range drives policy. If you leave it at that, without going into weighing the differences in models, it sounds very reasonable.
Now I'm going to attempt to oversimplify where the climate "skeptic" has taken issue.
Let's say you have a real sweet tooth, and you've gotten a little overweight. You've eaten twinkies every day since the 1970's. Let's say you create several models to track your weight gain from twinkies, as well as your normal diet. Currently you're consuming 2 twinkies a day, but you want modeled data of different scenarios. Obviously, you want scenarios of one twinkie and the ideal zero twinkie diet to understand where you could be. That makes perfect sense, but you also want to know what the scenario would be if you cheated. Now let's say you create a doomsday scenario that would have you eating twinkies breakfast, lunch, and dinner, roughly 6x more twinkies than you typically consume. That becomes the endpoint of your data set, all the rest of your scenarios are between 3-12 twinkies. Now let's assume the most you've ever eaten in 1 day is 5. How plausible then is the data from 6-12 twinkies? Why would you include them in the spaghetti plot if your trying to understand how the status quo would affect you?
Educated skeptics argue that roughly 40% of the scenarios from the models are implausible, not that mmgw doesn't exist. That's an argument simply to shut down conversation. If you remove that 40%, the global median temperature rise to 2100 is 2.2 degrees. At zero carbon emission the same median would be 1.5 degrees. You can see how that won't sell tickets on policy, nor make for good documentaries.
Now if you want to make a compelling argument for the "12 twinkie" scenarios, I'm all in. Otherwise, we don't have a clear understanding of the controversy.
-
1
-
2
-
-
-
17 minutes ago, hoorta said:
If you live in the desert southwest, or happen to depend on water from Lake Meade for your farming, it's damn close to the sky is falling. Isn't just water hammer... the Hoover Dam supplies billions of megawatts to Las Vegas.... Um, the water level is in danger of dropping to the point, that thar dam isn't going to be no damn good for producing electricity... Turn out the lights in 'Vegas, the party's over.
Sure- it would be very possible to decrease the water flowing out of the Hoover Dam, but there's these things called water compacts... Where areas downstream from Lake Meade are (by law) guaranteed to get their fair share of the water.
RE: the source of water for the Colorado is still going strong? Wrong. Most of the water in the Colorado comes from snowmelt, and it's been damn scarce in the Rockies for over 30 years. There was an excellent article 15-20 or so years ago- I believe it was in Outside- that sounded the warning bells way back then. A little factoid- most of the snowmelt in the Rockies (like 70%) flows to the east. Diverting water from rivers like the Arkansas (and others) over the highest mountain range in the country? Don't think so. BTW, upstream from Lake Meade, you have Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon dam. Not publicized as much, but it's water level has taken a serious beating too.
OK, I'll even grant that climate change may not be the problem... But didn't take long to get the Google answer to my question... 75% of the water diverted out of Lake Meade goes to agriculture. Nice thinking there- growing crops in a climate that won't support growing them- in a stinking desert. Yeah, top it off with explosive growth in cities like Phoenix, Tucson, and Las Vegas aren't helping matters either.
Well, data from the Colorado Snow Survey Program from April, claimed the snowpack was 91% of average statewide and suggested that GW prematurely melted the 9% in early spring.
But yeah, the real problem is political science, not climate science. Upstream tends to need more than downstream wants them to have, but that's desert life...
-
I wish there were more survivors taking this approach in these situations, but that's a tough ask. Good on her though.
-
1
-
2
-
-
57 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:
It is not also clear whether the 1983 peak was 100% capacity (or more since most reservoirs have a spillway when it reaches 100%).
EDIT: Found this youtube on it.
That's why it's not really a reference point? It's an anomaly.
While, sure, it does rely a little on local rainfall to contribute to it's supply, it also has been a desert before humans arrived on the continent. However, the source of the water that feeds it is still going strong. So even if I grant you that GW is playing some role, do you really think the lack of desert rainfall is the problem? You think it's possible that the growth of communities in the region may require most of the water that it takes to keep Lake Mead full? It doesn't require that you give up all your climate ideology to acknowledge human consumption of the water may be driving this particular problem.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:
Ain't no global warming.
"The reservoir is now below 30 percent of capacity. Its level has dropped 170 feet (52 meters) since reaching a high-water mark in 1983, leaving a bright white line of mineral deposits on the brown canyon walls that looms over passing motor boats as high as a 15-story building."
So do you recall why it peaked in 1983?
Unless someone is purposely trying to be dramatic 1983 should not be a reference point.
-
14 hours ago, hoorta said:
That's the problem the carbon-energy folks are 100% oblivious to.... It's a damn fact... There's only so much coal... or oil in the ground, and when it's gone... It's gone. It took hundreds of millions of years to lay that stuff down, and modern man is going to burn through it in 500 or so years.
Believe global warming is a myth if you like.... I sure as hell don't. Go Google European record heat wave.... Great for marginal wine climates in Germany, not so great if you don't happen to have previously not required air conditioning.
Want me to start posting the warnings that Lake Meade is in danger of becoming a "Dead Pool"? This isn't old news.. 20 years ago climatologists were concerned that Nevada and others were going to suck the Colorado River dry. Lets build megapolists (like Phoenix and Las Vegas) in the middle of a fucking desert. Not smart.
So this is a graph that should help you out. Notably, the US consumption of coal has been trending downward for quite some time (yes, even when Trump was president). This graph represents the world under various consumption scenarios.
Now, notice the SSP5-8.5 & RCP8.5 lines. Those are mentioned over 40% of the time in IPCC reports compared to other scenarios and I've been hard pressed to find any media that doesn't use those same scenarios. This is probably where your core beliefs on the subject comes from. The data points from these scenarios create most of the doomsday projections that are driving leftwing policy. The problem with them is they assume the world coal consumption will rise to 6.2x our current consumption and, no joke, we will actually use liquid coal run cars in the future.
I bring this up because even if the world continues at the current rate of coal consumption it won't be a doomsday scenario for humanity and maybe you can sleep a little.
-
4 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:
Well, finally, we get the story straight.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT.
blood, torture, rape, murder, dangerous drugs......
on the hands of everyone who voted against Pres Trump.
Anybody think her parents are happy with biden's and obaMao's open borders for votes?
Go watch the twitter vid I posted, her mother claims the accused is innocent.
-
This story just gets stranger.
-
59 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:
Well this thread certainly slipped off the rails. LOL!
Take a break all:
A cowboy, who just moved to Wyoming from Texas, walks into a bar and orders three mugs of Bud.He sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn.
When he finishes them, he comes back to the bar and orders three more.
The bartender approaches and tells the cowboy, "You know, a mug goes flat after I draw it. It would taste better if you bought one at a time..."
The cowboy replies, "Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is an Airborne Ranger, the other is a Navy Seal, both serving overseas somewhere.
When we all left our home in Texas, we promised that we'd drink this way to remember the days when we drank together.
So I'm drinking one beer for each of my brothers and one for myself."
The bartender admits that this is a nice custom, and leaves it there.
The cowboy becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way.
He orders three mugs and drinks them in turn.
One day, he comes in and only orders two mugs. (I know, a tear is coming to my eye too)
All the regulars take notice and fall silent.
When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, "I don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss."
The cowboy looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawns in his eyes and he laughs.
"Oh, no, everybody's just fine," he explains, "It's just that my wife and I joined the Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking."
"Hasn't affected my brothers though...."🤠
Here's one my Nigerian boss told me today:
(Trigger Warning)
What do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes?
Nothing. You already told her twice.
-
1
-
2
-
-
-
Not sure why he wanted to buy in the first place.
-
Democrats want justice reform, but don't seem to understand due process. It feels like they are just lobbing softballs for SCOTUS to smash, eventually.
-
Thank goodness they voted Trump out...
-
19 minutes ago, Neo said:
Yes. The idea is to target would-be criminals before they've actually done anything. In that stage where they think they want to try something and end up getting busted. Red flag goes up, they investigate what kind of crime and if you are a danger. If they deem you're no danger then you get reinstated to be able to buy guns. If you violate within a certain amount of time from the last offense, you automatically get banned for a length of time (2 years. also depending on the severity of crime). If you get caught before the two years in possession of a gun, you're done and you serve time.
It's deter people from committing crimes to begin with and also to give you a chance it you want to lead a good life, or get you off the street quickly before you can hurt someone. Like a said, very rough idea. Many variables to consider.
A lot of things would have to be addressed for this to work on some levels. Such as, an owner could not sell his firearms to another individual or else you would circumnavigate the whole process. Hell, I inherited 2 pumps and a .243 at age 13.
But as far as mass shootings, it wouldn't make a dent.
-
If you believe anything from this article, you have to ask yourselves why young, traditionally white males, would be so angry. And to that note, I'd have to ask you what movement in all of western societies DOESN'T target them? At least in the media, they are responsible for almost everything evil.
If your response is simply, "Boo Hoo Whiteboys", then you're not serious about solving the issue of mass shootings. It's certainly not the only problem and there's no excuse for violent random retaliation, but it's a rather obvious influence.
Sure- it would be very possible to decrease the water flowing out of the Hoover Dam, but there's these things called water compacts... Where areas downstream from Lake Meade are (by law) guaranteed to get their fair share of the water. 
Climate change pledge
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION
Posted
I believe there is mmgw, but I'll never vote for a politician on that premise alone. Never ever. I don't think the data says what you think it does. So I will never have your level of urgency, I've already laid out several reasons why in this thread alone. Furthermore, I don't think there is a politician who knows enough about the subject to have any credible plan.
We are all, every fucking one us, buying a ton of products from China, the biggest polluter on the planet. Everyone includes you. They give no shits who you voted for in Ohio. You will never see zero emissions on government regulations. That is preposterous thinking. The real solution is unequivocally in the private sector. When the technology is there and cheap, China and the US will jump aboard. That's not whataboutism btw.
That also goes for the efficiency of the products we buy as well. The government didn't decide your clothes dryer had to run on less electricity, but they started to become available and people bought them. It happened pretty organically. You can still go buy a completely inefficient one if you want, but why? You better pray some greedy CEO is sitting in his italian leather captains chair salivating at the chance to be first to the market. Otherwise, from your perspective of the world, we're fucked.
All that aside, the climate evangel you preach doesn't preclude you of your own criticisms. You can't say if I don't believe in your ideology than it's all on me. To start with, there is nothing that says what you believe in will make a global impact. It doesn't matter that you care more, if you're consuming goods from the same polluting companies as the unwashed masses.