TripItUp
Footballguy
So it’s well documented I didn’t vote for Trump and it’s also well documented I likely won’t be voting for Trump in 2020.
Also, I live in California...my vote doesn’t matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Nature on verge of collapse? UN report is shocking (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter shader
- Start date
Also, I live in California...my vote doesn’t matter.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Democrats have been awful at fighting climate change. They don’t prioritize it enough, they use it to play political games and when they get the chance to make things better they often flub it up. All true; I can’t deny any of it.
And yet they’re the only ones even willing to have the conversation. If the Republicans said, “yeah climate change is a serious problem, we just don’t like the Democrats’ solution, here is OUR solution,” then I’d have no complaints whatsoever. But they’re not willing to do that; they’re not willing to do ANYTHING. So what choice do I have but to support the Democrats? At least they recognize the problem.
timschochet
Footballguy
That’s fine. My position is I don’t see how one can support ANY Republicans, particularly those who run for federal office, so long as they refuse to address this issue.So it’s well documented I didn’t vote for Trump and it’s also well documented I likely won’t be voting for Trump in 2020.
Also, I live in California...my vote doesn’t matter.
TripItUp
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I didn’t. Back then I didn’t recognize the priority of this issue.
And I’ve never liked Gore. I always felt that Gore was using climate change as a means to promote himself. Didn’t trust him.
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
Republicans have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. Democrats have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. One side is using it as an issue to get elected and then continuing to be awful at addressing it. The other denies it's even a problem. I'm really not sure one is any better than the other. Lie to your face or call you stupid for worrying to your face. No flipping way I'm counting on politicians to solve the problem. I do my best to leave no negative footprint myself and call on scientists, engineers, and the wealthy to spark the turnaround. Keep giving individuals better ways to make a compound difference. And other nations need to step it up big time as well. When I can retire, I'd love to help spread better practices around the world. That's what it will take, individuals building off individuals.
and you honestly give credit to the UN?
I can totally understand how an organization that wields that much power could keep everyone in check. Especially Israel.
You actually believe that the mighty UN could do anything to stop the US, China, or Russia from going at each other?
Wake up. The UN is nothing more than a money sucking mega-bureaucracy that serves no purpose except to push an NWO agenda.
Last edited by a moderator:
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Obama was elected almost 12 years ago. The Democratic party, especially with this newest class of senators and reps, has obviously grown on the issue of climate change. I don't think many of us felt as urgent about the issue 12 years ago as we do now, either. Rational thinking people are waking up to how big a deal this is, and so is our representation. That's part of the problem with having the same 70 year olds who don't integrate new information into their platforms in office for three plus decades.
Agree or disagree with their current platforms and plans, fine. But stop invoking what Democrats did over a decade ago in your arguments. The world has changed and the voices on the left are changing as well.
Agree or disagree with their current platforms and plans, fine. But stop invoking what Democrats did over a decade ago in your arguments. The world has changed and the voices on the left are changing as well.
If we are going to be worried about human footprint and eliminating habitats for wildlife, shouldn't the fact that "solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy". The problem is one initiative is often counterproductive to others.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
And do you truly think Tim that a "big government effort" will come with the next Dem president? I'm just asking it in this way since everything seems to come back to Trump with you (and this thread seems to be devolving back to "point the finger exclusively at the GOP").
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I kind of liked Gore until after the 2000 election. His decision to contest the election at a scorched-earth level greatly lowered my opinion of him.
timschochet
Footballguy
My answer is no, but only because the next Democratic President will be hampered by Congress. Unless and until Republicans change their position, you need filibuster proof majorities in all 3 houses. That’s the problem.
Also I don’t particularly blame Trump. He’s been quite terrible, but on this issue he’s representative of a political party that has refused to take this problem seriously ever since it emerged.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is a very reasonable point.
Given the existential threat of climate change, the unbending liberal opposition to even consider nuclear energy seems irrational to me.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
That ignores all the colonies it helped negotiate independence for, the civil wars it helped come to an end, helped eradicate smallpox, etc. All large human entities have corruption and the UN is no different but you are missing out on many of the positive things the UN has done.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Take for instance the honey bee. Losing those rascals would be problematic. Of course I am no science teacher so what do I know?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.”
Henry Ford
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
You didn’t even need to make this argument. The moment that Opie wrote “NWO” he invalidated any point he had to make.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I met him at Scott LeDoux's place back in the 80's. Scott was a competitive heavyweight fighter for a time. Nice fella. Did lots of things after fighting. Owned a bar for a time. got into local politics later, as I recall. I was in one night shooting the breeze when Terry walked in. Even knowing he was only big in comparison to Stallone, and that Stallone is a shrimp, I was disappointed in how pedestrian was his size. He was barely bigger than I am and he was smaller than my brother. Also he was sort of a jerk that night though Scott told me that he was having a bad night and to not judge him on that encounter alone. Since that turned out to be my only encounter that advice sort of missed the mark, but maybe not entirely.
Workhorse
Footballguy
I'm a pro-nuclear energy liberal. This issue here has been a problem with branding and education. Too many people with outdated information about nuclear power.
joffer
Footballguy
this really isn't a coherent sentence. "shouldn' the fact that …..this...….what?". there's no what.
nuclear should have a place, so should solar and wind. available land isn't really the problem.
Nice attempt to sensationalize the issue. Last I checked actual facts, when solar PV panels are put on roof tops the footprint already exists.
Even after accounting for limiting factors such as shading, and orientation, U.S. rooftops alone could accommodate more than 600 GW of PV capacity, and additional opportunities exist on sites such as parking structures, awnings, and airports (Denholm and Margolis 2008)
Department of Energy - SunShot Vision Study – February 2012
BTW, 600GW of PV capacity is 10 times the existing deployed amount of 64GW.
I get your point you're trying to make that this is everyone's problem and we're all in this together. But from a political perspective you couldn't be more wrong. It's simply not objective to believe otherwise.
It was Obama who signed the Clean Power Plan under executive order because he couldn't work with the GOP congress, it was Obama who formally entered the Paris Climate Agreement and it was Obama who initiated multiple funding initiatives for clean energy.
Trump and the GOP has undone each of those initiatives.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Ah, the Fighting Frenchman.
As far as I can tell based on popular humor, the only one.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
siffoin
Footballguy
It's just completely unrealistic. How many nuke plants do we need to power just the USA? 300? 500? 1000? (I don't really know). Even if we started today. Completely had the process down to a tee. Nuke Regulations were laxed; NIMBYs on board; Plants built to the exact same design; and A plan to manage all the waste. We would still need to educate and train a sophisticated workforce to build and operate the plants. In the BEST CASE scenario - starting today with everyone on board - we're looking at decades to build this out. Then push the out to the rest of the world. Zero percent chance of nuke being the answer in time.
It is possible to, but in California for instance which is mandating rapid deployment of solar energy, that is not happening. Only 12 percent are utilizing rooftops type installations. So rooftops are good in theory, but not practical for large-scale rapid deployment of utility power plant like capacity.PhantomJB said:
Gawain
Footballguy
European honeybees are domesticated, not wild. This article is pushing against the loss of wild species.Ditkaless Wonders said:
We're likely too dependent on the European honeybee as well. CCD and Varroa increase in lethality as the European honeybee population increases.
Encouraging native pollinators, such as Mason bees is a great exercise for any gardener or horticulturist. The trade-off is there's no hive to tap.
supermike80
Footballguy
Not gonna stop. This train has left the station. Adapt or perish. Period. There is no other option.
It is not an either/or proposition. Both are required and they are inherently different types of electricity generation.
Rooftops are a form of distributed generation (at the source) and utility-scale PV and CSP (i.e. concentrated solar power) provide electricity from a large source to the utility grid. Utility-scale solar is dead in its tracks because of lack of transmission lines to the grid (full deployment of wind suffers from similar issues)
Rooftop solar not "good in theory." It is a proven technology, just not a silver bullet. Any sensible transition to net zero carbon requires full deployment of multiple forms of clean energy.
McJose
Footballguy
Nice. I know it's Rush but can't remember which song? Is it from "2112" or "Moving Pictures"?
joffer
Footballguy
It's a political loser after Fukushima. Siting and permitting take way too long due to NIMBY and way too capital intensive to get private funding. Focus on low-hanging fruit of building out existing renewable technologies over the next 10-20 years while simultaneously investing in federal research on nuclear waste disposal. Revisit nuclear deployment in 10 years if crisis deepens.timschochet said:
jonessed
Footballguy
California is banking on the hope that future technology will allow cost effective mass energy storage. Solar is pretty limited without it.
There is a ton of research and investment. What you don't want to do is implement without good planning and before the technology is ready. Throwing money at a bunch of half-baked ideas is not effective.
HellToupee
Footballguy
LINK
Six Reasons Why You Should Ignore the UN’s Species Extinction Report
7 May 2019
Getty Images
8:35
The United Nations has produced a report warning that a million species are threatened with extinction.
Here is why you shouldn’t take it seriously.
It’s politics, not science
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which produced the report, is a political organisation not a scientific one. Just like its sister organisation the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — IPCC — in fact.
As Donna Laframboise notes here, both exist purely to give a fig leaf of scientific credibility to the UN’s ‘sustainability’ agenda.
When the IPBES was established in 2010, we were informed point blank that its purpose was “to spearhead the battle against the destruction of the natural world.”
In other words, there’s all sorts of deception here. This is no sober scientific body, which examines multiple perspectives, and considers alternative hypotheses. The job of the IPBES is to muster only one kind of evidence, the kind that promotes UN environmental treaties.
That’s how the United Nations works, folks. Machinations in the shadows. Camouflaging its political aspirations by dressing them up in 1,800 pages of scientific clothing.
This is the usual suspects crying wolf. Again
No one would dispute that habitat loss is a problem for plants and animals. But it’s a big stretch from there to suggest that a million species are ‘threatened’ with actual extinction. The ‘E’ word has long been overplayed by environmentalists because it’s so dramatic and final and because everyone has heard of the dodo. There is no evidence whatsoever, though, that the world is heading for its so-called Sixth Great Extinction. As Willis Eschenbach once pertinently asked at Watts Up With That? – Where Are The Corpses?
Harvard ecologist EO Wilson once estimated that up to 50,000 species go extinct every year. How did he calculate this? Using the same method the IPCC uses for its junk-science prognostications on catastrophic climate change: computer models.
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore exploded this myth long ago:
Moore said in 2000: “There’s no scientific basis for saying that 50,000 species are going extinct. The only place you can find them is in Edward O. Wilson’s computer at Harvard University. They’re actually electrons on a hard drive. I want a list of Latin names of actual species.” Moore was interviewed by reporter Marc Morano (now with Climate Depot) in the 2000 Amazon rainforest documentary:
Environmental activist Tim Keating of Rainforest Relief was asked in the 2000 documentary if he could name any of the alleged 50,000 species that have gone extinct and he was unable.
“No, we can’t [name them], because we don’t know what those species are. But most of the species that we’re talking about in those estimates are things like insects and even microorganisms, like bacteria,” Keating explained.
R-i-g-h-t. So there are all these species going extinct. But we don’t know what they are because we haven’t yet discovered them. Hmm. Sounds terrible. Let’s cancel Western Industrial Civilisation right now, just in case.
Seriously, these people are like a stuck record
Here – h/t Dennis Ambler at Homewood’s place – is the Independent from 2006:
Life on earth is facing a major crisis with thousands of species threatened with imminent extinction – a global emergency demanding urgent action. This is the view of 19 of the world’s most eminent biodiversity specialists, who have called on governments to establish a political framework to save the planet.
Scientists estimate that the current rate at which species are becoming extinct is between 100 and 1,000 times greater than the normal “background” extinction rate – and say this is all due to human activity.
Anne Larigauderie, executive director of Diversitas, a Paris-based conservation group, said that the situation was now so grave that an international body with direct links with global leaders was essential.
The scientists believe that a body similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could help governments to tackle the continuing loss of species.
They get away with presenting it as “news” every time because the mainstream media is so thoroughly compliant and dutifully bigs up each scare every time it appears.
“Nature is in its worst shape in human history’
This is exactly the kind of scaremongering claim the report was designed to generate. It gives environmental correspondents from on-message outfits like the BBC and CBC the excuse to put in a call to their favourite eco-alarmists, who helpfully respond with hysterical drivel like this:
“Humanity unwittingly is attempting to throttle the living planet and humanity’s own future,” said George Mason University biologist Thomas Lovejoy, who has been called the godfather of biodiversity for his research.
Actually, as Patrick Moore notes, there have been many worse times for species extinction.
Moore, in an interview with Climate Depot, refuted the claims of the species study. “The biggest extinction events in the human era occurred 60,000 years ago when humans arrived in Australia, 10-15,000 years ago when humans arrived in the New World, 800 years ago when humans found New Zealand, and 250 years ago when Europeans brought exotic species to the Pacific Islands such as Hawaii,” Moore explained.
“Since species extinction became a broad social concern, coinciding with the extinction of the passenger pigeon, we have done a pretty good job of preventing species extinctions,” Moore explained.
“I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar ‘sixth mass extinction’ article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this theme,” he added. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986 because he felt the organization had become too radical.
Polar Bears and Tigers
By curious coincidence perhaps the two most overhyped of all doomed species are now enjoying a remarkable recovery, not least because – contrary to the claims of environmentalists – humans actually do care about flora, fauna and diversity and have made great strides in preserving them.
It has been a century since the last species of any significance – the passenger pigeon – died out. Almost all the species extinctions that have occurred in the last two centuries have been on islands, the result of predation by invasive species such as rats or cats accidentally introduced by sailors.
Polar bear populations have exploded from about 5,000 60 years ago to around 26,000 now – making a mockery of their status as an emblem of man-made environmental catastrophe.
Meanwhile, the number of tigers in India has risen dramatically in the last decade,according to the Irish Times:
The estimated population of the endangered big cat has increased from 1,411 in 2006 to 2,226 in 2014, according to the report published by the Indian government’s National Tiger Conservation Authority.
Read the small print
When you get to the bottom of the scaremongering report, the authors show their true colours.
Here is the BBC’s summary:
The study doesn’t tell governments what to do, but gives them some pretty strong hints.
One big idea is to steer the world away from the “limited paradigm of economic growth”.
They suggest moving away from GDP as a key measure of economic wealth and instead adopting more holistic approaches that would capture quality of life and long-term effects.
They argue that our traditional notion of a “good quality of life” has involved increasing consumption on every level. This has to change.
Yes, we’re back to our old friends – Agenda 21 and sustainability – the UN’s code phrases for a new world order in which technocrats of the international elite impose their globalist agenda of wealth redistribution, regulation, enforced renewables, higher taxes and enforced rationing on sovereign nations in the name of ‘saving the planet.’
If the UN really cared about species extinction, of course, it would be doing the exact opposite.
As Jo Nova points out:
1. The worst pollution is in countries with a low income per capita — when people are hungry they raze forests. The most polluted cities are in places like Ghana, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Zambia, Argentina, and Nigeria. The most deforestation occurs in Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, and Mexico. The worst air is in India and China.
2. Only rich nations have the resources to save the environment.
3. Countries that produce more CO2 are richer.
Ignore everything the UN tells you about the environment. It’s drivel – and dangerous drivel at that.
Six Reasons Why You Should Ignore the UN’s Species Extinction Report
7 May 2019
Getty Images
8:35
The United Nations has produced a report warning that a million species are threatened with extinction.
Here is why you shouldn’t take it seriously.
It’s politics, not science
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which produced the report, is a political organisation not a scientific one. Just like its sister organisation the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — IPCC — in fact.
As Donna Laframboise notes here, both exist purely to give a fig leaf of scientific credibility to the UN’s ‘sustainability’ agenda.
When the IPBES was established in 2010, we were informed point blank that its purpose was “to spearhead the battle against the destruction of the natural world.”
In other words, there’s all sorts of deception here. This is no sober scientific body, which examines multiple perspectives, and considers alternative hypotheses. The job of the IPBES is to muster only one kind of evidence, the kind that promotes UN environmental treaties.
That’s how the United Nations works, folks. Machinations in the shadows. Camouflaging its political aspirations by dressing them up in 1,800 pages of scientific clothing.
This is the usual suspects crying wolf. Again
No one would dispute that habitat loss is a problem for plants and animals. But it’s a big stretch from there to suggest that a million species are ‘threatened’ with actual extinction. The ‘E’ word has long been overplayed by environmentalists because it’s so dramatic and final and because everyone has heard of the dodo. There is no evidence whatsoever, though, that the world is heading for its so-called Sixth Great Extinction. As Willis Eschenbach once pertinently asked at Watts Up With That? – Where Are The Corpses?
Harvard ecologist EO Wilson once estimated that up to 50,000 species go extinct every year. How did he calculate this? Using the same method the IPCC uses for its junk-science prognostications on catastrophic climate change: computer models.
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore exploded this myth long ago:
Moore said in 2000: “There’s no scientific basis for saying that 50,000 species are going extinct. The only place you can find them is in Edward O. Wilson’s computer at Harvard University. They’re actually electrons on a hard drive. I want a list of Latin names of actual species.” Moore was interviewed by reporter Marc Morano (now with Climate Depot) in the 2000 Amazon rainforest documentary:
Environmental activist Tim Keating of Rainforest Relief was asked in the 2000 documentary if he could name any of the alleged 50,000 species that have gone extinct and he was unable.
“No, we can’t [name them], because we don’t know what those species are. But most of the species that we’re talking about in those estimates are things like insects and even microorganisms, like bacteria,” Keating explained.
R-i-g-h-t. So there are all these species going extinct. But we don’t know what they are because we haven’t yet discovered them. Hmm. Sounds terrible. Let’s cancel Western Industrial Civilisation right now, just in case.
Seriously, these people are like a stuck record
Here – h/t Dennis Ambler at Homewood’s place – is the Independent from 2006:
Life on earth is facing a major crisis with thousands of species threatened with imminent extinction – a global emergency demanding urgent action. This is the view of 19 of the world’s most eminent biodiversity specialists, who have called on governments to establish a political framework to save the planet.
Scientists estimate that the current rate at which species are becoming extinct is between 100 and 1,000 times greater than the normal “background” extinction rate – and say this is all due to human activity.
Anne Larigauderie, executive director of Diversitas, a Paris-based conservation group, said that the situation was now so grave that an international body with direct links with global leaders was essential.
The scientists believe that a body similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could help governments to tackle the continuing loss of species.
They get away with presenting it as “news” every time because the mainstream media is so thoroughly compliant and dutifully bigs up each scare every time it appears.
“Nature is in its worst shape in human history’
This is exactly the kind of scaremongering claim the report was designed to generate. It gives environmental correspondents from on-message outfits like the BBC and CBC the excuse to put in a call to their favourite eco-alarmists, who helpfully respond with hysterical drivel like this:
“Humanity unwittingly is attempting to throttle the living planet and humanity’s own future,” said George Mason University biologist Thomas Lovejoy, who has been called the godfather of biodiversity for his research.
Actually, as Patrick Moore notes, there have been many worse times for species extinction.
Moore, in an interview with Climate Depot, refuted the claims of the species study. “The biggest extinction events in the human era occurred 60,000 years ago when humans arrived in Australia, 10-15,000 years ago when humans arrived in the New World, 800 years ago when humans found New Zealand, and 250 years ago when Europeans brought exotic species to the Pacific Islands such as Hawaii,” Moore explained.
“Since species extinction became a broad social concern, coinciding with the extinction of the passenger pigeon, we have done a pretty good job of preventing species extinctions,” Moore explained.
“I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar ‘sixth mass extinction’ article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this theme,” he added. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986 because he felt the organization had become too radical.
Polar Bears and Tigers
By curious coincidence perhaps the two most overhyped of all doomed species are now enjoying a remarkable recovery, not least because – contrary to the claims of environmentalists – humans actually do care about flora, fauna and diversity and have made great strides in preserving them.
It has been a century since the last species of any significance – the passenger pigeon – died out. Almost all the species extinctions that have occurred in the last two centuries have been on islands, the result of predation by invasive species such as rats or cats accidentally introduced by sailors.
Polar bear populations have exploded from about 5,000 60 years ago to around 26,000 now – making a mockery of their status as an emblem of man-made environmental catastrophe.
Meanwhile, the number of tigers in India has risen dramatically in the last decade,according to the Irish Times:
The estimated population of the endangered big cat has increased from 1,411 in 2006 to 2,226 in 2014, according to the report published by the Indian government’s National Tiger Conservation Authority.
Read the small print
When you get to the bottom of the scaremongering report, the authors show their true colours.
Here is the BBC’s summary:
The study doesn’t tell governments what to do, but gives them some pretty strong hints.
One big idea is to steer the world away from the “limited paradigm of economic growth”.
They suggest moving away from GDP as a key measure of economic wealth and instead adopting more holistic approaches that would capture quality of life and long-term effects.
They argue that our traditional notion of a “good quality of life” has involved increasing consumption on every level. This has to change.
Yes, we’re back to our old friends – Agenda 21 and sustainability – the UN’s code phrases for a new world order in which technocrats of the international elite impose their globalist agenda of wealth redistribution, regulation, enforced renewables, higher taxes and enforced rationing on sovereign nations in the name of ‘saving the planet.’
If the UN really cared about species extinction, of course, it would be doing the exact opposite.
As Jo Nova points out:
1. The worst pollution is in countries with a low income per capita — when people are hungry they raze forests. The most polluted cities are in places like Ghana, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Zambia, Argentina, and Nigeria. The most deforestation occurs in Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, and Mexico. The worst air is in India and China.
2. Only rich nations have the resources to save the environment.
3. Countries that produce more CO2 are richer.
Ignore everything the UN tells you about the environment. It’s drivel – and dangerous drivel at that.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Ironically, that's the most accurate description of the linked article in @HellToupee's post.HellToupee said:
When did it become reasonable to post that garbage from breitbart against actual science
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I dunno, @HellToupee likes to stir things up from time to time, so I don't know that his heart was really in that one. Still sad that others might read that and take it seriously.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/05/09/3-m-lawsuit-pfas-water-contamination-michigan/3291156002/
TL;DR 3M spent 30 years making a product they knew was poisonous to all living beings and would never breakdown by hiding their own research they showed how bad it was and that it had gotten into lakes, rivers, animals and the bloodstream of almost every person in the country.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
3M spent 30 years making a product that is poisonous to all life on Earth and will never breakdown. Their own research showed it was toxic and a carcinogen and that it had gotten into the water and blood of almost every living thing on Earth but for 30 years they hid it so they could profit.
We're trying to figure out what's causing it. My hypothesis is that it only affects posts made by people who have Grammarly installed. Others on staff think I'm crazy, which is highly possible.
Out of curiosity, do you have the Grammarly browser plug-in installed?
P.S. Here's a work-around that will let you edit your post. First, click the little downward-pointing arrow in the upper left corner of the quote box within your post. Second, go ahead and edit or hide as normal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
