Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner

3461 - 3480 of 3496 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,461
chows - wording of the signage you referenced above was apparently based on the best scientific knowledge and resulting forecasts available at the time of their creation.
Exactly. The boy crying wolf, and now you're rationalizing bad "forecasts". And here is the problem.

I assume you want public money to fight "global warming". Yes? No? Don't care. This is not how you get it. This is the worst possible sales pitch ever. Prediction or Forecast, time after time wrong, highly visible predictions.

Why would the NPS ever put that sign up? You think its for education? "When" was it put up? Who goes to Glacier? Have you been there? I hope so, its fantastic. If you only had one NP to visit, this is the one. Every American should go there once in their life. Who goes there? Hard core hikers for sure. Stay at Sperry or Granite Park Chalet, etc. Here's the approach to Granite Park. This is from horseback.



This is where they used to feed the Grizzlies and it ended up in Tragedy


But the vast majority? They are families. Families hauling their kids in Winnebagos and SUVs and seeing the US NPs. Do you think they know anything, generally, about any of it. You haven't lived until you've seen the ugly American Tourist. Its not a cliche. So one story. This is Grinnell Lake. That bit of snow you see on the top of the waterfall is part of a glacier.



You can read about Grinnell Lake here and see the exact same picture from the article someone else took


We went around the two lakes. Its long but not uphill, ust annoying gnats. At the end of the dock families unloaded from the boats. Then read that description and its across a small suspension bridge then some plans to the lake. Its about 1:00. Hot, sweating. We sit down to eat. What do you think happened?

Kids are screaming at parents. Parents actually came up to us and asked where the vending machines were because their kids were hungry, hot, and thirsty. You see any electric lines out here? :rolleyes: Irritated families hauled their kids back. But it gets much worse. Kids and Adults would run up to Mountain Goats with "kids". You think that ended well? And I've seen them do it to Bison on the road in YW. But the best, the very best was at Old Faithful, when a well dressed lady actually asked the park ranger to turn on the geyser cause she was in a hurry. Anecdotal as these stories are, they happen all the time. I could not believe the stories the rangers told us. I'm sure they see much worse. I could tell you about the last pictures a ranger found on a "photographer's camera before ... you figure it out.

So the point is, the public reads the sign saying no glacier by 2020. A decade later .... oops. We were wrong.

Why would anyone ever believe them again? Ever? They are on vacation. They can't figure out not to put their kid on to off a resting Bison (oh yeah, that happens). And you think they are going to read anything beyond "2020"?

Oh, heres a good one. 1929. Glaciers in Glacier are melting and will be gone in 25 years.

Yeah, really really bad salesmen. You want money to "combat" climate change. Lose your salesmen and do decent PR. Today, people's eyes glaze over when they hear all the whining and then ratioanization. No one cares one bit that its a prediction, forecast, computer model, or crystal ball. Its WRONG. Fool me once, shame one. Fool me twice .... shame on me. No money for you.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,462
I'll explain the problem with the 2020 signs more simply. I presume those who scream and yell that the world is going to end because the world is getting hotter want money. No money? Nothing gets done.

Nothing will get you no money quicker than to be perceived as a SCAM. Your forecast is bad? No money for you. The "science" doesn't matter. The computer algorithms don't matter. None of it matters. The publics sees "That was not true".

No money for you. Terrible sales personnel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
for someone who claims to be so concerned with 'education,' as you have stated in recent post #3450, page 173 - "whine of the year," you seem to be having great difficulty with 'comprehension' as it relates to scientific statements on climate change, and in fact, as it relates to the written word in general. either you choose to willfully ignore, or simply fail to understand and therefore take into account, the validity of scientific principles.

"The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via [inductive reasoning], based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method." Scientific method - Wikipedia

the scientific method is the very best method humans have for understanding our physical world in general and the ongoing calamity of climate change currently confronting its inhabitants, specifically. and in the face of overwhelming scientific knowledge and evidence to the contrary, individual personal opinions are of little value, to anyone.

chows, I am not from the government, but I am here to help. here is what you need to read: Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,464
chows, I am not from the government, but I am here to help. here is what you need to read: Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Phil, I like that your tenacious. Good. But you still not getting it. I don't care one bit that the science is right or wrong, or "how" they came up with the conclusion. I assume that you and all others pushing about climate change want money. Its ALWAYS about money. Do you see the USA providing a couple of Trillion to "fight global warming". No? Why not?

When Bill and Vicky, a fictional couple, took their three kids to Glacier in 2016, they loved it. Took a week, drove around, and the mountains were stunning. They read those 2020 signs and thought.

"wow, thats bad. We need to remember this climate change thing"

This year they will be taking the kids back. You can't see Glacier in a week or in a month. It massive. When they go back this year and do not see the sign, or much worse a sign explaining why "they" were wrong, what do you think they are going to think?

Do you really think they are going to say "Oh yeah, those scientists know everything. They got their hypothesis wrong. They got to create new algorithms for their "forecasts"." Or will they say

THEY LIED TO ME. I SEE GLACIERS :mad:

People are people. They have their lives to lead. They worry where the vending machine is 5 miles into the wilderness, and not whether of not some computer simulation was right or wrong. All they will know is the snow and ice is still there.

You lose. No money for you.

In the end, we are a constitutional republic. You want serious money, you must convince the public to spend it. No money? You lose.

Don't you see it doesn't matter if the science is right or wrong?
Don't you see that hubris by scientists lecturing the public just irritates the crap out the public?

Do you worry about a "war on science?" Whose fault is that? Could it be because when very visible, public figures tell you that Manhattan will be under water by 2005, no snow on a mountain in Africa, and the glaciers are still here, the public gets fed up. All these highly visibly things were wrong. Your methodology means nothing. No one cares about the "scientific method". Those are details. All they want is results. And they want the results NOW, today.

People's perceptions are their reality and they perceive "lies" (although I don't think intentional or a hoax, that's what people see). And your response is you want to lecture me on the scientific method and rationalize why their hypothesis or theories were wrong? The public don't give a crap about their hypothesis. The public gets furious when their Amazon package is a day late, or the pizza guy is 15 minutes late

Don't you see that? Study Edward Bernays. He could convince women that green was in so go buy green dresses and go smoke Lucky Strikes when women fashion hated green. He convinced all America not to eat toast and juice in the morning but bacon and eggs. He convinced a generation of mothers to buy Ivory soap because you could carve it. The climate change sales personnel couldn't convince someone in the desert to buy ice.

Do you know who the most powerful people are today?

They are the people who arrange it so when you walk into Costco or any large store with the intent to buy say $20 worth of screwdrivers and walking out with $200 worth of food you don't need nor have anyplace to store.

They are the Youtube "influencers" with millions of followers talking about their new $5,000 luxury goods and convincing their followers that they too could go spend the same kind of money on goods they don't need.

They are the Vloggers on Instagram and YouTube traveling to locations most people will never see convincing their followers to save the money for an exotic vacation that they don't really need to see.

You know who keeps losing ground trying to influence people? Those who pushing "but its science! You have to believe" and lecture the public on how dumb they are while "they" are smart. Trust us. We know. That's a sure why to influence people.

Today, the phrase "science communicator" is coming into its own. Sometimes you see them on Ted Talks or hear them on Podcasts. They try to bridge the gap between the hard science and the public that doesn't know why Columbus Day exists. They might always have been around in some form but Dr. Sagan maybe really popularized it.

You need to hire some. A lot of them. And lose everyone else currently selling that the world is going to end. Nobody, generally, cares because human lifespans are too short. BTW, it really doesn't help your cause to have the President of the US buying beach property when the sea rise is supposed wipe out the island. That might be worse than bad "forecasts". Who is going to believe in sea rise when the President buys a house on the beach? How does that make sense?

You really want to lecture me on the scientific method? This is exactly why you get no serious money. When an Academic studies something, where does the money come from to pay for it? Does it fall out of the sky? Does the university print it? Does some charity donor to the university drop a million or two targeting to a specific part of research (that's possible). Or do they have to apply for government grants?

WHO is the most important person in this? Think about this. Take the time and think. Is it the Professor in charge of his experiment? Is it his grad students building the experiment and testing his hypothesis?

Of all the people involved. Who matters the most?

Meanwhile, back in their tiny town in backwater USA, Bill, Vicky, and the kids are laughing, still thinking. They lied to us :mad: And their perception is the only thing that really matters, not the perception of "the scientists". Thats how Constitutional Republics works. I think I said this before somewhere.

When that asteroid comes heading to the earth and the astronomers track two years ahead of time, and, run their calculations, and say, "we are dead". And then the politicians say "shoot it down", if the politicians can't allocate the money. If there is deadlock so the bomb doesn't get built. Then it doesn't matter ONE bit that the scientists were right. Don't you see. It does not matter that the science is right.

They will still be dead.

"scientific principles?" You mean magic isn't real? Don't you get it? If you can't convince the public, all the scientific principles mean nothing. You're still dead from that asteroid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
it is becoming painfully obvious to me that you have been 'teached' too good. the content you posted above seems to imply that you 'know' everything and 'understand' everyone. [how they think. how they feel. how they act. even the characters you invented for the rather lame hypothetical road-trip to glacier national park]. after reading and then rereading your most recent post, I strongly suggest that you take some time to attend a creative writing class or two. just be sure to stick with fiction - that is what you seem to do best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
BTW, it really doesn't help your cause to have the President of the US buying beach property when the sea rise is supposed wipe out the island. That might be worse than bad "forecasts". Who is going to believe in sea rise when the President buys a house on the beach?
quick answer to your question: everyone with a functional brain.

would really love to comment more on your remarks regarding our ignorant, arrogant, orange, lying-sack-of-sh!t currently occupying the White House, but I was under the impression that it was against the rules to discuss politics on this site. super moderator, please clarify. my guns are loaded...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,467
quick answer to your question: everyone with a functional brain. would really love to comment more on your remarks regarding our ignorant, arrogant, orange, lying-sack-of-sh!t currently occupying the White House, but I was under the impression that it was against the rules to discuss politics on this site. super moderator, please clarify. my guns are loaded...
I said nothing about any current politician. This is the ex-President, no longer a politician running for anything.


Did the MSM not report on this or did they curate the news to hide it? I particularly like the comment:

"In their email to the Gazette, ... characterized the high-end real estate market on Martha’s Vineyard as robust"

Robust on an island? Wow.

As to Orange Man Bad, you know that's trolling/political and you know thats going to get a reaction. Please don't do it again because I let this one slide.

it is becoming painfully obvious to me that you have been 'teached' too good. the content you posted above seems to imply that you 'know' everything and 'understand' everyone. [how they think. how they feel. how they act. even the characters you invented for the rather lame hypothetical road-trip to glacier national park]. after reading and then rereading your most recent post, I strongly suggest that you take some time to attend a creative writing class or two. just be sure to stick with fiction - that is what you seem to do best.
I guess you never met saw Bill, Vicky and the kids at Glacier? I have and at all the other NPs. Sometimes they bring their friends in an RV. I've tried to present "why" you will never see serious money for your cause: poor predictions, the short life spans of humans, and people have more pressing things to worry about.

I suggested (generally) hiring some good science communicators. There are some and losing: the hysteria, blocking traffic, screeching, insulting people, and generally lecturing them doesn't sell anything. It just infuriates the very people you want to sell. The proof is the facts. You see any serious money for your cause? Is there $10T lying around in some US general fund for this? What happened at COP25? The countries couldn't even settle on 2015 rules. This is a fun read.


"Japan noted at COP25 that the country is planning to build more coal-fired power plants and export coal generators."

Try this one. Isn't Sweden big on all this?


Since I clearly know nothing, and I know that every day I grow older I realize how little I know, less and less, come 10 years, say 1/1/30 show how many trillions you got for the cause from American Taxpayers. In a decade, if say $30T of wealth has been transferred from the taxpayers to "whatever", I'll be the first to admit my prediction is wrong. Until then, well, there is no serious money. It might be a good idea to figure out why not. You still don't see I'm trying to help your cause.

Oh, the lecture on "the scientific method". I really like that. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
well, the good guys are not standing on every street corner with a kettle and a bell, begging for donations, yet.

but you, and I, and everybody else taking up space on this planet, hoping to continue utilizing its resources in the future are going to be paying big-time because of this - and not simply in one way or the other; but in many, many, many ways. the cost of confronting and accommodating / surviving climate change will soon be woven into and throughout the costs of obtaining essential products and services wherever organized commerce occurs. you can expect increases reflected in the costs required to build a house, purchase a car, insure your assets, obtain a good education, maintain your health, or even eat.

everybody will pay. many are already paying.

have you seen the fires in Australia? somebody [society] is gonna pay for that. are you aware of the increasingly-frequent flooding that is overwhelming the cities of Venice Italy and Miami Beach? somebody is gonna pay for that, too. do you recall the severe drought California recently suffered? somebody is and will be paying for all of these damages, not only in terms of real dollars, but also in terms of opportunities lost, and opportunities squandered.

when a billion animals die, we all pay, and we are all the poorer because of it. when irreplaceable cultural artifacts and major coastal cities drown, we will all pay again. and when the next major hurricane or tornado blows through, destroying civilization one chunk at a time; or once there are insufficient quantities of potable water for people to drink; or weather-damaged crops which result in food shortages; who do you think is gonna be buying? mankind is gonna have to pay for all of this. who else is there?

seems to me that you have been operating under the assumption that paying higher costs due to climate change will simply be an elective choice; an option one can opt out of - but that assumption will prove to be erroneous. if you expect to continue drinking water, or consuming food, or enjoying the benefits of a vibrant economy; then you had better buckle-up and have your wallet handy. because due to anthropogenic climate change, you/we/all-of-us will be paying more and more for these privileges. and, it stands to reason, paying even more to cover the increasing costs associated with future damages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
I said nothing about any current politician. This is the ex-President, no longer a politician running for anything.


Did the MSM not report on this or did they curate the news to hide it? I particularly like the comment:

"In their email to the Gazette, ... characterized the high-end real estate market on Martha’s Vineyard as robust"

Robust on an island? Wow.

As to Orange Man Bad, you know that's trolling/political and you know thats going to get a reaction. Please don't do it again because I let this one slide.
sorry for the confusion, a faulty 'presidential' assumption on my part, for which I wish to apologize.

in a second effort to address the question you originally posed - turns out that the house Obama purchased sits on 30 acres, well back from the beach itself, on a small bluff that rises to height of somewhere between 10 and 15 feet above sea level. under those circumstances, it does not seem to be at great risk of ocean flooding anytime soon - something quite different from being situated directly 'on the beach.'



YOU CAN HELP SUPPORT LOCAL NEWS

Subscribe or become a Friend of the Vineyard Gazette and receive our free newsletters and free and discounted tickets to Gazette events along with our award-winning news and photography.

[TR]
[TD]View archive »





[TR]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TD]
[/TR]
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,470
well, the good guys are not standing on every street corner with a kettle and a bell, begging for donations, yet.

but you, and I, and everybody else taking up space on this planet, hoping to continue utilizing its resources in the future are going to be paying big-time because of this - and not simply in one way or the other; but in many, many, many ways. the cost of confronting and accommodating / surviving climate change will soon be woven into and throughout the costs of obtaining essential products and services wherever organized commerce occurs. you can expect increases reflected in the costs required to build a house, purchase a car, insure your assets, obtain a good education, maintain your health, or even eat.

everybody will pay. many are already paying.

have you seen the fires in Australia? somebody [society] is gonna pay for that. are you aware of the increasingly-frequent flooding that is overwhelming the cities of Venice Italy and Miami Beach? somebody is gonna pay for that, too. do you recall the severe drought California recently suffered? somebody is and will be paying for all of these damages, not only in terms of real dollars, but also in terms of opportunities lost, and opportunities squandered.

when a billion animals die, we all pay, and we are all the poorer because of it. when irreplaceable cultural artifacts and major coastal cities drown, we will all pay again. and when the next major hurricane or tornado blows through, destroying civilization one chunk at a time; or once there are insufficient quantities of potable water for people to drink; or weather-damaged crops which result in food shortages; who do you think is gonna be buying? mankind is gonna have to pay for all of this. who else is there?

seems to me that you have been operating under the assumption that paying higher costs due to climate change will simply be an elective choice; an option one can opt out of - but that assumption will prove to be erroneous. if you expect to continue drinking water, or consuming food, or enjoying the benefits of a vibrant economy; then you had better buckle-up and have your wallet handy. because due to anthropogenic climate change, you/we/all-of-us will be paying more and more for these privileges. and, it stands to reason, paying even more to cover the increasing costs associated with future damages.
Finally, you are starting to get it. None of this matters. Fires in Australia and CA? You forgot about the hurricanes in the Atlantic. Climate change is blamed for every weather event, regardless of what it is. It doesn't matter whether its true or not nor does "the science" matters. When everything that happens is blamed on global warming AND the MSM, which is pretty much hated by many people for fake news, pushes their agenda, it looses all meaning. Think of it like those that swear online. Swearing has always been a means for shock. But if every word is a swear, no words are a shock. The swears loose all value. The same is true with these events. If everything is caused by climate change, there is no shock value and no one cares.

Now if you could say, unequivocally, with tangible proof, that say The Outer Banks all disappeared under the ocean on Friday and it was caused by Climate Change, then you might get support. You need something like that.

Do you think that Lobster fisherman in ME knows, understand, or has even seen a thing about fires in Oz. In CA, they happen every year. They might be important, and certainly tragic for the locals, without doubt, but its not much on national news other than the usual. "Santa Ana Winds/fire" we see every year. Everyone thinks their local news is national news.

So you are getting it. You cannot sell this. Although the world might be connected virtually, if you can't see it, touch it and feel it where you are, its not real. Want to talk about sea rise? You mention that President Obamas new house is at 10 - 30'. Do really think anyone is going to get a Topographic map out and measure it? No, they just read headlines. They read "Island" or Martha's Vineyard and couldn't tell you where that island is. Its just another island thats going to sink under the rising sea. So why would he buy it if we are all going to die? How about those living on the Outer Banks? Houses gets washed away every hurricane, and that has happened for 100 years, and they just rebuild, over and over again.

For that matter, you know, you have to know that advertising for those that smoke cigarettes, while the PSA have reduced the number of smokers... Take up smoking, and you know you are going to die. You know that.

Tobacco kills more than 480,000 people annually – more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined.

34,000,000 Americans smoke. Let that sink in. 34,000,000. They know what will happen, and obviously don't care. They have had to seen or know someone who died from this. And still don't care. And you want to sell a concept to them that the can't touch, see, or feel? Tell me how many people they know who have died from Lung Cancer. What adult in the US doesn't know someone effected in some way at least by knowing someone effected by this disease. And you want them to worry about extinctions for species they never heard of or cultural sites being washed away in countries they couldn't place on a map? I'm sure they are willing to hand over the money they made for your cause while they have their own bills to pay. So yes, maybe the planet is screwed. People are people.

The worst thing about this was to politicize it (something I said before). By politicizing it half the nation immediately opposes it on principle alone. But the second worse thing (beside poor sales personnel) is the hysteria.

I might think the temps are getting warmer, but I have great faith in capitalism and human ingenuity. Capitalism finds a way. IF it matters, someone will find a solution. But if protests blocking traffic, block commuters on trains in England, screaming children, etc, watch how many people hate just hearing the words "climate change". Those that do this are irritating the very people they need to persuade. Do you think the people who can't get to their appointments now think "Oh yeah, Climate Change. Take $20?" Or you think they want them arrested and the key thrown away?

---

OR, take a step back, breath, relax, chill out. And figure out how to proceed logically, without hysteria, without screaming, without trying to inconvenience the very people you need to influence. Figure out how to provide education but with tangible proof, real proof, not some computer simulations and not placing blame for every weather event on "climate change". And most of all, lose all the media pushing the claims and getting angrier and angrier, along with those telling the public they are stupid while the scientists are "smart". Thats an immediate loss. And the worst, telling the "rich" nations to pay for the "poor". Sure, like thats going to happen. I'm speaking in the long run. Administrations come and go. But in the long run, they go back and forth on a pendulum. And you need to win in the long run, forever, not for an election cycle or two. Thats why none of this can be politicized.

But I'm glad you see where this is all headed. Now figure out how to fix it.:) Safely, without hysteria, without inconveniencing the people you need to influence, etc. You need to influence every day people who worry about their day to day lives, how will they pay their bills, etc.

And you might get some support from those in the middle ground who actually know why Columbus Day exists, might know where Martha's Vineyard is, and might actually understand the greenhouse effect.

When you say "when a billion animals die, we all pay, and we are all the poorer because of it. when irreplaceable cultural artifacts and major coastal cities drown, we will all pay again" Remember who you are doing this for and those you have to influence to help. Its the very people protesters **** off. Its very people people who don't care they are going to die from smoking. Its the same people "we all pay". We are all of us. If there was just one thing I could change (if King for a day) it would be to ban all politicizing of the subject. You just might gain a whole lot more supporters, and the second thing would be the "lecturers", telling all us dumb people in the public how smart the scientists are. That approach has been losing for years.

And then maybe your support for the cause might grow :) Of course we are not king for a day but maybe some new approaches might help get your support for this cause.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,471
sorry for the confusion, a faulty 'presidential' assumption on my part, for which I wish to apologize.

in a second effort to address the question you originally posed - turns out that the house Obama purchased sits on 30 acres, well back from the beach itself, on a small bluff that rises to height of somewhere between 10 and 15 feet above sea level. under those circumstances, it does not seem to be at great risk of ocean flooding anytime soon - something quite different from being situated directly 'on the beach.'



YOU CAN HELP SUPPORT LOCAL NEWS

Subscribe or become a Friend of the Vineyard Gazette and receive our free newsletters and free and discounted tickets to Gazette events along with our award-winning news and photography.

[TR]
[TD]View archive »





[TR]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TD]
[/TR]
No problem. I figured the MSM truly has not publicized this. Its being hidden pretty well, not exactly front page news on cable or the big national papers. Pretty sad we have to go to local news to find it. The curation of news.

I get your frustrated. Its good to have passion for a cause. It means we are alive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,344 Posts
For that matter, you know, you have to know that advertising for those that smoke cigarettes, while the PSA have reduced the number of smokers... Take up smoking, and you know you are going to die. You know that.

Tobacco kills more than 480,000 people annually – more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined.

34,000,000 Americans smoke. Let that sink in. 34,000,000. They know what will happen, and obviously don't care. They have had to seen or know someone who died from this. And still don't care. And you want to sell a concept to them that the can't touch, see, or feel? Tell me how many people they know who have died from Lung Cancer. What adult in the US doesn't know someone effected in some way at least by knowing someone effected by this disease. And you want them to worry about extinctions for species they never heard of or cultural sites being washed away in countries they couldn't place on a map? I'm sure they are willing to hand over the money they made for your cause while they have their own bills to pay. So yes, maybe the planet is screwed. People are people.
This still just astounds me that it continues, perhaps they are indifferent or they too don't actually believe it? At least for the most part up here in Canada legislation has moved the smokers quite a distance from all public places, I grew up in a home where both parents smoked, it was awful, I never took it but my older brother did, he (and his wife) still smoke today! Crazy!!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,473
This still just astounds me that it continues, perhaps they are indifferent or they too don't actually believe it? At least for the most part up here in Canada legislation has moved the smokers quite a distance from all public places, I grew up in a home where both parents smoked, it was awful, I never took it but my older brother did, he (and his wife) still smoke today! Crazy!!
The issues with smoking make no sense. There is no way, with all the PSAs, people don't know the chances are this will kill them. Yet today, in increasing numbers, I'm seeing things I haven't seen in 20 years. People are flicking lit cigarettes out open car windows :oops:. Clusters of people hang outside hotel corners having a smoke. And most disturbing, I'm seeing something once common - cigarette butts dumped out of car ashtrays on parking lots. Then years ago this was about gone. Today? Its all coming back.

If you get Live PD in CA, watch about everyone the police stop, almost always they are either smoking or have a phone in their hand. Now there is this vaping thing, artificial cigarettes I guess and legalization of weed. That's going to end well :rolleyes:

The concept is simple. If these people don't care about their own lives, how does anyone expect them to care about something in the future, in far away places? "What about the children" means nothing. And then there are the drunks.


1,000,000 drunk drivers caught/year? Isn't that a bit staggering?

29 people die A DAY in the US from alcohol involved driving? Does not anyone find that staggering?

How about all the poor people in the US that die from poverty? The homeless that need help in the big cities? What about them?

How about helping our own people first that you can actually see, those begging at intersections? Etc. We, as a society, don't even help them. All the "tent cities" in the west coast? Worry about some other part of the world? How about helping .... ourselves?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
This still just astounds me that it continues, perhaps they are indifferent or they too don't actually believe it? At least for the most part up here in Canada legislation has moved the smokers quite a distance from all public places, I grew up in a home where both parents smoked, it was awful, I never took it but my older brother did, he (and his wife) still smoke today! Crazy!!
Wescoaster, I am currently sitting in a bar in Austria. Nobody smokes inside here. If I wanted to, there are plenty of bars around that allow smoking.

It comes down to really simple things:

- tobacco is still legal to buy

- bar does not come into the list of establishments where humans must go or face consequences like, for example, a hospital or a court. Therefore, where people do not get to chose whether to go or not, you DO need to protect them. Bar is surely not one of those places.

- when EU came down at the foot of the Alps and said "You cannot allow smoking, it is EU law" ... story goes that Austrians said something like "We love non smoking law and we 100% agree with it. However, by rules and bylaws cited in XYZ of the Union, we do ask for adjustment period of 99 years". It is called Kimi's Law, the one that goes "Leavemealoneiknowwhatiamdoing"

When I went to pick up my BMW on Euro Delivery in 2010 I stayed in a Holiday Inn relatively close to BMW headquarters. I smoked at the time, quit months later. Anyway ... imagine my surprise when I asked where is it allowed to smoke and receptionist took me to a beautifully appointed room with sofas and leather sitting chairs, two doors removed from the rest of the hotel.

When I asked for explanation, slightly embarassed person told me that they cannot, by Consitition, discriminate against any minority. Some lawyers worked overtime.

Ultimately, what was done to smokers in USA specifically is an abomination. There was a guy born in Austria long, long time ago that couldn't stand certaind groupS of humans, not just one - contrary to popular belief. Yet, at his time, both humans and dogs stayed out of establishments. Todays, we let the dogs in and let humans out in -20 windchill. And feel very good about it.

It is an abomination, frankly. If you think it is THAT bad, then ban it completely. But liking ka-ching these people pay in taxes when buying the product then treating them worse than dogs is, well, waste of millions of lives you laid down in order to kill a guy that had problem with certain groupS of humans.

And that, as ugly as it is, is the truth.

EDIT : Sorry, forgot. Do you need to see the picture of how you will look like if you contact concrete wall in your 981 at 120 mph? Yet, do you want them to ban track weekends for amateurs? Back to Kimi's Law. Peace out.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,475
- when EU came down at the foot of the Alps and said "You cannot allow smoking, it is EU law" ... story goes that Austrians said something like "We love non smoking law and we 100% agree with it. However, by rules and bylaws cited in XYZ of the Union, we do ask for adjustment period of 99 years". It is called Kimi's Law, the one that goes "Leavemealoneiknowwhatiamdoing"
😅 Cool Austrians. I like that.

You can't ban smoking in the USA. That is not going to happen. I mean look around, states are legalizing weed.

We tried banning a vice once - Prohibition. The hatred for "evil rum" was so bad, led by the Women's Temperance League, Carrie Nation and the like, it was so vilified they actually amended the constitution.

You know how difficult it is to amend the US constitution. Its about impossible today. And yet in 13 years that amendment was repealed by another amendment.

They say "You can't legislate morality" or maybe human nature.

IOW, been there, done that. failed.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,476
everybody will pay. many are already paying.
And here is another reason why your assessment might be spot on.

Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019

What does CNN write?


No way!!! :eek: Atomic Bombs! Wait, there's more

"the ocean temperature was 0.075 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 average"

What is that? Americans don't use Celsius. You're going to have to make me translate that to American? Ahh, I see its .135 degrees, What? Its not even a degree? 🤣 Who can tell the difference between 1 degree never mind .135 degrees? But it gets better. Read the comments:


They are precious like "I believe in climate change but this is ridiculous" But then CNN doubles down


Those comments are even better. "But its cold as **** in my lake in the middle of summer" 😂 Enough of the comedy. Here's the serious part.

Since the hysteria isn't working, I expect the next ploy to be exactly what CNN just wrote. Let's compare global warming to global thermonuclear war. Its "Terrifying". Yeah, that will work since I doubt 2 in 10 Americans could tell you the date of Hiroshima, name and type of the plane that dropped the bomb, or the pilot's name (never mind the yield). It's TO LONG AGO. Such an approach might have worked in 1958 with Khrushchev threatening WWIII. But today, LOL. Many people think history started the day they were born.

Get new sales personnel. Just read the comments. They tell you everything you need to know.

Yes Phil, your assessment is spot on. :) You are right. The planet is doomed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
Let's compare global warming to global thermonuclear war.
Let's not.

More than 10 years ago I actually used that argument to try to convince people how utterly puny and insignificant we are. Which then leads to conclusion that only people out of touch with reality would think we can do anything considering orders of magnitude of energy necessary to " do something".

Long story short, the asteroid that killed dinosaurs (together with another 75% of species) 66 million years ago released an ammount of energy that was simply mind-boggling. I am going by by-day-more-fallible memory but it turned to something like 1 thermonuclear device every 1 million people. Where "thermonuclear" means you start fusion by first detonating fission - or, more commonly known as H - bomb.

First, crude, late '50s H bombs had energy of almost exactly 1,000 Hiroshima bombs (1.2 megatons of TNT). Refined ones from '70s were possible reaching into 5-10 and over range.

Yet ... human nuclear arsenal would have to grow about 6-7 THOUSANDFOLD to get to energy of that asteroid. That's how puny and insignificant we are.

What happened to Earth? Well, as I can see, it kept on rocking and rolling. As a matter of fact, without that asteroid, we probably wouldn't be here.

So, humans, how about some altruism? How about we just die off and let another, much better species emerge? Do you feel altruistic today?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,478
Let's not.

More than 10 years ago I actually used that argument to try to convince people how utterly puny and insignificant we are. Which then leads to conclusion that only people out of touch with reality would think we can do anything considering orders of magnitude of energy necessary to " do something".

Long story short, the asteroid that killed dinosaurs (together with another 75% of species) 66 million years ago released an ammount of energy that was simply mind-boggling. I am going by by-day-more-fallible memory but it turned to something like 1 thermonuclear device every 1 million people. Where "thermonuclear" means you start fusion by first detonating fission - or, more commonly known as H - bomb.

First, crude, late '50s H bombs had energy of almost exactly 1,000 Hiroshima bombs (1.2 megatons of TNT). Refined ones from '70s were possible reaching into 5-10 and over range.

Yet ... human nuclear arsenal would have to grow about 6-7 THOUSANDFOLD to get to energy of that asteroid. That's how puny and insignificant we are.

What happened to Earth? Well, as I can see, it kept on rocking and rolling. As a matter of fact, without that asteroid, we probably wouldn't be here.

So, humans, how about some altruism? How about we just die off and let another, much better species emerge? Do you feel altruistic today?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I agree. You see the numbers are so large, and humans are so arrogant, no one can comprehend what they mean. It used to be that being a millionaire meant something. Today's billionaire is yesterday's millionaire. No one can understand how much $1,000,000,000 truly is.

When Phil says a 1,000,000,000 animals will die? Who cares?

5,000,000,000 SPECIES, not animals, but SPECIES have gone extinct. And that's what we know, as if we arrogant humans know all the species that ever existed.

There used to be 3,000,000,000 to 5,000,000,000 passenger pigeons in the USA alone, now all gone. There used to be 35,000,000 bison in the plains herds, one time reduced to 325. The great plains were so thick with bison, the hunters could not see the end of the herd.

BILLIONS of animals die all the time. The numbers are so large no one can comprehend them.

Nukes? LOL. Nuclear Winter. The end of civilization, only the cockroaches would survived, it used to be an everyday topic. WWIII coming tomorrow. Hollywood would make B movies about the horrors of radiation. In the late 70s and 80s there would be movies about when the "button" was pushed. You don't see them anymore.

But you should worry about them. Very much. All it will take is one terrorist getting their hands on a small tactical nuke and watch the world actually, as in really, ending. It surprising me that we are not all dust yet. I guess MAD keeps sane humans away from the end of the world, a true and imminent threat.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,479
Phil is definitely right.


Source


China buying $52,400,000,000 in US oil, gas, and coal (yes coal) over two years.

Sure, that Paris thing is working out fine. I thought China was supposed to be the shining leader in all this?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,480
have you seen the fires in Australia? somebody [society] is gonna pay for that.
Australian Protestors. Will this help?



Read the analysis. Alarmist (whats new?) but not unprecedented. Look at the trend line in the chart. Its all about who is curating the news. Its not as bad as the media portrays. Many young think the world started last week.

I've always said sure the temp is rising. So what? I see someone who also believes its rising, is a staunch environmentalist, and gets it. Here is a possible salesman that CAN sell it. Your cause needs more people like this, those that don't buy into the "world is ending" but seems to get it.

Testimony of Michael D. Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress, to the House Committee On Science, Space, and Technology, An Update on the Science of Climate Change, January 15, 2020

Australia. “Bushfire lossescan be explained by the increasing exposure of dwellings to fire-pronebushlands,” wrote a leading scientist in 2013. “No other influences need beinvoked. So even if climate change had played some small role in modulating recent bushfires, and we cannot rule this out, any such effects on risk to property are clearly swamped by the changes in exposure.”16

You means humans are building house where they shouldn't be? Imagine that. Just like building houses on barrier islands in the Atlantic? Who would have thought?

Read on, his testimony to the House is a NON-Alarmist way to help your cause.

"I am an invited expert reviewer of the next assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ...Climate change is an issue I care passionately about ...

Some scientists, journalists, and policymakers, have in recent months made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change, including that sea-level rise will be unmanageable, that farmers will not be able to grow enough food to support half the human population, and civilization will end unless radical action is taken immediately.3 The IPCC and other leading scientific assessments do not support these claims and yet some journalists, policymakers, and even some lead IPCC authors have repeated them. Such claims may be contributing to rising levels of anxiety among adolescents. ... a growing number of children are suffering from eco-anxiety.4 I have interviewed many of the individuals making apocalyptic claims ..., and written a series of articles for Forbes on inaccurate and unscientific claims being made with regard to climate change, fires in the Amazon, Australia, and California, sea level rise, and species extinction

No credible scientific body has ever claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species."


Read the rest of his public testimony. THIS is a good salesman. Read that last sentence again. Read the entire thing. This part is very good

"IPCC needs to improve how it conducts and communicates scenario planning to provide policymakers and journalists with a more accurate picture of likely future warming than it has in the past. In the past, IPCC has summarized the science in its Summary for Policymakers, and the news media has summarized the Summary, in ways that seem designed to grab the public’s attention. Because there are strong incentives for some scientists, journalists, activists, and policymakers to exaggerate the science, it is incumbent upon other scientists, journalists, activists, and policymakers to point them out."

Ya think? He's calling out the alarmists. I doubt calling out journalists will help. Its their job to get clicks but ... he gets it. His point ...

The public reads what the journalists curate...
The journalists summarize what the IPCC wrote ...
Which is a summary of what the scientists write.

Follow the money. Money runs it all.

Hire him. Hire 1,000 like him. And lose all the alarmists "helping" the cause. And, he's a realist. He knows "fossil fuels" will never go away, knows that fission plants matter, and knows how adaptable humans are. See The Netherlands. Humans find a way, just like I've been saying. When the land speculators start buying Tundra, then worry. Meanwhile see The Netherlands for innovation.

I like this guy.
 
3461 - 3480 of 3496 Posts
Top