Hurricane Patricia: 200 MPH Strongest storm ever

[bigfoot5415]

Peppermint Patty is just another hoe. Doesn't scare me....(up in Ohio).

 

[Pick6]

So just to be clear, you argument is "I'll be dead by then, so fuck em"?

No.

 

[The Wizard of Moz]

Not to plants. It acidifies animals blood until you die or suffocate tho. You can put a bag over your head and breathe CO2 until you get acidosis and test if it is poisonous or not.

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas either. And greenhouse gases aren't the only gases released from burning fossil fuels.

Have you been on the lower level of LAX at rush hour waiting to be picked up? You can tell you are being poisoned.

NO2 is a nasty gas that is expelled from a tailpipe and not only is it poison, but when it hits water it creates Nitric Acid HNO3. We use that in the lab to burn out impurities and calcium deposits from the metal tubes that carry our samples.

And again even if it isn't poison and there were no byproducts to combustion. Why do we want to use all our oil up as fast as we can? So we don't have any high tech plastics in the future? So we can't make any of the millions of synthetic products that are made from the building blocks of petroleum that make parts, lifesaving medical instruments, rubber, safety equipment etc forever that use carbon in a way that keep it out of the atmosphere? We have all this stuff that is super valuable and can be turned into almost anything. "BURN IT"

I just don't get why this is the one area where human ingenuity is going to fail us. We think oh well this is the one area invesent in science is going to result in a goose egg? People are worried about the initial investment, but we have done these projects before with fantastic results and yes they were very expensive. Moon landing, Manhattan project. They end up paying for themselves many times over. No one says, "damn, remember the Manhattan project? We could have paved every road in America 2xx for that money. I wish we had it back.".

Really? You can't understand it? Or you don't agree with it?

Every thing is profit driven. New computers/phones is in no way comparable to more energy efficient/eco friendly products. There is an arms race to make the best phone, computer, pharmaceutical, or other things that people pay for because of the pot of the gold at the end of it for the company that developed it. Not for the sake of advancing our technology to feel great about how far we have come.

I don't know how familiar you are with the pharmaceutical industry, but a big problem in it is 'rare' diseases being completely neglected by private companies because they have zero profit incentive to do it. There could be an extremely deadly disease that only affects 10,000 people worldwide and they could give a shit less about it if it isn't projected to grow. Why would they when their client base is 10,000 people when they could work on developing a "new" anxiety drug/antidepressant that they can push out to half the country. Sound morbid? They have to stay in business and sinking tons of time/money into developing something that they won't make a profit on just doesn't get done.

Everything is done with profit in mind. I work at an company that would HEAVILY benefit if there was a cure to alzheimers. Guess what our #1 charity cause is!! Vast majority of it actually. And it doubles as good publicity. I highly doubt this is uncommon.

If producing something better for the environment isn't cost effective at the end of the day most of the time it isn't done. What you have now is a growing group of people that really care a lot about the environment (ie a growing customer base). That is why more things are going green, and why that trend looks to continue. Not because corporations all of the sudden started to passionately feel about the environment (respectfully requested people to not cite one or two outliers as their only reply to this post).

Ingenuity is trending way up on this, but the reason it was lacking for so long was because the customer base was so much smaller. But assuming private companies give two turtle's microscopic dicks about what will keep them growing and keeps the cash flowing in is just naive.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The fact that something would benefit very few people is a decent reason not to sink a whole bunch of resources into it.

 

[The Wizard of Moz]

The fact that something would benefit very few people is a decent reason not to sink a whole bunch of resources into it.

There is also a moral side to it, but the efficiency of it you're right. My whole point is corporations aren't concerning themselves with the moral side/greater good of humanity unless there is something to be gained from it.

 

[gourimoko]

You can find plenty of scientists on each side of the issue.

No you can't.

 

[elcheato]

No you can't.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

 

[Cavatt]

Really? You can't understand it? Or you don't agree with it?

Every thing is profit driven. New computers/phones is in no way comparable to more energy efficient/eco friendly products. There is an arms race to make the best phone, computer, pharmaceutical, or other things that people pay for because of the pot of the gold at the end of it for the company that developed it. Not for the sake of advancing our technology to feel great about how far we have come.

I don't know how familiar you are with the pharmaceutical industry, but a big problem in it is 'rare' diseases being completely neglected by private companies because they have zero profit incentive to do it. There could be an extremely deadly disease that only affects 10,000 people worldwide and they could give a shit less about it if it isn't projected to grow. Why would they when their client base is 10,000 people when they could work on developing a "new" anxiety drug/antidepressant that they can push out to half the country. Sound morbid? They have to stay in business and sinking tons of time/money into developing something that they won't make a profit on just doesn't get done.

Everything is done with profit in mind. I work at an company that would HEAVILY benefit if there was a cure to alzheimers. Guess what our #1 charity cause is!! Vast majority of it actually. And it doubles as good publicity. I highly doubt this is uncommon.

If producing something better for the environment isn't cost effective at the end of the day most of the time it isn't done. What you have now is a growing group of people that really care a lot about the environment (ie a growing customer base). That is why more things are going green, and why that trend looks to continue. Not because corporations all of the sudden started to passionately feel about the environment (respectfully requested people to not cite one or two outliers as their only reply to this post).

Ingenuity is trending way up on this, but the reason it was lacking for so long was because the customer base was so much smaller. But assuming private companies give two turtle's microscopic dicks about what will keep them growing and keeps the cash flowing in is just naive.

Really? You can't understand it? Or you don't agree with it?

Every thing is profit driven. New computers/phones is in no way comparable to more energy efficient/eco friendly products. There is an arms race to make the best phone, computer, pharmaceutical, or other things that people pay for because of the pot of the gold at the end of it for the company that developed it. Not for the sake of advancing our technology to feel great about how far we have come.

I don't know how familiar you are with the pharmaceutical industry, but a big problem in it is 'rare' diseases being completely neglected by private companies because they have zero profit incentive to do it. There could be an extremely deadly disease that only affects 10,000 people worldwide and they could give a shit less about it if it isn't projected to grow. Why would they when their client base is 10,000 people when they could work on developing a "new" anxiety drug/antidepressant that they can push out to half the country. Sound morbid? They have to stay in business and sinking tons of time/money into developing something that they won't make a profit on just doesn't get done.

Everything is done with profit in mind. I work at an company that would HEAVILY benefit if there was a cure to alzheimers. Guess what our #1 charity cause is!! Vast majority of it actually. And it doubles as good publicity. I highly doubt this is uncommon.

If producing something better for the environment isn't cost effective at the end of the day most of the time it isn't done. What you have now is a growing group of people that really care a lot about the environment (ie a growing customer base). That is why more things are going green, and why that trend looks to continue. Not because corporations all of the sudden started to passionately feel about the environment (respectfully requested people to not cite one or two outliers as their only reply to this post).

Ingenuity is trending way up on this, but the reason it was lacking for so long was because the customer base was so much smaller. But assuming private companies give two turtle's microscopic dicks about what will keep them growing and keeps the cash flowing in is just naive.

What? There is so much money in this? like more than anything else. That's why it doesn't make sense. What you said makes no sense because this is going to be a bigger market than anything else ever. Why are we letting Germany do all the research?

You guys sound like shills for the oil company.

 

[Pick6]

No you can't.

I found this in 0.2 seconds. I'm not going to waste my time looking up/posting more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ictions-greatly-exaggerated-claims-study.html

 

[gourimoko]

I found this in 0.2 seconds. I'm not going to waste my time looking up/posting more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ictions-greatly-exaggerated-claims-study.html

Pick6, in all honesty, this is a bit disingenuous.

1) You said you can find plenty of scientists on both sides of this issue; but you found, essentially one.

Do you really think there isn't a consensus here?

2) Did you read the article you cited? Did you check the sources. The moment I saw Dr. Soon's name, I knew the article was poorly sourced. Please see the following regarding:

"Soon disputes the current scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused bysolar variation rather than by human activity.[6][7] He gained visibility in part due to scientific criticism of the methodology of a paper which he co-wrote.[8] Climate scientists have rebutted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions, but he is frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[2][9]

Over the past decade, Soon's research has been funded largely by fossil-fuel interests,[10] which provided over $1.2 million in funding over 10 years, including $409,000 from The Southern Company and $230,000 from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. These funding sources were not disclosed in a number of papers published since 2008, leading the Smithsonian Institution to investigate whether Soon had violated conflict-of-interest policies.[2][11][12] Soon says he has "always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally".

Please see the following with respect to Soon's "peer-reviewed" study:

"The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.

The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of several editors of the journal and the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was."

May I ask, why do you think climate change projections are false?

 

[Brandname]

Pick6, in all honesty, this is a bit disingenuous.

1) You said you can find plenty of scientists on both sides of this issue; but you found, essentially one.

Do you really think there isn't a consensus here?

2) Did you read the article you cited? Did you check the sources. The moment I saw Dr. Soon's name, I knew the article was poorly sourced. Please see the following regarding:

"Soon disputes the current scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused bysolar variation rather than by human activity.[6][7] He gained visibility in part due to scientific criticism of the methodology of a paper which he co-wrote.[8] Climate scientists have rebutted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions, but he is frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[2][9]

Over the past decade, Soon's research has been funded largely by fossil-fuel interests,[10] which provided over $1.2 million in funding over 10 years, including $409,000 from The Southern Company and $230,000 from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. These funding sources were not disclosed in a number of papers published since 2008, leading the Smithsonian Institution to investigate whether Soon had violated conflict-of-interest policies.[2][11][12] Soon says he has "always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally".

Please see the following with respect to Soon's "peer-reviewed" study:

"The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.

The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of several editors of the journal and the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was."

May I ask, why do you think climate change projections are false?

Wow, people still cite Soon/Baliunas? Eeesh.