Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Hey, remember how the lack of sunspots was going to be plunge us into an Ice Age? Yeah, about that   (blogs.discovermagazine.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Little Ice Age, Maunder Minimum, climate change denial, solar cycles, ice cores, Death from the Skies, global cooling, jet stream  
•       •       •

13239 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jun 2011 at 4:09 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



109 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-19 05:29:16 PM  

FloydA: My opinion is that right now, fossil fuels are the only materials with a sufficient ratio of energy density to mass that they can be used for most long-distance transportation. Therefore, we should use as many other sources of energy for non-transportation related purposes as possible, to preserve those high energy-density fuels for those tasks that other fuels cannot reasonably accomplish.


WTF? This actually makes good sense. What's your problem?
 
2011-06-19 07:45:32 PM  

FloydA: That's my two cents, anyway.


I think we're mostly in violent agreement on most areas except for the CO2-as-clear-and-present-danger thing... if you read my subsequent addendum, I'm not demanding that the legislation I proposed should actually be implemented, just that I think it's the most progressive, least damaging way to approach the problem if the tool of choice is legislation.

At the end of the day, I simply don't have enough confidence in the models to say that more CO2 is a bad thing, good thing, or neither. I think it's safe to say that the Supreme Court knows less about the topic of software models than I do. A staggering amount of power has been placed in the hands of EPA bureaucrats, which requires me to have a lot of "faith" that they will use it only to a genuinely prudent and necessary extent.

GeneralJim: WTF? This actually makes good sense. What's your problem?


That was Floyd's own argument -- he wasn't quoting me or anyone else. I didn't see it at first -- I don't know if it's Fark's doing or Firefox's, but a week or so ago the font used in the threads somehow got completely screwed up. It grew by a couple of point sizes and ended up with less hinting, ridiculous amounts of leading, and in general a huge loss of legibility. I'm still getting used to it, and still apparently missing a lot.
 
2011-06-19 08:21:47 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: FloydA: That's my two cents, anyway.

I think we're mostly in violent agreement on most areas except for the CO2-as-clear-and-present-danger thing... if you read my subsequent addendum, I'm not demanding that the legislation I proposed should actually be implemented, just that I think it's the most progressive, least damaging way to approach the problem if the tool of choice is legislation.

At the end of the day, I simply don't have enough confidence in the models to say that more CO2 is a bad thing, good thing, or neither. I think it's safe to say that the Supreme Court knows less about the topic of software models than I do. A staggering amount of power has been placed in the hands of EPA bureaucrats, which requires me to have a lot of "faith" that they will use it only to a genuinely prudent and necessary extent.



Oh it will certainly be a mixed bag. I'm not suggesting that increased CO2 levels are universally bad. For example, there are indications that it could potentially result in increased agricultural productivity.

And I'm likely to personally benefit from the melting of permafrost and alpine glaciers, which will reveal archaeological materials that have been inaccessible before now. So yeah, some good will come of it.

On balance, though, I suspect that the net effects will be more unpleasant than beneficial. There are a lot more ways to make a complicated system worse than there are ways to make it better.

That was Floyd's own argument -- he wasn't quoting me or anyone else.

On the basis of past experience, I suspect that he's simply claiming to be surprised that I can make a good point. (Because I'm a big dum-dum libtard, dontcha know.)
 
2011-06-20 12:22:09 AM  

FloydA: There are a lot more ways to make a complicated system worse than there are ways to make it better.


Ain't that the truth...
 
2011-06-20 01:01:33 AM  
Basement-dwelling Farkers arguing science never gets old. Please, carry on.
 
2011-06-20 01:22:13 PM  

GeneralJim: FloydA: My opinion is that right now, fossil fuels are the only materials with a sufficient ratio of energy density to mass that they can be used for most long-distance transportation. Therefore, we should use as many other sources of energy for non-transportation related purposes as possible, to preserve those high energy-density fuels for those tasks that other fuels cannot reasonably accomplish.

WTF? This actually makes good sense. What's your problem?


Just like Washington DC, there is no room for and no audience for reason and good sense 'round here.
A rational and sensible ENERGY PLAN would be a nice thing and we just cannot have nice things when GOP and DFL are "in charge".
Want to change improve the world, nationalize all political funds, outlaw "campaining for office"(it is just an excuse for overprofit sociopathic chest and brow beating) and start over.
Oh. look, unicorn poop.
 
2011-06-20 01:28:24 PM  
Some how, some way, we have to get politicians back to work.
Their entire "career" is spent fund raising and seeking election by slinging mud at the opponent. In their spare time they quaote partisan derp and talk chit on TV.
This leaves very little time to actually get the country's business done and keep the puppet government running.

This current dealeo is farked, doomed and no longer amusing.
 
2011-06-20 06:23:38 PM  

FloydA: That was Floyd's own argument -- he wasn't quoting me or anyone else.

On the basis of past experience, I suspect that he's simply claiming to be surprised that I can make a good point. (Because I'm a big dum-dum libtard, dontcha know.)


An invalid suspicion. That was simple praise for a well thought out statement. (And a bit of a dig at many "Fark arguments.") I don't group people with Good/Bad being synonymous with Right/Left/Libertarian, in any way, shape or form. While you may be on the left, I have you favorited with a color indicating rational cogent arguments, and worthy of reading.
 
2011-06-20 06:27:14 PM  

snocone: Some how, some way, we have to get politicians back to work.


Are you sure? I always feel safer when Congress is NOT in session...
 
Displayed 9 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report