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.

(Atomic Scientists Bulletin)   Climate change and the Koch Brothers walk into a bar   (thebulletin.org ) divider line
    More: Amusing, climate change, collapse of civilization, experimental design, Southern Poverty Law Center  
•       •       •

3100 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2014 at 2:55 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-21 12:46:29 PM  
Years ago a boss took me aside to give me a few words of advice. "You know what your problem is?" he asked. He didn't wait for an answer. "You're too f---ing earnest a bad writer."

FTFY.

God this is by far the worst article I've read all day. It's utterly incoherent and all over the f*cking place.
 
2014-04-21 01:18:44 PM  
"These days I find myself writing a lot about climate change, a problem so dire that it could lead to the collapse of civilization, "

NO, you are not earnest, just stupid.
People dying, species dying and water rising is NOT the same as "the collapse of civilization"

You should sue your university and get your tuition back.
 
2014-04-21 03:10:00 PM  
"You know what your problem is?" he asked. He didn't wait for an answer. "You're too f---ing earnest."


so true, the resemblance is uncanny...

thebulletin.orgupload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-21 03:12:19 PM  
A pile of unread able BS.
 
2014-04-21 03:14:46 PM  
The government is always going on about saving energy.

So I tried turning off my lights to save some.

I ran over a cyclist.

/Thank you folks. Please try your waitress, and tip the veal.
 
2014-04-21 03:15:03 PM  
That article makes me hope we turn into Venus just so the author of TFA can DIAF.
 
2014-04-21 03:24:47 PM  

bdub77: Years ago a boss took me aside to give me a few words of advice. "You know what your problem is?" he asked. He didn't wait for an answer. "You're too f---ing earnest a bad writer."

FTFY.

God this is by far the worst article I've read all day. It's utterly incoherent and all over the f*cking place.


This.

Jesus Christ. It took me forever to find the point of the goddamned thing, which could have been made in a letter to the editor.

ProTip: While the structure of Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" made for an interesting novel, it's a pretty shiatty way to make a point.
 
2014-04-21 03:30:36 PM  

Headso: "You know what your problem is?" he asked. He didn't wait for an answer. "You're too f---ing earnest."


so true, the resemblance is uncanny...

[thebulletin.org image 90x109][upload.wikimedia.org image 85x124]


Thread over. Last one out get the lights.
 
2014-04-21 03:32:07 PM  
The point of the article was "environmental writers and film makers are being encouraged to use more humor in their work."

Meh.
 
2014-04-21 03:33:34 PM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-04-21 03:38:33 PM  
cdn01.dailycaller.com
 
2014-04-21 03:38:58 PM  
Headline: Koch

Rest of article:  NO MENTION WHATSOEVER.

linkbait headlines should burn forever.
 
2014-04-21 04:08:11 PM  
The bartender says, "Which one of you is going to destroy Florida first?"
Climate Change says, "I can make the sea rise so that only Tallahassee remains."
One of the Koch Brothers says, "I can help you do it faster. And we've already taken care of Tallahassee."
 
2014-04-21 04:19:04 PM  
That's a nice touchy-feely article, but really this has gone far enough.

There is no "debate" over climate change except for what we should be doing about it. We should not be giving support to social conservatives who promise to lower your taxes in exchange for oil futures.

And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.

Protip: stop fighting green energy proposals. No, nuclear power isn't an option. Yes, I know you're going to have to fix a drink to deal with that.
 
2014-04-21 04:23:40 PM  

whidbey: There is no "debate" over climate change except for what we should be doing about it.


Well, I think there is a lot of legitimate debate over what form climate change will take, and how it will affect different parts of the world.  But that's going to be true of any giant, chaotic system, like the economy.

//agree with the rest of your post.
 
2014-04-21 04:29:37 PM  

whidbey: And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.


So, you're just going to outlaw the rural United States and make everyone move into cities?
 
2014-04-21 04:31:17 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.

So, you're just going to outlaw the rural United States and make everyone move into cities?


Oh look, it's my first "public transportation doesn't work in rural areas" customer. Sit down and take a number. We have free punch out by the brochure rack.
 
2014-04-21 04:33:53 PM  

whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.

So, you're just going to outlaw the rural United States and make everyone move into cities?

Oh look, it's my first "public transportation doesn't work in rural areas" customer. Sit down and take a number. We have free punch out by the brochure rack.


Oh, look, it's that guy who advocates untenable positions and thinks they became viable if he just ignores the problems.
 
2014-04-21 04:43:42 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.

So, you're just going to outlaw the rural United States and make everyone move into cities?

Oh look, it's my first "public transportation doesn't work in rural areas" customer. Sit down and take a number. We have free punch out by the brochure rack.

Oh, look, it's that guy who advocates untenable positions and thinks they became viable if he just ignores the problems.


So what do you propose then?  It's easy to say "That won't work."  How about bringing something to the table that contributes to a solution instead of continues the problem?  The rural United States has a high carbon footprint.  A lot of this is a result of vehicles.  I don't think anyone is saying People Against Farmers Driving, but in those small 3-mile-long towns of 4000 people where everydamnbody has a car, maybe we could afford to deploy some kind of public transportation.
 
2014-04-21 04:43:52 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Oh, look, it's that guy who advocates untenable positions and thinks they became viable if he just ignores the problems.


hey, the 17 people that live on my mile long dirt road could use a monorail.
 
2014-04-21 04:46:05 PM  

whidbey: No, nuclear power isn't an option.


Why?
 
2014-04-21 04:49:37 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: No, nuclear power isn't an option.

Why?


My interpretation of that is to say "It's not an option - we have to make the switch."  As in, the only choices of "do we develop nuclear power" are yes or yes.
 
2014-04-21 04:50:44 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: No, nuclear power isn't an option.

Why?


It's basically a band-aid. And our excessive consumption isn't really addressed. Granted, it would be nice to have a massive power source like fission (or cold fusion) but the truth is we're at a point now where we could employ green tech like solar and wind, and actually reduce the waste.

Humor is fun, but it's not going to change that "sustainability" is the best long-term option for our species.
 
2014-04-21 04:52:07 PM  

Elandriel: Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.

So, you're just going to outlaw the rural United States and make everyone move into cities?

Oh look, it's my first "public transportation doesn't work in rural areas" customer. Sit down and take a number. We have free punch out by the brochure rack.

Oh, look, it's that guy who advocates untenable positions and thinks they became viable if he just ignores the problems.

So what do you propose then?  It's easy to say "That won't work."  How about bringing something to the table that contributes to a solution instead of continues the problem?  The rural United States has a high carbon footprint.  A lot of this is a result of vehicles.  I don't think anyone is saying People Against Farmers Driving, but in those small 3-mile-long towns of 4000 people where everydamnbody has a car, maybe we could afford to deploy some kind of public transportation.


How about *not* taking nuclear power off the table and promoting/subsidizing electric car technology and development, instead of dishing out caveats like "get the cars off the roads and no nuclear power."

For other green power, like solar, we'd have a big effect on the environment as well.

Either that, or just admit that cutting back on energy immediately would lead to millions of slow deaths from starvation and economic collapse. But at least we'd stop climate change in its tracks.

Just be realistic. We can't just stop dependence on transportation as easily as saying "get the cars off the roads" and thinking public transportation is going solve everything.
 
2014-04-21 04:53:17 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.

So, you're just going to outlaw the rural United States and make everyone move into cities?

Oh look, it's my first "public transportation doesn't work in rural areas" customer. Sit down and take a number. We have free punch out by the brochure rack.

Oh, look, it's that guy who advocates untenable positions and thinks they became viable if he just ignores the problems.


Sorry dude, but I have heard this tiresome obstructionist "argument" for too long. Suck it up.

There are going to be trains, and buses connecting your BFE neck of the woods. And it's going to be expensive, and yes, your taxes are going to go up to pay for it. No, there isn't currently a plan to cut the military budget so taxes could be lower.
 
2014-04-21 04:54:18 PM  

whidbey: Protip: stop fighting green energy proposals. No, nuclear power isn't an option. Yes, I know you're going to have to fix a drink to deal with that.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-04-21 04:55:41 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: How about *not* taking nuclear power off the table and promoting/subsidizing electric car technology and development, instead of dishing out caveats like "get the cars off the roads and no nuclear power."


How about "no?" We have enough cars, and nuclear tech is bullshiat, for the reasons I have explained.

Dude, you're going whole-Hog here. Some Portland enviro must have given you a dirty look.
 
2014-04-21 05:01:08 PM  

whidbey: Sorry dude, but I have heard this tiresome obstructionist "argument" for too long. Suck it up.

There are going to be trains, and buses connecting your BFE neck of the woods. And it's going to be expensive, and yes, your taxes are going to go up to pay for it. No, there isn't currently a plan to cut the military budget so taxes could be lower.


It's not obstructionism. It's reality and utilitarianism.

I'm not against finding viable alternatives and ideas, but "stop doing that" without replacing it with other alternatives isn't a solution. Saying that we can't use nuclear energy immediately takes a large chunk of coal replacement off the table.

If we want to return to 19th-century population levels, your dream is feasible.
 
2014-04-21 05:03:42 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.

So, you're just going to outlaw the rural United States and make everyone move into cities?


Why should the productive people subsidize some silly "green Acres" fantasy for a bunch of welfare queens? They want the services of the city delivered to the boondocks for free? fark that.
 
2014-04-21 05:04:51 PM  

whidbey: Dude, you're going whole-Hog here. Some Portland enviro must have given you a dirty look.


Yes. The Portlanders who think they can grow all of their food in community gardens within the city. It's just as realistic as you are.

Instead of public transit, why aren't you advocating a return to an equine-dependent society? Trams and trains use electricity, you know.
 
2014-04-21 05:05:58 PM  

ghare: Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: And yeah that means supporting *gasp* expensive public transportation proposals and getting cars off the road. Sorry if that harshes your mellow, but that's a huge first step.

So, you're just going to outlaw the rural United States and make everyone move into cities?

Why should the productive people subsidize some silly "green Acres" fantasy for a bunch of welfare queens? They want the services of the city delivered to the boondocks for free? fark that.


And urban people can grow all of their food on the rooftops of their apartment buildings.
 
2014-04-21 05:12:26 PM  

whidbey: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: No, nuclear power isn't an option.

Why?

It's basically a band-aid. And our excessive consumption isn't really addressed. Granted, it would be nice to have a massive power source like fission (or cold fusion) but the truth is we're at a point now where we could employ green tech like solar and wind, and actually reduce the waste.


I would say that given current political and economic realities, nuclear couldnt be implemented fast enough. But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.

AGU had a talk back in 2010 detailing the realities of green tech materials. Simply put, we need to be extraordinary recyclers when it comes to PV panels and electronics and it still might not be enough. There were speakers there from industry and government so I think there is legitimate concern.

I guess my overall point is that: baring any silver bullet tech like fusion, the solution will be multifaceted.
 
2014-04-21 05:13:39 PM  

whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: How about *not* taking nuclear power off the table and promoting/subsidizing electric car technology and development, instead of dishing out caveats like "get the cars off the roads and no nuclear power."

How about "no?" We have enough cars, and nuclear tech is bullshiat, for the reasons I have explained.

Dude, you're going whole-Hog here. Some Portland enviro must have given you a dirty look.


Nuclear is definitely and option.  It's gotten a lot safer in the past 30 years.
 
2014-04-21 05:13:54 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: And urban people can grow all of their food on the rooftops of their apartment buildings.


I've often thought that Unused warehouse space and/or multi-level buildings as urban farming range. Hire the homeless to manage it.
 
2014-04-21 05:17:16 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: I guess my overall point is that: baring any silver bullet tech like fusion, the solution will be multifaceted.


Too realistic. It sounds like you're actually advocating solving the problem of climate change instead of blindly repeating what some cheerleader has told you to say.
 
2014-04-21 05:23:52 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.

Take a guess at what "rare" earth materials are required for the vast majority of the material in a silicon based photovoltaic panel?

Hint: quartz gravel or sand - which is by no means rare.
 
2014-04-21 05:25:34 PM  
The Koch brothers and Climate Change walk into a bar.
Koch brothers: Hey, you're hot.
Climate Change: And you're making me hotter.

There, message delivered.
 
2014-04-21 05:27:16 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: I guess my overall point is that: baring any silver bullet tech like fusion, the solution will be multifaceted.

Too realistic. It sounds like you're actually advocating solving the problem of climate change instead of blindly repeating what some cheerleader has told you to say.


farking aye, Right. Seems like the people who give it the most lip service are totally clueless about the details. And the most knowledgeable people I personally know wont get off their ass to do anything substantial.
 
2014-04-21 05:30:04 PM  

MrSteve007: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.
Take a guess at what "rare" earth materials are required for the vast majority of the material in a silicon based photovoltaic panel?

Hint: quartz gravel or sand - which is by no means rare.


uh yeah.... not sure if serious. Silicon in PV panels isnt the working element. Its the medium that holds the photovoltaic elements.
 
2014-04-21 05:38:30 PM  

namatad: "These days I find myself writing a lot about climate change, a problem so dire that it could lead to the collapse of civilization, "

NO, you are not earnest, just stupid.
People dying, species dying and water rising is NOT the same as "the collapse of civilization"

You should sue your university and get your tuition back.


Because there have never been wars over resources.
 
2014-04-21 05:44:32 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Dude, you're going whole-Hog here. Some Portland enviro must have given you a dirty look.

Yes. The Portlanders who think they can grow all of their food in community gardens within the city. It's just as realistic as you are.

Instead of public transit, why aren't you advocating a return to an equine-dependent society? Trams and trains use electricity, you know.


Well at least then the shiat'd be piled high enough for you.
 
2014-04-21 05:48:19 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: No, nuclear power isn't an option.

Why?

It's basically a band-aid. And our excessive consumption isn't really addressed. Granted, it would be nice to have a massive power source like fission (or cold fusion) but the truth is we're at a point now where we could employ green tech like solar and wind, and actually reduce the waste.

I would say that given current political and economic realities, nuclear couldnt be implemented fast enough. But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.

AGU had a talk back in 2010 detailing the realities of green tech materials. Simply put, we need to be extraordinary recyclers when it comes to PV panels and electronics and it still might not be enough. There were speakers there from industry and government so I think there is legitimate concern.

I guess my overall point is that: baring any silver bullet tech like fusion, the solution will be multifaceted.


It's not going to be nuclear. Thankfully, there are miles of red tape to make it a reality.

But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.


I don't know that, actually. Again, it's about reducing consumption more than what can we use as a band-aid.
 
2014-04-21 05:49:11 PM  

techgeek07: whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: How about *not* taking nuclear power off the table and promoting/subsidizing electric car technology and development, instead of dishing out caveats like "get the cars off the roads and no nuclear power."

How about "no?" We have enough cars, and nuclear tech is bullshiat, for the reasons I have explained.

Dude, you're going whole-Hog here. Some Portland enviro must have given you a dirty look.

Nuclear is definitely and option.  It's gotten a lot safer in the past 30 years.


No, it really isn't going to be. Good luck trying to make that ship sail.
 
2014-04-21 05:58:53 PM  

whidbey: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: No, nuclear power isn't an option.

Why?

It's basically a band-aid. And our excessive consumption isn't really addressed. Granted, it would be nice to have a massive power source like fission (or cold fusion) but the truth is we're at a point now where we could employ green tech like solar and wind, and actually reduce the waste.

I would say that given current political and economic realities, nuclear couldnt be implemented fast enough. But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.

AGU had a talk back in 2010 detailing the realities of green tech materials. Simply put, we need to be extraordinary recyclers when it comes to PV panels and electronics and it still might not be enough. There were speakers there from industry and government so I think there is legitimate concern.

I guess my overall point is that: baring any silver bullet tech like fusion, the solution will be multifaceted.

It's not going to be nuclear. Thankfully, there are miles of red tape to make it a reality.

But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.


I don't know that, actually. Again, it's about reducing consumption more than what can we use as a band-aid.


Theres a lot that can be done with efficiency. But the simple fact is that we are at 7 billion, projected to be at 9 billion in less than 50 years, and most of us want to improve our standard of living. Consumption is going to grow. Nuclear has the potential to solve 2 problems, energy and climate.
 
2014-04-21 06:00:07 PM  

Headso: Lenny_da_Hog: Oh, look, it's that guy who advocates untenable positions and thinks they became viable if he just ignores the problems.

hey, the 17 people that live on my mile long dirt road could use a monorail.


And DOWN GOES SCARECROW! DOWN GOES SCARECROW! This young up and comer has knocked down this strawman with NO EFFORT!
 
2014-04-21 06:00:23 PM  

whidbey: techgeek07: whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: How about *not* taking nuclear power off the table and promoting/subsidizing electric car technology and development, instead of dishing out caveats like "get the cars off the roads and no nuclear power."

How about "no?" We have enough cars, and nuclear tech is bullshiat, for the reasons I have explained.

Dude, you're going whole-Hog here. Some Portland enviro must have given you a dirty look.

Nuclear is definitely and option.  It's gotten a lot safer in the past 30 years.

No, it really isn't going to be. Good luck trying to make that ship sail.


Because you say so?
 
2014-04-21 06:00:43 PM  

namatad: NO, you are not earnest, just stupid.
People dying, species dying and water rising is NOT the same as "the collapse of civilization"


Civilizations have collapsed for less.
 
2014-04-21 06:02:34 PM  
whidbey:  No, nuclear power isn't an option.

I'm just curious as to why you say it isn't an option?
 
2014-04-21 06:03:03 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: whidbey: No, nuclear power isn't an option.

Why?

It's basically a band-aid. And our excessive consumption isn't really addressed. Granted, it would be nice to have a massive power source like fission (or cold fusion) but the truth is we're at a point now where we could employ green tech like solar and wind, and actually reduce the waste.

I would say that given current political and economic realities, nuclear couldnt be implemented fast enough. But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.

AGU had a talk back in 2010 detailing the realities of green tech materials. Simply put, we need to be extraordinary recyclers when it comes to PV panels and electronics and it still might not be enough. There were speakers there from industry and government so I think there is legitimate concern.

I guess my overall point is that: baring any silver bullet tech like fusion, the solution will be multifaceted.

It's not going to be nuclear. Thankfully, there are miles of red tape to make it a reality.

But IIRC nuclear fuel is more abundant than rare earth elements that go into green tech -- especially if you consider thorium and breeder reactors.


I don't know that, actually. Again, it's about reducing consumption more than what can we use as a band-aid.

Theres a lot that can be done with efficiency. But the simple fact is that we are at 7 billion, projected to be at 9 billion in less than 50 years, and most of us want to improve our standard of living. Consumption is going to grow. Nuclear has the potential to solve 2 problems, energy and climate.


Actually, wind and solar have the ability now to solve those problems. And touting that we can't or shouldn't do anything about consumption levels really isn't in line with what the bulk of science is reporting.
 
2014-04-21 06:03:18 PM  

whidbey: No, it really isn't going to be. Good luck trying to make that ship sail.


You know who Steward Brand is, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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