Real World Event Discussions

human actions, global climate change, global human solutions

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 11 of 111

Tuesday, November 2, 2021 8:16 AM

NASA study warns farmers must quickly adapt to climate change

https://www.slashgear.com/nasa-study-warns-farmers-must-quickly-adapt-
to-climate-change-01697799
/

The science everyone needs to know about climate change, in 6 charts

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/394688

Jonah Goldberg: To fight climate change seriously, nuclear power must be on the table

https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/columns/7262897-Jonah-Goldberg-To
-fight-climate-change-seriously-nuclear-power-must-be-on-the-table

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, November 2, 2021 8:36 AM

Nuclear Power is fine until they Six Sigma it.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:57 PM

This Simple Story Can Save the Planet

According to the best reports I’ve read, if we now start investing 2 percent of global annual G.D.P. in developing eco-friendly technologies and eco-friendly infrastructure, that should be enough to prevent catastrophic climate change. The beautiful thing about 2 percent is that even though it’s a lot of money, it’s completely feasible. If it was 20 percent then I would tell you forget about it, it’s too late. But 2 percent? The job of the average politician is to shift 2 percent of the budget from here to there. We know how to do it. We need to stay away from the apocalyptic thinking that it’s too late and the world is ending and move toward a more practical thing: 2 percent of the budget. That’s it.

Is shifting 2 percent of global G.D.P. a sufficiently compelling story?

The thing about 2 percent of G.D.P., it’s not very impressive, but that’s the whole point. It’s hopeful. It’s not like we have to completely change the entire economy and go live in caves. We just need to shift 2 percent. That’s all. So I think it’s a powerful message. And there are other stories: If you look at movements like Greta Thunberg’s and the whole youth movement, what the young people are telling the world is that you are sacrificing us on the altar of your greed and irresponsibility. It’s no longer something hazy like CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s a human drama of the old sacrificing the young. That’s a powerful story.

https://web.archive.org/web/20211110053707/https://www.nytimes.com/int
eractive/2021/11/08/magazine/yuval-noah-harari-interview.html


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2021 5:09 PM

COP26 was a failure. Here’s what we should do instead.

Author Kevin Drum Published on November 12, 2021 – 9:14 am

The COP26 climate conference in Glasgow has been a failure. There have been a few agreements here and there, but nothing very impressive for a conference that was supposedly "make or break" for humanity.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. COP26 merely confirms what we've known for a long time: nations won't agree to cut back on profitable fossil fuel extraction and politicians don't dare promise to do anything that will annoy their constituents. This has been true for decades and it's still true.

If I were your benevolent dictator, here's what I would do:

1. Aggressively roll out wind, solar, and nuclear power. This would probably get us about halfway toward our goal of net zero carbon emissions.

2. Pour trillions of dollars into R&D looking for new technologies to reduce atmospheric CO2. This would include things like cement production and chemical manufacturing that don't benefit from green electricity, and carbon capture, which is a necessary part of meeting our goals.

3. Begin seeding the atmosphere with aerosols. If we start now, it could be done very slowly while we test for larger effects on the planet. If, instead, we wait until 2040 or 2050 to do this, it will be an emergency operation with unknown impacts.

I understand this is not a popular proposal. Hell, I don't like it much myself. But all the evidence in the world suggests that nothing else has any real chance of success. It's time to face up to that.

https://jabberwocking.com/cop26-was-a-failure-heres-what-we-should-do-
instead
/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2021 8:13 PM

Net Zero carbon emissions is as much of a fucking dream as eradicating Covid is.

Attempting to do either will destroy the world economy, let alone both.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2021 8:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by second:
3. Begin seeding the atmosphere with aerosols. If we start now, it could be done very slowly while we test for larger effects on the planet. If, instead, we wait until 2040 or 2050 to do this, it will be an emergency operation with unknown impacts.



https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/study-solar-geoengineering-may-not-
be-long-term-solution-climate-change


That sounds like pure insanity.

Especially when they spent decades telling you that the aerosols from your hair spray were going to rip a hole in the ozone and turn us all into mutants.

Scientists need to be unemployed. Their jobs are not essential.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, November 14, 2021 12:03 AM

If I were benevolent dictator, I would ...

Oh, BTW, did you know that ONE space joyride by one of those trillionaires creates as much greenhouse gas emissions as the LIFETIME emissions of the poorest BILLION people????
END SPACE JOYRIDES.

And what about that COP26 (whatever the fuck THAT stands for!) hobnob? All all those jets flying hither, thither and yon, with their retinues of cars going this way and that? A bit counterproductive, wouldn't you say? I would prolly just eliminate all private jets as being far too wasteful per person-mile.

END USA MILITARY OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENT, AND END OUR CARRIER GROUPS STEAMING ALL OVER THE GLOBE. The USA military is the largest single user of energy on the globe.
ONE military jet takeoff (full afterburner) uses 96 pounds - about 14 gallons - of fuel PER SECOND.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-is-burned-by-a-fighter-plane-in-on
e-second
?

Not only would there be direct fuel savings, all of that MIC production would throttle back as well. We could take all of those tanks and humvees that we have stored out in the desert and turn them into scrap for infrastructure projects.

I would REALLY work on hardening our forests against fires. That means sending crews out into the forest for months at a time, hand-thinning two-mile-wide firebreaks (to start), and definitely experiment with creating "black soil" in-situ. You could use the energy released to charge batteries, for example.

Farming and soil management is another great oppty to manage carbon. I would pay farmers who sucessfully increase the carbon content of their soils (there are all kinds of ways, such as cover crops and "green manure", but since there are SO MANY ways I would simply survey their soil over time and pay them for each increase per year, and a stipend to maintain.)

I would also create south-to-north connected biopreserves to allow species to migrate, and pre-plant some warmer-climate natives further north.

Engineers are already looking at ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from things like cement and steel production, but ... what I don't understand is why they don't use more flyash in concrete than they do now. https://www.everything-about-concrete.com/fly-ash-concrete.html You can reduce flyash waste, create a better product, and substitute out some of that energy-intensive cement.

Aside from the military, the next-biggest user of energy in the USA is transportation.

There are several components to that.
The first is that the USA has miles and miles... of miles and miles. Like Australia, Canada, and Russia, there is concentration on the coasts and a lot of emptiness in between. So a lot of miles to transit. Maybe increase railroad traffic by repairing and improving the rails, which are in a sad state of disrepair, requiring trains to go very slow on many segments. (Same can be said for east coast commuter lines. Since Superstorm Sandy, many switches and lines got flooded and degraded, never repaired, and require slow speed travel.)

Another factor is that many USA cities grew in the era of the automobile. Los Angeles is a perfect example. Spread-out populations can't be effectively served by mass transit. Part of the answer is better land use planning: mixed development. For example, my fair city approved a 100+ townhome development. Would it have killed them to require a set-aside for a coffee shop/ATM, with a pickup space for school buses and Uber/Lyft? Maybe even a small convenience store so people wouldn't have to get in their cars to pick up that last-minute bottle of milk/box of diapers/bottle of wine?


The second part would be to require better fuel efficiencies.

Also, the USA depends on extremely long supply chains. Regionalizing supply chains would require less transportation.

Plant more trees in cities. They cool the temperature (requiring less AC), soak up CO2, trap dust, and absorb noise. What's not to like?

Use solar panels on the roofs of large commercial buildings like warehouses. In windy areas

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2021 8:52 AM

Pope Francis again calls for climate action. U.S. bishops have been all but silent

Pope Francis on Sunday once again urged political and business leaders "to act now with courage and vision" to care for the planet and its people in the face of the global climate crisis. His remarks, made at St. Peter's Square at the Vatican, came just hours after the close of a two-week United Nations climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland.

The pope has been insistent about the importance and urgency of climate action, six years ago dedicating a major document — known as Laudato Si' — to the importance of environmental stewardship.

By contrast, Catholic bishops in the United States have generally been mum or misleading about climate change in their messaging to their congregations.

A study out last month by scholars from Creighton University in Nebraska analyzed more than 12,000 official, written communications sent to parishioners in nearly every U.S. diocese over five years beginning in June 2014.

The authors found that on the infrequent occasions that bishops mentioned climate change, they often "diminished and distanced themselves from Church teaching on this issue" and downplayed parts of Pope Francis's Laudato Si' document that conflict with American conservative political ideology.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/14/1055679802/pope-francis-again-calls-for
-climate-action-u-s-bishops-have-been-all-but-silent



U.S. Catholic bishops' silence and denialism on climate change

The Catholic Church recognizes climate change as a moral issue, has called for social action, and has the institutional potential to meaningfully address climate change. Many hoped Pope Francis's 2015 encyclical Laudato Si' would spark widespread climate action. However, our quantitative and qualitative content analyses show that U.S. Catholic bishops responsible for leading the Church were silent and denialist about climate change around Laudato Si'.

As a group, when U.S. Catholic bishops did mention climate change, they often: (a) diminished and distanced themselves from Church teaching on this issue; (b) downplayed parts of Laudato Si' that conflict with a conservative political identity/ideology; and (c) emphasized parts of Laudato Si' that correspond to a conservative political identity/ideology. On climate change, our findings indicate individual U.S. Catholic bishops' diocesan communications have collectively snuffed out the spark of Laudato Si'. Our findings suggest politics may trump religion in influencing climate change beliefs even among religious leaders, and that the American Catholic Church subtly engages in climate denialism even though its top religious leader (Pope Francis) has emphasized the scientific reality and urgency of climate change.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac25ba

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2021 9:52 AM

Maybe if scientists didn't lie all the time people would believe them.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2021 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Maybe if scientists didn't lie all the time people would believe them.

You went there, but with less subtlety than Trump and the Republican Party: Climate Change is a Hoax.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Climate+Change+is+a+Hoax

What does Trump actually believe on climate change?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003

There are 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress who still deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-117th-congres
s
/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME