Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Eco-idiots

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post

    Let's try again, so you might have other resources to better form your understanding of climate change. Here's another link:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/hur...termediate.htm

    I'm certain that in the caveman days, there were monster storms. For those who believe modern humans have been around for at least 50,000 years, the likelihood that one group experienced a hurricane season like this one is pretty high. What I'm talking about is storm intensity, not frequency, as noted in the skeptical science link above. Should the intensity of (strong) hurricanes increase, that puts a lot more pressure on how zoning is handled.

    Your "the locals borrowing or busting over 30 years" strategy won't happen. The borrowing allows them to kick the can down the road, since any local leadership (political and economic) will insist that re-building that lovely resort on the beach is critical to the local economy. The federal punishment of poor/corrupt local zoning codes is mostly political, but can be accomplished immediately and at minimal cost. If, and only if, engineers run the zoning codes to prohibit inadequate building in flood zones/hurricane exposed sites. When that is done, much suffering and material damage is simply prevented. Borrowing one's way out of it, on the hope that bankruptcy from poor administration will change the voter's mind, is unrealistic. The politician running the crap-shoot for a monster storm, 20 years after the previous storm, will blame the politician and developers who screwed up 20 years prior. Even if the current leadership were willing to correct the mistakes made 20 years prior, they will have to deal with a large public debt and a mess that will add too much burden to that debt. Why so much money? Much cheaper if the feds threaten local/state support when the state allows corrupt zoning practices.
    It doesn't matter whether you are talking about storm intensity vs frequency, even frequency we do not have reliable data going back all that far because there were many, many storms that were never recorded because they did not make landfall and were not noted and subsequently reported by ships at sea. The point still stands, Even for the span of "human" history, the period for which we have even remotely comprehensive and accurate data is too short a time frame to draw any statistically meaningful conclusions. There is no meaningful evidence that there has even BEEN a statistically significant change in storm frequency OR intensity, let alone the extent that climate change is the cause, let alone the portion (not yet determined) that human activity contributes to climate change.

    This brings me back to the fundamentally flawed premise of the climate doomsayers...'we are pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere, and that can't be a good thing'. That statement if you take it to its logical meaning presumes that NO activity by man can have a net positive effect. On what you might ask, there is the rub, because the "climate" is not a thing that is for its own sake, good or bad, positive or negative. Positive and negative impacts are meaningless outside of the impact (net cost or benefit) to mankind. Even if we assume that man's activities are making the planet warmer than it otherwise would be, why is that a bad thing? Let's say that nature was pushing our climate in the direction of another ice age, would it still be a bad thing if we were making the planet's climate warmer than it otherwise would be? The premise is also flawed because it presumes that there exists some perfect, optimal climate for mankind, and further, that it is whatever nature would have it at any given moment (so wild shifts from warm to ice ages is fine so long as it at the "whim" of mother nature, but bad if are having any impact on it). That is not science, that is sophistry and ideology.

    ?


    • #62
      Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

      It doesn't matter whether you are talking about storm intensity vs frequency, even frequency we do not have reliable data going back all that far because there were many, many storms that were never recorded because they did not make landfall and were not noted and subsequently reported by ships at sea. The point still stands, Even for the span of "human" history, the period for which we have even remotely comprehensive and accurate data is too short a time frame to draw any statistically meaningful conclusions. There is no meaningful evidence that there has even BEEN a statistically significant change in storm frequency OR intensity, let alone the extent that climate change is the cause, let alone the portion (not yet determined) that human activity contributes to climate change.

      This brings me back to the fundamentally flawed premise of the climate doomsayers...'we are pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere, and that can't be a good thing'. That statement if you take it to its logical meaning presumes that NO activity by man can have a net positive effect. On what you might ask, there is the rub, because the "climate" is not a thing that is for its own sake, good or bad, positive or negative. Positive and negative impacts are meaningless outside of the impact (net cost or benefit) to mankind. Even if we assume that man's activities are making the planet warmer than it otherwise would be, why is that a bad thing? Let's say that nature was pushing our climate in the direction of another ice age, would it still be a bad thing if we were making the planet's climate warmer than it otherwise would be? The premise is also flawed because it presumes that there exists some perfect, optimal climate for mankind, and further, that it is whatever nature would have it at any given moment (so wild shifts from warm to ice ages is fine so long as it at the "whim" of mother nature, but bad if are having any impact on it). That is not science, that is sophistry and ideology.
      In link provided, it was noted that intensity of hurricanes has recently changed over the course of our short recorded history. Ignoring intensity will be a failed strategy, unless the intensity tends to remain stable or fall in strength. That is not what the recent trends indicate.

      Your argument about man-caused climate change (either side) should be ignored for purposes of immediately dealing with hurricane/flood intensity. Preparation for the consequences of the more powerful hurricanes or flooding events is paramount, which requires both sides of the argument to cooperate and change (zoning & building practices, development restrictions, etc.)

      ?


      • #63
        Originally posted by Brexx View Post

        The most effective population controller is prosperity. Almost all first world countries have a birth-rate below replacement level. That's why they have to import third world people. Unfortunately for the "save the planet" bedwetters, prosperity requires the very thing they want to destroy- capitalism.
        Capitalism has indeed provided support for population control, if we look at the statistics and causation. Unfortunately for the "capitalist only" crowd, communism also presents conditions for declining (or controlled) population. Link:
        ...That adds to rising concerns that Chinas population may be aging more quickly than the Chinese government had predicted. Originally, Chinese officials that the population would peak around 2030 (as United Nations statistics estimated). Now, it seems clear that population decline will begin much sooner in 2020, as the headline of Lus piece indicates. Chinas famous one-child policy may have worked too well, leading to rock-bottom fertility levels that will be hard to overcome.
        http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/china...ing-predicted/

        ...As communist China grows it's middle class (aka, prosperity), it will find yet another "obstacle" to inspiring her population to grow. I pity the old-school socialists for this reason: They bought the false argument that capitalism is the enemy of the working class, rather than look at it as just one part of human nature. Perhaps the Chinese politburo will evolve, and realize capitalist (or better, "profit") motives can coexist with the cooperative method. They coexist within the same individual, in all humans. Ain't rocket science, but apparently for a lot of capitalists and communists alike, it is too hard to accept. Once we accept the duality of our economic behavior, we can get down to the proper business of developing a flat economy for a falling population.

        ?


        • #64
          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          In link provided, it was noted that intensity of hurricanes has recently changed over the course of our short recorded history. Ignoring intensity will be a failed strategy, unless the intensity tends to remain stable or fall in strength. That is not what the recent trends indicate.

          Your argument about man-caused climate change (either side) should be ignored for purposes of immediately dealing with hurricane/flood intensity. Preparation for the consequences of the more powerful hurricanes or flooding events is paramount, which requires both sides of the argument to cooperate and change (zoning & building practices, development restrictions, etc.)
          It is not a matter of "ignoring", it is a matter of the simple fact that it is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions about whether or not storms are becoming more frequent or intense because we are dealing with data sets that will simply do not span sufficient period of time to draw any statistically valid conclusions.

          In fact, what we DO know about climate history is that there is no such thing as "stable", the climate is constantly changing, change (and significant change) is the norm and not the exception. It is simply not possible to say that any particulary short-term trends or changes (and when talking about something like planetary climate and weather patterns, the whole of recorded human history is "short-term"). Trying to draw conclussions from anything short of thousands of years of very detailed data, spanning clear warming and cooling trends is like trying to predict the odds of a particular NFL team winning the Superbowl in 2325 based on how many points that team scored in the first quarter of their last game, you can't.

          The whole of climate hysteria is based on a flawed premise (man's activities can't be good/must be bad) and models (the assumptions of which are largely a reflection of that faulty premise) which have never accurately forecast any changes. They build a model that conforms to what has previously been observed...then the see if predictions based on that model turn out to be consistently accurate...if not, then the models are revised to account for where they were wrong, and again wait to see if predictions from the revised model turn out to be consistently accurate. So far, no climate model (let alone the ones that result in the most alarmist predictions, has been able to accurately predict future outcomes in a consistently accurate way.

          Or to put it more anecdotally:

          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again

          The analogy to religious fanatics predictions of the rapture is spot on. Climate alarmism is far less science, and far more akin to religious fanaticism.


          ?


          • #65
            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

            It is not a matter of "ignoring", it is a matter of the simple fact that it is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions about whether or not storms are becoming more frequent or intense because we are dealing with data sets that will simply do not span sufficient period of time to draw any statistically valid conclusions.

            In fact, what we DO know about climate history is that there is no such thing as "stable", the climate is constantly changing, change (and significant change) is the norm and not the exception. It is simply not possible to say that any particulary short-term trends or changes (and when talking about something like planetary climate and weather patterns, the whole of recorded human history is "short-term"). Trying to draw conclussions from anything short of thousands of years of very detailed data, spanning clear warming and cooling trends is like trying to predict the odds of a particular NFL team winning the Superbowl in 2325 based on how many points that team scored in the first quarter of their last game, you can't.

            The whole of climate hysteria is based on a flawed premise (man's activities can't be good/must be bad) and models (the assumptions of which are largely a reflection of that faulty premise) which have never accurately forecast any changes. They build a model that conforms to what has previously been observed...then the see if predictions based on that model turn out to be consistently accurate...if not, then the models are revised to account for where they were wrong, and again wait to see if predictions from the revised model turn out to be consistently accurate. So far, no climate model (let alone the ones that result in the most alarmist predictions, has been able to accurately predict future outcomes in a consistently accurate way.

            Or to put it more anecdotally:

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again

            The analogy to religious fanatics predictions of the rapture is spot on. Climate alarmism is far less science, and far more akin to religious fanaticism.

            If you like, ignore any "man-caused" claim to climate change, although you ignored a previous invitation to ignore it. Aside from that, it is important to accept climate change, which you yourself admit. It seems reasonable to you that it changes all the time, but it wasn't caused by man. That's fine if it makes you feel better.

            Here's the point, worth repeating: It is important to prepare for climate change. If it is easier to understand or accept, call it preparation for climate phenomena. Intense hurricanes happen, and most damage can happen when they hit coasts with heavy development -example, urban areas. Physical science is noting a short-term trend of greater intensity (not frequency) of hurricanes.

            This doesn't mean all coasts, nor does it claim that next year will see another 2 Biggies slam into the Gulf coast. It might well happen that we won't see major hurricanes anywhere near the US for another 2 years. It is still necessary to prepare, better than we have prepared in the past. That will include enforced zoning codes that prohibit residential development in areas that will be flooded. In short, a change in zoning enforcement and construction is what must change, to prevent more needless death and destruction. It is preventable and predictable, because we know where the flood zones are, and we have a very good idea of how frequently such zones will flood in the next 100 years. Building in a (once in) 500-year flood zone is understandable. What is not acceptable is building in a 50 year zone. That should be considered a criminal act committed by two parties: The construction company soliciting the permit, and the gov't. official granting it.

            ?


            • #66
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              If you like, ignore any "man-caused" claim to climate change, although you ignored a previous invitation to ignore it. Aside from that, it is important to accept climate change, which you yourself admit. It seems reasonable to you that it changes all the time, but it wasn't caused by man. That's fine if it makes you feel better.

              Here's the point, worth repeating: It is important to prepare for climate change. If it is easier to understand or accept, call it preparation for climate phenomena. Intense hurricanes happen, and most damage can happen when they hit coasts with heavy development -example, urban areas. Physical science is noting a short-term trend of greater intensity (not frequency) of hurricanes.

              This doesn't mean all coasts, nor does it claim that next year will see another 2 Biggies slam into the Gulf coast. It might well happen that we won't see major hurricanes anywhere near the US for another 2 years. It is still necessary to prepare, better than we have prepared in the past. That will include enforced zoning codes that prohibit residential development in areas that will be flooded. In short, a change in zoning enforcement and construction is what must change, to prevent more needless death and destruction. It is preventable and predictable, because we know where the flood zones are, and we have a very good idea of how frequently such zones will flood in the next 100 years. Building in a (once in) 500-year flood zone is understandable. What is not acceptable is building in a 50 year zone. That should be considered a criminal act committed by two parties: The construction company soliciting the permit, and the gov't. official granting it.
              But people want ocean views and people will get what they want, one way or another. Buildings can be built to withstand the wind forces and even high enough to mitigate flood waters.

              ?


              • #67
                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                If you like, ignore any "man-caused" claim to climate change, although you ignored a previous invitation to ignore it. Aside from that, it is important to accept climate change, which you yourself admit. It seems reasonable to you that it changes all the time, but it wasn't caused by man. That's fine if it makes you feel better.

                Here's the point, worth repeating: It is important to prepare for climate change. If it is easier to understand or accept, call it preparation for climate phenomena. Intense hurricanes happen, and most damage can happen when they hit coasts with heavy development -example, urban areas. Physical science is noting a short-term trend of greater intensity (not frequency) of hurricanes.

                This doesn't mean all coasts, nor does it claim that next year will see another 2 Biggies slam into the Gulf coast. It might well happen that we won't see major hurricanes anywhere near the US for another 2 years. It is still necessary to prepare, better than we have prepared in the past. That will include enforced zoning codes that prohibit residential development in areas that will be flooded. In short, a change in zoning enforcement and construction is what must change, to prevent more needless death and destruction. It is preventable and predictable, because we know where the flood zones are, and we have a very good idea of how frequently such zones will flood in the next 100 years. Building in a (once in) 500-year flood zone is understandable. What is not acceptable is building in a 50 year zone. That should be considered a criminal act committed by two parties: The construction company soliciting the permit, and the gov't. official granting it.
                It is important to prepare for extreme weather events. Hurricanes, droughts, you name it, they aren't going to stop. California has seen droughts in the past lasting 200 years, so we ain't seen nothing yet in that department.

                Trying to prevent extreme weather events and climate change in general by stopping the use of fossil fuels is ridiculous and costly. A huge waste of resources that should be going to something useful and effective.

                ?


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                  It is important to prepare for extreme weather events. Hurricanes, droughts, you name it, they aren't going to stop. California has seen droughts in the past lasting 200 years, so we ain't seen nothing yet in that department.

                  Trying to prevent extreme weather events and climate change in general by stopping the use of fossil fuels is ridiculous and costly. A huge waste of resources that should be going to something useful and effective.
                  Don't mean to butt in on you guys, but you mentioned drought, and being an old anthropology major, it occurred to me that it is believed today that a terribly long drought imploded the Mayan civilization, with starvation occurring due to their main grain, corn, failing. So droughts can hardly be connected to warming. Just my 2 cents. And that is just about what it is worth. ha ha

                  ?


                  • #69
                    Quote from Radcenr

                    If you like, ignore any "man-caused" claim to climate change, although you ignored a previous invitation to ignore it. Aside from that, it is important to accept climate change, which you yourself admit. It seems reasonable to you that it changes all the time, but it wasn't caused by man. That's fine if it makes you feel better
                    Are you saying that the current climate change is solely caused by man? If so, what do you make of the fact that we started warming, the current phase of warming in the early 19th century? This was before any significant fossil fuel burning, since it was early 1800s. I cannot find a climatologist who seems to know the cause of this, except it is natural cyclical warming. It would be difficult to lay this beginning of a warming on wide spread industrial activity, fossil fuels, and certainly not power plants using fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine. Do you have an opinion on this? But remember, I do think co2 levels, even at such low levels as today, contribute, but I am skeptical as that being the only driver, while questioning if it is the primary driver.

                    One last point. It is my understanding that if the earth warms naturally, without co2 added by man, that the warming releases co2, driving it up in PPM. So, under a cyclical natural warming which is certain to happen in an interglacial period, which naturally increases co2, how much of the co2 increase is due to this, and how much is due to man? Then, consider deforestation of rain forests. How much does losing those co2 extractors figure in? I even read once that the loss of all of the crops of the new world indians due to them dying out from our invasion, that this is thought to have increased co2 levels. Kinda hard to believe, but I did read it somewhere once, from some university. But someone had some research behind it. This was several years ago and I ran across it by accident when I was seeing what was new in ancient mesoamerican cultures, discoveries and such.

                    ?


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                      But people want ocean views and people will get what they want, one way or another. Buildings can be built to withstand the wind forces and even high enough to mitigate flood waters.
                      Buy your own island, and build something that looks like a giant, concrete, twin-hull cruise ship with 5-foot thick ribs at the base, to allow flooding under, behind and draining back through the base of the structure. All the other trappings for hurricane proofing (steel shutters for windows, heavy roof, etc.) Then, insure this building yourself, and evacuate your employees from the island if they wish to leave, whenever anything over a cat 3 hurricane is headed your way. Or, buy the island yourself, build a straw hut with no employees nor insurance, and disappear in the next Big Blow. In either case, I'm all for it. Otherwise, on land I'm expected to help bail out if the drizzlies hit the fan, I have reasonable conditions.
                      -If you built it on a flood zone, you knew it, but got a "zoning variation" anyway. In that case, I'd like the gov't. to pay 1/5 the value of your loss, only if you turn state's evidence leading to the conviction of the zoning official(s) that gave you the permit.
                      -If you built on a flood zone, you didn't know it (you have an engineer's statement that the land is 'safe', no indication of flooding in documentation), you receive 1/2 the value of your loss, only if you turn state's evidence (etc. etc.)
                      -If you built on a flood zone, and documentation indicates both parties (you the builder and state/local zoning official) did not know, but neither party took measures to find out. -Compensate at 1/10 the value of the loss, and require the local gov't. to hire qualified professionals to map out flood and other hazards, in order to receive more federal emergency funds.
                      -If the loss is the result of an unforeseen events, perhaps a 500 year flood, or other conditions that could not be foreseen (hidden fault, unstable earth, etc.) -80% compensation, with private insurance picking up the rest. Federal dollars combine with state dollars to provide a thorough geological map for the area, to be used for zoning/planning in the future.

                      ?


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        Quote from Radcenr



                        Are you saying that the current climate change is solely caused by man? If so, what do you make of the fact that we started warming, the current phase of warming in the early 19th century? This was before any significant fossil fuel burning, since it was early 1800s. I cannot find a climatologist who seems to know the cause of this, except it is natural cyclical warming. It would be difficult to lay this beginning of a warming on wide spread industrial activity, fossil fuels, and certainly not power plants using fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine. Do you have an opinion on this? But remember, I do think co2 levels, even at such low levels as today, contribute, but I am skeptical as that being the only driver, while questioning if it is the primary driver.

                        One last point. It is my understanding that if the earth warms naturally, without co2 added by man, that the warming releases co2, driving it up in PPM. So, under a cyclical natural warming which is certain to happen in an interglacial period, which naturally increases co2, how much of the co2 increase is due to this, and how much is due to man? Then, consider deforestation of rain forests. How much does losing those co2 extractors figure in? I even read once that the loss of all of the crops of the new world indians due to them dying out from our invasion, that this is thought to have increased co2 levels. Kinda hard to believe, but I did read it somewhere once, from some university. But someone had some research behind it. This was several years ago and I ran across it by accident when I was seeing what was new in ancient mesoamerican cultures, discoveries and such.
                        Uh, no. I haven't a clue as to how much man caused the current change of climate trends. I am arguing (and repeating myself, repeatedly) two things:
                        -Too much energy is spent on arguing over "who is to blame" for climate change, too little energy is spent preparing for Large Events. (Fe) climate change that requires a serious reduction in human/other life populating a given region.
                        -Too little publicity and discussion about what is already happening in more than a few places in the world, which is depopulation on a voluntary basis. At first I thought this was because of "lack of daycare", or similar explanations given by business publications. Those factors have something to do with it, but now I'm wondering if Large Events (climate change, Mutually Assured Destruction) also play a role?

                        It is impressive how much bickering there is about "man made climate change", and I've also engaged in the fruitless conflict, but a little research shows what the scientists qualified to comment on it say. It boils down to a "percentage of certainty" that man was/is involved, or a "probability" that man was 5% involved, 10% involved, on up to 100% involved. No scientists believe that there is no involvement by man, likewise none believe man is driving 100% of the current climate change. That sums it up -man is between 1% to 99% responsible for climate change- which covers the opinion of almost every scientist qualified to comment on the physics of climate and climate change. Every scientist quoted by the "climate deniers". Every scientist quoted by the AGW crowd. Maybe future generations, and high speed computers, will be able to figure out "who is to blame", if that helps.

                        What helps right now, is our reaction to changing conditions. If we have fewer resources, less stability, what should we do to compensate? Some parts of the world need to answer that question, while other parts of the world suffer few, if any ill effects up to now.

                        ?


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          If you like, ignore any "man-caused" claim to climate change, although you ignored a previous invitation to ignore it. Aside from that, it is important to accept climate change, which you yourself admit. It seems reasonable to you that it changes all the time, but it wasn't caused by man. That's fine if it makes you feel better.

                          Here's the point, worth repeating: It is important to prepare for climate change. If it is easier to understand or accept, call it preparation for climate phenomena. Intense hurricanes happen, and most damage can happen when they hit coasts with heavy development -example, urban areas. Physical science is noting a short-term trend of greater intensity (not frequency) of hurricanes.

                          This doesn't mean all coasts, nor does it claim that next year will see another 2 Biggies slam into the Gulf coast. It might well happen that we won't see major hurricanes anywhere near the US for another 2 years. It is still necessary to prepare, better than we have prepared in the past. That will include enforced zoning codes that prohibit residential development in areas that will be flooded. In short, a change in zoning enforcement and construction is what must change, to prevent more needless death and destruction. It is preventable and predictable, because we know where the flood zones are, and we have a very good idea of how frequently such zones will flood in the next 100 years. Building in a (once in) 500-year flood zone is understandable. What is not acceptable is building in a 50 year zone. That should be considered a criminal act committed by two parties: The construction company soliciting the permit, and the gov't. official granting it.
                          As many do, you are conflating many separate issues. First, one does not have to deny "climate change" to deny that man is having any appreciable or significant impact on what would otherwise be happening naturally. Second, one can even accept man IS having a significant without accepting the notion that this "can't be good" (or by implication,is bad). Hell, one can even accept that our impact is appreciable, and a net negative, without accepting that the answer is to dramatically harm economic growth with solutions focused on ameliorating the impact when the cost of adapting could be far less.

                          And it is not a matter of "preparing for climate change", it is not like you see in the movies (Climate Idiot-in-Chief Al Gore once declaring that what happened in "The Day after Tomorrow" could happen...it can't) where it will be a sudden, jarring change. It will be slow and free markets will adjust accordingly. If see levels will rise over hundreds of years, and stronger storms will hit the coasts, if we stop having government bail out underinsured property owners, and require them to pay the true cost of insuring their property, the free market will cause their insurance rates to steadily rise over time as the risk rises, thus creating a financial disincentive to people investing in those high risk properties. Same with rebuilding of public utilities and infrastructure in such areas, if we move towards long-term loans rather than appropriated grants for impacted areas, over time, state and local taxes to maintain and repeatedly rebuild such things will also raise the cost of living in increasingly higher risk areas.

                          And again, it is not a matter of acceptable or not acceptable, it is a question of whether or not building (and how you build, to what quality and durability) is economically viable, and for that to be determined properly, as with most things, the market (undistorted by government) makes far better determinations in the long run. Again, who gives a damn if someone decides to build a luxury beach home in a place that is likely to be flooded or hit by a Cat-5 Hurricane every few years...so long as THEY bear the costs related to it, and not force other people to through taxation.

                          As for the government "permitting it", I have never been a huge fan of such high levels of government control of what private citizens do with their own land that when it does not physically impact other's property (save for basic care and maintenance requirements...and I would even be far less accepting of really onerous "eyesore" provisions, which I would leave to civil tort action to resolve rather than restrictive regulations and zoning), again, so long as others are not forceably required through the power of government to subsidize the cost of said uses.

                          ?


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Uh, no. I haven't a clue as to how much man caused the current change of climate trends. I am arguing (and repeating myself, repeatedly) two things:
                            -Too much energy is spent on arguing over "who is to blame" for climate change, too little energy is spent preparing for Large Events. (Fe) climate change that requires a serious reduction in human/other life populating a given region.
                            -Too little publicity and discussion about what is already happening in more than a few places in the world, which is depopulation on a voluntary basis. At first I thought this was because of "lack of daycare", or similar explanations given by business publications. Those factors have something to do with it, but now I'm wondering if Large Events (climate change, Mutually Assured Destruction) also play a role?

                            It is impressive how much bickering there is about "man made climate change", and I've also engaged in the fruitless conflict, but a little research shows what the scientists qualified to comment on it say. It boils down to a "percentage of certainty" that man was/is involved, or a "probability" that man was 5% involved, 10% involved, on up to 100% involved. No scientists believe that there is no involvement by man, likewise none believe man is driving 100% of the current climate change. That sums it up -man is between 1% to 99% responsible for climate change- which covers the opinion of almost every scientist qualified to comment on the physics of climate and climate change. Every scientist quoted by the "climate deniers". Every scientist quoted by the AGW crowd. Maybe future generations, and high speed computers, will be able to figure out "who is to blame", if that helps.

                            What helps right now, is our reaction to changing conditions. If we have fewer resources, less stability, what should we do to compensate? Some parts of the world need to answer that question, while other parts of the world suffer few, if any ill effects up to now.
                            Good post, thanks. I am of course in agreement with you that the effects of a warming earth needs to be addressed, in the areas you have mentioned. I don't think there is a good argument against that. But more than likely the damage created by a rising sea, or more severe weather events, will not be addressed until the latest possible moment. But I am not learned on what is being done in the US or anywhere, if anything is being done. I do think, given china has a growing middle class, more consumption, that the world could not tolerate a worldwide consuming middle class. Unless there is great scientific and technological advance, which addresses the depletion of resources, and the hard pollution involved in extraction. Of course, a much larger middle class means more fossil fuel burning, more co2, for those middle classes in china are dependent upon fossil fuels. In fact you would have never had our prior huge middle class without fossil fuel, nor what we know of as modern civilization. I see a conundrum here. And from one perspective, middle classes are like a cancer. But in our case, the planet the host does not die, it just shakes off humanity like a dog shaking off fleas. I think George Carlin nailed this.

                            Of course what would solve the problem with fossil fuel used for energy would be a break through in something like zero point energy, given its potential. There are some people who think, perhaps in a tin foil hat manner, that we already have that technology, but the wealth involved with fossil fuels keeps it in the dark. I do not buy that theory. For the scientific community is just too large, with so many physicists interested in this that keeping that in the dark would seem to be impossible. I do not think any gov't in the west could keep this in the dark. I also believe that solar or other alternitive energy sources are simply not enough to supply our needs, not to mention the world. We are stuck with fossil fuels until something else is discovered and developed. Which brings us back to your concern on doing something about the effects involved with warming regardless of where it comes from.

                            Let us hope that MAD is never intentionally used as a means to depopulate. Yet war is very effective as well as something incurable like some plague. Do I think man is capable of such intentional and well planned acts? Yes I do. But after listening to what Tom DeLong is talking about, we may have OTHERS who might get involved as well. And not in a good way, if human life matters. I don't know what to make of DeLong, except wilkileaks proved he is in contact with high up people who are telling him unbelievable things about something that may not be ETs, but something else. But that is far out stuff and off topic. And I simply do not want to believe it. It is outside my comfort zone and would change my view of reality far too drastically.

                            ?

                            Working...
                            X