Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ritter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 11, 2019, 05:38:10 PM »
Prepping for collapse is one approach. Working together to engineer a collapse that occurs more rapidly than the one we work to forestall is a better approach.
Could you expand on this? It sounds counter intuitive.
Thanks
Terry

BAU is driving us to collapse. Over the past 40 years, nothing has been done to derail us from behavior that is causing rapid increases in atmospheric CO2. This approaching collapse will be total; environmental, institutional, societal; an end to human civilization as we know it.

We need to engineer a collapse in the growth system that is driving us to the brink. This is simultaneously our only hope and terrifying. 2008 demonstrated just how fragile the worldwide financial system is. The engine that drives the system is consumers. Industry supplies what we demand. A fairly significant percentage of consumers need to decide to no longer participate in this dance with death, alter their consumption patterns to such an extent as to bring down the entire financial edifice, disaster capitalism if you will with the sole purpose of reinventing how we live.

I sometimes feel as if I am living in the Matrix movie.

In some respects, the sooner collapse happens, the less destruction we will have wrought and the more resources will remain to transition to.... something else. It's a horrible thing to contemplate. Very interesting discussion going on.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 23, 2019, 07:27:57 PM »
I also think Sam's numbered comments has it about right.

We know something about parts of the Arctic that are largely ice-free which used to be mostly ice-covered (e.g., Bering being ice-free almost year-round a couple years, or Beaufort seasonally).  Areas that are far removed from the current perennially ice-covered areas give us some clues as to what will happen in the central CAB when it becomes seasonally ice-free.  The water heating up in some areas has virtually no interaction with late-season ice, for example, so we have some actual data.  Sea water looses a great deal of heat during the Arctic winter; there may be some year-to-year 'memory', but not a lot of it (yet).  Delayed freezing causes a little less ice growth, but charts show that thicker ice is the bigger damper on further ice growth, not time.

So far, we have not observed the total destruction of the halocline (maybe some?) anywhere.  Therefore, I would not expect its destruction after the first BOE.  At some point, yes, but not right away.

North Greenland will still be ice-covered after the first several (hundred) BOEs.  Will it have a damping affect on the Arctic that will make some types of changes less extreme?

I contend the climate disasters humanity is experiencing are AGW-caused, and they will get worse as CO2e increases.  Reduced Arctic ice cover (both area percentage and days/year ice-free), increased ocean acidification, and land use/abuse (deforestation, rice paddies, etc.) are among other elements that will amplify CO2e-caused climate disruption.  The first BOE (by any definition) will not be a trigger for any global transition, unless, maybe, the first BOE occurs in July (giving 3-months of new conditions, but even then, the BO event won't be the trigger, but the 3 months of added heat or open water will be).  The transitions are happening before our eyes and are coming faster and faster.  A BOE, just like 400 ppm CO2, is a statistic that points towards the Hell we are creating.

Agreed and +1 on Sam's list. Much of the specifics discussed here are beyond my understanding but, as a generalist who dabbles on the fringes on a lot of different fields of science, I can see that the trend is bad, bad, bad. The BOE event is just that, a line that we will cross and, most likely, sooner than models have predicted.

Nobody really knows what will happen once the BOE line is crossed. We are certain we're entering a climate homo sapiens have never experienced and most certainly didn't evolve under. It is most unfortunate that we will drag the rest of life on Earth through the gates of hell with us. One can say this is hysterical, but it is no less true.

3
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 12, 2019, 10:33:13 PM »

I'm imagining significant population attrition.

[snip]

It's time to start over.

Pretty much nailed it.  :(

4
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: April 17, 2019, 11:48:47 PM »
At the same time, I'm sure that the people at Fox knew what to expect. So, I have no idea why they did this.

Maybe they grow tired of cheer leading for Trump? One can dream...

5
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: April 17, 2019, 10:32:21 PM »
Biden is a solid choice if you want to ensure we don't progress beyond where we were under Obama and are only concerned with potentially beating Trump. Frankly, I'm not content with that and don't think Trump will lose based on the current pool of candidates, as much as I'd like to be wrong on that. It's really hard to get moderates out to vote for somebody when that somebody isn't inspiring or working for them.

Sanders might manage it if enough people are truly concerned about healthcare costs and higher education access, but a lot of them will have to look through the media "socialism" haze to get there.

6
Agreed, we need 1000 AOCs. The more diverse the people with principles we have, the better. Everything is better than Corporate Democrats.

Agreed. I don't love everything AOC stands for but I admire her enthusiastic push on political norms and she understands that incrementalism is going to kill us all. She's the sort of candidate I look for when voting these days.

Not convinced Trump is better than Corporate Democrats.... ;)

7
In many ways, Sanders represents the democratic party's version of Trump. People are so sick of the usual BS politics, they'll toss money and votes at someone outside the norm that has the right talking points. This is panicking the party because they can't control it and it might (will) cost them significant money. Fortunately, Sanders (mostly) says things I support vs. Trump's stump of hatred and protection from the "other."

8
Hating on Democrats will elect Republicans.

You mean like Pelosi and others of the corporate dems doing everything possible to marginalize and sideline our young progressive AOC? Like the DNC demanding loyalty? Yeah, that's a great approach. Throw out everything Gen X, Y and millennials care about for more of the same (disaffection with the same was what got us Trump). This is what I criticize my party over--the inability to think about the challenges young people are facing. They are catastrophic and urgent, much more so than Trump's tax returns, Russian intervention and gun control which dominate the agenda. Unchecked climate change will cost billions every year and kill 10s to 100s of thousands. Yet when the Green New Deal is discussed, it's done in the light of ensuring it never sees the light of day to placate who? The money makers? Certainly not the progressives who would drive an agenda focused on a better life and future. It's fucking crumbs, Susan. That's the corporate dem policy. Placate them with crumbs. What ever happened to truth to power?

9
Pelosi is not one of the good 'uns. Unless you're wealthy. She is most certainly an elitist peddling stale, moldy crumbs to the commoners.

10
@ritter

It's a one way street, isn't it? Criticize, don't listen, and then claim you're the one not allowed to speak. It's a complete waste of time. Just like climate denial, as I said. Bias promoting bias.

Huh? There's no ear wax in my ears, Susan. It is not comforting to hear you think challenging leadership is a complete waste of time. Perhaps that is why we are where we are today. Complacent and complicit.


@ritter
in the hopes that some cognitive dissonance would break in to the "choir". In the meanwhile, you are welcome to help disable the opposition to real bad guys and blame those who are trying against the odds to promote progressive progress. Trumpistan loves you!

You go ahead and circle those wagons, then, Susan. I'm counting on you and more of the same that lost 2016 to take Trump down in 2020. I'm sure it will work, this time.


11
@ritter You're out of date and distorting as well. Dems have been out of power. Nancy Pelosi is a great example of a good 'un. Blaming victims is not helpful. You have no idea what these people would do if they could. You appear to need to blame somebody, and as a result are looking away from the real villains.
I'm out of date? Since when are we not allowed to criticize our elected representatives? They are supposed to represent us, remember? Who's the victim? The Dem party again doing the exact thing they did to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with Clinton in 2016? If that's the case, yeah, I blame them. You think I should just throw my support at them and give them a big pat on the back?

The day we stop criticizing our leadership to focus solely on the "villain" is the day we are no different from the current administration and GOP. Is that what you seek?

As I noted earlier, the current democratic party is better than the republicans. However, incrementalism will not get us where we wish to be (unless the state of the nation in 2016 is acceptable to you). We are out of time if we wish to preserve the climate we evolved in.

12
@interstitial
No, I was not implying race with my example of Obama. I am implying an elite social economic status (of which he was not a member when originally elected) of predominantly white men do not represent the vast majority of us or have any understanding of what middle class struggles are like, let alone the poor.

@Susan
AOC is a perfect example of what I seek. While she doesn't represent all of my values, she is as close a fit as I am like to find. She is intelligent, speaks her mind, has roots in the "real people" and understands the challenges facing them (even if she does not have the solutions, she's willing to discuss the problems with vigor). And what do the corporate dems do with her? Pat her on the head, say "that's nice dear, now go sit in the corner and STFU." Why? because the things she challenges put at risk the corporate money. The spice must flow, as they say.

13
@Ritter: So Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Jay Inslee (and others) are not good enough for you? You're a lost cause, since someone to the left of these, and more against corporate warmongering, has to be all about the conspiracy, nothing but the conspiracy, first last and always.
Lost cause? No, I'm principled and expect such out of my leadership. I'm sick to death of rich white people telling everyone else what's best for them while they line their campaign coffers and pockets with corporate donation from big oil/pharma, etc. When, precisely, is the last time anyone in our leadership had to worry about the mortgage payment, health care bill, retirement, college expenses, etc.? How can they possibly know what us commoners "need" when they want for nothing? Christ, they can't even manage meaningful support for the concept of the Green New Deal. We are going to doom our future generations to hell on Earth and the dems can't be bothered. Not today, money to be made.

Obama was the last good hope of a president that had any connection to the realities of every day life for Americans and he was largely a failure. Don't get me wrong, I still voted for him, supported him and loved to hear him speak. But he he kept to the corporate dem agenda.

I will get in line and vote for the dem candidate simply out of the I can't stomach Trump perspective. I voted Sanders in the last primary and held my nose for Clinton. But I'll be damned if I sit quietly about it.

Give me a candidate that will put working on the environment, securing social equity for all, providing affordable health care and education as top priorities. You know, those things the people running in 2018 went on about. And what has been their primary focus since the "blue wave"? Fucking gun control (a media/politician created boogieman that does not solve the underlying problems of suicide and violence in our sick society) and screeching about Trump/Russia/Mueller (talk about "conspiracy" that helps no one--work on some policy instead to mitigate the damage he's doing).

Corporate dems are like voting for an incremental improvement in the number of crumbs that fall off the table when your kids are hungry and begging below it. Yeah, it's better than the alternative but it still sucks. Does wishing for more than that make me a lost cause?

(btw, I always enjoy your posts, so please don't take any of the above personally.) :)

14
So, how do people now feel about the Corporate Democrats' brilliant strategy of blaming Russia for Trump's election (instead of taking a hard look in the mirror) and putting all of the eggs in the Russiagate basket?

Pretty poor decision. Trump represents the dissatisfaction with the status quo in American politics and the Corporate Dems have done nothing to address it. I'm still waiting for the Dems to come up with a platform I can vote for rather than a "we're not Trump" focus. It's looking like I'll be waiting a while. I fully expect Trump will carry 2020, unfortunately.

15
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: March 22, 2019, 11:06:14 PM »
"Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit … which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup."

"This is the story Donald Trump is going to tell the American people."

Which is what I feared from the very start. Russiagate could very well be the primary reason for a Trump re-election. The other problem is that it has been used to smear progressives (aka Putin puppets or Kremlinbots). It is basically a double whammy, making Trump stronger and weakening progressive populism, the only thing that can beat Trump.

What a mess...

That pretty well sums it up. If there's nothing damning in the report, the Democratic party (mine) is going to look really bad and have one hell of a time in 2020.

16
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: March 14, 2019, 04:26:04 PM »
@vox and wdmn,

Those are horrific studies. It would appear the referenced "tipping point" has already been exceeded. Now commencing feedback loop.

17
Currently, I'd vote for Sanders first and Gabbard second. Gabbard has some anti LGBTQ baggage that I don't like.
Beto O’Rourke has stated he's running. He's moved to first place for me based on his statements surrounding the urgency of climate change. 12 years to get it done. Sanders is now second.

18
The rest / Re: Relative sanity of fringe groups
« on: March 05, 2019, 05:54:11 PM »
First, there are a few that are misguided but harmless.
Astrology believers (so what? No different than belief in the big guy in the sky)
Doomsday preppers (doomsday is a little silly, but prep is not for those of us in areas of frequent natural disasters)
Vegans (not totally misguided, but I believe animal protein in moderation is a healthier choice)


Then there is the truly ignorant category, yet still mostly harmless:
Flat earthers
Moon landing denialists
UFO believers
Young Earth Creationists

Then, the truly harmful category.
Anti-Vaxxers
Climate change denialists (these are the worst)

19
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: February 28, 2019, 01:24:41 AM »
Merry at the american conservative sees the possibility of a socialist president:

Not a chance. There are none currently in the running and there are none with the necessary popularity (or age--looking at you, AOC). We'll get a Corporate Democrat at best. Most likely, we'll need to suffer Trump for another four years. The Dem candidates that have declared so far are incredibly weak and in no way represent socialist platforms.

20
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: February 28, 2019, 01:14:39 AM »
Local flooding for the North Bay Area in California. Sonoma County just finished up two days of an atmospheric river, resulting in major flooding on the Russian River. Recall, we've been scorched by wildfire the last two summers. From fires to floods, climate change in action.

https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/forestville-russian-river-drone-flood-water-storm-13649847.php


21
Very few people align with either party on all issues, why should the candidates?

Most of the Dem candidates are right in line with the DNC platform. Sanders, less so. I suppose at this point in time, I expect some outside of the box thinking by those running and create some policy that will advance goals of: environmental quality, affordable health care and education, a functioning mental health and social support system and protection of rights. Instead, we get the same policy of incrementalism on those issues topped with a whopping serving of gun control as the most pressing thing in the US. It just isn't. The Green New Deal is about the best breath of fresh air I've seen in my lifetime and the establishment Dems are doing their best to erode it.

22
Currently, I'd vote for Sanders first and Gabbard second. Gabbard has some anti LGBTQ baggage that I don't like.

Being Californian and witnessing Harris for several yeas, I won't vote for her. She's an opportunist/corporate Dem in progressive clothing, no question about it.

Gabbard has some anti LGBTQ baggage that I don't like?

I'd check the record if I were you. She has repeatedly cleared that up and apologised.

Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton too) was elected multiple times not supporting Gay marriage and outright being against it - they changed their minds on that.

But Gabbard has gone much further than either of those tow did. She means it, they did not.
Yes, she has apologized. Who knows what's in her heart.

Honestly, all the dem candidates have things I don't like, primarily around gun control as a tenet of electability--a very restrictive policy platform that has much better root cause solutions that would actually reduce all violence and that don't erode an enumerated right (rather not get too far into the weeds on this since I know it's a minority opinion on this board and isn't central to any of the discussions here). But those root cause solutions actually require real work to bring up the poor and provide equal access, something Republicans will never acknowledge and Corporate Dems won't address either.

23
Currently, I'd vote for Sanders first and Gabbard second. Gabbard has some anti LGBTQ baggage that I don't like.

Being Californian and witnessing Harris for several yeas, I won't vote for her. She's an opportunist/corporate Dem in progressive clothing, no question about it.

24
The rest / Re: The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism
« on: February 06, 2019, 06:09:21 PM »
The media is unhinged on both sides. I appreciate sites like this that drop nuggets of truth amongst the maelstrom of BS.

25
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: December 10, 2018, 06:00:47 PM »
Running on a platform of Trump is bad has been the fallback since 2016. Do we continue with this flailing, if not failing program, or hit Trump (and the Republicans) where they're really vulnerable.


Universal Healthcare, costs of Education, the Environment, Reproductive rights, I think they're all more popular than trying to convince the voters that our politicians aren't as crooked as your politicians. - besides, I'm not entirely convinced that the later is true. :-[


Terry
+1

Time for the Democrats to move away from "groups" (minorities, LGBTQ, women, etc.) and start touting a policy that benefits the biggest group (which, by the way, encompasses the majority of the other groups): the 99 percent. Dems continue to splinter thier own party with groupings where one does not relate/share the ideals of the other and it is hurting us all. Create a policy where everyone has access to affordable healthcare. Everyone has access to education. Everyone has access to fair representation devoid of financial contribution. Everyone has access to a livable climate. Stop telling me you're not Trump and create policy that the public is demanding (healthcare) and that benefits society as a whole (education/trade skills, environmental/climate protection). Stop sucking (gulping) at the corporate teat and do the hard work.

26
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: November 09, 2018, 06:25:16 PM »
I'm 100 miles, as the crow flies, southwest of the Camp Fire. Smoke is so bad here schools have closed for the day. While we're in no danger from the fire, we had ours in October 2017 that burned many places in Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake and Napa counties to the ground. Nerves are frayed. Best to those in danger, evacuating and fighting this monster.

27
The rest / Re: Elections 2018 USA
« on: October 17, 2018, 06:09:09 PM »
As a whole, the Dem party is not very good at optics. I wish we'd move away from "how things look" and "we aren't Trump" and into "what we plan to do". Despite reality tv, I think a clear plan/path is more salable than what we've been doing...

28
The rest / Re: Elections 2018 USA
« on: October 09, 2018, 06:59:39 PM »
538 shows the independents breaking for the Republicans, at least since since Ford's claims of being groped 35 or 36 years ago were raised.


A very flawed candidate for the Supreme Court's nomination was decided not by examining and questioning his decisions as an adult, but rather by attempting to raise questions about his interactions with girls when he was still too young to vote.


The good Senator's votes broke mainly along party lines, but the undecided, independent voters seem to have favored Kavanaugh's defenders by a wide margin.
Both camps gained followers, but for every 2 undecideds that went to the Democrats, 9 told pollsters they now supported Republicans.


Did they all think Ford lied under oath? I doubt it.


I think some remembered instances where they had been accused with little or no compelling evidence.
I think some believed that their own "coming of age" histories wouldn't stand too much exposure.
I think some felt that Kavanaugh, if guilty, had obviously learned, since no one was questioning his actions as an adult.
I think some doubted that his accusers had spotless records.
I think that many assumed that Kavanaugh's judicial record must be "OK" or they wouldn't have had to go this far back to find something that he'd done wrong.


The Kavanaugh kerfuffle has shown Trump's Republicans as winners, and Democrats as sore losers.
One month to go.
Terry

Terry,

I think similar inability/disinterest to look at such nuances is what led to the assurances that Clinton was going to win. Nobody was paying attention to the people in the middle that were simply sick of the same old shit. Trump was a protest vote for many. I expect similar folk will vote to protest the Dems antics in the Kavanaugh hearing. Issues? What issues? We've got scandal, man!

29
The rest / Re: GOP Losing Ground for the 2018 Mid-Term Election
« on: October 05, 2018, 11:05:01 PM »

Any second thoughts about attacking the man instead of his record?


Bringing out Ford has galvanized the Republican base, and swung more of the independents to the Republican camp.

Yup. Big mistake. Now we'll pay the price. Again.

30
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: September 20, 2018, 05:45:55 PM »
More technical data from the most powerful man in the world:
I'm embarrassed every time he opens his mouth or twitter account. Truly cringe worthy.

31
You mustn't move too far left on climate/environment issues, or the Republicans will slaughter you (for instance, by pointing that you are still accepting fossil fuel blood money, and are thus a fake hypocrite).

Be anything but radical, and then everything will be solved.

Isn't rejecting corporate funds/PACs radical? It sure doesn't seem to result in winning elections. I voted primarily on this in last California election. Who won? The entrenched corporate democrats. I figured maybe in California others would have a chance....

(I don't disagree with you, however)

32
The problem wasn't a lack of good policy positions, the problem was that people don't pay enough attention to policy positions.

Nor do the candidates, seeing as the environment, if mentioned at all, is an afterthought. Thanks for the link.

33

No, he proposed quite substantial changes to current policy:  "3) There will be no "hard move to the left" at all either. The Democratic Party agenda is clear already; Medicare for All, increase minimum wage, rich should pay their fair share, oppose Trump's right wing policies on immigration, reverse tax cuts for the rich and corporations etc, and this agenda should not be sabotaged by anti-establishment Democrats."

Sounds like a very big set of steps in the right direction.

How is that any different than current Dem policy? Besides maybe Medicare for all it's exactly the same as before the election.

Dems didn't lose on policy positions.  The platform was really quite progressive.  Hillary lost because she has the personality of a brillo pad, and was widely perceived to be corrupt.  Other factors played a role.

Good policy positions (like above) are important.  When it comes to voting, most people seem to be swayed by emotions.

The words "climate" and "environment" seem, somehow, to be missing in this platform....

34
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: August 16, 2018, 01:30:53 AM »

Eighteen months was enough time for him to screw things up ...... why hasn't he done ANYTHING OF GOOD SUBSTANCE IN THAT TIME PERIOD?


Ask Trump supporters if you dare. They will say you are wrong. They know it takes time.Most think he is doing a good job. "Good" is subjective and yours isn't the same as Trumpsters.
These are the same people that like the ACA but hate Obamacare, right?

The issue you seem to be missing is that Trump is moving in the opposite direction of his campaign promises (with the exception of imprisoning immigrant children and "America First" isolationism by sinking relationships with our allies and embracing relationships with North Korea and Russia). With only 18 months in, you'd think he'd be attempting to move toward those promises, not putting up more hurdles for himself. Kind of makes me think he's full of $hit.

35
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: July 31, 2018, 12:49:58 AM »
That bit about modeled precipitation is funny. We won't have any meaningful rainfall until October, at the earliest.

The Tubbs fire was horrific and the chart is somewhat misleading since the Tubbs, Atlas and Nuns (and Pocket fire, not making the list) were all at the same time in essentially the same area. It was not a fun couple of weeks.

36
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: July 30, 2018, 06:56:41 PM »

“... This is the view from my home town in Lakeport, CA. We have fires approaching from two sides. We’ve evacuated and now just wait. #MendocinoComplexFire #riverfire”
https://mobile.twitter.com/jamenta/status/1023705995892015104
Image below.

The Mendocino Complex is two fires. The River Fire is currently at 21,000 acres and threatening Lakeport and Kelseyville. The Ranch Fire is currently at 35,000 acres and threatening Upper Lake. Over 10,000 people evacuated. Fire crews are stretched really thin and there isn't enough air support across the state.

37
The rest / Re: A must read
« on: July 23, 2018, 06:14:11 PM »
Up and working this morning.

38
The rest / Re: The Dems blow the election again
« on: May 03, 2018, 03:20:07 AM »
The reason the Dems are in such a state is their inability to field anything new and positive. The on-going mantra of "vote for us, we're not Trump" just isn't exciting. 

Completely disagree.  This is a reasonable start:

https://dpcc.house.gov/abetterdeal
Other than childcare, that sounds an awful lot like the MAGA talking points. Lots of wind and no HOW. Maybe I'm just jaded.

39
The rest / Re: The Dems blow the election again
« on: May 02, 2018, 11:10:39 PM »
The reason the Dems are in such a state is their inability to field anything new and positive. The on-going mantra of "vote for us, we're not Trump" just isn't exciting. The God-awful display the republican congress has put on under Trump's "leadership" should be enough to sink the party. Just the way running Trump should have been enough to sink the party. But it didn't. Trump won. I fully expect, baring economic collapse or other world-changing event, the repubs will do just fine in the midterms. If dems can't give me/us something to cheer for beyond "we're not Trump" (essentially Clinton's campaign), we'll have once again complacently snatched defeat from the drooling jaws of victory.

Several current events further this. The migration at the boarder will only fuel the xenophobes desire to build a wall. The Dems immediate reintroduction of an assault weapons ban as "common sense" gun control after the Florida shooting will only invigorate the right (and do nothing to reduce gun violence in the process). Korea, as has been stated. Trump's made more progress on that front blindly tweeting than anyone else I can recall. And while I cheer the effort Muller is putting into his investigation, very few beyond the echo chambers give a rats ass if he colluded with Russia or paid to play with Stormy.

What we need is a return to focus on the root cause of societal ills (we are not a healthy people here). Healthcare. Mental healthcare. Preventative healthcare. Education. Retirement. Infrastructure. Our environment. Bring me a plan I can be proud to support and vote for. Stop sniping, snarking and whining. Stop attacking the other party and come up with a plan that works. (I say all this as a lifelong democratic voter)

40
The rest / Re: The Shooting and the mid-terms
« on: February 28, 2018, 03:16:04 AM »
Looks like some of you insist on ignoring data and trends, which is ironic for a science driven community.

Every special election at the national level and many at the state level since early 2017 give the trajectory of a massive wave election for Dems in Nov.  It’s simply reality, but go on with the edgy takes and your fainting couches about Corporate Dems.  The primary confounding variables will be Republican supression and Republicans permitting unchallenged Russian interference.  IMO it’s 70/30 the GOP prevails in F ing with the election.  Otherwise it’s an undeniable wave for Dems and Speaker Pelosi.

The Parkland survivors have already managed to keep this massacre in the news cycle for than a few days, so it’s different this time.  They are social media experts, the GOP state and national politicians and pundits are no match for them.  But 18 year olds turn out at 20% for elections.  They are going to lead a shift in the assault weapon debate but they also need to show up in Nov.

So Clinton won then? That's what all the polls, data and opinion indicated. She was a turd but I voted for her. The alternative was the shit pile we have now. I think we've entered a time in US politics where prediction and polling are useless. We've become factioned, tribalized, like I've never seen. As JimD says, we're on a dark path. All of this angst and we don't even really acknowledge the elephant in the room that is climate change. Talk about a threat multiplier.

The Parkland survivors are an amazing group of people and I truly hope you're right that their momentum continues into the election. But I have little faith in that.

41
The rest / Re: The Shooting and the mid-terms
« on: February 28, 2018, 01:22:35 AM »
We are on a dark path.

That's for sure.

42
The rest / Re: The Shooting and the mid-terms
« on: February 28, 2018, 12:19:56 AM »
Fear not, neither side will pass on the opportunities that 17 dead kids bring to the table.

That's really the disgusting crux of it, isn't it?

43
The rest / Re: The Shooting and the mid-terms
« on: February 27, 2018, 11:43:07 PM »
Also at Neven, et. al.

Since many (abroad and at home) find our Second Amendment absurd, here's a brief on the Heller case that most recently defines it:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

In brief, the Second Amendment is not limited to militia use and protects and individual's right to firearms "in common use." It's a pretty fascinating read.

Corrected link

44
The rest / Re: The Shooting and the mid-terms
« on: February 27, 2018, 11:18:09 PM »
Quote
The fact is, you're far more likely to be killed by fists, feet, clubs and knives than any rifle

I've never heard about a school shooting where 20-30 people were killed by fists/feet/clubs/knives.  ;)
Neven,
I understand that. As a primarily data-driven board, I thought I'd introduce some. There are recorded incidents of mass stabbings  (China, Japan, and in Europe). My point is, we should be honest about the goal, the cause, the cure and it's burden on constitutional rights. Ban is a big word and it has real consequences. And there is no evidence that our previous assault weapon ban reduced gun violence. We tried it, just like we tried prohibition and drugs. I'll suggest we'd get much further with a solid health care system and social support network, improving everyone's life without significant constitutional right infringement. But that would take real work and a real commitment to raising each other up.

45
The rest / Re: The Shooting and the mid-terms
« on: February 27, 2018, 11:06:35 PM »
I agree with most of what you write, ritter, but the table's line "Firearms, type not stated" is so large that long gun's statistics in relation to knives, etc. probably cannot be determined.

Agreed. However, if it was an AR, you can bet it was reported as such and had media frenzy.

46
The rest / Re: The Shooting and the mid-terms
« on: February 27, 2018, 10:32:00 PM »
Based on what Democrats are doing at the federal level on "common sense" gun control, the Republicans will pick up seats in the next election. Rather that focus on the AR15 and/or bump stocks (outrage of the moment), the Dems just introduced the 2018 Assault Weapon Ban that includes AR15s as well as virtually all other semi automatic rifles and many semi automatic shotguns. They will piss away any political capital they have by pushing for an agenda that is unacceptable to the majority of Americans all while causing another boom in AR15 sales.

Folks can can argue about the utility of the AR15 under the Second Amendment but the current effort crosses the line from addressing public sentiment to the absurd. I am no supporter of the NRA (they are vile) but this is exactly why the pro gun side refuses to give on otherwise sensible issues--the anti gun side continues to eat away at gun rights. Like it or not, we have guns in the US (millions of them) and they are protected by the Constitution, just like free speech and religion.

For a little bit of factual information on gun deaths (because you won't get it from the media or either side of the political isle):



The fact is, you're far more likely to be killed by fists, feet, clubs and knives than any rifle (AR15 included--you'll also note that deaths from rifles has been declining in the years represented above). And none of those causes comes close to your risk of being killed by a handgun (especially if you're a young black male) I'm not saying that we shouldn't work to reduce gun violence, quite the contrary. But if we're honest about that intention, we're way off target (pun intended) on the means to get there. Violence needs to be addressed. Suicide needs to be addressed. Handguns need to be addressed. Semi automatic rifles are just a boogieman in statistically reducing gun deaths.

I say all of this as a Democratic voting liberal.

47
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: February 21, 2018, 06:45:32 PM »
Big changes will come. Actually big changes are already occurring. I can argue for massive human die-off (not extincion) in 50 years, due to climate change and other carrying capacity issues. But forget those two years or ten that this Guy is scaremongering about. Large system - large lags. When it does go it will be unstoppable for the exact same reason.

What's the difference between 10 years and 50 years aside from which generation gets clobbered? The point is, catastrophic changes are coming and coming soon. No one has a divine certainty as to how bad and when but that is beside the point. Is mass human die off in 50 years really so different than potential extinction in 10? If either happen within 40 years, I'll likely be alive to witness it, so would rather get an all hands on deck approach to mitigating/adapting to it sooner rather than later.

48
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: February 07, 2018, 01:23:38 AM »
Cadet Bone Spurs needs to be taught in November that it is a bad idea (joking or not) to call the Democrats treasonous:

Title: "Trump was 'joking' when he accused Democrats of treason, White House says"

Accusations of treason are deadly serious. It's not something to be joked about. So, either he's an idiot or he's an idiot with a really poor sense of humor.

49
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: January 17, 2018, 06:21:23 PM »
It’s probably covered up thread, but how long do folks here think before roving fleets of on demand autonomous vehicles reach critical mass so that owning ANY type of vehicle is no longer required for those of us that need to travel on roads?

I’d like to have an EV, but I’d also prefer to avoid the investment and instead hang on to my ICE car if autonomous vehicles are on the (reasonable) horizon.
I assume you mean on demand autonomous vehicles widely deployed across the country with rates far cheaper than current taxis, that make it a no-brainer to travel anywhere you need with a taxi.
IMHO you can buy an EV and get a good use out of it before this becomes a reality. First there's the technological hurdle still not overcome, then there is wide deployment, then there is the issue of rates that will take time to drop. I doubt the whole thing completes before 2025.

It will easily be 2025 before there is wide deployment of autonomous vehicles. That's a lot of CO2 emissions if you wait. Just sayin. ;)

Looks like around 2025 is a common prediction.  Last year I fled the suburbs and moved to an urban core.  I now drive 12 daily miles round trip to work during the week, but otherwise walk most everywhere else, with the rare long distance excursion via car.  All of the walking has helped me become as healthy as I’ve been in decades, and my ICE vehicle sits idle almost all the time.  I suppose my modest commute is a good candidate for an EV, but I’m actually motivated to find work within a walkable distance to my residence.  I could then ditch the car entirely, and rely on ride hailing services when the need arises. 

I’ve found separating from dependence on a car to be much more liberating than what Madison Ave has been selling forever, the supposed freedom that comes along with a car and the open road.

Walking is, of course, superior to an EV.  :) With your description, I'd probably sell the car and rent one if I had to leave town. I've lived in the city with a car and it's more of a liability than anything.

50
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: January 16, 2018, 07:15:10 PM »
I don't think leasing is a great problem. At the moment, apparently around 80% of EVs in the US are leased:

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/why-most-electric-cars-are-leased-not-owned

 EV manufacturers are also offering lots of low interest finance deals.

" You don't buy an EV to save money" .

That depends. A few weeks ago i was on a Nissan leaf forum. And they were talking about the price of a new battery for a leaf. And that was 5000 usd. That conversation was from 2016 , so i don't know if they got bigger by now. But if you can dubble the time that you can use the car for 5000 usd. And it costs less for the electricity than for the diesel or gas. And there are much less parts that can break down. You probably drive a lot cheaper. If you would not care to drive with the car for 20 years or more.

I can't say I've saved much money on fuel by switching to an EV. However, my switch was from a VW TDI that was averaging 50 mpg on my commute. Depending on the cost of diesel and electricity, it's not easy to say I save a ton. However, my CO2 emissions are now 0 on the commute. The smugness of that is easily worth the cost of my geothermally-derived electricity. Sometimes, you've got to do the right thing, even if it costs a bit more.

My Leaf is leased but I'll buy it out when the lease is up for my daughter's first car. Then, it will be on to a newer generation EV that has more than an 85 mile range. I won't buy another ICE car. (full disclosure, our family vehicle is an ICE but the vast sum of mileage is in the EV)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11