#desantisdisaster

[nytigerfan]

You've had some really absurd arguments but this one takes the cake. As if a human can't do more than one thing at a time. The coastal challenges we face are entirely legitimate relative to insurance and costs. Using that long term challenge as a cudgel to attack the current governor is so dishonest that I just.... Wait...what am I saying? It's you and your loathsome dishonesty. Not much more can be expected I guess. I just keep hoping you'll eventually wake up from your fantasyland.

According you every bad thing in this country is because of Biden's policies. Why does desantis get a pass for bad shit in florida? Many of these issues could have been avoided with some forethought and planning.

LOL at loathsome dishonesty. You are such a pussy.

 

[nytigerfan]

Have you posted any evidence of property values going down in Florida faster than the housing market at large? Still waiting. You are #fakenews

You are not smart. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. If the reinsurers pull out, and FL insurers go bankrupt because of it, FL is fcked. I didn't say anything about property values right now.

Be smarter.

 

[OleFastball]

You are not smart. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. If the reinsurers pull out, and FL insurers go bankrupt because of it, FL is fcked. I didn't say anything about property values right now.

Be smarter.

I am smarter than you.
If your speculation is accurate, housing prices would reflect the concern. If there was a 50% chance of it happening, then 50% of the result would be reflected in the price

yet, you refuse to provide any evidence to support your hypothesis. You are dreaming up scenarios and results and fear mongering.

Post ANY evidence to support your dumbass hypothesis.

You sir, are #Fakenews!

 

[scotchtiger]

You are comparing SC to FL. Not the same. If the reinsurers pull out, FL is fcked. Plain and simple. Cut and dry.

And yes, a lot of people who buy houses in FL pay cash. But how many are going to want to buy a house if they have to pay $1MM cash and can only insure it for less than $500K? And that insurance is insanely expensive.

And now when you factor in that they expect the ocean water down there to be spreading flesh eating bacteria for the foreseeable future.

P.S. before some phaggot jumps in here and accuses me of not being sympathetic to florida, I have family in Lee County. I take no pleasure in this. It is awful. What they are going to endure, at the fault of desantis, is awful.

Come on man. The reinsurers may force higher capital requirements and higher rates downstream, but they will still find a way to serve the market and make money.

And the flesh eating bacteria thing was easily shown to be mor hyperbole. NPR article below indicates it is in brackish water (not the ocean) and risk will subside as it cools. The bacteria was present before Ian, but it caused a temporary spike.

A rare but dangerous flesh-eating bacteria is infecting Florida residents — NPR

Hurricane Ian caused storm surges of up to 12 feet, leaving behind warm, brackish floodwaters where Vibrio vulnificus thrives.

apple.news

 

[nytigerfan]

Come on man. The reinsurers may force higher capital requirements and higher rates downstream, but they will still find a way to serve the market and make money.

And the flesh eating bacteria thing was easily shown to be mor hyperbole. NPR article below indicates it is in brackish water (not the ocean) and risk will subside as it cools. The bacteria was present before Ian, but it caused a temporary spike.

A rare but dangerous flesh-eating bacteria is infecting Florida residents — NPR

Hurricane Ian caused storm surges of up to 12 feet, leaving behind warm, brackish floodwaters where Vibrio vulnificus thrives.

apple.news

making money is the issue. When it is too hard to make money, they will leave. Things are going to get ugly dem there.

 

[nytigerfan]

total disaster this bridge was replaced so fast. Right @nytigerfan?

View embedded media

Honestly, that is great news. We visit sanibel / captiva once every few years. I have been taking to a friend who owns a house there. He is very excited about the causeway being opened. They are expecting to get their power restored in mid November. Not so excited about that. Desantis fail.

 

[Hammerdawg.NEAR]

You are comparing SC to FL. Not the same. If the reinsurers pull out, FL is fcked. Plain and simple. Cut and dry.

And yes, a lot of people who buy houses in FL pay cash. But how many are going to want to buy a house if they have to pay $1MM cash and can only insure it for less than $500K? And that insurance is insanely expensive.

And now when you factor in that they expect the ocean water down there to be spreading flesh eating bacteria for the foreseeable future.

P.S. before some phaggot jumps in here and accuses me of not being sympathetic to florida, I have family in Lee County. I take no pleasure in this. It is awful. What they are going to endure, at the fault of desantis, is awful.

In the race for biggest Diva on the board, homeboy here is neck and neck with Dpic for the lead

holy shit what a bunch of histrionic bullshit

 

[leetp]

Yes, a lot of this is due to climate change and increasing power and damage of storms as well as rising sea levels and storm surges rapid development of wetlands, marshes and other low-lying areas and this is just the expected, natural course of things.

FIFY.

It's kind of what one should expect when building a house on a sandbar. These places are inches above sea level to begin with. They are and should be largely uninsurable.

 

[TheSweatshirt]

FIFY.

It's kind of what one should expect when building a house on a sandbar. These places are inches above sea level to begin with. They are and should be largely uninsurable.

You didn’t fix anything, you just buried your head in the sand. Hurricanes are stronger due to rising temp levels in the ocean which creates more storm surge. It wasn’t a problem to insure these homes 50 years ago. Or even 30 years ago. But we’ve had the misfortune of having sociopaths like Rick Scott calling the shots. He banned any state employees from using the term climate change. The state had voted to purchase land back from sugar producers to help with storm surges (the Everglades are a natural defense mechanism), but Rick Scott let that agreement expire without using the funds to buy back the land.

Continuing to expand into the Everglades is a real problem, so I will agree with you there. We intentionally bought our home in an area with the lowest flood risk, but others won’t be so lucky now that water has fewer places to go.

 

[leetp]

You didn’t fix anything, you just buried your head in the sand. Hurricanes are stronger due to rising temp levels in the ocean which creates more storm surge. It wasn’t a problem to insure these homes 50 years ago. Or even 30 years ago. But we’ve had the misfortune of having sociopaths like Rick Scott calling the shots. He banned any state employees from using the term climate change. The state had voted to purchase land back from sugar producers to help with storm surges (the Everglades are a natural defense mechanism), but Rick Scott let that agreement expire without using the funds to buy back the land.

Continuing to expand into the Everglades is a real problem, so I will agree with you there. We intentionally bought our home in an area with the lowest flood risk, but others won’t be so lucky now that water has fewer places to go.

1) There is, at best, scant scientific evidence that storms are stronger (or are strengthening faster--which is primarily what the alarmists are shifting toward saying)
2) Empirically, there are most certainly fewer storms over the last several decades
3) Some of the strongest storms on record occurred in the pre-industrial era
4) The seas have not appreciably risen and are not likely to anytime soon.
5) Sea temps do not (directly) cause storm surge; wind does...but warm waters do strengthen storms (edit: I brought this up to add that I don't believe gulf and equatorial temperatures are among the places they are seeing even the nominal supposed temperature increases)
6) The most violent storms on Earth occur in the coldest regions
7) I could go on...

Some other things to consider, the Earth is actually spinning faster. The Earth recently just experienced its shortest day on record. When you consider the very reason that hurricanes form in the first place (a byproduct of the Earth's rotation--i.e. the Coriolis force) maybe we should be trying to come up with ways to slow the Earth down to lessen the intensity of storms? It's as foolish as thinking we can control the climate by regulating our CO2 emissions (especially once one considers the relationship between C02 and global temps is logarithmic--not exponential or even linear. That is to say, for every doubling of the of the level of C02, Earth temps increase by a fixed amount...about 1-degree Celsius, I believe. If its 350 PPM now, it would have to double to 700 PPM to net another 1-degree increase. Worse still, from a CO2 reduction standpoint, cutting global C02 in half--down to 150 PPM (an impossible feat) only nets us 1-degree reduction in global average temp.

These storms--which have always existed--are wrecking more havoc because of ever-increasing desire to live on the coast. This insatiable demand for coastal living fuels more and more development of these otherwise unsuitable lands. And sure, your governor(s) are to blame...but they all are...going back many decades...and they were just doing what the people elected them to do.

And no...my head is not in the sand. Seems to me those who live on the coast and attempt to defy nature are the ones who have their heads in the sand.

 

[OleFastball]

You didn’t fix anything, you just buried your head in the sand. Hurricanes are stronger due to rising temp levels in the ocean which creates more storm surge. It wasn’t a problem to insure these homes 50 years ago. Or even 30 years ago. But we’ve had the misfortune of having sociopaths like Rick Scott calling the shots. He banned any state employees from using the term climate change. The state had voted to purchase land back from sugar producers to help with storm surges (the Everglades are a natural defense mechanism), but Rick Scott let that agreement expire without using the funds to buy back the land.

Continuing to expand into the Everglades is a real problem, so I will agree with you there. We intentionally bought our home in an area with the lowest flood risk, but others won’t be so lucky now that water has fewer places to go.

You can’t really believe what you just wrote can you?

hurricanes are stronger? What evidence are you citing? More storm surge? Evidence?

There is more density of housing which allows for more damages to be caused. We have been having hurricanes of the same magnitude since record keeping, and before, began.

“Climate change” is such a scam. Of course the climate is changing, always has and always will no matter what Man does.

 

[TheSweatshirt]

You can’t really believe what you just wrote can you?

hurricanes are stronger? What evidence are you citing? More storm surge? Evidence?

There is more density of housing which allows for more damages to be caused. We have been having hurricanes of the same magnitude since record keeping, and before, began.

“Climate change” is such a scam. Of course the climate is changing, always has and always will no matter what Man does.

I learned a while ago that it is a waste of energy to try to argue with someone who doesn't believe in science. How people can still debate this blows my mind.

 

[OleFastball]

I learned a while ago that it is a waste of energy to try to argue with someone who doesn't believe in science. How people can still debate this blows my mind.

Like the "science" of wearing masks? Like the "Fauci is the science", science? Like the "science" of lockdowns"? Like the "science" of 6 ft apart? Like the "science" of if you get "vaccinated" you won't get covid?

No one believes the Science line anymore. It just shows that you are a sheep. Climate science is a farce and that has been stated by people much smarter than you and I.

How people can not debate this blows my mind. If you are so confident in your position, ahem science, then you should want to debate it. In fact debating is a part of science.

Climate science is a pseudo science. How is that Ozone layer doing? Has it disappeared like they told me it was going to when i was in elementary school back in 1980? Ask Al gore how those ice caps are doing? That was science amirite?

 

[leetp]

I learned a while ago that it is a waste of energy to try to argue with someone who doesn't believe in science. How people can still debate this blows my mind.

That's a complete cop out. The list of things once thought to be settled only to find out science was completely wrong is as long as the history of science itself. Where consensus begins, science ends.

In fact, you can spot pseudo-science (or a pseudo-scientist) whenever you see or hear the words 'settled' or 'consensus'. After all, there was once a near consensus on the world being flat, on the Sun orbiting around the Earth, that the atom was the smallest particle there was, that Pluto was a planet and that the Earth was on the verge of experiencing runaway cooling and becoming a giant ice ball. Ironically this latter one may actually be the case that proves to be right in the long run.

 

[Howard's Jock]

Usually does when some anonymous, small dick, low class loser calls me a "pathetic excuse of a human being."

you take this place a little too seriously.

 

[Howard's Jock]

i have found a new home if we can tell each other to suck a dick around here. let’s party! @Esso Porch

 

[nytigerfan]

you take this place a little too seriously.

I don’t need any advice from a poor cuckold who lives off of daddy’s money, but thanks anyway.

 

[Howard's Jock]

I don’t need any advice from a poor cuckold who lives off of daddy’s money, but thanks anyway.

what in the world are you talking about?

 

[acwill07]

So i guess all ofthe BLM protests (riots) were dumb? I guess Rosa Parks was dumb? I guess all the "pussy hat" protests protesting Donald Trump were dumb?

Fortunately, protests don't have to meet the @dpic73 standard. Hopefully you didn't take logic classes at Clemson, that would be a poor reflection on all of us.

Wait are you comparing what Rosa Parks did to Jan 6th? LOL wut?

 

[nytigerfan]

what in the world are you talking about?

you know

 

[AugTig]

In the race for biggest Diva on the board, homeboy here is neck and neck with Dpic for the lead

holy shit what a bunch of histrionic bullshit

Likely the biggest clowns on all of the rivals boards combined. I wouldn’t be shocked if they are one and the same.

 

[Howard's Jock]

you know

No I don't. I would have gone with fat alcoholjc loser. I like my insults to be ttue.

 

[AugTig]

I don’t need any advice from a poor cuckold who lives off of daddy’s money, but thanks anyway.

I’m sorry you have so much hatred in your heart. Are you capable of responding without some derogatory name calling?

 

[CUT93]

I learned a while ago that it is a waste of energy to try to argue with someone who doesn't believe in science. How people can still debate this blows my mind.

No one is debating that the climate is(not) changing to some degree. What is debatable is the cause. There have been massive temperature swings(compared to recent and projected future swings) over the course of history, but somehow a nominal change now can only be caused by man's co2 output?
Even if what you believe is true, if China and other poor countries do not make massive(and extremely costly) changes, there is zero chance the rest of the world can make an impact on co2 production large enough to change temps by any substantial degree.

 

[TheSweatshirt]

No one is debating that the climate is(not) changing to some degree. What is debatable is the cause. There have been massive temperature swings(compared to recent and projected future swings) over the course of history, but somehow a nominal change now can only be caused by man's co2 output?
Even if what you believe is true, if China and other poor countries do not make massive(and extremely costly) changes, there is zero chance the rest of the world can make an impact on co2 production large enough to change temps by any substantial degree.

I don’t agree with what you typed. Say the US invented new energy storage tech that made batteries one tenth as expensive and heavy. That would increase EV adoption rapidly. Or say we had a significant breakthrough in solar, that increased conversion 10x. We also have innovation in carbon capture, and materials like plant-based foods. We can create enzymes that break down the plastic in oceans. All of these things can be accomplished with investment.

if all this stuff becomes cheaper than the current market, China and every other country will adopt it and we will create new enterprises shifting wealth from the Middle East to the US. We are making progress, but it is being slowed by current policies. If we had a carbon tax, you would see more private money funded into these solutions because the economic incentive became more meaningful.

 

[dpic73]

Likely the biggest clowns on all of the rivals boards combined. I wouldn’t be shocked if they are one and the same.

 

[Howard's Jock]

Have yall changed each other's minds yet?

 

[nytigerfan]

i notice you never call anyone else out for name calling, just me. I get called a name 3-4 times per day, and you never chastise those people.

why is that? Do you have hate in your heart?

 

[Howard's Jock]

i notice you never call anyone else out for name calling, just me. I get called a name 3-4 times per day, and you never chastise those people.

why is that? Do you have hate in your heart?

I for one can't imagine why anybody would be rude to you.

 

[leetp]

I don’t agree with what you typed. Say the US invented new energy storage tech that made batteries one tenth as expensive and heavy. That would increase EV adoption rapidly. Or say we had a significant breakthrough in solar, that increased conversion 10x. We also have innovation in carbon capture, and materials like plant-based foods. We can create enzymes that break down the plastic in oceans. All of these things can be accomplished with investment.

if all this stuff becomes cheaper than the current market, China and every other country will adopt it and we will create new enterprises shifting wealth from the Middle East to the US. We are making progress, but it is being slowed by current policies. If we had a carbon tax, you would see more private money funded into these solutions because the economic incentive became more meaningful.

Considering that passenger cars occupy less than 9% of the total global CO2 output, just how do you expect to appreciably affect global CO2 by migrating to EV's?

 

[TheSweatshirt]

Considering that passenger cars occupy less than 9% of the total global CO2 output, just how do you expect to appreciably affect global CO2 by migrating to EV's?

You need to think bigger picture. There is no silver bullet single solution. It’s comprehensive and dependent on innovation. EVs are one opportunity. IIRC over 50% of co2 in the US is from on-road transport. As we develop clean energy sources, like solar and storage (that you omitted from your response), we start chipping away at co2. Alternative meats is another that can have a significant impact on deforestation and greenhouse gasses.

And if the US is the one building these companies, we then benefit economically from the transition vs propping up economies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Venezuela, Russia due to global reliance on oil and nat gas. The rest of the world will adopt these solutions once it becomes cheaper and buy them from the US.

Even if you are a climate change denier, I don’t know how you argue that this isn’t good for the US.

 

[leetp]

You need to think bigger picture. There is no silver bullet single solution. It’s comprehensive and dependent on innovation. EVs are one opportunity. IIRC over 50% of co2 in the US is from on-road transport. As we develop clean energy sources, like solar and storage (that you omitted from your response), we start chipping away at co2. Alternative meats is another that can have a significant impact on deforestation and greenhouse gasses.

And if the US is the one building these companies, we then benefit economically from the transition vs propping up economies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Venezuela, Russia due to global reliance on oil and nat gas. The rest of the world will adopt these solutions once it becomes cheaper and buy them from the US.

Even if you are a climate change denier, I don’t know how you argue that this isn’t good for the US.

1. Total CO2 for transportation is one third (33%, which includes aviation), so no, you don't recall correctly (you can find these numbers on Pravada's err... EPA's website).
2. "Clean" energy is a misnomer and a marketing ploy. Nothing is dirtier by objective standards than mass-produced cobalt, nickel and lithium. CO2 is literally plant food and actually makes plants greener and increases crop yields.
3. Deforestation is a myth. There are more trees right now in North America than there were 200+ years ago.
4. Any solution that does not rely on nuclear energy is an absolute farce.
5. Solar, at best, only nominally offsets energy usage. But I am not sure if the negative environmental impact and relative short life of photovoltaic cells is worth it. Also, it will never be more than a novelty because there is not enough otherwise nonariable surface area to make a dent in our overall energy demands. It's actually a rather simple math equation. Same goes for wind.

 

[TheSweatshirt]

1. Total CO2 for transportation is one third (33%, which includes aviation), so no, you don't recall correctly (you can find these numbers on Pravada's err... EPA's website).
2. "Clean" energy is a misnomer and a marketing ploy. Nothing is dirtier by objective standards than mass-produced cobalt, nickel and lithium. CO2 is literally plant food and actually makes plants greener and increases crop yields.
3. Deforestation is a myth. There are more trees right now in North America than there were 200+ years ago.
4. Any solution that does not rely on nuclear energy is an absolute farce.
5. Solar, at best, only nominally offsets energy usage. But I am not sure if the negative environmental impact and relative short life of photovoltaic cells is worth it. Also, it will never be more than a novelty because there is not enough otherwise nonariable surface area to make a dent in our overall energy demands. It's actually a rather simple math equation. Same goes for wind.

You are right on #1 as I got that confused with oil consumption.

Mining is dirty. Exceptionally dirty. But you are assuming that the only way we can create storage is through mining some natural resource.

You conveniently focus only on North America. Everyone should be well aware of what the amazon rainforest means to global air quality and how rapidly it is being destroyed. Southeast Asia also experiencing major deforestation.

Agree 100% with you on nuclear. It’s insane that we aren’t building plants in the US. It’s a gift that we refuse to take advantage of.

Solar only has low conversion rates because China flooded the market with a ton of cheap panels and killed the incentive to keep making advances. They set the solar industry back 20 years.

Im glad you are knowledgeable about this because so many folks just want to disagree with conspiracy theories. I respect that you have actually researched this info and formed an opinion instead of the other way around. But you still haven’t addressed my bigger point which is that investing and supporting these programs can make the US much more secure and grow the economy significantly. We can agree to disagree on the impact man is having, but I would have a hard time seeing how anyone could disagree that innovation in energy and storage would be bad for this country.

 

[leetp]

You are right on #1 as I got that confused with oil consumption.

Mining is dirty. Exceptionally dirty. But you are assuming that the only way we can create storage is through mining some natural resource.

You conveniently focus only on North America. Everyone should be well aware of what the amazon rainforest means to global air quality and how rapidly it is being destroyed. Southeast Asia also experiencing major deforestation.

Agree 100% with you on nuclear. It’s insane that we aren’t building plants in the US. It’s a gift that we refuse to take advantage of.

Solar only has low conversion rates because China flooded the market with a ton of cheap panels and killed the incentive to keep making advances. They set the solar industry back 20 years.

Im glad you are knowledgeable about this because so many folks just want to disagree with conspiracy theories. I respect that you have actually researched this info and formed an opinion instead of the other way around. But you still haven’t addressed my bigger point which is that investing and supporting these programs can make the US much more secure and grow the economy significantly. We can agree to disagree on the impact man is having, but I would have a hard time seeing how anyone could disagree that innovation in energy and storage would be bad for this country.

I did leave out deforestation in the rainforest as I was focusing on American policy and it's supposed affect on climate. I think Rainforest destruction is a problem.

I do also want to see energy diversification and love the idea of solar as supplemental energy. I'd also like to see and I'm very encouraged by technological increases in not just energy storage, but on ways to fill or charge these batteries. I would love to own a Tesla or Rivan or other similar vehicle. I would buy solar panels for my house (if they were of adequately quality and not grossly overpriced). I just don't see these as great moral imperatives that will somehow save the planet. And I think the math and science are very much on my side on that.

What has me outraged is the vilification of the oil industry and the overt and covert moves to drive up the cost of oil and put the oil industry out of business. Make no mistake, we are paying more for EVERYTHING primarily due to the artificial manipulation of the American oil industry. This is made even more infuriating when you consider what a farce this whole global warming nonsense is and the fact that this push toward EV's, wind and solar do next to nothing to affect CO2 output on a global scale.

You want to dramatically lower human CO2 output? Build nuclear power plants.

 

[Jjh7]

You are right on #1 as I got that confused with oil consumption.

Mining is dirty. Exceptionally dirty. But you are assuming that the only way we can create storage is through mining some natural resource.

You conveniently focus only on North America. Everyone should be well aware of what the amazon rainforest means to global air quality and how rapidly it is being destroyed. Southeast Asia also experiencing major deforestation.

Agree 100% with you on nuclear. It’s insane that we aren’t building plants in the US. It’s a gift that we refuse to take advantage of.

Solar only has low conversion rates because China flooded the market with a ton of cheap panels and killed the incentive to keep making advances. They set the solar industry back 20 years.

Im glad you are knowledgeable about this because so many folks just want to disagree with conspiracy theories. I respect that you have actually researched this info and formed an opinion instead of the other way around. But you still haven’t addressed my bigger point which is that investing and supporting these programs can make the US much more secure and grow the economy significantly. We can agree to disagree on the impact man is having, but I would have a hard time seeing how anyone could disagree that innovation in energy and storage would be bad for this country.

i think any reasonable person would support reasonable and efficient initiatives to take care of the planet. things like efforts prevent and clean the oceans of mountains of trash floating along with other sources make sense. efforts to preserve rainforests and wildlife make sense. seeking cleaner energy sources makes sense. obviously if we intend to exist here for a while, and the planet has provided the resources to reach this point, its kinda common sense we'd want to take care of it to the best of our abilities. right now we need fossil fuels. just forcing these targets when we are unprepared to meet them effectively and will come at disastrous costs both financially and in global production. there is no dire need. europe's grandiose virtue signaling has them staring down the barrel of an abject disaster this winter. the conversation needs to be genuine and open to questioning and policy needs to make sense, not throw money at bs and set targets that hamstring the economy.

the numbers themselves obviously lead people to different conclusions - much of that boils down to correlation/causation. obviously i see it one way, but there's also the anecdotal evidence that seems very telling. namely if the situation is so dire why do all the people who repeatedly deliver that message, including almost all who drive policy, basically live on private jets flying all around the world? why do most of those people own oceanfront mansions, many in florida for tax purposes if the seas will rise and destroy them in the near future? why are the primary benefactors of govt green energy handouts always deeply connected to friends and family? why doesn't china seem to care about this issue at all? clearly there ambitious, i can't imagine they aspire to become the worlds strongest country only to have the world end on them. they seem like they're pretty smart. so on top of what i see as nothing convincing looking at raw data, virtually all of the voices pushing the alarmist narrative and creating punitive regulations for the rest to live by themselves flagrantly violate all of their talking points almost every single day. they also seem to directly or indirectly accumulate tremendous financial gains from the money they borrow or steal and redistribute in the name of climate change. and an alienated global economic power - who would similarly have a vested interest in the world sticking around a while - doesn't give a sht. this is where even if i thought the data suggested this was an urgent situation to address, the fact that the people who have the most extravagant lives and power, who have never in human history voluntarily downgraded their power or quality of life, objectively have no concerns about that potentially occurring. that alone seems like a reason to be highly skeptical.

 

[leetp]

i think any reasonable person would support reasonable and efficient initiatives to take care of the planet. things like efforts prevent and clean the oceans of mountains of trash floating along with other sources make sense. efforts to preserve rainforests and wildlife make sense. seeking cleaner energy sources makes sense. obviously if we intend to exist here for a while, and the planet has provided the resources to reach this point, its kinda common sense we'd want to take care of it to the best of our abilities. right now we need fossil fuels. just forcing these targets when we are unprepared to meet them effectively and will come at disastrous costs both financially and in global production. there is no dire need. europe's grandiose virtue signaling has them staring down the barrel of an abject disaster this winter. the conversation needs to be genuine and open to questioning and policy needs to make sense, not throw money at bs and set targets that hamstring the economy.

the numbers themselves obviously lead people to different conclusions - much of that boils down to correlation/causation. obviously i see it one way, but there's also the anecdotal evidence that seems very telling. namely if the situation is so dire why do all the people who repeatedly deliver that message, including almost all who drive policy, basically live on private jets flying all around the world? why do most of those people own oceanfront mansions, many in florida for tax purposes if the seas will rise and destroy them in the near future? why are the primary benefactors of govt green energy handouts always deeply connected to friends and family? why doesn't china seem to care about this issue at all? clearly there ambitious, i can't imagine they aspire to become the worlds strongest country only to have the world end on them. they seem like they're pretty smart. so on top of what i see as nothing convincing looking at raw data, virtually all of the voices pushing the alarmist narrative and creating punitive regulations for the rest to live by themselves flagrantly violate all of their talking points almost every single day. they also seem to directly or indirectly accumulate tremendous financial gains from the money they borrow or steal and redistribute in the name of climate change. and an alienated global economic power - who would similarly have a vested interest in the world sticking around a while - doesn't give a sht. this is where even if i thought the data suggested this was an urgent situation to address, the fact that the people who have the most extravagant lives and power, who have never in human history voluntarily downgraded their power or quality of life, objectively have no concerns about that potentially occurring. that alone seems like a reason to be highly skeptical.

I consider myself a conservationist. I strive to be a good steward of my environment. But there is zero reason we should be moving away from internal combustion engines now or in the future Their total worldwide contribution to CO2 is not a threat to the planet or mankind.

I am quite content, however, to see coal and oil fired powerplants get replaced with nuclear power.

 

[Jjh7]

I consider myself a conservationist. I strive to be a good steward of my environment. But there is zero reason we should be moving away from internal combustion engines now or in the future Their total worldwide contribution to CO2 is not a threat to the planet or mankind.

I am quite content, however, to see coal and oil fired powerplants get replaced with nuclear power.

thats what makes sense to me. get the impression you're a lot more familiar with much of this than me, i'm and investment guy so i've looked at data, read a few papers, and been saddled with esg bs. when it comes to some of the science there's so much depth to things i dont know - one question i'm not sure you can answer re nuclear: say we really built out our nuclear capacity globally to the point most energy was generated by it. when a new sustainable source is discovered an implemented and we were to shut down all of these reactors...is there any environmental concern there? or human lives? i know we've shut down reactors and i don't know and any issues caused later but just curios if there would be any concerns beyond the obvious human error upfront. but longterm would having that amount of radioactive material buried around the world be cause for concern assuming no human error? though given enough chances that undoubtedly will occur.

separately, a thought i've had since probably grammar school i still find the mental image of hilarious - when it comes to the issue of mass accumulations of garbage around the world - can we not just occasionally fire it into space. the thought of marvin in some galaxy many lightyears away cruisin around in his new ship and taking a flying schoolbus to the windshield makes me laugh every time. i imagine this is on par with trump suggesting nuking a hurricane but maybe science needed an outside the box thinker to come up with where to put all our sht

 

[TheSweatshirt]

i think any reasonable person would support reasonable and efficient initiatives to take care of the planet. things like efforts prevent and clean the oceans of mountains of trash floating along with other sources make sense. efforts to preserve rainforests and wildlife make sense. seeking cleaner energy sources makes sense. obviously if we intend to exist here for a while, and the planet has provided the resources to reach this point, its kinda common sense we'd want to take care of it to the best of our abilities. right now we need fossil fuels. just forcing these targets when we are unprepared to meet them effectively and will come at disastrous costs both financially and in global production. there is no dire need. europe's grandiose virtue signaling has them staring down the barrel of an abject disaster this winter. the conversation needs to be genuine and open to questioning and policy needs to make sense, not throw money at bs and set targets that hamstring the economy.

the numbers themselves obviously lead people to different conclusions - much of that boils down to correlation/causation. obviously i see it one way, but there's also the anecdotal evidence that seems very telling. namely if the situation is so dire why do all the people who repeatedly deliver that message, including almost all who drive policy, basically live on private jets flying all around the world? why do most of those people own oceanfront mansions, many in florida for tax purposes if the seas will rise and destroy them in the near future? why are the primary benefactors of govt green energy handouts always deeply connected to friends and family? why doesn't china seem to care about this issue at all? clearly there ambitious, i can't imagine they aspire to become the worlds strongest country only to have the world end on them. they seem like they're pretty smart. so on top of what i see as nothing convincing looking at raw data, virtually all of the voices pushing the alarmist narrative and creating punitive regulations for the rest to live by themselves flagrantly violate all of their talking points almost every single day. they also seem to directly or indirectly accumulate tremendous financial gains from the money they borrow or steal and redistribute in the name of climate change. and an alienated global economic power - who would similarly have a vested interest in the world sticking around a while - doesn't give a sht. this is where even if i thought the data suggested this was an urgent situation to address, the fact that the people who have the most extravagant lives and power, who have never in human history voluntarily downgraded their power or quality of life, objectively have no concerns about that potentially occurring. that alone seems like a reason to be highly skeptical.

China has no regard for human life. The ruling class is all that matters in that country.

As for those who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk…. All of this is anecdotal. I know plenty of folks who live off the grid and drive teslas. They have made millions but their focus is on reducing their personal co2 footprint. The govt is not a good venture capitalist, but it can provide incentives for the private market. Tesla wouldn’t exist without those incentives. Yes, Musk flies on a private jet. He also runs a Tesla, SpaceX, Boring Company, now Twitter, and is a founder of OpenAI and NeuralLink. He doesn’t have time to take a train from SF to LA.

We need to incentivize more innovation. Helion is a company I am very excited about and the type of innovation we need to support. If/when it becomes scaleable, combined with EVs, we can significant reduce reliance on oil and no longer have to tolerate Saudi Arabia. I don’t see the need to ever fully abandon oil, but refineries aren’t good for the local population and we see what happens with oil spills and deep water drilling.

But govt handouts going to those who are connected…. That isn’t just a climate issue. That happens at every level and every department in the govt. It’s egregious in law enforcement and defense. And it works the other way too. FPL has owned the state senate and governors for decades. They have not only done very little to reduce energy costs, but also fought power purchase agreements for solar companies. Yes, the SUNSHINE state is one of the least friendly for solar developers. Why? Because FPL doesn’t want anything to cut into their revenues. They just pushed back another vote on rate increases until after Nov, so we all know why is going to happen again.

Even if you don’t believe the science behind climate change, I don’t see how anyone can argue that these aren’t smart investments for the US.

 

[WapPride]

thats what makes sense to me. get the impression you're a lot more familiar with much of this than me, i'm and investment guy so i've looked at data, read a few papers, and been saddled with esg bs. when it comes to some of the science there's so much depth to things i dont know - one question i'm not sure you can answer re nuclear: say we really built out our nuclear capacity globally to the point most energy was generated by it. when a new sustainable source is discovered an implemented and we were to shut down all of these reactors...is there any environmental concern there? or human lives? i know we've shut down reactors and i don't know and any issues caused later but just curios if there would be any concerns beyond the obvious human error upfront. but longterm would having that amount of radioactive material buried around the world be cause for concern assuming no human error? though given enough chances that undoubtedly will occur.

separately, a thought i've had since probably grammar school i still find the mental image of hilarious - when it comes to the issue of mass accumulations of garbage around the world - can we not just occasionally fire it into space. the thought of marvin in some galaxy many lightyears away cruisin around in his new ship and taking a flying schoolbus to the windshield makes me laugh every time. i imagine this is on par with trump suggesting nuking a hurricane but maybe science needed an outside the box thinker to come up with where to put all our sht

nuclear waste removal is definitely a concern, but the amount generated per plant vs the amount of coal ash waste generated per plant is absolutely staggering. something like 2000 tons of nuclear waste is generated every year from all power plants combined vs like 30-50k tons/year of coal ash being generated per plant. i also think they're working on another technology that will allow that nuclear waste figure to drop another 90% by using the waste as another type of fuel source.

also, i do love the anti-nuclear activists (not saying you're one), that harp about the dangers of nuclear waste and completely ignore the horrifyingly dangerous coal ash residue that's been sitting in unlined landfills for 100 years leaching into the groundwater under grandfathered environmental plans.

edit: i forgot to remark on that last paragraph. until we're able to launch a ship that can hold more than 20 tons of cargo on it this is unfortunately not an option. it is a fun idea to think about though

 

[Jjh7]

nuclear waste removal is definitely a concern, but the amount generated per plant vs the amount of coal ash waste generated per plant is absolutely staggering. something like 2000 tons of nuclear waste is generated every year from all power plants combined vs like 30-50k tons/year of coal ash being generated per plant. i also think they're working on another technology that will allow that nuclear waste figure to drop another 90% by using the waste as another type of fuel source.

also, i do love the anti-nuclear activists (not saying you're one), that harp about the dangers of nuclear waste and completely ignore the horrifyingly dangerous coal ash residue that's been sitting in unlined landfills for 100 years leaching into the groundwater under grandfathered environmental plans.

edit: i forgot to remark on that last paragraph. until we're able to launch a ship that can hold more than 20 tons of cargo on it this is unfortunately not an option. it is a fun idea to think about though

appreciate that, yea far from an alarmist, just not something i'd seen brought up, though i figured for those who knew more on the science-y side of the subject it had to have been addressed somewhere.


there's a perfect answer for that. north korea is always a pain in the ass with missile tests. if they wanna practice send them all our trash and fire away 20 tons at a time. every one that fails is one step closer to making themselves a landfill. if they fail we still solve one problem if they succeed we solve another problem