Afraid of leaning into a curve eh?
Congrats on the "f em all" attitude. Kinda jealous. The line in the article referenced in the OP- "...he was the worst..." unfortunately resonates with me.
Too close to home...
- Thread starter davidallen
- Start date
Congrats on the "f em all" attitude. Kinda jealous. The line in the article referenced in the OP- "...he was the worst..." unfortunately resonates with me.
The car takes curves like a champ but I don't open her up when I can't see what's well out in front of me. It's not an "f em all" it's a environmentalists are "full of crap" attitude.
Yeah, don't know. Really just yanking your chain.
Although I'm not convinced that the apocalypse will come from man-made climate change, I've endeavored to reduce my contribution mostly from the viewpoint that at a minimum, a smaller carbon footprint is more beneficial to our environment. I like clean water, air, and land. I got rid of my gas guzzling M3 in favor of a fuel efficient Hyundai (I don't miss the $12 a quart oil). My wife got rid of her Ford Flex and bought a Honda. My oldest daughter drives a Honda. I try to stay on top of energy efficiency in the house. We aren't big travelers outside of what's required for the sport of gymnastics.
So how much should a "true believer" sacrifice to be credible? I firmly believe that a "true believer" probably knows that answer better than I do. I don't expect people to walk or ride horses to work but owning fuel efficient vehicles seems like a no brainer. I'm not sure anyone needs the carbon footprint of a 15,000 square foot house unless it's a family of 20. Flights on private jets are always more harmful to the environment than commercial air on a per person basis. If I'm being honest, I don't see any of these as "sacrifices." They seem like good old common sense things for anyone that believes that man is driving the climate and planet off the cliff.
Right on. I'm guessing AC isn't a must in the Portland area. It will likely be a must for me in OK. I'm too old to enjoy the 100 degree heat on the blacktop.
Why do you insist on the "man-made" label? Isn't there sufficient evidence of climate change to make this a worthwhile conversation? If three 500 year flood events in Houston in 3 years isn't eye opening I don't know what would be.
I am reasonably good on most of these points - the truck was a splurge - my very weak mid life crisis I suppose. Had to hurt to give the M3 up. I like a little kick when I drop the hammer.
Always fly commercial - up front when I can get it cheap or on an upgrade. The travel is something I really struggle with for multiple reasons - hate being away from home though know what I am doing often requires reading the room, schmoozing after the day is done, etc.
As to house, we will land at about 500 sq per person when the addition is completed (and we add 3 occupants) not counting the tree house - though if I had my way the grand baby daddy would be there. Every upgrade has been as energy efficient as is practical including a 98% furnace, LEDs through-out, extra insulation with the roof job and the like.
Maybe getting that Tesla X and the Arcimoto will assuage my guilt for the near term.
What I know as surely as anything is the real fix to rising temperatures is going to be technological, with only marginal contributions from individuals. Corps on the other hand can have a much larger impact - Wal-Mart for instance committing to a (small) fleet of Tesla Semis. My sense is we could use the time that buys.
Last edited:
Electric cars aren’t going to do dick for climate change in the next 20 years. And it’s so cost-prohibitive. The Volt is what, $36k? Chevy loses $8k on everyone it sells. Same car with a combustible engine is $16k. These numbers aren’t exact.
I totally agree that the best thing to combat climate change (if it’s even possible) is technology.
I totally agree that the best thing to combat climate change (if it’s even possible) is technology.
Anybody have an idea of how we know how a 500 year flood event is calculated in an area where recorded history has been around for about 500 years?
(And no, I’m not trying to be a jerk. The wording of your question prompted this thought.)
"The probability Pe that one or more floods occurring during any period will exceed a given flood threshold can be expressed, using the binomial distribution, where T is the threshold return period (e.g. 100-yr, 50-yr, 25-yr, and so forth), and n is the number of years in the period. The probability of exceedance Pe is also described as the natural, inherent, or hydrologic risk of failure.[6][7] However, the expected value of the number of 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period is 1."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood
Well, I do agree that the climate is changing. It has changed throughout the entire history of the planet. Our direct knowledge of the climate is a microscopic sliver in the history of the planet even considering access to ice core samples, etc. Even going back a few hundred thousand years is still very minute in the history of 4 billion years.
I also agree that man may play a role. What I'm not sure about at this point is how big of a role man plays and how it directly/indirectly contributes. I don't believe the science is mature enough to use to make the alarmist predictions that we often see. The climate is very complex and there are likely many more things to be discovered about it than what we know today. I'm also turned off by the reaction of "climate scientists" to competing theory and research that doesn't fit "their" findings. Science is about discovery. Science is about exploration. Science is about challenging what you think you know. Science is about looking at evidence, good and bad. There's no other scientific field that I can think of where "experts" call scientists with dissenting viewpoints "deniers." That's sounds almost like the religious right does in regards to god and the bible.
You don't even know. I had the rare color combo of oxford green exterior with cinnamon interior. Thing was a beast.
I agree on the technology part being big. I disagree about the impact of individuals if the current change in climate is in fact largely due to man. If the carbon output of semi trucks is a problem, the output of our own vehicles is just as big of a problem.
That’s based on a known 100 year flow rate. I get that. What I don’t get is how they know a 500 year flow rate on a river and its tributaries when those records don’t exist.
My guess is that they don’t.
The problem of recency is one we won't overcome - we live or die on our ability to extrapolate from what we do know. The tendency to pick apart or ridicule the timeframes (see Al Gore predictions) ignores that the outcomes are directionally aligned with what we observe today.
I don't expect precision...
My only answer is the same statistical models extrapolated out. Does it feel less urgent to point to three 100 year flood events in 3 years? Not really IMO.
If you don't endorse meaningless individual sacrifice then you can't advocate effective collective action? That argument illustrates the intellectual dishonesty of climate change deniers.
@davidallen i know I'm not supposed to be posting but how many square feet of non penetrable concrete does the city Houston have versus 10,20,50,100 years ago? How many floods were there in 1491? 1322? 265? 1000bc? 4500 bc?
Not sure how that plays into your fancy equations.
Not sure how that plays into your fancy equations.
I also thought dr Vernon p scott said a one hundred year flood has a one in a hundred chance of occurring every year not that it occurs once every hundred years. I barely went to class and I was probably hungover so I might not be remembering that correctly.
One more and I'll go back in my hole. My father in law actually wrote software for the calculations that kept new urban developments in compliance with water displacement regulations. I know osu phd students still use that software for their research. I wish I could ask him for this argument but he passed a few years ago. I miss him for many many things but he was one of the greatest conservatives I've ever known. I reccomend to any young man you should pick a wife based on her fathers politics. We spent a lot of good hours watching bill oreilly.
Edit because why not: if that's true I can't imagine how limp the handshake would be between you and your son in law. Peace out magwitch.
Edit because why not: if that's true I can't imagine how limp the handshake would be between you and your son in law. Peace out magwitch.
Last edited:
Good call. And how many slopes and natural drainage areas were changed/filled in by developers over the years? I’m guessing there are other factors that we are not considering as well.
My guess would be that such figures are taken into account when floodplains are redrawn/updated. Several articles I have read talk about the over development of the metro contributing to severity but don't specifically say the flood plains as described are incorrect.... BTW welcome back.
Ahhh yes - Leisure Suit Vern.... slept through his class many a day. Bobby Reiley and I would swap weeks and notes. His theory of super lightning strikes causing tornadoes was interesting....
He had upgraded to short sleeved flannel print shirts and pocket protectors by the time I got there. He also admitted he had gotten too old to chase people if they tried to sneak out after signing the roll sheet. He started after one guy when he had turned his back to the class but stopped half way up the stairs and said "nah not worth it."
Meaningless individual sacrifice? So if every human on the planet stopped using fossil fuel right this exact moment, that's meaningless? If a bunch of individuals changed their behavior, that's a collective action. You can only have a collective if you have more than one. Duh.
So I'll mark you down that nobody needs to make any individual sacrifices because it's meaningless regardless of how profoundly stupid that is.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty...
Mr. Allen, I take it all back. You should have a super duper large and energy inefficient house. Drive a fleet of big ass fuel loving pickups. Why the hell do we even have all of that emission shit on vehicles? Take all that silly shit off your fleet of pickups. It only robs power. Take private jets for your travel. Screw trips to the dump. Burn that shit. Get yourself a dozen coal fired pizza ovens, light them all up at once, but only use 1 to cook your pizza.
I know it sounds completely stupid, but syskatine says your individual contributions are meaningless. So stop fretting and live it up. Cancel that Arcimoto order and buy yourself a top fuel funny car for your commute. I guarantee that'll be a thrill to drive.
Even actual research and climate scientists say you're full of shit. This is a level of stupid I don't think I've ever seen expressed on any online forum. I may have to make this shit my signature to immortalize it.
Denier!
Denier!
Denier!
Denier!
Denier!
There's literally tons of this shit. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
LOL no, if every human on the planet right this exact moment stopped using fossil fuel that would be pretty effective collective action.
Pretty cold here in okc this morning. The little box in the lower corner of my tv reads 28 degrees. The weather dude just said the wind chill is 20. Bundle up when you go outside today.
Huh. But that collective is a just a bunch of individuals doing what you call meaningless sacrifices. I think we can both agree that not using fossil fuels would be quite a sacrifice.
What if it weren't so drastic and everybody on the planet reduced their own carbon output by just 25% today. Meaningless sacrifice?
Meaningless sentiment, unless you possess the magic powers required to get everybody on the planet (or even Oklahoma) to do that.
Maybe there is an agent with the power to get large swaths of people to reduce their carbon output and we should focus on getting that agent to use it's power.
Oh. So we just need the government to do more shit before individuals can do anything meaningful. Yeah, that's it. You can't decide for yourself to take action. You do realize the government already regulates a lot of stuff that enables your poor habits as I type this, correct? But obviously they aren't doing enough to enable individual change.
Maybe they should ban the manufacture of any vehicle incapable of at least 50 mpg. Maybe they should limit the amount of electricity and natural gas you can use per month. Maybe they should even ban red meat and sterilize you after 2 kids. After all, you can't be bothered to do meaningless shit yourself unless the government forces you to.
I'm just going to call it what it is. Lefties like to self exempt from doing the shit you should be doing by calling individual efforts meaningless. By doing that and still gleefully screeching about the "collective," you can still feel like a right and proper cheer boy and call the rest of us deniers and intellectually dishonest while doing absolutely nothing. Real solid work right there.
The deliciously ironic part of this exchange is that we're having it in a thread that was posted about an article from a guy who realizes that 25 years after the first dire warning, he hasn't done anything to change his behavior. And he doesn't like that. And to sprinkle the delicious irony with more buttery goodness, the OP is having second thoughts as well.
I seriously couldn't have made this up if I took 5 hits of acid and locked myself in a closet with laser lights and glitter painted walls.
No. Individuals can not do anything meaningful. Only collections of individuals can do anything meaningful. I can not meaningfully cut global emissions as an individual. I can only reduce global emissions by my current usage, and even then Jevon's Paradox dictates that if my energy use is 1000W per year, if I reduce my energy use to 0W per year the global reduction in energy use will be less that 1000W and depending on the elasticity of demand it could increase global energy use.
I do meaningless shit all the time, but I am not deluded enough to think it is meaningful or will change the outcome.
I thought you were obviously wrong here until I did some digging in the cap and trade bill from 2009 and I found this little nugget. "All leftists and people who believe in MMGW are hereby exempt from the cap."
Imagine how dumb he would feel after living 25 years using no fossil fuel and realizing it has had no impact at all on the climate outcome.
Yep, you're so spot on it's crazy. So let's just take that meaningless individual contribution one step further. Why should one country do shit when we know the rest won't be doing meaningful shit. Thanks for making Trump's point about the Paris Agreement.
