Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

....

You know, The Pentagon has been desperately trying to get congress to stop pushing on them endless tanks. They say they´re up to their ears in bloody tanks already and then some and definitely don´t need extra costs maintaining what´s anyway obsolete in their modern warfare. Which is what they want the funds spent on obviously. But congressmen have lobbyists greasing their palms and armaments factories back in the districts. Money and jobs and votes. And wars for profits. The longer wars the better. The outcome ? Who cares ?

Really?

I might buy a part of this if you had the word "Stryker" instead of "tank".

[Wilikon]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

You're making the assumption that there's competition involved here.

I don't see how i am. I'm making the assumption that the scientists I've listened to were generally right about how much more energetic neuclear energy is. And im making assumptions that society will generally tend to move from less energy dense sources of fuel to more energy dense sources of fuel over the long term. That would even be in the interest of a monopolist.

The "monopolist" likes his dirty energy and the effects it has on his subjects. You're fooling yourself if you believe that he will allow any kind of clean cheap energy.

Wind farming and mega giant solar collecting power stations have killed a lot of birds. Tons of them. I have no idea how many birds were killed by that $250M project (now dead, like the birds)

Neosurrealism. Nice.

 

[Wilikon]

[Wilikon]

http://gofossilfree.org/divestment-day/



-----------------------------------------
I make lots of mistakes in english, fo sho... But , Feb 13th AND Feb 14th. Shouldn't this event be called dive$tment days?

 

[galdur]

....

You know, The Pentagon has been desperately trying to get congress to stop pushing on them endless tanks. They say they´re up to their ears in bloody tanks already and then some and definitely don´t need extra costs maintaining what´s anyway obsolete in their modern warfare. Which is what they want the funds spent on obviously. But congressmen have lobbyists greasing their palms and armaments factories back in the districts. Money and jobs and votes. And wars for profits. The longer wars the better. The outcome ? Who cares ?

Really?

I might buy a part of this if you had the word "Stryker" instead of "tank".

Come on, do you really think I´m making this up ?

They´ve been trying to refuse tanks for years. Why would they want more tanks ?

[galdur]

Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests

Posted: 04/28/2013 9:04 am EDT Updated: 06/28/2013 5:12 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.

Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.

Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank's many suppliers are located.

If there's a home of the Abrams, it's politically important Ohio. The nation's only tank plant is in Lima. So it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. They said their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics.

"The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in defense of the country," said Jordan, whose district in the northwest part of the state includes the tank plant.

The Abrams dilemma underscores the challenge that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel faces as he seeks to purge programs that the military considers unnecessary or too expensive in order to ensure there's enough money for essential operations, training and equipment.

Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, faces a daunting task in persuading members of Congress to eliminate or scale back projects favored by constituents.

Federal budgets are always peppered with money for pet projects. What sets the Abrams example apart is the certainty of the Army's position.

Sean Kennedy, director of research for the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste, said Congress should listen when one of the military services says no to more equipment.

"When an institution as risk averse as the Defense Department says they have enough tanks, we can probably believe them," Kennedy said.

Congressional backers of the Abrams upgrades view the vast network of companies, many of them small businesses, that manufacture the tanks' materials and parts as a critical asset that has to be preserved. The money, they say, is a modest investment that will keep important tooling and manufacturing skills from being lost if the Abrams line were to be shut down.

The Lima plant is a study in how federal dollars affect local communities, which in turn hold tight to the federal dollars. The facility is owned by the federal government but operated by the land systems division of General Dynamics, a major defense contractor that spent close to $11 million last year on lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The plant is Lima's fifth-largest employer with close to 700 employees, down from about 1,100 just a few years ago, according to Mayor David Berger. But the facility is still crucial to the local economy. "All of those jobs and their spending activity in the community and the company's spending probably have about a $100 million impact annually," Berger said.

Jordan, a House conservative leader who has pushed for deep reductions in federal spending, supported the automatic cuts known as the sequester that require $42 billion to be shaved from the Pentagon's budget by the end of September. The military also has to absorb a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years, as required by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.

Still, said Jordan, it would be a big mistake to stop producing tanks.

"Look, (the plant) is in the 4th Congressional District and my job is to represent the 4th Congressional District, so I understand that," he said. "But the fact remains, if it was not in the best interests of the national defense for the United States of America, then you would not see me supporting it like we do."

The tanks that Congress is requiring the Army to buy aren't brand new. Earlier models are being outfitted with a sophisticated suite of electronics that gives the vehicles better microprocessors, color flat panel displays, a more capable communications system, and other improvements. The upgraded tanks cost about $7.5 million each, according to the Army.

Out of a fleet of nearly 2,400 tanks, roughly two-thirds are the improved versions, which the Army refers to with a moniker that befits their heft: the M1A2SEPv2, and service officials said they have plenty of them. "The Army is on record saying we do not require any additional M1A2s," Davis Welch, deputy director of the Army budget office, said this month.

The tank fleet, on average, is less than 3 years old. The Abrams is named after Gen. Creighton Abrams, one of the top tank commanders during World War II and a former Army chief of staff.

The Army's plan was to stop buying tanks until 2017, when production of a newly designed Abrams would begin. Orders for Abrams tanks from U.S. allies help fill the gap created by the loss of tanks for the Army, according to service officials, but congressional proponents of the program feared there would not be enough international business to keep the Abrams line going.

This pause in tank production for the U.S. would allow the Army to spend its money on research and development work for the new and improved model, said Ashley Givens, a spokeswoman for the Army's Ground Combat Systems office.

The first editions of the Abrams tank were fielded in the early 1980s. Over the decades, the Abrams supply chain has become embedded in communities across the country.

General Dynamics estimated in 2011 that there were more than 560 subcontractors throughout the country involved in the Abrams program and that they employed as many as 18,000 people. More than 40 of the companies are in Pennsylvania, according to Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., also a staunch backer of continued tank production.

A letter signed by 173 Democratic and Republican members of the House last year and sent to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demonstrated the depth of bipartisan support for the Abrams program on Capitol Hill. They chided the Obama administration for neglecting the industrial base and proposing to terminate tank production in the United States for the first time since World War II.

Portman, who served as President George W. Bush's budget director before being elected to the Senate, said allowing the line to wither and close would create a financial mess.

"People can't sit around for three years on unemployment insurance and wait for the government to come back," Portman said. "That supply chain is going to be much more costly and much more inefficient to create if you mothball the plant."

Pete Keating, a General Dynamics spokesman, said the money from Congress is allowing for a stable base of production for the Army, which receives about four tanks a month. With the line open, Lima also can fill international orders, bringing more work to Lima and preserving American jobs, he said.

Current foreign customers are Saudi Arabia, which is getting about five tanks a month, and Egypt, which is getting four. Each country pays all of their own costs. That's a "success story during a period of economic pain," Keating said.

Still, far fewer tanks are coming out of the Lima plant than in years past. The drop-off has affected companies such as Verhoff Machine and Welding in Continental, Ohio, which makes seats and other parts for the Abrams. Ed Verhoff, the company's president, said his sales have dropped from $20 million to $7 million over the past two years. He's also had to lay off about 25 skilled employees and he expects to be issuing more pink slips in the future.

"When we start to lose this base of people, what are we going to do? Buy our tanks from China?" Verhoff said.

Steven Grundman, a defense expert at the Atlantic Council in Washington, said the difficulty of reviving defense industrial capabilities tends to be overstated.

"From the fairly insular world in which the defense industry operates, these capabilities seem to be unique and in many cases extraordinarily high art," said Grundman, a former deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial affairs and installations during the Clinton administration. "But in the greater scope of the economy, they tend not to be."

[Wilikon]

**********

Don't forget to include links if available. Better yet, if you believe a webpage may change in the future you can back it up, then post the back up link instead.

https://archive.today/

**********

[Wilikon]

Josh Earnest: Climate change a greater threat to Americans than terrorism






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmAh3gRdm1A

[hdbuck]

[hdbuck]

[Spendulus]

....

You know, The Pentagon has been desperately trying to get congress to stop pushing on them endless tanks. They say they´re up to their ears in bloody tanks already and then some and definitely don´t need extra costs maintaining what´s anyway obsolete in their modern warfare. Which is what they want the funds spent on obviously. But congressmen have lobbyists greasing their palms and armaments factories back in the districts. Money and jobs and votes. And wars for profits. The longer wars the better. The outcome ? Who cares ?

Really?

I might buy a part of this if you had the word "Stryker" instead of "tank".

Come on, do you really think I´m making this up ?

They´ve been trying to refuse tanks for years. Why would they want more tanks ?

Well, that's an interesting article.  Rather peculiar situation, since we really do not project major tank based land battles in the future.  My point was that the likes of the Bradley, and it's successor, the Stryker, seem far more to be candidates for expanded funding, much as we might dislike some of their utilizations.  The Stryker is far more than just a war machine, while the Abrams is pretty much just that.  Arguably, either might serve to help troops hold terrain.  But it's hard to believe we'd ship Abrams to an area of regional conflict as an assist in holding territory.  By contrast the Stryker can plough right into an enemy stronghold at 80 miles per hour, and be airlifted, although barely...

Yeah, that's pretty weird.

[galdur]

They were also desperate over some hopeless APC that corporate assets in congress were trying to force on them.

And other things. The U.S. Military is way more than amply supplied for 20th century warfare. When you have an economy that is pretty highly dependent on warfare you can get stuck with all sorts of factories with obsolete materiel and labour all over the districts. It tends to lag rapid technological advances.

[Anon136]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

*edit* Oh also i should say that i totally agree with the sentiment you are getting at here. Details aside, the whole global warming industry is subverting real resources and real time and real energy away from real environmental problems. Some of my pet causes are deforestation of rainforests, overfishing, the use of depleted uranium in war, and the government subsided nuclear energy that isn't ready for mainstream production that has caused situations like the catastrophe in japan.

Yepps, it will reverse its exponential growth at some point in the future which means that we can forget about it for now. Same goes for war. In the future constant warfare on false pretenses for corporate profits and economic benefit for the winners will not be tolerated by the public. But until that happens we can safely continue killing and maiming millions to spread democracy around the world read:create total basket cases here and there.

Completely different. We the species need massive amounts of cheap energy. We don't need war.

[galdur]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

*edit* Oh also i should say that i totally agree with the sentiment you are getting at here. Details aside, the whole global warming industry is subverting real resources and real time and real energy away from real environmental problems. Some of my pet causes are deforestation of rainforests, overfishing, the use of depleted uranium in war, and the government subsided nuclear energy that isn't ready for mainstream production that has caused situations like the catastrophe in japan.

Yepps, it will reverse its exponential growth at some point in the future which means that we can forget about it for now. Same goes for war. In the future constant warfare on false pretenses for corporate profits and economic benefit for the winners will not be tolerated by the public. But until that happens we can safely continue killing and maiming millions to spread democracy around the world read:create total basket cases here and there.

Completely different. We the species need massive amounts of cheap energy. We don't need war.

It´s the same frame of argument. The point being that when there is this popular belief that crises in the making can be ignored because they´ll be sorted out in the future then it gets projected into war among other things. And of course it all becomes one gigantic bubble of kicking the can down the road mentality.

[Anon136]

No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

*edit* Oh also i should say that i totally agree with the sentiment you are getting at here. Details aside, the whole global warming industry is subverting real resources and real time and real energy away from real environmental problems. Some of my pet causes are deforestation of rainforests, overfishing, the use of depleted uranium in war, and the government subsided nuclear energy that isn't ready for mainstream production that has caused situations like the catastrophe in japan.

Yepps, it will reverse its exponential growth at some point in the future which means that we can forget about it for now. Same goes for war. In the future constant warfare on false pretenses for corporate profits and economic benefit for the winners will not be tolerated by the public. But until that happens we can safely continue killing and maiming millions to spread democracy around the world read:create total basket cases here and there.

Completely different. We the species need massive amounts of cheap energy. We don't need war.

It´s the same frame of argument. The point being that when there is this popular belief that crises in the making can be ignored because they´ll be sorted out in the future then it gets projected into war among other things. And of course it all becomes one gigantic bubble of kicking the can down the road mentality.

If man were to abandon coal we would have a definite crisis on our hands. No question about it. Millions maybe even billions would die. Ill take a potential crisis in the future that will probably be averted naturally based on predictable trends over a guaranteed crisis today. Though this isn't really addressing things like emission scrubbing. I don't know too much about that, perhaps if all of the externalities were priced into the cost of production than technologies like this would make emissions much lower.

[Spendulus]

.....
If man were to abandon coal we would have a definite crisis on our hands. No question about it. Millions maybe even billions would die. Ill take a potential crisis in the future that will probably be averted naturally based on predictable trends over a guaranteed crisis today. Though this isn't really addressing things like emission scrubbing. I don't know too much about that, perhaps if all of the externalities were priced into the cost of production than technologies like this would make emissions much lower.

Well, abandoning coal would certainly leave a great number of African villages and towns without power into the foreseeable future, so a great part of the third world would remain third world.

Of course a lot of greenies really want that.

[Wilikon]

.....
If man were to abandon coal we would have a definite crisis on our hands. No question about it. Millions maybe even billions would die. Ill take a potential crisis in the future that will probably be averted naturally based on predictable trends over a guaranteed crisis today. Though this isn't really addressing things like emission scrubbing. I don't know too much about that, perhaps if all of the externalities were priced into the cost of production than technologies like this would make emissions much lower.

Well, abandoning coal would certainly leave a great number of African villages and towns without power into the foreseeable future, so a great part of the third world would remain third world.

Of course a lot of greenies really want that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCPuYvIMKi0


Hum... Tire: extracted from the natural, rounded shaped roots of the tirewaya. Plastic bottles: mango like fruits from a tree called the red plastica botolis. Don't use the blue plastica botolis! Its bottled shaped fruit shrinks to the size of a small nut when cut. Aluminum foil: the skin of the famous slumgullion, king of the undergrowth.

Yep. 100% greenie compatible. You can cook your food in peace brother...

[SgtMoth]

Vilifying realist science – and scientists




http://www.cfact.org/2015/02/12/vilifying-realist-science-and-scientists/


http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[hdbuck]

http://forecastthefacts.org/ -> funded by G. Soros



source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/ForecastTheFacts-org-political-activists-gagging-our-tv-meteorologists-on-climate-issues/

Are you on the list?

[Anon136]

.....
If man were to abandon coal we would have a definite crisis on our hands. No question about it. Millions maybe even billions would die. Ill take a potential crisis in the future that will probably be averted naturally based on predictable trends over a guaranteed crisis today. Though this isn't really addressing things like emission scrubbing. I don't know too much about that, perhaps if all of the externalities were priced into the cost of production than technologies like this would make emissions much lower.

Well, abandoning coal would certainly leave a great number of African villages and towns without power into the foreseeable future, so a great part of the third world would remain third world.

Of course a lot of greenies really want that.

Its not just that. It would make everything in the world significantly more expensive including clothing, food and other basic necessities of all kind. Everyone on the margins of survival would die up until the point where we reach a new equilibrium and a new class of marginal survivor is established. These new marginal survivors would be people who are surviving quite well right now. For example people who work in a sweat shop that pays enough for them to eat and afford a modest roof and send their kids to low cost private schools. They would lose all those luxuries and become the new desperately poor barely surviving class.