<< SOCIETY DOOMED ~ MAIN ~ PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN >>
FAITH TESTED
Andrew Bolt on an envireligious inquisition:
Journalists from The Age and ABC had two important religious questions to ask Steve Bracks and Ted Baillieu in their television debate last night.
1. Do you believe in man-made global warming (or, an agitated Paul Austin demanded of Baillieu) are you one of the very last sceptics?
2. Have you installed low-flow shower nozzles in your home?
This is getting creepy.
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm
The crusade against Global Warming is purely ideological and has no basis in reality. As such it should dismissed.
Have you installed low-flow shower nozzles in your home?
Is there any reason why bathing can’t be done with saltwater? (Obviously followed by a freshwater rinse.) Perhaps saltwater could be used for many household and industrial tasks. The infrastructure would be expensive, but some places already use additional pipes for recycled water.
(Does anyone else find it difficult to compose a comment when suffering from a hangover?)
Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2006 11 04 at 02:39 AM • permalinkJust on the subject of low-flow shower nozzles.
Those things piss me off no end. They use smaller holes and less of them so you can’t have a decent shower.
Needless to say, I have a water saver shower, but I don’t have to run around to get wet under it.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 11 04 at 02:43 AM • permalinkMarket forces drove me to change to energy saver bulbs and low water shower nozzles.
Now, can we please build some more dams and some nuclear power plants?
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 11 04 at 02:53 AM • permalinkA report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.
It’s all so simple. Any time an economist somewhere suggests something, spend tens of billions of dollars. There’s nothing about that that isn’t utterly stupid.
Now, can we please build some more dams and some nuclear power plants?
Sorry, Al. While fossil fuels are going to kill us all because of Globular Wormening, your alternatives are simply irresponsible:
Nuclear - one fatal accident that has caused no identifiable long-term environmental problem. Sounds great, but nuclear is scary.
Dams - fish find it hard to fuck.
Also right out are wind farms (spoils the view of left-wing environmentally-conscious Democratic senators and their constituents), and natural gas (those pipelines and stuff are ugly.)
You see, kilo’s crowd is very, very serious about stopping Gloobal Worming, so they support responsible alternatives like Magic Power. And they won’t stop obstructing everything else until someone invents it.
kilo’s just a retard in search of a religion.
Unfortunately, he’s just one of thousands.Posted by Crusader-Rabbit on 2006 11 04 at 03:10 AM • permalinkEven if the warmening is happening, why don’t we just do what we’ve always done: wait to see what the problems are, if any, and solve them? No human, or even collective of humans, is able to correctly anticipate and foresee all problems in any given venture. Why should we assume the global warmening crowd have an edge in this area? We’re quick to disparage any allusions to mainstream Christian religion, but we are asked to give %100 support to a new breed of prophets who’ve been unable to come up with an effective climate model that predict next week’s weather, and trust them with all planning and spending decisions from this moment forth. I find it a little disconcerting that people can get so heated up when we ask them for proof for the faith they ask us to put in them. They remind me of Muslim clerics, for some reason…
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 11 04 at 03:11 AM • permalinkThe crusade against Global Warming is purely ideological and has no basis in reality. As such it should dismissed.
‘Tain’t nothing like sheer numskull assertions like this which convince me that global
warmingcoolingchanging adherents are merely lost lambs seeking a new religion.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 04 at 03:55 AM • permalink...yet my local beach hasn’t seen the waterline move.
Dave, that’s because the local Rethuglicans keep on moving the beach when no one is looking. Some move beaches, others move lakes.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 04 at 03:57 AM • permalink#4, “Does anyone else find it difficult to compose a comment when suffering from a hangover?”
Shit yeah, thats when I dont bother posting, what comes out sounds like I’ve been possesed by a moonbat…
#5, I’m so used to the low flow shower heads now, that if I’m in a normal shower, it feels almost like I’m underwater. Thats a very strange feeling when your standing up in a bathroom, let me tell you.
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 04 at 06:07 AM • permalinkHave you installed low-flow shower nozzles in your home?
The ridiculous thing about these sorts of innovations is that they don’t save nearly as much water as their proponents claim. Generally, if people are using a shower that has a low-flow nozzle, they spend more time in there since it takes longer to get clean. (I’ll spare you the discussion about water saving toilets but the principle is similar)
Regarding energy saving light globes, I worked out that replacing all my light globes with more environmentally friendly ones would save me about $5 a year. Even if these globes were free (in reality, they’re much more expensive), it wouldn’t be worth using them since the time I’d take to replace my existing globes would be worth more to me than $5.
Someone made a point on a previous thread which I think is quite valid: it wont be long until we see environmental inspectors entering people’s houses to ensure that they’re using the approved globes, shower nozzles, etc.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 04 at 07:07 AM • permalink"Even if the warmening is happening, why don’t we just do what we’ve always done: wait to see what the problems are, if any, and solve them...”
From the POV of the left, this is their big chance to establish the totalitarian, socialist utopia they’ve always wanted...alternate solutions are not welcome.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 11 04 at 11:34 AM • permalinkThe ridiculous thing about these sorts of innovations is that they don’t save nearly as much water as their proponents claim. Generally, if people are using a shower that has a low-flow nozzle, they spend more time in there since it takes longer to get clean. (I’ll spare you the discussion about water saving toilets but the principle is similar)
Art, the basic principles there are very simple:
1. Keep the shower to the same duration as with a normal nozzle. You aren’t supposed to be as clean as before.
2. Eat less, so that you defecate less. Thus, you need only flush once per bowel movement. Indeed, if you cut your calorie intake sufficiently, you will need fewer trips to the potty.
It’s all about giving something back to Mother Gaia™. Sacrifices are necessary, doncha know? The fact that people might possibly suffer is quite immaterial.
Someone made a point on a previous thread which I think is quite valid: it wont be long until we see environmental inspectors entering people’s houses to ensure that they’re using the approved globes, shower nozzles, etc.
In some cases, all you can buy are “low impact” applicances. I’m remodeling my house, and am replacing the toilets. Finding a large capacity tank in a toilet is simply impossible—almost no one makes them.
The plumber pointed this out, and recommended a model with a larger opening between the tank and bowl; it won’t flow as long, but you get a higher velocity that does a better job.
If the old toilets weren’t in such crappy condition (heh!), I’d have kept them.
Anyhoo, inspectors aren’t necessary, since building codes directly influence manufacturers, with obvious results.
That’s OK......I just take longer showers and flush several times. The greenies can shove it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 04 at 11:43 AM • permalinkHave you installed low-flow shower nozzles in your home?
Do you mean icanpissmorethanthat™ shower nozzles? These damned things absolutely infuriate me. If were running for office and a reporter had asked me that question it might have ended my candidacy then and there. Hitting a reporter upside the head will do that.
I live in a town in Florida where all of the houses use septic tanks. Thus, every gallon, after being used and then treated on-site, is returned to the aquifer. So what’s the point in spending money to refurbish a bathroom only when you’re done to have to take the equivalent of a “G.I. shower"* in your own home?
(*That’s bathing out of a helmet in the field.)
"But taking ________ action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.”
There’s a word missing from kilo’s quote of the Stern Report, can you guess what it is ?
The missing word is “effective”, as though just any old action would do. NO effective action has been demonstrated, just a lot of very expensive chicken-minus-head thrashing about. And this would be BEFORE warmening AND a human link might be absolutely demonstrated.
This rot now extends to The Economist, whose Sept. 9 storyS subhead said “Uncertainty of Global Warming Calls For Action....” The inanity of this proposition could be demonstrated if certain parties would stick their heads in a low-flow toilet and pull the handle. After all, it’s ACTION.
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 11 04 at 02:49 PM • permalink"Hey, I think we’ve just discovered another way to identify gormless warm-mongers. They’re the ones with soap slime on their hands and shampoo bubbles in their hair.”
So...how do you identify French warm-mongers?
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 11 04 at 04:01 PM • permalinkSpeaking of the new, inadequate toilets, I had asked my landlord about getting the unit in my apartment replaced because basically it was old and had rust and mineral deposit stains that can’t be scrubbed out, though it worked, and she told me that the new ones don’t flush as well and so on, so thinking about it I decided to keep the old one.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 11 04 at 04:07 PM • permalink"But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product ..."
Of course, it would do so in perpetuity (or does anybody seriously think we’d “take action” for a couple of decades and then everything is hunky-dory again and the alarmists will have nothing to kvetch about anymore?), and anyone who’s ever calculated interest payments knows how much of a bitch compounding percentages can be.
And as Harry Bergeron says, nobody’s even shown that that 1% of world GDP would (or even could) be spent in any kind of effective manner.
In other words:
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
Yes, by making people waste money on “fighting global warming”.
From that same BBC article:
Among [Gordon Brown’s] plans are:
Reducing European-wide emissions by 30% by 2020, and at least 60% by 2050
Well, the demographic development (including the Islamicization of Europe) is gonna take care of that all on its own, I suspect. Given that Muslim societies don’t seem to have much of a clue about how to run an industrial, first-world country (just look at the lack of Arab engineers on their oil fields), European industry in 2050 will probably look like Warsaw Pact industry circa 1989.
And as Harry Bergeron says, nobody’s even shown that that 1% of world GDP would (or even could) be spent in any kind of effective manner.
For the greenies, “effective” means lots and lots of studies, reports, and conferences. Not to mention salary and perks. Gorbal Warbling is a real industry these days.
...European industry in 2050 will probably look like Warsaw Pact industry circa 1989.
Having seen of the industrial facilities in the Middle East, PW, I must agree with you. And that’s with Western engineers involved.
Thing is, those industrial facilities (mostly petroleum processing) are HUGE emitters, and not just of carbon. Some of them are pollution sources equal to what the US had a hundred years ago (can’t say about pre-1989 Eastern Europe, although I don’t recall hearing anything positive).
So there isn’t going to be much of a reduction in emissions. In fact, I’d bet on an increase in pollution.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 04 at 04:46 PM • permalinkThe best you get is “rising sea levels”, which is pretty lame considering that this warming has been allegedly serious for the past 30 years yet my local beach hasn’t seen the waterline move.
The water levels rise in front of the po’ folks hovels first, of course. In fact many Hollywood celenbrities and politicians such as Al Gore have been caught trading off their drowning credits to remain ‘sinking neutral’.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 04 at 05:10 PM • permalinkThe city of LA actually paid to install “free” (Hey, you don’t pay taxes, right?) low-flow toilets in our apartment building.
You have to flush them an average of three times a go to clear the bowl.
You do the math on water saved.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 04 at 06:30 PM • permalink"A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.”
Anyone who isn’t a complete moron understands such a claim as utter nonsense. Or in layman’s terms: garbage in, garbage out.
And while the claim inherently means: shrink the global economy by 20% from what it would otherwise be by taking action now, in reality, it is a claim that for the annual cost of 1% of GDP, the resulting annual GDP will be 25% larger.
I know MentalFloss has terrific intelligence, but can anyone else calculate what the implied return on investment is for such a claim?
(When you calculate the answer, you’ll understand the absolute absurdity of Stren’s garbage in/garbage out claim.)
Well, I’ve finally broken down and actually taken a look at the actual report (mostly prompted by Forbes’ post). Since I don’t have two weeks to waste, I’ve jumped straight to the “Summary of Conclusions”, where we find gems such as:
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
What, that’s it? A 5% reduction of global GDP? Whoop-de-doo. So if we don’t do anything, then global GDP in, say, 2026 will be what it would be in 2024 without the impact of climate change? (Since within two years - probably even less - the regular growth of world GDP should make up that setback easily.)
There’s also this laugher, where one sentence immediately contradicts the previous one:
The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current level is 430ppm CO2e today, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year. Stabilisation in this range would require emissions to be at least 25% below current levels by 2050, and perhaps much more.
Ultimately, stabilisation - at whatever level - requires that annaul emissions be brought down to more than 80% below current levels.
It’s like somebody realized that 25% reduction by 2050 didn’t sound scary enough, so the next sentence bumps up the number to 80%. (If 25% until 2050 is good enough for stabilisation between 450 and 550, why the need to cut back another 55 percentage points? It doesn’t seem to be explained anywhere.) The “stabilisation at whatever level” phrasing is also pretty funny. I guess they’re admitting what climate change sceptics have charged for a long time - no matter what the goal (ice age prevention, global warming prevention, etc), the measures claimed necessary always happen to be the same.
Anyway, since Forbes posed the question...it seems that the 1% cost of GDP figure for preventing the worst of climate change applies until (at least) 2050. Let’s conservatively estimate the “do-nothing” growth of real GDP at 3% (it’s been averaging around 4% for the last six years, according to the CIA Factbook). Let’s put 2006 GDP at 100, then 2050 GDP will be 367. The Stern report claims (as Forbes points out) that working to curb climate change would result in a 25% higher GDP, or 459. Taking the 44th root, we get a necessary annual growth rate of about 3.5%, but that doesn’t yet include the 1% spent on the Stern report’s proposed measures, so we’re looking at an alleged annual growth rate of about 4.5%. That would be an annual return on investment of 50% if I’m not mistaken (finance wasn’t my strong point).
Sorry can’t resist:
PARENTAL WARNING:
I personally like my nozzle to have a high flow rate.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 04 at 08:21 PM • permalinkReuters Advisory:
In a previous release, it was stated:
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
Reuters wishes to advise our customers that the release should have read:
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the globe by 20%.
Reuters sincerely regrets the disturbances created in the financial markets and the false hope given to real estate agents.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 04 at 08:26 PM • permalink#5 Nilknarf, is “treehugger” a spoof or real? It oozes satire to me.
I do like the shower idea though. There’s now an ecologically correct reason for giving or receiving head in a shower. Wow.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 04 at 08:31 PM • permalink"or are you one of the very last sceptics?”
The sort of Editorial Question ABC people specialise in unconsciously.
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern
Didn’t they know that Economics is The Dismal Science? Sort of shooting yourself in the foot.Bolt revealed the brittleness of an all- believing journalist like Virginia Trioli.
She simply refused to take in any contrary evidence Bolt was giving her.
I almost expected her to hold up a Cross and scream: Get Thee behind me, Tempter!Trioli is so ABC-typical: Ride every Bandwagon that comes along, and you don’t ever have to learn to drive yourself.
#39, for those of us in the economics profession, the term “world bank economist” is an oxymoron.
Since you brought it up, the term ‘the dismal science’ was first used by Thomas Carlyle in response to economists like JS Mill. Carlyle was a supporter of slavery, a position that was at odds with those of classical economists (who argued in favour of individual rights, individual freedom and individual incentives).
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 05 at 12:15 AM • permalinkThere was an article in the Tampa Tribune a few months back about pressure-assisted water saving toilets. These store water at full line pressure in a sealed tank with an air cushion, and then flush with a loud roar. They are said to work, but the downside is that they’re expensive, $400-$500. Money quote: “This thing will flush a cat.”
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
If the water level is rising, i.e. there is more water, why exactly do we need to reduce our water consumption with low-flow shower nozzles?