Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's getting hot in here....so lets...read this article?Follow

#52 Sep 24 2012 at 6:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Even if you don't believe it's happening, why take the chance?


It cuts into profits. Since the GOP is the loudest at saying it not our fault this is all that needs to be said.
Not everything cuts into profits. A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.
Yeah, lots are efficiency based. Greater efficiency usually relates to less overhead.

Many green initiatives can improve public health as well - so presumably there'd be some indirect cost savings in the form of reduced reactive health care.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#53 Sep 24 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.


Myth. Maybe .01% have "excellent ROI". Most are only tacitly feasible because of PR benefits. You know, the PR that means you hear all about the ones with excellent ROI then are duped into believing that's a fairly common thing.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#54 Sep 24 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
Elinda wrote:
The planet is already suffering
The planet'll be fine. It's a self-correcting system. We might not be around to see it, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Sep 24 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.


Myth. Maybe .01% have "excellent ROI". Most are only tacitly feasible because of PR benefits. You know, the PR that means you hear all about the ones with excellent ROI then are duped into believing that's a fairly common thing.
I can think of 10 off the top of my head that we utilize in most of our hotels. The bulk of them are based around energy efficiency. Now, 10 may not be a lot in the grand scheme, but in the reality of what someone or some business may be willing to do, 10 is a good chunk and has a rather significant effect.


Edited, Sep 24th 2012 11:19am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#56 Sep 24 2012 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The planet is already suffering
The planet'll be fine. It's a self-correcting system. We might not be around to see it, though.

Yeah, I should have been more specific. Systems have changed - first the chemistry, next the ecosystems.

Old mother earth could probably care less if our coastal cities can't seem to keep their heads above water, or if the wood boring bark beetle population explodes. It's just a little hot flash - it'll pass.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#57 Sep 24 2012 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There will come soft rains
And the smell of the ground
Circling swallows
With their shimmering sound...


Ms. Teasdale (and Mr. Bradbury) may have underestimated the number of singing frogs and wild plum trees we'll be taking down with us.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Sep 24 2012 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
TLDR CANADIAN PROPAGANDA!


Admit it you're just sick of all the ice, and tired of riding out the winter in Arizona. The northern polar region is warming faster than anywhere in the world and all you see is dollar signs. Who cares about the polar bears? They're nothing but pests anyway.

For shame. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#59 Sep 24 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
TLDR CANADIAN PROPAGANDA!
Who cares about the polar bears? They're nothing but pests anyway.

For shame. Smiley: disappointed

I think they'll successfully breed with the kodiak, creating a new and even more ferocious ursidae monster that will be able to swim and climb trees. It will be incredibly cute, mottled all white and brown, and we'll call it a ***** Bear.

(or should we call it a kodar bear?)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#60 Sep 24 2012 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
***** Bear.

Racist Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Sep 24 2012 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Has anyone considered that maybe this is exactly what the planet wants? I mean, we've been way bigger assh*les than those dinosaur dudes, and they were gone like BAM.

Edited, Sep 24th 2012 12:45pm by Guenny
#62 Sep 24 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,580 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Even if you don't believe it's happening, why take the chance?

Even if you don't believe that God will condemn you to an eternity of torment and hellfire, why take the chance by not going to church once a week?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#63gbaji, Posted: Sep 24 2012 at 4:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Correct. Meaningless, but correct. No one's denying "the effect mankind has has in altering the natural cycle". That's a pretty circular argument. What we're denying is the size of the actual effect itself and its relation to current global temperatures trends. ****. We're not even in agreement over what those trends are either.
#64 Sep 24 2012 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.


Myth. Maybe .01% have "excellent ROI". Most are only tacitly feasible because of PR benefits. You know, the PR that means you hear all about the ones with excellent ROI then are duped into believing that's a fairly common thing.
I can think of 10 off the top of my head that we utilize in most of our hotels. The bulk of them are based around energy efficiency. Now, 10 may not be a lot in the grand scheme, but in the reality of what someone or some business may be willing to do, 10 is a good chunk and has a rather significant effect.


The problem is, I suspect, how one looks at "green initiatives". Assuming we're talking about the set of things which our government has to get involved in to force people to adopt, the idea that there's a positive ROI on them is pretty much absurd. If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.

It's pretty absurd to point to those things and use them as a justification for all the stuff the government *is* having to force people/businesses to do. Because those things are almost certainly *not* going to be better ROI than what they're doing now. It's nearly axiomatic to the issue itself that this is the case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Sep 24 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.
Logically, you would think that's the case, but oddly enough, it's not as common as you'd like to beleive.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#66 Sep 24 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.
Logically, you would think that's the case, but oddly enough, it's not as common as you'd like to beleive.


Sure. But then it doesn't take more than a nudge or a bit of information to get people to adopt those kinds of changes. And those aren't usually the sorts of things that anyone fights over politically either. It's the subsidies for a new type of light bulbs (which only coincidentally give a virtual monopoly to a big donor of the current administration), or regulation designed purely to increase the cost and decrease the availability of one form of energy in order to make an alternative look more attractive, or a whole list of other things which people actually oppose.

I don't know anyone opposing the installation of improved heat exchangers in office or hotel buildings though, so I think pointing out the ROI of such things when speaking broadly of "green initiatives" is misleading at best.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Sep 24 2012 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Guenny wrote:
Has anyone considered that maybe this is exactly what the planet wants? I mean, we've been way bigger assh*les than those dinosaur dudes, and they were gone like BAM.

"Why are we here?
"Plastic, asshole."
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#68 Sep 25 2012 at 1:04 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Human kind the last 150 years has produced levels of greenhouse gas that far exceed any natural variation observable in the historical record. This is proven.


Here's where you go off the rails though. This is not true, much less "proven" if we consider all greenhouse gases. It's only true if we consider just one: Carbon Dioxide. And CO2 is one of the weakest of the greenhouse gasses. Thus, the likely effect of even a significant variation of naturally produced CO2 by humans when compared to the natural variations of other greenhouse gasses is pretty darn small.

It's like arguing that we've significantly affected the total mass of the soup we're making because we increased the size of a "dash" of salt by 30%.


You're wrong, but then I would never expect you to be able to discern the difference between fact and fiction.

Quote:
Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.


That you expect anyone here (or anywhere else, for that matter) to believe your baseless opinion on the matter over a worldwide body of volunteer scientists pouring over thousands of data points and all arriving at similar conclusions is typical, however hilarious and unlikely.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 2:06am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#69 Sep 25 2012 at 5:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.
Logically, you would think that's the case, but oddly enough, it's not as common as you'd like to beleive.


Sure. But then it doesn't take more than a nudge or a bit of information to get people to adopt those kinds of changes. And those aren't usually the sorts of things that anyone fights over politically either. It's the subsidies for a new type of light bulbs (which only coincidentally give a virtual monopoly to a big donor of the current administration), or regulation designed purely to increase the cost and decrease the availability of one form of energy in order to make an alternative look more attractive, or a whole list of other things which people actually oppose.

I don't know anyone opposing the installation of improved heat exchangers in office or hotel buildings though, so I think pointing out the ROI of such things when speaking broadly of "green initiatives" is misleading at best.
Oftentimes it's the initial investment monies that are either simply not there or too big of a chunk of change. If it's a 30 ROI some CEO looking at retirement in ten years might need more than nudging to make the change. It might take a low interest loan or even seed grant money, perhaps a tax incentive.....

When and if government stops subsidizing big oil, you can righteously come ***** about "regulation designed purely to increase the cost and decrease the availability of one form of energy in order to make an alternative look more attractive".
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#70 Sep 25 2012 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.

Except when the cost is individual and the outcome is shared.
#71 Sep 25 2012 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Debalic wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Has anyone considered that maybe this is exactly what the planet wants? I mean, we've been way bigger assh*les than those dinosaur dudes, and they were gone like BAM.
"Why are we here?
"Plastic, asshole."
I wanted to quote the whole thing, but couldn't find it in time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Sep 25 2012 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Human kind the last 150 years has produced levels of greenhouse gas that far exceed any natural variation observable in the historical record. This is proven.


Here's where you go off the rails though. This is not true, much less "proven" if we consider all greenhouse gases. It's only true if we consider just one: Carbon Dioxide. And CO2 is one of the weakest of the greenhouse gasses. Thus, the likely effect of even a significant variation of naturally produced CO2 by humans when compared to the natural variations of other greenhouse gasses is pretty darn small.

It's like arguing that we've significantly affected the total mass of the soup we're making because we increased the size of a "dash" of salt by 30%.


Speaking of 30% I thought I just read somewhere that 5%-30% of the arctic warming was due to natural cycles.

I wish it wasn't so hard to get the actual science links on these things...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#73 Sep 25 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Speaking of 30% I thought I just read somewhere that 5%-30% of the arctic warming was due to natural cycles.

I wish it wasn't so hard to get the actual science links on these things...


They're not that hard to find, but most of them are locked up behind a "pay gate" such that you have to purchase access to the original study. This one's actually out in the open though.

Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent

However, the lack of availability of most studies to the general public leads imbeciles like Gbaji to assume the studies are fictional or biased because he neither has access to nor the capability to understand them.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:37am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#74 Sep 25 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Speaking of 30% I thought I just read somewhere that 5%-30% of the arctic warming was due to natural cycles.

I wish it wasn't so hard to get the actual science links on these things...


They're not that hard to find, but most of them are locked up behind a "pay gate" such that you have to purchase access to the original study. This one's actually out in the open though.

Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent

However, the lack of availability of most studies to the general public leads imbeciles like Gbaji to assume the studies are fictional or biased because he neither has access to nor the capability to understand them.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:37am by BrownDuck


Thanks.

I was getting a message that the file had already been download or viewed from my IP address, and it sent me to the "terms and conditions" page. Smiley: rolleyes

Quote:
Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the
loss of importance of solar influence on temperature.


Which I think is a very good point. It's not that these other things (solar cycles, leaving an ice age, ect) have an effect, it's just that with modern scientific instruments we have the ability to tease out that effect.


Edited, Sep 25th 2012 8:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#75 Sep 25 2012 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I posted about a scientific paper a few years ago that attributed at least 50% of the warming to anthropogenic sources. It was easier then because I still had an academic account that allowed access to the majority of published studies.

These days, I don't even bother. People like Gbaji have been ignoring the actual science for years so there's no point in trying to hammer it in.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:52am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Sep 25 2012 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
This will kill us before Global Warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/decline-of-honey-bees-now-a-global-phenomenon-says-united-nations-2237541.html

Where are the billion dollar solutions for an issue we are actually experiencing. That actually has drastic ramifications in the immediate future, the world over.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (58)