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

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

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.

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 Polak Bear.

(or should we call it a kodar bear?)

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

Logically, you would think that's the case, but oddly enough, it's not as common as you'd like to beleive.

"Why are we here?
"Plastic, asshole."

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 bitch 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".

I wanted to quote the whole thing, but couldn't find it in time.

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

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

I'm all for solutions, as long as they don't involve another CGI flick starring Jerry Seinfeld.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 11:01am by BrownDuck

To stay on topic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286

Uh-Oh someone made up some numbers.



Add a couple degrees here and there, No one will ever know!

So I suppose the question would be (even assuming a linear increase in temp.) if the US is 1.5C warmer at the turn of the next century, what does that mean? On one hand, it's not as terrible of a consequence and some of the alarmists would lead you to believe. On the other hand that's still an awful lot of extra energy being added into the system.

Another point being that whether or not it's due to human activity is probably of minimal consequence. Even if you assume it is, it's not like it's really changing people's behaviors a whole lot. The world is getting warmer, estimates range from this study into 4C range or so over the next 100 years or so. Now, what does that mean?

We know the polar region is warming faster. How does that change weather patterns?
How will the extra energy affect storm formation? Cloud formation?
How close should we build to the shoreline? (was that the N. Carolina debate? whatever happened there?)

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 9:43am by someproteinguy

As opposed to "Hey, here's a blog that wrote a paper I think supports me"?



Funny how, a couple entries later after hyping how they'll be submitting their ground-breaking study, they're talking about how "traditional" peer review doesn't really count. Now THAT'S some Gbaji-level spin for ya.

Yes, but if you don't spend the time and keystrokes refuting it to RDM's satisfaction, it means you were really unable to stand up to its awesome might as it shattered your previous notions about global warming.

Ricin only made up .038% of his orange juice! There's no way it could have contributed to his death!

If I had a nickle for every time Gbaji said "Now, this is just a blog but...", I could probably buy myself a frosty soda.

Precisely, and if the dam is leaking who cares who put the hole in it? Warn the people downstream first, assign blame later.



Gore falls more into the alarmist camp, IMO.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:07am by someproteinguy

I don't know. In some circles that makes him even more of an expert on the subject matter.

Huh? ROI doesn't normally refer to returns gained by someone (or group of someone's) other than they who initially invested. So that's a particularly bizarre response.

As to the idea of the CEO leaving in 10 years not being willing to invest in something that will take 30 years to generate a return, that's also silly if you understand anything at all about how businesses operate (and how CEO compensation works).

Well, since I don't need any peer review I hereby state that gbaji is the source of all herpes in the world.

Hey; SCIENCE is fun!!

Not on a study by study basis, but it's fairly common in general. You get a few of the bigwigs in the field together, they write a review article summarizing some knowledge, it gets cited a bajillion times, then it's pretty much considered fact.

Do people question things that are considered 'fact' afterwards?

Of course, happens all the time. There are always exceptions and things that were overlooked, times move on and theories change based on new data. The only difference between other fields and climate science is every lawn chair scientist and politician feels they have a stake in the process here. Every bump, question, contradiction and exception is over-analyzed ad nauseum.

Frankly, I don't see how they ever get anything done with all that extra attention.

Also "consensus" is not how science is done.

I was thinking today, one of us has had original research published in peer reviewed journals and one of us was an ignorant fucking clown who amazes all who know him by managing to acquire and retain the skills required to drive a motor vehicle.

Which one are you, again, Bozo?



Edited, Sep 25th 2012 6:33pm by Smasharoo