Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Firemans4Horn said:

This could go on about 7 different threads on 4 different boards. Congrats Big Ballz and DOGE

 

 

Feature not a bug.

1.) it allows for a scapegoat

2.) it ‘proves’ their original assertion that the NWS was a waste of $ because they don’t even do their job well.

The circular stupidity works with their cult.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

tl;dr: here’s what you need to know:

We have added a lot of carbon to the atmosphere, and that extra carbon traps energy in the climate system. Because of this extra energy, every weather event we see now carries some influence from climate change. The only question is how big that influence is.

Measuring the exact size takes careful attribution studies, but basic physics already tells us the direction: climate change very likely made this event stronger.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

@Captainant Cross posting here as I think it could spawn better discussion:

WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will rescind the long-standing finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, as well as tailpipe emission standards for vehicles, removing the legal foundation of greenhouse gas regulations across industries, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on Tuesday.

Republican President Donald Trump's pick Zeldin announced the agency's plan to rescind the "endangerment finding" at an event at a truck factory in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

@Captainant Cross posting here as I think it could spawn better discussion:

WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will rescind the long-standing finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, as well as tailpipe emission standards for vehicles, removing the legal foundation of greenhouse gas regulations across industries, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on Tuesday.

Republican President Donald Trump's pick Zeldin announced the agency's plan to rescind the "endangerment finding" at an event at a truck factory in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

And guess whose cars won't be bought by anyone else in the world.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Hasten the end. Let’s gooooo!!  Leeerooooooooyyyy JENKINS!!!!!!!!!!!!’

Goddammit Leroy.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Seriously renaming the Kennedy center opera house after Melania Trump is fucking maddening. God dammit. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, troph said:

Seriously renaming the Kennedy center opera house after Melania Trump is fucking maddening. God dammit. 

I mean, for this thread, this is extraordinarily small potatoes. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 hours ago, troph said:

Seriously renaming the Kennedy center opera house after Melania Trump is fucking maddening. God dammit. 

I think tearing out the rose garden, paving it over, and replacing it with a $200,000,000 gilded ballroom is a much more effective and thoughtful "fuck you, you fucking motherfuckers" than renaming the Kenedy center, imo

Posted
45 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think tearing out the rose garden, paving it over, and replacing it with a $200,000,000 gilded ballroom is a much more effective and thoughtful "fuck you, you fucking motherfuckers" than renaming the Kenedy center, imo

are you a bot? do you even read responses?

Posted
1 minute ago, troph said:

are you a bot? do you even read responses?

What? I'm riffing along in agreement with you - it's fucked they're renaming the Kenedy Center, and they're also tearing up the Kenedy Rose Garden 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

What? I'm riffing along in agreement with you - it's fucked they're renaming the Kenedy Center, and they're also tearing up the Kenedy Rose Garden 

read like a disagreement and another non sequitur to the climate issue.

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, troph said:

read like a disagreement and another non sequitur to the climate issue.

rarely non-sequitur, apologies for rubbing you the wrong way across a couple threads it seems. In a thread about climate change, tearing out a rose garden to replace with a gaudy ballroom feels pretty emblematic of the Presidential™ vibe

Edited by Captainant
Posted

WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will rescind the long-standing finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, as well as tailpipe emission standards for vehicles, removing the legal foundation of greenhouse gas regulations across industries, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on Tuesday.

Republican President Donald Trump's pick Zeldin announced the agency's plan to rescind the "endangerment finding" at an event at a truck factory in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.



We are so fucked. People have chosen ignorance over science and truth.

giphy.gif
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Here is the existential problem, my dudes....

The endangerment finding isn't just a technical legal document; it's the foundation for federal climate action in the United States. Without it, you don't have the ability for the EPA to regulate and there is effectively no Clean Air Act.

The good news?

1000% there will be legal challenges from states, multiple states, a coalition of states, environmental agencies, etc. that will tie this thing in legal morass for many, many years. Hopefully we can run out the clock in courts until 2028, seems to be the best case.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

For mitigating the unrelenting heat of climate change and water scarcity that seems to be coming, I think the only answer is literally run for the hills (mountains) and hope the fires don’t get you.  Upper latitudes near the Great Lakes too. I don’t know when that becomes the existential move but it’s already the comfort move. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, troph said:

For mitigating the unrelenting heat of climate change and water scarcity that seems to be coming, I think the only answer is literally run for the hills (mountains) and hope the fires don’t get you.  Upper latitudes near the Great Lakes too. I don’t know when that becomes the existential move but it’s already the comfort move. 

While I hear you, I for one am enjoying the mildest summer in DFW I can remember. Thanks to an above average wet spring and summer (which itself brought tragedy, though).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

While I hear you, I for one am enjoying the mildest summer in DFW I can remember. Thanks to an above average wet spring and summer (which itself brought tragedy, though).

Houston summer seems mild because the highs aren't particularly high (largely due to scattered rain each afternoon). But the overnight lows are the 3rd highest on record (behind '22, '23, and just ahead of '24, so not a great trend).  So this is actually 7th hottest on record (thru july 22):

Quote

But someone messaged us on Instagram recently asking if it was a pretty mild summer so far. “I’ve been able to enjoy the mornings and evenings outside which hasn’t always been the case,” they noted. And, I had to agree! It’s been hot, just as every summer is, but we’ve had enough rain chances (almost daily it seems) to break it up. It’s felt kind of like what would be a typical Houston summer.

And then Lee Corso barged in and said, “Not so fast, my friend.”

https://spacecityweather.com/has-it-been-a-fairly-mild-summer-in-houston-the-answer-may-surprise-you/

Edited by elfenix
Posted
3 hours ago, troph said:

For mitigating the unrelenting heat of climate change and water scarcity that seems to be coming, I think the only answer is literally run for the hills (mountains) and hope the fires don’t get you.  Upper latitudes near the Great Lakes too. I don’t know when that becomes the existential move but it’s already the comfort move. 

 

Narrator: Eventually the fires will get you. No place is safe from climate change. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
8 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’m fucking down. 
 

Quote

Peacock had some thoughts on actions the public can take to show support for wild lands and species.

“I think we’ve got to get together and bring some actions in public places,” he said. “Like the next Fourth of July I think everyone should go to their nearest national park or monument and just plan on protesting. It’s the kind of stuff I don’t normally do because I don’t like crowds, but I’m going to partner up with some people and encourage people to take some action.”

 

  • Like 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

sorry, kids. the olds just needed their oil.

 

 

And today we announced that we will not be funding ANY wind or solar projects going forward.  We are giving the future to the Chinese on a silver platter.

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

And today we announced that we will not be funding ANY wind or solar projects going forward.  We are giving the future to the Chinese on a silver platter.

China already had the solar game on lock. Crazy those guys.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

China already had the solar game on lock. Crazy those guys.

Wind and Solar?  Where we're going, we won't need electricity.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Japan harnesses the power f osmosis to run a desalination plant.

Quote

Japan has opened its first osmotic power plant, in the south-western city of Fukuoka.

Only the second power plant of its type in the world, it is expected to generate about 880,000 kilowatt hours of electricity each year – enough to help power a desalination plant that supplies fresh water to the city and neighbouring areas.

That’s the equivalent of powering about 220 Japanese households, according to Dr Ali Altaee from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), who specialises in the development of alternative water sources.

While it is still an emerging technology being used only on a modest scale as yet, it does have an advantage over some other renewable energies in that it is available around the clock, regardless of the wind or weather or other conditions.

It relies simply on the mixing of fresh and salt water, so the energy flow can continue day and night, providing a steady source of electricity.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/25/japan-osmotic-power-plant-fukuoka

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
On 8/21/2025 at 3:34 PM, Biff Tannen said:

And today we announced that we will not be funding ANY wind or solar projects going forward.  We are giving the future to the Chinese on a silver platter.

ronald reagan laughing GIF by The Academy Awards

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So they're mixing fresh and salt water, to run a desalination plant?

They use the osmotic difference between treated wastewater and the brine discharge of a reverse osmosis desalination plant to generate a meager amount of electricity.

This will never scale.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Viking said:

They use the osmotic difference between treated wastewater and the brine discharge of a reverse osmosis desalination plant to generate a meager amount of electricity.

This will never scale.

Yeah, this seems like WAY too little, too late in the desal game.

Posted
55 minutes ago, Viking said:

They use the osmotic difference between treated wastewater and the brine discharge of a reverse osmosis desalination plant to generate a meager amount of electricity.

This will never scale.

Ah ok that makes more sense, and it's not supposed to be primary power but rather to improve efficiency by capturing energy that would otherwise be discharged

Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

So they're mixing fresh and salt water, to run a desalination plant?

Pressurized salt water on one side of a barrier, fresh water on the other. When the fresh water passes through the barrier, osmosis, the salt water is forced through a turbine, generating electricity.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

The Cartoon Villain's Guide to Killing Climate Action

Why the DOE Climate Working Group report process is so opaque

Andrew Dessler

 

spoilered becasue it's long, but worth a read:

--

Quote


Let’s run a thought experiment. Imagine that you’re the Secretary of Energy. But you’re not just any public servant. You're a former fossil fuel executive, and you’re cartoonishly, mustache-twirlingly evil.

Your singular goal is to keep America hooked on fossil fuels — a dirty, expensive product that enriches you personally — by slowing as much as possible the deployment of clean, cheap renewable energy that benefits everyone else.

One of the main obstacles to your plan is the EPA’s “endangerment finding,” the EPA’s judgment that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. To push your agenda, you need to overturn it. And, to do that, you need to attack the very foundations of climate science itself.

How would you do it?

Fortunately for you, the tobacco playbook is sitting right there on your illegally-logged mahogany desk, open to page one. It is the time-tested manual for manufacturing doubt. As you read it, your plan comes into focus:

step 1: commission the lie

First, you need a report that claims climate science is weak, even if the claim is nonsense. Climate science is arguably the most scrutinized and replicated field in history. Over 200 years, the scientific community has built an incredibly robust understanding of our climate system.

So you go out and find five writers — the usual suspects¹ — willing to produce the report you need. They write it, and it’s as good as promised: a document designed to create the illusion of deep, foundational uncertainty.

step 2: arrange a “pal review”

You know that the report is actually indefensible crap, so you can’t possibly have a real, public peer review from actual climate scientists. They would tear your sad report to shreds.

So, you arrange a sham review. You identify a few toadies in the Department of Energy — bureaucrats, not experts — and ask them to give it a look. Unsurprisingly, they come back with glowing praise: Great job! This is fantastic! I’ve never read something this good!

Crucially, you keep this entire process secret. You don't release the names of the “reviewers” or their “comments”. Doing so would expose the process for what it is: an intellectual scam.

step 3: rush the public

Now it’s time to release your report. You’ll talk a big game about transparency and wanting a robust public debate. But those are actually the last thing you want.

So you give the public a short window to respond — say, 30 days. This ensures that actual experts and organizations are unable to provide a comprehensive rebuttal. You create the appearance of public comment without the substance.

step 4: declare victory and run

When the comment period closes and the critiques flood in, you simply ignore them. You declare victory. “These comments,” you crow, “have not made a dent in our case.” You don't engage with the arguments, there’s no need.

Of course you’ll publicly promise to respond to every single comment submitted. You have no intention of doing so.

is this reality?

This is obviously a fictional account. After all, Secretary Chris Wright does not have a mustache. Is the rest true? I don’t know Sec. Wright personally and have no idea what went on at DOE in producing this report, but I do know this: the actions the DOE has taken in producing this report are indistinguishable from those in my thought experiment.

Let’s examine the facts:

This DOE report was written in secret by a hand-picked group selected explicitly for their positions on climate change. As CNN reported, Wright said “he hand-picked the four researchers and one economist who authored the Trump administration report”.

They claim there was an internal peer review, but they won’t release the names of the reviewers or the reviews. I doubt they're lying about the existence of a review, but I question its legitimacy. The DOE report is so bad that any legitimate peer review would have prevented the report from ever being released. If they want to prove me wrong, they can simply release the reviews.

The review period (30 days) was too short for any comprehensive peer review. Yes, we did put a 400+ page comment together, but there were many many more errors that we would have identified if we had more time. With 90 days, I’m pretty convinced we could have gotten hundreds of scientists writing thousands of pages of comments.

There is no plan for how the authors of the report will respond to the comments. Reports like this need to clearly lay out the details of how the review will proceed. They need to commit to providing a point-by-point response to every comment, as well as appointing a review editor who will oversee the process. If they won’t do that, then they’re not interested in engaging the scientific community.

They are already declaring victory, among other strategies to avoid actually responding to the comments. Here’s Steve Koonin’s Wall Street Journal op-ed from a few days ago:

Note how Koonin is already claiming that the 60,000 comments they received don’t “negate the report’s central points.”

I very seriously doubt Koonin has even read all of those comments — that would take months. In fact, the DOE hasn’t even processed and posted my comment, so how many other comments are sitting in the queue yet to be read by the authors.

But this claim makes 100% sense if this report is not about science or about legitimate scientific debate. It’s about pushing a fictitious alternative reality that benefits only fossil fuel interests.

next steps

The DOE’s next actions will reveal whether this was a good-faith effort or simply a political exercise in deception². Genuine scientific debate is defined by its rules: peer review, transparency, and detailed engagement with criticism. Therefore, if the DOE wants to be taken seriously by the scientific community, they must follow the rules of science:

produce a point-by-point response to all serious comments

appoint unbiased and expert review editors for each chapter, who will evaluate their responses in order to ensure that all comments have been addressed

release the internal DOE peer reviews

They won’t do that. Instead, here’s my prediction of what the DOE authors will do. The authors will put out another version of their report, which they will claim addresses all of the comments, but which in reality ignores or avoids the many many many fatal errors that are pointed out in the comments.

To defend this feeble, non-scientific response, they’ll trot out a Wall Street Journal op-ed about “Even more clarity on climate change.” That’s it, that will be their response.

 

 

  • Rage+1 1


×
×
  • Create New...