Nobody cares what you think, Bladder.Baldy wrote:George Soros, Mort Zuckerman, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Steyer, Irwin Jacobs, Fred Eychaner, Haim Saban, and countless other Obamaite Donk billionaires would like a word with you. Don't think they appreciate you calling them Conkshoundawg wrote:
Conks would crawl over their dying mothers to fvck their dead sisters if there was a dollar to be made at it.
I don't disagree. The problem is videos like this make low information people think that every coal mining company, for example, does nothing but pillage and pollute the earth. I can show you a mine company that does a LIDAR mapping of an area before they mine. They take off the topsoil, mine the coal, and then when they are done they put the topsoil back to the exact same contour based on their LIDAR mapping. They restore the ground back to what it was before - prairie, crop land, etc. They even keep track of how many trees they remove and plant at least twice as many back. The only difference is the land is now 20-60 feet lower than it was before.Grizalltheway wrote:Man is always going to have some sort of impact on the environment. It's about being conscious of it and minimizing it whenever possible.HI54UNI wrote:
Unless beavers built the dam man destroyed part of the environment to build it and to create the lake. Why do you hate the environment that was destroyed?
We went to a former mountaintop mine for AP Enviro and the mining company did all those things after they left. The pictures of the area after the the replanting were beautiful - stunning really...and then everything died months later. I'm not saying that's the case all the time, but it's not like the environmentalists are completely lying here. These stories are coming from real people in real communities that are being negatively affected by this stuff. But I do agree that this particular video is much too simplistic.HI54UNI wrote:I don't disagree. The problem is videos like this make low information people think that every coal mining company, for example, does nothing but pillage and pollute the earth. I can show you a mine company that does a LIDAR mapping of an area before they mine. They take off the topsoil, mine the coal, and then when they are done they put the topsoil back to the exact same contour based on their LIDAR mapping. They restore the ground back to what it was before - prairie, crop land, etc. They even keep track of how many trees they remove and plant at least twice as many back. The only difference is the land is now 20-60 feet lower than it was before.Grizalltheway wrote:
Man is always going to have some sort of impact on the environment. It's about being conscious of it and minimizing it whenever possible.
But this isn't the story that gets told because it doesn't fit the environmentalist agenda.
Conks live near the coastline where there is minimal elevation differences to generate hydroelectric power from dams.Grizalltheway wrote:Actually it's generated by a dam, which created a lake that's great for fishing, boating, and even sailing. See, it is possible to live in harmony with the environment, if only conks would try.CAA Flagship wrote: The electricity that feeds your computer is generated by wind turbines that kill birds at an alarming rate. You should be ashamed.
There's no baby. You donks aborted it.kalm wrote:This! No need to throw the baby out with the reservoir water...or something like that.Grizalltheway wrote:
Man is always going to have some sort of impact on the environment. It's about being conscious of it and minimizing it whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;CAA Flagship wrote:Conks live near the coastline where there is minimal elevation differences to generate hydroelectric power from dams.Grizalltheway wrote: Actually it's generated by a dam, which created a lake that's great for fishing, boating, and even sailing. See, it is possible to live in harmony with the environment, if only conks would try.
In 1980 there were 66 million MexicansPwns wrote:Give me a good reason to believe the world population is growing as fast as the UN thinks when the developing countries responsible for most of the population growth have limited if any medical records, birth and death certificates, census bureaus, or any kind of public health agencies. Estimating birth rates and rates of death from HIV, malaria and starvation are essentially guesses with no way to validate the estimation methods.Chizzang wrote: Just look at any global population growth chart and stagger backwards in disbelief...
CAA Flagship wrote:There's no baby. You donks aborted it.kalm wrote:
This! No need to throw the baby out with the reservoir water...or something like that.
CAA Flagship wrote:There's no baby. You donks aborted it.kalm wrote:
This! No need to throw the baby out with the reservoir water...or something like that.
You didn't answer my question. How do you get accurate population counts in places like Mexico and India, let alone regions like the middle east and sub-saharan Africa?Chizzang wrote:In 1980 there were 66 million MexicansPwns wrote:
Give me a good reason to believe the world population is growing as fast as the UN thinks when the developing countries responsible for most of the population growth have limited if any medical records, birth and death certificates, census bureaus, or any kind of public health agencies. Estimating birth rates and rates of death from HIV, malaria and starvation are essentially guesses with no way to validate the estimation methods.
today there are 120 million - Population almost doubled in 35 years
in 1980 there were 200 million Americans
Today there are 350 million
In 1980 in India there were 680 million
Today there are over 1 Billion Indians
we can keep going if you'd like
Does it really matter if we have an exact number or not? That's really not the point he's trying to make.Pwns wrote:You didn't answer my question. How do you get accurate population counts in places like Mexico and India, let alone regions like the middle east and sub-saharan Africa?Chizzang wrote:
In 1980 there were 66 million Mexicans
today there are 120 million - Population almost doubled in 35 years
in 1980 there were 200 million Americans
Today there are 350 million
In 1980 in India there were 680 million
Today there are over 1 Billion Indians
we can keep going if you'd like
Bingo...Grizalltheway wrote:Does it really matter if we have an exact number or not? That's really not the point he's trying to make.Pwns wrote:
You didn't answer my question. How do you get accurate population counts in places like Mexico and India, let alone regions like the middle east and sub-saharan Africa?
choose wisely (we didn't)The point is that people need to stop breeding like rats.Grizalltheway wrote:Does it really matter if we have an exact number or not? That's really not the point he's trying to make.Pwns wrote:
You didn't answer my question. How do you get accurate population counts in places like Mexico and India, let alone regions like the middle east and sub-saharan Africa?
I'd say.Chizzang wrote: Heck: me and the girlfriend are flying down tonight so we can spend the weekend in Los Angeles
and catch the Lyle Lovett concert...
Good luck
Friday night we're seeing "Before Now" at the Viper Room on the strip (they go on at about 11:00)Cluck U wrote:I'd say.Chizzang wrote: Heck: me and the girlfriend are flying down tonight so we can spend the weekend in Los Angeles
and catch the Lyle Lovett concert...
Good luck
Surely there were better choices than Lyle Lovett.
Chizzang wrote:Bingo...Grizalltheway wrote:
Does it really matter if we have an exact number or not? That's really not the point he's trying to make.
Calculations (plus or minus 5%) are not that difficult to establish
The earths population will be double (again) in 50 years
And that's calculating a growth rate DECREASE
In the remaining portion of MY lifetime - none of this will be an issue
So frankly I'm just enjoying the ride
Heck: me and the girlfriend are flying down tonight so we can spend the weekend in Los Angeles
and catch the Lyle Lovett concert at the Hollywood Bowl on Saturday night
We enjoy the chaos that is LA (what a F-ing circus that place is)
We're both 49 and have checked out / It's the 30 somethings job now
Good luck
Still missing (or in denial of) the overall problem here, Pwns.Pwns wrote:Chizzang wrote:
Bingo...
Calculations (plus or minus 5%) are not that difficult to establish
The earths population will be double (again) in 50 years
And that's calculating a growth rate DECREASE
In the remaining portion of MY lifetime - none of this will be an issue
So frankly I'm just enjoying the ride
Heck: me and the girlfriend are flying down tonight so we can spend the weekend in Los Angeles
and catch the Lyle Lovett concert at the Hollywood Bowl on Saturday night
We enjoy the chaos that is LA (what a F-ing circus that place is)
We're both 49 and have checked out / It's the 30 somethings job now
Good luck
A few problems with that...
1. You can't establish a margin of error without knowing how much uncertainty/variance there is in the estimate.
2. Counts of the population today depend on previous counts, which depend on counts before that and so on. The error of population counts will just propagate over time.
3. As I said, you can't validate estimates of population and population growth with a "gold standard" method.
I know I'm starting to sound like JSO, but it's all voodoo math and no one bothers to even question it.
Grizalltheway wrote:Still missing (or in denial of) the overall problem here, Pwns.Pwns wrote:
A few problems with that...
1. You can't establish a margin of error without knowing how much uncertainty/variance there is in the estimate.
2. Counts of the population today depend on previous counts, which depend on counts before that and so on. The error of population counts will just propagate over time.
3. As I said, you can't validate estimates of population and population growth with a "gold standard" method.
I know I'm starting to sound like JSO, but it's all voodoo math and no one bothers to even question it.
I don't know if it will be that hard in the future.Chizzang wrote:Regardless of who's side you're on...
Future generations are going to have to figure something out
(and good luck) because it's not in our default nature as humans to consider that everything is connected / for some reason we just refuse to believe that
Just look at any global population growth chart and stagger backwards in disbelief...
We are not much different than a virus consuming it's host (at near insane growth rates)
It's an old analogy - I know I know - but it smacks of truth
Oh JFC...the idea here is whether externalities should be considered in macro-economic financial discussions. Does a clean environment have a value? Do environmental destruction and related health concerns have a cost? The video was an add-on to ruffle conk feathers.HI54UNI wrote:I don't disagree. The problem is videos like this make low information people think that every coal mining company, for example, does nothing but pillage and pollute the earth. I can show you a mine company that does a LIDAR mapping of an area before they mine. They take off the topsoil, mine the coal, and then when they are done they put the topsoil back to the exact same contour based on their LIDAR mapping. They restore the ground back to what it was before - prairie, crop land, etc. They even keep track of how many trees they remove and plant at least twice as many back. The only difference is the land is now 20-60 feet lower than it was before.Grizalltheway wrote:
Man is always going to have some sort of impact on the environment. It's about being conscious of it and minimizing it whenever possible.
But this isn't the story that gets told because it doesn't fit the environmentalist agenda.
And again, who's saying those costs are not already, to some extent, part of macro-economic financial discussions? Heck, we hear talk about the compliance costs for environmental regulations all the time because they are a real cost and they already are part of the financial discussions, both on a macro scale for the total economy as well as drilling down (pun intended) to the individual companies making decisions on new investments and considering the environmental costs of their decisions. It's not perfect, and there are plenty of bad actors in the world that minimize or disregard environmental costs, but that doesn't mean the majority do.kalm wrote:Oh JFC...the idea here is whether externalities should be considered in macro-economic financial discussions. Does a clean environment have a value? Do environmental destruction and related health concerns have a cost? The video was an add-on to ruffle conk feathers.HI54UNI wrote:
I don't disagree. The problem is videos like this make low information people think that every coal mining company, for example, does nothing but pillage and pollute the earth. I can show you a mine company that does a LIDAR mapping of an area before they mine. They take off the topsoil, mine the coal, and then when they are done they put the topsoil back to the exact same contour based on their LIDAR mapping. They restore the ground back to what it was before - prairie, crop land, etc. They even keep track of how many trees they remove and plant at least twice as many back. The only difference is the land is now 20-60 feet lower than it was before.
But this isn't the story that gets told because it doesn't fit the environmentalist agenda.
Please try and stay with the program...
Sure regulatory costs are included. But how about the values of sustainability, improved health, etc they create?GannonFan wrote:And again, who's saying those costs are not already, to some extent, part of macro-economic financial discussions? Heck, we hear talk about the compliance costs for environmental regulations all the time because they are a real cost and they already are part of the financial discussions, both on a macro scale for the total economy as well as drilling down (pun intended) to the individual companies making decisions on new investments and considering the environmental costs of their decisions. It's not perfect, and there are plenty of bad actors in the world that minimize or disregard environmental costs, but that doesn't mean the majority do.kalm wrote:
Oh JFC...the idea here is whether externalities should be considered in macro-economic financial discussions. Does a clean environment have a value? Do environmental destruction and related health concerns have a cost? The video was an add-on to ruffle conk feathers.
Please try and stay with the program...
They aren't because you say they aren't?kalm wrote:Sure regulatory costs are included. But how about the values of sustainability, improved health, etc they create?GannonFan wrote:
And again, who's saying those costs are not already, to some extent, part of macro-economic financial discussions? Heck, we hear talk about the compliance costs for environmental regulations all the time because they are a real cost and they already are part of the financial discussions, both on a macro scale for the total economy as well as drilling down (pun intended) to the individual companies making decisions on new investments and considering the environmental costs of their decisions. It's not perfect, and there are plenty of bad actors in the world that minimize or disregard environmental costs, but that doesn't mean the majority do.
I'm asking the question. Show me where they are...DSUrocks07 wrote:They aren't because you say they aren't?kalm wrote:
Sure regulatory costs are included. But how about the values of sustainability, improved health, etc they create?
