Disqus - Latest Comments for Jake The Snake

Re: John Kerry Skewers Climate Change Denying 'Scholar' (VIDEO)

Jake The Snake — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:14:08 -0000

It's difficult to get a peer reviewed study if the science journals only allow one view to be printed.

Re: Koalas Extinct in 30 Years as Climate Change, Habitat Loss, Sexually Transmitted Disease Take Their Toll

Jake The Snake — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:00:05 -0000

Another species that can't adapt, we'll spend millions trying to save it because it's cute despite the fact that it is overspecialized and probably a dead end species anyway.

Re: The Most Dangerous Global Warming Deniers in the World

Jake The Snake — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:38:11 -0000

The fact that most supporters of man induced global warming are scientific dunces is no more relevant to the discussion than you assertion.

There's lots of data, but all of the proof consists of computer models. I've said it before and I'll say it now. Computer models are not proof, they are useful tools to make predictions but they are not proof. Saying that computer models are proof, is like saying that the world is going to end then going and reading a book by Nostredomus seeing the same prediction and saying that's proof.

Calling people "deniers" and implying they are distoring reality rather than disagreeing with a theory is the problem. Science isn't determined by consensus as a matter off act most important discoveries are made by people who go against the consensus.

Is global warming happening? That's something measurable, and that we have historic data for. It has warmed throughout most of the last century with cooling in the last decade. Is it going to continue to warm? That's the question, if you believe global warming theories, it is because CO2 is going to increase the heat retained by the earth. If you don't and there are cridible people who don't then you are not worried.

I don't know about global warming, I do know when I hear arguments that are not scientific, but quote scientific consensus I'm more inclined to dismis them.

Three questions need to be answered and we need proof not more computer models. The models conform to the theory so they are always going to predict as expected. Question one, are we causing global warming/climate change? Quesiton two, if we are causing it, can we stop it without destroying society, will the cure be worse than the consequences? If we can't stop it what do we do to deal with it?

Re: Ninject 2 Reaches Beta!

Jake The Snake — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:13:09 -0000

2.0 sounds very exciting, but support for CF is a definite must.

Re: =Le web 2.0 n'intéressent personne=

Jake The Snake — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:48:23 -0000

Rien à faire, du texte blanc sur fond noir ça m'explose toujours autant les yeux... et c'était pareil il y a 10 ans !

Moralité : web2 ou pas, les bonnes pratiques ne sont toujours pas assimilées ;)

Re: On the Cover of the Rolling Stone - GWB

Jake The Snake — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:25:51 -0000

Where's the copy of My Pet Goat.

Storms a comin.

Re: noodad » Leave the Babytalk to the Babies

Jake The Snake — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:43:37 -0000

My kid still calls his grandmother Gamgam and he is 15. It is very embarassing.

Re: The Climate Bill is Already Killing Coal Plants

Jake The Snake — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:39:38 -0000

You have to be able to generate base load capacity. Wind and Solar can't do that.

Re: Clearing Space Junk from Earth's Orbit By Launching Water At It?

Jake The Snake — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:41:15 -0000

Oh my god, both the article and comments to the article are the most uniformed I've ever seen on treehugger and that's saying something.

The water, which doesn't have to be fresh water would be launched in a ballistic path; meaning it's going to come back to earth in a short time. The water would not represent a problem to working satellites because we know where those are. The water will indeed freeze, think comets made of ice here, and yes it's likely to become something of a shotgun blast depending on how it's deployed.

Even if they used fresh water, I would assume that it wouldn't come from an area with a shortage, they couldn't possibly use more than a few tons of water a year, all of which would come back to earth and vaporize on reentry raining down as, wait for it, fresh water. The water used in a year for something like this would be minuscule in comparison to the fresh water used daily.

The only reason small water savings matter here on earth is that they can be done over time by vast numbers of people.

Re: First Lawsuit Successfully Filed Against US Companies Contributing to Global Warming

Jake The Snake — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:48:11 -0000

@Marty

Agreed. Models and consensus are not proof.

Re: California Solar-Thermal Power Plan Bumped For New National Monument

Jake The Snake — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:14:53 -0000

@Richard
"If it is not clear by now, the real solution is creating a society where we use much less energy. Pretty much anything becomes a problem when it is done on a massive scale. It is time to stop silly ideas like electric cars that are only a insignificant "improvement". We need massive change not band aids which only continue our energy hogging ways."

So I guess your solution is to lower everyone's standard of living. You are the reason people dismiss the green movement out of hand. Efficiency gains are great but they have a hard limit and produce diminishing returns. You want society to reduce it's energy, but you are obviously using a computer, connecting to the internet and most likely dependent on food that has to be transported.

Unless you live on your own piece of land and grow all of your own foods, and are off grid, I really don't think you have any reason to be preaching. Even if you did all of the above, there is not enough land on earth for everyone to live that lifestyle.

The reality is that until fusion is practical if we want clean energy we are going to have to depend on nuclear, geothermal, solar, hydro, and wind. Each of these has its own drawbacks, but everyone has a choice, deal with the deficiencies of existing solutions or use coal/natural gas/oil.

Americans are not going to accept a lower standard of living and there are solutions that will allow the current standard of living without fossil fuels so why should they.

Re: Could Nuclear Power and Offshore Drilling Get Republicans to Vote for Cap and Trade?

Jake The Snake — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:55:21 -0000

The idea would be to import less oil. You should be for it you know local production and all.

If we were to reduce the total amount of oil used and open up domestic production at the same time, it would put a serious dent in the trade deficit meaning more money in the country and more money for tax receipts.

Re: If Peak Oil is Now or in 2030, We're Still Woefully Unprepared

Jake The Snake — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:58:16 -0000

Peak oil, Oh, no it's peak oil. Global oil will not follow the same decline rate as single fields. As we pass peak, oil prices will go up people will use less. We'll spend more on finding new fields. Alternatives to oil will become more competitive. Methane Hydrates, Natural gas, shale oil, coal gassification, and thermal depolymerization along with green alternatives electricty, compressed air, efficiency, and hydrogen fuel cells.

Forget the doom and gloom peak oil will just force people to use alternatives. The downward slope on production will be less steep than the upward slope, unlike single fields. If you want it to be clean push for electric

Re: ha1day coming within an hour!

Jake The Snake — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:07:37 -0000

ferociousbird: sorry for the delay! hostmonster doesn't allow jailbreak downloads, but we found another host. download coming in 10 minutes! #ha1lday

Re: Hannity Says "The Debate's Over. There's No Global Warming."

Jake The Snake — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:20 -0000

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that global warning is a major threat the planet and that only strong policies that move us away from carbon based economy will keep global temperature rise below dangerous levels. They recommend that advanced economies cut their emission by 40 percent by 2020 relative to 1990 levels."

And we all know that there is no possibility that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be wrong. It's also well known that scientific consensus is all that's required to prove a theory. There should always be debate especially when discussion something so important with such a large impact on government policy.

Does anyone have a single piece of evidence that CO2 is causing climate change? Just keep in mind computer models are not proof.

Re: With Each Passing Month the Situation Gets More Desperate: Climate Change Sinks Carteret Islanders

Jake The Snake — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:57:38 -0000

From the article...
"For example, there was a recent tsunami that hit Samoa and Fiji. If something like that happened--and, as we know, climate change will increase these severe weather events"

I had no idea that tsunamis were a severe weather event that would increase because of climate change. This sort of statement displays complete ignorance of the author.

Re: Blog Action Day 2009: If We All Just Do Two Things We Can Prevent Climate Change

Jake The Snake — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:54:19 -0000

I'd rather deal with global warming.

Re: GOP Senator Called "Half-a-Sissy," "Wussypants," "Asshat" for Supporting Clean Energy Reform

Jake The Snake — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:00:08 -0000

If you feel like making this a political site instead of an environmental site you will limit your audience to only those people who agree with you.

Re: Yikes! African Elephants Extinct by 2025 at Present Poaching Rates

Jake The Snake — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:43:55 -0000

Total propaganda!
The article clearly states that the total population of elephants is 600,000 and that 38,000 are killed each year. If you divide 600,000 by 38,000 you get 15.78 years.

Well anyone with a brain can see the problem with this, first elephants reproduce. In South Africa between 1995 and 2008 the population more than doubled from 8,000 to 20,000. That means that even if the numbers above are correct 38,000 a year is not even going to reduce the total population.

Sure elephants should be protected, but with sensible measures that don't encourage overpopulation. We don't need ivory but elephants are resource intensive and can destroy whole ecosystems if overpopulation occur. Better to have a stable population although smaller than historically maintained than an unhealthy population starving or destroying habitat.