The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_of_a_Dog"

Plot
The unnamed narrator, a dog, recounts a number of episodes from its past, in which it used quasi-scientific and rational methods to resolve basic questions of its existence that most of its peers were content to leave unanswered, such as: "Whence does the Earth procure its food?".[2] Many of the seemingly absurd descriptions employed by the narrator express its misapprehension or confusion about the world, centering on dogkind's apparent inability to realize (or, some passages suggest, unwillingness to acknowledge) the existence of their human masters.

I'm left to wonder it there's some connection between Kafka's Metamorphosis and Jordan Peteren's lobsters.

[oil pan 4]

It looks like scientists can detect air pressure changes at ground level at the poles in unison with the solar wind, lag time about 10 minutes.
So yeah the idea that "solar wind doesn't effect ground level" is so dead it's sad. Scientists knew this in the 60s, but some how it was forgotten, probably after they went to woodstock. The whole presumption that props up human driven climate change is that the suns output doesn't change, external influences can't effect the weather or climate, the earth is flat and the everything rotates around us, along with other nonsense. Anyone who says otherwise will be burned at the stake.
Soon man driven climate change will be just as dead.
I think they have always known this, otherwise they wouldn't be so hypocritical and hostile.

[freebeard]

Further to your point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2dAq6CQas

[All Darc]

Rubber Tires, a Dirty Business :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fusUxEPwsw

[Lemmy]

The bottom line is there simply is no consensus - if there were, everyone would agree, hence the very meaning of the word.

[freebeard]

OTOH, the future proves the past.

[oil pan 4]

Since it's been proven, thrown away for being an inconvenience then proven again, that's got to be embarrassing.

[freebeard]

I believe it was Seneca had a quote that was forward-looking instead of retrospective. Works either way.

California has 1200 new laws. So you better watch what you step in, unless you are hoarding water. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=california+55+gallons

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

California has 1200 new laws. So you better watch what you step in, unless you are hoarding water. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=california+55+gallons

Surely the 1,200 laws were the bare minimum necessary to impose on people, and such a short number will be easy to keep in mind so as to not accidentally be in violation. At least now they won't need any more laws since they covered every conceivable thing with the 1,200, so the politicians can go ahead and furlough for the next decade.

I'm not sure why "hot" climates showed more urban water usage per day. Sure, you might need to drink more water than cooler climates, but not a few dozen gallons more per day.

I'm in the suburbs, so presumably my water usage would be higher. My family of 4 consumes 64 gallons per day. That's almost 1/4 the amount allowed by the new law. Granted, I don't live in a hot climate, so I'm not drinking an extra 30 gallons.

Anyhow, tiered pricing is the correct market strategy to conserve a scarce resource. The first "block" of water use is at some low rate so that the poor can meet their basic needs. Then progressively higher pricing for each block more usage so that the wealthy can enjoy their extravagant landscaping while subsidizing water projects.

[oil pan 4]

That's what happens when you don't build a water reservoir since 1983 and allow your population to more than double.
Which is funny because California bet on perpetual exponential growth.