Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

I'm already addicted to Lazlo Zalezac's stories :)

And now I'm thinking if I should start reading it now and start eating my fingernails while waiting for another chapter, or just start eating my nails now and wait till story will be finished - and then read it at once in full glory.

What would you all suggest me to choose?

What would you all suggest me to choose?

Who needs fingernails? Lazlo always finishes his stories so we don't have to worry about yellow lines. He also posts frequently so you don't have to reread what's come before. Enjoy it!

Lazlo always finishes his stories

Not quite always.
https://storiesonline.net/s/69120/more-magic
https://storiesonline.net/s/52407/the-quatyl

the track record of another well-known and respected SOL Author

Who is this author?

I suspect you were just correcting an earlier comment.

As you say. Certainly not even a soupçon of criticism.

Do you believe that's what the author you referred to is doing?

I doubt it. This author's 4 longest stories are all Incomplete and Inactive. I'm pretty sure there's some other reason that he didn't finish them.

completely enthralled with the story, or completely horrified that he's describing our society today so correctly.

I vote for completely enthralled that he's describing our society today so correctly.

or completely horrified that he's describing our society today so correctly.

Lazlo wrote: "It is going to take a great deal of care to maneuver the country through the upcoming years. One slip, one mistake, and it will turn into a third-world country."

Sorry to report, but it already is a third-world country. We're terrified to admit it. We're trillions of dollars behind in infrastructure maintenance that can only be financed by privatization and toll booths; and we have given the police legally-blessed property seizure laws with no recourse allowed the victim.

Shall we continue with more examples? That said, Lazlo is an optimist.

Lazlo wrote: "It is going to take a great deal of care to maneuver the country through the upcoming years. One slip, one mistake, and it will turn into a third-world country."

How true.
Argentina used to have the 9th top economy in the world but look at it now!
Nigeria used to be the breadbasket of Africa, able to feed its population AND export foodstuffs. Now it cannot feed itself despite the Emir of Sokoto supplying it with a corps of highly educated and able people.

It all comes down to the top people in power. Look at Japan (and especially the agreement between the Shoji Kaishas made before the surrender which created a structure even McArthur failed to control), India, China ...
My own country and Brexit - we could be a superpower again but with the government we have .... let us see

I voted for Brexit in the expectation that we wouldn't. We're a small country heavily in debt - the world doesn't need us aspiring to be world police, America-lite.

There are other ways to be a superpower than to be the world's policeman. Hopefully, America will also realize that, and work towards other ways to interact with the rest of the world. Although, if the rest of the world is unable to curb the current fundamentalist terrorism (notice I did NOT specify a religion - fundamentalists and their mindset can be found in almost any religion) I can easily see 'Hunter' coming true, with a good possibility of things not turning out as well as they did in that story.

The ignorant rednecks in Alabama just okayed Churches to have their own private police forces! American Christian Taliban, anyone?

Not quite.

1. It is only authorizing one specific mega church with several large campuses to run it's own police force, it is not authorizing church run police forces for churches in general.

2. The bill to authorize this has only passed in one half of the state's bicameral legislature. While it is expected to clear the other half with little problem, that hasn't happened yet.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/13/in-alabama-shocker-a-church-is-getting-its-own-police-force.html

The ignorant rednecks in Alabama just okayed Churches to have their own private police forces! American Christian Taliban, anyone?

On 22nd December 1216 The then Pope approved the request of Dominic de Guzman to found a new order of monks at Prouile, even now a tiny village out in the French boondocks. (They do make remarkably good wine) The Dominican Friars had the job of seeking out the local Christian sect which did not acknowledge the Pope's supremacy. The Order was remarkably effective at seeking out and burning Cathars, so effective that the function has become even now an integral part of the Catholic Church - the last pope headed up that "department" which had earlier become the Spanish Inquisition and is responsible for discipline.

From tiny groups terror can spread across a continent.

Where do you get the idea that I think Oral Fucking Roberts University deserves it's own police force?

Pretty much every university in the US, public or private, has it's own police force. I have no idea why. Quite frankly, none of them, even the public universities should have their own police force.

Campus cops are far from being real police officers - more along the lines of Mall Cops.

So called mall cops are just armed security guards. The have no power to arrest.

University police are recognized law enforcement with all the same authority as any municipal police force.

The problems that I have with Universities/Colleges being involved in the legal process are:

I actually agree with you on university police being problematic. However, your two points are incorrect.

1. They are required to have exactly the same training as state law requires for municipal police

2. You are wrong. They are not ruling on legal issues. Actual criminal prosecution has to go through the local DA's office. However, Universities are allowed to enforce internal disciplinary measures on students within certain limits. Such proceedings can be in addition to rather than a replacement for criminal proceedings in a court of law.

If you will recall, there have been a number of cases of female students reporting instances of being raped on campus. A number of these cases were resolved by Student Courts or Hearings at the University/College. One of the more publicized case is described in the following link:

Yes, and those matters are being handled as campus academic discipline, not as a criminal prosecution. The worst they can do is expel the offender.

The controversy in each of those cases was that the campus security forces (with the support of the campus administration) refused to alert the police, even when requested to by the victim.

There are equally cases from public universities where the victim refuses to go to the regular police and the campus authorities railroad the male perpetrator, expelling him on the basis of evidence that wouldn't hold up in a real court.

There was even a recent case where an affair between a male student and a female physical therapist employed by the university was reported by a coworker of the therapist and the university expelled the male student for sexual misconduct (rape) despite the alleged victim insisting that the affair was fully consensual.

Sorry, but those are all examples of why it's a bad idea to confuse and conflate university/police and religious authorities into unrelated spheres.

You are confused if you think I disagree with you on that point. I have explicitly stated several times on this thread that I don't think even public universities should be allowed to have their own police departments.

I agree, that is a problem. However, describing it as the school making legal rulings is just wrong.

The following link addresses campus police in multiple countries.

The quoted paragraph on the US is either out of date or just plain wrong.

https://uwpd.wisc.edu/careers/work-at-uwpd/

The UW-Madison Police Department provides complete law enforcement services to the campus community — using state-of-the-art, innovative, and community-oriented policing techniques. We are truly a "city within a city" — and we strive to hire the best and most qualified individuals to serve and protect our community.

All of our police officers are deputized by the Dane County Sheriff's Office and are authorized to enforce all State of Wisconsin laws and Rules of the Board of Regents.

No, the link I provided is current and correct. What you overlooked is the UW-Madison Campus Police is a Police Department, which is addressed by the first paragraph of my link.

And you are overlooking the fact that these days every university has a full on police department, not just armed security.

For those University/College campuses that did not have Police Departments

I'm not aware of a single university in the US that doesn't have a full police department. They only way I can see that being remotely true is if they are including community/technical colleges and small four year colleges not accredited as universities.

One more, this one a private university (Harvard)

HUPD officers are sworn special State Police officers with deputy sheriff powers. Those powers give them the authority to respond to any crime on campus and any "breach of the peace" on city streets in Cambridge, Somerville, and Boston.

http://www.hupd.harvard.edu/about

Yeah, about that... Turns out it was most likely a fradulent accusation. That is also well publicised, but tends to be ignored since "Mattress Girl" continued to carry around her matress as a performance "art project" to "raise awareness". BTW it was actually reported to the police, they refused to prosecute citing a lack of reasonable suspicion.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/24/student-accused-of-rape-by-mattress-girl

And where did you get that information?

It's been fairly widely reported in coverage of Paul Messenger's lawsuit against the university.

There's a series of emails and texts (from both before and after the alleged incident) where she reveals a desire for a continuing relationship with the accused. Why would she desire further romantic contact with someone who violently raped her? There is exen a text where she is the one who suggests having anal sex.

No one but the two of them can know what actually happened that night, but until suddenly filing charges there is no indication that she held any animus against him. It's why he was cleared by the campus sexual asault ajudication process and the police found no resonable suspicion to pursue charges.

The accusation sounds awfully like something that is the the result of some "consciousness raising" in a feminist studies course, a supposition supported by her using the mattress carrying project as her senior thesis.

There are several links in the article I provided including one to the full text of the lawsuit.

Pick better sources. Rolling Stone has an abysmal record on reporting. Their sensational report of the alleged Duke LaCrosse gang rape turns out to be wholy inacurate as well. Huffington Post does almost no primary research or investigative reporting, their posters simply recycle content gleaned from online, the more sensational the better, for the clicks. They are todays version of yellow journalism.

???? Check your assumptions. I provided a link to a blog of an associate editor at Reason Magazine, one that provides a precis of the "Mattress Girl" case. Links to further information are provided in that blog. Essentially the same information in that post has been published several times in the magazine, but to access those past articles you have to be a suscriber. Unlike most "news sources" these days, Reason Magazine is an actual publication, a monthly periodical, which has reporters and contributors that research news and prepare reviews and opinion peices, which they then publish, on paper, in a respected monthly magazine (this used to be called journalism, you probably aren't familiar with it). All this care is necessary, you see, since they are subject to libel laws. As a traditional publication they have fact checkers and editorial staff.

Oral Fucking Roberts University

If it is Oral, is it Fucking?

If it is Oral, is it Fucking?

Who the fuck are you, Bill Clinton?

ETA: P.S. Ever hear of face fucking?

If it is Oral, is it Fucking?

ETA: P.S. Ever hear of face fucking?

Oral is using the mouth on the main sexual organs (male or female).
Face fucking is (generally) the male using the mouth for sexual release.

Sorry to report, but it already is a third-world country. We're terrified to admit it. We're trillions of dollars behind in infrastructure maintenance that can only be financed by privatization and toll booths; and we have given the police legally-blessed property seizure laws with no recourse allowed the victim.

Tollways are horribly inefficient. If you're lucky, 85 cents on the dollar will go back to the roadway. If you're Pennsylvania, you're probably only getting 45 cents on the dollar, if that.

Edit to add: And that "xx on the dollar" figure is for the money that gets budgeted for the work to be done. So that before you start making any "xx on the dollar" estimates as to the amount of money on a given project actually gets spent on the project, rather than "administrative costs" of its own making.

Tollways are horribly inefficient. If you're lucky, 85 cents on the dollar will go back to the roadway. If you're Pennsylvania, you're probably only getting 45 cents on the dollar, if that.

Which essentially means little real improvement to the infrastructure. Unless there is an agreement that the agreement includes massive upgrade or replacement via private investment under a 99-year operating deal, under which the private interests have total control and collection authority.

Without doing an evening of internet research, my memory recalls a large Australian corporation that has long been involved in such U.S. state agreements. I seem to recall the Ohio Turnpike is one of those as well as a number of others. The state receives enough compensation as 'owner' to keep the politicians safe from charges of selling out to private interests.

We have a tiny public bus transit system here on the island. Each time they've yielded to 'private enterprise' critics, and performed a feasibility study, it's been proven that installing fare collection boxes, accounting and audit overhead, enforcement mechanisms, and additional employees and overhead to receive and disburse the fares... it would be such an increase in operating costs as to shut the system down. Operating it on a 'free ride' basis with tax base support has kept it running for several decades now. The savings to the island population of service to seniors who no longer drive, and vocational and community college students who can ill afford car insurance and ownership, is significant. The economic freedom advantage to those two groups alone is sufficient enhancement to local community well-being to justify the tax support.

Of course, I had to open my mouth one day, several years back, and mention our 'free' bus system to a shirt-tail relation by marriage, a prominent and wealthy owner of a PacNW chain of upscale motels. His comment: "It sounded a little too 'socialist' for his taste." He opined it should either collect fares to pay its own way, or be shut down.

Of course, it was not his problem to address the needs of seniors who couldn't drive, weren't allowed to drive, or whose income wouldn't support car ownership, taxi service, and who did not have family close by to haul them around. Or the needs of the vocational and community college students living at home, needing transportation.

He seems to have a habit of doing that. I noticed that trait of his in Service Society.

He can also do it allegorically, e.g. Jade Force of Misera.

The last time I checked, he had posted 56 stories and he had 39 "Incomplete and Inactive" banners; his current story count is slightly higher.

Is it strange that the second I read this I knew exactly who you were talking about. Hope he is doing ok.

all the characters are one-dimensional

Not so fast here. Peter is one-dimensional? Well, at least not to me. As for the others, lets give Lazlo a little time before jumping on him. Its only chapter two, right?

Might as well kill two birds with one post. From richardshagrin:

One of the characters, a villainess, seemed unreal to me.

She is very, very believable. Given present day atmosphere on college campuses, she may be common. Thats the scary part for me.

A lot of Lazlo's stories are parables. Well, almost. This one is chillingly real so far. And, as one who has studied the Constitution thoroughly, I'm really anticipating where he will take this story.

It's easy to like and trust a news source that leans in the same political direction as yourself

Exactly! Think about the elections in various countries - newspapers direct the thoughts of their readers and effectively make them vote one way or another.

Isn't that partially behind Lazlo's new story?

The first day of the pre-voting for Brexit we had some politician on the radio telling us **** [an absolute load of lies; because of my background I had counter facts for everything he said, but then, of course, he was/is a politician a la "a blowjob isn't sex" brigade] AFAIR if we left then we would get all the benefits without having to pay billions to Brussels.
Of course some poor blighters would believe him.

I agree with you. IF this thread doesn't get back on track I'm going to stop reading it. If that happens enough times I'll stop reading the forum all together. I know I'm not anyone special around here, just a reader and sometimes proofreader, but I am sure there are others who feel the same as I, and I would hate to see that happen after our host went to all the trouble to set up these forums for us. Hopefully he is not considering that a mistake about now.

If that happens enough times I'll stop reading the forum all together.

It's impossible to keep any discussion on the internet on topic without heavy handed moderation. I rather doubt that our host has the time for that.

Hopefully he is not considering that a mistake about now.

I rather doubt he is. It's still a large improvement over the old forum.

My issue was I said to DS that the University was investigating and acting as a Court of Law when a student reported of a crime to the Campus Police and he said they weren't.

Except in the case of mattress girl it wasn't reported to the Campus Police. She didn't report it at all until a year after the incident is supposed to have happened and even then she reported it to the University's Title IX office, not the campus police.

55 institutions under investigation for improper handling of sexual violence/harassment cases.

You're link has a 2014 date, which makes it after the the "Dear Colleague" letter. You misunderstand what they were investigating. They were not concerned about cases not being reported to police, Per obligations from other statutes, but strictly about Title IX compliance and internal student discipline processes not being vigorous enough.

University Administration conducting a hearing to determine if a crime had been committed.

That's not what they were doing. They conducted a hearing to see if sexual misconduct occurred in violation of their student code of conduct and Title IX.

Now a genuine crime of rape would also qualify on both of those points, but so could conduct that would not be criminal.

...that President Roosevelt coined the term Muckraker...

I think he popularized it more than coined it as the term pre-dates him.

EDIT: I'm assuming you meant Teddy, not Franklin.

Inherent in this story is the premise that the USA is slowly coming apart at the seams.

And that what is scaring all of us the most.

When our neighbor - USSR (for you americans think Russia) collapsed not so long ago, we were scared to death that some flunkies are going to take some nukes and sent us all to shit.

Now we are watching "god ole" USA disintegrating and looking like train heading to abyss. There are not going to be only nukes, collapse of world economy as consequence of this may be much worse for us all...

Your president is just tinny flank of snow on top of big iceberg.
Real power lies unseen somewhere else in Washington and in Wall Street...

Your president is just tinny flank

In the Old West, the expression would be "tinhorn"...

Inherent in this story is the premise that the USA is slowly coming apart at the seams. By that I mean that the glue binding us together is slowly being weakened and, if not halted or reversed, will lead to the country disintegrating.

I pretty much started to despair at the "state of the nation" after seeing the response to the 9/11 attacks, and how quickly it fell apart after that.

The Obama Administration just further cemented in the downhill slide. "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste" and given his Administration was an ongoing chain of crisis, be they international in nature, or domestic(goaded by him or not), and then Democratic pundits becoming fixated on getting their way through "wedge issues." And it pretty much went to "we're fucked."

Trump just happens to be the culmination of a slow burn, and the wake up call to the people who had been hammering at those wedges. Only thing is, it doesn't seem that many of them care enough to actually listen, on either side of the aisle.

The country is coming apart at the seams, and there still remain no shortage of people that are convinced their way to "fixing the problem" is to break out a bigger sledge hammer for use on their favored wedge. Not good.

Mentioning the obvious, in that (relatively) brief span of time, the country has gone from one strongly bound by common, shared values to one of competing groups that don't care about the gestalt but are more interested in furthering their own aims. And those aims are narrow, non-inclusive and increasingly violent. This is being increasingly abetted by a leadership no longer interested in the concept of country; they are more interested in the concept of profit or their own petty beliefs. Along with a few diehard idealists driven by ideology, whether political or religious.

Amen

He certainly has a target rich environment in which to shoot.

-and the ability to hit the target. We just have to hope the target doesn't hit him first

Sorry -my pic is bust and apple devices can't copy and paste or mark for quotes

I don't think you'd get much argument to the observation that the last US Presidential election did not offer a stellar field to chose from. My own take is that the better candidate won. But, then again, that isn't saying a whole helluva lot, i.e. that the other candidate sucked more than the winner. Even so, I think we (the USA) dodged a bullet. Big time

I'm inclined to liken this past election to Trump being a Chemotherapy session we didn't need. While Hillary Clinton was Ebola. Personally, I chose neither, but if I'd been forced to chose either, I think I'd sooner take my chances under the unneeded chemo.

I'm inclined to liken this past election to Trump being a Chemotherapy session we didn't need. While Hillary Clinton was Ebola. Personally, I chose neither, but if I'd been forced to chose either, I think I'd sooner take my chances under the unneeded chemo.

To quote you, amen.

A friend of ours has been shunted from pillar to post and each doctor has refused to accept previous X-Rays and taken his own. In consequence her organs have failed from the radiation poisoning, she is in agony and the last hospital (I think it is the Mayo) has refused any further treatment and sent her home

If they did 20 full xray series of the GI tract

According to this http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/ site, it would only take 8 upper GI tract x-rays to hit the limit.

In consequence her organs have failed from the radiation poisoning

http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/

The safety limit for international radiation workers is 5000 millirems / year.

Exposure from medical diagnostic testing varies significantly depending on the exact procedure.

The link above has specific information. If in fact they pushed her past that safety limit far enough to cause radiation sickness, and she wasn't already terminal, then the doctors who ordered the tests and the radiologists who performed them would all be vulnerable to a malpractice suit.

The safety limit for international radiation workers is 5000 millirems / year.

...And someone who works 40 hours/week in Grand Central Station in NYC gets exposed to more than that in a year due to the radioactive materials that are naturally part of the granite the building is largely constructed from.

Why would coal be excessively radioactive? It's just compressed, dead plants.

Probably from Carbon 14 and certain other isotopes, such as potassium. (Which is why bananas are naturally radioactive)

I think Carbon 14 can be discounted. The youngest usable coal is about 100 million years old, but the half life of Carbon 14 is less than 6000 years. A piece of coal should be far less radioactive than a banana.

Except we're talking about coal-ash, not coal itself. Slightly different critter.

(Side note - when my dad worked at a nuclear site, they used to use the mantles from Coleman lanterns to test their detection equipment. They had (and may still have, I don't know for sure) thorium dioxide so they would glow when the mantle would glow. Typically it's an alpha emitter under those circumstances, but still radioactive.)

Another "source" that often gets used for calibration of radiation detection equipment is potassium-chloride. Which sees regular use as fertilizer, salt for water softeners, a table salt alternative, and as a highway deicing agent in some areas.

Don't get me started about what is put out downwind from a coal fired power plant. My unit was pulling manuevers one time out in an old field, we set up radiation monitors just for training and it scared the crap out of us. That old field was literally a reclaimed strip mine where they also had dumped coal ashes.

I've got the same question as AJ as to why coal ash would be radioactive. I used to work at an electric utility with both coal and nuclear plants. Never heard anything about coal ash being of concern. Even the EPA's own web page maintains:

The amount of natural radiation in wastes from coal-fired power plants is so small that no precautions need to be taken.

What I'd be more concerned with is mercury emissions. Those are dangerous. And I think enough of a problem that I haven't eaten any fish from the Great Lakes for over 30 years. And never will.

why coal ash would be radioactive

The coal ash concentrates the naturally occurring uranium and thorium, as well as all the other radioactives that are already decaying.

Keep in mind how a half life works - say you have a pound of uranium 238. In 4.5 billion years, half of it decays into U-234, which has a half life of about 250,000 years, and the other half is still U-238. In 250,000 years, you still have 8 ounces (minus a smidge) of U-238, 4 ounces of U-234, and 4 ounces of Thorium 230, which has a half life of 75,000 years.

Hey, great, sounds like that 100 million year old chunk of coal has had time for 400 decay cycles for that U-234, so there shouldn't be much left, right? Except that it still has how much U-238 in it? Which is still naturally decaying, only now it's not deep underground, it's been burned and that coal ash, which concentrated everything, has been flying where? Oh, yeah, downwind...

That's why radon gas is so nasty. In and of itself, the decay of the particles can't penetrate your clothes, so even if it decays, you're probably safe. Except you've been breathing it in and out - so if that radon decays in your lungs, it can cause problems at a cellular level in your lung tissue. Our bodies can repair a lot of damage, life is good - but at higher concentration levels, you're sleeping and breathe it in, and after 20 years you're a non-smoker who suddenly has lung cancer.

The way they found out about radon in homes was different. A guy worked at a nuclear power plant and you know how they test you when you're leaving, to make sure you're not exposed. Well, he kept showing that he had been exposed. They kept checking him, following him around work, and nothing. Then they decided to test him when he came INTO work, and he set off their monitors. Turns out his house was built on naturally occurring radioactive materials. And that's how they found out about radon in homes - before that, they'd only thought it was only an issue with deep shaft coal miners.

As for why you don't see it out there ... other than a single article in Scientific American, you're not going to see much. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but ... let's just say there's an underlying reason why your power plant now has all those scrubbers to keep the fly ash contained, and leave it at that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

It would be interesting to know whether coal ash is dangerous enough for Kim Jong-un to weaponise it in dirty bombs :(

The only way it could pose a "meaningful hazard" is if someone airdropped several metric tons of it on top of a nuclear reactor or storage site, or you were locked in a room with high concentrations of it being kept airborne.

The one scenario is implausible and technically doesn't even destroy anything. The other one is likely to kill you from black-lung long before the radiation can.

Which is still naturally decaying, only now it's not deep underground, it's been burned and that coal ash, which concentrated everything, has been flying where? Oh, yeah, downwind...

Any coal ash in a land fill that's all coal ash did not fly downwind.

Any coal ash in a land fill that's all coal ash did not fly downwind.

Groundwater is another matter however.

As for why you don't see it out there ... other than a single article in Scientific American, you're not going to see much. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but ... let's just say there's an underlying reason why your power plant now has all those scrubbers to keep the fly ash contained, and leave it at that.

There is a reason for scrubbers, thats to take dust out of the air. And I'm glad they do. If you ever lived in a heavy industrial area prior to 1970, you'd know what I mean.

As far as the radioactive worry, as I said previously, I'll take my queue from the EPA (I still don't believe I'm saying this but I'll believe their site on this). Repeating my earlier point, they state there is no reason to worry. They also state that coal ash is only slightly more radioactive than normal soil. I'd be more concerned about radon buildup in a tightly enclosed house.

Anyhow, here is the EPA link: https://www3.epa.gov/radtown/coal-fired-power-plants.html

Getting back to the original point of this topic, I finished chapter 7 yesterday. LZ is starting to drift a little. The first several chapters were oh so believable. This last one was a bit of a stretch. Anyone else feel the same?

They also state that coal ash is only slightly more radioactive than normal soil.

Of course, define "normal" in this context? There are natural public beaches in Brazil that would give a nuke worker their annual radiation exposure quota in days. Likewise, Turkey has this one town in particular that they've noticed is "naturally irradiated," and has been continuously inhabited for thousands of years. Their population also has a below average incidence rate for cancer.

Likewise, Turkey has this one town in particular that they've noticed is "naturally irradiated," and has been continuously inhabited for thousands of years. Their population also has a below average incidence rate for cancer.

Parts of Cornwall in England have Radon seeping into their houses - there is apparently a higher than usual rate of leukemia.

I think if that had happened that Texas would have pulled the trigger on their own 'nuclear' option, and split into five states (which is what they CAN do legally) - that wouldn't change the balance of power in the House, but would add 8 more Republicans to the Senate.

In reality, probably only 6, as I think Austin's portion would skew Democrat in short order.

It also opens the door to other efforts at that point, like Northern California's "State of Jeferson" or another effort for the counties in Oregon and Washington east of the Cascades to secede from their respective states and potentially join up with Idaho. (Which would also wildly shift the electoral map, and part of the point)

Colorado also has its own regions that are talking of forming their own state as well. Probably missing a few other efforts elsewhere as well. (Illinois breaking free from Chicagoland for example)

I'm sorry, why is this comment directed to me? I tried Bing to find "Peter Moore" and there are dozens of them, one was a mass murderer and there are several authors. Was he an optimist too?

I assumed from your comment that you'd at least read a little of the story.

I read the second chapter probably on April 5th and decided I didn't need to read it a chapter at a time. Most of the author's stories are worth reading but I decided I would wait until it was done.

The name of the protagonist didn't stick in my mind. At the point I quit he was in college, unhappy that he wasn't a freshman, political correctness made him a first year student. On that basis, why do feMALES or woMEN use those names?

On that basis, why do feMALES or woMEN use those names?

Well, for one of them, there is an Iron Man joke built in. Can't speak to the other.

The problem with most ideologues, is that when something doesn't work, instead of trying to figure out if the ideology is correct or needs tweaking, they decide that the problem is that it either wasn't done right, so they need to try it again, or it wasn't done enough, so that they need to go further in that direction to make things work right.

That is all too true.

Or, in the case of Tony Blair's UK government, they blame the public for being too stupid to understand their 'message' and hire a shedload more expensive PR consultants.

Pretty much.

Understood Hillary's message just fine. As far as I was concerned, she was a "long term hazard" and short term risk. Coming on the heels of Obama just made her long-term prognosis several orders of magnitude worse than it would have been otherwise.

Trump on the other hand is a short-term hazard, and likely to be a medium/long term flash in the pan/General anomaly, ergo, he was the lesser threat. The constitution was specifically designed to handle scenarios like this, of course, it requires a competent Congress, which should normally have little to do with who is in the White House.

According to the initial design spec, that would be doubly or even tripley so in the Senate except that oops, someone messed with that 100 years ago.

Understood Hillary's message just fine. As far as I was concerned, she was a "long term hazard" and short term risk.

HRC has always suffered from the delusion that she deserved the Presidency because she has an innie rather than an outie. This coupled with a demonstrable incompetence in any political attempt, e.g. "HillaryCare" during her husband's Presidency or her own failed Sec of State tenure during Obama's, gives one reason, good reason, to believe she is probably medically delusional. Her performance at Sec of State was so bad that she actually took some of the heat off of Obama's demonstrable incompetence. She actually makes Kerry look good. Now that was a really tough accomplishment. But she was up to the task.

Then came the absolutely masterful handling of her campaign for President. I mean, she had to work hard, really hard, to lose. But, once again, she was up to the task.

My opinion (somewhat tongue-in-cheek), FWIW

Obama's demonstrable incompetence.

I see lots of generalities like this, but I cannot identify anyone ever writing about specific failings.

Please @JimS - or anyone for that matter - enumerate specific incidents that you believe shows his incompetence. Four or five bullet points with specifics (links if ya got 'em) will be sufficient.

I would posit that he was no worse than W or Bill or Bush Senior or Ronny Raygun. Each of them had their failings, some worse than others, but they were all bought politicians by the oligarchs. The differences I think are in how well they were at hiding their failings - or at least mis-directing a fawning press.

Please @JimS - or anyone for that matter - enumerate specific incidents that you believe shows his incompetence.

My God, talk about a target rich environment.

However, I don't want this topic to dissolve into a political discussion like many that I see here. I'd much rather keep it to discussing LZ's story or issues directly related to it. But I'll offer this. My email address is available here, so contact me and we can pursue further if you're so inclined.

I don't want this topic to dissolve into a political discussion like many that I see here. I'd much rather keep it to discussing LZ's story or issues directly related to it.

Ho-ho-ho! Let's see, Brexit, private police forces, Texas succession, Japan, China, ad infinitum. All relevant to Lazlo's story I'm sure.

I don't suppose anyone else has noticed, but there is not one discussion that remains on topic. Wide ranging is a misnomer, irrelevant is a closer fit for many comments in any thread.

But OK, I'll go start a new thread where a 'target rich environment' can be explored without impinging on other subjects.

they were all bought politicians

Politicians, mostly, don't stay bought. But most of them can be rented.

He may have been quoting an older aphorism, though.

I suspect that saying is as old as representative government, putting its origins somewhere in Ancient Greece. But I could be wrong.

But let's say that 0.01% of coal is radioactive material. So out of one kilo of coal, there would be one gram of radioactive material. Now burn out all of the carbon. All of a sudden you have concentrated that radioactive material one thousand times, or in other words, instead of one gram per kilo, you now have 1000 grams per kilo.

I feel obligated to be pedantic here and point out that there are only 1,000 grams in a kilogram, as it literally means "thousand grams" on the scientific increment scale. ;)

Only shelves?

Everything is so positioned that you can reach only what corporations are willing to sell you - dearly health, dearly learning, (do I need to continue?) ...

For everything else - bend your knees :(

A key point of interest is the "payola" involved; shelf display space is essentially bought... or coerced.

My elderly wife and my even more-so self feel as though we've ventured into the Valley of the Shadow of Death walking those aisles, hundreds of feet of ridiculously-processed food. Ever consider that 80 to 90 feet of breakfast cereal on display? The honey-coated sugar crystal offerings? I find the hot cereal (you know, you actually have to heat water?) buried in an eight-inch area behind the kick rail, barely above the floor.

the profit margin to the store drops as the shelves get lower.

Not exactly, this was a behabioral quirk that COSTCO initially capitalized on. There is an underlying psychological thing that goes on when you present a person with "too many choices" to make.

If you prescreen things so that a person is only left one or two choices, the odds of a sale happening increase considerably over what would happen if you presented them with 3 or 4. As once they get 3 or more choices, they may have to "think about it" and will then leave, potentially never to come back and complete the sale. (Meaning they benefit in multiple ways by restricting your choices. It increases the volume on what remains, giving them better volume/lower cost per unit, and allows for faster movement of inventory, lowering their overhead. So they actually improve their sales margins by offering you less variety in a given category rather than more.)

I forget what the underlying pysch was on the lower shelves that most people can see over the top of, but there were sales benefits noted from that as well. It's just another iteration on salesmanship on par with the grocery store that places the milk and eggs in the back corner of the store as far away from the entrances as possible, as they're the most frequently purchased items, it provides them with plenty of chances to encourage impulse buys while in the store. (Another behavior Costco and the other warehouse chains somewhat emulates, the refrigerated goods are placed almost directly opposite the single entrance into the store, while all food and drugs go back to that "far wall" along the front(/checkout side) of the store relative to the entry.)

the profit margin to the store drops as the shelves get lower.

And end of aisle positioning margins are far higher

end of aisle, like at the counter, are usually for items they're pushing - such as sales etc.

Also, items that they aren't necessarily pushing, but are typical impulse buy items.

And the new chapter is up. Wow!

LZ is still grabbing my attention but I will say that the last two chapters dealing with Newton is a little over-the-top. Read--not quite as believable. The first two chapters were so lifelike to me as to be almost scary.

But what the heck. This is fiction. The author should be allowed some artistic license, right? In any case, there is no danger of abandoning this one.

Am I only dreaming, or plot in this story is now seriously cooking?

For me, it is heading in an unexpected direction. But that is what I truly love about LZ's stories -- they're unpredictable. So many stories at SOL aren't that way, unfortunately.

This unpredictability is what makes reading his stories so entertaining.

I think the next two chapters will tell the tale as far as the next step

I'm already drooling :)

Gurgle, the sound of the ripples sinking a few rowboats.

Left 200, Down 50, Fire for effect.

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Peter is dead but staged his "death" to get out the limelight?

Sounds like a letter to the DT (not Delirium Tremens but a book of letters to the Daily Telegraph)

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Peter is dead but staged his "death" to get out the limelight?

That thought popped into my head somewhere around Ch 14 or so.

We go to the store to get distilled water for my CPAP

I regret that a well known American drinks manufacturer (well, in this case I hope they didn't manufacture it) supplies a use by date for its water when sold by a competitor of MuckyD's. Hell, water's been around since time immemorial so why must we consume it to order?

It's nearly impossible for her to get off the shelf. She's made verbal complaints to store management, even written complaints to corporate - the bread she likes is on the top shelf as well.

Good for her OR is she no good at it? She should at least be supplying you both with premium meals and all goodies free of charge by companies fearful of her ire. If not, get a more effective model ;-)

Perhaps the container, possibly plastic, has harmful impurities that leach into the water. Leave the water in the container long enough and the level of contamination becomes toxic.

And of course, if this were the case, those authorities charged with food safety wouldn't think to ban the use of such containers, after all, that would make too much sense...

The guy said he been there a week, and then went on to explain he was an FDA Food Inspector

And doubtless the IRS inspector would hang around outside for a week whilst the plant manager got his books straight...

And doubtless the IRS inspector would hang around outside for a week whilst the plant manager got his books straight...

Nope, an IRS agent would leave and come back with a SWAT team. Yes, the IRS has it's own SWAT teams.

Exactly.

Stick with tap water. At least you know what you get. :)

Don't bet on it.

much of the water we consume originally came from a spring before passing through umpteen bodies.

Every drop of fresh water on the Earth is recycled dinosaur piss. :)

Family sizes seem to have reduced from a dozen (more amongst my ancestors) to the odd one even two now - isn't that indicative?

No, it's more a matter of birth control and voluntary reductions in fertility.

Globally, there are inverse relationships between wealth and fertility rates and between education and fertility rates.

Wealthy people tend to have fewer kids and more educated people tend to have fewer kids.

No, it's more a matter of birth control and voluntary reductions in fertility.

Globally, there are inverse relationships between wealth and fertility rates and between education and fertility rates.

Wealthy people tend to have fewer kids and more educated people tend to have fewer kids.

Actually, it's more complicated than that. Family size seems to correlate with urbanization and education at this point.

If you(generically speaking) are educated, and live in an highly urbanized area, you're likely to only have one child, or two at the most. Because children are expensive, and living in an urban area is expensive to start with. (And educated people correlate those facts and act accordingly)

However, there is a breakdown that starts as the income(/education) increases. Where there is a weird dichotomy going on. The tendency in the highest income brackets tends to go one of two ways. Either the number of children drops to 0("no time for children"), or the family size goes up above the average of 2 per family. Three, four or more becomes common once again, as while children are expensive, they have the means to afford it. Of course, there is a large helping of the obligatory "single heir" family groupings as well, but in the aggregate, they're more an exception than the rule, even if there are a lot of them. But between the "lone heir" and the "no kids" group, you end up with the stats coming up with an average of "high income(/education) families are small."

It is the (better) educated middle and lower income groups that see family sizes dropping to near/below replacement level, both on average and in reality.

The only other exceptions are the (very) poorly educated, and often deeply impoverished(no education) who trend towards large families, although those families also tend to still be largely rural in nature. If they move into an urban area, the parents might continue popping out kids, but chances are their kids won't if they remain in the city.

Of course, there are some certain religious demographic groups that also seem to be marginal outliers in all of this. As I know the Mormons in particular, among some others, help contribute a counter-balance on the better educated/higher income + larger family side of things. Catholics also seem to be holding out to some degree in the US but that may a statistical anomaly largely due to the large number of Catholic immigrants from Central and South America.

But yeah, demographic expectations at this point is we hit "peak population" sometime around the middle of this century, after which we go into population decline unless something radically changes the game. As I doubt even a significant medical breakthrough resulting in a dramatic increase in life expectancy would do more than flatten the curve on the down slope(and slightly delay the peak).

IF we ever reach the point of extensive space colonization, there is probably going to need to be some deliberate social engineering that happens in order to get the population to grow again. If they even bother to pursue it at all.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if a small comparative "handful" of people emigrated off planet, and make extensive use of robotics and automation to see to their needs and fulfill any "trading opportunities" that arise with Earth.

While the majority of the declining population remains on Earth and contents itself with a gradual decline into oblivion(or alternately: "a more sustainable population"), at least for a number of generations. Anyone not content with the "decline" option will likely be trying to find their way off of Earth.

But that's still going to leave the people in space(or on other planets) with "a problem" they'll likewise need to contend with: People not having enough kids to grow the population. Unless the "economics of automation" allows for some other social changes as well. (Such as those wealthier families of today with lots of kids)

Of course, I guess automation is part of "the singularity" (point beyond which nothing can reasonably be predicted or known) on this, as a sufficiently automated/advanced and egalitarian(essentially socialistic) society would virtually eliminate the "children are expensive problem" for all social groups.

If automation/AI has likewise become sufficiently advanced that most people have no meaningful work to devote their time to. That leaves the raising and rearing of the next generation of humans as the only thing for then to do, but only if they're your kids because otherwise you could just have an AI/Robot raise them.

It's just one more way nature is trying to kill us. :-)

Maybe it is nature's way of causing mutations which are to become the next evolution of humans. Of course since humans are so smart, 'we' see any changes as 'defects' and do our best to eliminate them.
:-p

due to its inability to affect the major climate change factors that have been going on for millions of years.

It's not meant to.
It's meant to affect all the more recent accelerated changes that have nothing to do with what's been going on for millions of years, but everything to do with the changes that have occurred as a result of human activities.

There's lots of evidence there,

And it all points to accelerated climate change, and the data that goes back (as you said yourself centuries, and longer with other records in the ice) all points to the current climate change not being solely due to natural causes.

You claim that that contradictory evidence is ignored, when it is actually the case that taking that evidence (not the created stuff) in to account results in the present models that show that the rate of the present changes in climate are not due to natural causes.

You may continue to choose to ignore the evidence that supports the current findings, but it doesn't make it any less valid.

You may continue to choose to ignore the evidence that supports the current findings, but it doesn't make it any less valid.

Except that 'current findings' are just that, current, not absolute.

In simple terms, for something to be scientific fact, there must exist a repeatable experiment. In other words, I have a theory, so I write out an experiment and achieve a given result. You then repeat the experiment and achieve the same result. Anyone can repeat the experiment and achieve the identical result. That process 'proves' the theory and it becomes 'fact'.

So.

I have a theory that mice hear through their feet. I create an experiment whereby I place a mouse on my desk, shout loudly and the mouse runs away. Then I remove the mouses feet....... Shout.... Mouse stays put.

Anyone can repeat this, the result is the same. Ergo it's a 'fact'.

Until of course someone points out that mice need feet to run away.... At which point 'current findings' becomes 'outdated thinking'.

Apparently at present in America a significant proportion of school children are being taught as 'fact' that the earth was created in seven days and that mankind and dinosaurs co-existed......

No doubt those who are teaching those children might well make the same statement. "You may continue to choose to ignore the evidence that supports our belief, but it doesn't make it any less valid."

"You may continue to choose to ignore the evidence that supports our belief, but it doesn't make it any less valid."

Except that there isn't any evidence to support their belief.
And what evidence there is that doesn't support it, is ignored- same for those that consider the present rate of climate change to either be
A not happening or
B entirely due to natural causes.

So far, all the evidence is showing that the climate is changing for the warmer, and it is occurring at an increasing rate that doesn't match historical records.
Natural variation would require some natural cause, and plenty of possibilities have been put forward as to what that cause could be, but none have stood up to scrutiny.
So the other likely candidate is a result of human activity. Some possibilities were put forward and didn't stand up to scrutiny. Others have been put forward and match the observable facts.
Further causes and countering effects have been put forward over time, and some have been disproven, others continue to match what is being observed.
So at present all the evidence it for the global temperatures to continue increasing, and that will have significant impacts on water supply, and as a result food. Not to mention sea levels; bit of a problem with all the rather large population centers around the coast lines and not that far above sea level.
The only debate amongst those that actually have some idea of what it is they're talking about is just how quickly it will occur, and how bad it will be.

That some groups would use it as an opportunity to push their particular agenda shouldn't surprise anyone, and it in no way changes the facts. Just as certain groups would argue against it because it doesn't help their agenda, it still doesn't change the facts.

I prefer to follow the science (as best I can), than people's agendas, of either side.

The pollution the Accord targets is not good for our biosphere.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It is in fact necessary for life as we know it.

In the geological past, when the dinosaurs ruled the earth and megafauna bigger than anything that exists today thrived, atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as 6000 PPM

CO2 has been as high as 4000 PPM during major ice ages.

CO2 is currently around 450 PPM.

Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were around 250 PPM

For perspective, below 150 PPM photosynthesis is not sustainable and everything dies.

From a biological perspective at geological time scales, the earth is currently recovering from dangerously low levels of atmospheric CO2.

ETA:

Commercial greenhouses typically elevate CO2 levels inside the greenhouse to 1,000 to 2000 ppm because that increases plant growth.

From a biological perspective at geological time scales, the earth is currently recovering from dangerously low levels of atmospheric CO2.

And it is those "dangerously low levels" that allowed us to come in to existence & continue to exist.
Being significantly above those levels isn't good from a human perspective.
http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

And it is those "dangerously low levels" that allowed us to come in to existence & continue to exist.

Grant, anytime in recorded human history, when the earth has been warm, mankind has thrived. Anytime it entered a cold period, mankind suffered. Its logical if you think about it for just a second. Agriculture thrives on warm temperatures and doesn't on cold temperatures. Hence, when its warm, more people can be fed.

Think this is wrong? I'll offer just one example, e.g. the French Revolution. It came about directly because of the Little Ice Age destroying agriculture and taking away food from the people. As well as the callous disregard of the common people by the aristocracy, i.e. "Let them eat cake". Sort of what the elites are trying to do today with the attempt to confiscate the average man's wealth to propitiate the gods of global warming.

Personally, I don't fear warming. I fear cooling. How long ago did several thousand Parisians die because of a long, extended cold snap? I'm talking within your lifetime. It's well known that 10 times more people die from the cold than from the heat. Think thats backwards? Lets examine population of hunting/gathering societies in the moderate climate zones versus those in the less hospitable ones, i.e. Inuit versus native populations in the temperate zones in the Western Hemisphere. Which ones had higher population densities? While not definitive, it sure is indicative.

Another comment made the point that CO2 is plant food. Indirect evidence to how well high levels of CO2 support life is the dinosaurs, that were able to get so large because of the immense stores of growing plants brought about by both warm temperatures and higher levels of CO2 than what we're experiencing today. Or so I've read. This time is also the time of growth of all the plants that ended up as coal, oil and methane once it died and decayed.

Sentient life thrives in warmth and doesn't thrive well in cold. And for "scientists" to suggest that increases in CO2 to a level that is still well below what the planet and sentient life has already experienced poses a threat is ludicrous. Take a look at historical temperature reconstructions, superimpose that over what we know of mankind's development and think long and hard about what it shows. Ignore what the "elite" say and think for yourself. I have and thats why I can tell Al Gore, Michael Mann, Jim Hanson et al. to take a hike.

However, I do agree we need to do more to reduce pollution. SO2, lead, mercury and other metals present in coal wind up in the air when its burned. But with fracking, the natural gas made available will end up eventually killing coal (and without government, i.e. EPA, intervention). What is the moral thing for the US to do is make our technology available to those countries that rely on coal far more than we do, i.e. China and India. China burns four times more coal than the US does already. Both India and China are set to double their burning of coal by 2040. That is a real threat in my mind.

The Paris Treaty was about hamstringing the US by lesser economies as we're so efficient and technologically superior that no one can really compete across the entire spectrum of an economy. Pure and simple. So, naturally, all of the European countries are in favor of it. As is Asia, and others, since they were getting money for essentially doing nothing. Our money. Now if it were going for something useful, I'd be all in. Its not though.

Someone brought up recent temperature increases. According to the record, since 1890 (or 127 years), there has been a 0.8C temperature increase planet level. My thought? Well, of course the planet is warming as we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age. And the last large big one also. Glaciers have been retreating for 12,000 or so years and, apparently, is still continuing.

All of this can be found on the 'net if you want to look. My suggestion is stop drinking the Kool-Aid offered to you by those who are only after your wealth, as small or large it might be.

To add to what Jim said, on an annual basis, extreme cold and extreme cold related weather kill around an order of magnitude more people than extreme heat and extreme heat related weather.

So yeah, bring on the warming.

My suggestion is stop drinking the Kool-Aid offered to you by those who are only after your wealth, as small or large it might be.

Sorry Jim, but the only chance I would have to drink the Kool aid would be to take it away from you.

Saying "More heat is good" due to heat or cold related deaths is specious reasoning.
It's generally accepted that people can live indefinitely in temperatures between 4-35°c. 10 minutes in high humidity at 60°c and people tend to die.
Depending on how cold tolerant people are and their clothing they can survive indefinitely in temperatures below -70°c (clothing alone can protect against the extreme cold, but not against the extreme heat & humidity) without protective clothing they may still survive for many hours in below freezing temperatures, unlike the 10min for extreme heat & humidity.
Also the population in the colder regions is much, much greater than those in the hotter regions so it's hardly surprising more people die from cold related factors than heat ones. Especially as many of those living in the cold regions rely on technology to survive, when it fails they die.
But not only is the argument specious reasoning, it's irrelevant.

The issue isn't the increased temperature itself, it's the effect on climate and sea levels.

Certain crops grow in certain areas, as they have the right soils, and right climate. The rain comes at generally the right time in generally the right amounts. What if all the rain comes in one or 2 hits instead of over several months? What if the rain fall drops by 50% What if it stops all together?
And what of all those cities on the coast? How well will they fair if the sea level is only a metre or 2 higher, let alone 4 or 5? Or more if the worse comes to the worst?

The issue isn't the absolute temperature, the issue is the effect that the increased temperature will have on sea levels and weather patterns.

Now if these changes occurred over 10,000s or even a couple of thousand years; not a problem. Thousands or even over a few hundred years; not a problem. Bit by bit coastlines would erode, deserts would develop on new areas, other drier areas would become wetter. Over time areas that flooded more & more would (eventually) be abandoned.
But if the change occurs over only a couple of hundred years, or even a few decades? How would people be able to move in time, especially when so many have their heads in the sand saying "it's not happing, I can't see anything wrong, it's all being made up to take money away from me!!!"
Dealing with the consequences will be orders of magnitude more expensive than dealing with and mitigating the issue in the first place.

Pollution is a label we apply to many things that are harmful to we humans. In the case of carbon dioxide, we apply the label when elevated levels of CO2 create a hazardous condition for we humans.

The US Navy has a lot of experience with humans working in high CO2 environments from it's submarine program. CO2 is not a threat to humans or any other animal life until the concentration gets over 8000 ppm.

Even if warming does cause a few extra deaths from heat, as it stands, cold kills a lot more people than heat, so global warming would still lead to a net reduction in human deaths.

we apply the label when elevated levels of CO2 create a hazardous condition for we humans

REP, hydrous dioxide is lethal to humans when taken in concentrated forms. But I don't think we'll give up on water just yet. Same thing for plant food, i.e. CO2. To call it a pollutant is, as I've said in a previous post, beyond ludicrous.

dihydrogen monoxide

When CO2 or any substance reaches a harmful level, it is most definitely a pollutant by that definition.

Again warming is generally beneficial and CO2 isn't directly harmful in concentrations under 8000 ppm

Again warming is generally beneficial and CO2 isn't directly harmful in concentrations under 8000 ppm

So you can live in a desert with no water? Or underwater in all the large population centres that will end up under it as the sea levels rise?

The issue with increased CO2 levels isn't whether or not we can breathe, it's about the increase in heat that is retained instead of being released back in to space.

REP, so we must control CO2 in the atmosphere (although man hasn't been shown by any evidence to contribute as much as good ole' mother nature herself) in order to take care of other life? Thats what I'm taking from your statements above.

I'm not sure how to answer. If I were religious, I'd say let that be up to God. If we're to believe the Bible/Quran/whatever, thats who is responsible for this whole mess, so let let Him sort it out.

Maybe a list of creatures along with their CO2 sensitivities would be helpful. Does one exist? If not, an argument for controlling CO2 for their benefit loses a little steam. And ceases to be science based.

The problem with just about every argument made by the Control-CO2 crowd are not based on science but on, at best, conjecture. Science is verifiable, reproducable and starts with precise measurements (after a theory to be tested is postulated). All of which are missing in modern day climate "science".

So, because someone fears that other indigenous life may be killed off, we're suppose to beggar ourselves? Sorry, but that sounds like the Paris Treaty in slightly different clothes. And unacceptable.

No. We have documented proof that we humans have contributed to the extinction of several life forms.

Not by any means as indirect as CO2.

Science is verifiable, reproducable and starts with precise measurements (after a theory to be tested is postulated). All of which are missing in modern day climate "science".

Theories have been proposed, measurements of past conditions have been taken, current and older measurements of weather have been used.
The current models that are predicting the future also predicted past conditions, using the earliest available data.
How can you consider that to be "missing"?

Everyone keeps citing the CO2 concentrations that are harmful to humans. Yes, a human can tolerate CO2 concentration levels of up to about 8000 ppm. Unfortunately, that is not true of all life forms; some may be killed off at much lower levels.

Name one, along with the CO2 concentration level that would be fatal to it.

When CO2 or any substance reaches a harmful level, it is most definitely a pollutant by that definition

The problem is defining "harmful levels".

About two months ago the subsidiary of a major US drinks company was found guilty of manufacturing a drink which was, according to the judge, "poisonous".

(I feel he was exaggerating) but ....

It turns out that the drink contained benzoic acid at a level far above FDA approved levels. The problem is that benzoic acid and vitamin C can form benzene which is a carcinogen. The judge has ordered that Fanta and Sprite bottles be labelled with a warning about drinking with vitamin C. stated that He also

said "Soft drinks manufactured by ***************** ought to be fit for human consumption irrespective of color or creed,"

Worse still is that acceptable levels differ according to local climate - that approved level in the UK is well below that approved by the FDA because we have a cooler climate.

See http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/28/africa/nigeria-coca-cola-case/index.html

Hence an example of how "approved levels" are not necessarily safe.

-------------
As for the story, is :Peter actually dead? He has upset many many people and a faked death would enable him to go back into the shadows. I have too high a respect for Lazlo to believe everything he writes. (I have just reread a story where the heroine is publicly buried by her parents so she can live with and marry her brother.)

If Peter is not dead, then it would obviously have been a closed casket.

They can make some pretty convincing dead bodies these days. As long as you don't let anyone get close enough to touch it.

Northern Illinois has a huge radon issue. See Radon in Illinois. Many, many houses here have radon abatement systems, sealed sump pumps, and radon alarms.

It's just one more way nature is trying to kill us. :-)

And to think RADON as a radiation exposure issue only became known because guy working at a Nuclear Power plant kept setting off radiation alarms at work, they ultimately had him take a dosimeter home with him in order to figure out where he was getting exposed to all that radiation.

It also probably wasn't much of an issue prior to the 1970's anyway because Energy Efficiency "wasn't a thing" up until then, so most homes weren't sealed very well--so the radon could get out as the "house breathed." But as soon as they started sealing homes up tight in order to conserve energy...

Wouldn't it be something if it all turned out to be a hoax and we made the world a better place for our descendants for no reason?

Except that depending upon who you ask, and what their nationality/culture/politics/religion/etc are, the better place they would describe differs wildly.

edit to add: The other major issue with the Climate Change Brigade is whatever we do is only piddling around the edges compared to what Mother Nature does on the issue each day, especially in regards to volcanic activity and sunspot activity.

The effect of Sun spots on global warming is SFA as is the impact of volcanism, as volcanic output has been fairly constant (apart from several dips,not peaks) and the output from the Sun has been in decline since the 1980s.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

I found an interesting map that you may want to play with. It shows the effect that a rise in sea level will affect the coastline.

The problem for Venice is not sea level rise, but land subsidence. The city is sinking.

Sea level rise is just a few mm/year and is not showing any signs in of acceleration in actual observations of sea level.

Sea level rise of more than one meter in a century is not realistic.

Cities can and have moved on century time scales.

Cities can and have moved on century time scales.

Much smaller and much less numerous than exist now.
And they probably didn't wait till things were critical to start moving.

Much smaller and much less numerous than exist now.
And they probably didn't wait till things were critical to start moving.

True, but they also did it without any major construction equipment much beyond hand tools and human muscle.

Current Sea level rise rates are around 3mm/year, that's 0.3 meters / century or 3 meters every 1000 years.

The only cities for which this issue will be critical in the next century are a tiny number of coastal cities that are already below sea level*.

*most of New Orleans for example, but again, that's due to land subsidence, not sea level rise.

Current Sea level rise rates are around 3mm/year, that's 0.3 meters / century or 3 meters every 1000 years.

If the rate remains constant.
And in different areas the rate of change is different to that of the global average. In some it's more, others less.

The more land based ice that melts, the greater the rate of increase will be.

The more land based ice that melts, the greater the rate of increase will be.

There is only one place in the world with enough land bound ice to make that much of a difference, Antarctica. The average annual temperature (excluding the West Antarctic peninsula) is −57 °C

There is only one place in the world with enough land bound ice to make that much of a difference, Antarctica.

While Antarctica would result in a huge increase in sea levels, the Greenland ice sheet would be good for around 6 metres all by itself.
Given that the amount of ice on Greenland has been slowly reducing over the last 8-10 years, a larger increase in sea levels over a shorter period of time is becoming more likely.

While Antarctica would result in a huge increase in sea levels, the Greenland ice sheet would be good for around 6 metres all by itself.

The problem is, to actually melt Greenland in under any other than 10K years, it would take a drastic increase in temperatures well beyond the worst cases predicted.

ETA: Much if the increased melting (which would still take millions of years to melt the entire Greenland ice cap) is not due to increases in temperature, but is rather due to an accumulation of black carbon(soot) on the surface of the ice cap.

The problem is, to actually melt Greenland in under any other than 10K years, it would take a drastic increase in temperatures well beyond the worst cases predicted.

Yet it wouldn't require all of it to melt in a relatively short space of time to have a significant impact. Even 20cm will have a big impact on coastal areas.
And the effects on ocean currents could reduce the rate of warming by taking more heat from the system, or make it worse by putting more in.
Not to mention the effect on weather patterns. More rain & less snow there would increase the melt rate above and beyond current estimates.

And whether or not sea levels rise by 6 metres or 6mm, the effect on weather patterns from the results of global warming will be much more immediate and severe on pretty much everyone, not just those in low lying coastal areas.

And whether or not sea levels rise by 6 metres or 6mm

Wouldn't you think that the difference between a rise of 6m or 6mm is actually significant?

If I'm standing at sea level and it rises by 6mm my toes are not covered.

If I'm standing at sea level and it rises by 6m the person standing on the shoulders of the person stood on my shoulders will drown.

And whether or not sea levels rise by 6 metres or 6mm

Wouldn't you think that the difference between a rise of 6m or 6mm is actually significant?

You really do appear to be having problems with reading and comprehension.

If you had managed to read past the out of context portion you quoted, you would have seen that regardless of the significance of a 6 metre increase in sea levels, the effects of the changes in climate would be mush worse.

lighten up Grant. She has just as much right to her opinions and to support them by comments you don't like as the rest of us.

I wasn't commenting on their opinion, if you read the posts in question you might see that. Or not.

What i was commenting on was the quoting out of context and not reading (or at least not taking notice of) all of what was posted and the rather snarky attitude being delivered with the out of context quoting.

If you had managed to read past the out of context portion you quoted, you would have seen that regardless of the significance of a 6 metre increase in sea levels, the effects of the changes in climate would be mush worse.

Exactly how is a claim you made in the course of your argument, "out of context"?

There is a great deal of significance between a rise of 6 metres and 6 millimetres. Not only because of the very large difference between them, but because a few fairly simply maths calculations would show the vast difference in the volume of water necessary to effect such changes globally.

the effect on weather patterns from the results of global warming will be much more immediate and severe on pretty much everyone, not just those in low lying coastal areas.

There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes or thunder storms.

Such destructive weather events get their power not from heat, but from temperature gradients.

According to the predictions of the people pushing the global warming catastrophe meme the coldest parts of the globe will warm the most.

The temperature gradients will be reduced, the logical conclusion is fewer sever destructive storms, not more.

A major part of the cause behind people believing there's an increase is the larger population spread over the world are now much better at surviving and recording such events.

There have also been major improvements in storm detection technology.

Satellites detect even hurricanes that never make land fall.

Doppler radar can see even the weakest tornadoes even if they don't strike populated areas. The increase in tornado counts has largely been in the weakest category (F1) there has been no increase in the strongest category(F5). The experts responsible for tracking this data will tell you that the apparent trend is a false trend created by improvements in detection.

There are now systems that can detect the EM radiation spike from a lightning strike. Detectors have been installed all over the US. They can not only detect each strike, but triangulate it's location fairly precisely.

Temperature is a measurement of heat energy, so you could call it a heat gradient.

Nope, if everywhere is the same temp there is no gradient. To have a gradient, you have to have an area of high energy and an area of low energy.

There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes or thunder storms.

Over the plant as a whole, maybe, however there have been changes in the frequency and severity of tropical & other storms in various regions.
Some are getting less storms than they used to, others more. Some are getting less severe storms, others more.

The temperature gradients will be reduced, the logical conclusion is fewer sever destructive storms, not more.

That will be the eventual outcome, however while things are changing the rate of change in may areas will be greater than the rate of change in others, leading to increased temperature gradients.

And I need to again make the point- the biggest issue will be the change in climate affecting food production and living conditions.
More & greater severity of weather conditions when they occur will just be the icing on the cake.

Over the plant as a whole, maybe, however there have been changes in the frequency and severity of tropical & other storms in various regions.

That isn't a global catastrophe.

And I need to again make the point- the biggest issue will be the change in climate affecting food production and living conditions.

All current food crops produce better under higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures.

Aside from direct impacts to photosynthesis, increased C02 leads to plants, including domesticated food crops using water and other resources more efficiently.

Sorry, there is exactly zero empirical evidence for any eventual negative impact on food production from any remotely plausible warming scenario.

Over the plant as a whole, maybe, however there have been changes in the frequency and severity of tropical & other storms in various regions.

That isn't a global catastrophe.

Even though it's happening all over the globe? Sure, the effects at present are "minimal", and the incidences small in number, but over time as they become more frequent, more severe, and more wide spread they in themselves could result in a global catastrophe.

But once again you appear to be missing the point.
Certain crops require certain climates in order to grow. Change the climate, no more crop.
And even if there is a crop, it's not much good if it's destroyed by a significant weather event before it's harvested.

All current food crops produce better under higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures.

Yet they still need water. They still need the right amount of water at the right time. They still need the right temperatures- more is not always good.

Doesn't matter how wonderful the levels of CO2 or the temperatures are if a crop requires 6 months of wet conditions and then 1 month dry for harvesting, and all the rain comes down in 1 month, or it rains for 8 months.
And as much as many crops like the heat, others don't do so well. Still others require a period of low temperatures in order to fruit.

As bad as the effect of increased sea levels will be when they do occur, the effect on climate is the one that will have the greatest impact.
For whatever reason you seem to choose to ignore this fact.
More CO2 or higher temperatures doesn't do plants any good if they are under water. It doesn't do them any good if it's too hot & they die from the heat. It doesn't do them any good if there isn't enough water.
And the higher CO2 and resulting temperatures will result in these other effects.

There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes or thunder storms.

Such destructive weather events get their power not from heat, but from temperature gradients.

Actually, the modeling and science on this is quite clear, there is a man-made contribution to the severity of tornados and thunder storms, but the influence from global warming in pretty minimal. The single biggest contributor to the increased power is land use change resulting in significantly higher amounts of ambient humidity than would have been present otherwise. Heat without water is just heat. Heat with water means potential cloud formation, more water means more clouds being formed, enough cloud formation activity in a short enough time frame, and you end up with a severe thunderstorm which under the right conditions(temperature gradient present) then translates into potentially powerful tornados.

Of course, this also ignores the matter that water vapor itself is agreed to be a far more potent greenhouse gas than even CO2 is, but because it's a "short duration atmospheric pollutant" it isn't being targeted for action, as it usually returns to earth within days of being lofted into the air, rather than years/decades.

In many respects, a person in Iowa for example wouldn't be far off the mark to blame the dozens upon dozens of square miles of corn being grown miles "upwind" from him for the tornado that wiped out his house.

Actually, the modeling and science on this is quite clear, there is a man-made contribution to the severity of tornados and thunder storms

You are wrong.

Actual observational data shows no increase in the severity of tornadoes. The increase in tornado numbers is all in the weakest categories, F1 and F2. The people who are responsible for gathering this data attribute the entire increase in tornado counts to improved detection.

Actual observational data shows no increase in the severity of tornadoes. The increase in tornado numbers is all in the weakest categories, F1 and F2. The people who are responsible for gathering this data attribute the entire increase in tornado counts to improved detection.

Operative part here: In the frequency of tornadoes. Also that particular dataset is a bit spotty for obvious reasons. (Ability to detect, lack of records/witnesses to past events/etc) To get a tornado you need a specific set of environmental conditions to happen that would have little to nothing to do with regional/land use change. As you need a large front of (high) cold air (which "wants to sink") moving over an area of (low) hot (moist) air rising from the surface. Which then creates the impetus for rotation, and sets in motion everything needed to generate a tornado.

Thunderstorms, however, are another matter. And the weather modeling on this is very clear, if you run those weather scenarios through a regional climate model(rather than the global ones) with native vegetation, no irrigation, etc("in its natural state") you often end end up with light to moderate rain showers, if anything. But run it through with the current composition of the land uses currently be undertaken, and you end up with severe thunderstorms primed for a front as described previously to roll through and let a tornado happen.

Also that particular dataset is a bit spotty for obvious reasons.

It's spotty in the old data because many weak tornadoes went undetected unless they hit human habitations.

It is not at all spotty in recent decades very few of even the weakest storms have gone undetected since the development of Doppler radar. Now, it's so good, they can even spot tornadoes that never develop a visible funnel cloud.

It is not at all spotty in recent decades very few of even the weakest storms have gone undetected since the development of Doppler radar. Now, it's so good, they can even spot tornadoes that never develop a visible funnel cloud.

Thing is, how long have we been irrigating crops and farming in general across the "Midwestern" states? Heck, they've been farming and irrigating most of the Great Plains since the end of the 19th century. So you're comparing against what exactly? Data about tornado activity in Nebraska during the 1830's?
I wasn't aware that the native Americans were keeping detailed meteorological records back then.

Probably the result of all that coal the Paris Accord is trying to keep from being burnt.

In the case of greenland? Probably from all the coal the US (and Canada to a lesser degree) burned in the 1970's and previous, before we had a certain river catch fire and burn for days. The resulted clean air/clean water act reduced the emissions of particulate matter pollutants in the US to nearly nothing.

Ironically enough, it also is theorized that much of that particulate matter pollution was probably helping off-set some of the "warming effect" we should have already experienced up until that point. Which is part of how temps started going up "at a pronounced rate" after the 1970's.

Problem is all of that particulate matter is already part of our snowcap, in many places, it will eventually be buried for the most part, and that should be the end of it... Except along the periphery of those glaciers, where the stuff gets exposed once again.

Of course, things like a certain Antarctic ice-shelf having a volcanic "hot spot" turn up underneath it doesn't help things either....

Probably from all the coal the US (and Canada to a lesser degree) burned in the 1970's and previous

Or all the coal China is burning now, without any pollution controls.

Or all the coal China is burning now, without any pollution controls.

Doubtful asia's "brown cloud" is making any kind of significant contribution to the snowfall in Greenland. Now snowpacks in much of the US, Canada, and the Artic ice sheet....

Sea level rise of more than one meter in a century is not realistic.

Cities can and have moved on century time scales.

Which isn't to mention engineering options. Which runs anywhere from building dikes and going the Netherland's route, or simply putting the structure on jacks and either relocating, or raising the ground-level of the location the structure is at. Given the time and inclination to do so, even very large buildings can be moved. It's just a question of how much someone is willing to pay to make it happen.

In theory, yes, that even includes the Empire State Building. Although that would be one hell of an undertaking. In a more practical respect, forget which major city it was, but they actually did pick up and relocate their version of "Grand Central Station" to a more desirable location.

Which isn't to mention that at least in regards to skyscrapers in general, it's probably a false assumption to believe they'd be abandoned in mass. Especially the larger ones. Given sufficient time to prepare, I'd put very good odds on an adaptation strategy being pursued with utilities and other vital services either "hardened" to continue operating where they are currently, even after the building is partially submerged, or relocated to such a location as to not be flooded out. Likewise, situational calls would be made on a floor by floor basis as to whether it is sealed/hardened against being submerged, or abandoned.

Even if we saw a 200 meter rise in sea level, if it is a gradual progressive flooding even that people adequately prepared for, I'd fully expect many of the skyscrapers in Manhattan to still have legal occupants continuing to do business in them. With or without the use of dikes to prevent the island from flooding.

Now the type of business being conducted may be another matter. Those activities may have shifted inland.

I mean seriously, do you think that a company is going to abandon a perfectly good five hundred million dollar building when they can form a consortium with 20 of their (near) neighbors, spend say, fifty million dollars each, and have continued use of the building even after the surrounding area floods?

Not happening. The moment the real estate developers start to get worried about any kind of "significant increase" in sea level, there is going to be billions of dollars worth of R&D money that is going to suddenly be found from all over the world to help save their precious coastal/lowland skyscrapers.

The moment the real estate developers start to get worried about any kind of "significant increase" in sea level, there is going to be billions of dollars worth of R&D money that is going to suddenly be found from all over the world to help save their precious coastal/lowland skyscrapers.

There are many questions about how quickly and by how much the sea will rise.

The Thames has a barrier to prevent the sea flooding London and when it was designed they reckoned it would be raised once in a hundred years; now it is raised several times per year.

We used to build sea walls east of London but they have now realised that they will never keep the sea out so flooding of the salt marshes is now allowed; people either don't build there or they accept that they will be flooded at some time or other.

Imagine building a seventy metre wall from Nova Scotia to the source of the Rio Grande; who reckons that that is possible (and don't forget all the rivers and how to let rainfall get to the sea)?

sejintenej

a seventy metre wall from Nova Scotia to the source of the Rio Grande

REP replied:

and the sea will just flow around the ends of the wall. Don't forget you have shipping ports where ocean freighters have to pull in to unload their cargos - gates to let them in and keep the ocean out will be a nightmare to build and operate.

which simply goes to show that the whole idea is not feasible. We just have to learn to swim (but drowning will get rid of the population problem)

There are many questions about how quickly and by how much the sea will rise.

It's more complicated that that. Land can rise or subside (sink) separate from changes in sea level.

Venice has a major problem, not with sea level rise, but with land subsidence.

New Orleans has a major problem with man made land subsidence. The French Quarter is the only part of New Orleans that was ever above sea level, and is the only part of the city that isn't sinking. New Orleans was build on sea level delta swamps. They dried out the land by pumping the water out of the swamps into canals, but that has resulted in the land sinking as the water table drops. The more it sinks the faster they have to pump water out to keep it dry. The faster they pump out the water, the faster the land sinks.

The bulk of New Orleans beyond the historic French Quarter never should have been built in the first place and ought to be abandoned now.

The Thames has a barrier to prevent the sea flooding London and when it was designed they reckoned it would be raised once in a hundred years; now it is raised several times per year.

That could be because sea level has risen, though measured sea level change since it was built is only a couple of feet. Or it could be because their reckoning was wrong in the first instance.

We used to build sea walls east of London but they have now realised that they will never keep the sea out so flooding of the salt marshes is now allowed

Those salt marshes exist in the first place because of historical ocean flooding.

That also raises the question of do our current crop of experts know what they are talking about. Since they can't agree, it is obvious that many of them are wrong. But which ones?

The vast majority of people can't tell the difference. If a scientist publishes research that threatens the power of a very powerful person or group, that person or group can hire someone to publish research contradicting it. Then they make sure that the public sees and hears about the fraudulent research more often and louder than the legitimate research. The only people who can tell the difference in the research will be scientist in that field. The fraudsters then trot out paid "experts" from "related" fields to support their claims. The general public doesn't have the expertise to sort it out and end up getting snowed into believing the fraud. This was a tactic of the tobacco companies when research came out showing the dangers of smoking.

It's more complicated that that. Land can rise or subside (sink) separate from changes in sea level.

Venice has a major problem, not with sea level rise, but with land subsidence.

Britain has the problem also that the ice age pushed down and the UK is still repositioning itself. I don't remember which - Scotland is rising out of the sea and the south on England sinking (or vice versa)

New Orleans has a major problem with man made land subsidence. ............ They dried out the land by pumping the water out of the swamps into canals, but that has resulted in the land sinking as the water table drops.

We have that same problem in parts of England (The Fens to be precise). Contrarywise they have stopped taking water from artesian wells so the water table under London is rising causing problems to the Underground/Tube/Subway

The Thames has a barrier to prevent the sea flooding London and when it was designed they reckoned it would be raised once in a hundred years; now it is raised several times per year.

Let me get this straight. The Brits designed a massive system of gates costing billions to construct so they could use it once every hundred years? Am I understanding this correctly? I'm talking about their original design per your statement, not how they're using it now.

The Brits designed a massive system of gates costing billions to construct so they could use it once every hundred years?

No, what they told the suckers...er...citizens was that it would only need to be used once every hundred years.