Slashdot Mirror

People fall off roofs while installing solar power. https://asiancorrespondent.com...

If these statistics aren't a credible threat then I don't know what is. True though-- people tend not to wear helmets unless there's a ticket involved. For some strange reason, a chance of losing a few days wages correlated with the sight of an available officer is greater motive than the chance to lose your life correlated with seeing accidents. So then I guess I would have to add that Musk should involve himself with lobbying for helmet laws overseas, or maybe what I really should have said is that advertising your cars as having "lane assist and tailgating prevention" is OK, but "autopilot" is an irresponsible marketing term unless it has been proven to be as good as or better than a human driver.

Dig a little deeper than Fox not-News propaganda and you find this "That last sentence is exactly the what many critics find fault in the DhammakÄya Movement: give enough money for charity (preferably to DhammakÄya) and you might also reincarnate with your personal living space that coincidentally resembles an Apple Store and with your own personal Geniusesâ¦erm, I mean servants!" http://asiancorrespondent.com/87995/thai-buddhist-cult-claims-to-know-afterlife-of-steve-jobs/.

You to can get them to make claims about employees of an douche company as a, surprise, surprise, surprise, Apple publicity stunt if you donate enough money. Apple is really developing a decidedly off stench about it, much the same as a festering rotting corpse.

You sound like the guy who wasn't affected by the collapse of the credit default swap market, because he personally hadn't invested in any.

I'm afraid I don't follow the metaphor.

Going forward until the effects of carbon dioxide pollution is addressed, it is going to impact your life more than any other event.

I'm not convinced. Clearly you are.

By the way, do you realize that my comment was saying that the measures to fight carbon release won't hurt me personally as much as those measures will hurt most of the people in the USA? I didn't say that a global warming doom scenario won't hurt me, I said the steps AGW proponents want won't hurt me (too much).

It may do so indirectly and you may be too thoughtless to notice, but rest assured you will be affected far more dramatically than you currently realize.

Not good enough. You want to convince me, these vague words won't do it. Make a specific, testable prediction please.

For example, in 2005, UNEP predicted that 50 million people would be forced to flee their homes by 2010 due to flooding caused by global warming. That prediction didn't work out so the new prediction is that 150 million people will be displaced by flooding by 2050. This seems safely far in the future.

I'm sure if I looked, I could find some crazy "expert" making some predictions about how an ice age will doom us all unless we do something to make the Earth warmer. So don't just quote "the experts". Tell me about the predictions that have been proven correct.

What are the testable predictions of the AGW proponents that have panned out?

By the way, I do not thank you for calling me "thoughtless". I don't believe I have insulted you (I don't even know you) and I believe my comments here on Slashdot have been polite and focused on the issues. Can you discuss this issue politely? Maybe you should try it.

You talk about trillions of dollars being lost addressing the problem

Correct.

and therefore we should do nothing but let the fossil fuel industry dictate to us the fate of the planet.

Incorrect. I never said that; you are just putting words in my mouth.

I didn't actually propose anything, but a reasonable person reading what I wrote might correctly infer that I would be in favor of studying the issue and studying geoengineering approaches to solving the issue.

I claim that (0) the proposed remedies to global warming would cause trillions of dollars worth of harm and (1) the current level of proof isn't adequate to convince me that the trillions are warranted. So, you can find a remedy that costs less, or you can find more proof that is convincing, and either way you have answered this pair of objections.

Without addressing the issue, eventually, there won't be enough food being shipped anywhere to need trucks.

Please provide some sort of reference to back up this idea.

P.S. I note that my original post, which had been modded up to 5, has now been modded down to 2. At least you chose to discuss the issue rather than just modding me down.

steveha

People who are being persecuted in Thailand might wonder how it's being spent: http://asiancorrespondent.com/42468/whats-the-point-of-amnesty-international-in-thailand/

Yes, Amnesty is clearly ignoring everything that goes on in Thailand: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/thailand
And yes, that was sarcasm.

If this is all you can come up with against such a huge organization I think my money is very well spent.

People who are being persecuted in Thailand might wonder how it's being spent: http://asiancorrespondent.com/42468/whats-the-point-of-amnesty-international-in-thailand/

No way.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/49045/amnesty-international-and-the-us1-37million-pay-off/

Unfortunately you'll be able to find examples like that in any large organzation and more small ones than people would like to think. In the big picture $1.37million is a drop in the ocean, and they don't seem to think it's ok. If this is all you can come up with against such a huge organization I think my money is very well spent.

I've come to the conclusion that the best long term charity is Amnesty International. Sure, feeding the hungry saves more people in the short run, but I believe that democracy and freedom of speech is the only way to stop hunger and famine to return to the same areas again and again.

No way. http://asiancorrespondent.com/49045/amnesty-international-and-the-us1-37million-pay-off/

Gavin Atkins != Anthony Watts.

This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting.

America has no science reporting. It has sciency reporting, in the Steven-Colbert "truthiness" sense. Now consider that the media is the main way that "climate change" gets communicated to the people of America. The media... and politicians. Is there any surprise that lots of people are insanely skeptical of it? I'd even say that with those inputs, calling it all a load of nonsense is a very rational response.

Uh, this article is by an Australian author. http://asiancorrespondent.com/author/gavinatkins/
As a side note, here's a direct link to the map: http://maps.grida.no/library/files/storage/11kap9climat.png

Maybe I missed it, but why do you say "This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting"? The author of TFA, Gavin Atkins, appears to be Australian. The hosting site, Asian Correspondent, doesn't appear to be related to American news. I agree with the general statement that science reporting is more often than not just terrible, but I don't see how America's science reporting enters in here. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful post!