Slashdot Mirror
Unfriendly Climate Greets Gore At Apple Meeting
theodp writes "Apple's shareholder meeting this week took on a Jerry Springer vibe, with harsh comments about Al Gore, former VP and Apple board member, setting the tone. Several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising Gore's high-profile views on climate change. Apple shareholder Shelton Ehrlich urged against Gore's re-election to the board, claiming that Gore 'has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted. If [the] advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected.' Hey, at least he moved a few copies of Keynote, Shelton. Shareholders introduced proposals regarding Apple's environmental impact — one asking Apple to commit publicly to greenhouse gas reduction goals and to publish a formal sustainability report; another proposing that Apple's board establish a sustainability committee. These proposals were rejected by shareholders. However, preliminary voting results indicated that Gore was re-elected to Apple's Board."
Al Gore must melt the glaciers to retain his position on Apple's board
Leave your mother out of this.
You're practically begging the denialists to come out and play. ...oh, it's a kdawson article. Carry on, then.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
If there's even the slightest chance global warming is a hoax, we should feel free to use as much energy and non-renewable resources as possible because we'll figure out a way to work around it when they're much more difficult to come by. You believe in technology and human ingenuity, don't you?
Also, the Christian god wouldn't allow the earth to become uninhabitable.
I've known one AGW denier to use that argument.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Clearly, Apple is trying to get rid of Linux as a competitor by melting the homes of penguins everywhere. Of course, they're not taking BSD into account...
How do i mod the whole article -1 flamebait?
IMPLEMENTING "GREEN" POLICIES ISN'T A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION.
Yeah, a lot of companies thought that way, and ended up polluting places, and then going out of business, leaving the rest of us to clean it up.
Not implementing "green" policies is a bad social decision.
Correction: The quote as that he "took the initiative in creating the internet". And that is correct, at least as far as the internet as we know it today.
Creating != Inventing.
Carry on.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
I think Al Gore is a pretty cool guy. He saves the environment and doesn't afraid of anything.
Wow, apple stockholders must be really dumb.
Because, seriously? Al Gore's movie came out like a couple years ago, and global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years. How is that not common knowledge?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
So could I paraphrase you as, "F*** Al Gore: Because We're Not *All* Going To Die" ?
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.
On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.
Science got way lost in the middle of this whole debate. Indeed the very term "debate" is laughable, as it is currently a which hunt on both sides.
And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And yet they'll at the same time start complaining about how they're being oppressed by moderation, even though they'll easily be dominating in the mod count. Mark my words.
It's really ridiculous. What ever happened to modding based on how reasonably a person is debating rather than whether the person matches your political ideology?
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book. I know this is no small thing, especially in the context of a global economy and global competition, but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.
Flame me unbelievers, but not too much lest you warm the planet :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
My typical argument with these people is,
Me: "So, God gave us dominion over the Earth, correct? He put us in charge of His creation?"
Them: "Yes."
Me: "So, if a parent told their children, 'We're going to be out for an hour. We're leaving you in charge of the house while we're goine,' and they came home and the house was burned down... how happy do you think they'd be with their children?"
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
Create, definition 1: "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."
Invent, definition 1: "to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph."
Clear?
Next we'll be having to debate the definition of "is". :P The "Gore Bill" turned ARPANET into the internet. Feel free to hate the guy, but he deserves credit for this.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
I don't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters.
Pretty simple, the naturally human instinct is payback for years of mockery. And indeed why should only one side be allowed vitrol and mockery and demand it not be turned against them when the tide of fate ebbs for them?
I don't think it's productive but it's understandable, and honestly well deserved.
Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book. I know this is no small thing, especially in the context of a global economy and global competition, but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.
Do you believe in God? Because you have just stated you must. After all, the consequence for being wrong is fairly horrific since a lifetime here is nothing compared to an infinity of afterlife, right?
Such is the power of the Precautionary Principal which is what your argument relies upon.
Here is what I know from years of traveling the world. If you want to see true devastation, you have only to travel to where people are generally poor. It's hard to save a forest when millions are looking for firewood (see: Haiti).
So you claim we should look upon hurting people in an economic downturn as a small consequence to avert potential disaster, but all I can envision is a global environmental cataclysm as economies fall and people do what they do best - survive at any cost.
Far better to invest heavily in alternative energy now, like nuclear and solar, so that we can all get off the oil train. The chances of GW actually causing enough problems to really bother us all before we can make that happen are to my mind exceedingly low vs. the certainty of what happens when we make a whole lot of people poor.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight. Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name.
Why is it not equally lazy to paint all "right wingers" as Birthers, and people who cannot argue with science even though there are tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW - in many aspects turning out to be right in doing so? Those who questioned "glaciers melting before 2035" were laughed at as loons before and told the science was carefully studied, when it turned out it was not. Why can YOU not believe there are and can be scientists who do not agree with the current AGW theories?
Your whole post frankly struck me as full of such lazy stereotyping, with no effort on your part made to understand the reasoning behind those who do not buy into the same group-think you do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you want to get along with people better, next time, try being correct.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
One comment by a single share holder doesn't set a "tone". I've seen videos of the meeting, and you always have share holders like this. Not only that, but this same person was widely booed by other share holders as he ranted against Al Gore.
Most atheists and agnostics I know question (or deny - but that seems to be a dirt word nowadays)the validity of man-cause global warming.
I've found that's because most Atheists or Agnostics have better BS detectors and critical thinking skills. In short, we are skeptics, meaning we question most anything that doesn't have hard evidence to support it.
I don't put stock in any fairy tale, whether it be about Santa Claus, God, or conspiracy theories, unless there is evidence to back it up. They do make fun thinking exercises, though.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Random straw man example: the "glaciers aren't melting" comment.
It's all well and good to point out the realities behind glacial melting. But it misses the more fundamental problem with the glacial quote - the 2035 claim was treated in the past by prominent figures of AGW as studied science, as an incontrovertible fact.
So the reality that in fact the quote came from one off the cuff comment, when people were once called "deniers" before for questioning it - well that begs the question, what else are people called "deniers" about now that is equally wrong? Do you see the real problem? Even stuff that is well studied, that has good results - that ceases to matter. It doesn't matter if there is a wolf when there wasn't one before the other times you claimed there was one.
And that's the real trouble, that now you have to question and double check EVERYTHING because no-one can be trusted at this point. That's exactly why scientists need to be careful publishing results and not dive willingly into the hands of politicians, no matter how well meaning they may seem. No matter that it might be somewhat harder to get funding if you are not willing to back outlandish claims.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've found that's because most Atheists or Agnostics have better BS detectors and critical thinking skills. In short, we are skeptics, meaning we question most anything that doesn't have hard evidence to support it.
I don't put stock in any fairy tale, whether it be about Santa Claus, God, or conspiracy theories, unless there is evidence to back it up. They do make fun thinking exercises, though.
Hasn't it become so easy these days to lump God in with Santa Claus, and conspiracy theories? You must have a great BS detector and all, but I question the open-mindedness of anyone (even Dawkins) who, without the slightest explanation, compares God, first, to Santa Claus, and second, to unnamed conspiracy theories. The implied nuances of your claims are so drastic, I doubt you understand the very things that you're saying.
The magnitude of the claims set forth about God are reason enough to consider the question of the existence of God. To lump God in with Santa Claus and to imply that he belongs with the rest of the conspiracy theories is to neglect these claims all together.
And please take notice that the foundation of your argument rests upon itself: In order to dismiss God as a fairy tale, you have presumed it. You yourself offer no evidence for your claims whatsoever. How sweetly ironic.
It's great and all to be able to find what things may have in common. But to have a truly precise intellect you can't forget what sets things apart.
My page.
there's nothing setting god apart from a fairy tale in the eyes of someone demanding proof of his existence, the both lack any physical evidence.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
In the US, people are nice to each other and the fact that people are entitled to their own opinion is taken very far. In my country, people are blunt and tell you if you're wrong (and why). If you live in a country where myths like creation are vigorously propagated, discussion about it is discouraged and ignoring facts is encouraged, isn't the US at a natural disadvantage when it comes to discussing factual issues? People can only too easily mistake their opinion for true/a fact, and not as something that may be in for a rewrite. This is exacerbated by the drive of the more outspoken (conservative, if I may say so) people to push their thoughts on others. We have (a minority of) creationists in our country too. We let them keep their thoughts and they don't bother us with theirs.
After years on slashdot, I still am often taken aback by lines of reasoning that boil down to: xyz is expensive, so phenomenon pqr does (not) exist). Uh, gulp. In this specific case of global warming: What can possibly be wrong with taking a couple of measures that make the initial cost go up and the cost of use go down. You pay the same (in the end), but do longer with a resource. Some allergy that the state could come up with a sensible idea is enough to throw some people into fits (look at the signature lines of several posters here on slashdot). There isn't a law of nature that says that *everything* a government proposes is wrong.
Saving energy can be so easy. For some homes: Take taking a shower. The water that drains is still warm. You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40% of the heat (you have to have a mixing shower faucet, or whatever it is called, to use this). You have the same comfortable showers, except that you use less energy. The important difference is that the initial outlay is higher (but your energy bill is lower). The unborn can't bid with you for that energy. Do you really have the liberty to waste it, our is it OK if a government looking further than the next election says: Hm, we're going to introduce some bills to encourage you to reconsider wasting that energy.
Bert
I've heard another "Christian" say global warming is a good thing if it's part of the rapture (that 19th century weirdness from cutting and pasting bits of the Bible until it says what you want). I've put their self description in quotes because it was one of those groups that think the poor and the sick are being punished by God so should never be helped but merchants in the temple are fine.
Many Christians believe in a Millennial Kingdom which will be reestablished here on earth. If this particular person believed so, then he would not believe global warming is a good thing. Not that God wouldn't allow it to happen, but that God would punish those who try to prevent the kingdom from coming. This means that if global warming has its way and the earth is no longer habitable, I'm pretty sure God would do something about it, including but not limited to restoring it to Eden-esque perfection, and punishing those responsible for Earth's demise.
I count global warming as something both preventable and possible, and therefore punishable.
My page.
Einstein used the peer review process. He didn't assert a cabal of Newtonian conspirators faking international consensuses and rigging who gets into journals and who doesn't in order to install a socialist world order.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
Revelations 11:18 (KJV) - And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
"Magnitude of the claims" ...so you mean because they make really big claims that may or may not be true then they are more likely to be true?
The size or magnitude of a claim has no effect on the probability of its being true at least inherently.
If you really want a more one to one comparison the God of Christianity could be lumped in with Thor, Zeus, Odin, Hera, or Marduk.
It is a mythology. One that may or may not be real. Just because one or even many people believe it is real doesn't make it any more real. If that were the case then the Christianity would be a false religion as most people in the world are not Christian. A high end estimate puts Christianity (lumping all forms in to one) at 33 percent.
Most people in the world used to believe that the Earth was flat, women should be subservient and not allowed to work, and that the sun rotates around the earth.
Yes, the WG2 team screwed up there. On about two sentences of one page of a thousand page report
Yes and then the head of the IPCC proceeded to widely publicize this one screw-up as factual beforehand, magnifying the problem a thousandfold. Normally one mistake in the middle of a huge document would not matter - but in the end it did matter because of how they used this without double-checking. If you are going to tell heads of state how to act based on some data it doesn't matter how much of a 3000 page report is correct, you better make DAMN SURE the small part of data you are feeding them is. The fact they did not, for years, with people questioning them - that again is the real problem. These days climate "scientists" are looking very Nixonian in that they claim there is no problem when mistake after embarrassing mistake keeps coming to light.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wind will become popular because it is cheap. Solar panels, in there current form, are not workable. For solar energy, we will end up with solar thermal, concentrating panels, or solar chemical. Think about millions of little steam engines made of plastic, all put together in a Chinese toy factory. It is always more economical to have concentrating PV instead of just direct PV, as long as PV material is more expensive by area than plastic. Solar chemical energy could be used to produce hydrogen from water, and produce more usable fuels such as gasoline by reacting the hydrogen with carbon dioxide.
Nuclear is now safe. See Japan and France for more information.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
The reason it is BS is because more gasoline has been used to produce the food we ate to power our hands and brains will typing this post (gasoline is consumed to produce food). Sure, some conservation is smart - higher value insulation, draft guards, etc. This will reduce the price of energy use. However, conservation cannot reduce the amount of energy used. IT CANNOT. Here's why it cannot: Jevon's paradox. I am a proud American, but I am not fascinated by one thing. I am only interested in efforts that actually produce results.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
Did you miss the "in a hummer" part? There are many of us that don't like jumping on the "be green" BS when it hasn't been thought through. Take solder for instance-Anyone notice how the newer stuff is landfill fodder so much more quickly now?
Open up the next electronic device you have die on you and 5 will get you 10 it is probably because of bad solder. Everyone was forced to jump on the new solder by Greenies and their "think of the children!" melting our old crap in China argument. What did we get? Well the kids in China are STILL getting poisoned, because there are a hell of a lot more nasty things on a mobo besides solder, and with our devices dying more quickly thanks to shitty solder we will have even more landfill fodder than before. But hey, we're being "green"!
The only thing worse is this "carbon credit" scam, which will make the old Catholic indulgences scam look legit. For a laugh look up "Al Gore Lear Jet carbon neutral" for a laugh. Apparently old Al pays his OWN COMPANY for carbon credits, essentially paying himself, so he can fart around all by his lonesome in that big old Lear jet and hey, he's still "green" because he is carbon neutral baby, yeah! And with Goldman Sachs already set to blow some big ass bubbles if this thing ever gets off the ground look for those leeches to make out like robber barons off of everyone's misery.
So if you want to know why so many of us hate the "greenies" it is because we can see through the bullshit. If you want to use a low wattage PC or switch out your bulbs with CF, go right ahead, nothing wrong there. But from what I have seen too much of the "green" talk is either short sighted BS like the solder, or a new way to leech money from those that can least afford it, like carbon credits. And in the end both will do exactly jack and squat, as Al Gore and his carbon neutral gas blowing Lear jet prove really nicely.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I understand that the energy interests are buying scientists who deny that human activity is causing climate change. Changing technology would hurt or destroy their profit centers.
But what is the government's incentive again?
Blar.
Nuclear was made safe and there were many nuclear powered nations developing their own reactor designs that have never made a single nuclear weapon.
Let's try an analogy. We are at the airport. Someone calls in that there is a bomb threat and that if we don't respond immediately, the whole thing is gonna go up in flames. Now, is it not the responsible thing to investigate these claims, no matter how outlandish they may seem?
That doesn't really seem outlandish though, does it? This has happened before. We kind of expect people to try this again some day. If somebody called in and said that God was going to stop the plane...well, actually we'd probably assume that terrorists were coming in the name of their God, and still investigate it. If they suggested, however, that a space alien was trying to escape justice back to his generational mothership hiding behind the moon via the ship he has stashed in the elevator, and if he did he'd end up launching the doomsday device and destroy us all, they probably wouldn't close the elevators. Even though it's a more impactful claim. Even though it is, in principle, possible.
And on the nature of truth, and for the sake of good quotes, I give you Spock: "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
The nature of religious claims is that their most general senses can never be eliminated, no matter whether they are true or not, so it's basically irrelevant. Specific claims can possibly be taken down (although literally anything can be overruled by a deceptive omnipotent force or forces). Also, Spock was quoting his ancestor, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who said it through the mouth of Sherlock Holmes.
Uh.... I'm confused. Are you arguing that conserving materials is a badly thought out idea? How so? Or are you just generally pissed off about badly thought ideas? If it's latter, sorry to hear that - there really can't be any group of people left in the world you don't hate, as there isn't a single one that has never proposed a single bad idea.
As for the Gore dig, I always thought that was sour grapes. You can't tell me that if you had enough money where you can create a business that allows you to pay yourself, you wouldn't do it. Everyone's just mad that they don't have the resources to set up a gig like that.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Remember for how long the tobacco industry denied that their was a health risk to smoking? Oh they were so happy to point out all the old people who smoked and still had gotten old, surely that proved how wrong all the scientist were and that there scientist who got their paycheck from them were right.
Or car safety. No sir, seatbelts kill people.
Look at Mythbusters, just how many stupid myths people want them to investigate over and over because they just want to believe some silly idea. Using a net in your pickup truck to safe fuel... IF that is going work, it only works in an empty truck AND one that doesn't need the door... so why have you got a pickup truck then? You drive a three ton vehicle with huge wasted space and worry about saving a few nickels.
One simple example of how denialists think, is that they have leaped on "global warming" rather then "global climate change". It is easier, anytime it snows you can shout "see, the world ain't getting warmer". Climate change is harder to debunk because ordinary farmers can tell you about it. Just a few more days of rain, or less can ruin a crop. And our western society isn't based on our universities, it is based on our farms. Farms that put plenty of food in our bellies, so much that very clever people can think very clever ideas and still think milk comes from a carton. The more intelligent a creature the less time it spends hunting for food == the less time hunting for food, the more intelligent you can become.
But what if the climate does happen to change? It could radically shift were what types of food can be grown. You might think grain is just about putting a seed in the ground and coming back half a year later to mow it, but it is a delicate process. A frost at the wrong time, not enough rain at some point, to much at another, can ruin the crop.
Right now, in the west we are incredible luck. A man can feed himself well for an entire day with about ONE hour of work, even on low pay. Say that prices double, what effect would that have on our society? Less money to spend on education, less money on healthcare. Less money to spend on taxes to fund the country as a whole.
People can understand that if the planet had just a slightly different orbit it would be a desolate place like mars or venus. But they don't understand that those two weeks of warm dry weather in fall are more then just a nice end to the summer, they are the time farmers need to make hay. No hay, no cheap cattle food for the winter, means that other places must grow the food that costs more and can't grow human food.
But hey, as long as you can drive your 3 ton pickup truck that never picks anything up, you can deny all you want. Just like a smoker with only 1 lung left and no larynx denies that there is anything wrong with smoking.
And really, the entire problem is just as with smoking, by the time we got the absolute evidence (you died from a tar lung) it really is to late.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, you need to invest energy into extract copper from ore etc. to create such a device. But, if the device is discarded after a couple of decennia, you've high grade copper that can be recycled with very little energy.
Again, I think this post supports my statements.
- Why is the yardstick of having to create a device used for this device to discard it as a valid proposal, where your argument goes for any device for generating (or saving) energy? What is so special about the device that makes it more important to apply that yardstick? The device involves nothing more than a copper tube (which is probably used to drain the waste water anyway), surrounded by a plastic tube for supplying the cold water (which had to be supplied via a tube anyway). Yes, there is some additional material used there, but not dramatically much more. There is nothing that can break. The maintenance is pulling a rag through it every year.
- Why are you talking about taking shorter showers? Heat recuperation with this device doesn't require that, I didn't mention it, so why do you bring it up?
- Why do you think providing an example as I did is a slam of other paths to try to reduce energy use? It was merely an example showing that you can save a substantial amount of energy without giving up any comfort. The only hard part is: Thinking ahead when building/renovating a home.
Bert
If you wait until something is commonplace you miss out on a lot.
Just over a decade ago someone at the small university department I was working at managed to produce reliable semiconductor junctions a single atomic layer thick on a tiny budget (not the first to do it), while in the room next door there was a guy with adjustable variable tint window coatings that worked a lot like e-ink. It takes time to iron out the bugs, you can't buy anything at Walmart like those yet but it's still worth hearing about such things long before they get turned into consumer goods or even before anyone goes looking for funding. There was a bit in the press about synrock TWENTY YEARS before it was used commercially to store high grade radioactive waste. I saw a hybrid car built to be used at a mine site in 1987 and scramjets were under development in the same building. Very interesting stuff, but not on the shelves anywhere. It can take years between when something interesting has prototypes and when you can easily get it.
The "where's my flying car now and I don't care what magic makes it work" attitude is actually fueling the bullshit PR releases you are talking about and the frequently increasing number of silicon snake oil scams. It's this bizzare obsession with technology coupled with a hatred of science - as paradoxical as young earth creationists in the oil industry.
You'll NEVER be able to buy the fruit of some new developments at Walmart but that doesn't mean that it isn't useful or interesting enough to be reported. It's depressing that even this site is infested with the "don't tell me if I can't buy it" attitude.
The mind absolutely boggles.
You're trying to compare a scientist working on a long-standing problem in theoretical physics (to whit: given that the Maxwell equations predict a velocity of light and don't specify a frame for this to be measured with respect to, and given Galilean relativity which relates the velocity of objects measured from frames moving with respect to one-another, why do we not observe a change in the speed of light from the sun as measured in December and in June?), to which a *mathematical* solution was known, the Lorentz transformations, but to which a physical understanding hadn't been addressed, with the murky and highly politicised world of climate research, one of the messiest and error-prone fields of study one can work on? Climate science is a horribly complicated, alarmingly nonlinear, alarmingly chaotic (in a mathematical sense) area of study, and one which is polluted by vested interests on both sides. You're not even beginning to compare like for like.
Shareholders Care More About Bottom Line Than Environment.
Film at 11.
Math doesn't demand any physical evidence of it's existence; it doesn't physically exist. Math is just a language used to describe other things. Math itself doesn't describe any physical reality, only the application of math may do so.
If you claim 1 + 1 = 2, you only need the internal consistency of math. If you claim 1 apple + 1 apples = 2 apples, you could ask for physical evidence.
Fairy tales and the notion of a god both describe things which would have a physical reality, thus both require physical evidence.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
If what most people believed in was real, then whatever the rapidly growing population of China believes in, will become reality very soon.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Its becoming clear that a small core of wealthy individuals who benefit from laissez faire have hijacked the mind-share of you drones by their propaganda. Anthropogenic Global Warming is real according to the science and the reason we might get less optimal legislation is because of your drone like repetition of the views of the American Al Quaida - the Neocons or whatever they call themselves these days.
Let me put this bluntly, the biggest enemy of humanity is not global warming or terrorists, its you. The mindless drones of an insane political ideology that covets wealth for the few at the expense of the many. This is the war between the common people and the super rich, probably just the American super rich, though that is not yet clear. Do you think they care about the millions who will die as a result of global warming through wars over mass migration etc. They do not care because the rich are always able to look after themselves.
Take a good long hard look at the source of the propaganda you so enthusiastically spout and tell me with a straight face that the originators actually give a toss about your personal continued existence. They don't and you are a slave to people who would as soon kill you as speak to you. This AGW debate is not about the science, it hasn't been since before George Bush senior recognised it in public. Its about the subjugation of the American people by an ideology that despises the common man. Am I surprised that Al Gore is being used in a publicity stunt by the enemy of humanity, not at all.
The pure market may be capable of forcing business to take health and safety precautions like guards and interlocks on machine tools as a result of the dead suing them but in the mean time we use government to speed these free market changes up through regulation. The science says we are about to drown in our own excrement, so some kind of regulation is necessary to express the cost of these externalities in the market. Nothing new, nothing to see, move along now. Your outrage on behalf of the super rich is incomprehensible.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Isn't is funny how we accept government infringment on our freedoms as long as we agree with the intent of the infringement?
I think you're being down-modded because you're being a dick, not because people disagree with your posts.
And desperate whining does not endear people to you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not in the least. Isn't it funny how we don't mind laws as long as they're laws we agree with? Isn't it funny how we like the free market unless the free market eats our marketshare? Isn't it funny how you don't mind that companies want government in YOUR life but out of THEIR business?
Actually, that last one wasn't funny at all.
It's horrifying.
No, he did not invent inter-networking, nor is he claiming so. The Gore Bill funded projects of the National Science Foundation, among others, that culminated in the enrichment of the Internet as a medium for economic as well as educational growth, and the mainstream acceptance of the World Wide Web--which eventually turned into the economic engine it is now.
The technical infrastructure and lower level protocols may have remained the same, but the focus and spirit of use has changed considerably.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Weird isn't it? It sounds almost like democracy.
lead isn't any more dangerous than aspartame
Quite possibly the most stupid & uninformed claim I've heard all week.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning
Some important points are commonly lost in the climate change debate, not helped by the fact that the loudest voices are as likely to be motivated by ideology as informed by science.
There are few certainties- even the strongest advocates accept the increase by 2050 could be anything from 1 degree (manageable) to 5 degrees (catastrophic). There is definitely a finite probability (in my judgemement- but I'm not a climate scientist- high) that the planet is getting warmer, and also a finite probability (in my judgement less high but still significant) that the effect is man made.
So why don't we just cool it a bit, and see climate change policy for what it is- an exercise in risk management.
I don't think I'm about to wreck my car, and my house probably isn't going to burn down, but I insure both, because either event would hurt me seriously. I apply the classic risk management approach:
concern=probability of occurence * severity of consequence.
How about the same logic to the planet?
And yet they'll at the same time start complaining about how they're being oppressed by moderation, even though they'll easily be dominating in the mod count. Mark my words.
It's really ridiculous. What ever happened to modding based on how reasonably a person is debating rather than whether the person matches your political ideology?
We've both been on Slashdot a long time. If you remember a time when your last sentence was true, I must have missed it.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Al Gore's 100 ft. houseboat:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-houseboat/
my boat:
cheap 8 ft. kayak
Yet, he gets to lecture me about carbon usage. Gore is a lightening rod of bad PR for everything he touches. That alone should make the Apple stockholders wary for electing him to the board. Making energy so expensive that the poor cannot afford it, while allowing the wealthy to use as much as they want through "carbon offsets" is one of the most despicable scams ever floated. Mr. Gore, if the planet is in such danger, then lead by example. Put on Gandi's loincloth first before telling the rest of us that we are wearing too much clothing. If we must use less energy, so be it. Then ration it. Then, if I have enough to last all month, Mr. Gore will be in the dark in his freezing cold home for three and a half weeks. By the way, Mr. Gore, the science is not settled simply because you say that it is. The bottom line: 1. don't lecture me 2. Stop trying to take money out of my pocket and putting it in yours.