Well, in climate debates in/. it seems usually seems to appear. Let me attempt to define it: Regular spam often consists of unsolicited messages designed to financially benefit some unknown company. The information contained in such spam is often patently false, making claims for example that penis pump X will increase the user's penis size, or that stock XYZ will rise in the near future. These messages are put in the expectation that a certain group of uneducated people will respond to them, and they are often highly profitable.
I define denial spam to be postings about climate change that are patently false, and have been reliably refuted in other places on the web. One of my favorites is the one about volcanoes spewing out more CO2 than humans (where then is the spike for Mt. Pinatubo or Mt. St. Helens?) I call such messages spam because the posters seems to have little concern for the truth of their statements, and because the messages are designed to create financial benefit to hidden companies. In this case the beneficiaries are energy interests who stand to lose billions if CO2 is successfully regulated. Their goal is to create uncertainty in a percentage of the population about climate change. The hope is that this uncertainty will be a barrier to successful action on CO2 emissions. The energy interests disseminate their messages through "think tanks", that create websites containing their talking points, and pay commentators to appear in various types of media to disseminate the denialist talking points. These denialist talking points are then echoed all over society, including on message boards such as Slashdot.
Yep. We'll adapt. We'll spend billions, if not TRILLIONS of dollars building desalination plants, digging canals, trying to prop up failing agricultural systems, building sea walls to hold back the water from rising sea levels. We will also likely plant drought resistant crops in order to cope with water shortages (such crops will likely give a lower yield per acre). A large portion of our civilization's resources will have to be diverted to adapting, and this means that those resources will not be used for things like health care, education, or luxury goods. In other words, we will be poorer because we will have to adapt.
Climate change and the resulting drought poses an especially dangerous threat to agriculture. In dollar terms, agriculture may only make up a few percent of the GDP, but in terms of overall importance, I would argue that it is the most important sector of the economy. None of us can live without food. The quantity of food a civilization produces is really the ultimate limiting factor for the population size and the wealth of that civilization. I've heard it convincingly argued that the Greeks lost their power to the Romans because the Greeks overgrazed their land, causing a collapse in the food supply. If we consider the droughts happening all around the world, in Australia, in the American Midwest, in Africa, in the Amazon, in Asia, it is not difficult to imagine how climate change could have a massive impact on our agricultural output. The resulting economic effects will likely be devastating.
Given these potential costs, and the extremely likely fact that CO2 emitted by humanity is the largest cause of climate change, it seems extremely logical that we spend resources to lower our emissions of carbon dioxide. I've heard it argued that if we spent 1% of our GDP on efficiency measures, then we should be able to mitigate many of the worst effects of climate change. Some examples of areas where we can spend are:
Insulating our homes and installing efficient heating and cooling technology (possible 80% reduction in energy consumption)
Buying efficient cars (carbon fiber is a promising automotive material)
Living closer to where we work, and thus driving less
Investing in public transit systems
Investing massively in clean energy projects and perhaps nuclear energy
Global warming is a bunch of hooey. Cosmic rays are causing it all. Increased cosmic rays act as cloud condensation nuclei over the ocean, increasing low cloud cover and cooling the ocean. End of story. When cosmic rays are reduced, we get less cloud formation, and so it gets warmer. So, fewer cosmic rays equals more warming. Period. And forget what you've heard, about the number of cosmic rays being rather constant over the last few years even though the Earth got warmer. Just a bunch of hooey from those stoopid scientists.
Forget what you've heard about those other cloud condensation nuclei over the ocean, like sea salt particles from ocean spray. There aren't many of those! What a load of hooey. Cosmic rays are really the only important condensation nuclei. Without cosmic rays, we wouldn't have clouds at all.
Please REPLY to this message to be REMOVED from our mailing list.
----------random text to mess up sp@m filters--------------
I was about to propound a question, touching the manner in which that operation of changing my heart was to be performed, when Mrs. Reed interposed, telling me to sit down; she then proceeded to carry on the conversation herself.
"Mr. Brocklehurst, I believe I intimated in the letter which I wrote to you three weeks ago, that this little girl has not quite the character and disposition I could wish: should you admit her into Lowood school, I should be glad if the superintendent and teachers were requested to keep a strict eye on her, and, above all, to guard against her worst fault, a tendency to deceit. I mention this in your hearing, Jane, that you may not attempt to impose on Mr. Brocklehurst."
What about posts to Slashdot? Or callers to talk show radio shows? Or letters to the editor of a newspaper? Or any other public forum where citizens are supposed to speak as citizens, and not as shills for some hidden organization? I have long suspected that shills from hidden interests/corporations game such forums to their own benefit. After all, what do they have to lose (such posts are anonymous and inexpensive), and what do they have to gain (the subtle manipulation of public opinion in their favor)? I think this behavior is exactly what one would expect from a corporation, since such organizations are institutionally programed act in their own self interest above all else.
If this teaches us anything, it is that we should not form our opinions based on the opinions of some "trusted source". We should instead base what we think about the world on objective facts (as best we can determine), and rational argument based upon those facts. This is perhaps becoming more difficult these days, as sources of facts and rational argument seem to be rare, while sources of opinion seem to be multiplying. But if we as citizens of a democracy wish that our society continue to stay democratic, then it is our duty to diligently seek out the objective truth.
All scientists need to make a living. Real scientists make a living by testing hypotheses about the physical world. Whether or not the actual hypothesis is correct or not makes little difference to the income of the scientist; what matters is that the experiments and the reasoning of the scientist are sound and rooted in reality. A scientist who lies and distorts can become a pariah, and can therefore lose income. This is a powerful incentive to tell the truth.
If a scientist's income is instead based on the specific outcome of his/her experiments, then there will be an incentive for that scientist to twist reality to match the desired outcome. In the extreme case, if a scientist receives all of their income from interests who desire a specific scientific outcome, then there will be a very strong incentive to continue to hold a particular viewpoint even if it does not reflect reality. If they change their mind, then they will lose their income.
I agree with you that skepticism is essential in science. However, there is a profound difference between skepticism that is motivated by a desire to learn the truth about the world based on physical evidence, and skepticism motivated by narrow self interest (eg. your salary depends on your specific view of reality). If you make your living as a climate skeptic, getting paid by businesses to expound on your views that climate change is a lie, then if you happened to change your views, you would lose that source of income.
No one is infallible. That is why proper scientists present their ideas and observations to their peers for review. Both the submitting scientist, and the peers gain prestige from giving and interpreting truthful observations about world. And in the scientific world, prestige can bring income. If a scientist is shown to submit false evidence, or incorrectly interprets truthful evidence, then they can lose income. Thus, the livelihood of scientists is dependent on their pursuit of truth through physical evidence. Just ask the Korean scientist who lied about cloning a human embryo. I doubt he is getting many research grants now.
My point here is that not all skepticism is created equal. If certain skeptics continually put forth discredited ideas, if they ignore reliable evidence that contradicts them, and if they spend most of their effort putting their ideas into the media, rather than presenting them to other scientists for review, then their positions should not be taken seriously. If however a skeptical scientist is motivated by a genuine desire to understand the physical world, if they base their views on reliable evidence, and above all if they are willing to change their ideas if presented with compelling evidence, then such skeptics should be taken seriously. Climate skeptics such as Tim Ball belong in the former, rather than the latter category.
Well said. There is a habit of mind that is common in America right now to deny facts that make one uncomfortable. A primary example of this is the denial of evolution by fundamentalist Christians. The fact of evolution, supported by increasingly massive amounts of evidence is denied, because the alternative would be to significantly revise one's view of the world, something that can often be very uncomfortable. This timid and cowardly habit of hiding from the truth can be very dangerous. People that hide too often from the truth have a flexible sense of reality that can easily be manipulated. For instance, it is interesting to note how many fundamentalist Christians have views that substantially reflect the best interests of large business interests: pure free market ideology, climate change denial, and other neoconservative positions for example. I don't think you'll find much in the bible about these topics, and yet somehow these are common Christian views. American Christianity is turning into a politicized state religion whose purpose is control the populace to further the interests of the powerful and corrupt. Dark age, here we come!
Thanks. I hadn't paid attention to the most recent products in the last year or two. Now that I'm looking, I'm noticing that there is a 50g, which looks promising. I hear the keys are nicer on the newer 50g, but are still not as nice as the 48gx. The new 50G does look promising, as it seems to have a decent processor. Maybe HP hasn't given up on RPN calculators after all.
I absolutely agree. The HP48GX is an amazing calculator. Reverse Polish Notation (RPN) rocks...you don't need to enter in brackets with complex expressions which probably makes it 20-30% faster than other methods. The calculator uses a stack system for its calculations. To add 2 and 3, type 2 and hit enter to put it into the stack. Then press 3 and hit enter...3 also appears on the stack. Then press +. This adds the bottom two entries in the stack. With complex expressions, you start on the innermost brackets and work outwards. Because your answers are always visible in the stack, it is remarkably easy to evaluate expressions without ever rounding more than the calculator's precision.
The stack doesn't just work for numbers. It is possible to enter in many types of objects. Enter two matrices or vectors into the stack, then press +, -, x, or / and the calculator will add, subtract, multiply, or divide the two matrices, just as if they were two numbers. To find the inverse matrix, enter it into the stack and press (1/x). Complex numbers are easily handled by entering them as vectors.
The main weakness of my version is that it is a bit slow when doing things like graphing. The origin of this problem lies in HP's neglect of this product. HP used to be a highly innovative and inventive technology company. They made products that no one else imagined making, things that were designed to meet the requirements of technical professionals like engineers. Then the bean counters/MBA's took over. They sold off most of HP's innovative divisions (Agilent Technologies for example) and became primarily a maker of bog standard PC's. They stopped making the 48GX for a while, but brought it back after a loud outcry. The new version was however not quite the same as the old version. It feels cheaper than the older calculators...it doesn't quite have the same solid feel. Bloody corporate bean counters! HP has been losing money for much of the time since they took over.
It is a shame that HP hasn't updated this calculator. With a newer processor, and a few interface updates, this could truly be the ultimate calculation tool. It is still great, but if it were a bit faster with a more polished interface, then it would be perfect.
The growth of fascism is correlated with the growth of oligarchical private power. When large private organizations (today, known as corporations) gain enough power, they begin to exert influence on the state. Power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few large organizations. After a time, these organizations become inextricably linked to the state; they act in the interests in the state, and the state acts in their interests. The symptoms of this are everywhere today in America, ranging from the lobbyist epidemic in Washington to energy companies actually writing energy legislation.
Both the government and these corporations idealized self-interest as the guiding principle of society, believing that the public interest could only be served by individuals and organizations pursuing their own self-interest. However, such a viewpoint implicitly favors the most powerful, giving them license to increase their power with impunity. The worship of self-interest and power was taken to its extreme by Germany, and eventually led to the actions in the late 1930's that we commonly associate with fascism. But the period leading to the rise of European fascism should not be ignored, as it is highly applicable to our current predicaments in America.
Here are some quotes on private power that were written in 1762 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract). When I read these, I am reminded of recent American politics.
However, when the social tie begins to slacken and the state to weaken, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and sectional societies begin to exert an influence over the greater society, the common interest becomes corrupted and meets opposition; voting is no longer unanimous; the general will is no longer the will of all; contradictions and disputes arise; and even the best opinion is not allowed to prevail unchallenged.
In the end, when the state, on the brink of ruin, can maintain itself only in an empty and illusory form, when the social bond is broken in every heart, when the meanest interest impudently flaunts the sacred name of the public good, then the general will is silenced: everyone, animated by secret motives, ceases to speak as a citizen any more than as if the state had never existed; and the people enacts in the guise of laws iniquitous decrees which have private interests as their only end.
They should care, because climate instability caused by climate change could have a significant impact on their food supplies. Farmers rely on having a stable climate. If it suddenly starts raining too hard during their peak growing season, then crops will be lost. If the rain doesn't come at the right time, then crops will be lost. If the glaciers that feed the major rivers shrink, then the river flows will decrease during the warm/dry season, decreasing the supply of irrigation water during exactly the time when it is most needed, thus causing crops to be lost. A worldwide reduction in food supplies by even 10% would have serious impacts on civilization.
The biggest problem facing the U.S. isn't the wage gap, but the surge of regulations that prevent the poor from becoming rich (and prevents small companies from becoming large one).
This is just an unsupported slogan. What regulations do you mean? How exactly are they keeping poor people poor? Are you suggesting that a complete lack of government regulation would result in a society where a person born in abject poverty could shoot to the top of society? Oh, wait a minute, I just realized how a poor person could become extremely wealthy...they could join the mafia. I guess maybe you are right about government regulation preventing the poor from becoming rich after all.
Having too large a gap between the richest and the poorest is bad for society. Having too small a gap between the richest and the poorest is bad for society. The most positive situation lies somewhere between these two extremes. This is the philosophy of The Golden Mean.
Quoting from Wheelan's article:
Life gets pretty scary -- no matter how much money you've got -- when a segment of society decides that they're no longer going to play by the rules.
Ask yourself: why doesn't society run amok? Why do citizens choose to live within the rules of society? Why do we choose not to rob, murder, and otherwise plunder our fellow citizens? Is it fear of punishment by the justice system? No doubt that has something to do with it. Do we fear losing our livelihood, our shelter, our food, our friends? I think this has a great deal to do with why most people choose to live within the rules of society. Most of us go to work every day, consume only what we earn, and in general act in the best interests of society because we believe that if we do so, then society will reward our hard work with sustenance, giving us a general sense of well being. This is called the Social Contract. Most people will respect and obey the rules of society if there is a reasonable chance of being rewarded by society. It is an unwritten principle that most of us live by.
What would happen if the Social Contract weakened or disappeared? What would happen if certain citizens began to believe that living within the rules of society would not be rewarded significantly or at all? Would they continue to be law abiding citizens? No doubt many of them would. But I would argue that by virtue of extreme differences in wealth, many poor citizens would begin to feel separate from society, and thus they would be more likely to violate the rules of society. And I don't believe that threats of punishment such as prison sentences would significantly alter this feeling of separateness.
On the other side of the issue, I would argue that extreme wealth redistribution such as that which existed under communist systems is equally negative for society. Citizens need things to strive for. If everyone has the same level of wealth, then society will stagnate because a significant motivator for action will have been removed. Citizens will tend not to work hard, and so the general level of wealth will be reduced.
The best option for society is a Golden Mean, somewhere between these two extremes. If wealth differences are too large, then large segments of society will tend to feel separate from society as a whole, and crime and lawlessness will increase. If wealth differences are too small, then society will stagnate. If wealth differences are managed effectively and optimally, then the general wealth and sense of well being of a society will increase.
Buy the Phillips open coil bulbs (the ones without a glass dome). They do come on instantly, and start at almost full brightness. The cheaper bulbs are not defective, they just don't work as well. Look for the "Energy Star" rating on bulbs, as it guarantees a certain level of performance. I also find the bulbs with a glass dome surrounding the coils have a very long warmup time, even the most expensive brands.
I like to experiment before buying too many bulbs. I'll buy one or two and try them out before buying more.
I buy the Phillips open coil bulbs (the ones with no glass dome), and I find that they come in instantly. There is a slight warmup time, but they are almost at full brightness without any warmup.
The bulbs with the glass dome around them take far longer to warm up. I'm not sure why this is so...perhaps the open coil bulbs can handle more startup energy because they dissipate heat better than the closed bulbs.
We have replaced almost all lightbulbs in our house with compact fluorescent bulbs, and the effect on our electricity bill has been noticeable. The color of the light is almost indistinguishable from regular incandescent bulbs in most applications. I have found that it makes a huge difference what type of bulbs you buy. Do NOT buy the cheap Ikea bulbs, as their color is terrible, and their warmup time is excessive. I have found that Phillips is the best brand. GE seems ok, but I haven't bought many of them yet.
At the very least, buy bulbs that are Energy Star rated, as this guarantees certain performance characteristics, such as color. All fluorescent bulbs are NOT created equal.
Scientists are not arguing that we are going to destroy the world. They are saying that we are going to change it in serious ways that could make human civilization less tenable. I am aware of geological events of the past, and the Earth has gone through much worse events than us. For example, there is evidence that the Earth was at one point covered almost entirely with ice, a state that would have wiped out most life. Comets have hit the Earth, causing mass extinctions, including of that of the dinosaurs. Ice ages have come and gone, wreaking havoc on the lives of many species.
Evidence indicates that if we continue to emit carbon dioxide at current rates, we will change the climate in significant ways. In the Earth's past, the most recent period when carbon dioxide levels reached the predicted levels was likely about 50 to 60 million years ago. During that time, the polar regions had a climate that was almost tropical (as evidenced by tropical plants found in polar sediments). Such a change would significantly modify weather patterns, and would likely make our current agricultural systems difficult to sustain. Imagine what would happen if the yield of global crops dropped by 10% or more. Do you think that this would not have an impact on civilization?
And if you have been taught that man is too small to impact the Earth, that only God can do that, then you should imagine what would happen if the president decided to press the launch button for America's nuclear arsenal. What kind of an impact would that have? The fact is that man can have an impact on the climate. If you believe that God created the Earth, then our current actions could hardly be viewed as good stewardship of His creation.
Enlightened environmentalists are not arguing that we give up our modern technology. Far from it, they are arguing that we should learn to use the gift of energy more efficiently. Believe me, it is possible to reduce our consumption of energy while preserving our standard of living. If you could buy a car that was indistinguishable in most important ways from an older car except for its high efficiency, why would you want the older version?
For any article about climate change, I change my threshold to see all the articles. Slashdot seems to have become a major target of global warming denial spam. It also seems the moderation is biased in favor of the denial spam, such that the key denial spam posts are marked as insightful. By viewing all posts, I get a far more realistic idea of the discussion.
So in a sense I am putting up a bit of a white flag to the GW denialist public relations campaign, and so they have achieved part of their objectives. If you want a real discussion, go to realclimate.org . You'll still see the denialist spam there, but it is responded to convincingly by experts knowledgeable in the field of climate science.
I believe it is a strong likelihood that much of the GW denialist spam is connected in some way to oil interests. Oil companies face billions of dollars in losses if their primary product is regulated. Anyone who doubts that such oil interests wouldn't provide a paltry few million dollars to protect their future profits by funding people to post denialist spam to discussion groups such as Slashdot is I believe quite naive. It's just self interest.
This just in: Slashdot taken over by Exxon Mobile
on
Giant Ice Shelf Snaps
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Is it just me who is wondering why these GW denier posts are continually being modded up. I'm shocked at the way these skeptics arguments seem to dominate any discussion here. Are we nerds really this stupid?
I didn't say that neo-conservatives are fascists, merely that there is substantial overlap between them. It is more a question of values. The 1930's fascists worshiped self interest as the guiding principle of society. In their society, the strong rose to the top, while the weak and inferior were suppressed. The state was set up as a partnership between the government and the strongest private organizations (the largest corporations). The government acted in the interests of these organizations, and the large organizations acted in the interest of the government. I would argue that this model bears more than a passing similarity to the neo-conservative ideal. Neo-conservatives and fascists have shared values in that they worship the strong and despise the weak.
Neo-conservatives differ from 1930's fascists not least because of the extent to which they have acted on their values. Hitler took these values to their logical extreme, in explicitly seeking to destroy the weak. Mussolini's actions were I believe less extreme and explicit, though he still did some terrible things and was allied with Hitler. Neo-conservatives have not, as of yet acted as explicitly as 1930's fascists, though the invasion of Iraq might be seen as a baby step in that direction. But they have been busy solidifying the power of the huge corporations with which they are allied. What neo-conservatives might do if they gain a stronger lock on power is a frightening prospect.
I am also not convinced that many neo-conservatives understand the implications of their values and ideologies. I think that most neo-conservatives honestly believe that they will bring "democracy" to the world at the barrel of a gun, and that the free market will bring untold riches to society. And as with most ideologies, there is an element of truth in them; markets are an extremely effective method of distributing labor and resources. What they don't see is that their worship of self-interest above the public interest is fundamentally at odds with the ideals of democracy itself. Taking neo-conservative values to their extreme will result in our country becoming a democracy in name only.
Here is some more information about what was actually blacked out. The links on the left bar presumably point to articles that refer to the redacted information. If the information in the NY Times article was already public, then the White House is directly interfering with free speech. This is surely unconstitutional, should qualify Mr. Bush for prosecution for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
What line will this neo-conservative administration have to cross before the public realizes that Bush/Cheney and their neo-conservative friends have more in common with Benito Mussolini than with past presidents of America. Neo-conservatism and 1930's fascism have substantial overlap in that they both worship the strong and despise the weak. Typical modern neo-conservative quote: "I don't want my tax dollars going to help broken down single mothers and drug addicts. If they can't help themselves then they are weak and don't deserve help" Compare this with the way Hitler and Mussolini felt about the weaker and genetically deficient members of society. There is substantial overlap.
When I was in Paris last year, I noticed something really interesting. In most apartments, when the elevator opens to the hallway of your apartment, it is dark. There is a glowing switch on the wall near the elevator that you must press to turn on the lights. The lights then stay on for a few minutes, allowing you to get into your apartment. There are several glow in the dark switches throughout the hallway for when people leave their apartment.
When you think about it, leaving lights on in apartment hallways 24/7 is extremely wasteful of energy. In a single hallway, I wouldn't be surprised if the lights consumed 1000 watts or more. In a day, that would be 24kW-hr, which would probably compare to the entire daily consumption of electricity for one or two apartments.
I can imagine that having motion sensor light switches in hallways would be an effective way of implementing this in North America. This one idea could save huge amounts of energy.
I've measured the power consumption of my desktop computer system: about 300W with a 19" crt, 180W without monitor. My laptop uses about 50W or so. If the desktop computer is left on 24/7, that would be a large amount of energy wasted.
Our daily consumption is about 30kW-hr/day. If I assume that the computer consumes 200W on average, and that it is on 24 hours a day, then it would consume 4.8kW-hr/day or about 15% of our electricity.
Devices on standby also use a surprisingly large amount of energy. Our vcr and dvd players each consume 3 to 4 watts. The wireless router, modem, and other computer devices consume about 40 watts. Then you have microwaves, clock radios, cell phone chargers, tv's and similar devices all drawing a few watts each all day. It is easy to imagine devices on standby drawing 100 watts or more continuously all day. And if that were the case, then they would draw about 2.4kW-hr/day, or about 8% of our electricity.
Modern front loading washing machines have the potential to save large amounts of energy. Not only do they use less water and energy themselves, but they have a faster spin cycle that removes far more water from clothing than older machines. Thus, drying the clothing takes less time and uses less energy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in climate debates in /. it seems usually seems to appear. Let me attempt to define it: Regular spam often consists of unsolicited messages designed to financially benefit some unknown company. The information contained in such spam is often patently false, making claims for example that penis pump X will increase the user's penis size, or that stock XYZ will rise in the near future. These messages are put in the expectation that a certain group of uneducated people will respond to them, and they are often highly profitable.
I define denial spam to be postings about climate change that are patently false, and have been reliably refuted in other places on the web. One of my favorites is the one about volcanoes spewing out more CO2 than humans (where then is the spike for Mt. Pinatubo or Mt. St. Helens?) I call such messages spam because the posters seems to have little concern for the truth of their statements, and because the messages are designed to create financial benefit to hidden companies. In this case the beneficiaries are energy interests who stand to lose billions if CO2 is successfully regulated. Their goal is to create uncertainty in a percentage of the population about climate change. The hope is that this uncertainty will be a barrier to successful action on CO2 emissions. The energy interests disseminate their messages through "think tanks", that create websites containing their talking points, and pay commentators to appear in various types of media to disseminate the denialist talking points. These denialist talking points are then echoed all over society, including on message boards such as Slashdot.
Yep. We'll adapt. We'll spend billions, if not TRILLIONS of dollars building desalination plants, digging canals, trying to prop up failing agricultural systems, building sea walls to hold back the water from rising sea levels. We will also likely plant drought resistant crops in order to cope with water shortages (such crops will likely give a lower yield per acre). A large portion of our civilization's resources will have to be diverted to adapting, and this means that those resources will not be used for things like health care, education, or luxury goods. In other words, we will be poorer because we will have to adapt.
Climate change and the resulting drought poses an especially dangerous threat to agriculture. In dollar terms, agriculture may only make up a few percent of the GDP, but in terms of overall importance, I would argue that it is the most important sector of the economy. None of us can live without food. The quantity of food a civilization produces is really the ultimate limiting factor for the population size and the wealth of that civilization. I've heard it convincingly argued that the Greeks lost their power to the Romans because the Greeks overgrazed their land, causing a collapse in the food supply. If we consider the droughts happening all around the world, in Australia, in the American Midwest, in Africa, in the Amazon, in Asia, it is not difficult to imagine how climate change could have a massive impact on our agricultural output. The resulting economic effects will likely be devastating.
Given these potential costs, and the extremely likely fact that CO2 emitted by humanity is the largest cause of climate change, it seems extremely logical that we spend resources to lower our emissions of carbon dioxide. I've heard it argued that if we spent 1% of our GDP on efficiency measures, then we should be able to mitigate many of the worst effects of climate change. Some examples of areas where we can spend are:
Insulating our homes and installing efficient heating and cooling technology (possible 80% reduction in energy consumption) Buying efficient cars (carbon fiber is a promising automotive material) Living closer to where we work, and thus driving less Investing in public transit systems Investing massively in clean energy projects and perhaps nuclear energyHow long before this discussion is dominated by denial spam?
Global warming is a bunch of hooey. Cosmic rays are causing it all. Increased cosmic rays act as cloud condensation nuclei over the ocean, increasing low cloud cover and cooling the ocean. End of story. When cosmic rays are reduced, we get less cloud formation, and so it gets warmer. So, fewer cosmic rays equals more warming. Period. And forget what you've heard, about the number of cosmic rays being rather constant over the last few years even though the Earth got warmer. Just a bunch of hooey from those stoopid scientists.
Forget what you've heard about those other cloud condensation nuclei over the ocean, like sea salt particles from ocean spray. There aren't many of those! What a load of hooey. Cosmic rays are really the only important condensation nuclei. Without cosmic rays, we wouldn't have clouds at all.
Please REPLY to this message to be REMOVED from our mailing list.
----------random text to mess up sp@m filters--------------
I was about to propound a question, touching the manner in which that operation of changing my heart was to be performed, when Mrs. Reed interposed, telling me to sit down; she then proceeded to carry on the conversation herself. "Mr. Brocklehurst, I believe I intimated in the letter which I wrote to you three weeks ago, that this little girl has not quite the character and disposition I could wish: should you admit her into Lowood school, I should be glad if the superintendent and teachers were requested to keep a strict eye on her, and, above all, to guard against her worst fault, a tendency to deceit. I mention this in your hearing, Jane, that you may not attempt to impose on Mr. Brocklehurst."
What about posts to Slashdot? Or callers to talk show radio shows? Or letters to the editor of a newspaper? Or any other public forum where citizens are supposed to speak as citizens, and not as shills for some hidden organization? I have long suspected that shills from hidden interests/corporations game such forums to their own benefit. After all, what do they have to lose (such posts are anonymous and inexpensive), and what do they have to gain (the subtle manipulation of public opinion in their favor)? I think this behavior is exactly what one would expect from a corporation, since such organizations are institutionally programed act in their own self interest above all else.
If this teaches us anything, it is that we should not form our opinions based on the opinions of some "trusted source". We should instead base what we think about the world on objective facts (as best we can determine), and rational argument based upon those facts. This is perhaps becoming more difficult these days, as sources of facts and rational argument seem to be rare, while sources of opinion seem to be multiplying. But if we as citizens of a democracy wish that our society continue to stay democratic, then it is our duty to diligently seek out the objective truth.
Vienna really isn't that far away from Cairo.
All scientists need to make a living. Real scientists make a living by testing hypotheses about the physical world. Whether or not the actual hypothesis is correct or not makes little difference to the income of the scientist; what matters is that the experiments and the reasoning of the scientist are sound and rooted in reality. A scientist who lies and distorts can become a pariah, and can therefore lose income. This is a powerful incentive to tell the truth.
If a scientist's income is instead based on the specific outcome of his/her experiments, then there will be an incentive for that scientist to twist reality to match the desired outcome. In the extreme case, if a scientist receives all of their income from interests who desire a specific scientific outcome, then there will be a very strong incentive to continue to hold a particular viewpoint even if it does not reflect reality. If they change their mind, then they will lose their income.
I agree with you that skepticism is essential in science. However, there is a profound difference between skepticism that is motivated by a desire to learn the truth about the world based on physical evidence, and skepticism motivated by narrow self interest (eg. your salary depends on your specific view of reality). If you make your living as a climate skeptic, getting paid by businesses to expound on your views that climate change is a lie, then if you happened to change your views, you would lose that source of income.
No one is infallible. That is why proper scientists present their ideas and observations to their peers for review. Both the submitting scientist, and the peers gain prestige from giving and interpreting truthful observations about world. And in the scientific world, prestige can bring income. If a scientist is shown to submit false evidence, or incorrectly interprets truthful evidence, then they can lose income. Thus, the livelihood of scientists is dependent on their pursuit of truth through physical evidence. Just ask the Korean scientist who lied about cloning a human embryo. I doubt he is getting many research grants now.
My point here is that not all skepticism is created equal. If certain skeptics continually put forth discredited ideas, if they ignore reliable evidence that contradicts them, and if they spend most of their effort putting their ideas into the media, rather than presenting them to other scientists for review, then their positions should not be taken seriously. If however a skeptical scientist is motivated by a genuine desire to understand the physical world, if they base their views on reliable evidence, and above all if they are willing to change their ideas if presented with compelling evidence, then such skeptics should be taken seriously. Climate skeptics such as Tim Ball belong in the former, rather than the latter category.
Well said. There is a habit of mind that is common in America right now to deny facts that make one uncomfortable. A primary example of this is the denial of evolution by fundamentalist Christians. The fact of evolution, supported by increasingly massive amounts of evidence is denied, because the alternative would be to significantly revise one's view of the world, something that can often be very uncomfortable. This timid and cowardly habit of hiding from the truth can be very dangerous. People that hide too often from the truth have a flexible sense of reality that can easily be manipulated. For instance, it is interesting to note how many fundamentalist Christians have views that substantially reflect the best interests of large business interests: pure free market ideology, climate change denial, and other neoconservative positions for example. I don't think you'll find much in the bible about these topics, and yet somehow these are common Christian views. American Christianity is turning into a politicized state religion whose purpose is control the populace to further the interests of the powerful and corrupt. Dark age, here we come!
Thanks. I hadn't paid attention to the most recent products in the last year or two. Now that I'm looking, I'm noticing that there is a 50g, which looks promising. I hear the keys are nicer on the newer 50g, but are still not as nice as the 48gx. The new 50G does look promising, as it seems to have a decent processor. Maybe HP hasn't given up on RPN calculators after all.
I absolutely agree. The HP48GX is an amazing calculator. Reverse Polish Notation (RPN) rocks...you don't need to enter in brackets with complex expressions which probably makes it 20-30% faster than other methods. The calculator uses a stack system for its calculations. To add 2 and 3, type 2 and hit enter to put it into the stack. Then press 3 and hit enter...3 also appears on the stack. Then press +. This adds the bottom two entries in the stack. With complex expressions, you start on the innermost brackets and work outwards. Because your answers are always visible in the stack, it is remarkably easy to evaluate expressions without ever rounding more than the calculator's precision.
The stack doesn't just work for numbers. It is possible to enter in many types of objects. Enter two matrices or vectors into the stack, then press +, -, x, or / and the calculator will add, subtract, multiply, or divide the two matrices, just as if they were two numbers. To find the inverse matrix, enter it into the stack and press (1/x). Complex numbers are easily handled by entering them as vectors.
The main weakness of my version is that it is a bit slow when doing things like graphing. The origin of this problem lies in HP's neglect of this product. HP used to be a highly innovative and inventive technology company. They made products that no one else imagined making, things that were designed to meet the requirements of technical professionals like engineers. Then the bean counters/MBA's took over. They sold off most of HP's innovative divisions (Agilent Technologies for example) and became primarily a maker of bog standard PC's. They stopped making the 48GX for a while, but brought it back after a loud outcry. The new version was however not quite the same as the old version. It feels cheaper than the older calculators...it doesn't quite have the same solid feel. Bloody corporate bean counters! HP has been losing money for much of the time since they took over.
It is a shame that HP hasn't updated this calculator. With a newer processor, and a few interface updates, this could truly be the ultimate calculation tool. It is still great, but if it were a bit faster with a more polished interface, then it would be perfect.
The growth of fascism is correlated with the growth of oligarchical private power. When large private organizations (today, known as corporations) gain enough power, they begin to exert influence on the state. Power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few large organizations. After a time, these organizations become inextricably linked to the state; they act in the interests in the state, and the state acts in their interests. The symptoms of this are everywhere today in America, ranging from the lobbyist epidemic in Washington to energy companies actually writing energy legislation.
If you study the rise of the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, I think you will find evidence of a tight coupling of private power and the state. Fascists were supported by many of the largest European (and American) corporations, partly because fascist policies favored their profit margins. There is ample evidence of this; Henry Ford was an early supporter of fascist ideas, and Coca Cola invented the Fanta line of drinks in order to sell to the German regime.
Both the government and these corporations idealized self-interest as the guiding principle of society, believing that the public interest could only be served by individuals and organizations pursuing their own self-interest. However, such a viewpoint implicitly favors the most powerful, giving them license to increase their power with impunity. The worship of self-interest and power was taken to its extreme by Germany, and eventually led to the actions in the late 1930's that we commonly associate with fascism. But the period leading to the rise of European fascism should not be ignored, as it is highly applicable to our current predicaments in America.
Here are some quotes on private power that were written in 1762 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract). When I read these, I am reminded of recent American politics.
They should care, because climate instability caused by climate change could have a significant impact on their food supplies. Farmers rely on having a stable climate. If it suddenly starts raining too hard during their peak growing season, then crops will be lost. If the rain doesn't come at the right time, then crops will be lost. If the glaciers that feed the major rivers shrink, then the river flows will decrease during the warm/dry season, decreasing the supply of irrigation water during exactly the time when it is most needed, thus causing crops to be lost. A worldwide reduction in food supplies by even 10% would have serious impacts on civilization.
You said that
This is just an unsupported slogan. What regulations do you mean? How exactly are they keeping poor people poor? Are you suggesting that a complete lack of government regulation would result in a society where a person born in abject poverty could shoot to the top of society? Oh, wait a minute, I just realized how a poor person could become extremely wealthy...they could join the mafia. I guess maybe you are right about government regulation preventing the poor from becoming rich after all.
Having too large a gap between the richest and the poorest is bad for society. Having too small a gap between the richest and the poorest is bad for society. The most positive situation lies somewhere between these two extremes. This is the philosophy of The Golden Mean.
Quoting from Wheelan's article:
Ask yourself: why doesn't society run amok? Why do citizens choose to live within the rules of society? Why do we choose not to rob, murder, and otherwise plunder our fellow citizens? Is it fear of punishment by the justice system? No doubt that has something to do with it. Do we fear losing our livelihood, our shelter, our food, our friends? I think this has a great deal to do with why most people choose to live within the rules of society. Most of us go to work every day, consume only what we earn, and in general act in the best interests of society because we believe that if we do so, then society will reward our hard work with sustenance, giving us a general sense of well being. This is called the Social Contract. Most people will respect and obey the rules of society if there is a reasonable chance of being rewarded by society. It is an unwritten principle that most of us live by.
What would happen if the Social Contract weakened or disappeared? What would happen if certain citizens began to believe that living within the rules of society would not be rewarded significantly or at all? Would they continue to be law abiding citizens? No doubt many of them would. But I would argue that by virtue of extreme differences in wealth, many poor citizens would begin to feel separate from society, and thus they would be more likely to violate the rules of society. And I don't believe that threats of punishment such as prison sentences would significantly alter this feeling of separateness.
On the other side of the issue, I would argue that extreme wealth redistribution such as that which existed under communist systems is equally negative for society. Citizens need things to strive for. If everyone has the same level of wealth, then society will stagnate because a significant motivator for action will have been removed. Citizens will tend not to work hard, and so the general level of wealth will be reduced.
The best option for society is a Golden Mean, somewhere between these two extremes. If wealth differences are too large, then large segments of society will tend to feel separate from society as a whole, and crime and lawlessness will increase. If wealth differences are too small, then society will stagnate. If wealth differences are managed effectively and optimally, then the general wealth and sense of well being of a society will increase.
Buy the Phillips open coil bulbs (the ones without a glass dome). They do come on instantly, and start at almost full brightness. The cheaper bulbs are not defective, they just don't work as well. Look for the "Energy Star" rating on bulbs, as it guarantees a certain level of performance. I also find the bulbs with a glass dome surrounding the coils have a very long warmup time, even the most expensive brands.
I like to experiment before buying too many bulbs. I'll buy one or two and try them out before buying more.
I buy the Phillips open coil bulbs (the ones with no glass dome), and I find that they come in instantly. There is a slight warmup time, but they are almost at full brightness without any warmup.
The bulbs with the glass dome around them take far longer to warm up. I'm not sure why this is so...perhaps the open coil bulbs can handle more startup energy because they dissipate heat better than the closed bulbs.
We have replaced almost all lightbulbs in our house with compact fluorescent bulbs, and the effect on our electricity bill has been noticeable. The color of the light is almost indistinguishable from regular incandescent bulbs in most applications. I have found that it makes a huge difference what type of bulbs you buy. Do NOT buy the cheap Ikea bulbs, as their color is terrible, and their warmup time is excessive. I have found that Phillips is the best brand. GE seems ok, but I haven't bought many of them yet.
At the very least, buy bulbs that are Energy Star rated, as this guarantees certain performance characteristics, such as color. All fluorescent bulbs are NOT created equal.
Scientists are not arguing that we are going to destroy the world. They are saying that we are going to change it in serious ways that could make human civilization less tenable. I am aware of geological events of the past, and the Earth has gone through much worse events than us. For example, there is evidence that the Earth was at one point covered almost entirely with ice, a state that would have wiped out most life. Comets have hit the Earth, causing mass extinctions, including of that of the dinosaurs. Ice ages have come and gone, wreaking havoc on the lives of many species.
Evidence indicates that if we continue to emit carbon dioxide at current rates, we will change the climate in significant ways. In the Earth's past, the most recent period when carbon dioxide levels reached the predicted levels was likely about 50 to 60 million years ago. During that time, the polar regions had a climate that was almost tropical (as evidenced by tropical plants found in polar sediments). Such a change would significantly modify weather patterns, and would likely make our current agricultural systems difficult to sustain. Imagine what would happen if the yield of global crops dropped by 10% or more. Do you think that this would not have an impact on civilization?
And if you have been taught that man is too small to impact the Earth, that only God can do that, then you should imagine what would happen if the president decided to press the launch button for America's nuclear arsenal. What kind of an impact would that have? The fact is that man can have an impact on the climate. If you believe that God created the Earth, then our current actions could hardly be viewed as good stewardship of His creation.
Enlightened environmentalists are not arguing that we give up our modern technology. Far from it, they are arguing that we should learn to use the gift of energy more efficiently. Believe me, it is possible to reduce our consumption of energy while preserving our standard of living. If you could buy a car that was indistinguishable in most important ways from an older car except for its high efficiency, why would you want the older version?
For any article about climate change, I change my threshold to see all the articles. Slashdot seems to have become a major target of global warming denial spam. It also seems the moderation is biased in favor of the denial spam, such that the key denial spam posts are marked as insightful. By viewing all posts, I get a far more realistic idea of the discussion.
So in a sense I am putting up a bit of a white flag to the GW denialist public relations campaign, and so they have achieved part of their objectives. If you want a real discussion, go to realclimate.org . You'll still see the denialist spam there, but it is responded to convincingly by experts knowledgeable in the field of climate science.
I believe it is a strong likelihood that much of the GW denialist spam is connected in some way to oil interests. Oil companies face billions of dollars in losses if their primary product is regulated. Anyone who doubts that such oil interests wouldn't provide a paltry few million dollars to protect their future profits by funding people to post denialist spam to discussion groups such as Slashdot is I believe quite naive. It's just self interest.
Is it just me who is wondering why these GW denier posts are continually being modded up. I'm shocked at the way these skeptics arguments seem to dominate any discussion here. Are we nerds really this stupid?
I didn't say that neo-conservatives are fascists, merely that there is substantial overlap between them. It is more a question of values. The 1930's fascists worshiped self interest as the guiding principle of society. In their society, the strong rose to the top, while the weak and inferior were suppressed. The state was set up as a partnership between the government and the strongest private organizations (the largest corporations). The government acted in the interests of these organizations, and the large organizations acted in the interest of the government. I would argue that this model bears more than a passing similarity to the neo-conservative ideal. Neo-conservatives and fascists have shared values in that they worship the strong and despise the weak.
Neo-conservatives differ from 1930's fascists not least because of the extent to which they have acted on their values. Hitler took these values to their logical extreme, in explicitly seeking to destroy the weak. Mussolini's actions were I believe less extreme and explicit, though he still did some terrible things and was allied with Hitler. Neo-conservatives have not, as of yet acted as explicitly as 1930's fascists, though the invasion of Iraq might be seen as a baby step in that direction. But they have been busy solidifying the power of the huge corporations with which they are allied. What neo-conservatives might do if they gain a stronger lock on power is a frightening prospect.
I am also not convinced that many neo-conservatives understand the implications of their values and ideologies. I think that most neo-conservatives honestly believe that they will bring "democracy" to the world at the barrel of a gun, and that the free market will bring untold riches to society. And as with most ideologies, there is an element of truth in them; markets are an extremely effective method of distributing labor and resources. What they don't see is that their worship of self-interest above the public interest is fundamentally at odds with the ideals of democracy itself. Taking neo-conservative values to their extreme will result in our country becoming a democracy in name only.
Here is some more information about what was actually blacked out. The links on the left bar presumably point to articles that refer to the redacted information. If the information in the NY Times article was already public, then the White House is directly interfering with free speech. This is surely unconstitutional, should qualify Mr. Bush for prosecution for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
What line will this neo-conservative administration have to cross before the public realizes that Bush/Cheney and their neo-conservative friends have more in common with Benito Mussolini than with past presidents of America. Neo-conservatism and 1930's fascism have substantial overlap in that they both worship the strong and despise the weak. Typical modern neo-conservative quote: "I don't want my tax dollars going to help broken down single mothers and drug addicts. If they can't help themselves then they are weak and don't deserve help" Compare this with the way Hitler and Mussolini felt about the weaker and genetically deficient members of society. There is substantial overlap.
When I was in Paris last year, I noticed something really interesting. In most apartments, when the elevator opens to the hallway of your apartment, it is dark. There is a glowing switch on the wall near the elevator that you must press to turn on the lights. The lights then stay on for a few minutes, allowing you to get into your apartment. There are several glow in the dark switches throughout the hallway for when people leave their apartment.
When you think about it, leaving lights on in apartment hallways 24/7 is extremely wasteful of energy. In a single hallway, I wouldn't be surprised if the lights consumed 1000 watts or more. In a day, that would be 24kW-hr, which would probably compare to the entire daily consumption of electricity for one or two apartments.
I can imagine that having motion sensor light switches in hallways would be an effective way of implementing this in North America. This one idea could save huge amounts of energy.
I've measured the power consumption of my desktop computer system: about 300W with a 19" crt, 180W without monitor. My laptop uses about 50W or so. If the desktop computer is left on 24/7, that would be a large amount of energy wasted.
Our daily consumption is about 30kW-hr/day. If I assume that the computer consumes 200W on average, and that it is on 24 hours a day, then it would consume 4.8kW-hr/day or about 15% of our electricity.
Devices on standby also use a surprisingly large amount of energy. Our vcr and dvd players each consume 3 to 4 watts. The wireless router, modem, and other computer devices consume about 40 watts. Then you have microwaves, clock radios, cell phone chargers, tv's and similar devices all drawing a few watts each all day. It is easy to imagine devices on standby drawing 100 watts or more continuously all day. And if that were the case, then they would draw about 2.4kW-hr/day, or about 8% of our electricity.
Modern front loading washing machines have the potential to save large amounts of energy. Not only do they use less water and energy themselves, but they have a faster spin cycle that removes far more water from clothing than older machines. Thus, drying the clothing takes less time and uses less energy.