the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life.
Thats because (Surprise!) thats not the real reason the terrorists hate us. They hate us frot he same reason the canadian wrote this article. Because we try to interfere in other countries buisness very aggressively. Second reason is that we support israel, which is anathema in the arab world. The israeli army uses US abrams tanks, US apache helicopters, and US f-15 fighters. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Israel uses them to kill palestinians (justified or not). Ultimately the terrorists want us to change our foriegn policy: stop selling arms to israel, stop supporting israel, pull US forces out of the region. Canada may support israel, but its not a canadian tank that palestinians see rolling down the street, and its not a canadian army invading iraq.
I actually did this: In college you get alot of telemarketing calls, and I got one in the evening when i was home with my roommate. The caller would not take no for an answer, so i whispered to my roommate to yell as loud as he could "I'll do it, ill jump this time!!" and when he did, I said, "I gotta go, my roommmate is trying to commit suicide again" *click*
many of whom have 50+ mile commutes that can take up to two hours to complete
If you dont like it, then live closer to your job! Its called a trade off people:you want to have a nice yard and 4000 sq ft house and drive a land behemoth, then you get to drive for 2 hours and be stuck in traffic every day. If you want to be able to walk or ride a bike to work every day, then you might have to live in an apartment or condo of some sorts. Everything has its price, and in this case, the price is a long commute, many people are willing to pay it, and no amount of road construction will solve it.
Right, butif you run the movie, youll notice the northern hemisphere is only producing the same as the rainforest for half a year. So net for the whole year, the rainforest abssorbs about twice as much as the northern hemisphere forests do.
Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod. At the time, several prominent clergy protested. The thinking at the time was that if your house were struck by lightning and burned down, it was the "will of god" and the lighning rod prevented that will from being carried out. Franklin replied to this by saying: "Hail is also an "act of god" yet we put roofs over our heads to protect ourselves from it" End of argument.
What is objectively true when youre talking about beliefs? To a fundamentalist christian, the salvation of jesus christ is objectively true, and he cant understand why you cant see that. For a muslim fundamentalist, jihad against infidels is objectively true to them. Its naieve to think that you can argue either side out of their beliefs simply by exposing them to the "truth" Absolute truth does not exist in religion. Is jesus the son of god? if you believe he is. Is mohammed the son of god? if you believe he is. Is zeus real? if you believe he is. Do spirits of nature exist? if you believe they do. If somone is convinced the earth is flat Then to them, thats the absolute truth.
Well simply vs non simply connected surfaces are used extensively in continuum mechanics, which is used by materials scientists. Simply connected and non simply connected objects are a mathematically abstract way of saying plates, and plates with holes in them, something which materials scientists are very interested in. Continuum mech is a more mathematically rigorous way of finding stresses and strains in a particular object.
Every time i read something like this i think of George Washington, the man who would not be king. The more and more we see of democracies, the more we see how hard it is to start them up (at least starting through a violent revolution) without the leader of that revolution seizing power and smashing the democracy. We can thank Washington for our stable democracy(the man, not the city;-) .
All a disingenuous group of scientists who had
something to gain (money, power, or ego) from a particular scientific belief would have to do would be to get a
"majority" of scientists to support it.
And how exactly would this cabal of scientists get a majority of say climatologists and meteorologists to believe them? A small group could come up with the hypothesis and present it to the scientific community (ala Pons and Flieshmann) but scientists are not likely to just say, "oh global warming, cool I believe that". Theyre going to go out and test that hypothesis themselves, and if the results are the same, then they will "believe" it, although it wont really be a belief at that point, because it will be backed by evidence. Thats how a majority of scientists would come to the same conclusion, not because some small group says so, no matter what they have to gain.
Snip. Okay, my questions were, "How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to
global temperature?", "Have you measured?", and "Do you even know how to measure them?" I am guessing that
your answers to these questions are, "no", "no", and "no"
me personally? no, i havent measured the other factors. But they are: Global warming gasses, sulfates and aerosols, and solar variability The first two can be produced by humans, as well as by natural events such as forest fires and volcanos. When modeling climate, these factors are taken into account with a wide range of scenarios to test for sensitivity of the climate to other factors, as evidenced here as to the exact persentage each one contributes, that is still being researched, and takes time. A general graph of relative importance of these three factors is shown in this document.
If you weaken powerful companies in America, will America's economy be a) strengthened, b) unaffected, or c)
weakened?
Youre thinking too short term. Small buisnesses grow into large ones, and large ones go bankrupt due to changing economic conditions. Ultimately a decrease in CO2 emissions can create buisness through carbon trading. Buisnesses will be forced to pass their consts onto consumers, which will help to create a market for low CO2 producing goods. SO2 emissions have been under a trading scheme for years, and it has largely been successful. At the time of its introduction, nearly every power plant released sulfates into the atmosphere, leading to acid rain. Nowadays, the trading scheme has reduced SO2 emissions below dangerous levels, without causing massive disruptions to the economy. CO2 trading can be done in a similar manner, with a minimum of economic disruption. And incidentally, president Bush supports this proposal too.
So why do we have to hasten the process?
Well if you dont buy the global warming argument, think of fossil fuels as civilization fuels. If a dark age should ever reappear, and much of the technology we have now goes by the wayside, easily availqable fossil fuels can act as a fuel for a new civilization and a bridge to a lower polluting but more technologically expensive society. Thus if we screw up, if we dont use all the fossil fuels, at least well get a second chance someday. Secondly, there will be fewer conflicts over foriegn energy supplies. Thirdly, the united states will be more energy self sufficient, which will increase our security and stop our economy from being subjet to energy cartels price fixing whims.
Except that I didn't insult anyone, nor is my argument poor
Im insulted, because I am none of those things, yet I support the reduction of CO2 emissions to reduce the effects of global warming. Second, your argument boils down to " Theres a left wing america-hating commie conspiracy to promote glo
Excuse you, but what "fact"? I have never seen any evidence that humans are causing global warming.
CO2 causes warming. This is a fact, because CO2 traps heat as a property of the molecule. Logically from that, More C02 means more trapped heat. Humans release more CO2 into the atmosphere than is reabsorbed, causing a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is shown by ice core samples of atmosphere from history, and from records going back over the last century. Bottom line is, CO2 is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, and humans are causing a large portion of that. Logical conclusion of these facts is that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will therefore increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. A similar line would be " A small amount of gasoline makes a small amount of heat when burned, what happens when I pour gas on this fire?" For more science behind the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, see here Specifically Section 1.3.3 Observing anthropogenic climate change. That paper, incidentally was peer reviewed by literally hundreds of scientists, and even some NGO's that could definetly have alot to lose from the exchange, like SHELL, and Exxon-Mobil
Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!"
Isnt that how science works? Whatever theory most scientists have evidence to back up holds until some other scientist can conclusively prove to the contrary?
It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?
Thats like saying, well I have some fixed bills in my budget (rent, food, etc), and furthermore, I dont know what future bills ill have in the future, or even how much those bills will be, so I might as well spend all the surplus cash i do have. It doesnt matter what the other factors are, or even if we dont know the exact percent effect they have. We can do something about CO2, and the debate shoudl be wether or not we shoudl do something abou CO2 and not about other factors that we have no control over. We would all die if the sun exploded, but that doesnt mean we whouldnt do anything about near earth asteroi9ds, simply because "other factors" could cause the destruction of humans on earth.
"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism.
How so? Now whos the one not showing evidence? If you said "weaken currently powerful companies" Ill give you a maybe. But where there is money, capitalism will find a way. If theres money to be made in making solar cells and wind turbines, american companies will spring to the challenge, and already are to some extent. Where in the doctrine of capitalism does it say "if you made money that way last year, its your right to make it the same way next year" Companies will probably go out of buisness if greenhouse gas emissions are restricted, but to say that that will weaken the american economy or even destroy capitalism, you fail to understand how the capitalisst system works. You sound like gaslight manufacturers talking about edison "but electric lights will destroy the american economy!" For every buggy whip manufacturer that goes out of buisness, a chrysler or ford will replace them. During the middle ages, europe was going through an energy crisis. Increasing populations were destroying the forests of europe for firewood. Necessity is the mother of invention, so the english turned to coal for heat, and the industrial revolution was born (the steam engine was p
240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.""
1) These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.
2) Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far
3) The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.
4) if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.
5) even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.
6)Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.
yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.
This happened near me too,, Mcdonalds actually tried to put up their "golden arches" so that it would block their competitors sign. Mcdonalds got sued and actually settled with the mom and pop, which is still in buisness, 5 years later.
Heres an interesting question to ponder: Why do the most powerful civilizations on earth have large armies? Answer: Because the ones that didnt got conquered by the ones who did.
And, and actual hurdle, according to the article: Making massive quantites of Polonium 210 (10s-100s of kg) currently only microgram quantites are produced by oak ridge natl labs. Also since Po-210 has a half life of 138 days, you need to shoot it or lose it. A big sign of an upcoming war would be a massive ramp up in Po-210
I think the most exciting possibility is the ability for China and Iran and any other repressive regieme to easily block content from the outside world. Oops, that packet came from the US, thats no good.
Slashdot Mirror
... Windows is secure ;-)
Thats because (Surprise!) thats not the real reason the terrorists hate us. They hate us frot he same reason the canadian wrote this article. Because we try to interfere in other countries buisness very aggressively. Second reason is that we support israel, which is anathema in the arab world. The israeli army uses US abrams tanks, US apache helicopters, and US f-15 fighters. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Israel uses them to kill palestinians (justified or not). Ultimately the terrorists want us to change our foriegn policy: stop selling arms to israel, stop supporting israel, pull US forces out of the region. Canada may support israel, but its not a canadian tank that palestinians see rolling down the street, and its not a canadian army invading iraq.
I actually did this: In college you get alot of telemarketing calls, and I got one in the evening when i was home with my roommate. The caller would not take no for an answer, so i whispered to my roommate to yell as loud as he could "I'll do it, ill jump this time!!" and when he did, I said, "I gotta go, my roommmate is trying to commit suicide again" *click*
If you dont like it, then live closer to your job! Its called a trade off people:you want to have a nice yard and 4000 sq ft house and drive a land behemoth, then you get to drive for 2 hours and be stuck in traffic every day. If you want to be able to walk or ride a bike to work every day, then you might have to live in an apartment or condo of some sorts. Everything has its price, and in this case, the price is a long commute, many people are willing to pay it, and no amount of road construction will solve it.
Just like your mom!
Right, butif you run the movie, youll notice the northern hemisphere is only producing the same as the rainforest for half a year. So net for the whole year, the rainforest abssorbs about twice as much as the northern hemisphere forests do.
Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod. At the time, several prominent clergy protested. The thinking at the time was that if your house were struck by lightning and burned down, it was the "will of god" and the lighning rod prevented that will from being carried out. Franklin replied to this by saying: "Hail is also an "act of god" yet we put roofs over our heads to protect ourselves from it" End of argument.
actually its pronounced khaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnhhhh!!!!!!
What is objectively true when youre talking about beliefs? To a fundamentalist christian, the salvation of jesus christ is objectively true, and he cant understand why you cant see that. For a muslim fundamentalist, jihad against infidels is objectively true to them. Its naieve to think that you can argue either side out of their beliefs simply by exposing them to the "truth" Absolute truth does not exist in religion. Is jesus the son of god? if you believe he is. Is mohammed the son of god? if you believe he is. Is zeus real? if you believe he is. Do spirits of nature exist? if you believe they do. If somone is convinced the earth is flat Then to them, thats the absolute truth.
Fool! the guns are to keep people from looting your stereo when the power goes out.
Great, until yoru battery back up dies and you lose your entire fs.
Well simply vs non simply connected surfaces are used extensively in continuum mechanics, which is used by materials scientists. Simply connected and non simply connected objects are a mathematically abstract way of saying plates, and plates with holes in them, something which materials scientists are very interested in. Continuum mech is a more mathematically rigorous way of finding stresses and strains in a particular object.
A better idea would be to give them a cow
Every time i read something like this i think of George Washington, the man who would not be king. The more and more we see of democracies, the more we see how hard it is to start them up (at least starting through a violent revolution) without the leader of that revolution seizing power and smashing the democracy. We can thank Washington for our stable democracy(the man, not the city ;-) .
Thats very true, Im an aerospace engineering graduate student, and I use fortran 77 exclusively for compiled programs.
Um yeah, kudos to your teachers, Mussolini led Italy and died after world war II, not world war I
something to gain (money, power, or ego) from a particular scientific belief would have to do would be to get a
"majority" of scientists to support it.
And how exactly would this cabal of scientists get a majority of say climatologists and meteorologists to believe them? A small group could come up with the hypothesis and present it to the scientific community (ala Pons and Flieshmann) but scientists are not likely to just say, "oh global warming, cool I believe that". Theyre going to go out and test that hypothesis themselves, and if the results are the same, then they will "believe" it, although it wont really be a belief at that point, because it will be backed by evidence. Thats how a majority of scientists would come to the same conclusion, not because some small group says so, no matter what they have to gain.
Snip. Okay, my questions were, "How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to
global temperature?", "Have you measured?", and "Do you even know how to measure them?" I am guessing that
your answers to these questions are, "no", "no", and "no"
me personally? no, i havent measured the other factors. But they are: Global warming gasses, sulfates and aerosols, and solar variability The first two can be produced by humans, as well as by natural events such as forest fires and volcanos. When modeling climate, these factors are taken into account with a wide range of scenarios to test for sensitivity of the climate to other factors, as evidenced here as to the exact persentage each one contributes, that is still being researched, and takes time. A general graph of relative importance of these three factors is shown in this document.
If you weaken powerful companies in America, will America's economy be a) strengthened, b) unaffected, or c)
weakened?
Youre thinking too short term. Small buisnesses grow into large ones, and large ones go bankrupt due to changing economic conditions. Ultimately a decrease in CO2 emissions can create buisness through carbon trading. Buisnesses will be forced to pass their consts onto consumers, which will help to create a market for low CO2 producing goods. SO2 emissions have been under a trading scheme for years, and it has largely been successful. At the time of its introduction, nearly every power plant released sulfates into the atmosphere, leading to acid rain. Nowadays, the trading scheme has reduced SO2 emissions below dangerous levels, without causing massive disruptions to the economy. CO2 trading can be done in a similar manner, with a minimum of economic disruption. And incidentally, president Bush supports this proposal too.
So why do we have to hasten the process?
Well if you dont buy the global warming argument, think of fossil fuels as civilization fuels. If a dark age should ever reappear, and much of the technology we have now goes by the wayside, easily availqable fossil fuels can act as a fuel for a new civilization and a bridge to a lower polluting but more technologically expensive society. Thus if we screw up, if we dont use all the fossil fuels, at least well get a second chance someday. Secondly, there will be fewer conflicts over foriegn energy supplies. Thirdly, the united states will be more energy self sufficient, which will increase our security and stop our economy from being subjet to energy cartels price fixing whims.
Except that I didn't insult anyone, nor is my argument poor
Im insulted, because I am none of those things, yet I support the reduction of CO2 emissions to reduce the effects of global warming. Second, your argument boils down to " Theres a left wing america-hating commie conspiracy to promote glo
Excuse you, but what "fact"? I have never seen any evidence that humans are causing global warming.
CO2 causes warming. This is a fact, because CO2 traps heat as a property of the molecule. Logically from that, More C02 means more trapped heat. Humans release more CO2 into the atmosphere than is reabsorbed, causing a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is shown by ice core samples of atmosphere from history, and from records going back over the last century. Bottom line is, CO2 is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, and humans are causing a large portion of that. Logical conclusion of these facts is that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will therefore increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. A similar line would be " A small amount of gasoline makes a small amount of heat when burned, what happens when I pour gas on this fire?" For more science behind the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, see here Specifically Section 1.3.3 Observing anthropogenic climate change. That paper, incidentally was peer reviewed by literally hundreds of scientists, and even some NGO's that could definetly have alot to lose from the exchange, like SHELL, and Exxon-Mobil
Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!"
Isnt that how science works? Whatever theory most scientists have evidence to back up holds until some other scientist can conclusively prove to the contrary?
It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?
Thats like saying, well I have some fixed bills in my budget (rent, food, etc), and furthermore, I dont know what future bills ill have in the future, or even how much those bills will be, so I might as well spend all the surplus cash i do have. It doesnt matter what the other factors are, or even if we dont know the exact percent effect they have. We can do something about CO2, and the debate shoudl be wether or not we shoudl do something abou CO2 and not about other factors that we have no control over. We would all die if the sun exploded, but that doesnt mean we whouldnt do anything about near earth asteroi9ds, simply because "other factors" could cause the destruction of humans on earth.
"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism.
How so? Now whos the one not showing evidence? If you said "weaken currently powerful companies" Ill give you a maybe. But where there is money, capitalism will find a way. If theres money to be made in making solar cells and wind turbines, american companies will spring to the challenge, and already are to some extent. Where in the doctrine of capitalism does it say "if you made money that way last year, its your right to make it the same way next year" Companies will probably go out of buisness if greenhouse gas emissions are restricted, but to say that that will weaken the american economy or even destroy capitalism, you fail to understand how the capitalisst system works. You sound like gaslight manufacturers talking about edison "but electric lights will destroy the american economy!" For every buggy whip manufacturer that goes out of buisness, a chrysler or ford will replace them. During the middle ages, europe was going through an energy crisis. Increasing populations were destroying the forests of europe for firewood. Necessity is the mother of invention, so the english turned to coal for heat, and the industrial revolution was born (the steam engine was p
1) These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.
2) Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far
3) The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.
4) if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.
5) even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.
6)Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.
yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.
Jury: Guilty, because child porn is bad.
dont you mean konquer the desktop?
This happened near me too,, Mcdonalds actually tried to put up their "golden arches" so that it would block their competitors sign. Mcdonalds got sued and actually settled with the mom and pop, which is still in buisness, 5 years later.
Heres an interesting question to ponder: Why do the most powerful civilizations on earth have large armies? Answer: Because the ones that didnt got conquered by the ones who did.
And, and actual hurdle, according to the article: Making massive quantites of Polonium 210 (10s-100s of kg) currently only microgram quantites are produced by oak ridge natl labs. Also since Po-210 has a half life of 138 days, you need to shoot it or lose it. A big sign of an upcoming war would be a massive ramp up in Po-210
I think the most exciting possibility is the ability for China and Iran and any other repressive regieme to easily block content from the outside world. Oops, that packet came from the US, thats no good.