I almost forgot to mention the whole point of my writing all that:
Therefore, if somebody uses my router to upload or download something illegal, and I have no knowledge of it, I cannot be held legally liable. I am simply not responsible for what other people do without my knowledge or consent.
It even says so right in the DMCA: if I am merely providing network access to somebody else, I cannot be held liable for content that just passes through the network if it originates from (and goes to) other parties. That is one of the so-called "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA, and there is nothing in the law that says it only applies to corporations.
I should clarify something (and also state that IANAL, but I am pretty familiar with the law in my state):
If I knew that someone were planning to rob a bank tomorrow, for example, and I aided them in any way, and/or did not at least report it, it is possible that I could be charged as an accessory, or even an accomplice if my actions actually helped, even a little.
BUT... and this is the kind of situation I was talking about... if I am standing in a bank and somebody decides to rob it (that is, I knew nothing about any such plan), I am not legally obligated to try to prevent it, even if I am behind the guy and have a monkey wrench in my hand and could easily bash his skull in to prevent the robbery.
Also, if my neighbor steals my gun when I am not looking, and goes out and shoots somebody with it, I am generally not liable even though it was my gun he did it with.
If I loan a gun to the neighbor (which is perfectly legal here), and he goes out and shoots somebody with it without telling me about it, I am still not liable. Even though he did it with my gun.
If I am standing next to my neighbor, and he suddenly pulls out a gun and threatens to shoot another neighbor, I am not obligated to intervene then, either. Again even if it's my gun he's using.
So, there are lots of situations (almost all situations when there is no foreknowledge), I am simply not obligated to try to prevent someone else from committing a crime. There is no law or even legal principle requiring me to do that.
That is why I stated that they might be able to get some decent timing data *IF* they were serving (or downloading) the file themselves, because a number of chunks would likely come from or go to their machine. But even that is not guaranteed. It is not unusual for my peer client (which I use legitimately in the course of my work), to download a file from 25 or 30 different peers at the same time.
So packet 1 might come from source A, packet 2 from source B, packet 3 from source Q, packet 4 from source B again, and so on. Good luck getting much useful timing data out of that, if you are just one source.
We're not talking http here. We're talking peer-to-peer, which does work like that. It takes pieces simultaneously from as many different sources -- and from as many different peers, in different geographic locations -- as it can, within the limits of the software and its settings.
So yes, unless you are uploading or downloading a particularly unpopular file, packets come from all over the place.
The EFF themselves (who are ALL ABOUT security) actually recommend that you run a completely open router, as a public service. Open, that is, in the sense of un-passworded internet access, not un-firewalled.
You can secure your local network, and still keep your router open. That's what I do. My firewall is active, access controls, and so on. But anybody can still use the wifi to get on the internet.
You are also incorrect about the "consensus", since (as EFF has made a point of reporting in its newsletters) courts have been increasingly ruling that IP addresses do not, by themselves, meet minimum standards to qualify as probably cause. For exactly the same reasons as this judge has given. He is not even close to the first to rule this way, or for those reasons.
"They'll just start using things like timing, traffic analysis, client version identification, etc., to form digital fingerprints that (after they've seized your computer) will be used to individually identify you even from behind your standard NAT router."
First, if the IP address does not identify you particularly (as the courts have repeatedly -- and increasingly -- been ruling), then they simply don't have probable cause to seize anything in the first place. So no such analysis will ever take place.
Second, in a peer-to-peer situation timing data is only minimally useful, since most packets will probably take at least several hops, often via different routes, before getting to you. They might be able to gather some semblance of accurate timing data if they feed you the file themselves, from their own server... but as one court has already ruled, that raises serious questions about whether any laws have actually been broken. Because only the copyright holder(s) can legally serve you the file, and if they're giving you the file, then you aren't violating any copyrights.
Third, options to obscure and even spoof clients and versions are becoming increasingly popular, and are often even included out-of-the box with the client software itself.
"The standard for probable cause in the case of a search warrant is significantly lower than the standard for conviction."
True, but irrelevant. Court ruling after court ruling in recent years have stated that an IP address, by itself, simply does not meet minimum standards as probable cause for a search.
The main reason is obvious, and I can use my own situation as an example: my WiFi router has a strong clear signal, it is completely open, and somebody a full block away could be using it at any time. Or even somebody driving past or parked at the curb on the next street over. It simply does not point to me specifically, or even to my own house.
If they have evidence in addition to the IP address, added together they might constitute probable cause. But an IP address by itself, no. And more and more courts have been saying so.
"It's not flawed at all, it's just a position you disagree with."
Actually, it is flawed, because automobiles are just about the only things for which the courts have upheld this idea... and there is very little doubt that they have done so for no reason other than that not doing so would interfere with their own branch of government's revenue stream, just as someone else mentioned. Otherwise they would have generalized the concept to other areas of the law... but they haven't.
In general, you cannot be held liable for other people's actions, even if they used something belonging to you in order to do it. Automobiles have been held to be an exception to that, but that's the important part: they are an exception, not the rule. So as an analogy it doesn't work.
"You're an accomplice in any illegal activity if you fail to take any steps to prevent it. "
Horsepucky. It just doesn't work that way. In most states -- maybe even all -- this is simply not true. There is no obligation on the part of a citizen to prevent others from committing crimes. It simply isn't a valid legal principle. I could stand by and watch a man shoot other people for no reason, and I am still not his accomplice. Not even remotely, in any area of the law with which I am familiar. I am not obligated by law to insert myself into the situation at all. Failing to do so might mean I was not a very nice person, but it does not make me a criminal.
The only exception to this of which I am aware is that some states have "Good Samaritan" laws that require you to help people under certain, specific circumstances. For example, in my state you are obligated to stop and help someone who is stuck in the snow in a remote area, because the chance of otherwise not finding help and freezing to death is so great. And to be honest, I am not convinced that even that law is completely Constitutional.
"There's plenty of legal precident to support my position, and only moral indignation to support yours."
No, there isn't. I know for an absolute fact that my state laws contradict every single thing you have stated here, the sole exception being the part about automobile liability. And I am pretty sure that most other states are similar.
"You didn't agree about scientific issues, just that doing the right thing costs too much."
Nice way to cherry-pick your bullshit. I disagreed with you about a scientific issue, and I never pretended to disagree with you about the science itself, although I probably do. And I have told no lies. See my longer post to someone else about "scientific merits". And you don't get a pass just because I disagree with the "mainstream" view. If you want to claim I was lying about something, lets see some evidence, or else STFU.
I know a hell of a lot more about this subject than you have assumed. I have been reading the scientific literature about it -- not just media and IPCC propaganda -- for years.
Apparently, you think lying about the scientific merits of something allows you to pretend that you aren't just trying to get out of paying for the damage caused, but I've raised kids, so I'm used to the self-entitled whining of children who don't want to clean up their messes."
Since when is it "my" mess? And I never stated that I didn't want to pay the cost... I merely question whether it might not be better spent on something more productive. Because, you see, unlike "children" like you, I don't just accept what I am told by self-appointed "authorities" without question. Why do you? Do you have daddy issues much?
And WTF does your having raised children have to do with anything here? How many have I raised and helped to raise? Please tell us all. Further, whether you have nor not, where does ANY of that give you the right to ASSUME that I am a bigot?
You are a hypocritical, irresponsible ass, and that's a pretty damned major understatement.
If any of that needs clarification, let me just say: just as the climate scientists insist that we consult them about climate, I will take the word of actual economists about economy, thanks very much.
And I don't know of a single one of them who agrees with you.
"The net cost of zero CO2 emissions would be minimal."
Hahaha! That's what I love about warmist alarmists. Their utter faith in their equally utter lack of facts is so endearing.
REAL economists have made the REAL estimate that if the worst predictions about CO2 are true (which would make it MOST important, yes?), the amount of money it would cost to reduce the amount of warming by 0.5 degrees C over the next 100 years by means of reducing CO2, would be enough money to completely end world hunger, even accounting for the predicted increased population.
"Private planes are often unnecessary and are merely luxury toys"
Speak for yourself. You sure as hell don't live near here.
"a few generations past, you would have said the same thing about freeing the slaves."
WOW! Now there's a leap of... um... I'm not sure. Logic it is not. Kind of hard to tell what that is.
So, because I disagree with you over a scientific issue, that somehow makes me a bigot? I would be REALLY interested to know the chain of thought that led up to that. I haven't had my therapeutic dose of comedy yet this week.
"the IPCC doesn't have a credibility of zero, and your the oil companies bitch for thinking so."
Yes, it does, and I'm nobody's bitch, bitch.
Who's the one sprouting the mainstream propaganda here? Hint: it ain't me. Unlike you, I have done my own homework.
Bitch.
"start planning for an ocean rise along the coast seem perfectly reasonable."
Even the IPCC predicted less than a meter rise over the next 100 years! Even the flat areas of the U.S. don't have much to fear over that. Get real, bitch. Do some homework. Then come back and discuss the issues when you know what the hell they are.
There are quite a few different issues here, and the idea that legitimate scientific skepticism is running out of steam is just so much hogwash. Only a person (or newspaper) that was ignorant of the real science -- or that had an agenda -- would try to claim that.
For just one good example: the solar warming model. They say that Earth's temperature followed solar activity patterns for most of known history... there is lots of secondary evidence (proxy data) to indicate that this is so. But also, it has deviated for the last couple of decades, temperatures rising higher even though solar activity has not changed with it.
But this is a completely spurious and illogical argument. The sun has been at an extreme in its various cycles (it has several known cycles, one of them about 11 years, and others of longer periods). The warming alarmist's argument is that since Earth temperature has been going up but the sun's activity has not been following the same trend, then the sun could not be causing it. But that's complete nonsense. The input does not have to change in order for warming to continue. Arguing that it does is simply against known physics and it is ridiculously easy to show why.
Turn an element on your stove up to medium-high. Let it get up to temperature. Then put a pot of water on it. What happens? Even though the output of the stove does not change, the water continues to heat until it boils.
Similarly, the sun sitting at an extreme in its cycles can continue warming the Earth, even if its output does not change during that period. The argument that the sun must continue to change its activity along with the warming is just plain dumb. That's like arguing that you must continually turn the control on your stove up in order to boil water.
But as for your particular question: CO2 levels of the distant past are calculated in several ways. One is ice cores: deeply buried chunks of ice are brought up (from Antarctica for example), and trapped air bubbles are measured for CO2 content at different depths, which are correlated with times in the past.
One big problem with that is that we now know that gases such as CO2 can migrate through the ice, so what is being measured is probably not the real CO2 concentration of that time period.
Another big problem with that is that while CO2 concentrations of the past are correlated with temperature (one of the famous numberless graphs in Al Gore's movie for example) what they often neglect to mention is that the CO2 concentrations followed the temperature rises by 300 to 600 years.
The warmists have used some clever arguments to explain that away, but the fact remains that a cause cannot come after the effect. And given the other problems with ice cores that we now know about, it makes for very dubious "evidence".
There are other known ways to estimate CO2 concentrations in the past (called "proxies"), all of which have been tried to one extent or another. Thickness of seashells and other such clues correlate to the availability of dissolved CO2 in the ocean. And various things like that.
I could go on about this all day. But it all boils down (pardon the phrase) to the fact that the evidence for CO2-based warming is actually pretty thin. And there are plenty of legitimate scientific reasons to be skeptical. For another example, see a physicist's rebuttal of the back-radiation concept that is absolutely essential to most CO2 warming models. John O'Sullivan shows that the entire concept is based on incorrect assumptions about physics.
The "climate scientists" have been quick to say that if you want to know about climate, you should consult them, because... well, because they're climate scientists. But the climate scientists themselves have not been consulting statisticians about the statistical methods they have used, or physicists about the physics!
"Is "denier" not an accurate term for someone who refuses to see what's in front of their face?"
Like so many other people, you are confusing the issue. AGW skeptics (the subject under discussion) do not generally deny that global warming is happening at all. Instead, they are merely skeptical about whether it is being caused by man, and CO2 in particular.
So no, it is not an accurate term for the vast majority of AGW skeptics, and it has nothing to do with what's "in front of their face", because they aren't denying what's in front of their face. You are confusing skepticism about scientific warming models with denial that warming is happening at all... and those are two very different things.
It is not very polite to go around labeling people incorrectly because of your own confusion.
"The IPCC report includes references to serious research that explain what they would expect to see happen between now and 2100 if CO2 emissions were dropped to 0 today."
The IPCC -- which, I should point out, after some revelations about its "science" and internal politics now has a credibility of near zero -- is not discussing the cost.
What would the cost be of dropping emissions to 0 today? Or even to 20% of current levels? Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.
By proposing solutions without taking costs into account, you are doing nothing but pointless handwaving. You cannot be taken seriously.
It *IS* a racket because PG&E is -- or was, anyway -- a state-supported, regulated, and subsidized monopoly. They did not build all that infrastructure using money out of their own pockets.
"The effectiveness of FDR's actions on the great depression continue to be a subject of lively debate and there is no mainstream consensus."
Of course there isn't, since the majority of "mainstream" economists are dumbasses who think Keynes was some kind of genius instead of the hack that he really was.
"The effectiveness of FDR's actions on the great depression continue to be a subject of lively debate and there is no mainstream consensus."
The debate is only "lively" among those who are in denial because the reality does not match their economic ideology.
And Zuckerberg is nothing more than a PHP script kiddie who both got lucky and cheated others to achieve his success. His word is hardly to be taken seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
I am understanding what you are talking about, and it is almost completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
You aren't going to get good timing data from a single stream if 30 different streams are being accessed simultaneously, in nearly random order.
I almost forgot to mention the whole point of my writing all that:
Therefore, if somebody uses my router to upload or download something illegal, and I have no knowledge of it, I cannot be held legally liable. I am simply not responsible for what other people do without my knowledge or consent.
It even says so right in the DMCA: if I am merely providing network access to somebody else, I cannot be held liable for content that just passes through the network if it originates from (and goes to) other parties. That is one of the so-called "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA, and there is nothing in the law that says it only applies to corporations.
I should clarify something (and also state that IANAL, but I am pretty familiar with the law in my state):
If I knew that someone were planning to rob a bank tomorrow, for example, and I aided them in any way, and/or did not at least report it, it is possible that I could be charged as an accessory, or even an accomplice if my actions actually helped, even a little.
BUT... and this is the kind of situation I was talking about... if I am standing in a bank and somebody decides to rob it (that is, I knew nothing about any such plan), I am not legally obligated to try to prevent it, even if I am behind the guy and have a monkey wrench in my hand and could easily bash his skull in to prevent the robbery.
Also, if my neighbor steals my gun when I am not looking, and goes out and shoots somebody with it, I am generally not liable even though it was my gun he did it with.
If I loan a gun to the neighbor (which is perfectly legal here), and he goes out and shoots somebody with it without telling me about it, I am still not liable. Even though he did it with my gun.
If I am standing next to my neighbor, and he suddenly pulls out a gun and threatens to shoot another neighbor, I am not obligated to intervene then, either. Again even if it's my gun he's using.
So, there are lots of situations (almost all situations when there is no foreknowledge), I am simply not obligated to try to prevent someone else from committing a crime. There is no law or even legal principle requiring me to do that.
You may be interested to know that there are number of different court rulings, including by the Supreme Court that say even the police are not required by law to try to prevent crimes. It might be part of their job description but there is no law saying they have to.
That is why I stated that they might be able to get some decent timing data *IF* they were serving (or downloading) the file themselves, because a number of chunks would likely come from or go to their machine. But even that is not guaranteed. It is not unusual for my peer client (which I use legitimately in the course of my work), to download a file from 25 or 30 different peers at the same time.
So packet 1 might come from source A, packet 2 from source B, packet 3 from source Q, packet 4 from source B again, and so on. Good luck getting much useful timing data out of that, if you are just one source.
We're not talking http here. We're talking peer-to-peer, which does work like that. It takes pieces simultaneously from as many different sources -- and from as many different peers, in different geographic locations -- as it can, within the limits of the software and its settings.
So yes, unless you are uploading or downloading a particularly unpopular file, packets come from all over the place.
The EFF themselves (who are ALL ABOUT security) actually recommend that you run a completely open router, as a public service. Open, that is, in the sense of un-passworded internet access, not un-firewalled.
You can secure your local network, and still keep your router open. That's what I do. My firewall is active, access controls, and so on. But anybody can still use the wifi to get on the internet.
You are also incorrect about the "consensus", since (as EFF has made a point of reporting in its newsletters) courts have been increasingly ruling that IP addresses do not, by themselves, meet minimum standards to qualify as probably cause. For exactly the same reasons as this judge has given. He is not even close to the first to rule this way, or for those reasons.
"They'll just start using things like timing, traffic analysis, client version identification, etc., to form digital fingerprints that (after they've seized your computer) will be used to individually identify you even from behind your standard NAT router."
First, if the IP address does not identify you particularly (as the courts have repeatedly -- and increasingly -- been ruling), then they simply don't have probable cause to seize anything in the first place. So no such analysis will ever take place.
Second, in a peer-to-peer situation timing data is only minimally useful, since most packets will probably take at least several hops, often via different routes, before getting to you. They might be able to gather some semblance of accurate timing data if they feed you the file themselves, from their own server... but as one court has already ruled, that raises serious questions about whether any laws have actually been broken. Because only the copyright holder(s) can legally serve you the file, and if they're giving you the file, then you aren't violating any copyrights.
Third, options to obscure and even spoof clients and versions are becoming increasingly popular, and are often even included out-of-the box with the client software itself.
"The standard for probable cause in the case of a search warrant is significantly lower than the standard for conviction."
True, but irrelevant. Court ruling after court ruling in recent years have stated that an IP address, by itself, simply does not meet minimum standards as probable cause for a search.
The main reason is obvious, and I can use my own situation as an example: my WiFi router has a strong clear signal, it is completely open, and somebody a full block away could be using it at any time. Or even somebody driving past or parked at the curb on the next street over. It simply does not point to me specifically, or even to my own house.
If they have evidence in addition to the IP address, added together they might constitute probable cause. But an IP address by itself, no. And more and more courts have been saying so.
"It's not flawed at all, it's just a position you disagree with."
Actually, it is flawed, because automobiles are just about the only things for which the courts have upheld this idea... and there is very little doubt that they have done so for no reason other than that not doing so would interfere with their own branch of government's revenue stream, just as someone else mentioned. Otherwise they would have generalized the concept to other areas of the law... but they haven't.
In general, you cannot be held liable for other people's actions, even if they used something belonging to you in order to do it. Automobiles have been held to be an exception to that, but that's the important part: they are an exception, not the rule. So as an analogy it doesn't work.
"You're an accomplice in any illegal activity if you fail to take any steps to prevent it. "
Horsepucky. It just doesn't work that way. In most states -- maybe even all -- this is simply not true. There is no obligation on the part of a citizen to prevent others from committing crimes. It simply isn't a valid legal principle. I could stand by and watch a man shoot other people for no reason, and I am still not his accomplice. Not even remotely, in any area of the law with which I am familiar. I am not obligated by law to insert myself into the situation at all. Failing to do so might mean I was not a very nice person, but it does not make me a criminal.
The only exception to this of which I am aware is that some states have "Good Samaritan" laws that require you to help people under certain, specific circumstances. For example, in my state you are obligated to stop and help someone who is stuck in the snow in a remote area, because the chance of otherwise not finding help and freezing to death is so great. And to be honest, I am not convinced that even that law is completely Constitutional.
"There's plenty of legal precident to support my position, and only moral indignation to support yours."
No, there isn't. I know for an absolute fact that my state laws contradict every single thing you have stated here, the sole exception being the part about automobile liability. And I am pretty sure that most other states are similar.
"You didn't agree about scientific issues, just that doing the right thing costs too much."
Nice way to cherry-pick your bullshit. I disagreed with you about a scientific issue, and I never pretended to disagree with you about the science itself, although I probably do. And I have told no lies. See my longer post to someone else about "scientific merits". And you don't get a pass just because I disagree with the "mainstream" view. If you want to claim I was lying about something, lets see some evidence, or else STFU.
I know a hell of a lot more about this subject than you have assumed. I have been reading the scientific literature about it -- not just media and IPCC propaganda -- for years.
Apparently, you think lying about the scientific merits of something allows you to pretend that you aren't just trying to get out of paying for the damage caused, but I've raised kids, so I'm used to the self-entitled whining of children who don't want to clean up their messes."
Since when is it "my" mess? And I never stated that I didn't want to pay the cost... I merely question whether it might not be better spent on something more productive. Because, you see, unlike "children" like you, I don't just accept what I am told by self-appointed "authorities" without question. Why do you? Do you have daddy issues much?
And WTF does your having raised children have to do with anything here? How many have I raised and helped to raise? Please tell us all. Further, whether you have nor not, where does ANY of that give you the right to ASSUME that I am a bigot?
You are a hypocritical, irresponsible ass, and that's a pretty damned major understatement.
Amazing to me that this has been modded flambait and troll. There must be some real "winners" out there with mod points.
"Skeptics who are honest about it aren't called deniers, because they aren't denying facts."
I have to ask honestly: do you have reading comprehension issues?
Honest skeptics have been called "deniers" completely indiscriminately, and I was directly replying to someone who had done just exactly that.
If any of that needs clarification, let me just say: just as the climate scientists insist that we consult them about climate, I will take the word of actual economists about economy, thanks very much.
And I don't know of a single one of them who agrees with you.
"The net cost of zero CO2 emissions would be minimal."
Hahaha! That's what I love about warmist alarmists. Their utter faith in their equally utter lack of facts is so endearing.
REAL economists have made the REAL estimate that if the worst predictions about CO2 are true (which would make it MOST important, yes?), the amount of money it would cost to reduce the amount of warming by 0.5 degrees C over the next 100 years by means of reducing CO2, would be enough money to completely end world hunger, even accounting for the predicted increased population.
"Private planes are often unnecessary and are merely luxury toys"
Speak for yourself. You sure as hell don't live near here.
"a few generations past, you would have said the same thing about freeing the slaves."
WOW! Now there's a leap of... um... I'm not sure. Logic it is not. Kind of hard to tell what that is.
So, because I disagree with you over a scientific issue, that somehow makes me a bigot? I would be REALLY interested to know the chain of thought that led up to that. I haven't had my therapeutic dose of comedy yet this week.
"the IPCC doesn't have a credibility of zero, and your the oil companies bitch for thinking so."
Yes, it does, and I'm nobody's bitch, bitch.
Who's the one sprouting the mainstream propaganda here? Hint: it ain't me. Unlike you, I have done my own homework.
Bitch.
"start planning for an ocean rise along the coast seem perfectly reasonable."
Even the IPCC predicted less than a meter rise over the next 100 years! Even the flat areas of the U.S. don't have much to fear over that. Get real, bitch. Do some homework. Then come back and discuss the issues when you know what the hell they are.
"Every single respected scientific organization in the entire world supports the IPCC."
Hahahaha! Drink Kool-Aid much?
Ah... someone with an honest question!
There are quite a few different issues here, and the idea that legitimate scientific skepticism is running out of steam is just so much hogwash. Only a person (or newspaper) that was ignorant of the real science -- or that had an agenda -- would try to claim that.
For just one good example: the solar warming model. They say that Earth's temperature followed solar activity patterns for most of known history... there is lots of secondary evidence (proxy data) to indicate that this is so. But also, it has deviated for the last couple of decades, temperatures rising higher even though solar activity has not changed with it.
But this is a completely spurious and illogical argument. The sun has been at an extreme in its various cycles (it has several known cycles, one of them about 11 years, and others of longer periods). The warming alarmist's argument is that since Earth temperature has been going up but the sun's activity has not been following the same trend, then the sun could not be causing it. But that's complete nonsense. The input does not have to change in order for warming to continue. Arguing that it does is simply against known physics and it is ridiculously easy to show why.
Turn an element on your stove up to medium-high. Let it get up to temperature. Then put a pot of water on it. What happens? Even though the output of the stove does not change, the water continues to heat until it boils.
Similarly, the sun sitting at an extreme in its cycles can continue warming the Earth, even if its output does not change during that period. The argument that the sun must continue to change its activity along with the warming is just plain dumb. That's like arguing that you must continually turn the control on your stove up in order to boil water.
But as for your particular question: CO2 levels of the distant past are calculated in several ways. One is ice cores: deeply buried chunks of ice are brought up (from Antarctica for example), and trapped air bubbles are measured for CO2 content at different depths, which are correlated with times in the past.
One big problem with that is that we now know that gases such as CO2 can migrate through the ice, so what is being measured is probably not the real CO2 concentration of that time period.
Another big problem with that is that while CO2 concentrations of the past are correlated with temperature (one of the famous numberless graphs in Al Gore's movie for example) what they often neglect to mention is that the CO2 concentrations followed the temperature rises by 300 to 600 years.
The warmists have used some clever arguments to explain that away, but the fact remains that a cause cannot come after the effect. And given the other problems with ice cores that we now know about, it makes for very dubious "evidence".
There are other known ways to estimate CO2 concentrations in the past (called "proxies"), all of which have been tried to one extent or another. Thickness of seashells and other such clues correlate to the availability of dissolved CO2 in the ocean. And various things like that.
I could go on about this all day. But it all boils down (pardon the phrase) to the fact that the evidence for CO2-based warming is actually pretty thin. And there are plenty of legitimate scientific reasons to be skeptical. For another example, see a physicist's rebuttal of the back-radiation concept that is absolutely essential to most CO2 warming models. John O'Sullivan shows that the entire concept is based on incorrect assumptions about physics.
The "climate scientists" have been quick to say that if you want to know about climate, you should consult them, because... well, because they're climate scientists. But the climate scientists themselves have not been consulting statisticians about the statistical methods they have used, or physicists about the physics!
"Is "denier" not an accurate term for someone who refuses to see what's in front of their face?"
Like so many other people, you are confusing the issue. AGW skeptics (the subject under discussion) do not generally deny that global warming is happening at all. Instead, they are merely skeptical about whether it is being caused by man, and CO2 in particular.
So no, it is not an accurate term for the vast majority of AGW skeptics, and it has nothing to do with what's "in front of their face", because they aren't denying what's in front of their face. You are confusing skepticism about scientific warming models with denial that warming is happening at all... and those are two very different things.
It is not very polite to go around labeling people incorrectly because of your own confusion.
"The IPCC report includes references to serious research that explain what they would expect to see happen between now and 2100 if CO2 emissions were dropped to 0 today."
The IPCC -- which, I should point out, after some revelations about its "science" and internal politics now has a credibility of near zero -- is not discussing the cost.
What would the cost be of dropping emissions to 0 today? Or even to 20% of current levels? Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.
By proposing solutions without taking costs into account, you are doing nothing but pointless handwaving. You cannot be taken seriously.
It *IS* a racket because PG&E is -- or was, anyway -- a state-supported, regulated, and subsidized monopoly. They did not build all that infrastructure using money out of their own pockets.
"While I agree with you on Zuckerberg, I'd be willing to change my mind if he's buy me out with $1 billion."
Hmmm. But that might qualify as "employment".
"The effectiveness of FDR's actions on the great depression continue to be a subject of lively debate and there is no mainstream consensus."
Of course there isn't, since the majority of "mainstream" economists are dumbasses who think Keynes was some kind of genius instead of the hack that he really was.
"The effectiveness of FDR's actions on the great depression continue to be a subject of lively debate and there is no mainstream consensus."
The debate is only "lively" among those who are in denial because the reality does not match their economic ideology.
As a study that was linked to right here on Slashdot not long ago shows, ageism in software development is nothing more than arrogant bullshit.
And Zuckerberg is nothing more than a PHP script kiddie who both got lucky and cheated others to achieve his success. His word is hardly to be taken seriously.