That last one is pretty key. For some reason that is the primary focus of all anti-CO2 actions despite that being the least tested hypothesis. The geologic evidence is the exact opposite being that the warmer periods of the planet have had the most prolific life and the coldest periods have had most of the mass extinctions.
What makes people think the climate of pre-industrial humanity is the "ideal" climate? Transitioning may be hard, but shouldn't we determine what the optimal climate is before spending resources trying to control it? Wouldn't those resources be better spent on transitioning if a warmer planet is indeed better for life?
Assuming that bicycles don't have to obey the law (stopping at the stop signs)? Or that there isn't a 14 mile commute with hills where it rains probably once a week?
Also, maybe a 1 minute UNDO button for moderating. If I had a dime for every time I selected the wrong mod from the drop down and all I can do is comment to remove it along with any other mods I may have done.
Obviously you don't live in an area with traffic... I cut through residential neighborhoods because I can go 5-10mph in them instead of the 0-3mph on the main arterials. If it weren't for the unnecessary stop signs for a side street with 7 houses on it, traffic might be able to get up to 25mph. Forget about the highway... And I do get to the racetrack as often as I can.
A.5 Require new residential developments to consider traffic flow and allow for through streets that do not have residences along them.
Ah wait, who am I kidding. They have those and the residents petition the local government to put up unnecessary stop signs and speed bumps to enforce a 25mph speed limit for a wide road with painted lines, shoulders, sidewalks, and fences between the right of way and any houses. Nothing says fancy neighborhood like having a line of cars waiting to go through a stop sign where no one ever comes from the side street.
Being a new transplant to Atlanta, what the hell? The speed limits are plenty high, but that doesn't stop a rolling roadblock of 7 cars wide on I-85 going 55mph in a 70 zone...
The related issue here is a common problem in Atlanta. Residents of huge residential developments complain about traffic cutting through their neighborhood. The problem is that their neighborhood was designed without traffic flow around and through in in mind so they didn't provide any arterial or feeder roads and expect all the cars to go around the multi-square-mile development onto the existing arterial streets that are parking lots.
They protest the cars going through their neighborhood and put up unnecessary stop signs and speedbumbs to discourage drivers. But this just slows them down and pack the residential streets into a slow moving parking lot as well. Does this make things safer for kids? No. Does this make things better for residents? No. The solution is to sacrifice some "residential" streets and upgrade them to higher speed through streets and allow the traffic to get where it's going, Impeding them just makes them angry, impatient, and distracted which doesn't help anybody.
Plus I drive a small, low car and speedbumps are the bane of my existence. I hate anyone who thinks they are a good solution anywhere.
Your analogy is flawed. This would be more akin to someone saying "I agree that the evidence fits evolution, but I believe that God created the earth with conditions to allow humans to evolve."
I agree with the theory, I don't agree with their extrapolated models. I also think that research dollars spent trying to figure out how warming will damage the environment would be better spent researching how to take advantage of a warmer climate. I already believe that a warmer planet will be a net positive for life in general and if humans are smart enough to adapt (we usually are) we will prosper on a warmer planet.
The devastating impact on humans will come from wasting resources trying to stop the ship instead of using them to steer the ship where we want it to go. We may be accelerating natural warming or causing unnatural warming, but what we cannot do currently is control the climate. Geo-engineering the climate and trying to stop fossil fuel usage causes known harm today to try to mitigate future harm. Instead we could cause no harm today and migrate towards taking advantage of the benefits a warmer climate brings.
From Apple's perspective colluding with Google is probably the lesser evil to colluding with Microsoft... Even better if Google is willing to fork over cash.
There's also a different between people who say CO2 doesn't cause warming or isn't significant and those that think the projected warming won't be catastrophic. I'm not a climate change skeptic, I'm a climate change catastrophe skeptic. Sadly the religion of AGW doesn't allow for categories of "deniers." They all get lumped together as equivalent to evolution deniers.
I don't remember if it was Forbes, but yesterday there was a link to the 25 happiest companies. The first one opened with title, a sentence of text, a huge picture, and plenty of space for ads I presume... Fuck that, I'm not clicking and loading a new damn page 25 times to read a bullet list. Sounds like something Forbes would do.
They irritate me too and I do have a Facebook account. I would prefer to login that way, but then it takes you to the permissions page and it's "gives access to all your friends, photos, contact information, etc. and permission to post as you on your wall, on other's walls, and in private messages."
I'm like how about no... I'm not giving away permission for someone to assume my entire identity to not have to create a login to post a stupid comment on your stupid site.
I just sent United Healthcare some "feedback" on that one. They have stupid rules that include requiring one of only 6 symbols. Like I can remember which stupid symbol they allowed that I stuck in my password... Instead I end up resetting my password every time I log in. I tried explaining to them their ridiculous rules do nothing to secure my account if it locks me out and forces me to reset my password after 3 incorrect attempts. And that it's far more likely that their login database gets hacked than my password getting guessed or brute forced.
Exactly, I need a ridiculously complicated password to use the Rally app that reminds me to eat my veggies and then I get points for which I can get in on a raffle. I could care less if someone breaks in and signs me up for a few chances at winning a Whole Foods gift card that I won't win. Maybe they'll eat some veggies for me too.
Meanwhile, unnecessarily complicated password requirements for things that NEED to be secure are still a waste. Brute force isn't really a thing anymore as most secure login portals will lock you out after 5 or so attempts. What is more likely than my password being brute forced is their database gets compromised which negates any security a long or complex password provides.
It doesn't help when Windows 10 has some significant removal of features. I run Windows Media Center on my Windows 7 HTPC. I'm not going to update to Windows 10 just to hack WMC back into it...
Shh, don't tell them that, they'll ban all combustion! If you can classify every product of a chemical reaction as pollution, it's not that far fetched. Which of these isn't a greenhouse gas: A) CO2, B) H20? Well that's all you need to know about environmentalists today.
Rich people have debt. But they also have liquid assets to pay for the debt. Leveraging all of your capital into collateral for debt works great until the debt faucet turns off and people expect to get their money. That's how banks collapse, they don't have any assets to cover the debts when people come calling.
You could in theory now sell your house, and pocket $2.8M without ever paying a cent off your debt (but the smart thing would be to leverage that asset and buy another house, rinse and repeat, and get rich)
Sounds like a housing bubble to me. That didn't work out so hot a few years ago. A lot of people ended up homeless from short-sighted thinking like that. You're plan only works if things always appreciate in value. That's a bad long term assumption. Inflation does trivialize debt due to an effective tax on people who have real assets. Inflating your way out of debt might just piss off people who didn't max out all their credit cards. They are probably the ones providing the credit and they may just turn off the tap if you stick them with the bill.
If you have a mortgage of $200,000 on a property with a value of $2 million, it still matters if you can't afford to make the mortgage payment. The bank can still repo the house unless you can sell it within a month (which you can probably do at a significant loss of value). You might believe along with most Americans that debt is meaningless if you have a lot of income, but it'll bite you in the ass before long.
The national debt IS a big deal. Regardless of whatever value we can sell off government assets to cover the debt (or just print money), we are spending money that a future generation will have to pay back. That is worse than spending yourself into debt, it's spending the next generation into debt. The government is spending money it never intends to cover, that's for their successors to deal with. Kicking the can down the road. And they think climate change is going to fuck over our children...
What makes the parent think B will get a legitimate job with reportable, taxed income? Ever seen someone in front of you in line at the grocery store pay for their food with an EBT card, and then whip out a roll of cash to buy alcohol and cigarettes in a separate transaction? You can collect unemployment while working under the table...
Yes, that is a problem. Are you seriously saying if you have say an average home mortgage of $222,261 (according to Google), you only have savings of $2,200? I don't care what your income is, put some money in the bank for a rainy day. Minimum liquid savings (not including long term investments like retirement) for a reasonable person is usually 6 months of living expenses. Considering the average mortgage payment is over $1,000/mo your 1% savings would be gone in a month (or less) if you lost your income.
He wasn't bleeding from the lightsaber wounds, but from the bowcaster shot he received earlier. It even showed him hitting the spot on his side (presumably to do something for the pain) and his blood in the snow.
Slashdot Mirror
That last one is pretty key. For some reason that is the primary focus of all anti-CO2 actions despite that being the least tested hypothesis. The geologic evidence is the exact opposite being that the warmer periods of the planet have had the most prolific life and the coldest periods have had most of the mass extinctions.
What makes people think the climate of pre-industrial humanity is the "ideal" climate? Transitioning may be hard, but shouldn't we determine what the optimal climate is before spending resources trying to control it? Wouldn't those resources be better spent on transitioning if a warmer planet is indeed better for life?
Assuming that bicycles don't have to obey the law (stopping at the stop signs)? Or that there isn't a 14 mile commute with hills where it rains probably once a week?
You mean the former governor of New Mexico?
https://www.garyjohnson2016.co...
Also, maybe a 1 minute UNDO button for moderating. If I had a dime for every time I selected the wrong mod from the drop down and all I can do is comment to remove it along with any other mods I may have done.
Obviously you don't live in an area with traffic... I cut through residential neighborhoods because I can go 5-10mph in them instead of the 0-3mph on the main arterials. If it weren't for the unnecessary stop signs for a side street with 7 houses on it, traffic might be able to get up to 25mph. Forget about the highway... And I do get to the racetrack as often as I can.
A.5 Require new residential developments to consider traffic flow and allow for through streets that do not have residences along them.
Ah wait, who am I kidding. They have those and the residents petition the local government to put up unnecessary stop signs and speed bumps to enforce a 25mph speed limit for a wide road with painted lines, shoulders, sidewalks, and fences between the right of way and any houses. Nothing says fancy neighborhood like having a line of cars waiting to go through a stop sign where no one ever comes from the side street.
Being a new transplant to Atlanta, what the hell? The speed limits are plenty high, but that doesn't stop a rolling roadblock of 7 cars wide on I-85 going 55mph in a 70 zone...
The related issue here is a common problem in Atlanta. Residents of huge residential developments complain about traffic cutting through their neighborhood. The problem is that their neighborhood was designed without traffic flow around and through in in mind so they didn't provide any arterial or feeder roads and expect all the cars to go around the multi-square-mile development onto the existing arterial streets that are parking lots.
They protest the cars going through their neighborhood and put up unnecessary stop signs and speedbumbs to discourage drivers. But this just slows them down and pack the residential streets into a slow moving parking lot as well. Does this make things safer for kids? No. Does this make things better for residents? No. The solution is to sacrifice some "residential" streets and upgrade them to higher speed through streets and allow the traffic to get where it's going, Impeding them just makes them angry, impatient, and distracted which doesn't help anybody.
Plus I drive a small, low car and speedbumps are the bane of my existence. I hate anyone who thinks they are a good solution anywhere.
Your analogy is flawed. This would be more akin to someone saying "I agree that the evidence fits evolution, but I believe that God created the earth with conditions to allow humans to evolve."
I agree with the theory, I don't agree with their extrapolated models. I also think that research dollars spent trying to figure out how warming will damage the environment would be better spent researching how to take advantage of a warmer climate. I already believe that a warmer planet will be a net positive for life in general and if humans are smart enough to adapt (we usually are) we will prosper on a warmer planet.
The devastating impact on humans will come from wasting resources trying to stop the ship instead of using them to steer the ship where we want it to go. We may be accelerating natural warming or causing unnatural warming, but what we cannot do currently is control the climate. Geo-engineering the climate and trying to stop fossil fuel usage causes known harm today to try to mitigate future harm. Instead we could cause no harm today and migrate towards taking advantage of the benefits a warmer climate brings.
From Apple's perspective colluding with Google is probably the lesser evil to colluding with Microsoft... Even better if Google is willing to fork over cash.
There's also a different between people who say CO2 doesn't cause warming or isn't significant and those that think the projected warming won't be catastrophic. I'm not a climate change skeptic, I'm a climate change catastrophe skeptic. Sadly the religion of AGW doesn't allow for categories of "deniers." They all get lumped together as equivalent to evolution deniers.
I don't remember if it was Forbes, but yesterday there was a link to the 25 happiest companies. The first one opened with title, a sentence of text, a huge picture, and plenty of space for ads I presume... Fuck that, I'm not clicking and loading a new damn page 25 times to read a bullet list. Sounds like something Forbes would do.
Unless it's about climate change... Fuck those skeptics.
They irritate me too and I do have a Facebook account. I would prefer to login that way, but then it takes you to the permissions page and it's "gives access to all your friends, photos, contact information, etc. and permission to post as you on your wall, on other's walls, and in private messages."
I'm like how about no... I'm not giving away permission for someone to assume my entire identity to not have to create a login to post a stupid comment on your stupid site.
I just sent United Healthcare some "feedback" on that one. They have stupid rules that include requiring one of only 6 symbols. Like I can remember which stupid symbol they allowed that I stuck in my password... Instead I end up resetting my password every time I log in. I tried explaining to them their ridiculous rules do nothing to secure my account if it locks me out and forces me to reset my password after 3 incorrect attempts. And that it's far more likely that their login database gets hacked than my password getting guessed or brute forced.
Exactly, I need a ridiculously complicated password to use the Rally app that reminds me to eat my veggies and then I get points for which I can get in on a raffle. I could care less if someone breaks in and signs me up for a few chances at winning a Whole Foods gift card that I won't win. Maybe they'll eat some veggies for me too.
Meanwhile, unnecessarily complicated password requirements for things that NEED to be secure are still a waste. Brute force isn't really a thing anymore as most secure login portals will lock you out after 5 or so attempts. What is more likely than my password being brute forced is their database gets compromised which negates any security a long or complex password provides.
It doesn't help when Windows 10 has some significant removal of features. I run Windows Media Center on my Windows 7 HTPC. I'm not going to update to Windows 10 just to hack WMC back into it...
Tell that to Doc Brown when he obtained Plutonium...
Shh, don't tell them that, they'll ban all combustion! If you can classify every product of a chemical reaction as pollution, it's not that far fetched. Which of these isn't a greenhouse gas: A) CO2, B) H20? Well that's all you need to know about environmentalists today.
Rich people have debt. But they also have liquid assets to pay for the debt. Leveraging all of your capital into collateral for debt works great until the debt faucet turns off and people expect to get their money. That's how banks collapse, they don't have any assets to cover the debts when people come calling.
You could in theory now sell your house, and pocket $2.8M without ever paying a cent off your debt (but the smart thing would be to leverage that asset and buy another house, rinse and repeat, and get rich)
Sounds like a housing bubble to me. That didn't work out so hot a few years ago. A lot of people ended up homeless from short-sighted thinking like that. You're plan only works if things always appreciate in value. That's a bad long term assumption. Inflation does trivialize debt due to an effective tax on people who have real assets. Inflating your way out of debt might just piss off people who didn't max out all their credit cards. They are probably the ones providing the credit and they may just turn off the tap if you stick them with the bill.
I hope so too, but I doubt it.
If you have a mortgage of $200,000 on a property with a value of $2 million, it still matters if you can't afford to make the mortgage payment. The bank can still repo the house unless you can sell it within a month (which you can probably do at a significant loss of value). You might believe along with most Americans that debt is meaningless if you have a lot of income, but it'll bite you in the ass before long.
The national debt IS a big deal. Regardless of whatever value we can sell off government assets to cover the debt (or just print money), we are spending money that a future generation will have to pay back. That is worse than spending yourself into debt, it's spending the next generation into debt. The government is spending money it never intends to cover, that's for their successors to deal with. Kicking the can down the road. And they think climate change is going to fuck over our children...
What makes the parent think B will get a legitimate job with reportable, taxed income? Ever seen someone in front of you in line at the grocery store pay for their food with an EBT card, and then whip out a roll of cash to buy alcohol and cigarettes in a separate transaction? You can collect unemployment while working under the table...
Yes, that is a problem. Are you seriously saying if you have say an average home mortgage of $222,261 (according to Google), you only have savings of $2,200? I don't care what your income is, put some money in the bank for a rainy day. Minimum liquid savings (not including long term investments like retirement) for a reasonable person is usually 6 months of living expenses. Considering the average mortgage payment is over $1,000/mo your 1% savings would be gone in a month (or less) if you lost your income.
He wasn't bleeding from the lightsaber wounds, but from the bowcaster shot he received earlier. It even showed him hitting the spot on his side (presumably to do something for the pain) and his blood in the snow.
Nature has already done this to almost all of the CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere... It's called "limestone."