Include Goldman Sachs, Deutsch Bank and a whole lot of other financial institutions and their political poodles who want to trade carbon credits, alongside the thousands of scientists who need to get citations to have careers and who need to attract research funding to their institutions to get tenure, plus add in the IPCC and UN, who have publicly stated it's about redistribution more than the environment and yes, they can do it. Why are you so naive?
Straw man. I didn't say man doesn't have an impact on the planet - he definitely does. My point is that 20th century warming is almost certainly entirely normal natural variability.
This is a familiar meme, but it's complete crap. Weather is what happens when it gets colder. Climate is what happens when it gets warmer. In reality, climate is weather integrated over time. So if, for example, there's been a reduction in hurricane and typhoon intensity over the last 30 years, which completely contradicts the scare stories put out by climate botherers, you will put it down to some local anomaly. Whereas if it were increasing, you would say it's caused by man-made CO2.
There is no acceleration in sea-level rise over the medium and long term.... even if you could measure it to an accuracy of mm, which you can't. If sea-level rise is an indicator of AGW, then AGW is false.
Yes and if you look at the temperature, which you "know" from the same sources, you will see very clearly that today's temperature is cold compared to the historical average. Not only that, you'll discover that the level of variability we are experiencing now is no different to the level of variability expressed in the historical or geological record. So please, remind me why certain activists are running around screaming that civilisation is going to end, and people like you are nodding in agreement?
I mean the average for the industry in my area. I suspect they're on a similar sum to me - possibly more because they're been there longer. Believe it or not, with 10 years service I'm relatively new. The only newer developer joined the company a week after me:p.
I've been working at the same place for 10 years (as a software developer) and I haven't got a clue how much anyone else gets paid. Personally I don't care either. It isn't hard to find out if you're getting the current average rate or not. If you aren't, either you demand more at your next review, or you find another job.
I wouldn't say it was "faith based". It's more a philosophical position based on a rational examination of the issue. Of course it may be testable in theory if one could create a baby universe in the lab and somehow examine its properties.
Well, Occam's Razor would apply, wouldn't it? We describe (with physics and mathematics) the regularities of experience. Without experience, the description would be superfluous; a curiosity. In a universe with only one galaxy, there would be no need for these additional concepts.
A "theory of everything", unless it came upon them from the other direction (required in order to explain the very small, or at least they were as a consequence of theories of the very small), would not need them. But without them, can the theory be said to be "complete"? No! I conclude that there is no way of ever knowing that your explanation is complete. There is always something left to explain:p.
Another objection is also the empirical evidence we're able to collect. For example, in 100,000,000,000 years time, the expansion of the Universe will mean that any future civilisation will look out into the sky and only see the Milky Way (stars will still exist then). There will be no evidence of a "big bang", inflation (the cosmic microwave background will have gone) and no evidence that other galaxies exist or have ever existed. Such a civilisation would not even think of dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, or anything else we need to cobble theory to observation.
I wonder what is missing from the picture now that would otherwise cause us to question and change our understanding of reality? Probably quite a lot!
Well, you can't prove a negative ("it wasn't designed"), can you? So the onus is on those who say it was to demonstrate that it must have been. Clearly in the space of all possible universes the anthropic principle rules.
but hey, I guess that at least benefits the US economy, right?
That depends on whether the $2,000,000 invested (minimum) is redirected from some other kind of investment that would benefit the US more. That $2,000,000 isn't sitting under the mattress.
I'm guessing the point at which it will crash is around the point all the rich ***ts bail out, just after it has SEC approval and all of the plebs with their poor little pension funds decide to have a punt.
Yes. Pretty much standard operating procedure for Goldman. I assume they aren't playing in the US for fear of the regulatory authorities. They are free to scam everywhere else, however!
How can they be proven false? In any case I have a feeling this whole story is just to drum up some publicity for their site. I doubt they're actually going to go through with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Include Goldman Sachs, Deutsch Bank and a whole lot of other financial institutions and their political poodles who want to trade carbon credits, alongside the thousands of scientists who need to get citations to have careers and who need to attract research funding to their institutions to get tenure, plus add in the IPCC and UN, who have publicly stated it's about redistribution more than the environment and yes, they can do it. Why are you so naive?
Straw man. I didn't say man doesn't have an impact on the planet - he definitely does. My point is that 20th century warming is almost certainly entirely normal natural variability.
This is a familiar meme, but it's complete crap. Weather is what happens when it gets colder. Climate is what happens when it gets warmer. In reality, climate is weather integrated over time. So if, for example, there's been a reduction in hurricane and typhoon intensity over the last 30 years, which completely contradicts the scare stories put out by climate botherers, you will put it down to some local anomaly. Whereas if it were increasing, you would say it's caused by man-made CO2.
There is no acceleration in sea-level rise over the medium and long term.... even if you could measure it to an accuracy of mm, which you can't. If sea-level rise is an indicator of AGW, then AGW is false.
Yes and if you look at the temperature, which you "know" from the same sources, you will see very clearly that today's temperature is cold compared to the historical average. Not only that, you'll discover that the level of variability we are experiencing now is no different to the level of variability expressed in the historical or geological record. So please, remind me why certain activists are running around screaming that civilisation is going to end, and people like you are nodding in agreement?
They should be discredited, as they're engaged in what is essentially a politically motivated fraud.
Haha, moderated troll, LOL. Some astroturfing going on at /.
Because it's got absolutely nothing to do with man-made CO2 and is just so much statistical noise certain politically motivated activists want to attribute to man?
We called it Discrete Mathematics at my University.
I mean the average for the industry in my area. I suspect they're on a similar sum to me - possibly more because they're been there longer. Believe it or not, with 10 years service I'm relatively new. The only newer developer joined the company a week after me :p.
I've been working at the same place for 10 years (as a software developer) and I haven't got a clue how much anyone else gets paid. Personally I don't care either. It isn't hard to find out if you're getting the current average rate or not. If you aren't, either you demand more at your next review, or you find another job.
I wouldn't say it was "faith based". It's more a philosophical position based on a rational examination of the issue. Of course it may be testable in theory if one could create a baby universe in the lab and somehow examine its properties.
But don't forget, they were looking for dark matter. Otherwise, the anomaly would be noted and some other hypothesis developed to explain it.
Mod parent up. Very good point. Impossible to ascertain if it's correct though, surely?
Well, Occam's Razor would apply, wouldn't it? We describe (with physics and mathematics) the regularities of experience. Without experience, the description would be superfluous; a curiosity. In a universe with only one galaxy, there would be no need for these additional concepts.
:p.
A "theory of everything", unless it came upon them from the other direction (required in order to explain the very small, or at least they were as a consequence of theories of the very small), would not need them. But without them, can the theory be said to be "complete"? No! I conclude that there is no way of ever knowing that your explanation is complete. There is always something left to explain
Nature is indifferent to suffering. If God had a hand in creating nature, this natural dispensation is his will, not ours.
Another objection is also the empirical evidence we're able to collect. For example, in 100,000,000,000 years time, the expansion of the Universe will mean that any future civilisation will look out into the sky and only see the Milky Way (stars will still exist then). There will be no evidence of a "big bang", inflation (the cosmic microwave background will have gone) and no evidence that other galaxies exist or have ever existed. Such a civilisation would not even think of dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, or anything else we need to cobble theory to observation.
I wonder what is missing from the picture now that would otherwise cause us to question and change our understanding of reality? Probably quite a lot!
I like what Hitchens says on this: "God created us sick and then commanded us to be well". So yes, he must be a bit of a sadist.
Well, you can't prove a negative ("it wasn't designed"), can you? So the onus is on those who say it was to demonstrate that it must have been. Clearly in the space of all possible universes the anthropic principle rules.
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
That depends on whether the $2,000,000 invested (minimum) is redirected from some other kind of investment that would benefit the US more. That $2,000,000 isn't sitting under the mattress.
I'm guessing the point at which it will crash is around the point all the rich ***ts bail out, just after it has SEC approval and all of the plebs with their poor little pension funds decide to have a punt.
Yes. Pretty much standard operating procedure for Goldman. I assume they aren't playing in the US for fear of the regulatory authorities. They are free to scam everywhere else, however!
I think most people would cancel their account and put it down to experience, rather than take the site to court
How can they be proven false? In any case I have a feeling this whole story is just to drum up some publicity for their site. I doubt they're actually going to go through with it.