You can still go shoot up some people today if you want.
Well done protecting those rights.
Off topic but what I find hilarious is now that Obama is no longer President the gun manufacturers and gun shops have seen a big drop in business. If they really want to improve their bottom line they should give their campaign donations to the Dems.
That's a pretty absolutist view and almost nobody fits fully into your definitions of what they should be. Philosophically I fit fairly well within the libertarian viewpoint but my pragmatism realizes that it can never work in the real world because too many people would be unable to make it work for them and would be left behind by such a system. I guess you can be callous enough to say tough beans and let the chips fall where they may but I'm not willing to see a society where people die because they can't afford the necessary medical treatment they need or the elderly wander the streets because they're too poor to afford a roof over their heads. No "ism" in its pure form will ever work because they all have inherent contradictions. Best to take the good parts from each to form a hybrid system that works somewhat for everybody.
Congratulations for drinking the Republican Kool-aid on the Clintons. Hillary is far from my favorite politician and I don't like how corporate she is but any corruption she's involved with is minor compared to Trump. The Republicans have spent 25+ years and well over $100 million in taxpayer money investigating the Clintons and what do they have to show for it. A perjury charge for lying about a blow job and that's it. You'd think for that kind of money they would have come up with something else they could pin on them. Well they did get one other thing. They got fools like you to believe their spiel. But they shouldn't be using taxpayer money for that.
Milankovitch does not explain anything about the warming of the last 200 years since the general trend of the cycles is toward cooling. Before the current warming trend the Earth had been cooling at a slight rate for the last 6,000-8,000 years because that is the current trend of Milankovitch Cycles after they peaked on the warming trend that caused the current interglacial about 8,000 years ago. It is not cooling now mainly because of the increase in greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) in the atmosphere. The source of most of that increase is human activities. You may whine about "ecomarxists" but that doesn't change the physics behind the current warming.
For now I doubt the cable ISPs are going to change anything which is basically a neutral net. They'll sit on the current status quo until it becomes clear how all the lawsuits about this are going to be resolved. Why would they take the chance of changing things and riling a bunch of people up about it until they know for sure how it all shakes out? That would be kind of stupid.
Licensing, etc. is not that big a factor in the cost. The two nuclear plants currently being built in Georgia, the Vogtle plants were originally budgeted to cost around $7 billion and be online by now. Now because of delays and screw ups by the people building it the cost has ballooned to around $26 billion and they're expected to be online in 2021/2022. Part of the problem was Westinghouse didn't have complete and fully developed plans to build them when they started and were making changes on the fly then Westinghouse went bankrupt. Licensing costs are just a small part of all of that. When the licenses were originally issued the Obama made about $8.3 billion in Federal loan guarantees available to them.
What happens if you counter this with increased oxygen, which is usually stimulating?
Where are you going to get the extra oxygen. Buy burning CO2 you bind oxygen in the atmosphere to carbon reducing the level of oxygen. And it's been measured that the level of oxygen in the atmosphere is dropping some, not enough to be a problem but enough to account for the carbon we've burned.
It's true that water vapor is the source of most of the greenhouse effect on Earth but it's also true that humans can do little to affect the level of water vapor in the atmosphere. It's level is mostly set by temperature. If however you reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere the cooling that causes will also reduce the level of water vapor. If you reduced the level of CO2 to near zero it would reduce the level of water vapor so much that the Earth would freeze over nearly to the equator.
I think you fail to understand the nature of a scientific consensus. It's not something organized that scientists do but rather something that comes about organically as a majority of scientists come to agree on some particular point.
Oh, and both Dr. Moore and Dr. Seimer believe we need to use nuclear power to stop producing so much CO2. I will take the word from these people that are highly knowledgeable on the topic over so many more that believe we can solve this problem without nuclear power. Science is not something decided by a vote so I don't much care if 99.7% of people say otherwise. Science is base on fact, not popularity. A popular vote for something wrong just means a lot of people are wrong. If someone wants to prove these doctors are wrong then all it takes is one person with better facts.
Nuclear power will be a viable option if you can convince people to pony up the extra cost it imposes compared to other options. The only way that works in the US is with massive government subsidies paid for from taxes. Now, if you impose enough cost on carbon emissions due to the damage they cause that might be possible but I feel it's pretty unlikely to happen any time soon.
The mechanism that brings CO2 levels back down over the last several million years or so is mostly the cooling of the Earth due to changes in the orbital parameters (Milankovitch cycles) that cause the CO2 to get absorbed in the oceans and other places. The cooling has to start first to do that.
Hemp is not too bad at it either and has useful products made from it.
As far as trees go, they help but they won't fix the problem on any short term schedule. The amount of just coal we dig up every day amounts to thousands of years of tree accumulation. You could cover the whole Earth with trees and it would still take thousands of years to bring CO2 levels back down to reasonable levels.
Calling anyone who has ever been a member of SCOTUS a communist is propaganda of the ridiculous kind, especially coming from a Nazi* like you. Either you don't know the definition of communist or more likely you're just using it as rhetoric to denigrate someone you don't like. In either case it has no relationship to reality.
* Do you see, my calling you a Nazi is my rhetoric to denigrate you for your ridiculous assertion. But then I see you're promoting Ayn Rand in your signature so that explains a lot.
Mission accomplished! We can roll back all the regulations now!
Yeah, it's kind of like the anti-vaxxer thing. Now that a whole generation has grown up without the threat of debilitating diseases because the majority of people got vaccinated and avoided those diseases they don't see them as a threat anymore. Maybe they'll learn better when their unvaccinated kids come down with the diseases but they'll probably mostly be lucky and avoid them since the vaccination rate is still over 90%.
Oh, I certainly have my weaknesses but in 66 years of living on the planet I've seen a lot of hyperbole come and go and have learned to take it all with a grain of salt. I don't think in any way that I have the answers to others problems and want people to be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they're not messing up other peoples lives by doing so. As far as gullible I see a lot of people who just want quick simple answers to complex problems so they let their biases take over instead of taking some time to consider the full ramifications of their choices. As least part of the problem is as ACs below have pointed out a lot of people have to live their lives and are so busy just putting food on the table and keeping shelter over their heads that it just wears them down. I wish I had better answers.
I probably was a slightly better than average driver when I was younger although a bit aggressive at times. I spent a lot of time on a relatives farm in my youth and was able to practice driving starting when I was about 11 (tractors when I was 6). The light traffic in the area allowed me to make some mistakes and learn from them without getting into accidents. For instance my reaction and recover from a skid is automatic without thinking about it. But now that I'm aging I recognize my skills are starting to fade and being retired I'm seldom in a hurry to get anywhere. Which doesn't mean I'm one of those slow drivers, I still mostly drive the standard 5 mph over the speed limit. But I pay a lot of attention to other drivers so I can anticipate and avoid potential problems. I've never been in an accident where anyone was seriously injured, basically just 5 or 6 fender benders over the years.
I'd have to say that Hillary Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates I've every seen with experience in all sectors of the federal government. There are aspects to her politics that I don't particularly like but compared to Trump there is no comparison. And yes she isn't a particularly inspiring campaigner and made mistakes in assuming some states were safely for her when they weren't
But then there are people who spent the last 25 years consuming the Republicans demonization of all things Clinton (I'm looking at you Cmdln Daco). Geez, you'd think if there was anything there that after spending $100s of millions of federal dollars investigating they would have come up with something serious to pin on her. I guess they think it was good spending of the money though because they ended up getting what they wanted.
nor am i claiming that the story is even false. i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet.
The bet was well published when it was first made so if you had been paying attention in the right places you would have heard about it.
And I'll also add that just because the solar scientists made the bet doesn't make them climate science deniers. But I would say they were poor solar scientists because they should have known that the solar variation that we've seen in studying the sun is not great enough to overcome the effects of radiative forcing over more than a few short years. They should have known better.
It's like I said in my comment on gullible people above. Some people are just seeking confirmation for their biases and just skim the headlines without digging down to get closer to the truth. It doesn't matter what the source is (foreign or domestic, etc.). But if you develop the habit of looking deeper you eventually develop a better sense of when you're being scammed and perhaps you are able to find some trusted sources who generally a straight shooters about the things they say. I just takes a bit of work, more than some are willing to put in.
Unfortunately there are a lot of gullible people in the world who just skim the headlines and don't bother to dig down in any detail on an issue. Lazy thinkers will always be with us and all we can hope for is there are enough people who aren't that way in order to counter them. Lately it's kind of depressing how much of this has distorted the political realm.
It's not based on simulations, it's based on physics. CO2 traps infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface which raises the temperature. Joseph Fourier discovered in 1824 that the Earth's was warmer than it should be given the amount of energy it receives from the sun. It would be an astounding contradiction of physics if increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere didn't cause a temperature increase. The model simulations are just a tool to help understand the details of the system better.
Good luck with the future. I'm old enough I'll be gone before the effects of anthropogenic global warming get real bad but maybe you aren't.
Most of what climate scientists have said will happen has been happening even if they don't always get the numbers exactly right. The fact that politicians haven't responded in an effective way isn't the scientists fault.
The only previous rapid ecological collapse globally that was anywhere near as fast as whats going on now (a lot faster in fact) was the asteroid strike 65 million years ago. It took millions of years for the Earth's biosphere to recover from that.
Slashdot Mirror
He probably just wants to whip it out in front of a kiosk and get his rocks off.
More bothsiderism from someone too lazy to dig in and face the facts.
Seriously? That was your take away from that?
Well, at least Obama didn't take your guns.
You can still go shoot up some people today if you want.
Well done protecting those rights.
Off topic but what I find hilarious is now that Obama is no longer President the gun manufacturers and gun shops have seen a big drop in business. If they really want to improve their bottom line they should give their campaign donations to the Dems.
That's a pretty absolutist view and almost nobody fits fully into your definitions of what they should be. Philosophically I fit fairly well within the libertarian viewpoint but my pragmatism realizes that it can never work in the real world because too many people would be unable to make it work for them and would be left behind by such a system. I guess you can be callous enough to say tough beans and let the chips fall where they may but I'm not willing to see a society where people die because they can't afford the necessary medical treatment they need or the elderly wander the streets because they're too poor to afford a roof over their heads. No "ism" in its pure form will ever work because they all have inherent contradictions. Best to take the good parts from each to form a hybrid system that works somewhat for everybody.
Congratulations for drinking the Republican Kool-aid on the Clintons. Hillary is far from my favorite politician and I don't like how corporate she is but any corruption she's involved with is minor compared to Trump. The Republicans have spent 25+ years and well over $100 million in taxpayer money investigating the Clintons and what do they have to show for it. A perjury charge for lying about a blow job and that's it. You'd think for that kind of money they would have come up with something else they could pin on them. Well they did get one other thing. They got fools like you to believe their spiel. But they shouldn't be using taxpayer money for that.
Milankovitch does not explain anything about the warming of the last 200 years since the general trend of the cycles is toward cooling. Before the current warming trend the Earth had been cooling at a slight rate for the last 6,000-8,000 years because that is the current trend of Milankovitch Cycles after they peaked on the warming trend that caused the current interglacial about 8,000 years ago. It is not cooling now mainly because of the increase in greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) in the atmosphere. The source of most of that increase is human activities. You may whine about "ecomarxists" but that doesn't change the physics behind the current warming.
For now I doubt the cable ISPs are going to change anything which is basically a neutral net. They'll sit on the current status quo until it becomes clear how all the lawsuits about this are going to be resolved. Why would they take the chance of changing things and riling a bunch of people up about it until they know for sure how it all shakes out? That would be kind of stupid.
Licensing, etc. is not that big a factor in the cost. The two nuclear plants currently being built in Georgia, the Vogtle plants were originally budgeted to cost around $7 billion and be online by now. Now because of delays and screw ups by the people building it the cost has ballooned to around $26 billion and they're expected to be online in 2021/2022. Part of the problem was Westinghouse didn't have complete and fully developed plans to build them when they started and were making changes on the fly then Westinghouse went bankrupt. Licensing costs are just a small part of all of that. When the licenses were originally issued the Obama made about $8.3 billion in Federal loan guarantees available to them.
What happens if you counter this with increased oxygen, which is usually stimulating?
Where are you going to get the extra oxygen. Buy burning CO2 you bind oxygen in the atmosphere to carbon reducing the level of oxygen. And it's been measured that the level of oxygen in the atmosphere is dropping some, not enough to be a problem but enough to account for the carbon we've burned.
It's true that water vapor is the source of most of the greenhouse effect on Earth but it's also true that humans can do little to affect the level of water vapor in the atmosphere. It's level is mostly set by temperature. If however you reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere the cooling that causes will also reduce the level of water vapor. If you reduced the level of CO2 to near zero it would reduce the level of water vapor so much that the Earth would freeze over nearly to the equator.
I think you fail to understand the nature of a scientific consensus. It's not something organized that scientists do but rather something that comes about organically as a majority of scientists come to agree on some particular point.
Oh, and both Dr. Moore and Dr. Seimer believe we need to use nuclear power to stop producing so much CO2. I will take the word from these people that are highly knowledgeable on the topic over so many more that believe we can solve this problem without nuclear power. Science is not something decided by a vote so I don't much care if 99.7% of people say otherwise. Science is base on fact, not popularity. A popular vote for something wrong just means a lot of people are wrong. If someone wants to prove these doctors are wrong then all it takes is one person with better facts.
Nuclear power will be a viable option if you can convince people to pony up the extra cost it imposes compared to other options. The only way that works in the US is with massive government subsidies paid for from taxes. Now, if you impose enough cost on carbon emissions due to the damage they cause that might be possible but I feel it's pretty unlikely to happen any time soon.
The mechanism that brings CO2 levels back down over the last several million years or so is mostly the cooling of the Earth due to changes in the orbital parameters (Milankovitch cycles) that cause the CO2 to get absorbed in the oceans and other places. The cooling has to start first to do that.
Hemp is not too bad at it either and has useful products made from it.
As far as trees go, they help but they won't fix the problem on any short term schedule. The amount of just coal we dig up every day amounts to thousands of years of tree accumulation. You could cover the whole Earth with trees and it would still take thousands of years to bring CO2 levels back down to reasonable levels.
Calling anyone who has ever been a member of SCOTUS a communist is propaganda of the ridiculous kind, especially coming from a Nazi* like you. Either you don't know the definition of communist or more likely you're just using it as rhetoric to denigrate someone you don't like. In either case it has no relationship to reality.
* Do you see, my calling you a Nazi is my rhetoric to denigrate you for your ridiculous assertion. But then I see you're promoting Ayn Rand in your signature so that explains a lot.
Mission accomplished! We can roll back all the regulations now!
Yeah, it's kind of like the anti-vaxxer thing. Now that a whole generation has grown up without the threat of debilitating diseases because the majority of people got vaccinated and avoided those diseases they don't see them as a threat anymore. Maybe they'll learn better when their unvaccinated kids come down with the diseases but they'll probably mostly be lucky and avoid them since the vaccination rate is still over 90%.
Oh, I certainly have my weaknesses but in 66 years of living on the planet I've seen a lot of hyperbole come and go and have learned to take it all with a grain of salt. I don't think in any way that I have the answers to others problems and want people to be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they're not messing up other peoples lives by doing so. As far as gullible I see a lot of people who just want quick simple answers to complex problems so they let their biases take over instead of taking some time to consider the full ramifications of their choices. As least part of the problem is as ACs below have pointed out a lot of people have to live their lives and are so busy just putting food on the table and keeping shelter over their heads that it just wears them down. I wish I had better answers.
I probably was a slightly better than average driver when I was younger although a bit aggressive at times. I spent a lot of time on a relatives farm in my youth and was able to practice driving starting when I was about 11 (tractors when I was 6). The light traffic in the area allowed me to make some mistakes and learn from them without getting into accidents. For instance my reaction and recover from a skid is automatic without thinking about it. But now that I'm aging I recognize my skills are starting to fade and being retired I'm seldom in a hurry to get anywhere. Which doesn't mean I'm one of those slow drivers, I still mostly drive the standard 5 mph over the speed limit. But I pay a lot of attention to other drivers so I can anticipate and avoid potential problems. I've never been in an accident where anyone was seriously injured, basically just 5 or 6 fender benders over the years.
I'd have to say that Hillary Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates I've every seen with experience in all sectors of the federal government. There are aspects to her politics that I don't particularly like but compared to Trump there is no comparison. And yes she isn't a particularly inspiring campaigner and made mistakes in assuming some states were safely for her when they weren't
But then there are people who spent the last 25 years consuming the Republicans demonization of all things Clinton (I'm looking at you Cmdln Daco). Geez, you'd think if there was anything there that after spending $100s of millions of federal dollars investigating they would have come up with something serious to pin on her. I guess they think it was good spending of the money though because they ended up getting what they wanted.
nor am i claiming that the story is even false. i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet.
The bet was well published when it was first made so if you had been paying attention in the right places you would have heard about it.
And I'll also add that just because the solar scientists made the bet doesn't make them climate science deniers. But I would say they were poor solar scientists because they should have known that the solar variation that we've seen in studying the sun is not great enough to overcome the effects of radiative forcing over more than a few short years. They should have known better.
It's like I said in my comment on gullible people above. Some people are just seeking confirmation for their biases and just skim the headlines without digging down to get closer to the truth. It doesn't matter what the source is (foreign or domestic, etc.). But if you develop the habit of looking deeper you eventually develop a better sense of when you're being scammed and perhaps you are able to find some trusted sources who generally a straight shooters about the things they say. I just takes a bit of work, more than some are willing to put in.
Unfortunately there are a lot of gullible people in the world who just skim the headlines and don't bother to dig down in any detail on an issue. Lazy thinkers will always be with us and all we can hope for is there are enough people who aren't that way in order to counter them. Lately it's kind of depressing how much of this has distorted the political realm.
It's not based on simulations, it's based on physics. CO2 traps infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface which raises the temperature. Joseph Fourier discovered in 1824 that the Earth's was warmer than it should be given the amount of energy it receives from the sun. It would be an astounding contradiction of physics if increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere didn't cause a temperature increase. The model simulations are just a tool to help understand the details of the system better.
Good luck with the future. I'm old enough I'll be gone before the effects of anthropogenic global warming get real bad but maybe you aren't.
Most of what climate scientists have said will happen has been happening even if they don't always get the numbers exactly right. The fact that politicians haven't responded in an effective way isn't the scientists fault.
Yeah, that wasn't the greatest thing but if you can't fly them you have no other way to move them.
I kind of agree with you but also scientists tend to be pretty conservative in presenting their results only saying things they can really be sure of.
The only previous rapid ecological collapse globally that was anywhere near as fast as whats going on now (a lot faster in fact) was the asteroid strike 65 million years ago. It took millions of years for the Earth's biosphere to recover from that.