If you believe that the world is full of shitty people, you'll prove that to yourself every day.
So, as a non-shitty person, you're the type who wants to use the force and violence of government to make ugly that which some people consider beautiful. Wouldn't a better method be to just boycott any publication which had pictures of beautiful people in it? What would Ghandi do?
They illuminate thousands of cell cites all of the way to the horizon...
My understanding is that the carriers have all fixed this former problem and that software prevents any cellphone at any altitude from talking to more than one tower.
Capturing carbon dioxide is: 1. insanely expensive. 2. harmful to the planet, since CO2 is a necessary and required gas for all plant life. 3. harmful to humans since what the planet needs now is a little warming after the last ten years of cooler temperatures.
We may be heading for another little ice age and any even infinitesimally small warming help from C02 may prevent millions of human deaths.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming, while many other scientific studies have.
And if that's not enough for you, how about a scientist, journalist, and educator who actually thinks that science should be based on evidence, not psychic prognostications of computer programs and scientific "consensus": Joanne Nova.
And yes, the "built-in bias" is billions of dollars of money coerced out of the pockets of impoverished taxpayers. When a "scientist's" job depends on continued political support, he'll ignore and distort data in order to produce the result his political handlers are looking for. Those political handlers want a result that allows them to control ever more of the world's economy to their own benefit and the impoverishment of everyone else.
When someone tells you that greenhouse gases "must be reduced" ask the following question: "What evidence is there that methane and CO2 control anything, let alone the temperature at the earth's surface?"
Until someone can come up with a measurable, falsifiable method for pointing directly at methane and CO2 as the drivers of the planet's temperature, it is insane to try to change our output of these gases
Instead of breeding cows that produce more milk, we invest money in attempting to reduce their very natural output of methane. Doing so will eventually bankrupt the West, allowing the East to triumph both culturally and economically.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is literally suicidal. If your ultimate concern is the reduction of greenhouse gases, please consider a large 10 gallon plastic bag over your head, with a good bit of duct tape to prevent your personal emissions from escaping. You will very quickly cease to "pollute" the atmosphere with that plant-vital gas, CO2.
Either your employer withholds tax and pays it for you, or the responsibility is on your head. (Well actually it's always on your head, ultimately) How is that difficult?
Actually, it's that gun to my head that worries me. Never forget that taxation is real force and real violence, and that the gun really is the source of all political power (paraphrasing Mao here). The difficulty happens when someone prefers to live their lives free of violence.
Colorado has finally become californicated. Too many people from L.A. moved here and imposed their whacked-out thinking and lifestyle on the laid-back Western ethos that Colorado used to be famous for.
I'm not sure it's possible to recover from being californicated, but, as a citizen of Colorado, I do hope so.
I think we should run ClimateChange@Home on every computer on the planet. Only then might we emit enough CO2 to make a tiny dent in the coming little ice age.
Hey dude! Climate change is the new name for "global warming" because the climate is changing in the cooling direction. See woodfortrees.org and play with some of those charts to see what's really happening. If the Sun doesn't get out of its current slump, we're going to be facing a little ice age.
Aren't you really happy Al Gore got that one wrong? Especially since thousands more will die by freezing that would ever have been affected by the old name for Climate Change, "global warming."
Considering that CO2 is the best plant food around, and that we're eating better and living better because there is more CO2 in the air, I say, "If you can afford it, turn on every console you have and leave them on as long as possible."
CO2 as pollution is so TwenCen. Get real. If the sun continues its current dormancy, we might have a little ice age coming up. And then we'll wish we had burned enough petroleum to have prevented the much more than 0.7 degrees Celsius cooling that will occur.
The entire country of China is one time zone. There is no daylight savings time in China.
Is it possible that having just one time zone that doesn't change is one of the reasons why China's economy is growing at 10% per year while Americans have to make do with 3% growth at the most (and currently, very likely negative growth)?
So which "natural cycle" is it? We've looked at the ones which have caused past climate change (e.g., solar variations, volcanoes, changes in ocean circulation), and ruled them out as the cause of the current warming.
Calling the hard evidence for global cooling a "straw man" while continuing to point at the soft evidence of an anthropogenic cause for climate change labels you an unscientific believer in the religion of Gaia.
Occam's razor suggests that natural climate forcings observed over thousands of years must be given more weight than the puny (and basically unmeasurable) contribution that humans have added to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during the current century.
He self-designates as an anarchist (often considered far-to-the-left) but I suspect many would call him a right-libertarian.
As for me, I grew up in several hyper-authoritarian countries (Marcos's Philippines, Lee's Singapore, Park's Korea) and saw the negative effects of such authoritarianism. A trip to Panmunjeom on the border between North and South Korea pushed me over the edge into libertarian thinking. Seeing farmers doing their harvesting being herded by uniformed men with guns left a permanent negative afterimage in my brain. Taking a look at the two Koreas from space at night continues to persuade me that authoritarian governments are bad for humanity.
I was not a geek then (I was an English major who was teaching English as a Second Language at the time) but became a geek later, partly because I saw ("Revenge of the Nerds") the revolutionary possibilities provided by technology. For example, a geek named Dee Hock revolutionized business and commerce by inventing the credit card, one of the tools of a society where individuals are empowered to control governments rather than vice-versa.
Slashdot Mirror
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” — Marx (Groucho)
Where does the federal government get the power to regulate *anything* that a person might put in their body?
They tried that once. It was called Prohibition, and was quickly repealed.
Current federal law regarding drugs of all sorts flies in the face of the repeal of Prohibition, and the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Yes, accurate facts are important, including the accurate fact of the irrelevance of CO2.
AC above who claims virus is speaking to the viral ideas in the file, not a computer virus.
Human vs. volcanic CO2 is an irrelevant red herring. See Tom V. Segelstadt's enlightening explanation why.
If you believe that the world is full of shitty people, you'll prove that to yourself every day.
So, as a non-shitty person, you're the type who wants to use the force and violence of government to make ugly that which some people consider beautiful. Wouldn't a better method be to just boycott any publication which had pictures of beautiful people in it? What would Ghandi do?
... appears to be spreading throughout French culture faster than the hini flu.
In a state where the government prevents you from pumping your own gas, this isn't a big surprise.
My understanding is that the carriers have all fixed this former problem and that software prevents any cellphone at any altitude from talking to more than one tower.
Capturing carbon dioxide is: 1. insanely expensive. 2. harmful to the planet, since CO2 is a necessary and required gas for all plant life. 3. harmful to humans since what the planet needs now is a little warming after the last ten years of cooler temperatures.
We may be heading for another little ice age and any even infinitesimally small warming help from C02 may prevent millions of human deaths.
Hmmm.... Here's a scientific organization that doesn't take money coerced from taxpayers, and it actually uses scientific evidence in its conclusions: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
And if that's not enough for you, how about a scientist, journalist, and educator who actually thinks that science should be based on evidence, not psychic prognostications of computer programs and scientific "consensus": Joanne Nova.
And yes, the "built-in bias" is billions of dollars of money coerced out of the pockets of impoverished taxpayers. When a "scientist's" job depends on continued political support, he'll ignore and distort data in order to produce the result his political handlers are looking for. Those political handlers want a result that allows them to control ever more of the world's economy to their own benefit and the impoverishment of everyone else.
When someone tells you that greenhouse gases "must be reduced" ask the following question: "What evidence is there that methane and CO2 control anything, let alone the temperature at the earth's surface?"
Until someone can come up with a measurable, falsifiable method for pointing directly at methane and CO2 as the drivers of the planet's temperature, it is insane to try to change our output of these gases
Instead of breeding cows that produce more milk, we invest money in attempting to reduce their very natural output of methane. Doing so will eventually bankrupt the West, allowing the East to triumph both culturally and economically.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is literally suicidal. If your ultimate concern is the reduction of greenhouse gases, please consider a large 10 gallon plastic bag over your head, with a good bit of duct tape to prevent your personal emissions from escaping. You will very quickly cease to "pollute" the atmosphere with that plant-vital gas, CO2.
You may also thereby contribute to the coming ice age, directly attributable to the current lack of sunspots.
Either your employer withholds tax and pays it for you, or the responsibility is on your head. (Well actually it's always on your head, ultimately) How is that difficult?
Actually, it's that gun to my head that worries me. Never forget that taxation is real force and real violence, and that the gun really is the source of all political power (paraphrasing Mao here). The difficulty happens when someone prefers to live their lives free of violence.
Colorado has finally become californicated. Too many people from L.A. moved here and imposed their whacked-out thinking and lifestyle on the laid-back Western ethos that Colorado used to be famous for.
I'm not sure it's possible to recover from being californicated, but, as a citizen of Colorado, I do hope so.
I think we should run ClimateChange@Home on every computer on the planet. Only then might we emit enough CO2 to make a tiny dent in the coming little ice age.
Hey dude! Climate change is the new name for "global warming" because the climate is changing in the cooling direction. See woodfortrees.org and play with some of those charts to see what's really happening. If the Sun doesn't get out of its current slump, we're going to be facing a little ice age.
Aren't you really happy Al Gore got that one wrong? Especially since thousands more will die by freezing that would ever have been affected by the old name for Climate Change, "global warming."
Considering that CO2 is the best plant food around, and that we're eating better and living better because there is more CO2 in the air, I say, "If you can afford it, turn on every console you have and leave them on as long as possible."
CO2 as pollution is so TwenCen. Get real. If the sun continues its current dormancy, we might have a little ice age coming up. And then we'll wish we had burned enough petroleum to have prevented the much more than 0.7 degrees Celsius cooling that will occur.
The entire country of China is one time zone. There is no daylight savings time in China.
Is it possible that having just one time zone that doesn't change is one of the reasons why China's economy is growing at 10% per year while Americans have to make do with 3% growth at the most (and currently, very likely negative growth)?
So which "natural cycle" is it? We've looked at the ones which have caused past climate change (e.g., solar variations, volcanoes, changes in ocean circulation), and ruled them out as the cause of the current warming.
Oh? Who, I ask, ruled them out? Wasn't it just a few coercively-financed scientists whose bread and butter depend on getting more government grants to "prove" that only government solutions can solve the computer-model-predicted crisis?
...we are ramping atmospheric CO2 up to levels not seen in millions of years...
On what evidence do you base this claim? There is hard evidence showing carbon dioxide concentrations are much lower now than in recent geological ages.
Global warming doesn't predict that every location on Earth gets monotonically hotter every year.
The theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't predict the current cooling since 1998.
Strawmen? Who's talking strawmen here?
The hard evidence for an anthropogenic (human) cause for the current warming (which has ceased since 1998 for this reason) is lacking.
Soft evidence, on the other hand, includes computer models of the infinitely complex (and thus un-modelable) climate system that have been tweaked to predict three times the observed "forcing" for the total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The human contribution to the total cannot even be accurately measured, but most evidence points to, at the outside, about 5% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide coming from human sources.
Calling the hard evidence for global cooling a "straw man" while continuing to point at the soft evidence of an anthropogenic cause for climate change labels you an unscientific believer in the religion of Gaia.
Occam's razor suggests that natural climate forcings observed over thousands of years must be given more weight than the puny (and basically unmeasurable) contribution that humans have added to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during the current century.
Hmmmm... Why not a parachute? (see bottom of features list)
One of the more vocal FOSS advocates defines libertarianism here.
He self-designates as an anarchist (often considered far-to-the-left) but I suspect many would call him a right-libertarian.
As for me, I grew up in several hyper-authoritarian countries (Marcos's Philippines, Lee's Singapore, Park's Korea) and saw the negative effects of such authoritarianism. A trip to Panmunjeom on the border between North and South Korea pushed me over the edge into libertarian thinking. Seeing farmers doing their harvesting being herded by uniformed men with guns left a permanent negative afterimage in my brain. Taking a look at the two Koreas from space at night continues to persuade me that authoritarian governments are bad for humanity.
I was not a geek then (I was an English major who was teaching English as a Second Language at the time) but became a geek later, partly because I saw ("Revenge of the Nerds") the revolutionary possibilities provided by technology. For example, a geek named Dee Hock revolutionized business and commerce by inventing the credit card, one of the tools of a society where individuals are empowered to control governments rather than vice-versa.
This has already been proposed, mostly as a joke more than ten years ago. The authorities have finally taken this proposal "seriously."
Actually, it's a more than ten years old joke. See the heading "A Modest Joke" about halfway through the piece.
Actually a more than ten years old joke. See the heading "A Modest Joke" about halfway into the piece.
Evidently someone is taking me seriously, about ten years late. See the heading "A Modest Joke" about halfway through this piece.