Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.
Be nice to BMG they are charging $20 for a $10 cd not $10,000 for a $5 science fiction novel.
For my money, the most amazing part of the "Getting Clear" documentary is that when Scientology got declared a religious organization, they managed to get Hubbard's fiction books declared as religious texts, therefore tax exempt.
And I've never been groped. Guess I'm not attractive enough.:-(
This was more or less what I was going to say. Damnit, I could've gotten the Score:5, Funny... DAMNIT!
Timing, I guess. Maybe if I did nothing but read/. all day, I could have been the first with this one... sadly I've got other, more important things to do. The mod point system really is a capricious bitch, isn't she?
Of course, we do have one noted case of an elected official being illegally detained (per Article I Section 6) by the TSA: http://www.politico.com/news/s...
So we can deduce from that and the article, that some TSA employee was overcome by his attraction to the curly hair and had Paul scanned as the alternate gender, in order to generate an anomaly in the crotchal region which would have to be thoroughly investigated. Ewww.
Every single GOP person I know were either anti-TSA from the beginning or turned anti-TSA when they were groping nuns and little children while waiving muslims in full Haaj regalia through (so as not to be accused of racism). It was only the big-government whacko GOPers in Washington who were big supporters of yet another centralized government agency. TSA should NEVER have been created; In a true free-market system, American Airlines and Boeing would have been sued into the dirt after 9-11 for allowing their planes to be used as weapons - The taxpayers were the injured party, NOT the irresponsible airlines who got a multi-billion dollar bail-out. By making TSA governmental, it was guaranteed to be political (and therefore politically-correct) by virtue of being controlled by gutless politicians. Had the airlines been forced to be accountable, they'd each be forced to come up with their own programs to produce ACTUAL safety.
The TSA is NOT about security at all; it's "Security Theater". The agency exists to simultaneously fool the public into thinking they are safe, shift blame for any future failures off of the giant corporations who build and operate the planes (and bribe, errr contribut to the campaigns of, politicians) and bulk-up the number of unionized government employees who will vote Democrat in all elections. Note: When the Bush admin pushed to create the TSA they wanted it no be non-government, but the Democrats wanted it to be governmental - they compromised Bush agreed to make it government and Senate Leader Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) agreed it could never unionize. As soon as Obama became President, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama Unionized the TSA. Yet another reason so many GOP-ers do not trust any deals with Democrats.
Realistically, do you think "muslims in full Haaj regalia" are the risk for terrorism or airport security now? Have they seized any airplanes, despite being "waved through (so as not to be accused of racism)"? Were the 9/11 perpetrators "muslims in full Haaj regalia" ? The guys who planted the bomb at the Boston Marathon? Do you really think the enemy hasn't figured out the advantages of looking innocent?
There's a difference between looking racist and looking dumb, but it is possible to do both at once.
I'll not go into the fantasy of suing the airlines as a free market remedy,
Yes, that distinction is everything. I think America would benefit hugely from an actual conservative party - in fact, it may be the only thing that can save us from some serious problems we face. I don't know that I'd necessarily vote for such a party - maybe. But we'd be having the right debates, and issues like this and Net Neutrality might actually get some airtime on the actual issues and content of the law, instead of everything being about earmarks and favors owed.
The thing is, we do have three parties; the Democrats, the Republicans, and the South.
And, just like with the zillion party systems in places like Israel or Italy, the power resides with the small fanatical parties, who tip the balance by selling their support to one of the bigger parties in exchange for getting their particular crazy agenda enacted. In this case, that being the "South" party, having gotten over their hundred year long grudge against the Republicans just in time to start another hundred year grudge against the Democrats for passing the Civil Rights bill.
Issue all passengers knives. It just isn't very safe to fire a gun inside an airliner for any reason. Terrorists could just try to provoke a shooting match. But if every passenger had a knife, it would be very hard for a terrorist with a gun to do anything without getting mob stabbed.
This is America; passengers will kill you with their bare hands. And have done so. And that was BEFORE 9/11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
You do realise you're just telling everyone you are massively insecure with your sexuality, right?
It has nothing to do with insecurity, I"m quite happy with my heterosexuality. And frankly I don't care what consenting adults do on their own behind closed doors.
But if a homosexual makes a pass at me or gropes me, I have no problem decking them. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You can do what you want to do amongst yourselves, but leave me out of it. Period.
Was that really the goal of the "SJW" group? This quote from TFA is spot-on:
Wherever they emerge, social-justice warriors claim to be champions of diversity. But they always reveal themselves to be relentlessly hostile to it: they applaud people of different genders, races, and cultures just so long as those people all think the same way. Theirs is a diversity of the trivial; a diversity of skin-deep, ephemeral affiliations.
SJW of all stripes have one thing in common: a relentless drive for conformist groupthink on the issues they fight for. Few people are as scary and dangerous as the ones who are convinced that theirs is a righteous battle, and are prepared to fight it, whether their belief flows from religion or from ideals. And what appears to make the SJW crowd more belligerent is the fact that often they are right, in that there are still plenty of inequities and social injustices. Compared to other "noisy" groups like extreme right wingers, these are the noisiest, most exclusionary, and indeed most violent. And the really scary part is that because the issues they attack are real, this mindset is percolating into the mainstream. Writers being excluded from an association or from an award because they have the wrong ideas. Or in my home country, where no one so much as blinked when a school official stated that "if you have the wrong ideas or are a member of the wrong political party, perhaps you shouldn't be a student or a teacher here". Remember Churchill: "The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists".
You seem like a reasonable, open minded person, but you have to learn not to believe anything rightwingers tell you without checking the primary source: which in this case does not exist, in that Churchill apparently never said that, at least anywhere where it could be recorded, written down, or heard by enough people to remember it. Particularly ironic when you're talking about how groupthink based on belief is the province of lefties. A version of that quote, which maligns "Americanism" rather than antifascism, was stated by the Rev. Dr. Halford Luccock of Yale in a rather fiery antifascist sermon on 11 September 1938, as reported in the New York Times (a pdf is visible without a paywall at http://standuptohate.blogspot....). If you want to see what Churchill actually said about fascism, it was "What a man! I have lost my heart! If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism. Your movement has rendered a service to the whole world.", to Mussolini in 1927. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/F...
The definition if a metal is a 'heavy' metal is a chemical one, not a physical one, so yes, copper and for that part, if you did not know it, aluminium are heavy metals and in the wrong dosage as poisoning as lead or mercury (which are physically more dense/heavy).
It's a pretty loose definition. Essentially, a heavy metal is whatever causes heavy metal poisoning in any given situation. Which can include as light as alumin(i)um; probably anything heavier than sodium could qualify. Sodium in excess has its own problems with biological processes, but we don't count it as heavy metal poisoning, it's more ionic and less just binding to stuff.
The thing is, that salve was intended for external use only
Luckily for doctors, MRSA is often a skin infection. So, even if this turns out to be "topical use only," maybe you put something like this on the wound site where the infection started, and you dose the patient with Vancomycin or other high-potency antibiotics to knock down anything internal - this might be a faster, more complete, and less detrimental regimen to use for a lot of people who end up with MRSA infections.
Heavy doses of vancomycin can fuck you up big time too, probably more so than a short, high dose of copper would; And it's possible that exposure to BOTH harmful compounds could be minimized by using them in a 'cocktail' form.
As far as being a new class of drugs - stranger things have happened. Allicin in garlic has also been found to have some antimicrobial properties, so it's entirely possible that there's some sort of interaction between the the many, many compounds undoubtedly in this brew, that intensify each other's effects, as well. And, to the original point - you don't have to chew willow bark to get the medicine from it anymore, we've learned how to synthesize a very pure and readily bio-available form of the active ingredient -- more research may find a way to combine the best parts of these treatments without needing you to coat your body in copper, leeks, garlic, bile, and wine anymore. Just because this is a primitive form, there's no reason to think we can't isolate and improve on the active ingredient(s) just as we have with literally every other medicine known to man.
The article says that none of the ingredients work in isolation. Since, as you say, they are individually somewhat antibacterial, it's likely that part of the potency of the mix comes from combining antibiotics with different modes of action; if the target tries to avoid the action of antibacterial component X, it runs smack into compound Y. And vice versa.(bile salts are a detergent, and would attack cell membranes, btw, in addition to the alcohol, copper, allicin effects) Sounds like the ancient who came up with this mix was reasonably sophisticated.
One problem with such natural remedies is standardization. As the article says, a prior try at the same mixture ended with a malodorous slime. That's one reason for standardized pharmaceuticals built up from isolating the active ingredients in these kinds of things and putting them together in a controlled manner. Along with, of course, the fact that such compounds can indeed be patented.
"Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?" - Brian Kernighan
90% of debugging is finding the missing semicolon. if i've written something unusual, i've in all probability examined it thoroughly when i designed it.
All of these estimates are based on elaborate math models, yet the Earth's long term climate ON ITS OWN, has swung widely over recorded history.
Natural swings have occurred, but they all have their causes, and scientists run the same models on historic climate events to verify their understanding. Your use of "yet" suggests a contradiction that isn't there.
You're too kind. Their argument is that since forest fires can start naturally and devastate towns in California, etc., therefore there is no argument against tossing lit matches into piles of dried leaves and twigs in high risk areas during dry seasons.
Conservatives need to come to the table with solutions
You need problems first in order to have solutions. For example, this article is about how 1.5 C rise in temperature is supposed to be bad with all sorts of "negative impacts", but there's no actual evidence for the claim. Providing solutions to non-problems doesn't help anyone.
Nor do we have a sane plan for keeping temperature rise below 1.5 C. Note that you won't get the US, China, Russia, or OPEC on board.
Already:-
world temp has risen 0.7C over past 10 years
we have lost permafrost that has led to the draining of 10,000 lakes worldwide
each year an extra 10,000 sq km of ocean is created from melting arctic ice sheet
in Sept 2005 an area of the arctic ice sheet the size of Alaska vanished.
In 2004 the first ever hurricane in Brazil in the southern hemisphere, Hurrcane Vince landed in Huelve, Spain, the first tropical cyclone ever
recorded in Europe. http://books.google.com/books/...
"There is medium confidence that ~20–30% of known plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 C to 2.5 C over 1980–1999...
increases in drought, heat waves, and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency, and flood risks (starting at less than 1 C of additional warming above 1990 levels) and adverse health effects (slightly above 1 C)...
climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding after a further 2 C warming from 1990 levels; reductions in water supplies (0.4 to 1.7 billion people affected with less than a 1 C warming from 1990 levels); and increased health impacts (that are already being observed" http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html
Conservatives need to come to the table with solutions
You need problems first in order to have solutions. For example, this article is about how 1.5 C rise in temperature is supposed to be bad with all sorts of "negative impacts", but there's no actual evidence for the claim. Providing solutions to non-problems doesn't help anyone.
Nor do we have a sane plan for keeping temperature rise below 1.5 C. Note that you won't get the US, China, Russia, or OPEC on board.
Absolutely. Until we can produce a case of a planet where the temperature rose 1.5 degrees and civilization got into trouble, then there is absolutely no reason to just go for it and see. What ever happened to scientific curiosity? Doesn't anybody want to know what will happen if we heat up the planet?
Considering that Milankovitch cycles show the earth's recent temperature swings are significantly more than 1.5 degrees WITHOUT impact from man, this seems a bit nutty. Global climate change has been happening for a long time before man started burning fossil fuels. Sure it sucks for some, but then again, it will be sweet for some people who get benefits from such a change. Life goes on, just like it has in the past ice ages, despite 1000 metre thick glaciers covering much of Europe and N. America.
Earth is not a static closed system folks... It changes shitloads more all by itself then any amount attributed to by even the most generous of climate analysts. Get used to it. Buy a vineyard in England.
Yeah, everybody dies, so what the heck, why not have a few billion do it in pretty quick order and get on with things. Good call.
A bigger question is whether or not man should attempt to interfere with the naturally changing climate of the Earth. Any scientist will tell you that Earth's temperature is constantly changing, and has changed radically and quickly in the past. By what right do a group of tinkerers have the right to stop the naturally changing climate of the entire planet and shift it to their benefit?
When you are about to be eaten by a bear, I'll remind you that mankind has no right to shift natural processes to their benefit.
I commend your philosophical observation, however, that the actions of mankind returning the vast quantities of fossilized carbon laid down by plants in the carboniferous era to the atmosphere is a natural process by which the metastable human-favorable climate of the past few epochs returns to the earth's natural stable state of hot, humid, and stormy, and humanity is just the natural exploiter of this niche, temporarily.
if a woman walks butt naked into a cell block full of hardened convicts...
The phrase is "buck naked." The analogy is to the male deer, a woodland creature not known for wearing clothes. Also, please learn how to use the shift key on your keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.
Be nice to BMG they are charging $20 for a $10 cd not $10,000 for a $5 science fiction novel.
For my money, the most amazing part of the "Getting Clear" documentary is that when Scientology got declared a religious organization, they managed to get Hubbard's fiction books declared as religious texts, therefore tax exempt.
Who appointed you the Godwin Nazi?
lol. Is that a first?
Got win.
Well in many ways, Scientology is like Nazism.
There, NOW we have gone full godwin.
Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. Tom Cruise starred in Valkyrie as a Nazi officer. QED.
And I've never been groped. Guess I'm not attractive enough. :-(
This was more or less what I was going to say. Damnit, I could've gotten the Score:5, Funny... DAMNIT!
Timing, I guess. Maybe if I did nothing but read /. all day, I could have been the first with this one... sadly I've got other, more important things to do. The mod point system really is a capricious bitch, isn't she?
Lazy and perfectionist. That's my curse too.
TSA Pre Check allows members of both parties to skip on by quite easily: https://tsatoday.wordpress.com...
Of course, we do have one noted case of an elected official being illegally detained (per Article I Section 6) by the TSA: http://www.politico.com/news/s...
So we can deduce from that and the article, that some TSA employee was overcome by his attraction to the curly hair and had Paul scanned as the alternate gender, in order to generate an anomaly in the crotchal region which would have to be thoroughly investigated. Ewww.
Every single GOP person I know were either anti-TSA from the beginning or turned anti-TSA when they were groping nuns and little children while waiving muslims in full Haaj regalia through (so as not to be accused of racism). It was only the big-government whacko GOPers in Washington who were big supporters of yet another centralized government agency. TSA should NEVER have been created; In a true free-market system, American Airlines and Boeing would have been sued into the dirt after 9-11 for allowing their planes to be used as weapons - The taxpayers were the injured party, NOT the irresponsible airlines who got a multi-billion dollar bail-out. By making TSA governmental, it was guaranteed to be political (and therefore politically-correct) by virtue of being controlled by gutless politicians. Had the airlines been forced to be accountable, they'd each be forced to come up with their own programs to produce ACTUAL safety.
The TSA is NOT about security at all; it's "Security Theater". The agency exists to simultaneously fool the public into thinking they are safe, shift blame for any future failures off of the giant corporations who build and operate the planes (and bribe, errr contribut to the campaigns of, politicians) and bulk-up the number of unionized government employees who will vote Democrat in all elections. Note: When the Bush admin pushed to create the TSA they wanted it no be non-government, but the Democrats wanted it to be governmental - they compromised Bush agreed to make it government and Senate Leader Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) agreed it could never unionize. As soon as Obama became President, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama Unionized the TSA. Yet another reason so many GOP-ers do not trust any deals with Democrats.
Realistically, do you think "muslims in full Haaj regalia" are the risk for terrorism or airport security now? Have they seized any airplanes, despite being "waved through (so as not to be accused of racism)"? Were the 9/11 perpetrators "muslims in full Haaj regalia" ? The guys who planted the bomb at the Boston Marathon? Do you really think the enemy hasn't figured out the advantages of looking innocent?
There's a difference between looking racist and looking dumb, but it is possible to do both at once.
I'll not go into the fantasy of suing the airlines as a free market remedy,
Yes, that distinction is everything. I think America would benefit hugely from an actual conservative party - in fact, it may be the only thing that can save us from some serious problems we face. I don't know that I'd necessarily vote for such a party - maybe. But we'd be having the right debates, and issues like this and Net Neutrality might actually get some airtime on the actual issues and content of the law, instead of everything being about earmarks and favors owed.
The thing is, we do have three parties; the Democrats, the Republicans, and the South. And, just like with the zillion party systems in places like Israel or Italy, the power resides with the small fanatical parties, who tip the balance by selling their support to one of the bigger parties in exchange for getting their particular crazy agenda enacted. In this case, that being the "South" party, having gotten over their hundred year long grudge against the Republicans just in time to start another hundred year grudge against the Democrats for passing the Civil Rights bill.
Issue all passengers knives. It just isn't very safe to fire a gun inside an airliner for any reason. Terrorists could just try to provoke a shooting match. But if every passenger had a knife, it would be very hard for a terrorist with a gun to do anything without getting mob stabbed.
This is America; passengers will kill you with their bare hands. And have done so. And that was BEFORE 9/11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That's why the next step in flying will be anesthetizing the passengers so they can be thoroughly examined and there is no risk of trouble midair.
It has nothing to do with insecurity, I"m quite happy with my heterosexuality. And frankly I don't care what consenting adults do on their own behind closed doors.
But if a homosexual makes a pass at me or gropes me, I have no problem decking them. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You can do what you want to do amongst yourselves, but leave me out of it. Period.
Does this happen to you a lot?
You do realise you're just telling everyone you are massively insecure with your sexuality, right?
As long as it's massive,
I remember the days when all you had to do was take a wide stance in the airport bathroom and your congressman would do it for you,
Was that really the goal of the "SJW" group? This quote from TFA is spot-on:
Wherever they emerge, social-justice warriors claim to be champions of diversity. But they always reveal themselves to be relentlessly hostile to it: they applaud people of different genders, races, and cultures just so long as those people all think the same way. Theirs is a diversity of the trivial; a diversity of skin-deep, ephemeral affiliations.
SJW of all stripes have one thing in common: a relentless drive for conformist groupthink on the issues they fight for. Few people are as scary and dangerous as the ones who are convinced that theirs is a righteous battle, and are prepared to fight it, whether their belief flows from religion or from ideals. And what appears to make the SJW crowd more belligerent is the fact that often they are right, in that there are still plenty of inequities and social injustices. Compared to other "noisy" groups like extreme right wingers, these are the noisiest, most exclusionary, and indeed most violent. And the really scary part is that because the issues they attack are real, this mindset is percolating into the mainstream. Writers being excluded from an association or from an award because they have the wrong ideas. Or in my home country, where no one so much as blinked when a school official stated that "if you have the wrong ideas or are a member of the wrong political party, perhaps you shouldn't be a student or a teacher here". Remember Churchill: "The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists".
You seem like a reasonable, open minded person, but you have to learn not to believe anything rightwingers tell you without checking the primary source: which in this case does not exist, in that Churchill apparently never said that, at least anywhere where it could be recorded, written down, or heard by enough people to remember it. Particularly ironic when you're talking about how groupthink based on belief is the province of lefties.
A version of that quote, which maligns "Americanism" rather than antifascism, was stated by the Rev. Dr. Halford Luccock of Yale in a rather fiery antifascist sermon on 11 September 1938, as reported in the New York Times (a pdf is visible without a paywall at http://standuptohate.blogspot....).
If you want to see what Churchill actually said about fascism, it was "What a man! I have lost my heart! If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism. Your movement has rendered a service to the whole world.", to Mussolini in 1927. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/F...
The definition if a metal is a 'heavy' metal is a chemical one, not a physical one, so yes, copper and for that part, if you did not know it, aluminium are heavy metals and in the wrong dosage as poisoning as lead or mercury (which are physically more dense/heavy).
It's a pretty loose definition. Essentially, a heavy metal is whatever causes heavy metal poisoning in any given situation. Which can include as light as alumin(i)um; probably anything heavier than sodium could qualify. Sodium in excess has its own problems with biological processes, but we don't count it as heavy metal poisoning, it's more ionic and less just binding to stuff.
Luckily for doctors, MRSA is often a skin infection. So, even if this turns out to be "topical use only," maybe you put something like this on the wound site where the infection started, and you dose the patient with Vancomycin or other high-potency antibiotics to knock down anything internal - this might be a faster, more complete, and less detrimental regimen to use for a lot of people who end up with MRSA infections.
Heavy doses of vancomycin can fuck you up big time too, probably more so than a short, high dose of copper would; And it's possible that exposure to BOTH harmful compounds could be minimized by using them in a 'cocktail' form.
As far as being a new class of drugs - stranger things have happened. Allicin in garlic has also been found to have some antimicrobial properties, so it's entirely possible that there's some sort of interaction between the the many, many compounds undoubtedly in this brew, that intensify each other's effects, as well. And, to the original point - you don't have to chew willow bark to get the medicine from it anymore, we've learned how to synthesize a very pure and readily bio-available form of the active ingredient -- more research may find a way to combine the best parts of these treatments without needing you to coat your body in copper, leeks, garlic, bile, and wine anymore. Just because this is a primitive form, there's no reason to think we can't isolate and improve on the active ingredient(s) just as we have with literally every other medicine known to man.
The article says that none of the ingredients work in isolation. Since, as you say, they are individually somewhat antibacterial, it's likely that part of the potency of the mix comes from combining antibiotics with different modes of action; if the target tries to avoid the action of antibacterial component X, it runs smack into compound Y. And vice versa.(bile salts are a detergent, and would attack cell membranes, btw, in addition to the alcohol, copper, allicin effects) Sounds like the ancient who came up with this mix was reasonably sophisticated.
One problem with such natural remedies is standardization. As the article says, a prior try at the same mixture ended with a malodorous slime. That's one reason for standardized pharmaceuticals built up from isolating the active ingredients in these kinds of things and putting them together in a controlled manner. Along with, of course, the fact that such compounds can indeed be patented.
"The Infectious Disease Society of America"
Like the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants?
I've actually used a goto where it wasn't harmful, but was in fact the simplest and clearest way to get from point a to point b.
"Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?" - Brian Kernighan
90% of debugging is finding the missing semicolon. if i've written something unusual, i've in all probability examined it thoroughly when i designed it.
"So what? Most of this stuff would have happened anyway."
Now you tell us. What other secrets are you hiding?
All of these estimates are based on elaborate math models, yet the Earth's long term climate ON ITS OWN, has swung widely over recorded history.
Natural swings have occurred, but they all have their causes, and scientists run the same models on historic climate events to verify their understanding. Your use of "yet" suggests a contradiction that isn't there.
You're too kind. Their argument is that since forest fires can start naturally and devastate towns in California, etc., therefore there is no argument against tossing lit matches into piles of dried leaves and twigs in high risk areas during dry seasons.
Conservatives need to come to the table with solutions
You need problems first in order to have solutions. For example, this article is about how 1.5 C rise in temperature is supposed to be bad with all sorts of "negative impacts", but there's no actual evidence for the claim. Providing solutions to non-problems doesn't help anyone. Nor do we have a sane plan for keeping temperature rise below 1.5 C. Note that you won't get the US, China, Russia, or OPEC on board.
Already:-
world temp has risen 0.7C over past 10 years
we have lost permafrost that has led to the draining of 10,000 lakes worldwide
each year an extra 10,000 sq km of ocean is created from melting arctic ice sheet
in Sept 2005 an area of the arctic ice sheet the size of Alaska vanished.
In 2004 the first ever hurricane in Brazil in the southern hemisphere,
Hurrcane Vince landed in Huelve, Spain, the first tropical cyclone ever recorded in Europe.
http://books.google.com/books/...
"There is medium confidence that ~20–30% of known plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 C to 2.5 C over 1980–1999... increases in drought, heat waves, and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency, and flood risks (starting at less than 1 C of additional warming above 1990 levels) and adverse health effects (slightly above 1 C)... climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding after a further 2 C warming from 1990 levels; reductions in water supplies (0.4 to 1.7 billion people affected with less than a 1 C warming from 1990 levels); and increased health impacts (that are already being observed"
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html
Conservatives need to come to the table with solutions
You need problems first in order to have solutions. For example, this article is about how 1.5 C rise in temperature is supposed to be bad with all sorts of "negative impacts", but there's no actual evidence for the claim. Providing solutions to non-problems doesn't help anyone. Nor do we have a sane plan for keeping temperature rise below 1.5 C. Note that you won't get the US, China, Russia, or OPEC on board.
Absolutely. Until we can produce a case of a planet where the temperature rose 1.5 degrees and civilization got into trouble, then there is absolutely no reason to just go for it and see. What ever happened to scientific curiosity? Doesn't anybody want to know what will happen if we heat up the planet?
Considering that Milankovitch cycles show the earth's recent temperature swings are significantly more than 1.5 degrees WITHOUT impact from man, this seems a bit nutty. Global climate change has been happening for a long time before man started burning fossil fuels. Sure it sucks for some, but then again, it will be sweet for some people who get benefits from such a change. Life goes on, just like it has in the past ice ages, despite 1000 metre thick glaciers covering much of Europe and N. America.
Earth is not a static closed system folks... It changes shitloads more all by itself then any amount attributed to by even the most generous of climate analysts. Get used to it. Buy a vineyard in England.
Yeah, everybody dies, so what the heck, why not have a few billion do it in pretty quick order and get on with things. Good call.
A bigger question is whether or not man should attempt to interfere with the naturally changing climate of the Earth. Any scientist will tell you that Earth's temperature is constantly changing, and has changed radically and quickly in the past. By what right do a group of tinkerers have the right to stop the naturally changing climate of the entire planet and shift it to their benefit?
When you are about to be eaten by a bear, I'll remind you that mankind has no right to shift natural processes to their benefit. I commend your philosophical observation, however, that the actions of mankind returning the vast quantities of fossilized carbon laid down by plants in the carboniferous era to the atmosphere is a natural process by which the metastable human-favorable climate of the past few epochs returns to the earth's natural stable state of hot, humid, and stormy, and humanity is just the natural exploiter of this niche, temporarily.
if a woman walks butt naked into a cell block full of hardened convicts...
The phrase is "buck naked." The analogy is to the male deer, a woodland creature not known for wearing clothes. Also, please learn how to use the shift key on your keyboard.
http://www.rhapsody.com/artist...