Does productivity count if you're offshoring and outsourcing everything and not growing your job/revenue/tax base (by also allow those offshore/inverted operations to avoid paying taxes) ?
Sounds like eating your seed corn to me.
It's the Job Creators creating Jobs.
They just forgot to tell you where those jobs were going to be. Oopsies!
If you're less productive then it means your costs are invariably higher than somebody else, including other countries with even higher cost of labor. That means you're going to have a harder time competing on product pricing. It also means that in the event of a labor shortage, your aggregate product output will be markedly reduced compared to your competitors, and the only way to improve is to improve productivity.
How exactly are FAX machines making your costs higher?
I had not, but I clicked and skimmed it just now since you have been such a good sport. I still don't understand how big oil's opinion, what they have done or lied about, is the least bit relevant. I've always assumed that everything they have to say on this subject is a lie, and furthermore, are they not allowed to lie? Yes, make no mistake. There is no law that requires you to tell the truth unless you are found to have committed perjury.
Kinda ruins a group's credibility, and shows they as willing to undertake profit over all.
Quote>
"Bad decisions, and not likely made by an engineer."
No. Made by Liberal and Democrat politicians mostly
O geesh, so now the liberals and democrats are responsible for decisions in Chernobyl, and especially Fukushima.
My point is that especially with Fukushima, it was going to happen, and the evidence was there for them to see, whether it was from reports in the historical record, or walking up to hillsides where the pebble rubble lines from Previous Tsunami were.
You're really much too worried about "Democrats" and the mythical "liberals". It colors all of your viewpoints to the extent thay instead of paying close attention to what I wrote, you jump at the chance to blame your enemy.
As for th eUS situation, where Democrats and liberals might come into play, we have for nuclear accidents, the more noteable ones being of Simi Valley California, the SL-1 reactor accident in Idaho, and Three Mile Island. Let's ignore wartime stuff like Slotnik and the demon core
We probably just wern't technologically ready to run a sodium cooled reactor for any length of time. I see no Liberal Democrat meddling here.
Now the SL-1 reactor did involve fatalities. It was another experimental reactor that was designed to provide power for DEWLine and other remote sites.
Another case of a reactor that wasn't quite ready for prime time - mainly a bad control rod design
The one that most know is of course Three Mile Island, which, while not a stroll in the park, pretty much shut down with no loss of life. The emergency systems did work, but the main takeaway was the need for safer reactors.
To wit, I see none of the nefariaous liberal boogymen in the works for any of them.
If that was truly the case, then there was no point in trying to stop him... Somehow, he scared the Democrats' brass.
Oh, that's just like the folks saying that Democrats were scared of Sarah Palin. I'm no Democrat, but wasn't anyone afraid of her, we just liked to have her around to laugh at.
You can't let everyone in on national debates, it just isn't practical. Even the present day overstaffed Republican debates are plain weird - at one time they were pretty funny to watch, now it just seems like people bragging about how long they've cheated on not taking their Thorazine. I suspect those will change as well - probably held in secret, as they are starting to ban networks. Hint - if you won't use Fox News any more, maybe the problem is with you.
Draconic, fascist Windows 10 comes out and Microsoft proceeds to try to force it down everyone's throat, and out of left field comes, after what seems like a geologic age, a new version of OS/2. Wow. Not sure what to think of that timing.
This was prophesised in Revelations.
Lo, and the huge and evil beast with 10 horns was smote by the small usurper, bent over twice in rebirth, and cast out of the heavens into the fiery pit.
Yea and verily, not until this comes to pass shall the chip be righted, and a thousand years of peace come to pass.
I usually find it amusing that the same people who are "rah rah military" and think the US has the best, most advanced, most competent, most kick-ass military on the planet are the same people think that the US government couldn't possibly be doing anything right.
You notice that too? Ironically these are the same people who for the last 15 or so years have been doing everything they can do to keep government from doing it's job.
If you were reading about lawsuits in the 60s, then you're a bit older than me. But not much.
Well, the problem for you is that as a political animal, you have no intention of changing your mind. So for you, the science is settled, so your uncertainties continue unabated.
but I'll ask once more, did you read my link provided that the oil companies knew that there was a definite link, between warming and the amount of CO2 that humans put in the atmosphere, and lied about it? Memos and all kinds of cool stuff, admitting it internally, then saying the opposite in public
A yes or no, or just ignore it again and I'll know you have no intention of reading it.
Good for you, your political wisdom keeps you out of the minefields of truth. Makes you a UI but there's room for UI's in that little tent, as long as you're useful to the cause.
So I'll abandon that to the unconvinceable, and move on to another comment of your's
BTW, do you think nuclear power can be un-invented? Is that science too scary?
I love nuclear power. It's problem is that the decisions for power plants are left too much in the control of Accountants and CEO's.
A plant can be made pretty safe - its mainly ensuring an effective way of keeping the immense concentrated energy in it's little bottle to do the trick, and to deal with the hard radiation effects on materials in a safe manner. Also to put them in the right place. After the Fukushima plant, I did research on how the disaster could have been avoided, and was completely shocked that given the location of the emergency generators, coupled with both the historical record andthe geoligical record. the destruction was not a remote possibility, but a certain fact, unless plate tectonics suddenly stopped. The plant was doomed, because there were multiple tsunamis that would have breaced the walls in the past. Mapping out a place, there were riverside locations inland, and above the historical tsunami levels that would have been much safer, for people as well as the plant itself. Salt water really isn't a good thing to have around reactors.
But somehow all that easily obtained evidence was ignored. Bad decisions, and not likely made by an engineer.
As well, the present day paradigm of immense plants is a bad one, both from a safety point of view, and a strategic defense one as well. Smaller and more plants with as much passive sefety mechanisms as possible , and situated in intelligent places is the pathway to success for nuc power. Yeah, I know the argument. - I get it from my NucE friends all the time.
But until most of it's proponents change their attitude that everyone else is too damn stupid to understand that nuc power is the best thing since multiple orgasms and drop the condescending attitude they have, you're going to fight an uphill battle.
They aren't stupid. The see Chernobyl and Fukushima, and are told its no big deal by the zealots, complete with many excuses for why all teh others are safe.
Anyhow, Unless you want to discuss the content of the evidence that the Oil companies knew, but lied about AGW, we might as well end this conversation.
I've been in a variety of natural disaster type things and even in a few countries with active wars taking place. This sort of movie script breakdown of society is, pretty much, the exact opposite of what I have personally witnessed.
The version of societal breakdown they have is one that they actually want to happen, as opposed to what actually happens.
If the prepper's wishes were what actually would happen, immediately after Germany's surrender as well as after Japan's surrender in world war 2, the populous would just have taken up a new war against the allies, and then themselves. That had to be as close to a total breakdown as ever happened in modern times.
In the end, people do tend to help each other in disasters, and make no mistake about it, I'm a cynical shit who thinks our propensity towards killing each other may cause our extinction.
But the preppers? Too bad it was from a movie and not a real life quote, but for my money, Michale Cain had the single best line in history. And it describes the preppers so well:
....some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
Heh. Big tobacco eh? Really? I think someday you'll be ashamed of that one.
Huh? I don't know how old you are, but the Tobacco industry emplyed remarkably similat tactics to sow doubt that the tobacco did not cause cancer. Oddly enough, I had a book from the 1870's that called out all the ill effects of tobacco use. I remember listening and reading back in the 60's when the industry was successfully repelling lawsuits, and it eventually became bizarro world where they claimed that other vectors caused the plaintiff's cancer, but the plaintiff assumed all responsibilitty for the cancer whne they started smoking.
So now the big petrol players adopt the same tactics.
From the Climate deception dossiers:
internal memo from the Brown and Williamson tobacco company
put it:
“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public” (B&W 1969)
From a 1998 American Petroleum Institute Memo:
Victory will be acheived when
Average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science;recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the conventional wisdom
Media "understands (recognizes Uncertainties in climate science.
Uncertainties does not equal doubt?
Their own scientists admitted that AGW was undeniable I'll let you look that up in my links if you don't mind reading some. Beware, it is an intrusion on the bubble.
If you don't see the similarities, the you're willfully ignoring them.
Did you even read the links? How about a discussion of that? Are the links lying?
"The Left was wrong about that one. Hell, they might be right about this one. If that turns out to be the case, then it's a shame they cried wolf so many times.
I should have figured your objection was politically based. Politics knows no laws of physics, so start working on holding a national vote to determine if Global warming exists or not.
Is that how it works now? If you don't agree or like something that others do, then you are a denialist?
Not disagreement, Denial. Denial is refusing to accept basic laws of physics. DEnial is believing that th eCO2 that humans put in the atmosphere has no effect, and willful ignorance of the fact that the CO2 greenhouse effect had better exist, or we wouldn't exist, and if it didn't, what is keeping the world warm enough to support life? Denial is believing that vaccines cause autism, long after it has been proven that the esearch was faulty, actually fraudulent, and done by a researcher, now disgraced and in conjunction with a lawyer in a moneymaking scheme, and after the smoking gun of the preservative "cause" of the autism has been removed with no difference and that all the denialists have done was destroyed herd immunity and killed some of their children. Denial is to believe that the world was created in October 4004 b.c.e long after the laws of physics have shown that it takes weird imaginary things like the speed of light being variable, and other kooky physics nonsense.
And denial is that Electrical vehicles are a failure as more manufacturers are bringing them out, that they are achieving greater range, and that people are buzzing around in them quite happily, and love their EV cars. And denial is using decade old metrics to convince yourself of that.
Regular disagreements that don't involve willful ignoring of facts? Not denial at all, but a difference of opinion.
100% grade A baloney. This entire post is a radical survivalist's fantasy of what they think should have happened after a national-scale natural disaster, and bears no resemblance to what actually did happen.
Yup. The prepper group is always projecting their lack of civilization onto others. But time and time again it's been proven that people don't act the way he thinks they will when the shit hits the fan.
Mad Max was a fun film and all, but it wasn't a documentary or a how-to.
Many of the people who this is designed to protect in the end won't like it.
I've been around the ziggurat a few times, and unless things have changed in the last few days, it takes at least two willing participants to have a kerfuffle. And since this CoC is designed to protect victims, it will remove the professional victim's raison d'être.
And in a world where some people believe that disagreeing with them is harassment, or the never clever "microagression", what we have here is what will end up being bullying in reverse.
The most sensitive and brittle and possibly even incompetent will become the leaders by reverse bullying for a short time, then it all falls apart. Because those selfsame people will make the decisions. And if you have a person serving as moderator, anyone the moderator makes a decision against will have defacto evidence the moderator was violating the code of conduct.
I'll take a Linus Torvalds any day over this kind of namby-pamby weirdness.
On the other hand, the sea rise from the current warming trend will leave much of the coastline (where many people live) uninhabitable.
At about 3mm / year, we're looking at a foot per century, or a meter per millennium. That's easy to adapt to..
Umm, no. Your simple version of sea level rise is really good, as long as you don't take into account just how low much of the coastline is. That and tides. That and storms. That and the fact that rise and sometimes fall are not always the same everywhere - in some areas, land is rising as it rebounds from the last ice age. So new land is being created at the shoreline.
Even so the rise is not consistent per year. Hell, in 2010, the ocean levels dropped due to a combination of conditions:
Furthermore, taking current topographical maps and combining them with sea level rise data is bullshit anyway; most coasts are sedimentary, not rocky.
While I don't have the data on most coasts, that would be much worse than a rocky coast. As inevitable storms especially when combined with king tides, low barometric pressure and wind, can take that small yearly difference, and amplify the bejabbers out of it.
What's the odds of that happening?
Ask the peeps in New Jersey and New York City about Hurricane Sandy.
It is probably in our best interests that the climates we live in are compatible with us.
Well, then global warming should be good news,
And for some, after adjustment, it will be good news. For others? a catastrophe. This is the part that so many do not get. Canada so far has had an extension of the term between killing frosts, so the frost free season is lengthening. - also the Western US.
Here is some interesting US data.
Then again, some places might not be so fortunate. Some may even become colder. As the Greenland ice melts, the Weather in England might get a little frosty. This might happen if the gulf stream gets interrupted by the cold fresh water influx from Greenland.
At present in Ireland, they grow cabbage palm at the same latitude as Newfoundland - the warming effects of the gulf stream are so dominant, all may go away.
I always like to put discussions in the manner in which others can relate. Strategically, is it wise to gamble that the US will always be blessed by climate? If large portions of the country turn into desert - is that a good formula for continued role as the world's superpower.
And that petrofuel. Is it patriotic and smart burning huge amounts of that portable energy dense fuel in gas guzzlers that we may some day need for our jet fighters?
Not the most glamorous web page, but interesting:
http://vanrcook.tripod.com/Ger...
Oddly enough, many people who consider themselves more patriotic, and love their country more than others, are happy to burn as much fossil fuel and use as much of the energy dense petrofuel, that they may have a leading role in our diminished power. All by foolishly believing people who are not at all patriotic, but have money as the central theme of their lives, but are smart enough to enlist them.
Me? I consider it my patriotic duty to enable the warfighters the best chance of fulfilling their missions.
So I'm going to drive, but I'm also going to conserve. I'm also going to attempt to have my country in good shape as long as possible.
Really? Because you said, 'Ice loss in the Antarctic is causing sea level rise.'
As we go on, we learn. Do you question the fact that sea level rise is happening at all? That would be an extraordinary statement.
That was a big one, as far as why and how everybody is going to die.
Histrionics much? you got the quotes for everybody is going to die?
You woke up my lecture gene this morning.....
Exhibit 1. Scenario - I was supervising a video crew that came up from Washinton D.C. a few years ago. The location was several hundred miles north of D.C.
part 1.This was a winter when the area around Washington was hammered badly by snow and cold weather. Shut the place down, and the camera crew had a hell of a time getting to us.
part 2. They arrived at the place we were working at, and the sun was shining, it was about 52 degrees in the middle of winter. They were pretty shocked at going several nudred miles north to reach springlike conditions in mid-winter.
So was the unusually cold weather in the D.C area proof that AGW didn't exist, or was the unusually warm weather in Northern Pennsylvania proof that it did exist.
The answer is neither. Those anomalous conditions were weather not climate.
And while the ice accumulation in areas of the arctic are interesting, they still belong in the local weather subgroup.
And if they are not at the moment contributing to the sea level rise, it does not mean the rise is not happening.
They even used groups and tactics of the tobacco industry to do their dirty work - I always knew smoking was actually good for you - you have to agree, eh?
So now that the lid is off of Exxon's and other's scandal, are they tools of the liberals and commie scientists because they were convinced AWG was happening?
Or are they good citizens because after knowing all this, they set off on a P.R. campaign using tobacco industry tactics to sow doubt?
Perhaps I exaggerate your position slightly, but is it really 'just news?' It changes nothing? I guess it wouldn't, if saving the planet from the deadly effects of AGW was never the goal in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever used a fax machine?
Other then that, the phone line fees, machine maintenance, paper...
Have on in my office, An all in one printer. `Works just fine, and is just one of the communication tools I use. Often very handy for legal documents.
Still need to work on their Godzilla preparation, though
Put Gojira back to being a man in a rubber suit would be a good start.
Does productivity count if you're offshoring and outsourcing everything and not growing your job/revenue/tax base (by also allow those offshore/inverted operations to avoid paying taxes) ?
Sounds like eating your seed corn to me.
It's the Job Creators creating Jobs.
They just forgot to tell you where those jobs were going to be. Oopsies!
If you're less productive then it means your costs are invariably higher than somebody else, including other countries with even higher cost of labor. That means you're going to have a harder time competing on product pricing. It also means that in the event of a labor shortage, your aggregate product output will be markedly reduced compared to your competitors, and the only way to improve is to improve productivity.
How exactly are FAX machines making your costs higher?
I had not, but I clicked and skimmed it just now since you have been such a good sport. I still don't understand how big oil's opinion, what they have done or lied about, is the least bit relevant. I've always assumed that everything they have to say on this subject is a lie, and furthermore, are they not allowed to lie? Yes, make no mistake. There is no law that requires you to tell the truth unless you are found to have committed perjury.
Kinda ruins a group's credibility, and shows they as willing to undertake profit over all. Quote>
"Bad decisions, and not likely made by an engineer."
No. Made by Liberal and Democrat politicians mostly
O geesh, so now the liberals and democrats are responsible for decisions in Chernobyl, and especially Fukushima.
My point is that especially with Fukushima, it was going to happen, and the evidence was there for them to see, whether it was from reports in the historical record, or walking up to hillsides where the pebble rubble lines from Previous Tsunami were.
You're really much too worried about "Democrats" and the mythical "liberals". It colors all of your viewpoints to the extent thay instead of paying close attention to what I wrote, you jump at the chance to blame your enemy.
As for th eUS situation, where Democrats and liberals might come into play, we have for nuclear accidents, the more noteable ones being of Simi Valley California, the SL-1 reactor accident in Idaho, and Three Mile Island. Let's ignore wartime stuff like Slotnik and the demon core
Simi Valley was an experimental Sodium reactor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We probably just wern't technologically ready to run a sodium cooled reactor for any length of time. I see no Liberal Democrat meddling here.
Now the SL-1 reactor did involve fatalities. It was another experimental reactor that was designed to provide power for DEWLine and other remote sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Another case of a reactor that wasn't quite ready for prime time - mainly a bad control rod design
The one that most know is of course Three Mile Island, which, while not a stroll in the park, pretty much shut down with no loss of life. The emergency systems did work, but the main takeaway was the need for safer reactors.
To wit, I see none of the nefariaous liberal boogymen in the works for any of them.
Seriously folks
This
is
the
Goddamned
Cloud!
Here today, and vanished into blue sky tomorrow.
If that was truly the case, then there was no point in trying to stop him... Somehow, he scared the Democrats' brass.
Oh, that's just like the folks saying that Democrats were scared of Sarah Palin. I'm no Democrat, but wasn't anyone afraid of her, we just liked to have her around to laugh at.
You can't let everyone in on national debates, it just isn't practical. Even the present day overstaffed Republican debates are plain weird - at one time they were pretty funny to watch, now it just seems like people bragging about how long they've cheated on not taking their Thorazine. I suspect those will change as well - probably held in secret, as they are starting to ban networks. Hint - if you won't use Fox News any more, maybe the problem is with you.
Draconic, fascist Windows 10 comes out and Microsoft proceeds to try to force it down everyone's throat, and out of left field comes, after what seems like a geologic age, a new version of OS/2. Wow. Not sure what to think of that timing.
This was prophesised in Revelations.
Lo, and the huge and evil beast with 10 horns was smote by the small usurper, bent over twice in rebirth, and cast out of the heavens into the fiery pit.
Yea and verily, not until this comes to pass shall the chip be righted, and a thousand years of peace come to pass.
I think this app is more going to be used to antagonize cops.
Well, if they haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
Seems to have been a popular statement applied toward civilians for some time.
I usually find it amusing that the same people who are "rah rah military" and think the US has the best, most advanced, most competent, most kick-ass military on the planet are the same people think that the US government couldn't possibly be doing anything right.
You notice that too? Ironically these are the same people who for the last 15 or so years have been doing everything they can do to keep government from doing it's job.
Maybe its part of their starve the beast plan.
My favorite Yogi quote is, "You can observe a lot by watching".
He said the wisest stupid things ever
Another was "No one goes to that place anymore - its too crowded."
If you were reading about lawsuits in the 60s, then you're a bit older than me. But not much.
Well, the problem for you is that as a political animal, you have no intention of changing your mind. So for you, the science is settled, so your uncertainties continue unabated.
but I'll ask once more, did you read my link provided that the oil companies knew that there was a definite link, between warming and the amount of CO2 that humans put in the atmosphere, and lied about it? Memos and all kinds of cool stuff, admitting it internally, then saying the opposite in public
A yes or no, or just ignore it again and I'll know you have no intention of reading it.
Good for you, your political wisdom keeps you out of the minefields of truth. Makes you a UI but there's room for UI's in that little tent, as long as you're useful to the cause.
So I'll abandon that to the unconvinceable, and move on to another comment of your's
BTW, do you think nuclear power can be un-invented? Is that science too scary?
I love nuclear power. It's problem is that the decisions for power plants are left too much in the control of Accountants and CEO's.
A plant can be made pretty safe - its mainly ensuring an effective way of keeping the immense concentrated energy in it's little bottle to do the trick, and to deal with the hard radiation effects on materials in a safe manner. Also to put them in the right place. After the Fukushima plant, I did research on how the disaster could have been avoided, and was completely shocked that given the location of the emergency generators, coupled with both the historical record andthe geoligical record. the destruction was not a remote possibility, but a certain fact, unless plate tectonics suddenly stopped. The plant was doomed, because there were multiple tsunamis that would have breaced the walls in the past. Mapping out a place, there were riverside locations inland, and above the historical tsunami levels that would have been much safer, for people as well as the plant itself. Salt water really isn't a good thing to have around reactors.
But somehow all that easily obtained evidence was ignored. Bad decisions, and not likely made by an engineer.
As well, the present day paradigm of immense plants is a bad one, both from a safety point of view, and a strategic defense one as well. Smaller and more plants with as much passive sefety mechanisms as possible , and situated in intelligent places is the pathway to success for nuc power. Yeah, I know the argument. - I get it from my NucE friends all the time.
But until most of it's proponents change their attitude that everyone else is too damn stupid to understand that nuc power is the best thing since multiple orgasms and drop the condescending attitude they have, you're going to fight an uphill battle.
They aren't stupid. The see Chernobyl and Fukushima, and are told its no big deal by the zealots, complete with many excuses for why all teh others are safe.
Anyhow, Unless you want to discuss the content of the evidence that the Oil companies knew, but lied about AGW, we might as well end this conversation.
I feel bad because he died, but I also feel good because I outlived him.
I mean, it's better that I read about his death than him reading about mine, right?
As my late great hero Yogi Berra said, "If you don't go to your friend's funerals, they won't go to yours."
R.I.P. Mike Hammond.
It's getting a Quinceañera, right? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
Heck - I didn't know the ISS was female!
It would be cute to see it all dressed up in a gown tho'.
I've been in a variety of natural disaster type things and even in a few countries with active wars taking place. This sort of movie script breakdown of society is, pretty much, the exact opposite of what I have personally witnessed.
The version of societal breakdown they have is one that they actually want to happen, as opposed to what actually happens.
If the prepper's wishes were what actually would happen, immediately after Germany's surrender as well as after Japan's surrender in world war 2, the populous would just have taken up a new war against the allies, and then themselves. That had to be as close to a total breakdown as ever happened in modern times.
In the end, people do tend to help each other in disasters, and make no mistake about it, I'm a cynical shit who thinks our propensity towards killing each other may cause our extinction.
But the preppers? Too bad it was from a movie and not a real life quote, but for my money, Michale Cain had the single best line in history. And it describes the preppers so well:
. ...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
Heh. Big tobacco eh? Really? I think someday you'll be ashamed of that one.
Huh? I don't know how old you are, but the Tobacco industry emplyed remarkably similat tactics to sow doubt that the tobacco did not cause cancer. Oddly enough, I had a book from the 1870's that called out all the ill effects of tobacco use. I remember listening and reading back in the 60's when the industry was successfully repelling lawsuits, and it eventually became bizarro world where they claimed that other vectors caused the plaintiff's cancer, but the plaintiff assumed all responsibilitty for the cancer whne they started smoking.
So now the big petrol players adopt the same tactics.
From the Climate deception dossiers:
internal memo from the Brown and Williamson tobacco company put it:
“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public” (B&W 1969)
From a 1998 American Petroleum Institute Memo:
Victory will be acheived when
Average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science;recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the conventional wisdom
Media "understands (recognizes Uncertainties in climate science.
Uncertainties does not equal doubt?
Their own scientists admitted that AGW was undeniable I'll let you look that up in my links if you don't mind reading some. Beware, it is an intrusion on the bubble.
If you don't see the similarities, the you're willfully ignoring them.
Did you even read the links? How about a discussion of that? Are the links lying?
"The Left was wrong about that one. Hell, they might be right about this one. If that turns out to be the case, then it's a shame they cried wolf so many times.
I should have figured your objection was politically based. Politics knows no laws of physics, so start working on holding a national vote to determine if Global warming exists or not.
Is that how it works now? If you don't agree or like something that others do, then you are a denialist?
Not disagreement, Denial. Denial is refusing to accept basic laws of physics. DEnial is believing that th eCO2 that humans put in the atmosphere has no effect, and willful ignorance of the fact that the CO2 greenhouse effect had better exist, or we wouldn't exist, and if it didn't, what is keeping the world warm enough to support life? Denial is believing that vaccines cause autism, long after it has been proven that the esearch was faulty, actually fraudulent, and done by a researcher, now disgraced and in conjunction with a lawyer in a moneymaking scheme, and after the smoking gun of the preservative "cause" of the autism has been removed with no difference and that all the denialists have done was destroyed herd immunity and killed some of their children. Denial is to believe that the world was created in October 4004 b.c.e long after the laws of physics have shown that it takes weird imaginary things like the speed of light being variable, and other kooky physics nonsense.
And denial is that Electrical vehicles are a failure as more manufacturers are bringing them out, that they are achieving greater range, and that people are buzzing around in them quite happily, and love their EV cars. And denial is using decade old metrics to convince yourself of that.
Regular disagreements that don't involve willful ignoring of facts? Not denial at all, but a difference of opinion.
Fuck you.
You'd never go back to sheep then.
100% grade A baloney. This entire post is a radical survivalist's fantasy of what they think should have happened after a national-scale natural disaster, and bears no resemblance to what actually did happen.
Yup. The prepper group is always projecting their lack of civilization onto others. But time and time again it's been proven that people don't act the way he thinks they will when the shit hits the fan.
Mad Max was a fun film and all, but it wasn't a documentary or a how-to.
Nope, it's still wingnut.
I've been around the ziggurat a few times, and unless things have changed in the last few days, it takes at least two willing participants to have a kerfuffle. And since this CoC is designed to protect victims, it will remove the professional victim's raison d'être. And in a world where some people believe that disagreeing with them is harassment, or the never clever "microagression", what we have here is what will end up being bullying in reverse.
The most sensitive and brittle and possibly even incompetent will become the leaders by reverse bullying for a short time, then it all falls apart. Because those selfsame people will make the decisions. And if you have a person serving as moderator, anyone the moderator makes a decision against will have defacto evidence the moderator was violating the code of conduct.
I'll take a Linus Torvalds any day over this kind of namby-pamby weirdness.
At about 3mm / year, we're looking at a foot per century, or a meter per millennium. That's easy to adapt to..
Umm, no. Your simple version of sea level rise is really good, as long as you don't take into account just how low much of the coastline is. That and tides. That and storms. That and the fact that rise and sometimes fall are not always the same everywhere - in some areas, land is rising as it rebounds from the last ice age. So new land is being created at the shoreline.
Even so the rise is not consistent per year. Hell, in 2010, the ocean levels dropped due to a combination of conditions:
http://www.scientificamerican....
Furthermore, taking current topographical maps and combining them with sea level rise data is bullshit anyway; most coasts are sedimentary, not rocky.
While I don't have the data on most coasts, that would be much worse than a rocky coast. As inevitable storms especially when combined with king tides, low barometric pressure and wind, can take that small yearly difference, and amplify the bejabbers out of it.
What's the odds of that happening? Ask the peeps in New Jersey and New York City about Hurricane Sandy.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropoli...
By 2020, people will curse you when they are freeing their arses off. Partly colder weather with the solar/sunspot declines, and partly poverty.
Not to worry, Jeezus will never let that happen. Him and Ted Cruz.
Dammit I failed. Tried to write something as stupid as you did, but its impossible.
On the other hand, the sea rise from the current warming trend will leave much of the coastline (where many people live) uninhabitable.
Very expensive real estate owned by very wealthy people.
Well, then global warming should be good news,
And for some, after adjustment, it will be good news. For others? a catastrophe. This is the part that so many do not get. Canada so far has had an extension of the term between killing frosts, so the frost free season is lengthening. - also the Western US. Here is some interesting US data.
http://nca2014.globalchange.go....
Then again, some places might not be so fortunate. Some may even become colder. As the Greenland ice melts, the Weather in England might get a little frosty. This might happen if the gulf stream gets interrupted by the cold fresh water influx from Greenland.
At present in Ireland, they grow cabbage palm at the same latitude as Newfoundland - the warming effects of the gulf stream are so dominant, all may go away.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... And some areas that are now verdant, may become arid. All sort of the luck of the draw.
I always like to put discussions in the manner in which others can relate. Strategically, is it wise to gamble that the US will always be blessed by climate? If large portions of the country turn into desert - is that a good formula for continued role as the world's superpower.
And that petrofuel. Is it patriotic and smart burning huge amounts of that portable energy dense fuel in gas guzzlers that we may some day need for our jet fighters?
Not the most glamorous web page, but interesting: http://vanrcook.tripod.com/Ger... Oddly enough, many people who consider themselves more patriotic, and love their country more than others, are happy to burn as much fossil fuel and use as much of the energy dense petrofuel, that they may have a leading role in our diminished power. All by foolishly believing people who are not at all patriotic, but have money as the central theme of their lives, but are smart enough to enlist them.
Me? I consider it my patriotic duty to enable the warfighters the best chance of fulfilling their missions.
So I'm going to drive, but I'm also going to conserve. I'm also going to attempt to have my country in good shape as long as possible.
Really? Because you said, 'Ice loss in the Antarctic is causing sea level rise.'
As we go on, we learn. Do you question the fact that sea level rise is happening at all? That would be an extraordinary statement.
That was a big one, as far as why and how everybody is going to die.
Histrionics much? you got the quotes for everybody is going to die?
You woke up my lecture gene this morning.....
Exhibit 1. Scenario - I was supervising a video crew that came up from Washinton D.C. a few years ago. The location was several hundred miles north of D.C.
part 1.This was a winter when the area around Washington was hammered badly by snow and cold weather. Shut the place down, and the camera crew had a hell of a time getting to us.
part 2. They arrived at the place we were working at, and the sun was shining, it was about 52 degrees in the middle of winter. They were pretty shocked at going several nudred miles north to reach springlike conditions in mid-winter.
So was the unusually cold weather in the D.C area proof that AGW didn't exist, or was the unusually warm weather in Northern Pennsylvania proof that it did exist.
The answer is neither. Those anomalous conditions were weather not climate.
And while the ice accumulation in areas of the arctic are interesting, they still belong in the local weather subgroup.
And if they are not at the moment contributing to the sea level rise, it does not mean the rise is not happening.
Here is a tough one for the deniers:
http://www.scientificamerican....
And the guns - they kinda do smoke:
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...
They even used groups and tactics of the tobacco industry to do their dirty work - I always knew smoking was actually good for you - you have to agree, eh? So now that the lid is off of Exxon's and other's scandal, are they tools of the liberals and commie scientists because they were convinced AWG was happening?
Or are they good citizens because after knowing all this, they set off on a P.R. campaign using tobacco industry tactics to sow doubt?
Perhaps I exaggerate your position slightly, but is it really 'just news?' It changes nothing? I guess it wouldn't, if saving the planet from the deadly effects of AGW was never the goal in the first place.