The scientific method requires starting with the foundation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To wit:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Having mounds of evidence "consistent with" your hypothesis is not sufficient to make it scientific - after all, astrology has mounds upon mounds of evidence and measurements. What makes a hypothesis scientific is falsifiability.
Yes, AGW would be falsified by CO2 not existing,
>
I did not claim that it did not exist, I am claiming that someone needs to illustrate that it has no effect. The experiments and the physics are simple and reproducible.
but the mere existence of CO2 doesn't imply that AGW must be true.
Hey friend. We can have a nice discussion on this, but trying to imply that I ever said that is hopefully just a poor argument tactic
The concept of other people being required to prove you wrong when you are saying all of them are wrong is a mistaken concept common to denialism.
Reminds me of an experience I once had with an RF technician. He had a hypothesis that the way that radio worked was that little particles came off of the transmitting antenna, and collected on the receiving antenna. That would seem to indicate that a transmitting antenns would get smaller and smaller, and the receiving antenna would get larger and larger. I could think of a few good experiments he could do that would show him the error in his hypothesis, but he demanded that I had to do the work to prove him wrong, elswise I was declaring the century plus of RF research wrong, and declaring him the person who figured it all out. He did get a little pissed at me when I declared his hypothesis Little Radio Turds in Space theory. Good.
So anyhow, thanks for the terms and fancy words - but you aren't even replying to anything I wrote.
true science rigorously performed that will once and for all and without question
Why should he do anything that any undergraduate who has taken a course on the philosophy of science can tell you completely contradicts the scientific method.
Any and every advocate who prattles that 'the science is settled' needs to be ignored. That's just how it works. The science is NEVER settled.
No kidding. Here's your Whoosh.
But for all of the truth in "The science is never settled", at some point things cross from good theory to that 99.99 percent certainty level. Maybe gravity doesn't actually exist. It's possible that the speed of light is quite variable, and what looks like an ancient universe is fully compatible with the 6000 some year old age of the universe. It is possible that the so called greenhouse effect - or anti-greenhouse effect - doesn't hold up on a planetarty scale. Or perhaps it doesn't exist in the first place.
Well then - make the hypotheses, test them, and report back. Do you realize the fame and likely Nobel prize(s) for the scientist who proves AGW nee GW does not exist? Damn, that would be a relief. I'd bust open the Tequila, and to hell with the popcorn - we're gonna have caviar nachos at this party! But if your weapon is merely sowing doubt, In tactics ripped from the Tobacco lawyers playbook, that is showing that the "science" you are depending on is one of the soft sciences of psychology.
I've seen a lot of science, and never one paper plausibly debunking AGW. Did you kow that scientists look for papers like that so they can debunk deniers claims? I'm waiting though - because as you insist - the science is never settled. But I'm not holding my breath. Although it might be possible that we really do not need to breathe, and don't need oxygen - that science isn't settled either.
I attended a presentation regarding the rhythmites relation to the length of the day some 18 years ago. Sure took a long time to verify the hypothesis.
As Richard Feynman so clearly pointed out, if your model does not fit data, then it is wrong. The model proffered says that CO2 drives our climate.
CO2 is only part of what drives the energy retention effects of Earth's atmosphere. It provides around 20 percent of this energy retention Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse "gas" - in quotes because it is vapor.
Regardless, it is great that Pruitt will present us with the unimpeachble and true science rigorously performed that will once and for all and without question kill thie idea that silly gases have some dort of effect on the earth's climate. Only God can do that, and he loves us and wants us to be happy.
The scientific method requires starting with the foundation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To wit:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Having mounds of evidence "consistent with" your hypothesis is not sufficient to make it scientific - after all, astrology has mounds upon mounds of evidence and measurements. What makes a hypothesis scientific is falsifiability.
Yes, AGW would be falsified by CO2 not existing, but the mere existence of CO2 doesn't imply that AGW must be true. Same with the wavelength absorption properties of CO2 - their existence might be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it is not *sufficient* to exclude natural (or other different man made) climate drivers.
To date, there has never been presented any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, much less CAGW (which would at that point possibly drive policy).
So give me the current work that invalidates the Greenhouse effect on a planetart scale.
Remember current work. Everything I have seen so far has been invalidated. This is usually based on cherry picking data, and anything that isn't understood is waved like a smoking gun -showing that all of the data is wrong. The best example of this was the smoking gun difference between satellite observations and high altitude balloon measurements. This differnce was touted as the destruction of any and all Global warming period. I was referred to many pages touting this work.
Problem is, later work brought the differences into agreement - including by the team who wrote the paper notint the anomalies.
Regardless, the US Environmental Protection agency is presumably not a organization that marches in lockstep to the Republican administration, andrelies on science. to make it's decisions,
Surely they have this evidence that completely refutes AGW, and perhaps The entire physic of energy retention (or rejection) of certain gases based on their presence. Seems a little odd that the head of the EPA refuses to show the work. that will silence the purveyors of incorrect science - I mean, he is using truth and not politics, amirite?
Does not Agree does not necessarily require more scientific studies.
Does not agree needs an explanation. The concept that human inserted CO2 and methane into th eatomsphere requires invalidating some laws of physics.
You don't validate a theory by claiming everyone else is wrong. Gotta show the work proving your theoty is the right one.
Otherwise you can simply say Humans do not prodoce CO2 warming because God ignores it and won't let the temperatures change. That's as valid an idea as any of the denial ideas. It isn't science, because it can't be proven wrong, but there we go.
You cn label this as a Troll, but do not fool yourselves, it is exactly his "science". P..
There are people who paid a lot of money to buy his opinion. Do not cross them - in Today's America, money determines physics.
No one is thinking of the Koch Brothers. They will be the least affected by the result. On the other hand the continued wealth of the rich is of great interest to a lot of people nearing retirement age, as their wealth is pegged to the same source of value.
Although altogether to many people approaching retirement age do as you say, It it bass ackwards. Whether through waiting too late to start saving for retirement, greed, or the fear instilled by financial advisors, you don't invest in this sort of thing nearing retirement.
Also no one is saying that we should do anything to avoid the crisis, just that the crisis will happen.
Also also, the question of if the supply is infinite is missing the fundamental cause that will lead to the collapse..
Ahh, the collapse because of transitioning away from Petrochemicals and other fossil fuels.
Tell me, is that going to be more a cause than the protectionist and socialist tariffs that seem to be suddenly the economic touchstone of crypto-conservatives? That's what interests me about this whole concept of the shift to renewables being responsible for the next collapse. That's really handy, when you can identify the guilty party long before it happens.,p>
It isn't going to be the student loan debt - nope
It isn't going to be restrictive tariffs either - or the inevitable backlash to them. That's crazy talk.
It will be those damn liberals not buying fossil fuels and using rewnewables instead.
The useful life of equipment is dependent on the sources of energy. The abandonment is taken into account of the financing which is clear from the up-front estimation of the size of oil and gas fields. It what makes them viable or not. p>
Sure - its why the gas companies have largely stopped drilling in my neck of the woods. There's still plenty of gas, but they drilled so much it isn't economical to drill more.
The end of a field and the associated cost is normal. What we are seeing here is a potential shift away from these resources leading to a devaluation of the field, or a premature abandonment. That is what causes accounting books to not balance, and what moves share prices around.
No one is assured of a profit. As for the fields themselves, be it gas or oil, there are uses for both that will continue for a long time. Plastics, home heating. Those will provide a good use for oil and gas. Coal? That's the big loser in the modern age. That's a really good thing too. Living in the area of production and having relatives who worked in the mines and strippings - and who mostly died young, and the destruction of the environment coal causes - I'm happy to see that go away.
Anyhow, it's a good thing that we have found the real villain of the coming collapse.
If you are going to force people to sequester carbon you might as well do it as diesel.
Of all the cacahead things, concepts that make using food stocks to produce fuel look like prudent and sensible strokes of genius, using the very element that allows the earth to have some temperate climate areas - removing carbon dioxide to allow coal rolling is as good an idea as using Brawndo with electrolytes - it's what plants crave.
The earth would have an average temperature below freezing if not for carbon dioxide. This gas is critical for life on earth.
So now these tools propose turning atmospheric CO2 into a cash generator. Well now, I kind of wonder if they would plan on stopping once they disrupt the atmosphere in the other direction. There is as much an issue it it goes too low as if it goes too high.
Even then, the problem isn't that the CO2 is one thing or another. It is the rapidity of change. The level at the beginning of the industrial revolution isn't the level it has to be for all eternity, it is the rapidity of change which causes unstable weather, and shifts habitible zones, creating deserts and verdant areas based on the shifts. High or low, the rapid disruption is the issue.
We kinda have the CO2 levels we have now, and our best bet is to live within whatever happens, try to shift to energy sources that don't generate any extra, and not perform cacahead experiments like seeding the oceans with iron, or turning CO2 into a money generator.
You expect a collapse in energy prices and the massive availability of cheap energy to negatively effect industrial economies ?
No. He expects it to negatively effect the financial world which has a lot riding on the traditional energy users.
Won't someone think of the Koch Brothers!
Now let's say that in order to avoid this collapse because of shifting to renewables - and a big thanks to the Guardian for alerting us to this truth - we decide to make all alternative energy sources illegal, That in order to sustain civilization - we must force coal, oil and gas.
So is the supply of the three energy sources that are keeping us from global collapse infinite? Should we just fold the tents and pray for the rapture?
Yes - if we get some stubborn folks who want to ride the fossil fuel train forever, they will suffer. But that is their stupidity, not their gawd given right to make a never ending profit on a diminishing resource
You expect a collapse in energy prices and the massive availability of cheap energy to negatively effect industrial economies ?
So that would be like the economic disasters that came about when people started burning coal for steam power or oil for the internal combustion engine, And electrification destroyed the worlds economy ?
Exactly.
As well, the article seems to neglect the real worldwide collapse if we simply decided to ride fossil fuels to the point that supply simply peters out and becomes so limited and expensive that there isn't enough to support civlization. It appears they believe that the supply of coal and oil are infinite.
If you aren't already, you should be using SafeScript which allows you to block lots of fingerprinting stuff. If you think you don't need it then you should check out BrowserLeaks to see how horribly wrong you are.:)
And how! Early on in using NoScript I did an inventory of what was blocked. Facebook was the champ of tracking scripts, and a lot of those addresses the scripts reported to were obscured - ie not obviously facebook. And there were several FB trackers on most the sites that had them. Google had a number of scripts - at least they had the decency to make that clear. several ad providers, the font trackers, and a few I never figured out. My biggest haul for one page was over a hundred scripts.
And this was some years ago, long before I had to have a Facebook account for some projects I was working.
Which is why I have told people for years that Facebook is tracking everyone, not having an account does not stop them from tracking anyone.
I had to buy a Windows laptop in order to run some SDR software I had to work with. Then they released a nice version of the software in iOS. But my main platform is a Mac.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I might be able to go Windows free again. Then I can give the laptop to someone I don't like.
Everyone in this sense is no literally everyone. It's just the vast majority: people who cried about Facebook and other social media tracking you. People who get annoyed at the ads in windows services. Definitely to anyone using an adblocker (of which I am guilty), but still saying good/services should not have a pricetag attached.
As for the hardware being cheaper now than ever? Yeah, it is cheaper. But that doesn't mean it's pennies to buy or maintain. Its certainly not free, so there still needs to be some form of revenue. Obviously you aren't part of the purchasing process for new hardware.
Shit man, I've built systems and specified purchases my entire career. So you're wrong on that.
You confuse wanting free stuff with adblocking. The real problem with the ads is that so much of it isn't ads. Its trackers and malware and page loading speed and jumpy web pages, and consumption of bandwidth that we are paying actual money for. I use ad and scriptblocking to protect myself and my computer, not so that I don't see the ads. Put them up without all of the extraneous bullshit, and I'd stop blocking them.
So I've turned on a lot of people to adblockers. They've called me in because they thought they had a virus or that their computer needed replaced. Put an adblocker in, and it's like a new computer. Most weren't ready for scriptblocking though..
This is a problem the ad providers hve to fix, not for me to put up with.
MRA, MGTOW and other incels are not quite the best example of "legitimate" channels getting booted or demonetized. Some would call that draining the swamp.
First off, if you are going to by a genius, get your terms correct. An Incel stands for involuntary celibate. This includes a wide range of people, many of whom are celibate by virtue of accident or disability. Oh, an incel is not restrained to one sex either.
Men's Rights Activists are people who lobby for changes in laws.
Men Going Their Own Way are just men who either do not want to have relationships with women, or never did.
Very few MRAs or MGTOWs are incels.
MRAs are at least for the moment, largely ineffectual . It is noted that you are against men's rights.
Incels might be better pitied instead of in a truly bigoted manner, you declare them as part of a big problem, you insensitive clod.
Then we come to MGTOWs There's an interesting group with several levels. The red pill ragers are mostly men who have lost their wealth and children in divorce, and aren't happy about it. That's kind of understandable. It usually calms down in a couple years, although they no longer want emotional relationships with any women.
Then there is a grouping that note that The government is now acting as the money source in many one parent (female) family that doesn't want a man in her life.
Then there are people they call MGTOW monks. This is the stage after the rage dissapates.
Then Ghosts, which might be analogous to an old school hermit.
The part that some folks want squelched is that especially the MGTOWs produce materials that young men who have not yet been harvested can see. Even so, MGTOW is in the end, passive avoidance, merely staying out of relationships with women. You aren't having marches, you aren't agitating for laws, you are just following a philosophy of passive avoidance. You don't have to call yourself MGTOW to simply avoid women. Birth and marriage rates dropping, as well as the increasingly common lament "Where have all the good men gone?" are perhaps symptoms.
The interesting part is why women would find this objectionable. The male that avoids you is not bothering you in any way. He is not harassing you or sexually assaulting you. And in a world where 30% of women ages 18 to 35 consider that a man winking at a woman is sexual harassment, it wold appear that simply ignoring her would achieve her demands of not being winked at or otherwise subjected to male abuse. Isn't that what a woman would want?
For the record, I am neither MGTOW, or Incel. I only report that MGTOW is a social problem, just like third wave feminism is a social problem.
You're going to pull a gun on someone that's openly carrying in a store because you feel 'threatened'? Either that or you're creating a straw man.
Is it a patriot exercising his god given right, or is it a domestic trst who plans on opening up on the place?
If you are carrying, will you allow this guy to have the first shot? Tell me the difference and how you can identify with 99 percent accuracy which is which.
Claims of howaboutism are just mindless sheep deflecting from their own hypocritical stands in the past when called out on them. It is a cheap and very weak rhetorical song n dance designed to dodge the point when you have no defense from the charge of being a hypocrite.
How's the weather in Moscow Ivan? Have you ever seen the inside of thr Black Dolphin?
Now look Ivan, here's your problem with howaboutism. Let's say your favorite politician is accused of say - diddleing a little girl. I mention that he diddled a little girl, and you in a fine howaboutism dugeon, scream "Well how about Hillary and Pizzagate! Her and O'Blama diddled millions of children!"
Because by employing Howaboutism to defend your favorite politician by yelling that someone else did that, you are therefore exhonerating them along with your man.
It does the exact opposite of what you want Ivan!
You exonerate your enemy, Howabout that? Now take your rubles if they decide your troll was strong enough.
Microsoft will 99 out of 100 leave Github alone. Like the Minecraft or LinkedIn acquisitions, Microsoft knows if they mess the community they will not get money out of it. Admittedly LinkedIn hasn't turned out super well, but that is LinkedIn's fault and not MS.
Kinda like Skype, eh? Don't worry though - nothing has ever been Microsoft's fault.
Why does everyone expect digital/virtual goods and services to be free? And then those same people flip shit about the advertising and sales of submitted and extrapolated data about them.
Y'all got any more of that good strawman? Who is this everybody?
The resources to host this stuff, and do so reliably, quickly, and securely, is not cheap. The cost to continue improving it is not cheap. Explain to me, please, why you expect a whole lot of something for absolutely nothing.
That is all beside teh point. This is Microsoft, they manage to turn things to shit very quickly. Perhaps they will raise GitHub to the quality of their Windows 10 updates, eh? I wouldn't be surprised if the first thing they do is require a Microsoft account to access anything as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The scientific method requires starting with the foundation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To wit:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Having mounds of evidence "consistent with" your hypothesis is not sufficient to make it scientific - after all, astrology has mounds upon mounds of evidence and measurements. What makes a hypothesis scientific is falsifiability.
Yes, AGW would be falsified by CO2 not existing,
> I did not claim that it did not exist, I am claiming that someone needs to illustrate that it has no effect. The experiments and the physics are simple and reproducible.
but the mere existence of CO2 doesn't imply that AGW must be true.
Hey friend. We can have a nice discussion on this, but trying to imply that I ever said that is hopefully just a poor argument tactic
The concept of other people being required to prove you wrong when you are saying all of them are wrong is a mistaken concept common to denialism.
Reminds me of an experience I once had with an RF technician. He had a hypothesis that the way that radio worked was that little particles came off of the transmitting antenna, and collected on the receiving antenna. That would seem to indicate that a transmitting antenns would get smaller and smaller, and the receiving antenna would get larger and larger. I could think of a few good experiments he could do that would show him the error in his hypothesis, but he demanded that I had to do the work to prove him wrong, elswise I was declaring the century plus of RF research wrong, and declaring him the person who figured it all out. He did get a little pissed at me when I declared his hypothesis Little Radio Turds in Space theory. Good.
So anyhow, thanks for the terms and fancy words - but you aren't even replying to anything I wrote.
true science rigorously performed that will once and for all and without question
Why should he do anything that any undergraduate who has taken a course on the philosophy of science can tell you completely contradicts the scientific method.
Any and every advocate who prattles that 'the science is settled' needs to be ignored. That's just how it works. The science is NEVER settled.
No kidding. Here's your Whoosh.
But for all of the truth in "The science is never settled", at some point things cross from good theory to that 99.99 percent certainty level. Maybe gravity doesn't actually exist. It's possible that the speed of light is quite variable, and what looks like an ancient universe is fully compatible with the 6000 some year old age of the universe. It is possible that the so called greenhouse effect - or anti-greenhouse effect - doesn't hold up on a planetarty scale. Or perhaps it doesn't exist in the first place.
Well then - make the hypotheses, test them, and report back. Do you realize the fame and likely Nobel prize(s) for the scientist who proves AGW nee GW does not exist? Damn, that would be a relief. I'd bust open the Tequila, and to hell with the popcorn - we're gonna have caviar nachos at this party! But if your weapon is merely sowing doubt, In tactics ripped from the Tobacco lawyers playbook, that is showing that the "science" you are depending on is one of the soft sciences of psychology.
I've seen a lot of science, and never one paper plausibly debunking AGW. Did you kow that scientists look for papers like that so they can debunk deniers claims? I'm waiting though - because as you insist - the science is never settled. But I'm not holding my breath. Although it might be possible that we really do not need to breathe, and don't need oxygen - that science isn't settled either.
I attended a presentation regarding the rhythmites relation to the length of the day some 18 years ago. Sure took a long time to verify the hypothesis.
As Richard Feynman so clearly pointed out, if your model does not fit data, then it is wrong. The model proffered says that CO2 drives our climate.
CO2 is only part of what drives the energy retention effects of Earth's atmosphere. It provides around 20 percent of this energy retention Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse "gas" - in quotes because it is vapor.
Regardless, it is great that Pruitt will present us with the unimpeachble and true science rigorously performed that will once and for all and without question kill thie idea that silly gases have some dort of effect on the earth's climate. Only God can do that, and he loves us and wants us to be happy.
I can hardly wait.
The scientific method requires starting with the foundation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To wit:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Having mounds of evidence "consistent with" your hypothesis is not sufficient to make it scientific - after all, astrology has mounds upon mounds of evidence and measurements. What makes a hypothesis scientific is falsifiability.
Yes, AGW would be falsified by CO2 not existing, but the mere existence of CO2 doesn't imply that AGW must be true. Same with the wavelength absorption properties of CO2 - their existence might be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it is not *sufficient* to exclude natural (or other different man made) climate drivers.
To date, there has never been presented any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, much less CAGW (which would at that point possibly drive policy).
So give me the current work that invalidates the Greenhouse effect on a planetart scale.
Remember current work. Everything I have seen so far has been invalidated. This is usually based on cherry picking data, and anything that isn't understood is waved like a smoking gun -showing that all of the data is wrong. The best example of this was the smoking gun difference between satellite observations and high altitude balloon measurements. This differnce was touted as the destruction of any and all Global warming period. I was referred to many pages touting this work.
Problem is, later work brought the differences into agreement - including by the team who wrote the paper notint the anomalies.
Regardless, the US Environmental Protection agency is presumably not a organization that marches in lockstep to the Republican administration, andrelies on science. to make it's decisions,
Surely they have this evidence that completely refutes AGW, and perhaps The entire physic of energy retention (or rejection) of certain gases based on their presence. Seems a little odd that the head of the EPA refuses to show the work. that will silence the purveyors of incorrect science - I mean, he is using truth and not politics, amirite?
Does not Agree does not necessarily require more scientific studies.
Does not agree needs an explanation. The concept that human inserted CO2 and methane into th eatomsphere requires invalidating some laws of physics.
You don't validate a theory by claiming everyone else is wrong. Gotta show the work proving your theoty is the right one.
Otherwise you can simply say Humans do not prodoce CO2 warming because God ignores it and won't let the temperatures change. That's as valid an idea as any of the denial ideas. It isn't science, because it can't be proven wrong, but there we go.
You cn label this as a Troll, but do not fool yourselves, it is exactly his "science". P.. There are people who paid a lot of money to buy his opinion. Do not cross them - in Today's America, money determines physics.
No one is thinking of the Koch Brothers. They will be the least affected by the result. On the other hand the continued wealth of the rich is of great interest to a lot of people nearing retirement age, as their wealth is pegged to the same source of value.
Although altogether to many people approaching retirement age do as you say, It it bass ackwards. Whether through waiting too late to start saving for retirement, greed, or the fear instilled by financial advisors, you don't invest in this sort of thing nearing retirement.
Also no one is saying that we should do anything to avoid the crisis, just that the crisis will happen.
Also also, the question of if the supply is infinite is missing the fundamental cause that will lead to the collapse..
Ahh, the collapse because of transitioning away from Petrochemicals and other fossil fuels.
Tell me, is that going to be more a cause than the protectionist and socialist tariffs that seem to be suddenly the economic touchstone of crypto-conservatives? That's what interests me about this whole concept of the shift to renewables being responsible for the next collapse. That's really handy, when you can identify the guilty party long before it happens.,p> It isn't going to be the student loan debt - nope
It isn't going to be restrictive tariffs either - or the inevitable backlash to them. That's crazy talk.
It will be those damn liberals not buying fossil fuels and using rewnewables instead.
The useful life of equipment is dependent on the sources of energy. The abandonment is taken into account of the financing which is clear from the up-front estimation of the size of oil and gas fields. It what makes them viable or not. p>
Sure - its why the gas companies have largely stopped drilling in my neck of the woods. There's still plenty of gas, but they drilled so much it isn't economical to drill more.
The end of a field and the associated cost is normal. What we are seeing here is a potential shift away from these resources leading to a devaluation of the field, or a premature abandonment. That is what causes accounting books to not balance, and what moves share prices around.
No one is assured of a profit. As for the fields themselves, be it gas or oil, there are uses for both that will continue for a long time. Plastics, home heating. Those will provide a good use for oil and gas. Coal? That's the big loser in the modern age. That's a really good thing too. Living in the area of production and having relatives who worked in the mines and strippings - and who mostly died young, and the destruction of the environment coal causes - I'm happy to see that go away.
Anyhow, it's a good thing that we have found the real villain of the coming collapse.
Well the supply of fossil fuels or any kind of fuel is hardly infinite, but hydrocarbon fuels are indefinitely available
https://www.betterworldsolutio...
If you are going to force people to sequester carbon you might as well do it as diesel.
Of all the cacahead things, concepts that make using food stocks to produce fuel look like prudent and sensible strokes of genius, using the very element that allows the earth to have some temperate climate areas - removing carbon dioxide to allow coal rolling is as good an idea as using Brawndo with electrolytes - it's what plants crave.
The earth would have an average temperature below freezing if not for carbon dioxide. This gas is critical for life on earth.
So now these tools propose turning atmospheric CO2 into a cash generator. Well now, I kind of wonder if they would plan on stopping once they disrupt the atmosphere in the other direction. There is as much an issue it it goes too low as if it goes too high.
Even then, the problem isn't that the CO2 is one thing or another. It is the rapidity of change. The level at the beginning of the industrial revolution isn't the level it has to be for all eternity, it is the rapidity of change which causes unstable weather, and shifts habitible zones, creating deserts and verdant areas based on the shifts. High or low, the rapid disruption is the issue.
We kinda have the CO2 levels we have now, and our best bet is to live within whatever happens, try to shift to energy sources that don't generate any extra, and not perform cacahead experiments like seeding the oceans with iron, or turning CO2 into a money generator.
Can I have some of what you are smoking? There is no way fossil fuel cars are going away by 2035.
God will provide us with all of the oil we need. It will fall like manna from the heavens.
You expect a collapse in energy prices and the massive availability of cheap energy to negatively effect industrial economies ?
No. He expects it to negatively effect the financial world which has a lot riding on the traditional energy users.
Won't someone think of the Koch Brothers!
Now let's say that in order to avoid this collapse because of shifting to renewables - and a big thanks to the Guardian for alerting us to this truth - we decide to make all alternative energy sources illegal, That in order to sustain civilization - we must force coal, oil and gas.
So is the supply of the three energy sources that are keeping us from global collapse infinite? Should we just fold the tents and pray for the rapture?
Yes - if we get some stubborn folks who want to ride the fossil fuel train forever, they will suffer. But that is their stupidity, not their gawd given right to make a never ending profit on a diminishing resource
You expect a collapse in energy prices and the massive availability of cheap energy to negatively effect industrial economies ?
So that would be like the economic disasters that came about when people started burning coal for steam power or oil for the internal combustion engine, And electrification destroyed the worlds economy ?
Exactly.
As well, the article seems to neglect the real worldwide collapse if we simply decided to ride fossil fuels to the point that supply simply peters out and becomes so limited and expensive that there isn't enough to support civlization. It appears they believe that the supply of coal and oil are infinite.
If you aren't already, you should be using SafeScript which allows you to block lots of fingerprinting stuff. If you think you don't need it then you should check out BrowserLeaks to see how horribly wrong you are. :)
And how! Early on in using NoScript I did an inventory of what was blocked. Facebook was the champ of tracking scripts, and a lot of those addresses the scripts reported to were obscured - ie not obviously facebook. And there were several FB trackers on most the sites that had them. Google had a number of scripts - at least they had the decency to make that clear. several ad providers, the font trackers, and a few I never figured out. My biggest haul for one page was over a hundred scripts.
And this was some years ago, long before I had to have a Facebook account for some projects I was working.
Which is why I have told people for years that Facebook is tracking everyone, not having an account does not stop them from tracking anyone.
most people didn't expect their data to be weaponized.
They loaded my data into missiles and shot them at someone? This is a stupid word. I wish people would stop using it.
We both know that not all weapons go boom or put holes in things.
2004 called to let you know that Macs can run Windows now.
But its still Windows, with all the update fun that Microsoft provides.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I might be able to go Windows free again. Then I can give the laptop to someone I don't like.
Azure Github by Windows featuring Sharepoint and Skype communications.
Available only on Windows Phone or Zune.
So, not available then?
After they finish killing it.
Azure Github by Windows featuring Sharepoint and Skype communications.
Available only on Windows Phone or Zune.
Everyone in this sense is no literally everyone. It's just the vast majority: people who cried about Facebook and other social media tracking you. People who get annoyed at the ads in windows services. Definitely to anyone using an adblocker (of which I am guilty), but still saying good/services should not have a pricetag attached.
As for the hardware being cheaper now than ever? Yeah, it is cheaper. But that doesn't mean it's pennies to buy or maintain. Its certainly not free, so there still needs to be some form of revenue. Obviously you aren't part of the purchasing process for new hardware.
Shit man, I've built systems and specified purchases my entire career. So you're wrong on that.
You confuse wanting free stuff with adblocking. The real problem with the ads is that so much of it isn't ads. Its trackers and malware and page loading speed and jumpy web pages, and consumption of bandwidth that we are paying actual money for. I use ad and scriptblocking to protect myself and my computer, not so that I don't see the ads. Put them up without all of the extraneous bullshit, and I'd stop blocking them.
So I've turned on a lot of people to adblockers. They've called me in because they thought they had a virus or that their computer needed replaced. Put an adblocker in, and it's like a new computer. Most weren't ready for scriptblocking though..
This is a problem the ad providers hve to fix, not for me to put up with.
MRA, MGTOW and other incels are not quite the best example of "legitimate" channels getting booted or demonetized. Some would call that draining the swamp.
First off, if you are going to by a genius, get your terms correct. An Incel stands for involuntary celibate. This includes a wide range of people, many of whom are celibate by virtue of accident or disability. Oh, an incel is not restrained to one sex either.
Men's Rights Activists are people who lobby for changes in laws.
Men Going Their Own Way are just men who either do not want to have relationships with women, or never did.
Very few MRAs or MGTOWs are incels.
MRAs are at least for the moment, largely ineffectual . It is noted that you are against men's rights.
Incels might be better pitied instead of in a truly bigoted manner, you declare them as part of a big problem, you insensitive clod.
Then we come to MGTOWs There's an interesting group with several levels. The red pill ragers are mostly men who have lost their wealth and children in divorce, and aren't happy about it. That's kind of understandable. It usually calms down in a couple years, although they no longer want emotional relationships with any women.
Then there is a grouping that note that The government is now acting as the money source in many one parent (female) family that doesn't want a man in her life.
Then there are people they call MGTOW monks. This is the stage after the rage dissapates.
Then Ghosts, which might be analogous to an old school hermit.
The part that some folks want squelched is that especially the MGTOWs produce materials that young men who have not yet been harvested can see. Even so, MGTOW is in the end, passive avoidance, merely staying out of relationships with women. You aren't having marches, you aren't agitating for laws, you are just following a philosophy of passive avoidance. You don't have to call yourself MGTOW to simply avoid women. Birth and marriage rates dropping, as well as the increasingly common lament "Where have all the good men gone?" are perhaps symptoms.
The interesting part is why women would find this objectionable. The male that avoids you is not bothering you in any way. He is not harassing you or sexually assaulting you. And in a world where 30% of women ages 18 to 35 consider that a man winking at a woman is sexual harassment, it wold appear that simply ignoring her would achieve her demands of not being winked at or otherwise subjected to male abuse. Isn't that what a woman would want?
For the record, I am neither MGTOW, or Incel. I only report that MGTOW is a social problem, just like third wave feminism is a social problem.
You're going to pull a gun on someone that's openly carrying in a store because you feel 'threatened'? Either that or you're creating a straw man.
Is it a patriot exercising his god given right, or is it a domestic trst who plans on opening up on the place?
If you are carrying, will you allow this guy to have the first shot? Tell me the difference and how you can identify with 99 percent accuracy which is which.
They messed up on Minecraft, too, completely dividing the community by making incompatible versions. Not cool.
Other than keeping their installed user base firmly addled with Stockholm Syndrome, I can't come up with too many of their success stories.
Claims of howaboutism are just mindless sheep deflecting from their own hypocritical stands in the past when called out on them. It is a cheap and very weak rhetorical song n dance designed to dodge the point when you have no defense from the charge of being a hypocrite.
How's the weather in Moscow Ivan? Have you ever seen the inside of thr Black Dolphin? Now look Ivan, here's your problem with howaboutism. Let's say your favorite politician is accused of say - diddleing a little girl. I mention that he diddled a little girl, and you in a fine howaboutism dugeon, scream "Well how about Hillary and Pizzagate! Her and O'Blama diddled millions of children!"
Because by employing Howaboutism to defend your favorite politician by yelling that someone else did that, you are therefore exhonerating them along with your man.
It does the exact opposite of what you want Ivan!
You exonerate your enemy, Howabout that? Now take your rubles if they decide your troll was strong enough.
Microsoft will 99 out of 100 leave Github alone. Like the Minecraft or LinkedIn acquisitions, Microsoft knows if they mess the community they will not get money out of it. Admittedly LinkedIn hasn't turned out super well, but that is LinkedIn's fault and not MS.
Kinda like Skype, eh? Don't worry though - nothing has ever been Microsoft's fault.
Why does everyone expect digital/virtual goods and services to be free? And then those same people flip shit about the advertising and sales of submitted and extrapolated data about them.
Y'all got any more of that good strawman? Who is this everybody?
The resources to host this stuff, and do so reliably, quickly, and securely, is not cheap. The cost to continue improving it is not cheap. Explain to me, please, why you expect a whole lot of something for absolutely nothing.
That is all beside teh point. This is Microsoft, they manage to turn things to shit very quickly. Perhaps they will raise GitHub to the quality of their Windows 10 updates, eh? I wouldn't be surprised if the first thing they do is require a Microsoft account to access anything as well.