The only reason that doesn't happen so much now (except potentially in China, to an extent) is due to the whole organ rejection thing. No good putting 'Type X' kidneys on the market if all your prospective clients within a reasonable distance need 'Type Y'.. and short of getting medical records on everybody, you can't see on the outside what type organ the person has.
Shows how much you know. Just like with any other product, you need to create demand. For example, show how your "Type X" kidney is better compared to the inferior "Type Y" kidney in a consumer taste test. Focus on viral marketing and product placement in movies. Leak that Tupac used "Type X" kidneys because he was from the street and keepin' it real. Have a cross marketing campaign with Nike for some "TypeX-treme" shoes at $250 a pair. Have Disney create a new loveable kidney based character in their new movies. Link "Type Y" kidneys to George Bush.
If all else fails, try to get a piece of the latest economic meltdown. Bundle any excess inventory into "Type X Kidney Security Derivatives" and apply for TARP funds. Get some lobbyists.
If they don't give you any money, corner the market by making them a loss-leader. Pick up the delta by bumping the price on the anti-rejection drugs.
I appreciate any waste of time and money to study and find out about things like this.
I'm not a jacked-up-storm-chasin'-girl gettin'-scientist, but I'd think when it comes to tornados, a few things would be relevant to the average person, and the rest not very relevant. Among the relevant:
Stay away from them because...
...You can't do anything about them.
Everyone who lives in tornado alley has known for a long time what to do when a twister is-a-comin'
Among the not so relevant things
Mean, median, standard deviation, etc. regarding wind speed, temperature, moisture, pressure, etc.
As interesting as those few variables are you still can't do anything about it, nor can you predict at all what will happen, where it will go, etc.
Nonsense. They wanted billions, now they have to waste billions. GM has been releasing crap vehicles for years, and they've always made sure the GM and AFL/CIO executives got paid. You want them to stop now?
When does one cross the line from "flamebait" to "yes, that is an accurate portayal of what the current governmental policies or the media would report as real.".
You know it's true. C'mon. Seriously. We both know that anything currently announced as "due to global warming" gets far more press coverage and front row reporting than any old boring technical or scientific reasoning.
For example. Imagine its November, 1999. Two articles are written one says "Due to poor management, sloppy software design processes, lack of business requirements, many software packages may experience problems". The other reads "Due to Y2K, computers will fail all over and destroy civilization. Only $1.2 trillion will possibly keep it at bay."
Which one due you think will be the focus of government and media trumpeting?
Of course Y2K and global warming aren't exactly the same thing. Y2K had actual numbers and fixes and proveable test conditions, whereas global warming is...well...what it is.
The end result will pretty much be the same I guess.
Now THIS could be considered flame bait. Please MOD is accodingly. Preferably -10 or below.
He has a higher accuracy rates than psychics AND the Vatican, yet none of them were blamed for not having reported it.
That's what you get for putting your neck out. If he had reported "due to global warming, an earthquake is coming...", then he would currently be regarded as an international hero.
and the thousands of lives they save will be lost due to under educated government leaders in a bigot southern state
I, for one, always embrace the illusion of security over the loss of freedoms.
I'm not sure where governments being concerned about the freedoms of the citizens makes them either uneducated or bigots, but then their job is to (in theory) represent the people who vote for them. If the people overwhelmingly don't want cameras, then they should probably not be using cameras.
The problem with statists and other government force types, is that they don't really care what the people want, or even tacitly agree to. Instead it's about power and control. Apparently this particular government didn't want that or received too much flak to continue doing it.
I live in the largest city by land area in the contiguous United States with miles and miles of roads, and we don't have thousands of red light deaths. Perhaps those numbers were from another city.
I'm sure this "new" cold fusion device will have MUCH funding from the Scam, Cap and Trade economy so our "green donations" will be routed to another startup needing angel money.
I don't know how it rolls in Australia. In America it's good practice to "sir" the police officers (or other people who have power over you, love it, and have no empathy) because if you don't they kill you.
Even when you are being nice and polite, you'll be lucky if you just get ticketed, no matter whether it's deserved or not, as the alternative is being jailed, with usually some Rodney King style arrest procedures.
I don't know if you've ever seen the television show "Cops", but these are our BEST cops doing massive propoganda in order to look civilized, as they pile 12 guys on a teenager and light him up with tazers and pepper spray, and that's the "good" cops doing it.
If I know gamers, I'm SUUUURE it was the "controller" that did it and not the real activity that gave them sores on their hands from repeated motions with sweaty palms.
When these gamers aren't being pwned, they retire to several hours of "feel good" activities in mom's basement.
The government's job is about maintaining and growing power over the citizens.
A party opposed to that (in theory) is not going to be welcome at the table, so they have to be removed. You can't do that by convincing citizens that more power over them is better than less power over them, so you have to do what any weak organization does which is start lying about the other guy.
The reason they are margenalized is because of propoganda, which tries to constantly equate libertarians as either people hiding in the woods like "militias" (that wasn't always a bad word) or head-in-the-sand isolationists who are terrified of the world.
Just as the bandwagon technique in marketing is used, you have to use the reverse psychology technique of making you guilty by association to even be part of the libertarian party, and convince people that they'll be thought of as a nutjob if you join with them.
American's are somewhat unique in which unlike most countries, they have a great cultural fear of discussing politics in public (unless its an "official" news source or talk radio) or with friends in private. There's a big fear of talking about politics (or professing an opinion) in restaurants or bars (unless everyone is on the exact same side). American's haven't hung out in a German beer hall and loudly discussed politics or been in other countries where there is a less fearful feeling of discussing politics.
This of course is by design, because there is an ideology of "well, if we have too many political parties than there will be problems because of..." The two party system works great to keep power over citizens while giving them a "choice" by playing one side against another. A multi-party system decreases the power they can hold, and would cause them to have to fight among themselves for control, and would prevent many horrid pieces of legislation from being passed, because the truly stupid and evil laws would be brought to light before they are snuck in.
One time I had a gig in L.A. and was staying in Pasadena.
I did Tequila shots in L.A. all night and had to find my way back to Pasadena at 3 a.m. and was getting lost. I drifted through a stop sign and got pulled over.
I slipped a folded $100 bill with my license when he asked for it. My breathalyzer blew 0.00 that night.
Then he told me to go get some coffee at a convenience store, and gave me directions to my hotel.
Insurance companies don't want to pay for it, so the government decides that "digital" medical records will create zillions of jobs, help the economy, and other BS and ZING there goes another 100 billion.
"Alternative" energy suppliers don't want to pay for their own R&D and infrastructure so they need the government to promise zillions of jobs and ZING, there goes 100 billion.
Why should insurance companies have to pay for something that would benefit them when big-daddy government will take advantage of this massive over-blown economic recession to shuttle trillions of your dollars. Why wouldn't government use an opportunity to create another database with information about you that you have the "patriotic" duty to pay for?
I'm pretty sure this is just sticking to the government playbook.
The only thing digital records will do is make it easier to write a bot that will be able to download millions of medical records instead of having to do it one at a time.
Personally, I don't want "digital" records of my medical information. I'd prefer a good old folder filled with notes and paper and information such as that. I'd like to go to a doctor and NOT have my medical history completely available to him/her so I can get an actual diagnosis rather than just making assumptions because the last 6 morons have all said the same things. I want to be able to say that no, I didn't have an MRI, let's do another one with a different set of eyes, not my MRI following me everywhere so no one feels the urge to do a new one.
I like forcing my doctor to listen to the words coming out of my mouth about a medical issue, not running my big XML record through a parser to make a "guess" of what I have and print me a receipt for a prescription pill that isn't going to help me, but will bounce up against a marketing database to see what latest Pfizer development I should take. I'm sure in order to "streamline" and "reduce expences" of medical care, the government will pass the "Patient Free Choice Act" that will offer prescription medicine through kiosks ("Just Type In Your Medical Id Number") so you can get the Pfizer dream-pill of their choice ("No doctor needed!").
We're separated enough from our doctors because of insurance companies and government regulation as it is, I don't see the slightest benefit to making it easier for me to be ignored and shoved through the "in-and-out-burger" medical system by speeding me through the system.
Creating digital records is going to just make it more cost effective for insurance companies (and government medical rationing requirements once "nationalized" medicine comes into effect) to categorize you, treat you as a "group" of patients instead of an individual.
The "benefit" of easily shuttling your records around place to place in a standardized format would be great, if I had the slightest hope that it would be used strictly for that, and not completely abused for purposes that negatively affect me.
I mean, it's not like a social security number has been used in any way other than the purpose for which it was intended.
Or the "I'm-upper-middle-class-and-can-afford-proprietary-hardware-and-my-new-volkswagen-with-a-flower-holder-in-the-dash-and-expouse-my-northern-california-peace-movement-and-oh-my-god-ponies-and-IPhones-and"-heads.
No wait, that's a flame.
But a flame, by any other name, would smell like an apple.
I stopped buying CDs when the music companies started sueing their own customers.
You too? I thought I was the only one. I rarely bought music in the past, then downloaded a few songs which I would never have paid for but just wanted to hear. Then the RIAA started with their crap and I stopped listening to it all. There's nothing like being blamed for their crappy product. I mean, have the major labels actually put out that much good music in the last 10 years to even download? It seems like the bar has gotten awfully low.
As far as the "long tail" theory, I'm surprised that it was accepted that much at the time. Anderson sounded like the he had the same kind of glazed eye look about the future of the internet as the Web 2.0/Social networking people do when you talk to them.
Do people fundamentally change when they have more than one option to choose? I would have guessed rarely. Just because people have more choices does not mean they make statistically random choices. People have far greater psychological issues about what they choose and why they choose them than just availability. People like to be on the bandwagon and choose what their friends do, they like to choose things they've heard of and feel safe about, what's been recently marketed to them, comfort foods vs. healthy foods, etc.
Although we are all unique individuals following the herd, we by-and-large make the same choices about things, with a little bit of variance thrown in to keep it interesting. Raise your hand if you've never eaten at a McDonalds or drank a Coke before.
The internet may offer a wide variety of things in theory, but in reality it is businesses trying to offer customers the products that will give them the best ROI, and that means you'll make more money off the herd than a few outsiders demanding obscure products and services.
It makes sense to push items that the herd wants to buy. It makes sense to push the same things the other players are pushing and focus on better volume marketing, rather than pushing obscure things that a relatively few want and spending more money on targetted advertising.
The consumer follows the same approach as others, otherwise Walmart would not have been able to be in the position it's in.
It probably will be said to be because of global warming. Global warming is a stock answer for anything, because the solution is already made and cannot tolerate dissent.
I got yelled at for a previous post in which I questioned how accurate the measurements of the past could be in calculating that we've "warmed" by a whole degree and all. Apparently that's an invalid question, because those measurements are completely infallible. We can, however, completely screw up the measurement of a slice of the atmosphere by a huge margin due to our lack of meaningful measuring. Also, our satellites appear to be working most of the time anyway, which I find surprising if the information about the measured change is accurate.
The nice thing is, it doesn't matter. According to the new religion of consensus science, all that matters is that most of us agree that the ionosphere IS closer than it used to be; science being proven via popular vote apparently. I doubt this will have that big an issue on telecommunication satellites, because if there is a problem it can be solved using a redistribution of wealth to third world warlords or a satellite cap-and-trade system to solve our technological problems.
I think one big problem is that everyone seems to accept that the globe IS warming, and then argues for or against the causes.
Personally, I have a very VERY hard time believing that the earth has "warmed" in the first place.
I mean, are we really basing our analysis of past temperatures to be actually accurate? What equipment were they using? Do we measure temperatures using the exact same device as the people did a hundred years ago? Not just "sure, we use mercury thermometers", but the actual same one? Do you judge a clock running incorrectly by getting a similar clock and making theories about what it's doing? Who measured these things 100 years ago. Were they an novice who got the short straw and just made up numbers because he hated his job? Maybe he just stuck the thermometer out the window and a tree cast shade on it.
For anyone in IT that's had to run reports on databases, know it's garbage in garbage out. Is the temperature inputs accurate? Are they basing the "warming" on the numbers or are they taking averages of averages? Did they have worldwide sea level temperature readings a hundred years ago across all oceans or did ships just stick a thermometer in the water when they felt like it and made up numbers when they didn't?
Scientists all seem to agree that an Ice Age took place thousands of years ago, is it possible that things can be a major variable in climate that we don't understand? Should we base global climate untestable theories from people whose basis of analysis uses the same guesswork and computer models that can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow or not outside of a statistical percentage?
How come all the arguments to a scientific problem don't envision scientific solutions? How come the solutions all seem to involve a redistribution of wealth or creating a secondary energy market scheme which allows you to pollute at the same rate if you're wiling to buy some carbon offset credits?
If the earth, according to scientists, has had variations in carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, ammonia, and a host of other gasses, how do we even know what the right one is?
If I fill a jar with ice and water to the top and let it melt, the jar doesn't overflow and send out tidal waves. If the polar icecaps melt, which have already displaced the water in the ocean like ice in the jar, why would their melting make any change in height of the oceans by any appreciable degree?
If the oceans rise and fall by meters based on the tide, would a few inches make a real difference?
If global warming is true, and the earth raises a few degrees, wouldn't that allow for more land to be used for humans? Wouldn't many plants grow more plentiful and with increased warmth, consume more CO2 and provide more food for us?
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason that doesn't happen so much now (except potentially in China, to an extent) is due to the whole organ rejection thing. No good putting 'Type X' kidneys on the market if all your prospective clients within a reasonable distance need 'Type Y'.. and short of getting medical records on everybody, you can't see on the outside what type organ the person has.
Shows how much you know. Just like with any other product, you need to create demand. For example, show how your "Type X" kidney is better compared to the inferior "Type Y" kidney in a consumer taste test. Focus on viral marketing and product placement in movies. Leak that Tupac used "Type X" kidneys because he was from the street and keepin' it real. Have a cross marketing campaign with Nike for some "TypeX-treme" shoes at $250 a pair. Have Disney create a new loveable kidney based character in their new movies. Link "Type Y" kidneys to George Bush.
If all else fails, try to get a piece of the latest economic meltdown. Bundle any excess inventory into "Type X Kidney Security Derivatives" and apply for TARP funds. Get some lobbyists.
If they don't give you any money, corner the market by making them a loss-leader. Pick up the delta by bumping the price on the anti-rejection drugs.
It's time to think outside the box people.
I appreciate any waste of time and money to study and find out about things like this.
I'm not a jacked-up-storm-chasin'-girl gettin'-scientist, but I'd think when it comes to tornados, a few things would be relevant to the average person, and the rest not very relevant. Among the relevant:
Among the not so relevant things
Of course, I'm a neo-luddite, so what do I know.
Nonsense. They wanted billions, now they have to waste billions. GM has been releasing crap vehicles for years, and they've always made sure the GM and AFL/CIO executives got paid. You want them to stop now?
If it was called COUGAR, it would just start randomly bumping into all the brand new cars on the road.
YES, it's clever.
When does one cross the line from "flamebait" to "yes, that is an accurate portayal of what the current governmental policies or the media would report as real.".
You know it's true. C'mon. Seriously. We both know that anything currently announced as "due to global warming" gets far more press coverage and front row reporting than any old boring technical or scientific reasoning.
For example. Imagine its November, 1999. Two articles are written one says "Due to poor management, sloppy software design processes, lack of business requirements, many software packages may experience problems". The other reads "Due to Y2K, computers will fail all over and destroy civilization. Only $1.2 trillion will possibly keep it at bay."
Which one due you think will be the focus of government and media trumpeting?
Of course Y2K and global warming aren't exactly the same thing. Y2K had actual numbers and fixes and proveable test conditions, whereas global warming is...well...what it is.
The end result will pretty much be the same I guess.
Now THIS could be considered flame bait. Please MOD is accodingly. Preferably -10 or below.
Hey that's my mother you're talking about...she only horoed because she was young and needed the money.
A broken watch is right twice a day, that does not make it a scientist.
You've never met any chronologists or watch scientists have you. They need funding as much as anyone else.
He has a higher accuracy rates than psychics AND the Vatican, yet none of them were blamed for not having reported it.
That's what you get for putting your neck out. If he had reported "due to global warming, an earthquake is coming...", then he would currently be regarded as an international hero.
and the thousands of lives they save will be lost due to under educated government leaders in a bigot southern state
I, for one, always embrace the illusion of security over the loss of freedoms.
I'm not sure where governments being concerned about the freedoms of the citizens makes them either uneducated or bigots, but then their job is to (in theory) represent the people who vote for them. If the people overwhelmingly don't want cameras, then they should probably not be using cameras.
The problem with statists and other government force types, is that they don't really care what the people want, or even tacitly agree to. Instead it's about power and control. Apparently this particular government didn't want that or received too much flak to continue doing it.
I live in the largest city by land area in the contiguous United States with miles and miles of roads, and we don't have thousands of red light deaths. Perhaps those numbers were from another city.
I'm sure this "new" cold fusion device will have MUCH funding from the Scam, Cap and Trade economy so our "green donations" will be routed to another startup needing angel money.
I don't know how it rolls in Australia. In America it's good practice to "sir" the police officers (or other people who have power over you, love it, and have no empathy) because if you don't they kill you.
Even when you are being nice and polite, you'll be lucky if you just get ticketed, no matter whether it's deserved or not, as the alternative is being jailed, with usually some Rodney King style arrest procedures.
I don't know if you've ever seen the television show "Cops", but these are our BEST cops doing massive propoganda in order to look civilized, as they pile 12 guys on a teenager and light him up with tazers and pepper spray, and that's the "good" cops doing it.
Remember, we make sure that our police officers aren't the best and brightest, they may have some sympathy or conflicting philosophy so we must make sure we keep bullys and idiots to beat our citizens http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2DB143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260
If I know gamers, I'm SUUUURE it was the "controller" that did it and not the real activity that gave them sores on their hands from repeated motions with sweaty palms.
When these gamers aren't being pwned, they retire to several hours of "feel good" activities in mom's basement.
The government's job is about maintaining and growing power over the citizens.
A party opposed to that (in theory) is not going to be welcome at the table, so they have to be removed. You can't do that by convincing citizens that more power over them is better than less power over them, so you have to do what any weak organization does which is start lying about the other guy.
The reason they are margenalized is because of propoganda, which tries to constantly equate libertarians as either people hiding in the woods like "militias" (that wasn't always a bad word) or head-in-the-sand isolationists who are terrified of the world.
Just as the bandwagon technique in marketing is used, you have to use the reverse psychology technique of making you guilty by association to even be part of the libertarian party, and convince people that they'll be thought of as a nutjob if you join with them.
American's are somewhat unique in which unlike most countries, they have a great cultural fear of discussing politics in public (unless its an "official" news source or talk radio) or with friends in private. There's a big fear of talking about politics (or professing an opinion) in restaurants or bars (unless everyone is on the exact same side). American's haven't hung out in a German beer hall and loudly discussed politics or been in other countries where there is a less fearful feeling of discussing politics.
This of course is by design, because there is an ideology of "well, if we have too many political parties than there will be problems because of..." The two party system works great to keep power over citizens while giving them a "choice" by playing one side against another. A multi-party system decreases the power they can hold, and would cause them to have to fight among themselves for control, and would prevent many horrid pieces of legislation from being passed, because the truly stupid and evil laws would be brought to light before they are snuck in.
People do love servitude because they hate freedom and responsibility.
One time I had a gig in L.A. and was staying in Pasadena.
I did Tequila shots in L.A. all night and had to find my way back to Pasadena at 3 a.m. and was getting lost. I drifted through a stop sign and got pulled over.
I slipped a folded $100 bill with my license when he asked for it. My breathalyzer blew 0.00 that night.
Then he told me to go get some coffee at a convenience store, and gave me directions to my hotel.
When it comes to "hot chicks" and being rejected, just remember...
Somewhere, someone is tired of her shit.
Insurance companies don't want to pay for it, so the government decides that "digital" medical records will create zillions of jobs, help the economy, and other BS and ZING there goes another 100 billion.
"Alternative" energy suppliers don't want to pay for their own R&D and infrastructure so they need the government to promise zillions of jobs and ZING, there goes 100 billion.
Why should insurance companies have to pay for something that would benefit them when big-daddy government will take advantage of this massive over-blown economic recession to shuttle trillions of your dollars. Why wouldn't government use an opportunity to create another database with information about you that you have the "patriotic" duty to pay for?
I'm pretty sure this is just sticking to the government playbook.
The only thing digital records will do is make it easier to write a bot that will be able to download millions of medical records instead of having to do it one at a time.
Personally, I don't want "digital" records of my medical information. I'd prefer a good old folder filled with notes and paper and information such as that. I'd like to go to a doctor and NOT have my medical history completely available to him/her so I can get an actual diagnosis rather than just making assumptions because the last 6 morons have all said the same things. I want to be able to say that no, I didn't have an MRI, let's do another one with a different set of eyes, not my MRI following me everywhere so no one feels the urge to do a new one.
I like forcing my doctor to listen to the words coming out of my mouth about a medical issue, not running my big XML record through a parser to make a "guess" of what I have and print me a receipt for a prescription pill that isn't going to help me, but will bounce up against a marketing database to see what latest Pfizer development I should take. I'm sure in order to "streamline" and "reduce expences" of medical care, the government will pass the "Patient Free Choice Act" that will offer prescription medicine through kiosks ("Just Type In Your Medical Id Number") so you can get the Pfizer dream-pill of their choice ("No doctor needed!").
We're separated enough from our doctors because of insurance companies and government regulation as it is, I don't see the slightest benefit to making it easier for me to be ignored and shoved through the "in-and-out-burger" medical system by speeding me through the system.
Creating digital records is going to just make it more cost effective for insurance companies (and government medical rationing requirements once "nationalized" medicine comes into effect) to categorize you, treat you as a "group" of patients instead of an individual.
The "benefit" of easily shuttling your records around place to place in a standardized format would be great, if I had the slightest hope that it would be used strictly for that, and not completely abused for purposes that negatively affect me.
I mean, it's not like a social security number has been used in any way other than the purpose for which it was intended.
He should have been more careful sucking out that content.
There could have been some teenagers in there and made it statuatory.
I guess Jobs should have eaten an apple a day to keep the doctor away.
Or the "I'm-upper-middle-class-and-can-afford-proprietary-hardware-and-my-new-volkswagen-with-a-flower-holder-in-the-dash-and-expouse-my-northern-california-peace-movement-and-oh-my-god-ponies-and-IPhones-and"-heads.
No wait, that's a flame.
But a flame, by any other name, would smell like an apple.
We're supposed to be sleeping with them? I thought we were supposed to cower and run away from their cooties.
The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
I stopped buying CDs when the music companies started sueing their own customers.
You too? I thought I was the only one. I rarely bought music in the past, then downloaded a few songs which I would never have paid for but just wanted to hear. Then the RIAA started with their crap and I stopped listening to it all. There's nothing like being blamed for their crappy product. I mean, have the major labels actually put out that much good music in the last 10 years to even download? It seems like the bar has gotten awfully low.
As far as the "long tail" theory, I'm surprised that it was accepted that much at the time. Anderson sounded like the he had the same kind of glazed eye look about the future of the internet as the Web 2.0/Social networking people do when you talk to them.
Do people fundamentally change when they have more than one option to choose? I would have guessed rarely. Just because people have more choices does not mean they make statistically random choices. People have far greater psychological issues about what they choose and why they choose them than just availability. People like to be on the bandwagon and choose what their friends do, they like to choose things they've heard of and feel safe about, what's been recently marketed to them, comfort foods vs. healthy foods, etc.
Although we are all unique individuals following the herd, we by-and-large make the same choices about things, with a little bit of variance thrown in to keep it interesting. Raise your hand if you've never eaten at a McDonalds or drank a Coke before.
The internet may offer a wide variety of things in theory, but in reality it is businesses trying to offer customers the products that will give them the best ROI, and that means you'll make more money off the herd than a few outsiders demanding obscure products and services.
It makes sense to push items that the herd wants to buy. It makes sense to push the same things the other players are pushing and focus on better volume marketing, rather than pushing obscure things that a relatively few want and spending more money on targetted advertising.
The consumer follows the same approach as others, otherwise Walmart would not have been able to be in the position it's in.
It probably will be said to be because of global warming. Global warming is a stock answer for anything, because the solution is already made and cannot tolerate dissent.
I got yelled at for a previous post in which I questioned how accurate the measurements of the past could be in calculating that we've "warmed" by a whole degree and all. Apparently that's an invalid question, because those measurements are completely infallible. We can, however, completely screw up the measurement of a slice of the atmosphere by a huge margin due to our lack of meaningful measuring. Also, our satellites appear to be working most of the time anyway, which I find surprising if the information about the measured change is accurate.
The nice thing is, it doesn't matter. According to the new religion of consensus science, all that matters is that most of us agree that the ionosphere IS closer than it used to be; science being proven via popular vote apparently. I doubt this will have that big an issue on telecommunication satellites, because if there is a problem it can be solved using a redistribution of wealth to third world warlords or a satellite cap-and-trade system to solve our technological problems.
I think one big problem is that everyone seems to accept that the globe IS warming, and then argues for or against the causes.
Personally, I have a very VERY hard time believing that the earth has "warmed" in the first place.
I mean, are we really basing our analysis of past temperatures to be actually accurate? What equipment were they using? Do we measure temperatures using the exact same device as the people did a hundred years ago? Not just "sure, we use mercury thermometers", but the actual same one? Do you judge a clock running incorrectly by getting a similar clock and making theories about what it's doing? Who measured these things 100 years ago. Were they an novice who got the short straw and just made up numbers because he hated his job? Maybe he just stuck the thermometer out the window and a tree cast shade on it.
For anyone in IT that's had to run reports on databases, know it's garbage in garbage out. Is the temperature inputs accurate? Are they basing the "warming" on the numbers or are they taking averages of averages? Did they have worldwide sea level temperature readings a hundred years ago across all oceans or did ships just stick a thermometer in the water when they felt like it and made up numbers when they didn't?
Scientists all seem to agree that an Ice Age took place thousands of years ago, is it possible that things can be a major variable in climate that we don't understand? Should we base global climate untestable theories from people whose basis of analysis uses the same guesswork and computer models that can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow or not outside of a statistical percentage?
How come all the arguments to a scientific problem don't envision scientific solutions? How come the solutions all seem to involve a redistribution of wealth or creating a secondary energy market scheme which allows you to pollute at the same rate if you're wiling to buy some carbon offset credits?
If the earth, according to scientists, has had variations in carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, ammonia, and a host of other gasses, how do we even know what the right one is?
If I fill a jar with ice and water to the top and let it melt, the jar doesn't overflow and send out tidal waves. If the polar icecaps melt, which have already displaced the water in the ocean like ice in the jar, why would their melting make any change in height of the oceans by any appreciable degree?
If the oceans rise and fall by meters based on the tide, would a few inches make a real difference?
If global warming is true, and the earth raises a few degrees, wouldn't that allow for more land to be used for humans? Wouldn't many plants grow more plentiful and with increased warmth, consume more CO2 and provide more food for us?