There is a legal doctrine here in the US called "fighting words". While you are free to say whatever you want to say, you are also responsible for what you say. You are responsible for the consequences of what you say. And if you insult someone's religion or their mama you are responsible for the size 12 hush puppy that gets sent up your keister.
I don't think that's quite right. Offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words", and insulting someone's religion does not make you responsible if that person then assaults you. And that's exactly as it should be.
Oh, what rubbish. Your "big indicator" is hair splitting. If you look at the surveys cited in the article, particularly the ones from the last ten years, it's perfectly fair to say "nearly all".
What? How would any of this solve the control problem? How would you make sure the observed effects are due to the treatment, without having a control group?
Why is this comment modded "funny"? It's a very serious point and a good reductio ad absurdum of the position that we should all pay for homeopathy because it's effective as a placebo.
I don't believe that soceity has a right to tell one person that they MUST do something to keep another person alive. The analogy that I like to make is organ donation
You don't need an analogy - parents can be prosecuted for neglect of their children, and rightly so. So there is a law that tells people they MUST do something to keep another person, not only alive, but at an acceptable level of welfare.
Is it really that difficult to answer a straight question without sarcasm and jumping to conclusions? What does that say about you and your argument? I'll ask again: how do you back up your belief that "we don't really know how high we can go with the gas before we notice a significant effect"?
I certainly believe that the greenhouse gas theory is real and compelling. If humans do eventually increase the percentage of CO2 to a high enough level it may even have precisely the effect you describe. The problem is we don't really know how high we can go with the gas before we notice a significant effect. And, no, I don't consider the less than 1 degree change in over a centure to be significant.
You made a lot of clear arguments in this long post but this is the key, isn't it? Do you have a citation to back this up? Is it you opinion that there's no consensus among climate scientists about this issue, or that there is a consensus, but it's wrong?
I mean this as an even-handed question: with public funding of research, where would the incentive come from to find stuff that was actually useful, as opposed to just interesting for the researcher?
By not requiring the government to fund every researcher regardless of what they intend to do?
Well, obviously. But once the funding has been disbursed, what incentive there is to pursue useful, as opposed to interesting, research?
If you're going to fund drug development through government funding, why grant a monopoly? Just release it to the public domain. The company who can produce the cheapest generic will get the business. In order to fund development of drugs, charge a surcharge on all drugs. The whole thing could be revenue neutral from the government's perspective. But the drugs would be cheaper in the end. The reason is that drug companies do *not* charge extra to make up their development costs. They charge what the market will bear. You will essentially be removing the profit from the drug companies and keeping it in the pockets of consumers.
I mean this as an even-handed question: with public funding of research, where would the incentive come from to find stuff that was actually useful, as opposed to just interesting for the researcher?
You've thrown a lot of arguments together there in a bit of a jumble. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the point about Mars: it's well known that Mars is not warming globally, for what that's worth. As for the effects, there are plenty of economic studies showing the costs of AGW mitigation to be much cheaper than the costs of doing nothing. Try the Stern Report for starters.
Deaths per terrawatt hour is not a useful metric. Even if that number is certain to be higher with everyone favorite whipping boy, coal or oil, natural gas, solar whatever there is very little that can go wrong with those which would render a large area unlivable all at once. The deaths and health costs they create are spread over time. Society can budget for and deal with those costs and even cope with the occasion colamity.
With neuclear on the other hand the absolute costs might be less but the potential to have bear them all at once exists and it could very well be a back breaker for any society, that is the prespective you have to use.
This is certainly deserving of +5 insightful, but I disagree with it, and for the following reason: deaths per Twh gives some perspective to an otherwise ridiculously one-sided debate about the dangers of nuclear. If we had had more Gen II nuclear reactors built during the 70s instead of panicking about very unlikely accidents, then our current energy problems would be far, far less troublesome.
Hmm, so a baby at 36 weeks but still in the womb isn't alive? Even though, were the child to be outside the womb, it would survive on its own without any medical intervention?
Do you see a problem with this? I am not seeing why this should be a problematic thing to accept.
Because of the obvious analogy to other situations where humans are helpless but apparently still considered alive, e.g. life support.
The vast majority of published climate scientists believe that AGW is real. You're right that some of the people you mention have made mistakes. But so what?
1. Don't allow downmodding. Or maybe just have a reporting system for spam. The best posts should still rise to the top if you increase the score ceiling, say to +20.
2. Don't allow people to choose which posts they moderate. Have moderation work like metamoderation does now - the system decides which posts you can moderate. That should stop karma raids dead.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a legal doctrine here in the US called "fighting words". While you are free to say whatever you want to say, you are also responsible for what you say. You are responsible for the consequences of what you say. And if you insult someone's religion or their mama you are responsible for the size 12 hush puppy that gets sent up your keister.
I don't think that's quite right. Offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words", and insulting someone's religion does not make you responsible if that person then assaults you. And that's exactly as it should be.
Oh, what rubbish. Your "big indicator" is hair splitting. If you look at the surveys cited in the article, particularly the ones from the last ten years, it's perfectly fair to say "nearly all".
Yes, you're wrong.
Then there is the first sentence of the abstract:
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate..."
The very first sentence of the paper is demonstrably false, and
What? No, it isn't!
What? How would any of this solve the control problem? How would you make sure the observed effects are due to the treatment, without having a control group?
Why is this comment modded "funny"? It's a very serious point and a good reductio ad absurdum of the position that we should all pay for homeopathy because it's effective as a placebo.
Semicolons replace conjunctions, not prepositions.
No: they replace full stops or commas, not words of any type.
I don't believe that soceity has a right to tell one person that they MUST do something to keep another person alive. The analogy that I like to make is organ donation
You don't need an analogy - parents can be prosecuted for neglect of their children, and rightly so. So there is a law that tells people they MUST do something to keep another person, not only alive, but at an acceptable level of welfare.
Is it really that difficult to answer a straight question without sarcasm and jumping to conclusions? What does that say about you and your argument? I'll ask again: how do you back up your belief that "we don't really know how high we can go with the gas before we notice a significant effect"?
I certainly believe that the greenhouse gas theory is real and compelling. If humans do eventually increase the percentage of CO2 to a high enough level it may even have precisely the effect you describe. The problem is we don't really know how high we can go with the gas before we notice a significant effect. And, no, I don't consider the less than 1 degree change in over a centure to be significant.
You made a lot of clear arguments in this long post but this is the key, isn't it? Do you have a citation to back this up? Is it you opinion that there's no consensus among climate scientists about this issue, or that there is a consensus, but it's wrong?
As for the climate getting slowly warmer, as a species we would be very lucky if that is actually the case
Citation needed.
people are trying to use year to year swings to guess what the climate will be like 100 years hence
Which people?
and so far utterly botched even a simple five or ten year prediction
5-year change != climate change.
You forgot to say that it will cause all PCs to be infected with a strange, all-powerful virus that can only be removed with MyCleanPC.
I mean this as an even-handed question: with public funding of research, where would the incentive come from to find stuff that was actually useful, as opposed to just interesting for the researcher?
By not requiring the government to fund every researcher regardless of what they intend to do?
Well, obviously. But once the funding has been disbursed, what incentive there is to pursue useful, as opposed to interesting, research?
If you're going to fund drug development through government funding, why grant a monopoly? Just release it to the public domain. The company who can produce the cheapest generic will get the business. In order to fund development of drugs, charge a surcharge on all drugs. The whole thing could be revenue neutral from the government's perspective. But the drugs would be cheaper in the end. The reason is that drug companies do *not* charge extra to make up their development costs. They charge what the market will bear. You will essentially be removing the profit from the drug companies and keeping it in the pockets of consumers.
I mean this as an even-handed question: with public funding of research, where would the incentive come from to find stuff that was actually useful, as opposed to just interesting for the researcher?
You've thrown a lot of arguments together there in a bit of a jumble. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the point about Mars: it's well known that Mars is not warming globally, for what that's worth. As for the effects, there are plenty of economic studies showing the costs of AGW mitigation to be much cheaper than the costs of doing nothing. Try the Stern Report for starters.
You didn't do a very good job of "ending the thread here" though, did you?
Deaths per terrawatt hour is not a useful metric. Even if that number is certain to be higher with everyone favorite whipping boy, coal or oil, natural gas, solar whatever there is very little that can go wrong with those which would render a large area unlivable all at once. The deaths and health costs they create are spread over time. Society can budget for and deal with those costs and even cope with the occasion colamity.
With neuclear on the other hand the absolute costs might be less but the potential to have bear them all at once exists and it could very well be a back breaker for any society, that is the prespective you have to use.
This is certainly deserving of +5 insightful, but I disagree with it, and for the following reason: deaths per Twh gives some perspective to an otherwise ridiculously one-sided debate about the dangers of nuclear. If we had had more Gen II nuclear reactors built during the 70s instead of panicking about very unlikely accidents, then our current energy problems would be far, far less troublesome.
And the most popular e-reader in the world is...?
Hmm, so a baby at 36 weeks but still in the womb isn't alive? Even though, were the child to be outside the womb, it would survive on its own without any medical intervention?
Do you see a problem with this? I am not seeing why this should be a problematic thing to accept.
Because of the obvious analogy to other situations where humans are helpless but apparently still considered alive, e.g. life support.
The vast majority of published climate scientists believe that AGW is real. You're right that some of the people you mention have made mistakes. But so what?
Wrong. The vast majority of published climate scientists believe that it *is* being accelerated due to man's activity.
I appreciate the effort you've gone to in rebutting the same old retarded talking points. I just wish there was a better way.
Mods, this post was ridiculous but it's hardly "offtopic".
I think there are two possible solutions to this:
1. Don't allow downmodding. Or maybe just have a reporting system for spam. The best posts should still rise to the top if you increase the score ceiling, say to +20.
2. Don't allow people to choose which posts they moderate. Have moderation work like metamoderation does now - the system decides which posts you can moderate. That should stop karma raids dead.
Really?