With the Cuban missile crisis, we had very little to lose by reducing the risk of a nuclear attack.
With global warming, we lose a very large set of things to combat it. Should humanity suffer for every possible risk to earth? How can we progress as a species when anything could potentially spell our doom? What is more important, humanity or earth?
Which is more likely: 1. We heat up the earth with our tiny fraction of man-made greenhouse gases and make the earth inhabitable. 2. We restrict our energy sources so tightly that we cannot continue to feed our growing population and starve to death.
Since both options are very dangerous to us, we should be careful in making our decision.
The point is we don't know. If our survival depends on a strict range of natural conditions, then removing too much CO2 from the environment could spell disaster as well.
Since you like metaphors, if you're playing poker with your existence at stake, would you go all-in before looking at your cards?
1. They aren't being increased by every boiling pot in America, or every breathing child, or every AC unit in America?
2. Our CO2 levels need to stay within the range of the last few thousand years? We're all doomed for sure then.
3. I agree, scientific, but untested.
4. Right, it predicts change. This is untestable, and self-affirming. If it were scientific, there would be a testable hypothesis. No such testable hypothesis exists, ergo not scientific.
2. But if you follow global warming models, as Al shows them to us, the CO2 quantities at that time would make it impossible for even the most basic cellular life to form.
3. 30 years is not a long time. The biggest collection of temp. data used in favor of Global Warming came from NASA and was plagued with a Y2K bug (bizarre, I know). Methods for reconstructing millenia old temperatures are scientific, but well, untested. We may be warming, our indicators suggest we are, but we don't have the data to make an empirical claim.
The argument: Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect which is caused by greenhouse gases which are released from burning oil.
The problems: 1. Ignores the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect: water vapor. 2. Oil is formed by compressing organic material for a long long time. This means that, prior to life, this CO2 was already in the atmosphere. Meaning, life formed under conditions of higher CO2!!! 3. Global temperatures have not been tracked long or accurate enough to make the empirical claims that have been made. 4. Global warming has been replaced with Climate Change, and all evidence is, by definition, in favor of Climate Change. Ie, it is now disprovable since it accurately predicts the future can hold anything.
All in all I'm glad it it makes its way into every topic...
I've been called a pedophile, a rapist, and a distributor of child pornography. Despite this being illegal, I've found it to be impossible to fight. The post is still there, available for anyone to read.
So I don't think it's alive and well and thriving. People shouldn't have to pay several grand to defend themselves per defamation. Since it's so easy to do, and so risk-free, I expect to read about Britney's bad mothering, and Jennifer's depression for a long long time.
Slander isn't an opinion. This article is not about someone's opinion, nor about the freedom to express an opinion. It is about the ability to slander without fear of consequence. Well even more than that, it also extends to the difficulty for someone to protect themselves from online abuse like this.
Imagine someone posted that you were a pedophile, that you hoarded large quantities of child pornography, and that you raped young children. What do you do after the hoster of this content ignores your request to have it removed? What happens if the poster of this content ignores your request to remove it? What happens when your lawyer says you can only seek punitive damages?
Yeah, we need a mob! Then we can pillage, burn, and rape without consequence. We need to show those that would try to enforce the law that we won't stand for it!
Save the frogs, kill the fungus! Yes, trust us, frogs are cuter than fungus, they will clearly be more beneficial to our species than a new fungus ever could hope to be.
Besides, if we do nothing, the surviving 20% of frogs will follow their primal instincts and repopulate themselves! And what's worse, the new generations will be immune to this harmful fungus!! The inhumanity!
Currently, our latest version of flash has 50 times more users than our original version, which had a market penetration of 20% after it launched. This leads us to believe we currently have a market penetration of 1000%, which is 10x more than you can possibly get with any competitor!
Slashdot Mirror
With the Cuban missile crisis, we had very little to lose by reducing the risk of a nuclear attack.
With global warming, we lose a very large set of things to combat it. Should humanity suffer for every possible risk to earth? How can we progress as a species when anything could potentially spell our doom? What is more important, humanity or earth?
Which is more likely:
1. We heat up the earth with our tiny fraction of man-made greenhouse gases and make the earth inhabitable.
2. We restrict our energy sources so tightly that we cannot continue to feed our growing population and starve to death.
Since both options are very dangerous to us, we should be careful in making our decision.
The point is we don't know. If our survival depends on a strict range of natural conditions, then removing too much CO2 from the environment could spell disaster as well.
Since you like metaphors, if you're playing poker with your existence at stake, would you go all-in before looking at your cards?
But does it have an LPT port?
Yes, climate always changes, and since Global Warming is politically tied to Climate change, it is invariably true?
This is hand waving. This is not science.
My point is that hypothesis can only be proved, it cannot be disproved. If it canned be disproved, it is not testable.
1. They aren't being increased by every boiling pot in America, or every breathing child, or every AC unit in America?
2. Our CO2 levels need to stay within the range of the last few thousand years? We're all doomed for sure then.
3. I agree, scientific, but untested.
4. Right, it predicts change. This is untestable, and self-affirming. If it were scientific, there would be a testable hypothesis. No such testable hypothesis exists, ergo not scientific.
5. Because I disagree?
Nope, you can't
Maybe I'm jaded, but aren't you suggesting that those of us that are abused, should just take one for the team?
2. But if you follow global warming models, as Al shows them to us, the CO2 quantities at that time would make it impossible for even the most basic cellular life to form.
3. 30 years is not a long time. The biggest collection of temp. data used in favor of Global Warming came from NASA and was plagued with a Y2K bug (bizarre, I know). Methods for reconstructing millenia old temperatures are scientific, but well, untested. We may be warming, our indicators suggest we are, but we don't have the data to make an empirical claim.
We have a test for climate change? Please please please, can you tell us what this test is?
If climate change can literally destroy the planet, shouldn't we understand it before we act?
Doesn't the scientific method mandate a testable hypothesis?
Please explain how we can test "climate change".
The argument:
Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect which is caused by greenhouse gases which are released from burning oil.
The problems:
1. Ignores the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect: water vapor.
2. Oil is formed by compressing organic material for a long long time. This means that, prior to life, this CO2 was already in the atmosphere. Meaning, life formed under conditions of higher CO2!!!
3. Global temperatures have not been tracked long or accurate enough to make the empirical claims that have been made.
4. Global warming has been replaced with Climate Change, and all evidence is, by definition, in favor of Climate Change. Ie, it is now disprovable since it accurately predicts the future can hold anything.
All in all I'm glad it it makes its way into every topic...
I've been called a pedophile, a rapist, and a distributor of child pornography. Despite this being illegal, I've found it to be impossible to fight. The post is still there, available for anyone to read.
So I don't think it's alive and well and thriving. People shouldn't have to pay several grand to defend themselves per defamation. Since it's so easy to do, and so risk-free, I expect to read about Britney's bad mothering, and Jennifer's depression for a long long time.
Unless you work for a large media network, and then an "anonymous source" should be sufficient to destroy someone.
Slander isn't an opinion. This article is not about someone's opinion, nor about the freedom to express an opinion. It is about the ability to slander without fear of consequence. Well even more than that, it also extends to the difficulty for someone to protect themselves from online abuse like this.
Imagine someone posted that you were a pedophile, that you hoarded large quantities of child pornography, and that you raped young children. What do you do after the hoster of this content ignores your request to have it removed? What happens if the poster of this content ignores your request to remove it? What happens when your lawyer says you can only seek punitive damages?
I'll tell you what happens, it stays up, for the whole world to see.
Yeah, we need a mob! Then we can pillage, burn, and rape without consequence. We need to show those that would try to enforce the law that we won't stand for it!
insidious threats like disease or climate change
I think you missed the part where they worked in climate change. Surely we must to something!
Save the frogs, kill the fungus! Yes, trust us, frogs are cuter than fungus, they will clearly be more beneficial to our species than a new fungus ever could hope to be.
Besides, if we do nothing, the surviving 20% of frogs will follow their primal instincts and repopulate themselves! And what's worse, the new generations will be immune to this harmful fungus!! The inhumanity!
Currently, our latest version of flash has 50 times more users than our original version, which had a market penetration of 20% after it launched. This leads us to believe we currently have a market penetration of 1000%, which is 10x more than you can possibly get with any competitor!
Re-read the summary about 3 times, like the rest of us, and it will start to make grammatical sense.
The newly appointed Cyber Security Tzar has initiated a program to deploy cybots, a self-aware 'collective', as a tool to monitor the populace.
Guess the days of a panicked mob are a thing of the past.
Visual C++.
A c++ compiler will choke and die trying to compile that garbage. RIP little buddy.
That's today.
Tomorrow, after prices have changed by 0.2% you now get more sales support calls.
WOOOOOSH!!!