That actually could be a cause. Heat from inside the planet making it out quicker. Hmm, I'd heard about the new storms but I hadn't thought about it like that. Anyways, I was just giving my opponents the benefit of the doubt on Jupiter, and trying to show how, even if the sun was causing Jupiter to warm, it doesn't completely explain Earth. But yours is a much better line of reasoning to put forth in this case.
Idiot. Global warming is due to waste,and inefficiency. Reducing waste and inefficiency creates value. You don't understand this simple proposition because you have an emotionally vested interest in being right about global warming, and no amount of evidence will sway you. It just tears you up inside that the hippies and leftists are right, doesn't it?
The Earth is affected by the sun's output. However, scientists know exactly how much it is affected, and global warming is far greater than can be explained by that effect alone.
No, google reveals that it is 0 scientists, 0 of whom have PhDs. The sources I read includes a petition from Edward Teller, who has been dead for quite some time. Do you have a source that isn't a joke?
Doc, uhhhh, doc? I think he was agreeing with us. He said people who fall for the "but climate scientists don't take X into account" argument have no respect for science, and so the argument's lack of respect for science simply reinforces their beliefs.
No, I am not shouting them down, the evidence is shouting them down. I am not treating anything as gospel, I just believe the preponderance of evidence is on the side of anthropogenic global warming. But anyone that disagrees with you must be trying to brainwash you. Must be scary being you, with all of us out to brainwash you and strip you of your rights.
As the heat Jupiter produces is primarily from latent heat of gravitational collapse, what mechanism do you propose as the source of this increased warming?
Funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. Those 400 scientists have produced garbage science by carefully selecting evidence and discarding everything that doesn't fit their hypothesis. The fact that there are only 400 of them willing to lie like that is heartening, though.
You've not in any way proven that scientists against global warming are poorer. What about corporate contributions? There are plenty of other sources of funding besides the UN.
True, there is nothing beyond questioning. Scientists question things. If any of them could prove global warming false, they would have an everlasting place in the history books.
There are no carbon cultists. Your position seems hypocritical. The so called carbon cultists are questioning things, and you seem to feel that they shouldn't.
If you add wood to a fire and feel much warmer than can be accounted for by the extra wood, one would assume something else is causing some of the warming. That is what climate scientists are saying.
You think they just hold up a bulb thermometer? Be surprised. We can measure the temperature of the sun a lot more accurately than that. You really don't have any understanding of the kinds of tools scientists have available these days, do you?
And you obviously pick the conclusion that you'd like to be true, and then reason backwards to find a theory that fits. Even if that means embracing the idea of a conspiracy of scientists.
Got any references for that 31,000 climatologists number, or are you just making shit up? The anti-alarmists are lying. They are defending the status quo. A lot of rich, powerful people stand to lose if global warming is true, while a bunch of clever individuals with innovative solutions will profit. You want to know who's lying? Follow the money.
But the Sun's temperature has not increased that much. Your characterization of climate scientists as a high priesthood says all I need to know about your respect for real science. You are one of those people who jumps to conclusions and then reasons backwards to find a comfortable theory that fits what you'd like to believe is true.
First, if global warming is true, it will also cause a redistribution of wealth to people who didn't earn it, as certain areas benefit from climate change and others suffer.
Second, the cap and trade system, while not perfect , does not redistribute wealth to those who do not earn it. Fighting global warming is creating value, and those who benefit from fighting global warming get the wealth because they deserve it.
So, the reality is the exact opposite of your snide assumptions. Global warming will redistribute wealth unfairly. Fighting it will redistribute wealth fairly. Redistribution of wealth happens anyway, do you want it to be fair or unfair?
First, lack of sunspots corresponds to lowered solar output. Second, while the warming of Jupiter can be explained by increases in solar output, the warming of Earth can not. Do you honestly think climate scientists don't take this into account? That's either bordering on a tinfoil hat level of crazy conspiracy theory, or it represents an equally crazy level of disdain for other people's intellect.
I can't understand why anyone falls for this argument, it represents a complete lack of respect for science.
Olber's paradox says that if time stretches back infinitely, the sky would be uniformly as bright as a star.
In this theory, the parent universe is not visible. Our universe separated from it at the Big Bang. There was a time before, but that doesn't mean you can see an infinite number of stars
Yes you would. Everyone's got something inside them besides meat. Nobody said it had to be an interesting universe though. Most people's inner universe is the equivalent of a small run down flat in New Jersey.
Re:Robert Pirsig has a DVD out
on
Running Xen
·
· Score: 1
Lila was gilding the lily, as far as I am concerned. He arrived at a very deep and simple conclusion in ZATOMM. In Lila he attempts to gussy up that conclusion with all sorts of derived details. Interesting, but not as profound as his first book.
Re:Nope. No one has heard of that book.
on
Running Xen
·
· Score: 1
No, no. Seriously, the moderators are the ones who needed zinging.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, but moderation goes in cycles here. The asshats have the upper hand for now, but meta-moderation will fix that before long.
That actually could be a cause. Heat from inside the planet making it out quicker. Hmm, I'd heard about the new storms but I hadn't thought about it like that. Anyways, I was just giving my opponents the benefit of the doubt on Jupiter, and trying to show how, even if the sun was causing Jupiter to warm, it doesn't completely explain Earth. But yours is a much better line of reasoning to put forth in this case.
Idiot. Global warming is due to waste,and inefficiency. Reducing waste and inefficiency creates value. You don't understand this simple proposition because you have an emotionally vested interest in being right about global warming, and no amount of evidence will sway you. It just tears you up inside that the hippies and leftists are right, doesn't it?
The Earth is affected by the sun's output. However, scientists know exactly how much it is affected, and global warming is far greater than can be explained by that effect alone.
Please go look at realclimate.org, where all of his so-called evidence is overwhelmingly refuted. If you can answer the rebuttals there, be my guest.
No, google reveals that it is 0 scientists, 0 of whom have PhDs. The sources I read includes a petition from Edward Teller, who has been dead for quite some time. Do you have a source that isn't a joke?
Doc, uhhhh, doc? I think he was agreeing with us. He said people who fall for the "but climate scientists don't take X into account" argument have no respect for science, and so the argument's lack of respect for science simply reinforces their beliefs.
No, I am not shouting them down, the evidence is shouting them down. I am not treating anything as gospel, I just believe the preponderance of evidence is on the side of anthropogenic global warming. But anyone that disagrees with you must be trying to brainwash you. Must be scary being you, with all of us out to brainwash you and strip you of your rights.
As the heat Jupiter produces is primarily from latent heat of gravitational collapse, what mechanism do you propose as the source of this increased warming?
Funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. Those 400 scientists have produced garbage science by carefully selecting evidence and discarding everything that doesn't fit their hypothesis. The fact that there are only 400 of them willing to lie like that is heartening, though.
You've not in any way proven that scientists against global warming are poorer. What about corporate contributions? There are plenty of other sources of funding besides the UN.
True, there is nothing beyond questioning. Scientists question things. If any of them could prove global warming false, they would have an everlasting place in the history books.
There are no carbon cultists. Your position seems hypocritical. The so called carbon cultists are questioning things, and you seem to feel that they shouldn't.
What kind of work does your data center do? Just curious.
My system? Cap and trade is not my system, I thought the sentence you quoted made that pretty clear.
If you add wood to a fire and feel much warmer than can be accounted for by the extra wood, one would assume something else is causing some of the warming. That is what climate scientists are saying.
You think they just hold up a bulb thermometer? Be surprised. We can measure the temperature of the sun a lot more accurately than that. You really don't have any understanding of the kinds of tools scientists have available these days, do you?
And you obviously pick the conclusion that you'd like to be true, and then reason backwards to find a theory that fits. Even if that means embracing the idea of a conspiracy of scientists.
Got any references for that 31,000 climatologists number, or are you just making shit up? The anti-alarmists are lying. They are defending the status quo. A lot of rich, powerful people stand to lose if global warming is true, while a bunch of clever individuals with innovative solutions will profit. You want to know who's lying? Follow the money.
You are trying to defend this guy by stating that thousands of climate scientists all don't check their facts. Nice.
But the Sun's temperature has not increased that much. Your characterization of climate scientists as a high priesthood says all I need to know about your respect for real science. You are one of those people who jumps to conclusions and then reasons backwards to find a comfortable theory that fits what you'd like to believe is true.
First, if global warming is true, it will also cause a redistribution of wealth to people who didn't earn it, as certain areas benefit from climate change and others suffer.
Second, the cap and trade system, while not perfect , does not redistribute wealth to those who do not earn it. Fighting global warming is creating value, and those who benefit from fighting global warming get the wealth because they deserve it.
So, the reality is the exact opposite of your snide assumptions. Global warming will redistribute wealth unfairly. Fighting it will redistribute wealth fairly. Redistribution of wealth happens anyway, do you want it to be fair or unfair?
First, lack of sunspots corresponds to lowered solar output. Second, while the warming of Jupiter can be explained by increases in solar output, the warming of Earth can not. Do you honestly think climate scientists don't take this into account? That's either bordering on a tinfoil hat level of crazy conspiracy theory, or it represents an equally crazy level of disdain for other people's intellect.
I can't understand why anyone falls for this argument, it represents a complete lack of respect for science.
Olber's paradox says that if time stretches back infinitely, the sky would be uniformly as bright as a star.
In this theory, the parent universe is not visible. Our universe separated from it at the Big Bang. There was a time before, but that doesn't mean you can see an infinite number of stars
Yes you would. Everyone's got something inside them besides meat. Nobody said it had to be an interesting universe though. Most people's inner universe is the equivalent of a small run down flat in New Jersey.
Lila was gilding the lily, as far as I am concerned. He arrived at a very deep and simple conclusion in ZATOMM. In Lila he attempts to gussy up that conclusion with all sorts of derived details. Interesting, but not as profound as his first book.
No, no. Seriously, the moderators are the ones who needed zinging.