There are several pharmacological companies. The compete with each other.
The people who run those companies, the Board, CEO, CFO, ETC get money based on stock performance.
If company A develops a cure for cancers, especial a cure for most/all cancers, there stocks will skyrocket, their competitors stock will drop.
The C*O get bonuses worth 10s of million, if not 100's of millions of dollars. The stock holders and board members all become far more richer then they where.
THINK about what you are proposing. THINK about the current technical and communication environment
If company A develops this, then Companies B,C,D, etc aren't far behind.
Are you seriously proposing the the C*O and board member sit around while other companies make billions over night? Let it sit in drawer so the next generation can make billions?
When you use ad homs like Big Pharma, it tells the world that you aren't actually thinking.
"Dying is not the worst case. Living fully aware, hooked up to a large pile of life support machines in substantial and unending pain is the worst case, and not out of the range of possibilities."
I disagree. Death is the worse case. There really isn't any possibility of recovery after death. and certainly not more then a couple of hours of being dead.
Three is a possibility, however slim, that they may fix me os I can live off the mechanical respiratory system and pain free.
But even that could be avoided. Emerging countries don't need to go through the same polluting measures early riser went through.
The US, China, Europe, could start teaching them to use Solar and 4th gen nuclear plants. Show emerging villages how to use wind and help with the infrastructure.
We should mandate solar panels on new homes. That will drive further research into better panels. and will will start to shave are usage down. IT will mean home DESIGNED for solar panels; which will also reduce the price.
Yes, I do know it's not sunny all the time; but if you are looking for a solution the magical replaces all need for power, then you need to rethink the stance.
Pollution and climate does not give a shit about are arbitrary map lines.
except the firing people who deny have people spending millions of dollars lying to people, changing facts, and have a voice in the media every day.
SO there nonsense can't be ignored, it has to be shown why they are wrong. How many people think Climate change is false because Rush L. keeps spouting lies and logical fallacy?
Stop. there was no need to pollute* this argument with religion. He should. I am an atheist, but really lets not turn this into something else. please?
Since the temperature variation is ontop of normal known cycles, then yes it's CO2.
The suns is relatively stable when talking about the climate over the last 100 or so year.
Changing in the Sun do NOT match the temperature increase overall. In fact, in years where temperature would normal be lightly cooler do to the incredibly small output change from the sun, temperatures leveled off, but did NOT decrease.
We would know if the sun was the cause of the temperature increase. It's been studied, it isn't the cause. It would be trivially easy to see if it was the Sun. Either let it go and realize there is more to it, or bring forth new hypothesis scientists can look at.
I know I am repeating myself, but I want to be very clear: Yes, the Sun effects the weather and climate on the earth. Only an idiot would think other wise; however climate temperature increase as been happening on top of suns activity.
Are you talking about the 1800*? when there where 4 volcanic eruption in '12-13, then then a massive one in '15 that resulted in 2-3 years of cold temperatures?
*deniers like to say the 1800s where colder, you can't explain that! But it was really only 3 years, and it is very explainable.
The temperature never 'just changes' there is always an event. The magnitude of the event depend on the amount of energy change, and length of the event, and how fast it's effects can be removed. So a large volcanoe will change the weather for a short time, then most of the dust settles back down.
We are experiencing an event of increased CO2. Anyone who denies the increase in CO2 should be ignored and removed for all science discussions. It's a fact. This is an increasing effect over very long time. 100 years, or so, and more and more gets put into the air every year. again, this is a provable fact. We have so much CO2 because humans are putting it all into the atmosphere. again, fact.
Co2 traps heat, again fact.
Humans causing global climate change- scientific theory. Sure, maybe something else is happening...but highly unlikely. when other reason have been brought forth, it turned out they didn't fit the data and were dismissed.
NO one says it's the only thing that can ever change the temperature, only that it's doing it this time. AS humans, we could begin allowing it down, and possible even removing it's effects; but as long as politician refuse science, and as long as people feel they can do what ever they want because their god will protect them, nothing can be done.
One it become run away, the inevitability is: we will become extinct. So we are lucky in that we could actual change this event. It would take massive cooperation, and, yes as long as people are simply denying the science, or think some magic cure will fall from heaven we will need a government mandate and regulation to support long term goals.
I believe that we still have a lot of low hanging fruit we could take care of with no or little impact to are daily lives. But people do things from habit and cause their 'merican
In correct. the drought is cause be the weather; it's the result of how dry it is. And pipe mismanagement is an important but separate issue. I suggest the people in charge of the water contact the Portland Water bureau and ask them for advice in the matter.
The problem usually is that the pipes are underground, and people don't see them. Maintaining a healthy water system take constant maintenance. People won't see long term so water budgets fall out of sink with costs.
It snows about every 3 years, and it has snowed before in Eugene this time of year. HOWEVER, it is the first time PDX has gotten measurable snow this time of the year.
rare? today was the first time a measurable amount of snow was seen in the Portland, OR airport..ever.
The arctic shift was predicted by climate change models. Yes, on event is not a trend, and one year is just weather. Taken into the whole, it's different. The weather has been unusual for more then a year. In fact it's gotten more energetic, as predicted.
If it's crazy again next year, are you going to make the same post? the year after that? Sometimes the weather is a prediction of climate.
so? here is a clue: it's not 1500 anymore. And that instance was caused by short term events. 1800? no, not '1800s'. 2-3 years during the early 1800. '15, '16, '17 over some of the globe due to a large volcano eruption that was preceded by 4 smaller eruptions in 1812-13. Stop making it sound like it was cooling for the entire 1800. It's deceitful, and shows us you are willing to speak with conviction without doing any actual research.
You mention 2 spikes. That is wildly different the a multi-decade trend.
A year isn't, generally, climate it's weather. The overall global climate is changing, and it's changing pretty darn rapidly. Reversing the trend will take effort, money, and time. Some people seem to forget there isn't a top. There is no reason climate can't change so we have aver global temperatures 50 degree hotter the it is now.
But, people like you want to call people names and cherry pick data while the world burns. asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
You're an idiot. Let me explain:
There are several pharmacological companies. The compete with each other.
The people who run those companies, the Board, CEO, CFO, ETC get money based on stock performance.
If company A develops a cure for cancers, especial a cure for most/all cancers, there stocks will skyrocket, their competitors stock will drop.
The C*O get bonuses worth 10s of million, if not 100's of millions of dollars. The stock holders and board members all become far more richer then they where.
THINK about what you are proposing. THINK about the current technical and communication environment
If company A develops this, then Companies B,C,D, etc aren't far behind.
Are you seriously proposing the the C*O and board member sit around while other companies make billions over night? Let it sit in drawer so the next generation can make billions?
When you use ad homs like Big Pharma, it tells the world that you aren't actually thinking.
It's the dose that makes the poison.
And , no, it is NOT a basic strategy of medicine.
That's is no the most frequent option anymore... depending on cancer type.
And it's still about ;probability.in that you are far more likely to survive with the drugs.
browse lower. There are a hell of a lot of racists, stupid, and nonsensical AC posts.
I usually browse higher, so the AC I see a generally relevant since they where modded up.
"Dying is not the worst case. Living fully aware, hooked up to a large pile of life support machines in substantial and unending pain is the worst case, and not out of the range of possibilities."
I disagree. Death is the worse case. There really isn't any possibility of recovery after death. and certainly not more then a couple of hours of being dead.
Three is a possibility, however slim, that they may fix me os I can live off the mechanical respiratory system and pain free.
And yes, I have thought about this considerably.
"The idea that humans are going to cause problems by warming the globe is not scientific consensus, either."
yes it is, actually.
"There is no 'solution' to global warming that is supported by most scientists."
reduction in CO2 is the consensus on that.
"How much is a huge question;"
not really.
"it could be completely negligible."
consensus says otherwise.
Fucking read up, asshole.
other causes have been studied, they don't match the facts; and global warming has made several predictions.
1978 called, they want there argument back.
Please, bring forth something besides mans constant emissions of CO2 that match the facts.
Just to save some time:
The Sun has been ruled out, as has cosmic radiation, planetary alignment, and pirates.
are you aware the global climate change is global? and the Europe is in a whole different part of the world then Chicago?
But even that could be avoided. Emerging countries don't need to go through the same polluting measures early riser went through.
The US, China, Europe, could start teaching them to use Solar and 4th gen nuclear plants. Show emerging villages how to use wind and help with the infrastructure.
We should mandate solar panels on new homes. That will drive further research into better panels. and will will start to shave are usage down. IT will mean home DESIGNED for solar panels; which will also reduce the price.
Yes, I do know it's not sunny all the time; but if you are looking for a solution the magical replaces all need for power, then you need to rethink the stance.
Pollution and climate does not give a shit about are arbitrary map lines.
except the firing people who deny have people spending millions of dollars lying to people, changing facts, and have a voice in the media every day.
SO there nonsense can't be ignored, it has to be shown why they are wrong. How many people think Climate change is false because Rush L. keeps spouting lies and logical fallacy?
the wager also assumes that God is a fucking moron and you can trick your way into heaven by doing rituals.
Perhaps you might want to read up more on Pascal's wager.. and why it's bullshit.
Stop. there was no need to pollute* this argument with religion. He should.
I am an atheist, but really lets not turn this into something else. please?
*HA!
Since the temperature variation is ontop of normal known cycles, then yes it's CO2.
The suns is relatively stable when talking about the climate over the last 100 or so year.
Changing in the Sun do NOT match the temperature increase overall. In fact, in years where temperature would normal be lightly cooler do to the incredibly small output change from the sun, temperatures leveled off, but did NOT decrease.
We would know if the sun was the cause of the temperature increase. It's been studied, it isn't the cause. It would be trivially easy to see if it was the Sun. Either let it go and realize there is more to it, or bring forth new hypothesis scientists can look at.
I know I am repeating myself, but I want to be very clear:
Yes, the Sun effects the weather and climate on the earth. Only an idiot would think other wise; however climate temperature increase as been happening on top of suns activity.
you need to be specific.
Are you talking about the 1800*? when there where 4 volcanic eruption in '12-13, then then a massive one in '15 that resulted in 2-3 years of cold temperatures?
*deniers like to say the 1800s where colder, you can't explain that! But it was really only 3 years, and it is very explainable.
The temperature never 'just changes' there is always an event. The magnitude of the event depend on the amount of energy change, and length of the event, and how fast it's effects can be removed. So a large volcanoe will change the weather for a short time, then most of the dust settles back down.
We are experiencing an event of increased CO2. Anyone who denies the increase in CO2 should be ignored and removed for all science discussions. It's a fact.
This is an increasing effect over very long time. 100 years, or so, and more and more gets put into the air every year. again, this is a provable fact.
We have so much CO2 because humans are putting it all into the atmosphere. again, fact.
Co2 traps heat, again fact.
Humans causing global climate change- scientific theory. Sure, maybe something else is happening...but highly unlikely. when other reason have been brought forth, it turned out they didn't fit the data and were dismissed.
NO one says it's the only thing that can ever change the temperature, only that it's doing it this time. AS humans, we could begin allowing it down, and possible even removing it's effects; but as long as politician refuse science, and as long as people feel they can do what ever they want because their god will protect them, nothing can be done.
One it become run away, the inevitability is: we will become extinct.
So we are lucky in that we could actual change this event. It would take massive cooperation, and, yes as long as people are simply denying the science, or think some magic cure will fall from heaven we will need a government mandate and regulation to support long term goals.
I believe that we still have a lot of low hanging fruit we could take care of with no or little impact to are daily lives. But people do things from habit and cause their 'merican
I
they will notice if the temperature drops to typical April weather and all the early blooming crops die.
yes, because NJ = the entire globe.
idiot.
In correct. the drought is cause be the weather; it's the result of how dry it is. And pipe mismanagement is an important but separate issue. I suggest the people in charge of the water contact the Portland Water bureau and ask them for advice in the matter.
The problem usually is that the pipes are underground, and people don't see them. Maintaining a healthy water system take constant maintenance. People won't see long term so water budgets fall out of sink with costs.
link? I see nothing on the weather Chanel say the temperature was 91
It snows about every 3 years, and it has snowed before in Eugene this time of year. HOWEVER, it is the first time PDX has gotten measurable snow this time of the year.
rare? today was the first time a measurable amount of snow was seen in the Portland, OR airport..ever.
The arctic shift was predicted by climate change models. Yes, on event is not a trend, and one year is just weather. Taken into the whole, it's different. The weather has been unusual for more then a year. In fact it's gotten more energetic, as predicted.
If it's crazy again next year, are you going to make the same post? the year after that?
Sometimes the weather is a prediction of climate.
No, we aren't.
so? here is a clue: it's not 1500 anymore. And that instance was caused by short term events.
1800? no, not '1800s'. 2-3 years during the early 1800. '15, '16, '17 over some of the globe due to a large volcano eruption that was preceded by 4 smaller eruptions in 1812-13. Stop making it sound like it was cooling for the entire 1800. It's deceitful, and shows us you are willing to speak with conviction without doing any actual research.
You mention 2 spikes.
That is wildly different the a multi-decade trend.
A year isn't, generally, climate it's weather. The overall global climate is changing, and it's changing pretty darn rapidly. Reversing the trend will take effort, money, and time. Some people seem to forget there isn't a top. There is no reason climate can't change so we have aver global temperatures 50 degree hotter the it is now.
But, people like you want to call people names and cherry pick data while the world burns. asshole.
And that is why the government makes an efort to keep a stable food chain.
Something to keep in mind when people complain about farmer subsidies for not growing something a particular year.
That's a lot of wild ass speculation that overlooks in real world facts.
But then again you're an idiot.