While I generally agree, you have to keep in mind that not all whom one might call "deniers" are actually "skeptics". Skepticism is not just "Yeah, Whatever, don't believe it. [Citation Needed]" - Skepticism requires bringing forth arguments. Many arguments from the "climate skeptics" side are long since debunked and still repeated all over the place. Not saying that there are no valid arguments against anthropogenic global warming or especially against the resulting politics - but not all of it deserves the "skeptic" tag. Goes for both sides, of course, as always.
The possibility of those scenarios is out of the question. If you doubt that, you ignore all the science. What I concede to be open, is the probability for those scenarios. Now, in risk assessment, you basically look at probability*cost and on that basis, you build your strategy. The probability term is being constantly refined by improved models. You might claim that the economy is getting ruined, but in fact, the cost term has not been reasonably assessed by now. Knowledge of both the cost and the probability term allows us to formulate rational strategies.
While rising one level above the simplemindedness of the left-vs-right mindset, you have not reached enlightenment, young padawan. There are no easy answers. "The left is correct", "The right is correct" - those are simple answers and therefore in all probability wrong. "All politicians are liars" - this is also a simple answer - and therefore in all probability wrong. The habit of judging statements not on their merit, but on their source is what is destroying political discourse, young grasshopper. No go and meditate. BUT DO IT OFF MY LAWN!!!
While I agree that cooling would in all likelihood have more negative results, I can't agree that global warming is a globally positive effect. First, I believe the science to be accurate enough from what I do understand of it. While higher CO2 and temperatures might lead to higher crop yields in some regions, it might also lead to major shifts in rainfall patterns, either drying out current crop growing regions or drowning them, which can also cause mass starvations and migrations. And that is just one effect I can think of. Loss of usefulness of coastal regions which provide food for millions, disturbance of ocean acidity and thereby the whole oceanic ecosystem and the possibility of runaway feedback loops like the dissolution of methane clathrates are other possible problems.
The rational response to the possibility of severe consequences like those would be to focus our research on those consequences and on possibilities to adapt to them. The CO2 reduction goals that are talked about at the moment are probably illusionary. The easily reachable fossil fuels are gonna be burned - if not by the West, then by China or by industrializing third world countries. The goal has to be preparing for possible consequences.
Well, from film to film he somewhat increased the amount of destruction. How he will ever top 2012 in that regard is unclear to me. But hey, Emmerich is basically making disaster porn... You are not saying that anyone watches that stuff for the storý, are you?
My brain is a physical object that I can detect. So is my foot. Not so much my alleged soul. There is a demonstrable connection between my foot and my brain, working in both directions. My brain can tell it to move, stepping into a shard of glass tells my brain that something went wrong. How again is this equivalent to the problem here? Following your argument in the context of the GP post would mean that my "soul" is as physical and as real and as demonstrable in its existence as my foot. The distance between my foot and my mouth is sufficiently large, thank you very much.
That's kinda my point - what is the meaning behind the concept of "soul" as a transcendental, allegedly immortal entity, if "mere diet" or seeing a naked person alters it? What makes it different from my brain? Why, after applying Occam's razor, is it supposed to be still there? The whole standpoint is somewhat outlandish.
What meaning has the term "connected" if there is no causal dependency between the connected things whatsoever? If, as you say, the magnet interferes with the connection between soul and brain, then this connection is demonstrably physical - and by extension, also the soul, which, then, in other words, is just an emergent property of the brain.
Seems I forgot the sarcasm tags up there - I beg your pardon. Well, took no more that 10 minutes for the troll mod anyway. My non-sarcastic point - inefficiency and failure is not a function of government vs. private. Such oversimplifications kill rational debate. Inefficiency is mostly a function of size. Have you seen the amount of bureaucracy large corporation develop? I had some glimpses into the inner workings of multinationals - can't distinguish that from any government.
True, but this kind of social conditioning is still a major part of the training and takes its time. I guess the military would jump on a technology that shortens the process. However, I don't think that this kind of transcranial stimulation is what you need for that - the effect is after all short-term.
So... what you call "soul" is nothing but an emergent property of your brain? Doesn't that render the term meaningless? Isn't the soul supposed to be a transcendental component, which is by definition rather not to be influenced by a mere magnet?
But doesn't it look a bit off with regard to Herschel crater? I have to admit that I don't really have a competent idea here - astronomy is not my field. But wouldn't you expect ejecta pattern for an angled impact to form a someone more continuous curve without the sharp angle in the center section? Something remotely resembling a parabola? Besides, would the round shape of the crater itself not suggest a rather straight impact?
Sounds interesting. From another, not extremely more informative source, I got at least the temperature range - the bright yellow is at about 93K, the blue is colder at 77K. The center of Herschel crater is at about 84K. To hell with productivity - let's find out how this works...:)
You don't actually lose your patent rights when not going after an infringement or a patent initially. The actual consequences depend on the jurisdiction. In most of Europe, for example, you would severely compromise your position in subsequent litigation, though. Especially if the opposite site can raise doubts whether you acted in good faith, e.g. you didn't know about the infringement, or out of malice, to make more cash by trollish litigation.
For a pure lighting-induced phenomena, wouldn't the demarcations follow great circles? This doesn't look too spherical at all, which makes it so weird for me.
Would be interesting if other spectral bands show the same effect. My first thought would be that it is a difference in surface composition that causes the different heat retention mentioned in TFA. It still is an extremely weird shape for that, with that straight and rather sharp lines. Any ideas what could cause such a triangular boundary? Only thing that comes to my mind right now is that it looks like a bow wave, or a shock wave boundary.
I am not sure if that is completely right. Sure, Germany in the 20s was on the one hand a academically and intellectually sophisticated country. On the other hand, it was a severely torn country, with large parts of the population not standing behind the transition from monarchy to democracy, a hugely polarized political scene with fighting between communists and fascists on the streets - a pressure cooker waiting for the lid to blow. That is probably actually one of the reasons for the vibrant cultural scene of the 20s, everything being overheated, everything being in overdrive. I am pretty sure that there was a significant percentage at least of the intellectual groups of Germany's society in the 20s who would not have dismissed your prediction, who felt that there was an explosion to come.
The only places of land not owned or claimed by any country are parts of Antarctica and a strip of desert between Egypt and Sudan called Bir Tawil. Interesting international law question if an individual could acquire property there. In the case of Antarctica, probably not - the signatories of the Antarctic Treaty have jurisdiction over their citizens in Antarctica, so I as a German, for example, could not in any legally binding sense acquire Antarctic property, because Germany would not recognize that claim. The situation is probably the same in outer space, with a similar treaty situation regarding the place as common heritage of all mankind. Bir Tawil is more interesting - no state lays claim to it and no treaty covers the topic of property in the region. In fact, just this year some guy proclaimed himself Grand Duke of Bir Tawil and claimed the land.
Slashdot Mirror
While I generally agree, you have to keep in mind that not all whom one might call "deniers" are actually "skeptics". Skepticism is not just "Yeah, Whatever, don't believe it. [Citation Needed]" - Skepticism requires bringing forth arguments. Many arguments from the "climate skeptics" side are long since debunked and still repeated all over the place. Not saying that there are no valid arguments against anthropogenic global warming or especially against the resulting politics - but not all of it deserves the "skeptic" tag. Goes for both sides, of course, as always.
The possibility of those scenarios is out of the question. If you doubt that, you ignore all the science. What I concede to be open, is the probability for those scenarios. Now, in risk assessment, you basically look at probability*cost and on that basis, you build your strategy. The probability term is being constantly refined by improved models. You might claim that the economy is getting ruined, but in fact, the cost term has not been reasonably assessed by now. Knowledge of both the cost and the probability term allows us to formulate rational strategies.
While rising one level above the simplemindedness of the left-vs-right mindset, you have not reached enlightenment, young padawan. There are no easy answers. "The left is correct", "The right is correct" - those are simple answers and therefore in all probability wrong. "All politicians are liars" - this is also a simple answer - and therefore in all probability wrong. The habit of judging statements not on their merit, but on their source is what is destroying political discourse, young grasshopper. No go and meditate. BUT DO IT OFF MY LAWN!!!
While I agree that cooling would in all likelihood have more negative results, I can't agree that global warming is a globally positive effect. First, I believe the science to be accurate enough from what I do understand of it. While higher CO2 and temperatures might lead to higher crop yields in some regions, it might also lead to major shifts in rainfall patterns, either drying out current crop growing regions or drowning them, which can also cause mass starvations and migrations. And that is just one effect I can think of. Loss of usefulness of coastal regions which provide food for millions, disturbance of ocean acidity and thereby the whole oceanic ecosystem and the possibility of runaway feedback loops like the dissolution of methane clathrates are other possible problems.
The rational response to the possibility of severe consequences like those would be to focus our research on those consequences and on possibilities to adapt to them. The CO2 reduction goals that are talked about at the moment are probably illusionary. The easily reachable fossil fuels are gonna be burned - if not by the West, then by China or by industrializing third world countries. The goal has to be preparing for possible consequences.
Actually, the generally accepted theory is that helicopters do not fly because they are so goddamn ugly that even the earth repels them.
Well, from film to film he somewhat increased the amount of destruction. How he will ever top 2012 in that regard is unclear to me. But hey, Emmerich is basically making disaster porn... You are not saying that anyone watches that stuff for the storý, are you?
I assume non-existence until I get at least some demonstrable facts that hint at existence.
My brain is a physical object that I can detect. So is my foot. Not so much my alleged soul. There is a demonstrable connection between my foot and my brain, working in both directions. My brain can tell it to move, stepping into a shard of glass tells my brain that something went wrong. How again is this equivalent to the problem here? Following your argument in the context of the GP post would mean that my "soul" is as physical and as real and as demonstrable in its existence as my foot. The distance between my foot and my mouth is sufficiently large, thank you very much.
That's kinda my point - what is the meaning behind the concept of "soul" as a transcendental, allegedly immortal entity, if "mere diet" or seeing a naked person alters it? What makes it different from my brain? Why, after applying Occam's razor, is it supposed to be still there? The whole standpoint is somewhat outlandish.
What meaning has the term "connected" if there is no causal dependency between the connected things whatsoever? If, as you say, the magnet interferes with the connection between soul and brain, then this connection is demonstrably physical - and by extension, also the soul, which, then, in other words, is just an emergent property of the brain.
Ahh, why do you need NASA when you can simply ask slashdot. Occam's razor is on your side, Jenming. Well played.
Seems I forgot the sarcasm tags up there - I beg your pardon. Well, took no more that 10 minutes for the troll mod anyway. My non-sarcastic point - inefficiency and failure is not a function of government vs. private. Such oversimplifications kill rational debate. Inefficiency is mostly a function of size. Have you seen the amount of bureaucracy large corporation develop? I had some glimpses into the inner workings of multinationals - can't distinguish that from any government.
True, but this kind of social conditioning is still a major part of the training and takes its time. I guess the military would jump on a technology that shortens the process. However, I don't think that this kind of transcranial stimulation is what you need for that - the effect is after all short-term.
So... what you call "soul" is nothing but an emergent property of your brain? Doesn't that render the term meaningless? Isn't the soul supposed to be a transcendental component, which is by definition rather not to be influenced by a mere magnet?
Wait, so when a private corporation fubars something, you gotta roll in the government funded engineers to fix it? Interesting, interesting...
SARAH PALIN WILL NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOU.
Who knows what might happen after you zap her with that magnet-gun....
Forget the degausser - I guess this is what screwed me up... 18.8 Tesla, baby, 18.8 Tesla...
But doesn't it look a bit off with regard to Herschel crater? I have to admit that I don't really have a competent idea here - astronomy is not my field. But wouldn't you expect ejecta pattern for an angled impact to form a someone more continuous curve without the sharp angle in the center section? Something remotely resembling a parabola? Besides, would the round shape of the crater itself not suggest a rather straight impact?
Sounds interesting. From another, not extremely more informative source, I got at least the temperature range - the bright yellow is at about 93K, the blue is colder at 77K. The center of Herschel crater is at about 84K. To hell with productivity - let's find out how this works... :)
You don't actually lose your patent rights when not going after an infringement or a patent initially. The actual consequences depend on the jurisdiction. In most of Europe, for example, you would severely compromise your position in subsequent litigation, though. Especially if the opposite site can raise doubts whether you acted in good faith, e.g. you didn't know about the infringement, or out of malice, to make more cash by trollish litigation.
For a pure lighting-induced phenomena, wouldn't the demarcations follow great circles? This doesn't look too spherical at all, which makes it so weird for me.
Would be interesting if other spectral bands show the same effect. My first thought would be that it is a difference in surface composition that causes the different heat retention mentioned in TFA. It still is an extremely weird shape for that, with that straight and rather sharp lines. Any ideas what could cause such a triangular boundary? Only thing that comes to my mind right now is that it looks like a bow wave, or a shock wave boundary.
I am not sure if that is completely right. Sure, Germany in the 20s was on the one hand a academically and intellectually sophisticated country. On the other hand, it was a severely torn country, with large parts of the population not standing behind the transition from monarchy to democracy, a hugely polarized political scene with fighting between communists and fascists on the streets - a pressure cooker waiting for the lid to blow. That is probably actually one of the reasons for the vibrant cultural scene of the 20s, everything being overheated, everything being in overdrive. I am pretty sure that there was a significant percentage at least of the intellectual groups of Germany's society in the 20s who would not have dismissed your prediction, who felt that there was an explosion to come.
The only places of land not owned or claimed by any country are parts of Antarctica and a strip of desert between Egypt and Sudan called Bir Tawil. Interesting international law question if an individual could acquire property there. In the case of Antarctica, probably not - the signatories of the Antarctic Treaty have jurisdiction over their citizens in Antarctica, so I as a German, for example, could not in any legally binding sense acquire Antarctic property, because Germany would not recognize that claim. The situation is probably the same in outer space, with a similar treaty situation regarding the place as common heritage of all mankind. Bir Tawil is more interesting - no state lays claim to it and no treaty covers the topic of property in the region. In fact, just this year some guy proclaimed himself Grand Duke of Bir Tawil and claimed the land.
Yeah - but imagine junkyard wars with formula 1 funding....