You may not realize it, but you are talking about radiative cooling, because it's the only type of heat transfer for which color matters. If you really insist you're not talking about radiative cooling, then your "black is better" thesis is dead in the water.
But OK, "go try it". Well guess what, someone did that. How about you RTFA and notice that the one black cooler in the review is right in the middle of the pack? Why is that? Because the engineers who are paid to design these things all know nothing, and Osgeld-who-is-not-an-armchair-quarterback would do a much better job in their stead? On maybe the techspot reviewer has been bribed by Intel, for whom I am a scientific shill, because Intel doesn't want people to know that black coolers are so much more efficient, otherwise everyone would buy a black cooler and overclock their CPU by 50%? And Intel also bribed most of the CPU cooler industry so that they don't put a black coating on their coolers?
Pro tip: learn when it's time to cut your losses and admit you're wrong, instead of throwing a tantrum. Come back when you're a bit older.
you actually can watch black surfaces cool off faster
At normal CPU operating temperatures, no, you can't. The kind of temperatures at which your claim becomes plausible (in air at atmospheric pressure) would instantly render a silicon chip inoperable. You obviously didn't click on the link in my other post, where someone did the actual calculation, so who's not paying attention here?
Also, I know this stopped being "news for nerds" a long time ago and that I cannot assume you're scientifically literate, so I apologize if this is over your head, but this here will explain why a CPU cooler in normal design conditions can't do (a significant amount of) radiative cooling.
That's assuming most heat is emitted in the form of radiation. This would be true in a vacuum, but we're talking about heatsinks designed for computers that are filled with a nifty substance called "air". Although air neither has the highest heat capacity nor is it the best thermal conductor, at the conditions found inside a typical desktop case, even a slow stream of air can beat radiative cooling to the point of irrelevance. And for the thermal coupling between the heatsink and air, the color matters little, it's the shape that counts. That's why we have all these parallel fins, which are utterly pointless from a radiation perspective.
It's not unusual for elderly people to feel threatened by all the change that's going on, and to have their fears exploited by conservative politicians. This is and has been happening everywhere in the world, throughout all of human history. You could just as well be telling me that water is wet.
And yes, on occasion, a larger part of the population falls prey, often resulting in wars. But on this front, I actually feel afraid of the US more than most EU countries (Greece being one of the obvious exceptions). There are still more people voting for paranoid fear-mongering conservatives in the US than in most western European nations I know of. I'm not saying this to badmouth the US, just as an example of the wider observation that empirically spoken, if there is a correlation between having a welfare state and people acting as cattle, it appears to be a negative one.
Now I'm curious. So even though you know the country and its people, you think Germany is bankrupt, somewhere between Kafka and Orwell, and Germans behave like cattle? Or were you talking hypothetically?
You obviously never visited any western European country (or just looked at the pretty buildings and didn't try to mingle with the locals) and get your image of these countries from Fox News and The Blaze. Why is it that Americans are so politically correct about each other's sensitivities but make these kind of rabidly ignorant inflammatory remarks about other countries?
Let me return the favor: yes, in America, you have a constitutional right to carry guns and spread nazi propaganda (both of which I'll never do). But you're not free to have a beer while walking down the street (which is something I will do) or go on strike or organize a demonstration (yes I know theoretically you can, but in practice the powers that be will twist the law to arrest you for it, unlike in most welfare states). Also, you are constantly spied upon, have to ask a private company permission every time you get a medical procedure or test done, and cannot go to certain parts of town without risking getting shot. Corporations are people and money is speech (money talks after all), corruption is legal and institutionalized (only one doesn't call it "corruption" if it's legal), trusts and oligopolies ensure you're overpaying for a lot of services (health care is so expensive that tax payers who have it lose all the money they saved by not having to pay for a welfare state), and if you're born poor, you're much less likely to get rich any of your reviled welfare states. But hey, don't let those social mobility statistics bother you and keep on believing in The Dream; you won't be alone because I've never seen a country with such gullible voters as the US. I've been living there for 6 years and found it's a society of cattle, financially bankrupt, and with a completely screwed up justice system. I'll feel more free when leaving your police state and going back to my welfare state, thank you very much.
To the "I disagree with you and agree with the other guy so I mod your posts down and the other guy's up" moderators: piss off. Both parties are equally offtopic and I've been making mostly factual statements here; not my fault you don't like the truth.
Instead, if we do nothing, I think we'll be lucky after the dust settles, if most of the world will still be able to feed itself. But don't worry, evil corporations and greed will be blamed for any resulting starvation and such, not the failure of feet-dragging politicians and voters to prevent a long-predicted tragedy.
See? It works both ways.
No, I don't see that.
Obviously you don't. What I did was turn your "economic change alarmist" sentence into an "AGW alarmist" sentence to show how similar they are.
the AGW alarmism and all the big money back that.
Oh yeah, because the economical sector that has an interest in combating carbon dioxide emissions and climate change is so much bigger than the economical sector that profits from the burning of fossil fuels? And the former is known to have a lot of leverage on capitol hill, having an influence on decisions such as starting wars, constructing pipelines and ending drilling moratoria, while the latter hasn't? You got it backwards, buddy. The "big money backing climate science" is by far the most mindbogglingly stupid argument of all the stupid arguments in this whole manufactured controversy. You should be ashamed of even uttering it here - you're insulting everyone's intelligence and common sense. This is "news for nerds", not "news for insensate knuckleheads".
Sorry, no revisions allowed on slashdot.
Also, I wasn't implying you were one of those demagogic libertarians - I don't know you well enough to either confirm or deny that. What I do know is that a lot of people here are very close-minded and hostile to the idea of the welfare state and will flame every viewpoint that doesn't conform their US-centric utopia. I even seem to have made it to some kind of right-wing moderation blacklist a few weeks ago after being a bit too vocal in a gun control debate; I've had more unexpected downmods in the last few weeks than in the ~6 months before. Of course, this could all be a coincidence, but I'm slowly getting suspicious.
"Fascist movements emphasize a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a distrust of foreigners (xenophobia), the latter closely linked to the ethnocentrism of many fascist movements."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Also, socialism != communism. Yet another one of those great American myths.
TFA presents some interesting data, but is a bit weak on the interpretation front. It's easy to say, "there are multiple times the workers available as there are positions, hence the shortage is a myth". It's much more difficult to answer the question: "then why is everyone making such a big deal out of it". TFA does attempt to give a number of answers (for the lazy readers, scroll down about 2/3 of the article to the paragraph starting with "Clearly, powerful forces"), but leaves me somewhat unconvinced. There must be more to it than that. Could it for instance be that a lot of these STEM graduates have assimilated the knowledge from their textbooks but lack the deep insight and creative talent to use it to excel in a real work situation? I know this is certainly a problem in my field, just like there are so many people who call themselves programmers but can't really program. (Just read Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky and co if you don't want to take my word for it.) Could it be that "the graduates get snatched by better-paying jobs in other sectors and the STEM industry doesn't want to raise wages" is also partially "the graduates were found to dull by the STEM industry and got employed in a different sector"?
Maybe also tangentially relevant. (Yes I know it's not entirely on topic but neither was it where I originally posted it - in fact, now I feel I posted in in the wrong discussion.)
Please, not that old myth again (both you and GP). Yes, "nazi" stands for "National Socialist". Well guess what? The nazi's were about as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. Fascism = totalitarianism + racial superiority complex.
And no, not all totalitarianism is socialism. Think of all the totalitarian dictatorships the CIA helped into power during the cold war.
Where did you guys get educated - some kind of public school?:-P (just joking)
First, don't come crying when this gets modded "troll". Your post is offtopic and likely to provoke an emotional response, even more so given its source (citing The Blaze is only a small step above starting a sentence with "Glenn Beck said" and we all know what that does). For the sake of balance, here's a differentview (which also would have served your point).
Second, because I'm in a mood to feed a troll, the EU-US debate on homeschooling is a complex one because of the huge differences in schooling systems and philosophy. A lot of European countries do indeed forbid homeschooling - I grew up in such a country and I support those laws. At the same time, I feel having similar laws in the US would be the most terrible idea. It's very difficult to explain this, and I'm half-expecting to get flamed to hell by American libertarians (again), but allow me to give it a try.
The country I come from has in its constitution not only a right for everyone to receive primary and secondary schooling at no cost, but also a duty for all children under 18 to complete secondary school (which means that one can drop out, but only when reaching adulthood). There are different "levels" of schools depending on the child's mental capacity; parents can start their child off at any level they choose (and there are professionals available to help with that choice), but if the child fails a year repeatedly (I believe it's 3 times), they'll have to go one level lower. In order to be legal, schools need to be accredited (and the criteria for accreditation are set by a politically independent commission), but in return they get subsidies that make them virtually free. Compared to what I heard from American parents and other expats who have children, the uniform quality of the free education in my home country is something rarely seen of in the US. As for religion, there is a (relatively small) number of hours per week dedicated to that, during which the classes are split up per religion. Parents are of course free to supplement these hours after school. Public schools are required by law to offer every student the religion of their (or their guardian's) choice, even if that means the school has to hire a part-time Islam teacher for only 3 pupils. There are also Christian schools who (I believe) don't need to follow this rule but otherwise have to go through the same accreditation. For atheists and such, in the public schools, the "religion" hours are filled with classes during which pupils are stimulated to develop independent critical thinking skills. These classes would typically pick a social issue (immigration, aids, drug addiction, poverty, the environment,...) for a few weeks and make the pupils read different standpoints on these issues, followed by an in-class debate; not a day passes by in which I don't wish Americans would get such classes.
So, in my home country, there is simply no good reason to homeschool your children: school is for free, you get to choose what religion your kid will be indoctrinated with and if you're an atheist you'll be happy to know they get pretty good critical thinking classes, and as far as the other subjects (history, geography, language, math, sciences) are concerned, the teachers are highly qualified and you'd have to be a polymath genius to offer your kids an equivalent level of knowledge and skills in the same subject areas. If you still want to homeschool nevertheless, then typically, something fishy is going on, like you want to keep your children out of society to brainwash them. Nobody is going to get better from that (especially not the children) so if you insist, you'll need to emigrate. Now in the US, thin
You're on the right track, but it's actually even worse than that. More relevant quote from EU spokesman:
"The Commission has not tabled – and does not have in the pipeline – even a non-binding Recommendation, let alone anything more. The Commission has supported past research into ISA. There is a current stakeholder consultation and study focusing on speed limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses. One aspect of that is whether ISA could in the long-term be an alternative. And a second consultation on in-vehicle safety systems in general. Taking account of the consultation results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things. That is all."
And it's not that the British newspapers publishing that drivel have the excuse of being misinformed or anything. It's ludicrous to think the EU has any concrete plans of doing such things in the first place - all these so-called "journalists" would need to do is think how much public support a measure like this would get (very close to zero), how good this would be for the careers of the politicians involved, and of the horrible mess that would ensue with countries' individual schemes of speed limits, including Germany.... The same thing goes for the/. editors - listen up guys, if something sounds too sensational to be true, it usually is. Also, some healthy skepticism is in place with news coming form certain sources - one would think the editors should by now be aware of the abysmal reputation of some UK news outlets...
Instead, if we do nothing, I think we'll be lucky after the dust settles, if most of the world will still be able to feed itself. But don't worry, evil corporations and greed will be blamed for any resulting starvation and such, not the failure of feet-dragging politicians and voters to prevent a long-predicted tragedy.
See? It works both ways.
Also, you don't even know what my idea is, yet you're calling it "profoundly bad". I wasn't proposing to return to the stoneage, it that's what you thought - quite the opposite. And economies are well know to settle into "lazy" suboptimal anti-innovative Nash equilibria and to react positively to a little bit of imposed "innovation pressure", as long as it's not too much. Whatever happened to the US that would out-innovate its economic competitors?
Or, the uneducated population believes that the majority of studies do not support anthropomorphic climate change and are naturally skeptical of conclusions drawn on shaky modeling.
FTFY.
Also, congratulations, you just credulously repeated most used climate myths #4 and #6.
You're in luck; your fellow denier bluefoxlucid just unwittingly posted links to the article that solves the riddle to the slowdown. Basically, it's cold deep water from the pacific temporarily absorbing some of the excess heat, and the slowdown in heating (which still isn't cooling) won't last.
Mega-strawman. The only one who has ever brought up a ban on the internal combustion engine is you, blissfully ignoring reasonable solutions such as a cap-and-trade scheme. Or a moderate and slowly increasing tax on fossil fuels. Or, you know, elimination of those covert subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry. The money raised by either of these last options can help a bit with the federal deficit, or alternatively can be used to hand some tax breaks to sectors that are unfairly hard-hit by more expensive fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
You may not realize it, but you are talking about radiative cooling, because it's the only type of heat transfer for which color matters. If you really insist you're not talking about radiative cooling, then your "black is better" thesis is dead in the water.
But OK, "go try it". Well guess what, someone did that. How about you RTFA and notice that the one black cooler in the review is right in the middle of the pack? Why is that? Because the engineers who are paid to design these things all know nothing, and Osgeld-who-is-not-an-armchair-quarterback would do a much better job in their stead? On maybe the techspot reviewer has been bribed by Intel, for whom I am a scientific shill, because Intel doesn't want people to know that black coolers are so much more efficient, otherwise everyone would buy a black cooler and overclock their CPU by 50%? And Intel also bribed most of the CPU cooler industry so that they don't put a black coating on their coolers?
Pro tip: learn when it's time to cut your losses and admit you're wrong, instead of throwing a tantrum. Come back when you're a bit older.
you actually can watch black surfaces cool off faster
At normal CPU operating temperatures, no, you can't. The kind of temperatures at which your claim becomes plausible (in air at atmospheric pressure) would instantly render a silicon chip inoperable. You obviously didn't click on the link in my other post, where someone did the actual calculation, so who's not paying attention here?
Also, I know this stopped being "news for nerds" a long time ago and that I cannot assume you're scientifically literate, so I apologize if this is over your head, but this here will explain why a CPU cooler in normal design conditions can't do (a significant amount of) radiative cooling.
Oh I just found this post which has a more quantitative analysis. So yeah, 1.6W of radiative cooling = irrelevance.
That's assuming most heat is emitted in the form of radiation. This would be true in a vacuum, but we're talking about heatsinks designed for computers that are filled with a nifty substance called "air". Although air neither has the highest heat capacity nor is it the best thermal conductor, at the conditions found inside a typical desktop case, even a slow stream of air can beat radiative cooling to the point of irrelevance. And for the thermal coupling between the heatsink and air, the color matters little, it's the shape that counts. That's why we have all these parallel fins, which are utterly pointless from a radiation perspective.
It's not unusual for elderly people to feel threatened by all the change that's going on, and to have their fears exploited by conservative politicians. This is and has been happening everywhere in the world, throughout all of human history. You could just as well be telling me that water is wet.
And yes, on occasion, a larger part of the population falls prey, often resulting in wars. But on this front, I actually feel afraid of the US more than most EU countries (Greece being one of the obvious exceptions). There are still more people voting for paranoid fear-mongering conservatives in the US than in most western European nations I know of. I'm not saying this to badmouth the US, just as an example of the wider observation that empirically spoken, if there is a correlation between having a welfare state and people acting as cattle, it appears to be a negative one.
Very eloquently put. And at least you didn't get modded down for fighting misconceptions (yet).
Now I'm curious. So even though you know the country and its people, you think Germany is bankrupt, somewhere between Kafka and Orwell, and Germans behave like cattle? Or were you talking hypothetically?
You obviously never visited any western European country (or just looked at the pretty buildings and didn't try to mingle with the locals) and get your image of these countries from Fox News and The Blaze. Why is it that Americans are so politically correct about each other's sensitivities but make these kind of rabidly ignorant inflammatory remarks about other countries?
Let me return the favor: yes, in America, you have a constitutional right to carry guns and spread nazi propaganda (both of which I'll never do). But you're not free to have a beer while walking down the street (which is something I will do) or go on strike or organize a demonstration (yes I know theoretically you can, but in practice the powers that be will twist the law to arrest you for it, unlike in most welfare states). Also, you are constantly spied upon, have to ask a private company permission every time you get a medical procedure or test done, and cannot go to certain parts of town without risking getting shot. Corporations are people and money is speech (money talks after all), corruption is legal and institutionalized (only one doesn't call it "corruption" if it's legal), trusts and oligopolies ensure you're overpaying for a lot of services (health care is so expensive that tax payers who have it lose all the money they saved by not having to pay for a welfare state), and if you're born poor, you're much less likely to get rich any of your reviled welfare states. But hey, don't let those social mobility statistics bother you and keep on believing in The Dream; you won't be alone because I've never seen a country with such gullible voters as the US. I've been living there for 6 years and found it's a society of cattle, financially bankrupt, and with a completely screwed up justice system. I'll feel more free when leaving your police state and going back to my welfare state, thank you very much.
To the "I disagree with you and agree with the other guy so I mod your posts down and the other guy's up" moderators: piss off. Both parties are equally offtopic and I've been making mostly factual statements here; not my fault you don't like the truth.
Instead, if we do nothing, I think we'll be lucky after the dust settles, if most of the world will still be able to feed itself. But don't worry, evil corporations and greed will be blamed for any resulting starvation and such, not the failure of feet-dragging politicians and voters to prevent a long-predicted tragedy.
See? It works both ways.
No, I don't see that.
Obviously you don't. What I did was turn your "economic change alarmist" sentence into an "AGW alarmist" sentence to show how similar they are.
the AGW alarmism and all the big money back that.
Oh yeah, because the economical sector that has an interest in combating carbon dioxide emissions and climate change is so much bigger than the economical sector that profits from the burning of fossil fuels? And the former is known to have a lot of leverage on capitol hill, having an influence on decisions such as starting wars, constructing pipelines and ending drilling moratoria, while the latter hasn't? You got it backwards, buddy. The "big money backing climate science" is by far the most mindbogglingly stupid argument of all the stupid arguments in this whole manufactured controversy. You should be ashamed of even uttering it here - you're insulting everyone's intelligence and common sense. This is "news for nerds", not "news for insensate knuckleheads".
Sorry, no revisions allowed on slashdot.
Also, I wasn't implying you were one of those demagogic libertarians - I don't know you well enough to either confirm or deny that. What I do know is that a lot of people here are very close-minded and hostile to the idea of the welfare state and will flame every viewpoint that doesn't conform their US-centric utopia. I even seem to have made it to some kind of right-wing moderation blacklist a few weeks ago after being a bit too vocal in a gun control debate; I've had more unexpected downmods in the last few weeks than in the ~6 months before. Of course, this could all be a coincidence, but I'm slowly getting suspicious.
"Fascist movements emphasize a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a distrust of foreigners (xenophobia), the latter closely linked to the ethnocentrism of many fascist movements."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Also, socialism != communism. Yet another one of those great American myths.
TFA presents some interesting data, but is a bit weak on the interpretation front. It's easy to say, "there are multiple times the workers available as there are positions, hence the shortage is a myth". It's much more difficult to answer the question: "then why is everyone making such a big deal out of it". TFA does attempt to give a number of answers (for the lazy readers, scroll down about 2/3 of the article to the paragraph starting with "Clearly, powerful forces"), but leaves me somewhat unconvinced. There must be more to it than that. Could it for instance be that a lot of these STEM graduates have assimilated the knowledge from their textbooks but lack the deep insight and creative talent to use it to excel in a real work situation? I know this is certainly a problem in my field, just like there are so many people who call themselves programmers but can't really program. (Just read Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky and co if you don't want to take my word for it.) Could it be that "the graduates get snatched by better-paying jobs in other sectors and the STEM industry doesn't want to raise wages" is also partially "the graduates were found to dull by the STEM industry and got employed in a different sector"?
Maybe also tangentially relevant. (Yes I know it's not entirely on topic but neither was it where I originally posted it - in fact, now I feel I posted in in the wrong discussion.)
Please, not that old myth again (both you and GP). Yes, "nazi" stands for "National Socialist". Well guess what? The nazi's were about as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. Fascism = totalitarianism + racial superiority complex.
And no, not all totalitarianism is socialism. Think of all the totalitarian dictatorships the CIA helped into power during the cold war.
Where did you guys get educated - some kind of public school? :-P (just joking)
First, don't come crying when this gets modded "troll". Your post is offtopic and likely to provoke an emotional response, even more so given its source (citing The Blaze is only a small step above starting a sentence with "Glenn Beck said" and we all know what that does). For the sake of balance, here's a different view (which also would have served your point).
Second, because I'm in a mood to feed a troll, the EU-US debate on homeschooling is a complex one because of the huge differences in schooling systems and philosophy. A lot of European countries do indeed forbid homeschooling - I grew up in such a country and I support those laws. At the same time, I feel having similar laws in the US would be the most terrible idea. It's very difficult to explain this, and I'm half-expecting to get flamed to hell by American libertarians (again), but allow me to give it a try.
The country I come from has in its constitution not only a right for everyone to receive primary and secondary schooling at no cost, but also a duty for all children under 18 to complete secondary school (which means that one can drop out, but only when reaching adulthood). There are different "levels" of schools depending on the child's mental capacity; parents can start their child off at any level they choose (and there are professionals available to help with that choice), but if the child fails a year repeatedly (I believe it's 3 times), they'll have to go one level lower. In order to be legal, schools need to be accredited (and the criteria for accreditation are set by a politically independent commission), but in return they get subsidies that make them virtually free. Compared to what I heard from American parents and other expats who have children, the uniform quality of the free education in my home country is something rarely seen of in the US. As for religion, there is a (relatively small) number of hours per week dedicated to that, during which the classes are split up per religion. Parents are of course free to supplement these hours after school. Public schools are required by law to offer every student the religion of their (or their guardian's) choice, even if that means the school has to hire a part-time Islam teacher for only 3 pupils. There are also Christian schools who (I believe) don't need to follow this rule but otherwise have to go through the same accreditation. For atheists and such, in the public schools, the "religion" hours are filled with classes during which pupils are stimulated to develop independent critical thinking skills. These classes would typically pick a social issue (immigration, aids, drug addiction, poverty, the environment,...) for a few weeks and make the pupils read different standpoints on these issues, followed by an in-class debate; not a day passes by in which I don't wish Americans would get such classes.
So, in my home country, there is simply no good reason to homeschool your children: school is for free, you get to choose what religion your kid will be indoctrinated with and if you're an atheist you'll be happy to know they get pretty good critical thinking classes, and as far as the other subjects (history, geography, language, math, sciences) are concerned, the teachers are highly qualified and you'd have to be a polymath genius to offer your kids an equivalent level of knowledge and skills in the same subject areas. If you still want to homeschool nevertheless, then typically, something fishy is going on, like you want to keep your children out of society to brainwash them. Nobody is going to get better from that (especially not the children) so if you insist, you'll need to emigrate. Now in the US, thin
You're on the right track, but it's actually even worse than that. More relevant quote from EU spokesman:
" The Commission has not tabled – and does not have in the pipeline – even a non-binding Recommendation, let alone anything more. The Commission has supported past research into ISA. There is a current stakeholder consultation and study focusing on speed limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses. One aspect of that is whether ISA could in the long-term be an alternative. And a second consultation on in-vehicle safety systems in general. Taking account of the consultation results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things. That is all."
Source: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/reports-of-brussels-big-brother-bid-to-impose-speed-controls-are-inaccurate-beyond-the-limit-2/
And it's not that the British newspapers publishing that drivel have the excuse of being misinformed or anything. It's ludicrous to think the EU has any concrete plans of doing such things in the first place - all these so-called "journalists" would need to do is think how much public support a measure like this would get (very close to zero), how good this would be for the careers of the politicians involved, and of the horrible mess that would ensue with countries' individual schemes of speed limits, including Germany.... The same thing goes for the /. editors - listen up guys, if something sounds too sensational to be true, it usually is. Also, some healthy skepticism is in place with news coming form certain sources - one would think the editors should by now be aware of the abysmal reputation of some UK news outlets...
Instead, if we do nothing, I think we'll be lucky after the dust settles, if most of the world will still be able to feed itself. But don't worry, evil corporations and greed will be blamed for any resulting starvation and such, not the failure of feet-dragging politicians and voters to prevent a long-predicted tragedy.
See? It works both ways.
Also, you don't even know what my idea is, yet you're calling it "profoundly bad". I wasn't proposing to return to the stoneage, it that's what you thought - quite the opposite. And economies are well know to settle into "lazy" suboptimal anti-innovative Nash equilibria and to react positively to a little bit of imposed "innovation pressure", as long as it's not too much. Whatever happened to the US that would out-innovate its economic competitors?
Oh hello, most used climate myth #59 again! They really ought to rank that on higher.
Congratulations, you just regurgitated most used climate myth #11. (I can do this the whole day.)
Congratulations, you just regurgitated most used climate myths #66 and #59. Please fact-check before showing off your ignorance.
Or, the uneducated population believes that the majority of studies do not support anthropomorphic climate change and are naturally skeptical of conclusions drawn on shaky modeling.
FTFY.
Also, congratulations, you just credulously repeated most used climate myths #4 and #6.
You're in luck; your fellow denier bluefoxlucid just unwittingly posted links to the article that solves the riddle to the slowdown. Basically, it's cold deep water from the pacific temporarily absorbing some of the excess heat, and the slowdown in heating (which still isn't cooling) won't last.
Mega-strawman. The only one who has ever brought up a ban on the internal combustion engine is you, blissfully ignoring reasonable solutions such as a cap-and-trade scheme. Or a moderate and slowly increasing tax on fossil fuels. Or, you know, elimination of those covert subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry. The money raised by either of these last options can help a bit with the federal deficit, or alternatively can be used to hand some tax breaks to sectors that are unfairly hard-hit by more expensive fuel.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass.