Both options do only one thing...put money in he coffers of the government.
It's a bureaucrat's dream and a Democrat's Big Government wet dream. It would place virtually all of the economy under the thumb of the government and do little to reduce emissions.
This was a deliberate policy established during the Clinton Administration by Jamie Gorelick to wall off information between the CIA/other foreign intelligence sources and the FBI/Local law enforcement.
Whether I screech about nukes proves nothing about AGW, just like your red herrings prove nothing.
Oh, but it is.
AGW is being posited as a problem, a problem of such importance that it requires a solution. If you don't think that is important or relevant to the discussion then I can only assume you don't think AGW is a problem. In that case, discussions about AGW are a waste of time. It may be interesting, but it has as much practical impact on the ordinary person as does CERN finding another quark. Interesting, but I don' give a shit.
If, on the other hand, you DO think it's a problem, then foremost in your thought process should be, "how do we solve it?"
There are essentially two approaches. The first involves devolution of industry and living standards in the West and the other involves further developing and deployment of an existing technology that is well understood and has a very promising technical future. The first option really isn't even a solution because half the world won't go for it. The second option is a solution with the added bonus of going a long towards extracting the West from Middle East politics and reducing the chances of environmental damage associated with fossil fuel exploration and extraction.
So you have to ask your self...do you want to solve the problem or not? If not, then you are no better then some ex-wife screeching about something that no one cares about and we'd all prefer you just shut it. But if you do, then a wise individual would be thinking about doing an end run around the entire debate and advocating a solution that addresses everyone's concerns.
So which is it? Are you someone who cares about what happens or are you just a fat bitch of an ex-wife?
Ask yourself why you are resistant to a solution that solves everyone's problems?
Are you a screeching anti-nuke activist? Do you fear AGW becoming moot?
As for the Science, I don't have to prove anyone wrong, they have to prove themselves right. Funny how folks who scream Scientific Principals all the time ignore the basic tenet of proving your claim. Instead the claim is simply floated and those who may disagree or have reservations are asked to prove it wrong.
Then, when an alternate theory is suggested, they are told to prove that right. Seems the AGW crowd doesn't have to prove anything other than an acute case of Group Think.
Of course, I think you are being rather disingenuous by retreating to the cover of objective science and claiming that they (you) are merely reporting the facts. It is plain to even the casual observer that Climate Science and schemes for fighting Global Warming are all part of the same group.
There is no separating the greater AGW community from the calls to impose limitations on CO2 through government policy that almost exclusively entail cut backs on energy use, rationing and taxes. Once you get past all the stupid sniping and name calling on Slashdot you inevitably find a call for these policies. Every major political figure/initiative I've heard of that is remotely related to AGW is sole focused on these kinds of policies. Maybe I missed the Nuclear Advancement and Energy Independence Act being introduce and discussed in a State of the Union addressed and Presidential speeches, but I doubt it.
And lastly, why wouldn't they? If, as Dr. Jones thinks, AGW is a threat to the world as we know it, why would he and his colleagues not all jump to endorse the one technology we have here and now that would do the most to mitigate CO2 emissions?
Actually, nuclear power would go a long way towards making you happy by reducing CO2 and me happy by reducing our reliance on foreign oil.
But the majority of AGW folks won't have it. You see, if we have a solution, then they can't bitch and moan. And, I suspect, they are not interested in anything that doesn't leave them in control.
BTW, higher taxes, rationing, etc. are not solutions. Especially since they would only be in effect in the West. China and the rest will have none of that.
Yeah, Hansen protesting and getting arrested with a bunch of smelly hippies is all about science. Protesting a fucking pipeline.
Nope...this is ALL about Politics. Otherwise, all these climatologists would be going in front of government bodies and saying that we need to go nuclear and switch.
Just think, if they lent half of the weight to advancing nuclear technology, advocating for increased deployment, etc,. for the last 30 years, we'd be well on our way to make all this irrelevant. Instead, they advocate (they meaning people like you) austerity, higher taxes, rationing and bullshit like that.
What we have now is people bitching about something they have a solution for, but refuse to use.
I'll believe and support AGW when it's advocates support going full nuclear.
However, if their "solution" is more taxes, cutting back, rationing, etc. then they don't believe in the science any more than "denialists". They believe instead in an opportunity to advance their agenda.
The problem is that none of the supposed "solutions" are actually solutions. They do, however nicely match the political agenda of the wacko environmentalists.
If my recollections of college are accurate, the Department Chair was usually the professor who was so out of date in the topic that the only thing left to them was to be a bureaucrat.
What you morons seem to be missing is that ObamaCare does not just require people buy health insurance.
It is a comprehensive take over of the health care system by the federal government. New regulations that were ill thought out or not even thought out at all (let's pass the bill so we can know what's in it).
Anyone, and I mean anyone who thinks what came out of Congress comes even close to being a well considered, even and fair plan is an idiot. It's filled all kinds of nonsense and back handed intrusions into everyone's life.
All of the "Plans" miss the mark. They just try to pay for the costs.
What should be asked is WHY health care costs are so high. Are there not enough Doctors? Are there not enough Hospitals? Are there too many regulations? Are there too many lawyers? Are the drug companies charging unreasonable rates? Should the generic drugs laws be changed?
Until you figure out and control the reasons costs are going wild, any of the current crop of plans are useless merely enable future out of control costs.
If you don't have a car, you don't have to buy auto insurance.
I guess if your dead, then you don't have to buy Health Insurance under Obamacare...but don't quote me on that. Odds are that some idiot bureaucrat will insist some recently deceased person is required to show proof of health insurance.
In ten years most of these protestors will be married, have children, and be working for the very same Eeeeevil corporations they are protesting now and talking about the good 'ol days when they got maced by the NYPD.
Slashdot Mirror
Both options do only one thing...put money in he coffers of the government.
It's a bureaucrat's dream and a Democrat's Big Government wet dream. It would place virtually all of the economy under the thumb of the government and do little to reduce emissions.
I expect that is exactly what you want.
Well, we all see how well that worked out eh?
This was not an example of turf wars.
This was a deliberate policy established during the Clinton Administration by Jamie Gorelick to wall off information between the CIA/other foreign intelligence sources and the FBI/Local law enforcement.
Whether I screech about nukes proves nothing about AGW, just like your red herrings prove nothing.
Oh, but it is.
AGW is being posited as a problem, a problem of such importance that it requires a solution. If you don't think that is important or relevant to the discussion then I can only assume you don't think AGW is a problem. In that case, discussions about AGW are a waste of time. It may be interesting, but it has as much practical impact on the ordinary person as does CERN finding another quark. Interesting, but I don' give a shit.
If, on the other hand, you DO think it's a problem, then foremost in your thought process should be, "how do we solve it?"
There are essentially two approaches. The first involves devolution of industry and living standards in the West and the other involves further developing and deployment of an existing technology that is well understood and has a very promising technical future. The first option really isn't even a solution because half the world won't go for it. The second option is a solution with the added bonus of going a long towards extracting the West from Middle East politics and reducing the chances of environmental damage associated with fossil fuel exploration and extraction.
So you have to ask your self...do you want to solve the problem or not? If not, then you are no better then some ex-wife screeching about something that no one cares about and we'd all prefer you just shut it. But if you do, then a wise individual would be thinking about doing an end run around the entire debate and advocating a solution that addresses everyone's concerns.
So which is it? Are you someone who cares about what happens or are you just a fat bitch of an ex-wife?
Ask yourself why you are resistant to a solution that solves everyone's problems?
Are you a screeching anti-nuke activist? Do you fear AGW becoming moot?
As for the Science, I don't have to prove anyone wrong, they have to prove themselves right. Funny how folks who scream Scientific Principals all the time ignore the basic tenet of proving your claim. Instead the claim is simply floated and those who may disagree or have reservations are asked to prove it wrong.
Then, when an alternate theory is suggested, they are told to prove that right. Seems the AGW crowd doesn't have to prove anything other than an acute case of Group Think.
And why is that? Why should they jump out, in public, of their personal area of true expertise into something which is not their job?
Because they are jumping out in public now to advocate for various measures. I give you one Dr. Mann.
And then there are the nuts at the IPCC.
Of course, I think you are being rather disingenuous by retreating to the cover of objective science and claiming that they (you) are merely reporting the facts. It is plain to even the casual observer that Climate Science and schemes for fighting Global Warming are all part of the same group.
There is no separating the greater AGW community from the calls to impose limitations on CO2 through government policy that almost exclusively entail cut backs on energy use, rationing and taxes. Once you get past all the stupid sniping and name calling on Slashdot you inevitably find a call for these policies. Every major political figure/initiative I've heard of that is remotely related to AGW is sole focused on these kinds of policies. Maybe I missed the Nuclear Advancement and Energy Independence Act being introduce and discussed in a State of the Union addressed and Presidential speeches, but I doubt it.
And lastly, why wouldn't they? If, as Dr. Jones thinks, AGW is a threat to the world as we know it, why would he and his colleagues not all jump to endorse the one technology we have here and now that would do the most to mitigate CO2 emissions?
As far as acknowledging that it is happening, I have a theory...it will get warmer and then it will get colder. You cannot refute that.
Constructing temperature analogs going back thousands of years that are accurate enough to predict a few degrees of warming is bullshit.
Even the modern temp records are all fucked up with missing data, extrapolations, etc.
In the end it's all statistics, which is an inexact "science" at best, and best guesses.
Actually, nuclear power would go a long way towards making you happy by reducing CO2 and me happy by reducing our reliance on foreign oil.
But the majority of AGW folks won't have it. You see, if we have a solution, then they can't bitch and moan. And, I suspect, they are not interested in anything that doesn't leave them in control.
BTW, higher taxes, rationing, etc. are not solutions. Especially since they would only be in effect in the West. China and the rest will have none of that.
Yeah, Hansen protesting and getting arrested with a bunch of smelly hippies is all about science. Protesting a fucking pipeline.
Nope...this is ALL about Politics. Otherwise, all these climatologists would be going in front of government bodies and saying that we need to go nuclear and switch.
Just think, if they lent half of the weight to advancing nuclear technology, advocating for increased deployment, etc,. for the last 30 years, we'd be well on our way to make all this irrelevant. Instead, they advocate (they meaning people like you) austerity, higher taxes, rationing and bullshit like that.
What we have now is people bitching about something they have a solution for, but refuse to use.
I'll believe and support AGW when it's advocates support going full nuclear.
However, if their "solution" is more taxes, cutting back, rationing, etc. then they don't believe in the science any more than "denialists". They believe instead in an opportunity to advance their agenda.
Do you want it fixed or not?
Actually, if they just eliminated the anonymous nature of moderation, they would be much more reasonable I bet.
Gore called. He wants all his sycophants to meet him next week at the secret lair.
AGW is all about politics.
As your dunderhead post shows.
"Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion,”
This guy knows what he is talking about.
The problem is that none of the supposed "solutions" are actually solutions. They do, however nicely match the political agenda of the wacko environmentalists.
Oh, come on! The evidence is incontrovertible!
Oh, wait.
I see your department head and raise you a Nobel Prize winner...and not the Peace Prize winner.
If my recollections of college are accurate, the Department Chair was usually the professor who was so out of date in the topic that the only thing left to them was to be a bureaucrat.
To Quote Yoda, "That, is why you fail."
Surt is just advocating Obamanomics.
Come, get on board and pay "your fair share". You don't want to be the Eviiiiil rich do you?
What's up with you and the success thing anyway? Don't you believe in Social Justice?
I'm free to have my own morality
If everyone had their own morality, then there is no "morality", there is only moral anarchy.
This is what you call trying to improve our country!?!
We are all fucking doomed.
Now, run along, there is a nice cop somewhere who has a can of mace for you.
What you morons seem to be missing is that ObamaCare does not just require people buy health insurance.
It is a comprehensive take over of the health care system by the federal government. New regulations that were ill thought out or not even thought out at all (let's pass the bill so we can know what's in it).
Anyone, and I mean anyone who thinks what came out of Congress comes even close to being a well considered, even and fair plan is an idiot. It's filled all kinds of nonsense and back handed intrusions into everyone's life.
All of the "Plans" miss the mark. They just try to pay for the costs.
What should be asked is WHY health care costs are so high. Are there not enough Doctors? Are there not enough Hospitals? Are there too many regulations? Are there too many lawyers? Are the drug companies charging unreasonable rates? Should the generic drugs laws be changed?
Until you figure out and control the reasons costs are going wild, any of the current crop of plans are useless merely enable future out of control costs.
Not the auto insurance thing again.
If you don't have a car, you don't have to buy auto insurance.
I guess if your dead, then you don't have to buy Health Insurance under Obamacare...but don't quote me on that. Odds are that some idiot bureaucrat will insist some recently deceased person is required to show proof of health insurance.
In ten years most of these protestors will be married, have children, and be working for the very same Eeeeevil corporations they are protesting now and talking about the good 'ol days when they got maced by the NYPD.