Pay a bit closer attention - I'm not asserting that his hypocrisy makes something untrue, I'm asserting that his hypocrisy means that he is asking for sacrifices from others that he is unwilling to make. I'm in fact stipulating that his assertions are *true*, and I'm attacking his character, not his assertions. When I attack his assertions, you'll know it:)
For example, let's attack your assertions for a moment, and assume you're of good character:
As for 21st century technology "without the massive downsides", you do realize that more expensive energy *is* a massive downside, right? I'm all for more efficient power plants, electronics, cars, but if you want to help out the poorest of the poor suffering the worst you can imagine and more, the trick is cheap energy - and that's cheap in absolute terms, not cheap because you've raised taxes on everything else to subsidize it.
Well, you didn't even use the term CO2 in your hypothesis statement, so I'm assuming CO2 doesn't matter?:)
And you certainly didn't specify any sort of falsifiability criteria, say for example, rising CO2 over 15 years, with no statistically significant warming over the same period.
ENSO can *absolutely* transfer heat from the oceans in a way that will raise atmospheric temperatures over a long term. It is not simply a sine wave. And given that the ocean has a heat content that is orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere, it's not that far of a stretch to assert that it is the *ocean* that drives atmospheric temperatures, rather than the atmosphere that drives ocean temperatures.
Focus on this - it's not the total heat content of the system that matters, it's the *distribution*. It is quite possible to have a "hotter" earth, with lower atmospheric temperatures (heat stuck in the oceans). It is also quite possible to have a "colder" earth, with higher atmospheric temperatures (heat escaping the oceans, and heating the atmosphere as well as escaping into outer space).
The measure the temperature increase via CO2 *per doubling*, so in fact, the effectiveness falls *incredibly* fast.
As for unpleasantness, I think we can all say the world is thriving more in 2016 than it was in 1850.
And for ocean *neutralization* (remember, it's basic, not acidic), it's almost impossible to find *any* signal there, much less an anthropogenic one. The ocean is *way* bigger than you imagine, and has pH fluxes *way* bigger than any asserted long term trend.
Is it possible that there is a secular trend in El Nino/La Nina, and that in fact they aren't *exact* opposites of a standing wave, but rather a complex interaction that can have more than one periodic influence?
I'm not sure if you've read any of the literature on El Nino/La Nina, but there is ample evidence that it is in fact the *cause* of raising baselines rather then the effect.
Sure, I'll buy that. But let's follow the bouncing ball here - if "climate" is measured by ice cores with a resolution that spans up to hundreds of years between observations, then certainly a short period of 150 years is *weather*, not *climate*.
Resolution matters. Whether temporal, or spatial, you cannot scream "omg, it's at an unprecedented rate!" if the resolution of one measurement is significantly different than the other. Cold, hard, math.
Any of those imagined "tipping points" would have already happened in the past, and it's pure speculation that *anything* we could do (or not do) could prevent them from happening in the future. It's also quite possible that these drivers overwhelm any anthropogenic signal, and are indeed the root *cause* of our observations, rather than simply the effects of some anthropogenic signal.
Given the incredible amount of uncertainty, it seems the only logical pursuit is adaptation, rather than mitigation.
Calculating the difference between hourly measurements, and measurements with gaps of up to hundreds of years between them is left as an exercise for the reader:)
That's not 4K resolution, that's a cave painting. Today, we can measure CO2 on an hourly basis. The ice core record has gaps of more than a hundred years at a time.
This isn't whether or not anyone is faking data - this is whether or not the proxy has enough resolution to tell you anything about the rate of change on the order of 150 years.
Just wondering, do you accept the fact that the warming due to CO2 increases logarithmically? Since we've obviously both survived and thrived since the 1800s, and there's no realistic scenario where CO2 rises exponentially, isn't this a problem that solves itself with cold, hard math?
The 120ppm we've added so far (if you attribute 100% of it to humans) will have done more warming than the next 120ppm, which will also do more warming than next 120ppm, until the affect is too small to be measured.
My problem is with the bad-faith denial of natural climate change.
For example, those people who deny the "pause" because 1998 was a particularly large El Nino that distorted the record - but then when there is an even larger El Nino in 2015, they'll happily assert that the record heat is due to human influence, not the El Nino. Wait for another 20 year pause, and I'm sure they'll insist starting at 2015 is cherry picking since it was such a large El Nino:)
If you want to do science, you need to start off with a falsifiable hypothesis - and sadly, there is no such construction for AGW.
Since you're a hypocrite, how do you expect anyone to take your advice seriously? Are we to take you as a bad example, and make the sacrifices to save the world that you're unwilling to make? Kinda reminds me of something about loving the sinner, and only hating the sin...:)
It is literally impossible to claim that our rate of CO2 change over the past 100 years is unprecedented in the historical record because we have no proxy with that kind of resolution. We see the world today in the equivalent of 4k UHDTV in full color, our records from the past are equivalent to cave paintings, and we're claiming that the color of deer is unprecedented.
But don't let that get in the way of a good, scary, apocalyptic tale of warning!
... are *good* - not to mention all the lives *saved* by the use of firearms in self defense that don't end with any fatalities.
When the secret service is willing to give up their weapons in defense of themselves and others, then I'll start taking the idea of unarmed defense seriously.
...wouldn't the government want to stop using Apple products because they aren't secure?
When you weaken encryption, you have to imagine what the *bad guys* will do - steal the right government iphone, and now you've got classified intel that can kill people.
The question really becomes, are there more important things for us to research - like say, thorium reactors, or IoT, or the perfect action movie screenplay.
No, your point was that the state can impose limits on the Second Amendment:
But only insofar as it has imposed limits on the 1st amendment (such as imminent inciting of violence). Gun registration, limits on magazine capacity, prohibition of concealed carry, don't have any analog to the limits we've accepted on the 1st amendment - and therefore it should be obvious they wouldn't pass strict scrutiny.
Go back to the start of the thread - dywolf said our rights had limits, and gave examples of 1st amendment restrictions. My challenge to him was to show that his preferred restrictions of the 2nd amendment had 1st amendment counterparts. I asserted there already *were* similar restrictions, and none of them had to do with any gun control legislation ever proposed.
The possibility that people might intend to incite an imminent violation of the law is not a justification to impose prior restrictions on speech.
Pay close attention here - they're asserting that imposing prior restrictions is *not* allowed.
Given that is true with the 1st amendment, why do you think prior restrictions should be allowed for the 2nd amendment?
You cannot, however, use that reasoning to implement any prior restrictions on gun ownership or the bearing of arms.
*Exactly* my point. If we are going to treat the 2nd amendment as an equal to the 1st amendment, prior restrictions on ownership or the bearing of arms, like say, limiting magazine capacity, prohibiting ownership, prohibiting concealed carry, etc, etc, can't possibly be seen as meeting the tests of strict scrutiny.
Soldiers definitely train for combat. SWAT definitely trains for combat. Your average police officer fires there weapon only a few times a year for qualification. That's the sad truth.
I'd actually argue that the armed civilian is *safer* because they have to be aware of their own personal liability, whereas a cop might just decide to unload his magazine because he knew lawyers were there to back him up in the case of friendly fire. So, the civilian might not save as many lives as the cop (since the cop can take the shot at the terrorist without much regard for friendly fire), but the civilian is much less likely to end up with friendly fire (since the civilian knows they'll be held accountable for every piece of lead out of the gun).
You're absolutely right, a massed attack during reloads can make the difference (france and their train, giffords shooting, etc), but that's incredibly lucky and rare.
We should have *less* guns out there for bad guys (so, let's actually have a background check system that works, a deportation system that works, and a mental health system that works), and *more* guns out there for good guys - even just *slightly* more changes the calculus for criminals and terrorists.
Put another way, we should be working towards *more* responsible gun owners, not fewer.
"The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation."
"The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,[2] and articulated a new test — the "imminent lawless action" test — for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:"
This "imminent lawless action" test replaced the "clear and present danger" test.
Now, maybe you think the case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was literally about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre - it was not. That happens to be the tortured analogy Holmes applied in his opinion, but that's *not* what the case was about.
It is, today, an illegal use of the "freedom of speech" to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre to cause "imminent lawless action" (a stampede).
So, if you're willing to restrict the 1st amendment for inciting "imminent lawless action", we can apply the same restriction to the right to bear arms - you can't bear arms in such a way that would incite "imminent lawless action" (let's say, waving a rifle and pointing threateningly at a crowd in a theatre).
It's 2am. You hear the back door being bashed down. You grab your infant, open your gun safe, and grab your gun, taking a defensive position in your bedroom. In one hand you call 911, in the other you keep a good eye on the door with your weapon.
Two thugs come into the bedroom before the 911 call is finished. You drop the phone, place both hands on the weapon, clearly identify your targets are *not* your family, and squeeze the trigger.
Click.
"refuse to fire" fail case is now the reason for the deaths of a mother and her infant child. All the cops find when they finally get there is two dead bodies.
I'll assert that the vast majority of gun guys and girls aren't idiots. Yes, you're going to get some crazy in any population, but the caricature of anyone with a gun being some bruce willis cowboy wannabe is just that - a caricature.
In the gun store I go to, they simply don't sell to idiots - I've seem them kick people out of the store and refuse to sell to them because they were playing up some angry, macho bullshit. Now, perhaps you've been hanging out with lots of idiots with guns, and in that case, I highly suggest you choose better company.
Given the kinds of cop shootings I've seen in the news, and the lax range training requirements for requalification they have, I'm more inclined to trust my fellow armed civilian. Gun culture is about training, and every CCW holder I've ever encountered has been serious, dedicated, and conscientious. Now, yes, you may have the rare negligent weapons wielder, but that's *not* even a small minority - it's an infinitesimal one.
Now, perhaps you just don't know that many gun folk, or perhaps you've known some really irresponsible gun folk, but in a SHTF situation, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Whether or not that good guy takes a government paycheck means little to me.
So the "speaking" of "fire!" is perfectly legal; it's the creating a stampede in a crowded theatre that is illegal:) Of course the "creating a stampede" part is illegal whether you speak, or bash cymbals together, or start waving a sword around:)
In 1969 the Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. That sounds like "fire!" in a crowded theatre to me.
The fact of the matter is this - self defense is just as inalienable as speech, religion, or assembly. You can pretend that's not so, but it doesn't change it.
Slashdot Mirror
Pay a bit closer attention - I'm not asserting that his hypocrisy makes something untrue, I'm asserting that his hypocrisy means that he is asking for sacrifices from others that he is unwilling to make. I'm in fact stipulating that his assertions are *true*, and I'm attacking his character, not his assertions. When I attack his assertions, you'll know it :)
For example, let's attack your assertions for a moment, and assume you're of good character:
As for 21st century technology "without the massive downsides", you do realize that more expensive energy *is* a massive downside, right? I'm all for more efficient power plants, electronics, cars, but if you want to help out the poorest of the poor suffering the worst you can imagine and more, the trick is cheap energy - and that's cheap in absolute terms, not cheap because you've raised taxes on everything else to subsidize it.
Well, you didn't even use the term CO2 in your hypothesis statement, so I'm assuming CO2 doesn't matter? :)
And you certainly didn't specify any sort of falsifiability criteria, say for example, rising CO2 over 15 years, with no statistically significant warming over the same period.
Want to try again?
ENSO can *absolutely* transfer heat from the oceans in a way that will raise atmospheric temperatures over a long term. It is not simply a sine wave. And given that the ocean has a heat content that is orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere, it's not that far of a stretch to assert that it is the *ocean* that drives atmospheric temperatures, rather than the atmosphere that drives ocean temperatures.
Focus on this - it's not the total heat content of the system that matters, it's the *distribution*. It is quite possible to have a "hotter" earth, with lower atmospheric temperatures (heat stuck in the oceans). It is also quite possible to have a "colder" earth, with higher atmospheric temperatures (heat escaping the oceans, and heating the atmosphere as well as escaping into outer space).
The measure the temperature increase via CO2 *per doubling*, so in fact, the effectiveness falls *incredibly* fast.
As for unpleasantness, I think we can all say the world is thriving more in 2016 than it was in 1850.
And for ocean *neutralization* (remember, it's basic, not acidic), it's almost impossible to find *any* signal there, much less an anthropogenic one. The ocean is *way* bigger than you imagine, and has pH fluxes *way* bigger than any asserted long term trend.
Is it possible that there is a secular trend in El Nino/La Nina, and that in fact they aren't *exact* opposites of a standing wave, but rather a complex interaction that can have more than one periodic influence?
I'm not sure if you've read any of the literature on El Nino/La Nina, but there is ample evidence that it is in fact the *cause* of raising baselines rather then the effect.
Sure, I'll buy that. But let's follow the bouncing ball here - if "climate" is measured by ice cores with a resolution that spans up to hundreds of years between observations, then certainly a short period of 150 years is *weather*, not *climate*.
Resolution matters. Whether temporal, or spatial, you cannot scream "omg, it's at an unprecedented rate!" if the resolution of one measurement is significantly different than the other. Cold, hard, math.
Any of those imagined "tipping points" would have already happened in the past, and it's pure speculation that *anything* we could do (or not do) could prevent them from happening in the future. It's also quite possible that these drivers overwhelm any anthropogenic signal, and are indeed the root *cause* of our observations, rather than simply the effects of some anthropogenic signal.
Given the incredible amount of uncertainty, it seems the only logical pursuit is adaptation, rather than mitigation.
Fair point. I happened to be looking at costco TVs and used the marketing lingo, my apologies :)
So instead of an analogy, let's just go straight to the meat of the matter:
Today, we get CO2 measurements hourly.
Here's what the ice cores give us:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...
Calculating the difference between hourly measurements, and measurements with gaps of up to hundreds of years between them is left as an exercise for the reader :)
Have you looked at *any* of the science regarding proxy measurements of CO2?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...
That's not 4K resolution, that's a cave painting. Today, we can measure CO2 on an hourly basis. The ice core record has gaps of more than a hundred years at a time.
This isn't whether or not anyone is faking data - this is whether or not the proxy has enough resolution to tell you anything about the rate of change on the order of 150 years.
Just wondering, do you accept the fact that the warming due to CO2 increases logarithmically? Since we've obviously both survived and thrived since the 1800s, and there's no realistic scenario where CO2 rises exponentially, isn't this a problem that solves itself with cold, hard math?
The 120ppm we've added so far (if you attribute 100% of it to humans) will have done more warming than the next 120ppm, which will also do more warming than next 120ppm, until the affect is too small to be measured.
My problem is with the bad-faith denial of natural climate change.
For example, those people who deny the "pause" because 1998 was a particularly large El Nino that distorted the record - but then when there is an even larger El Nino in 2015, they'll happily assert that the record heat is due to human influence, not the El Nino. Wait for another 20 year pause, and I'm sure they'll insist starting at 2015 is cherry picking since it was such a large El Nino :)
If you want to do science, you need to start off with a falsifiable hypothesis - and sadly, there is no such construction for AGW.
Since you're a hypocrite, how do you expect anyone to take your advice seriously? Are we to take you as a bad example, and make the sacrifices to save the world that you're unwilling to make? Kinda reminds me of something about loving the sinner, and only hating the sin... :)
It is literally impossible to claim that our rate of CO2 change over the past 100 years is unprecedented in the historical record because we have no proxy with that kind of resolution. We see the world today in the equivalent of 4k UHDTV in full color, our records from the past are equivalent to cave paintings, and we're claiming that the color of deer is unprecedented.
But don't let that get in the way of a good, scary, apocalyptic tale of warning!
... are *good* - not to mention all the lives *saved* by the use of firearms in self defense that don't end with any fatalities.
When the secret service is willing to give up their weapons in defense of themselves and others, then I'll start taking the idea of unarmed defense seriously.
Until then, molon labe.
...wouldn't the government want to stop using Apple products because they aren't secure?
When you weaken encryption, you have to imagine what the *bad guys* will do - steal the right government iphone, and now you've got classified intel that can kill people.
Security, liberty, something something, lose both...?
"need" vs. "want"
The question really becomes, are there more important things for us to research - like say, thorium reactors, or IoT, or the perfect action movie screenplay.
But only insofar as it has imposed limits on the 1st amendment (such as imminent inciting of violence). Gun registration, limits on magazine capacity, prohibition of concealed carry, don't have any analog to the limits we've accepted on the 1st amendment - and therefore it should be obvious they wouldn't pass strict scrutiny.
Go back to the start of the thread - dywolf said our rights had limits, and gave examples of 1st amendment restrictions. My challenge to him was to show that his preferred restrictions of the 2nd amendment had 1st amendment counterparts. I asserted there already *were* similar restrictions, and none of them had to do with any gun control legislation ever proposed.
Pay close attention here - they're asserting that imposing prior restrictions is *not* allowed.
Given that is true with the 1st amendment, why do you think prior restrictions should be allowed for the 2nd amendment?
*Exactly* my point. If we are going to treat the 2nd amendment as an equal to the 1st amendment, prior restrictions on ownership or the bearing of arms, like say, limiting magazine capacity, prohibiting ownership, prohibiting concealed carry, etc, etc, can't possibly be seen as meeting the tests of strict scrutiny.
Perhaps we are more in agreement in disagreement.
Soldiers definitely train for combat. SWAT definitely trains for combat. Your average police officer fires there weapon only a few times a year for qualification. That's the sad truth.
I'd actually argue that the armed civilian is *safer* because they have to be aware of their own personal liability, whereas a cop might just decide to unload his magazine because he knew lawyers were there to back him up in the case of friendly fire. So, the civilian might not save as many lives as the cop (since the cop can take the shot at the terrorist without much regard for friendly fire), but the civilian is much less likely to end up with friendly fire (since the civilian knows they'll be held accountable for every piece of lead out of the gun).
You're absolutely right, a massed attack during reloads can make the difference (france and their train, giffords shooting, etc), but that's incredibly lucky and rare.
We should have *less* guns out there for bad guys (so, let's actually have a background check system that works, a deportation system that works, and a mental health system that works), and *more* guns out there for good guys - even just *slightly* more changes the calculus for criminals and terrorists.
Put another way, we should be working towards *more* responsible gun owners, not fewer.
I did read what you wrote. You're simply mistaken on the facts.
You claimed the 1919 SCOTUS ruling was "overturned" in 1969, without clearly understanding the case history.
The 1969 case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation."
"The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,[2] and articulated a new test — the "imminent lawless action" test — for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:"
This "imminent lawless action" test replaced the "clear and present danger" test.
https://popehat.com/2012/09/19...
Now, maybe you think the case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was literally about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre - it was not. That happens to be the tortured analogy Holmes applied in his opinion, but that's *not* what the case was about.
It is, today, an illegal use of the "freedom of speech" to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre to cause "imminent lawless action" (a stampede).
So, if you're willing to restrict the 1st amendment for inciting "imminent lawless action", we can apply the same restriction to the right to bear arms - you can't bear arms in such a way that would incite "imminent lawless action" (let's say, waving a rifle and pointing threateningly at a crowd in a theatre).
It's 2am. You hear the back door being bashed down. You grab your infant, open your gun safe, and grab your gun, taking a defensive position in your bedroom. In one hand you call 911, in the other you keep a good eye on the door with your weapon.
Two thugs come into the bedroom before the 911 call is finished. You drop the phone, place both hands on the weapon, clearly identify your targets are *not* your family, and squeeze the trigger.
Click.
"refuse to fire" fail case is now the reason for the deaths of a mother and her infant child. All the cops find when they finally get there is two dead bodies.
I'll assert that the vast majority of gun guys and girls aren't idiots. Yes, you're going to get some crazy in any population, but the caricature of anyone with a gun being some bruce willis cowboy wannabe is just that - a caricature.
In the gun store I go to, they simply don't sell to idiots - I've seem them kick people out of the store and refuse to sell to them because they were playing up some angry, macho bullshit. Now, perhaps you've been hanging out with lots of idiots with guns, and in that case, I highly suggest you choose better company.
Given the kinds of cop shootings I've seen in the news, and the lax range training requirements for requalification they have, I'm more inclined to trust my fellow armed civilian. Gun culture is about training, and every CCW holder I've ever encountered has been serious, dedicated, and conscientious. Now, yes, you may have the rare negligent weapons wielder, but that's *not* even a small minority - it's an infinitesimal one.
Now, perhaps you just don't know that many gun folk, or perhaps you've known some really irresponsible gun folk, but in a SHTF situation, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Whether or not that good guy takes a government paycheck means little to me.
No restrictions on guns can stop murder-suicide. We have cars, knives, sharp sticks...
At least if the murder victim(s) are armed themselves, they might have a chance to fight back.
So the "speaking" of "fire!" is perfectly legal; it's the creating a stampede in a crowded theatre that is illegal :) Of course the "creating a stampede" part is illegal whether you speak, or bash cymbals together, or start waving a sword around :)
In 1969 the Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. That sounds like "fire!" in a crowded theatre to me.
The fact of the matter is this - self defense is just as inalienable as speech, religion, or assembly. You can pretend that's not so, but it doesn't change it.