When I look at the situation I see a lot of "skeptical" misinformation being propagated from the fossil fuel industry (aka the Denial Machine). The massive amounts of money that the fossil fuel industry has to throw at influencing the debate dwarfs the combined size of all the "green energy" business in the world.
It's part of why I'm skeptical of the "skeptics".
This is an article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists).
In the 50+ years that they've been publishing I bet they're sick of talking about nuclear (power, weapons).
It sounds like a case of: The privileged abusing their power in an attempt to end a protest against the abuse of power by the privileged.
It's practically Newtonian.
Why does it matter what non-scientists have to say (pro- or con-) about the scientific theory of Global Climate Change? The theory is either mostly based on sound scientific reasoning, or it isn't; What the snake oil salesmen say doesn't change that.
The line of thinking that you have expressed reminds me of how Creationists used to argue that the theory of Evolution must be false because they believe it advocates an "atheistic" view of the universe.
Interesting that you should mention the Vostok ice core data. Most Climate Change "truthers" aren't very familiar with the scientific data about Climate Change.
I'd like to draw your attention to something interesting about the Vostok ice core data:
You'll notice that, in the last 400,000 years (spanning multiple Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods), the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide never exceeded 300ppm. We currently stand at ~390ppm.
"Denier" (in this case) could be more accurately described as "truther" (as in "vaccine-truthers" and "9/11-truthers").
Simply put: A ____ truther is a person who believes their position must be right because it is NOT the majority opinion.
We also know that, over the last 400,000 years (spanning several ice ages), the levels of carbon dioxide never exceeded ~300ppm.
Today we sit at ~390ppm.
People, like Dunbal, can never be satisfied:
If Gore had no investments in green energy Dunbal would say "put your money where your mouth is Mr. Gore", but because he does instead he says "you stand to personally profit from this Mr. Gore".
The Green House Effect caused by greenhouse gasses is known to increase the global average surface temperature by ~32C... and yet is absolutely incapable of being influenced by human emissions of the same green house gasses according to some people.
It's interesting that you should mention the Vostok ice cores. Being familiar with that evidence means you should be aware that, in the last ~400,000 years (which spans several 'ice ages') the concentration of CO2 never rose above ~300ppm. We currently sit at ~390ppm (last I checked).
There was a poll of climatologists conducted back during the Bush administration and even those "government grant" scientists felt pressured to downplay/minimize the consequences of Anthropegenic Climate Change.
High-quality science [is] struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A UCS survey found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years in a total of at least 435 incidents. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.
The notion that the next commander-in-chief should have experience running a private corporation is slightly better than the notion, quite popular a few years ago, that your next commander-in-chief should be someone you would like to "share a beer" with.
The political consequences of averting catastrophic climate change has no bearing on the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change.
For example:
Creationists love to claim that accepting the validity of the scientific theory of Evolution requires supporting involuntary Eugenics programs. We all know that isn't true, but the Creationists claim it anyway.
Many people will try to tell you that accepting the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change requires "living in mud huts (or any other form of economic fearmongering)". We all know that isn't true, but the climate change "skeptics" will claim it anyway.
Wow, George Carlin took something figurative "save the planet" and he talked about it literally! That's genius! ... but seriously, imagine someone trying to tell you that preventing a nuclear war wasn't "saving the planet" because the post-apocalypse Earth would continue to orbit the Sun. It's needlessly pedantic. The end of humanity figuratively means the end of the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
When I look at the situation I see a lot of "skeptical" misinformation being propagated from the fossil fuel industry (aka the Denial Machine). The massive amounts of money that the fossil fuel industry has to throw at influencing the debate dwarfs the combined size of all the "green energy" business in the world.
It's part of why I'm skeptical of the "skeptics".
I noticed that a scientist (especially climatologist) character was missing from your dialog.
You might want to look into that.
This is an article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists).
In the 50+ years that they've been publishing I bet they're sick of talking about nuclear (power, weapons).
How many more galaxies must suffer before we build a universal healthcare system?!?
It sounds like a case of: The privileged abusing their power in an attempt to end a protest against the abuse of power by the privileged.
It's practically Newtonian.
Why does it matter what non-scientists have to say (pro- or con-) about the scientific theory of Global Climate Change? The theory is either mostly based on sound scientific reasoning, or it isn't; What the snake oil salesmen say doesn't change that.
The line of thinking that you have expressed reminds me of how Creationists used to argue that the theory of Evolution must be false because they believe it advocates an "atheistic" view of the universe.
Interesting that you should mention the Vostok ice core data. Most Climate Change "truthers" aren't very familiar with the scientific data about Climate Change.
I'd like to draw your attention to something interesting about the Vostok ice core data:
You'll notice that, in the last 400,000 years (spanning multiple Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods), the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide never exceeded 300ppm. We currently stand at ~390ppm.
"Denier" (in this case) could be more accurately described as "truther" (as in "vaccine-truthers" and "9/11-truthers").
Simply put: A ____ truther is a person who believes their position must be right because it is NOT the majority opinion.
I came very close to leaving a few weeks ago, but I changed my mind after they released a Netflix streaming client for my Android tablet.
We also know that, over the last 400,000 years (spanning several ice ages), the levels of carbon dioxide never exceeded ~300ppm.
Today we sit at ~390ppm.
People, like Dunbal, can never be satisfied:
If Gore had no investments in green energy Dunbal would say "put your money where your mouth is Mr. Gore", but because he does instead he says "you stand to personally profit from this Mr. Gore".
The Green House Effect caused by greenhouse gasses is known to increase the global average surface temperature by ~32C... and yet is absolutely incapable of being influenced by human emissions of the same green house gasses according to some people.
Remember the time the "pro-science" Republican party banned stem cell research? Yeah.
It's interesting that you should mention the Vostok ice cores. Being familiar with that evidence means you should be aware that, in the last ~400,000 years (which spans several 'ice ages') the concentration of CO2 never rose above ~300ppm. We currently sit at ~390ppm (last I checked).
Please note:
This is an excellent example of what Global Climate Change "skeptics" sound like when they call global warming a "religion".
High-quality science [is] struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A UCS survey found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years in a total of at least 435 incidents. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.
Source, 2007.
The notion that the next commander-in-chief should have experience running a private corporation is slightly better than the notion, quite popular a few years ago, that your next commander-in-chief should be someone you would like to "share a beer" with.
I thought that the president could sign any treaty he likes but that his signature means almost nothing until the treaty is ratified by congress.
I haven't crunched the numbers but I suspect the OP is using the phrase "best at heavy lift" in terms of $/Kg to put something into orbit.
This finding reminds me of the "neutrinos interact with radioactive decay rates" story from a while back.
I know him, and he lives in the great state of denial.
I wonder if, in 30 years, we'll be talking about the discovery of exomoons.
The political consequences of averting catastrophic climate change has no bearing on the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change.
For example:
Creationists love to claim that accepting the validity of the scientific theory of Evolution requires supporting involuntary Eugenics programs. We all know that isn't true, but the Creationists claim it anyway.
Many people will try to tell you that accepting the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change requires "living in mud huts (or any other form of economic fearmongering)". We all know that isn't true, but the climate change "skeptics" will claim it anyway.
Wow, George Carlin took something figurative "save the planet" and he talked about it literally! That's genius!
... but seriously, imagine someone trying to tell you that preventing a nuclear war wasn't "saving the planet" because the post-apocalypse Earth would continue to orbit the Sun. It's needlessly pedantic. The end of humanity figuratively means the end of the planet.
McCuccinellyism.