It doesn't matter if the error rate is 50% as long as there is a clear trend upwards. For example, for the purposes of identifying a trend, it doesn't matter if 1.0 degrees or 1.5 degrees warming happens by 2025. As long as it keeps going up at this really fast rate, we know there are going to be problems that will require attention to fix.
And +/- 50% of "so fast we've never seen temperature changes like this in 400,000 years of records", is still a worrying rate.
As soon as the trend is cooling for a long period of time (17+ years), nothing contradicts the basic notion that adding C02 is warming the planet.
Still kinda trying to figure out the difference between just eqnext and when they refer to it has eqnext landmark. Two different clients, but functioning in one world? Landmark lets you build things, regular eqnext just lets you play?
Why would you trust the selection of data from a single scientist (who also happens to believe in intelligent design, which indicates to me that this person may have an agenda beyond pure scientific analysis) versus the selection of data from hundreds of scientists who all agree?
If you have a longer range of data, you can see that the climate models and observation are very close. How reliable are climate models?
Further reading about climate models, and the predictions they made and got right: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/climate-models
It seems like one reason techies favor net neutrality, is because Comcast and other ISPs really deserve no pity when it comes to bandwidth. They are making massive profits and very little (it feels) is being reinvested in their network. They are happy to just milk their existing monopoly.
Now if US cable subscribers had the same level of bandwidth and cost that other first world nations enjoy, there might be less of a knee-jerk hatred for even thinking about removing more neutrality from internet traffic.
You are missing the fact that the telcos are not smart enough to make txt messaging free. They see it as a money maker, rather than a loss-leader. Their entire philosophy is screwed up - charging people for things that should be free (leaving a contract) and giving away stuff that should cost money (smart phones).
Their policies DO make sense if you don't think about it.
Nearly all of the value in the digital world (ebooks, films, music, etc..) is created from artificial scarcity. We can argue right vs wrong (or better or worse business models), but artificially limiting text messaging makes perfect sense when you look at all other digital services and entertainment. They all do this.
Yeah, because the split second that "we" convince "everyone" that we need to take action, the obvious first step is banning all oil and coal the next day....
It (switching to renewables) will be a gradual change and I bet you won't even notice.
economists think that the cost of climate action will be negligible. The true alarmists are the ones preaching economic Armageddon.
I don't understand why more people don't get that the effect on the economy is only about rate of change. If we mandate zero carbon tomorrow, of course the world is going to blow up. The arguments should be about the rate of change (away CO2 pollution), not whether we should change at all. Obviously non-renewables are, by definition, going to run out.
I don't know who's numbers are right, but there is a link to a heritage foundation article above (and I always assume they are out to make any liberal policies look as horrible as possible). Summary would be 5.8 billion spent on success, 1.6 billion spent on failure.
Success 1600 Brightsource 1460 First Solar 1200 SunPower 529 Fisker Automotive 299 Johnson Controls 178 Babcock and Brown 151 LG ChemÃTM 126.2 ECOtality 100 Mascoma Corp. 98.5 Nevada Geothermal 50 Vestas 39 Navistar 5.9 Amonix 0.5 GreenVolts Total 5837.1
Failure 535 * Solyndra 400 * Abound Solar 279 * A123 Systems 118.5 * EnerDelÃ(TM 80 * Range Fuels 43 * Beacon Power 33 * Raser Technologies 25 * Evergreen Solar 20 * Konarka Technologies Inc. 16 * Nordic Windpower 13.3 * Energy Conversion Devices 10 * OlsenÃ(TM 7 * Stirling Energy Systems 6.5 * Thompson River Power 5.4 * Azure Dynamics 3 * Satcon 2 * Mountain Plaza 0.700981 * Willard and Kelsey Solar Group 0.5 * SpectraWatt 1597.900981
From http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures
Does wherever you got your numbers also show successes? I'd like to see your 2.5 billion number in context.
Hush, you are ruining the hundreds of days of work that Fox News has put into promoting the idea that the Solyndra failure represents all the other companies.
Are you sure that Hawaii is limited by the economics of wind power cost when it comes to wind installations?
Right now Oregon has 10% wind power , and has a mandate for 25% total renewables (wind, solar, thermal) in the state by 2025. It seems to be that rather than feasibility, renewables are only limited by cash on hand to install them, and man power / hours to get it done.
A billion dollar slush fund in time for the 2016 elections. He's not fooling anyone.
But it has no chance of getting through Congress, just something he will point fingers at the Ebil Tea Party Owned Republicans for blocking.
Is there any money that Obama could ask congress for, in order to promote an initiative that he wants to push, that you wouldn't consider a slush fund / pork project?
You saw "Obama" "Climate" "Fund" and immediately formed an opinion, right? This fund has nothing to do with pollution.
Read what it says: "budget to help communities prepare for the effects of climate change and to fund research and technology to protect against its impact."
Unless you are starting with the assumption that no government funded program can be beneficial or run efficiently, you don't have enough information to "Just say No to this.".
Creationism generates hostility when it pretends to be a scientific theory and is pushed into science classrooms. It doesn't meet the requirements to be labeled 'science'.
For example, if I put you in a completely darkened room and you heard meowing, would you know for absolute certain that there was a cat in the room? It could've been a recording of a cat, a person making a meow noise or even a parrot that was trained to meow. You could've said that "I heard a cat, so there is a cat in the room." and it would've fit your observation, but it could still be entirely incorrect. Likewise, these scientists may believe "the universe is a simulation" fits their observations. Just remember, until you can turn on the lights and see for sure - all that meows may not be a cat.
Yes, but there exists the ability to open the door and actually see whether a cat is in the room. Something like creationism has no possible way to ever be falsified. It isn't science. I don't know enough about the "universe is simulated" hypothesis to know whether it also should not be put in the science category, but it sure seems like people are doing "sciency" things with it: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf
7-4. 9 hour day. You know, I remember having lunch paid for by most employers at some point in the past. If not much was going on, we'd take a full hour lunch. If it was busy, you ate a bit faster. But lunch wasn't considered 'time off'.
There was even a song about it:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwDMFOLIHxU
If the universe is infinite.... then theoretically with constant expansion, there would be no scarcity.
Everyone has a bag of solar powered, matter transforming, nano robots. They can build you a house, transform matter into food or luxury goods, build you a rocket ship, etc.. if you use up a planet, just move on.
Of course, once on the rocket ship, you'll face scarcity until you reach the next planet hehe:)
Not to mention that some things cannot ever expand, like physical space or number of atoms. You might be able to have nanobots build you a mansion for free, but do you have a place to put it? Do you own enough raw dirt/molecules to transform into the material you need to build it?
I guess as long as we are playing "way way way" in the future, your matter-transforming-solar-powered-nanobots could just take the atoms out of the air, build you a spaceship, and you could fly to a planet where there was enough space / resources to build what you want...
Somewhat true, except those contracts are a result of physical limitations that create an almost natural monopoly. (You can't run dozens of cable lines along the poles, it would be a mess).
Now, if towns owned the cable infrastructure and other network devices involved, and just leased to Comcast / Whoever to act as an ISP, you could have competition. Remember back in the days when the internet only existed on the phone lines? Dozens of mom and pop ISPs in every town, competing on price and service, all sharing the same phone system.
Are you selectively remembering? Scan down the page above. It looks somewhat even, although I didn't add them up.
Democrats are notorious for election fraud
Are you talking about something like the Acorn scandal? (Which was completely debunked).
It seems to me that election abuse (Republicans cutting early voting, reducing voting hours, culling voter registration lists right before elections, heavily gerrymandering all districts after the 2010 census) is something that Republicans have been doing lately very blatantly. They are bluntly attempting to change voter turnout in their favor. But of course that isn't actually fraud.... it is just an immoral use of power.
So if he had simply stated that he believed the documents were intended for the public, and was searching for them using google, he would not have been fined?
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if the error rate is 50% as long as there is a clear trend upwards. For example, for the purposes of identifying a trend, it doesn't matter if 1.0 degrees or 1.5 degrees warming happens by 2025. As long as it keeps going up at this really fast rate, we know there are going to be problems that will require attention to fix.
And +/- 50% of "so fast we've never seen temperature changes like this in 400,000 years of records", is still a worrying rate.
As soon as the trend is cooling for a long period of time (17+ years), nothing contradicts the basic notion that adding C02 is warming the planet.
EQNext Landmark alpha?
Still kinda trying to figure out the difference between just eqnext and when they refer to it has eqnext landmark. Two different clients, but functioning in one world? Landmark lets you build things, regular eqnext just lets you play?
Why would you trust the selection of data from a single scientist (who also happens to believe in intelligent design, which indicates to me that this person may have an agenda beyond pure scientific analysis) versus the selection of data from hundreds of scientists who all agree?
If you have a longer range of data, you can see that the climate models and observation are very close. How reliable are climate models?
Further reading about climate models, and the predictions they made and got right: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/climate-models
Out of the hundreds of windows servers I've worked with over the last 10 years (set up by other people) I've never seen one run without the gui.
It seems like one reason techies favor net neutrality, is because Comcast and other ISPs really deserve no pity when it comes to bandwidth. They are making massive profits and very little (it feels) is being reinvested in their network. They are happy to just milk their existing monopoly.
Now if US cable subscribers had the same level of bandwidth and cost that other first world nations enjoy, there might be less of a knee-jerk hatred for even thinking about removing more neutrality from internet traffic.
Their policies DO make sense if you don't think about it.
Nearly all of the value in the digital world (ebooks, films, music, etc..) is created from artificial scarcity. We can argue right vs wrong (or better or worse business models), but artificially limiting text messaging makes perfect sense when you look at all other digital services and entertainment. They all do this.
So many more nice options when your population is 5 million instead of 300 million:)
A proper cost/benefit analysis is needed, before we decide to forcibly relocate everyone back to caves.
It has been done. Dozens and dozens of times. 20+ years of studies.
Google scholar search of cost benefit of climate change
forcibly relocate everyone back to caves
Yeah, because the split second that "we" convince "everyone" that we need to take action, the obvious first step is banning all oil and coal the next day....
It (switching to renewables) will be a gradual change and I bet you won't even notice.
economists think that the cost of climate action will be negligible. The true alarmists are the ones preaching economic Armageddon.
I don't understand why more people don't get that the effect on the economy is only about rate of change. If we mandate zero carbon tomorrow, of course the world is going to blow up. The arguments should be about the rate of change (away CO2 pollution), not whether we should change at all. Obviously non-renewables are, by definition, going to run out.
is plenty of government and industry money to do "right" by the next generation
Government and Industry may have the money, but they sure aren't spending it like they are concerned about the environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Allocation_of_subsidies_in_the_United_States
I don't know who's numbers are right, but there is a link to a heritage foundation article above (and I always assume they are out to make any liberal policies look as horrible as possible). Summary would be 5.8 billion spent on success, 1.6 billion spent on failure.
Success
1600 Brightsource
1460 First Solar
1200 SunPower
529 Fisker Automotive
299 Johnson Controls
178 Babcock and Brown
151 LG ChemÃTM
126.2 ECOtality
100 Mascoma Corp.
98.5 Nevada Geothermal
50 Vestas
39 Navistar
5.9 Amonix
0.5 GreenVolts
Total
5837.1
Failure
535 * Solyndra
400 * Abound Solar
279 * A123 Systems
118.5 * EnerDelÃ(TM
80 * Range Fuels
43 * Beacon Power
33 * Raser Technologies
25 * Evergreen Solar
20 * Konarka Technologies Inc.
16 * Nordic Windpower
13.3 * Energy Conversion Devices
10 * OlsenÃ(TM
7 * Stirling Energy Systems
6.5 * Thompson River Power
5.4 * Azure Dynamics
3 * Satcon
2 * Mountain Plaza
0.700981 * Willard and Kelsey Solar Group
0.5 * SpectraWatt
1597.900981
From http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures
Does wherever you got your numbers also show successes? I'd like to see your 2.5 billion number in context.
Hush, you are ruining the hundreds of days of work that Fox News has put into promoting the idea that the Solyndra failure represents all the other companies.
Are you sure that Hawaii is limited by the economics of wind power cost when it comes to wind installations?
Right now Oregon has 10% wind power , and has a mandate for 25% total renewables (wind, solar, thermal) in the state by 2025. It seems to be that rather than feasibility, renewables are only limited by cash on hand to install them, and man power / hours to get it done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates
A billion dollar slush fund in time for the 2016 elections. He's not fooling anyone.
But it has no chance of getting through Congress, just something he will point fingers at the Ebil Tea Party Owned Republicans for blocking.
Is there any money that Obama could ask congress for, in order to promote an initiative that he wants to push, that you wouldn't consider a slush fund / pork project?
The U.S. is doing fairly well on pollution
You saw "Obama" "Climate" "Fund" and immediately formed an opinion, right? This fund has nothing to do with pollution.
Read what it says: "budget to help communities prepare for the effects of climate change and to fund research and technology to protect against its impact."
Unless you are starting with the assumption that no government funded program can be beneficial or run efficiently, you don't have enough information to "Just say No to this.".
Creationism generates hostility when it pretends to be a scientific theory and is pushed into science classrooms. It doesn't meet the requirements to be labeled 'science'.
For example, if I put you in a completely darkened room and you heard meowing, would you know for absolute certain that there was a cat in the room? It could've been a recording of a cat, a person making a meow noise or even a parrot that was trained to meow. You could've said that "I heard a cat, so there is a cat in the room." and it would've fit your observation, but it could still be entirely incorrect. Likewise, these scientists may believe "the universe is a simulation" fits their observations. Just remember, until you can turn on the lights and see for sure - all that meows may not be a cat.
Yes, but there exists the ability to open the door and actually see whether a cat is in the room. Something like creationism has no possible way to ever be falsified. It isn't science. I don't know enough about the "universe is simulated" hypothesis to know whether it also should not be put in the science category, but it sure seems like people are doing "sciency" things with it: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf
That isn't the future. That is exactly how Comcast behaves in Oregon right now.
7-4. 9 hour day. You know, I remember having lunch paid for by most employers at some point in the past. If not much was going on, we'd take a full hour lunch. If it was busy, you ate a bit faster. But lunch wasn't considered 'time off'.
There was even a song about it :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwDMFOLIHxU
If the universe is infinite.... then theoretically with constant expansion, there would be no scarcity.
Everyone has a bag of solar powered, matter transforming, nano robots. They can build you a house, transform matter into food or luxury goods, build you a rocket ship, etc.. if you use up a planet, just move on.
Of course, once on the rocket ship, you'll face scarcity until you reach the next planet hehe:)
Nature does not pollute itself.
WTF? I mean seriously WTF?
Have you ever seen a volcano? Nature - polluting.
We have evidence of asteroid strikes that caused massive extinctions by - massively polluting the atmosphere. - Nature
Nature doesn't pollute. Bzzzt, wrong.
Well.. true.
But it is also true that humans are capable of putting pollutants into nature that have never existed in nature before.
Resources perhaps, but the population size becomes more stable as various peoples modernize their countries.
It is estimated that the Earth's population will reach 9 billion and stop growing (if current trends hold).
Not to mention that some things cannot ever expand, like physical space or number of atoms. You might be able to have nanobots build you a mansion for free, but do you have a place to put it? Do you own enough raw dirt/molecules to transform into the material you need to build it?
I guess as long as we are playing "way way way" in the future, your matter-transforming-solar-powered-nanobots could just take the atoms out of the air, build you a spaceship, and you could fly to a planet where there was enough space / resources to build what you want...
Somewhat true, except those contracts are a result of physical limitations that create an almost natural monopoly. (You can't run dozens of cable lines along the poles, it would be a mess).
Now, if towns owned the cable infrastructure and other network devices involved, and just leased to Comcast / Whoever to act as an ISP, you could have competition. Remember back in the days when the internet only existed on the phone lines? Dozens of mom and pop ISPs in every town, competing on price and service, all sharing the same phone system.
Perhaps I have a bias but I don't recall too many Republicans going to jail recently. I do recall quite a few Democrats sitting behind bars right now.
List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes
Are you selectively remembering? Scan down the page above. It looks somewhat even, although I didn't add them up.
Democrats are notorious for election fraud
Are you talking about something like the Acorn scandal? (Which was completely debunked).
It seems to me that election abuse (Republicans cutting early voting, reducing voting hours, culling voter registration lists right before elections, heavily gerrymandering all districts after the 2010 census) is something that Republicans have been doing lately very blatantly. They are bluntly attempting to change voter turnout in their favor. But of course that isn't actually fraud.... it is just an immoral use of power.
So if he had simply stated that he believed the documents were intended for the public, and was searching for them using google, he would not have been fined?