Take a look at a graph of coal production. Coal use grows at an exponential pace.
A quick search shows the graphs linked to below. Coal use is grows exponentially but only becomes significant around 1850. Coal production in the 18th C was minimal in comparison to that extracted and used in 1850, and close to insignificant to today.
Maybe. Just maybe it's more complicated than you make it out to be. If you are correct then you should be angry every time you hear the phrase "the warmest summer in recorded history." And then you find out that "recorded history" only refers to man written records (150 years) or satellite records (30 years).
And yet we see that temperatures were much higher in the past. And then lower. And then higher. And then lower. And then higher... You get my point.
We also see that there were 26 ice ages in the last 2.5 million years. Each of these Ice Ages and periods of Global Warming between them. And interestingly enough - why did glaciation begin 2.5 million years ago? Maybe continental drift had something to do with that.
All these temperature variations have had nothing to do with people.
Oh. You say - the slope of the curve is unique for the last 150 years? Really? What was the slope of the curve for a 150 year period 10,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago? Oh. We don't know that. So then how do you know that this 150 year period was unique?
On that note - the amount of industrialization 150 years ago was trivial compared to today comparable to volcanic activity. So then - the rise in temperatures 150 years ago was not a result of man-made global warming,
Your scare mongering and irrationality is not as based upon science as you think it is.
Does this mean nothing should be done? Of course not. (Too long for this post.)
You are also very wrong in thinking that small-government libertarians would do nothing about pollution and environmental depredations. Instead of rehashing talking points there are many articles and books that show a variety of ways of dealing with this problem.
Here's a mental exercise - do you think that a libertarian property owner would have no problem (and no recourse in a libertarian society) if a company was dumping toxic waste on his property, destroying his crops/ranch/property/etc? Do really think that's the case? Do you really think that this was never thought of? Do you not now see the falsehood upon which your outrage was based?
You do realize that Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were not anarchists. You do realize that free-market advocates do not promote caveat emptor.
Disagree all you want but if you truly believed in your ideals then you would have no problem if others chose to live differently. Hence have the states build your socialist, all-caring utopia. Leave me out of it.
You think there is a lack of government? I think there is too much. Especially regarding the federal government.
How about we agree on this.
Reduce the Federal Government to it's constitutionally limited responsibilities and you and your ilk have your state government(s) show the rest of us how it's done?
Build your nirvana; your ideal state. If it works as you, of course, know it will then people will flock to your state; and other states will adopt your platform. Then we can have fools like me live in their foolish way in their states and you and everyone who knows better will live in a wonderful state where everything works just fine.
Yes. The more power you give to government the more people spend to control this power.
You want to change this? Don't have government try to solve every last problem - this way you (as the oversight committee - ie the voter) is able to focus on the important items.
The less the govt is involved in the more you can see what's going on. The more it does everything the less you can do.
Example - speed limits shouldn't be the province of the fed government.
re net neutrality - maybe the FEC should be LESS powerful. Then money wouldn't be going there to influence decisions.
Just revisit your statement: "The stay at home housewife was another reaction to the over abundance of labour." WTF?
Women NEVER left the family home / farm until late 19thC industrialization and even then it was limited. Until post WWII the housewife was a valuable and time intensive job..
From washing clothes without a washing machine and dryer, to cooking without in door plumbing to getting and preserving food without refridgerators to everything else (and let's not forget taking care of children).
You realize that free-market people are against corporatism (what used to be called mercantilism). If you have any doubts - read von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman and, of course, Ayn Rand. Her greatest villains were corporatists.
So, no, stop believing what was spoon fed to you. And read them for yourselves. If I could read, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, and underdevelopment theorists you can read von Mises and listen to a few Milton Friedman youtube videos.
Hence the idea of a constitutionally limited government. A government that cannot do whatever it wants. And knowing that people want power have a competing set of powers (checks and balances so to speak) so that the federal government can do only what it's constitutionally allowed to do; local governments (states if you will) have other powers and the people in government - namely Executive and Legislative branches are jealously guarding their powers and privileges.
Of course if the population (hence their elected officials) think that the purpose of government is the distribution of largess then things dissolve.
In sum - Democracy does suck. Thankfully the framers of the US Constitution were aware of that. Hopefully our population will return to the sentiment that giving more and more power to the government - especially the Federal Government - is a very bad idea.
Try 3rd Parties. Read the Constitution (assuming you live in the US). Work to bringing the Federal Government down to size. Have the states do more and the feds do less.
So, being part of a huge bureaucracy managed from afar is a good thing? You must be one of those who loves the idea of Imperial Washington as well?
Everything should be decided by bureaucrats because people don't know better.
We bureaucrats in Brussels think that too much cinamon is bad for you. Therefore you Christmas snackies must be outlawed.
We (the all-wise, all-knowing bureaucrats) also know that consumption of raw milk products is dangerous therefore you (french, italian, spanish, communities that have been making raw milk cheeses are now declared to be WRONG and OLD FASHIONED. And any production of such products will now be ILLEGAL. Because, we, the all-knowing, all-wonderful bureaucrats know how best for you to live your lives.
Anybody who doesn't want to live under our enlightened rule are [fill in the blank].
Bishop Ussher, along with many others, were curious to know how old the universe was. So he went to The Bible and started figuring things out. We knew dates - the razing the Temple, Babylon Captivity - but how to figure out the beginning.
Go to The Bible and add up the dates. 6 days for creation + one day of rest + this lifetime + that lifetime until you get to a known date. Then, voila, you have the age of the universe.
That's correct. When joining the armed services you have given up several of your rights. The government can send you dangerous places and ask that you risk your life; you do not have freedom of speech, nor of assembly.
As far as military tribunals - they do operate out of bounds of the constitution. The Constitution only applies to areas that are part of the US; so military actions taking place out side of the US are outside the purview of the Constitution. (Assuming that Congress has authorized force and that the President is in command of said military forces.)
Either that or the reasoning behind the facts are wrong. The first steam engine did not get invented until the the 1710s by Newcomen. Watt's steam engine didn't come out until 1770s or so. The amount of coal burnt in the early 19thC as a result of the steam engines was minuscule (It's a guestimate. I don't have the figures.) compared to the total amount of coal and wood that was being burnt for millennia.
So this round of global warming may have started in the 1830 but it is damning - in my eyes anyway - to say that it is the result of the industrial revolution.
However politicians pass all sorts of compliance laws. Among the purposes of these laws is to ascertain who did what when; who knew what when. Running an email server to bypass compliance regulations is not ethical. (Although it may technically have been legal for the S of S. I'm not an attorney so I don't know how the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.)
Running the email server out of her house was clearly done to circumvent compliance and FOI requests.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at a graph of coal production. Coal use grows at an exponential pace.
A quick search shows the graphs linked to below. Coal use is grows exponentially but only becomes significant around 1850. Coal production in the 18th C was minimal in comparison to that extracted and used in 1850, and close to insignificant to today.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/201...
http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-Fos...
The comparison to volcanos was not coal production in the year 2000 but coal production in the year 1850.
Coal production before 1850 was in the 30-50 million tons / year. Today it is 8,000 - 10,000 tons / year.
Coal production was approximately 0.003 of what it is today. So you can see that it is comparable to volcanic activity.
http://www.indexmundi.com/ener...
Maybe. Just maybe it's more complicated than you make it out to be. If you are correct then you should be angry every time you hear the phrase "the warmest summer in recorded history." And then you find out that "recorded history" only refers to man written records (150 years) or satellite records (30 years).
... You get my point.
And yet we see that temperatures were much higher in the past. And then lower. And then higher. And then lower. And then higher
We also see that there were 26 ice ages in the last 2.5 million years. Each of these Ice Ages and periods of Global Warming between them. And interestingly enough - why did glaciation begin 2.5 million years ago? Maybe continental drift had something to do with that.
All these temperature variations have had nothing to do with people.
Oh. You say - the slope of the curve is unique for the last 150 years? Really? What was the slope of the curve for a 150 year period 10,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago? Oh. We don't know that. So then how do you know that this 150 year period was unique?
On that note - the amount of industrialization 150 years ago was trivial compared to today comparable to volcanic activity. So then - the rise in temperatures 150 years ago was not a result of man-made global warming,
Your scare mongering and irrationality is not as based upon science as you think it is.
Does this mean nothing should be done? Of course not. (Too long for this post.)
You are also very wrong in thinking that small-government libertarians would do nothing about pollution and environmental depredations. Instead of rehashing talking points there are many articles and books that show a variety of ways of dealing with this problem. Here's a mental exercise - do you think that a libertarian property owner would have no problem (and no recourse in a libertarian society) if a company was dumping toxic waste on his property, destroying his crops/ranch/property/etc? Do really think that's the case? Do you really think that this was never thought of? Do you not now see the falsehood upon which your outrage was based?
Who cares why they do it? Companies do things for profit. (Which is not a bad word and not a bad thing.)
They're doing it now because it's economical. And that's a good thing. We want this trend to continue.
You do realize that Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were not anarchists. You do realize that free-market advocates do not promote caveat emptor.
Disagree all you want but if you truly believed in your ideals then you would have no problem if others chose to live differently. Hence have the states build your socialist, all-caring utopia. Leave me out of it.
There is nothing small-limited government about Hillary Clinton nor her campaign.
Stop pretending that Clinton is a Republican. And, stop pretending that Trump is a Republican.
To bad you don't understand that free market does not mean fraud is acceptable.
A free market society also has to deal with fraud the same as a mercantile or socialist economy.
So, rather than saying that a free market economy would do nothing about said problem why don't you see what they would do?
You think there is a lack of government? I think there is too much. Especially regarding the federal government.
How about we agree on this.
Reduce the Federal Government to it's constitutionally limited responsibilities and you and your ilk have your state government(s) show the rest of us how it's done?
Build your nirvana; your ideal state. If it works as you, of course, know it will then people will flock to your state; and other states will adopt your platform. Then we can have fools like me live in their foolish way in their states and you and everyone who knows better will live in a wonderful state where everything works just fine.
Howz that sound to you?
Yes. The more power you give to government the more people spend to control this power.
You want to change this? Don't have government try to solve every last problem - this way you (as the oversight committee - ie the voter) is able to focus on the important items.
The less the govt is involved in the more you can see what's going on. The more it does everything the less you can do.
Example - speed limits shouldn't be the province of the fed government.
re net neutrality - maybe the FEC should be LESS powerful. Then money wouldn't be going there to influence decisions.
So much wrong with this post.
.
Just revisit your statement: "The stay at home housewife was another reaction to the over abundance of labour." WTF?
Women NEVER left the family home / farm until late 19thC industrialization and even then it was limited. Until post WWII the housewife was a valuable and time intensive job.
From washing clothes without a washing machine and dryer, to cooking without in door plumbing to getting and preserving food without refridgerators to everything else (and let's not forget taking care of children).
You realize that free-market people are against corporatism (what used to be called mercantilism). If you have any doubts - read von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman and, of course, Ayn Rand. Her greatest villains were corporatists.
So, no, stop believing what was spoon fed to you. And read them for yourselves. If I could read, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, and underdevelopment theorists you can read von Mises and listen to a few Milton Friedman youtube videos.
Hence the idea of a constitutionally limited government. A government that cannot do whatever it wants. And knowing that people want power have a competing set of powers (checks and balances so to speak) so that the federal government can do only what it's constitutionally allowed to do; local governments (states if you will) have other powers and the people in government - namely Executive and Legislative branches are jealously guarding their powers and privileges.
Of course if the population (hence their elected officials) think that the purpose of government is the distribution of largess then things dissolve.
In sum - Democracy does suck. Thankfully the framers of the US Constitution were aware of that. Hopefully our population will return to the sentiment that giving more and more power to the government - especially the Federal Government - is a very bad idea.
Vote Third Party in 2016 and beyond.
Try 3rd Parties. Read the Constitution (assuming you live in the US). Work to bringing the Federal Government down to size. Have the states do more and the feds do less.
Keep voting for an all-powerful government - and reap what you sow.
My mistake. I was in France in the late 1990s and this was a big concern,
Still the point remains. An all-powerful centralized state is not good.
The point of the caps was to mock those who desire centralized control. An homage, if you will to Stalin, Mao and other perfect states.
So, being part of a huge bureaucracy managed from afar is a good thing? You must be one of those who loves the idea of Imperial Washington as well?
Everything should be decided by bureaucrats because people don't know better.
We bureaucrats in Brussels think that too much cinamon is bad for you. Therefore you Christmas snackies must be outlawed.
We (the all-wise, all-knowing bureaucrats) also know that consumption of raw milk products is dangerous therefore you (french, italian, spanish, communities that have been making raw milk cheeses are now declared to be WRONG and OLD FASHIONED. And any production of such products will now be ILLEGAL. Because, we, the all-knowing, all-wonderful bureaucrats know how best for you to live your lives.
Anybody who doesn't want to live under our enlightened rule are [fill in the blank].
Read up on it. It's interesting.
Bishop Ussher, along with many others, were curious to know how old the universe was. So he went to The Bible and started figuring things out. We knew dates - the razing the Temple, Babylon Captivity - but how to figure out the beginning.
Go to The Bible and add up the dates. 6 days for creation + one day of rest + this lifetime + that lifetime until you get to a known date. Then, voila, you have the age of the universe.
Simple really.
That's correct. When joining the armed services you have given up several of your rights. The government can send you dangerous places and ask that you risk your life; you do not have freedom of speech, nor of assembly.
As far as military tribunals - they do operate out of bounds of the constitution. The Constitution only applies to areas that are part of the US; so military actions taking place out side of the US are outside the purview of the Constitution. (Assuming that Congress has authorized force and that the President is in command of said military forces.)
my bad
where is edit when I need it? Come on slashdot. :-)
The sad thing is - you probably believe the bull$h!t your just wrote.
But the Democrats are not? Right. What other fairy tales do you believe in? The Great Pumpkin?
Maybe, just maybe, Uber's infrastructure is more complicated than a "few servers."
Competent at what? Tyranny?
Either that or the reasoning behind the facts are wrong. The first steam engine did not get invented until the the 1710s by Newcomen. Watt's steam engine didn't come out until 1770s or so. The amount of coal burnt in the early 19thC as a result of the steam engines was minuscule (It's a guestimate. I don't have the figures.) compared to the total amount of coal and wood that was being burnt for millennia.
So this round of global warming may have started in the 1830 but it is damning - in my eyes anyway - to say that it is the result of the industrial revolution.
:-)
good point.
However politicians pass all sorts of compliance laws. Among the purposes of these laws is to ascertain who did what when; who knew what when. Running an email server to bypass compliance regulations is not ethical. (Although it may technically have been legal for the S of S. I'm not an attorney so I don't know how the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.)
Running the email server out of her house was clearly done to circumvent compliance and FOI requests.