I didn't say I did. I said there were things that made me suspicious and things that are total bullsh!t. The bullsh!t may come from ignorant reporters but these reporters are not being corrected by the researchers. Interesting you seem to have completely avoided commenting on the point that 150 years is an irrelevant blip in geologic time.
Please comment on that. Re the CO2 you needn't go back to the Jurassic period to find much higher CO2 levels. My concern is the survival of our species - which requires the survival of our biosphere. I am very concerned about the amount of pollution we create, the rate of change of the salinity of the oceans, etc... We need to be far better stewards of our planet then we have been. A change in coast lines, whatever. Some inhabited islands and cities cease to exist. Whatever. It's a pain but there it is.
Killing off species due to habitat encroachment is, in my opinion, far worse. Dumping dioxins, PCBs, myriad manufacturing wastes are, IMHO, far, far, far worse.
No. I'm not saying that at all. I think drug and gambling and prostitution laws should be eliminated. This doesn't mean I think that prostitution (for example) is morally acceptable. I don't.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy in wanting zoning laws to protect society from "x" and then selectively not enforcing it because a poor person is breaking the law.
NYC prohibits people from cooking and selling food without being licensed by the city. I would like to see much of this changed to allow people to sell "unregulated" tacos or whatever on the side of the road. What I don't what to see is the city enforce the laws for some people (a pizza store) and not enforce the law on someone else ( an old lady selling tostados). The law should apply to everyone. Else change the law.
When I look at (and I'm so not an expert and don't pretend to be) geological temperature data points I often see that the data points are accurate to +/- 4000 years.
So, for example, take a look at a chart like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I often see such charts with a +/- 4000 years for each of the data points. (This chart does not state anything).
I am not saying do nothing about climate change. I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't study and get data and postulate theories. I am saying there is something wrong from someone compares the slope of the curve between (say) March 1, 2010 and December 1, 2002. I wonder - why those two dates (are you playing with things as Al Gore did) and secondly how can you compare that delta with that of 100,000s of years ago when we don't have precise data points from that period. We have a good general idea from ice cores, etc... but it is accurate to what. 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years? If that's the case we can't compare the slope of the curve from a current period with that of 500,000 years ago.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that some of the arguments brought forth doesn't make sense. Do they make sense to you? Would you take the delta in temperature from March 1, 2015 to March 1, 2001 and say the slope of the curve is greater than that of 1,000,000 years ago (when the data points back then are accurate to +/- 4000 years)?
True. Now are you saying that the poor can ignore said laws? In which case why have them in the first place? That sounds like a rabid libertarian, anarcho-capitalist argument to me.
I'm more concerned about dioxins and PCBs being dumped; the loss of natural habitat to agribusiness and timber companies; and the over harvesting of the oceans than I am about rising CO2 levels.
I don't see rising CO2 levels and changing coastlines being an issue. Over population is an issue. Polluting our environment is an issue.
I'm persuaded by facts not by rhetoric and certainly not by being cursed at. It looks as if you ignored my points? Why is that?
Why would anyone say that the temperature of the last 100 years is anyway representative of the "correct" temperature. And what is the "correct" temperature anyway? Haven't there been numerous periods of global warming over the last 2 million years (22 or so)?
And did you notice that this period of global warming and glaciation is more prominent over the last 2 million years than over the previous 200 million? Why is that? Continental drift maybe?
How about the scare tactic that CO2 levels are at historic highs. Oops. Let's look at the geological record. It's not.
Why, if proponents of global warming have all the facts on their side do they pollute their argument by using bad science. Example comparing low points with high points? Isn't the first thing you learn in stats 101 (or is it in high school) to compare like points?
No. I look at the facts and nothing but the facts. And the evidence being brought forward is not convincing. Anyone that compares the slope of the curve of a twenty year period ( say from 1970 to 1990) and says that it is unprecedented in history is lying (or exaggerating to the point of being dishonest).
Why? Because our data points are accurate to +/-4000 years.
I'm not saying that they're wrong. I'm simply saying that the supporters are using bull$h!t to bolster their claims and it's the use of this bull$h!t that makes me go hmmm.
Part of the problem is the bullshit coming from climate change proponents:
"greatest/highest X in recorded history." 150 years is a proverbial fraction of a second.
or this bullshit:
"the slope of the curve is steeper now than ever." Really? our data is accurate to +/-4,000 years. It's like doing a stock analysis comparing one chart showing price changes per second and another showing averages per year. An financial analyst would be laughed out of the room with that sh!t and yet.... no criticism of climate change proponents (mostly brain-dead reporters) doing the same thing.
So, are you saying that zoning laws are bad. Or are you saying that poor people can ignore them because they're poor? Can I, a-non-poor-but-not-rich-person, also ignore zoning and commerce laws at my discretion?
Don't forget to watch the loons trying to shut down trump rallies. I despises Trump but the anti-free speech, anti-freedom of assembly scum trying to shut down the events are many times worse.
If there isn't freedom of speech then the only alternative is violence.
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."
If that were true that life would be better in an ice age. If that was true then population levels would have risen when temperatures dropped and population levels would have fallen when temperatures raised. Right?.... Ooops. That's not the way things worked out.
Periods of plague and starvation coincide with falling temperatures and boom times with rising temperatures.
A state can't pass ANY law it wants. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. State laws still needs to pass Constitutional muster. I'm not saying that states have historically done a great job, often times they were horrible and the Federal Government needed to intervene. BUT there is a difference between intervening when a state does not follow the Constitution and for the power of all states to be transferred in perpetuity to the Federal Government.
As you said basic human rights cannot be put to a vote. Government exists for a purpose - namely to uphold the social contract (I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine), legal contracts, ensure domestic tranquility (namely keep robbers and rioters at bay) , run the military, courts and police.
We can ask (or not) the government to provide services to the general population (say garbage collection and fire departments) and then change the populace through use taxes for these services. We can expand this to include water and sewage, education and the like. But each of these additional services are subject to agreement by the population of that state. I, as a radical small-government type, am more than comfortable with contracting the government for the above mentioned services.
This doesn't mean that anything and everything that someone feels is important should be done by the government. People in states can decide what.
Thanks for your civil reply. I was a little snarky in my post and I shouldn't have done that.
If people in one state vote for more government aid in say health care. Fine. But if people in another state vote against it. It's also fine. The same applies for other things. Let the people in states decide. One good reason for this is simply managing expectations and getting 300 plus million people in a continent sized country to agree on things. If the people of NY decide on "x" then fine. If Texas disagrees, then also fine.
The federal government should not do everything. It should do what it was authorized to do. If you, the citizen of state "x", think that the government should distribute gluten-free, all organic gummy bears to everyone for free and you persuade the legislature of that state to provide said gummy bears. Great. More power to you and the citizens of your state. If I, however, don't want this, and the citizens living in my state don't want to do this. Then fine.
And this applies to everything: from drug laws to prostitution to free birth control to x,y and z.
I guess you haven't read the US Constitution for a while; nor have read the Federalist Papers. Give it a go. You may then have reason based objections instead of hyperbole. The US Constitution isn't an anarchist document. There is a role for government. But "a role for government" doesn't mean that politicians and bureaucrats run your life.
Really? Then where was it for the 140 years before FDR?
It existed. It was the churches and the local community.
Take another look at the constitution. Take a look at Article1 : Section 8.
Don't read your desires into it. Read Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson. And if you want to get into it add Locke, Blackstone, de Vattel and others.
The more you want Washington to do - the more you turn Washington into an Imperial Power. Have the federal government do what it was created to do and leave the rest to the states.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say I did. I said there were things that made me suspicious and things that are total bullsh!t. The bullsh!t may come from ignorant reporters but these reporters are not being corrected by the researchers. Interesting you seem to have completely avoided commenting on the point that 150 years is an irrelevant blip in geologic time.
Please comment on that. Re the CO2 you needn't go back to the Jurassic period to find much higher CO2 levels. My concern is the survival of our species - which requires the survival of our biosphere. I am very concerned about the amount of pollution we create, the rate of change of the salinity of the oceans, etc... We need to be far better stewards of our planet then we have been. A change in coast lines, whatever. Some inhabited islands and cities cease to exist. Whatever. It's a pain but there it is.
Killing off species due to habitat encroachment is, in my opinion, far worse. Dumping dioxins, PCBs, myriad manufacturing wastes are, IMHO, far, far, far worse.
No. I'm not saying that at all. I think drug and gambling and prostitution laws should be eliminated. This doesn't mean I think that prostitution (for example) is morally acceptable. I don't.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy in wanting zoning laws to protect society from "x" and then selectively not enforcing it because a poor person is breaking the law.
NYC prohibits people from cooking and selling food without being licensed by the city. I would like to see much of this changed to allow people to sell "unregulated" tacos or whatever on the side of the road. What I don't what to see is the city enforce the laws for some people (a pizza store) and not enforce the law on someone else ( an old lady selling tostados). The law should apply to everyone. Else change the law.
When I look at (and I'm so not an expert and don't pretend to be) geological temperature data points I often see that the data points are accurate to +/- 4000 years.
... but it is accurate to what. 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years? If that's the case we can't compare the slope of the curve from a current period with that of 500,000 years ago.
So, for example, take a look at a chart like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I often see such charts with a +/- 4000 years for each of the data points. (This chart does not state anything).
I am not saying do nothing about climate change. I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't study and get data and postulate theories. I am saying there is something wrong from someone compares the slope of the curve between (say) March 1, 2010 and December 1, 2002. I wonder - why those two dates (are you playing with things as Al Gore did) and secondly how can you compare that delta with that of 100,000s of years ago when we don't have precise data points from that period. We have a good general idea from ice cores, etc
I'm not a proponent of much of what passes as zoning (or any other law) but if we have them it should apply to all.
Agree with that point completely. Was the guy an ass? Yes. But he has a point. You can't start any business where ever you want right?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that some of the arguments brought forth doesn't make sense. Do they make sense to you? Would you take the delta in temperature from March 1, 2015 to March 1, 2001 and say the slope of the curve is greater than that of 1,000,000 years ago (when the data points back then are accurate to +/- 4000 years)?
I chose justice and equity. But not equality of outcome nor distribution of wealth.
You could help the planet and not reproduce. Even better just end it all tonight. After all: "think of the environment."
True. Now are you saying that the poor can ignore said laws? In which case why have them in the first place? That sounds like a rabid libertarian, anarcho-capitalist argument to me.
I'm more concerned about dioxins and PCBs being dumped; the loss of natural habitat to agribusiness and timber companies; and the over harvesting of the oceans than I am about rising CO2 levels.
I don't see rising CO2 levels and changing coastlines being an issue. Over population is an issue. Polluting our environment is an issue.
I'm persuaded by facts not by rhetoric and certainly not by being cursed at. It looks as if you ignored my points? Why is that?
Why would anyone say that the temperature of the last 100 years is anyway representative of the "correct" temperature. And what is the "correct" temperature anyway? Haven't there been numerous periods of global warming over the last 2 million years (22 or so)?
And did you notice that this period of global warming and glaciation is more prominent over the last 2 million years than over the previous 200 million? Why is that? Continental drift maybe?
How about the scare tactic that CO2 levels are at historic highs. Oops. Let's look at the geological record. It's not.
Why, if proponents of global warming have all the facts on their side do they pollute their argument by using bad science. Example comparing low points with high points? Isn't the first thing you learn in stats 101 (or is it in high school) to compare like points?
Fair enough. His attitude was reprehensible (at least as put forth in the blurb). We don't know if there was anything else involved in the story.
No. I look at the facts and nothing but the facts. And the evidence being brought forward is not convincing. Anyone that compares the slope of the curve of a twenty year period ( say from 1970 to 1990) and says that it is unprecedented in history is lying (or exaggerating to the point of being dishonest).
Why? Because our data points are accurate to +/-4000 years.
Why exaggerate?
I'm not saying that they're wrong. I'm simply saying that the supporters are using bull$h!t to bolster their claims and it's the use of this bull$h!t that makes me go hmmm.
Part of the problem is the bullshit coming from climate change proponents: "greatest/highest X in recorded history." 150 years is a proverbial fraction of a second.
.... no criticism of climate change proponents (mostly brain-dead reporters) doing the same thing.
or this bullshit:
"the slope of the curve is steeper now than ever." Really? our data is accurate to +/-4,000 years. It's like doing a stock analysis comparing one chart showing price changes per second and another showing averages per year. An financial analyst would be laughed out of the room with that sh!t and yet
So, are you saying that zoning laws are bad. Or are you saying that poor people can ignore them because they're poor? Can I, a-non-poor-but-not-rich-person, also ignore zoning and commerce laws at my discretion?
I thought it was 72 Virginians.
Don't forget to watch the loons trying to shut down trump rallies. I despises Trump but the anti-free speech, anti-freedom of assembly scum trying to shut down the events are many times worse.
If there isn't freedom of speech then the only alternative is violence.
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."
Try learning a little more about the 19th C before sticking your foot so firmly in your mouth.
If that were true that life would be better in an ice age. If that was true then population levels would have risen when temperatures dropped and population levels would have fallen when temperatures raised. Right? .... Ooops. That's not the way things worked out.
Periods of plague and starvation coincide with falling temperatures and boom times with rising temperatures.
A state can't pass ANY law it wants. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. State laws still needs to pass Constitutional muster. I'm not saying that states have historically done a great job, often times they were horrible and the Federal Government needed to intervene. BUT there is a difference between intervening when a state does not follow the Constitution and for the power of all states to be transferred in perpetuity to the Federal Government.
As you said basic human rights cannot be put to a vote. Government exists for a purpose - namely to uphold the social contract (I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine), legal contracts, ensure domestic tranquility (namely keep robbers and rioters at bay) , run the military, courts and police.
We can ask (or not) the government to provide services to the general population (say garbage collection and fire departments) and then change the populace through use taxes for these services. We can expand this to include water and sewage, education and the like. But each of these additional services are subject to agreement by the population of that state. I, as a radical small-government type, am more than comfortable with contracting the government for the above mentioned services.
This doesn't mean that anything and everything that someone feels is important should be done by the government. People in states can decide what.
Thanks for your civil reply. I was a little snarky in my post and I shouldn't have done that.
If people in one state vote for more government aid in say health care. Fine. But if people in another state vote against it. It's also fine. The same applies for other things. Let the people in states decide. One good reason for this is simply managing expectations and getting 300 plus million people in a continent sized country to agree on things. If the people of NY decide on "x" then fine. If Texas disagrees, then also fine.
The federal government should not do everything. It should do what it was authorized to do. If you, the citizen of state "x", think that the government should distribute gluten-free, all organic gummy bears to everyone for free and you persuade the legislature of that state to provide said gummy bears. Great. More power to you and the citizens of your state. If I, however, don't want this, and the citizens living in my state don't want to do this. Then fine.
And this applies to everything: from drug laws to prostitution to free birth control to x,y and z.
I thought nuking them for orbit was the only way to be sure.
I guess you haven't read the US Constitution for a while; nor have read the Federalist Papers. Give it a go. You may then have reason based objections instead of hyperbole. The US Constitution isn't an anarchist document. There is a role for government. But "a role for government" doesn't mean that politicians and bureaucrats run your life.
We are citizens. Not serfs.
Really? Then where was it for the 140 years before FDR?
It existed. It was the churches and the local community.
Take another look at the constitution. Take a look at Article1 : Section 8.
Don't read your desires into it. Read Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson. And if you want to get into it add Locke, Blackstone, de Vattel and others.
The more you want Washington to do - the more you turn Washington into an Imperial Power. Have the federal government do what it was created to do and leave the rest to the states.
Of course what you consider to be a good decision others may consider to be foolish. You want to live as a serf, a ward of a nanny-state. OK. I don't.