And you need to understand that collecting that money is the primary goal of these politicians. They will always follow the money. History has shown that politicians rarely get punished for this kind of behavior.
Right, because we the people rarely care enough. When they see a "groundswell" of response from the public they get worried that this is not one of those cases and that they will get punished.
And why be a politician in the first place if you can't cash in your influence? To serve the people? Don't make me laugh.
Most politicians, from what I have seen, are more interested in power than money. They'd rather "be there" for another term than cash in on a few million now. They like being wined and dined and feeling important. Not that they don't cash in, but I think most of them are in it for the long haul and aren't going to do something that nets them a few dollars today and costs them the election next time around.
In monetary terms, the "future value" of the office is worth more than the "present value" of the RIAA's campaign contributions.
Bottom line: it is worth the risk to take the money and screw the voters. If the only way to stay in office is to defend the interests of voters over the interests of deep pocketed contributors (and sacrifice those contributions) what's the point of being in office? If it comes to that, they'll just call in their favors and get a cushy consulting or lobbyist job.
This, and many other examples, refutes that. You may be cynical enough to believe all they want to do is line their pockets. And I'm not saying that doesn't happen. But I strongly believe that what most of them want is another term. If they can do that AND get rich at the same time, they're even happier. But given the choice between campaign dollars and a pissed off public that'll get them evicted next election, they'll try to keep the public happy.
Even if what they're after is money, they can't achieve that goal if we vote them out of office.
Seriously. Since when do politicians listen to their constituents over deep pocketed industry types? I declare rumors of this bill's demise to be greatly exagerated.
You need to understand that politicians listen to deep-pocketed industry types because they give them lots of money so they can fund their reelection campaign. All the industry blood money in the world isn't going to help their campaign one single bit if 50% (+1) of their constituents is pissed off at them.
So politicians will only be swayed by the almighty buck as long as they can get away with it without perceiving a threat from the voting public. When the public speaks loudly, it speaks much louder than all the campaign contributions that could possibly be forthcoming.
Don't give up. We, the people, have power. The problem is that we often don't excercise it and, in that void, corporate interests take over. If it's the Corporate States of America it's because we the people are not doing OUR job.
In the case of movie-on-demand, watch them allow TWarner sourced movies not count against your bandwidth limit. An effective way to prevent other movie-on-demand companies from competing don't you think?
Sure. It'll be interesting to see if it happens. That'd be a very blatantly easy way to invite regulation in that sector. I wonder if they're willing to make the gamble...
I think the biggest thing I fear is that the latter case will become the norm. What percentage of users paying "extra" is appropriate?
I think that's the main problem. I wouldn't mind paying for what I consume if I had some reason to believe it was fair.
The problem is, they may be charging $44/month for some guy who only consumes 1MB or 2MB per month. The percentage of people consuming much less than 200MB is certainly very high. That's a "free ride" for Time Warner.
The other end of the spectrum is the bandwidth hogs. They consume the bandwidth that they've supposedly paid for. Is that really a "free ride?" They contracted a cable modem and they're using it. On a more macro scale, they're compensating for the large majority that don't use a fraction of what they're entitled to.
So I think it's fair to pay for the bandwidth you use as long as those that don't use it get an equivalent discount in the other direction. You can't have it both ways.
That said, isn't Time Warner one of the companies that wants to sell us all this new-fangled digital multi-media content? They'll have to analyze their pricing structure in that context. If it costs more to acquire a movie-on-demand via their link than it does to rent it at Blockbuster, they're on-demand service aint going to go far...
If an infinite number of parallel dimensions exist with every possible combination of the state of the universe, then I'm posting this message in an infinite number of parallel dimensions. We're all multi-dimensional spammers!
How long would it take you to copy a 200 page book, and how much money? Now how long and how much to copy a CD? See the difference yet?
While I personally would never be inclined to waste my time making a copy of an entire book, there are people who do.
Especially on college campus where books sometimes cost US$100+. A student will buy a copy of the book and then his friends and their friends friends will make copies of the book. Copy services are often offered at a discount and it only takes extra time to make the first copy; you can make subsequent copies of the copies really fast. And at $100+ for the book and discounted on-campus copy services it is not hard to believe that you'd actually save money.
If there was a flat rate for long-distance, it would certainly be higher than I'm paying now. All that would do is anger the 80% of people who use a less than average amount of long distance. (Yes, my math is right - the top 20% of long-distance callers talk five times as long.)
That assumes that the flat-rate amount multiplied by the number of customers would have to equal what the long distance companies currently earn.
The parent post was correct. Things are expensive because LD is still (comparatively) expensive.
LD used to be expensive because the COSTS were high to provide it. Laying the lines, relatively low number of users, etc. Now, telephones are virtually everywhere. Local calls are unmetered, but long distance is still relatively expensive mostly because people got used to paying for it. They value the service monetarily because they are used to paying for it.
LD no longer is as expensive as it used to be to provide. In fact, technically, it can be provided almost free. Most of the actual telecomm costs are in "the last mile" (read: the local telephone service that you already pay a monthly bill for).
Believe me, in 10, maybe 15 or 20 years max, there will be no "long distance charge" per-minute nor per-call and the companies providing them will either be much smaller and paid some monthly amount by local providers paying for international connectivity (like ISP access to the backbone).
Why? Because the price we pay for long distance is a perceived cost based on habit, not based on the actual real value or cost of the service. The price is, thus, unnaturally high. It may take time, but the free market will ensure that an unnaturally high price comes down. And it will.
While VoIP seems to have lost it's dazzle (with the dot com boom), I think VoIP is really what's going to eventually lead to free long distance. VoIP is in its infancy. When there is more infrastructure VoIP will be able to charge less than long distance companies. To compete, the long distance companies themselves will have to resort to VoIP. And, at some point, the local telephone company will end up simply being the local POP for the VoIP network... and the long distance companies will no longer exist.
That's my guess, anyway.
Re:running away from the world
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
there are many healthy reasons to dislike america, especially post-1945. for the past half-century, the u.s. has been engaged in fucking over anything and anyone who might pose a threat to its investments (present and future).
I love it when people just point to money.
Sure, there are economic concerns that come in to play. But mostly it's political and strategic interests that U.S. acts on.
Did we get involved in Kuwait because of oil? Yes.
Did we care about the oil because of its economic worth? Perhaps a little, but the main reason is because our country depends on that oil. Not just economically, but socially and militarily. Take away that oil for long enough and the U.S. can't defend itself, can't travel, and society itself changes--if we're not invaded.
Sure, money was a concern. But it was way down on the list compared to strategic reasons to get involved.
Yes, we get involved all over the world. Sometimes it's annoying even to us Americans. But after December 7th, 1941, can anyone say that the United States should simply look the other way? That's what got us bombed at Pearl Harbor. We got caught with our pants down and NO, we're not going to look the other way.
Yes, we are interested in our wellbeing. Of course we are. Every country is. As the most powerful country we have more enemies and, thus, tend to be involved in more places. That with the goal that we'd rather fight in a foreign country than have our country bombed. That's just plain logical.
So before you go blaming every U.S. move on money, look at it from a strategic, political, and military standpoint. Sure, money is always a consideration, but strategic and political reasons are almost always the immediate reason for U.S. action... money is secondary.
I remember they had a video presentation in which they showed how the warming trend had slowed for 2 years due to a recent volcanic eruption, and they talked about a computer model which had successfully predicted the effect.
Ok, but a model has to work in all cases to be valid. As you can see they were pretty excited because in this one particular case they got it right. I.e., they were surprised because most of the time their models don't work.
The question is whether that model worked for climate change before and after that 2-year period that it supposedly got it right.
If I flip a coin enough times I'll eventually predict global climate change, too.
In any case, whether or not, they can model the Earth as a whole, I don't see how anyone can deny that they have the ability to model the effects of each factor individually, and those models should lead you to the same conclusions.
That's not true, either. They might be able to approximate affects of some factors, but until they can approximate everything that plays a factor then it is truly impossible to say how much a given factor will affect the whole.
I'm not saying they should stop trying to model. Just that right now the models don't tell us anything and they need to keep working on it.
This article which accompanies the recent news that of B-22 the ice shelf that has been around since the ice age on top of the dozens of other large ice formation that have disappeared into the sea in addition to the melting ice cap on top of Mt. Kilamanjaro, in addition to the recent news that the arctic ice cap is thinning
Uh huh... And tell me... how much has the sea risen during this time?
Arctic ice cap is thinning and will be gone by 2080
"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." You know, with all due respect, can you recognize "gloom and doom"-speak when you see it? That's a rhetorical question.
on top of all the well-respected climatologists who have concluded global warming is a very real phenomena
Have you investigated how many well-respect climatologists and physicists have concluded that it's either not real or that, at least, there's not enough data to know?
plus the highest temperature ever recorded in the last hundred years
Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there's people in more places to take more measurements? Or that we have satellites taking temperature readings 24/7? Nah, that couldn't be it.
the carbon dioxide levels have increased to 370 ppm from 250 ppm in the last 100 years
Reference/link please? And any evidence that that's inherently bad? Even if it is true, I've seen no conclusive proof that that's something I need to be worried about.
coupled with the fact that it has been shown there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures
There's a strong correlation between the number of people farting in the world and global temperatures, too, but that doesn't mean that farting is heating up the earth.
well, there's only one thing left to conclude...
Yes:
1. Icecaps are apparently melting and the sea isn't rising.
2. The Antartic will be habitable in 78 years so at least we don't have to worry as much about overpopulation; we can export people down there.
3. You haven't fully investigated how many real climatologists believe and don't believe that global warming has been proven.
4. You don't know the difference between a correlation and a relation.
Thus, the only thing left to conclude is that we don't know dick about the subject any any knee-jerk reaction would be premature.
It doesn't really matter. There has been no global warming in the last 23 years that there's been a satellite record. So either the remaining 30% happened between 1950 and 1979, or their whole process for calculating these things based on rock temperatures is broken.
Remember, any theory that contradicts reality is false. They might claim or suggest all kinds of weird and wonderful things in the past, but if their conclusion conflicts with what we've observed in the last 23 years, it's all sci-fi...
The National Post is not a reliable source of information. They're a right wing newspaper that tries to serve the interest of large corporations.
... and the environmentalists are not a reliable source of information. They are a leftist organization that tries to affect political and economic change in the name of the environment.
What's the difference?
Only by reading the biased information from both sides can you attempt to get a clue as to what the truth is, because neither side is going to give it to you 100%.
The Articale says 'crust tempature rising' wich to me.. says its heating from the inside outwards.
I agree. I personally believe (not based on research) that the temeprature of subsurface rock is going to be more affected by the core than it is by the surface temperature of the air.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the temperature of seismic activity was affecting the atmospheric temperature more than the atmospheric temperature was causing any major change to the temperature of surface rocks themselves.
but reading the entire thing says that rocks closer to the surface are warmer.. wich to me says its heating from the outside inwards
I think there has to be a middle point. If you go into any cave in the Mojave desert of California and are more than about a dozen feet below ground, believe me, you'll know that the surface temperature doesn't do much to the subsurface temperature. It gets downright cold.
But if you get to the core, it's hot. So I suppose it's kind of like a sine wave. It's hot at the top, gets cooler as you go down from the surface, and at some point gets hotter as you get closer to the magma that's down there somewhere.
and would most (if not all rocks) from the 1950's still be visable? let alone burried?
That's what I was wondering, too. Ok, perhaps his approach works. But I would think he'd be able to compare temperatures from hundreds of millions of years ago to perhaps millions of years ago. Anything that was on the surface even 500 years ago is either still on the surface or very close to it, except in a few exceptional cases (fault lines, volcanos, etc.).
Your little tale about all the wonderful changes global warming will bring is a pipe dream.
Perhaps, but no more so than many of the pipe dreams (or nightmares) offered by some environmentalists.
From what I've read, global warming will make some parts of the world more pleasant, but it will make just as many places much less pleasant
As you said earlier in your post ("No one knows for sure what will happen if the Earth warms up a few degrees."), no-one really knows. So what you've read is just as much speculation as what I posted, but...
USA Midewest will become a dust bowl
I tend to think this is mostly to frighten the United States popultaion. The fact is, the Rocky Mountains that run through the middle of both our countries is what causes rain to fall across the U.S. midwest. Increased temperature (and thus increased ocean evaporation and clouds) will tend to cause more rain the U.S. Midwest, not less.
Unless the Rocky Mountains disappear I don't think there is much of a risk to the U.S. Midwest. Of course, global warming might melt the Rockies...
Northern Europe will actually get cooler (due to a cold artic current not running as deep in the warmer water)
I'm not informed about this point, although I'd be curious to know how much colder they'd expect it to be and what affect that would really have. Northern Europe (if we're talking Scandanavian countries) are already pretty cold.
More frequent large storms
Is that necessarily bad?
If enough ice melts, the oceans will rise
If the ice melts. While I am aware that the North Pole melts each year (my dad once spent a number of months near the North Pole on a scientific trip for the University of Washington and had pictures of the ice breaking up when they abandoned their camp), that is not the case with the South Pole.
The weather is too complicated to predict with any great accuracy, so all this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Agreed, completely. But that goes both ways and everything the environmentalists say needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well. Unfortunately, the media sensationalizes it and governments come up with drastic Protocols based on incomplete research. They've forgotten their grain of salt...
On top of this, we have scientific models (based on chemistry and physics) which can accurately predict the warming trend. (We have the examples of the planets Mars and Venus, which provide further test vectors.)
Can you provide a link? Last I checked we didn't even have a model that successfully modeled the increase at the beginning of the 20th century. And no model that takes into account the affect of solar variations and the affects of (ahem) clouds.
If modeling is really as good as you've suggested, I've apparently missed something and I'd very much like to see that model and educate myself.
And I don't think it takes much of a sea level rise to accomplish this
Assuming sea level rises. Which it might not. And even if it does, so what? Are we so arrogant as to think that the world will always look exactly as it is? Nothing is forever. Not even Los Angeles.
Say scientists are studying something, and they have some preliminary results saying that if we continue on our current course of action, there's a 50% chance something catastrophic will happen, but they won't be certain until they've done another 20 years of study, by which time said catastrophe might be too late to avert. Do you insist on waiting for the final, conculsive results?
If the results were even 10% conclusive I'd say we ought to take some action. But we're far from even 10% sure that humans are causing any affect whatsoever on global warming.
Even so, I might backtrack on that because I'm not sure that we know that a rising sea level would be a bad thing. Just because people have to relocate doesn't mean, 200 years from now, the earth won't be a better place because of that.
There are too many variables. There's no proof that there is ongoing global warming. If there is global warming, there's no proof that humans are a significant cause of it. If there is global warming and we are causing it, there's no proof that it will bring major changes to the earth. If it does bring major changes to the earth, there's no proof that those changes will be bad in anything but the shortest-term.
So... given so much uncertainty, no, I'm not yet ready to take any significant action to address it.
That excuse is not good enough to ignore climate changes and to keep polluting the planet. Ten thousand years ago we didnt have industries releasing all sort of shit in the atmosphere. I think YOU and people like George Bush should get a grip before speaking.
While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, your post contributed nothing to the debate and only suggests that the opposing view should not have their say.
Major global warming could impact our lives in so many catastrophic ways. I won't even bother going into them all here,
I wish you would, because some possible affects of global warming would be:
1. Increased evaporation from the oceans due to increased temperature.
2. Increased clouds due to the evaporation.
3. Increased rainfall over the poles where it would freeze and become ice (since, even at a degree or two warmer, the poles are still below freezing).
4. Increased rainfall over land, perhaps turning deserts into agricultural centers and feeding millions of people in Africa.
but I think it suffices to say that more people could be displaced from their homes than all of the people who have lived and died in the entire history of the world.
Hahah, I'd like you to re-read that statement. It's a logically impossible.
Nevertheless, if you are suggesting that sea level would rise, probably the opposite is true. Increased evaporation over the oceans would fall, in part, over the poles and freeze. Global warming could actually cause a decrease in sea level. The only displacement would be those moving to get closer to the receeding beach.
Now, don't you think it is important to study something that could have this effect? To try to figure out whether or not it's happening, and if so, how quickly, and how far it's likely to go?
I'm in favor of study. That's science and a good thing.
I'm 100% opposed to making anything but minor adjustments to our policies, societies, and ecomomies until such study is finished conclusively.
The fact that humankind has a definite effect on the environment is an established fact. The only people who don't believe it are the scientifically illiterate, and those who are so invested in ideology that they just can't believe in it.
Where is the evidence, sir? I have seen none whatsoever. None. Zippo. I've seen lots of correlations, suggestions, and political BS. But absolutely no scientific evidence that proves this conclusively.
If you'd be so kind as to present me with a link then I will be happy to join "your side."
Non-human factors can effect global climate, therefore human factors never will be able to. Do you see how silly the argument is? There's a huge difference between "A can affect B" and "A and only A can affect B".
No, it's not that we can't. We probably do. Everything affects everything. But there is no evidence that we have anything more than a miniscule affect on global warming. The combined output of CO2 from natural sources and just plain simple water vapor is orders of magnitude more important than what we produce as humans.
The scientists say there's global warming.
Which scientists? The IPCC? That was mostly signed by environmentalists and politicians. There was a whopping 1 climate scientist that signed it.
On the other hand, this petition, signed by over 15,000 scientists suggests otherwise.
So please be careful when you say scientists that there's global warming. The vast majority either say there isn't, or that there isn't any evidence of it.
Most of the scientists that say there is conclusive proof of human-caused global warming are mostly those that depend on it for their funding.
What exactly do you think happens to all the CO2 and other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere? They just disappear?
Uh, yes. Just ask your neighborhood tree or plant what they like to eat. They'll tell you they like water (which there will be more of if the earth warms and there is more evaporation) and CO2 (which apparently we're poisoning the atmosphere with).
So, yes, thanks to the plants CO2 does disappear.
Well we see one effect already in acid rain (or do you think that's a myth, too?)
No, that's not a myth. But it's not caused by the same chemicals that supposedly cause global warming.
Again, proof that humanity can indeed cause large-scale adverse climate change.
Acid rain is not usually large-scale. It usually affects a specific area downwind of the source of the pollution. A contaminating factory in Detroit isn't going to cause acid rain in Europe... THAT would be large-scale climate change, so to speak.
Moderators, please mod the parent comment up. Nobody has to agree with the poster's position, but it's good to see people at least thinking for themselves in a logical fashion.
He's not thinking for himself. He's echoing the standard propaganda spewed by environmentalists; there's certainly no evidence he is thinking for himself and there's actually some doubt as to whether he's thinking logically.
The very fact that he believes there'd be "nothing bad" about making major cuts in CO2 without considering the affect on the wellbeing and health of humans (as a direct result of a worsening economy) shows that, at best, he is making logical conclusions based on half the information.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because we the people rarely care enough. When they see a "groundswell" of response from the public they get worried that this is not one of those cases and that they will get punished.
And why be a politician in the first place if you can't cash in your influence? To serve the people? Don't make me laugh.
Most politicians, from what I have seen, are more interested in power than money. They'd rather "be there" for another term than cash in on a few million now. They like being wined and dined and feeling important. Not that they don't cash in, but I think most of them are in it for the long haul and aren't going to do something that nets them a few dollars today and costs them the election next time around.
In monetary terms, the "future value" of the office is worth more than the "present value" of the RIAA's campaign contributions.
Bottom line: it is worth the risk to take the money and screw the voters. If the only way to stay in office is to defend the interests of voters over the interests of deep pocketed contributors (and sacrifice those contributions) what's the point of being in office? If it comes to that, they'll just call in their favors and get a cushy consulting or lobbyist job.
This, and many other examples, refutes that. You may be cynical enough to believe all they want to do is line their pockets. And I'm not saying that doesn't happen. But I strongly believe that what most of them want is another term. If they can do that AND get rich at the same time, they're even happier. But given the choice between campaign dollars and a pissed off public that'll get them evicted next election, they'll try to keep the public happy.
Even if what they're after is money, they can't achieve that goal if we vote them out of office.
You need to understand that politicians listen to deep-pocketed industry types because they give them lots of money so they can fund their reelection campaign. All the industry blood money in the world isn't going to help their campaign one single bit if 50% (+1) of their constituents is pissed off at them.
So politicians will only be swayed by the almighty buck as long as they can get away with it without perceiving a threat from the voting public. When the public speaks loudly, it speaks much louder than all the campaign contributions that could possibly be forthcoming.
Don't give up. We, the people, have power. The problem is that we often don't excercise it and, in that void, corporate interests take over. If it's the Corporate States of America it's because we the people are not doing OUR job.
Sure. It'll be interesting to see if it happens. That'd be a very blatantly easy way to invite regulation in that sector. I wonder if they're willing to make the gamble...
I think that's the main problem. I wouldn't mind paying for what I consume if I had some reason to believe it was fair.
The problem is, they may be charging $44/month for some guy who only consumes 1MB or 2MB per month. The percentage of people consuming much less than 200MB is certainly very high. That's a "free ride" for Time Warner.
The other end of the spectrum is the bandwidth hogs. They consume the bandwidth that they've supposedly paid for. Is that really a "free ride?" They contracted a cable modem and they're using it. On a more macro scale, they're compensating for the large majority that don't use a fraction of what they're entitled to.
So I think it's fair to pay for the bandwidth you use as long as those that don't use it get an equivalent discount in the other direction. You can't have it both ways.
That said, isn't Time Warner one of the companies that wants to sell us all this new-fangled digital multi-media content? They'll have to analyze their pricing structure in that context. If it costs more to acquire a movie-on-demand via their link than it does to rent it at Blockbuster, they're on-demand service aint going to go far...
Unfortunately 99% of the users are using the 1% of the browsers that can...
While I personally would never be inclined to waste my time making a copy of an entire book, there are people who do.
Especially on college campus where books sometimes cost US$100+. A student will buy a copy of the book and then his friends and their friends friends will make copies of the book. Copy services are often offered at a discount and it only takes extra time to make the first copy; you can make subsequent copies of the copies really fast. And at $100+ for the book and discounted on-campus copy services it is not hard to believe that you'd actually save money.
1. Caller ID.
2. Turn the damn thing off.
That assumes that the flat-rate amount multiplied by the number of customers would have to equal what the long distance companies currently earn.
The parent post was correct. Things are expensive because LD is still (comparatively) expensive.
LD used to be expensive because the COSTS were high to provide it. Laying the lines, relatively low number of users, etc. Now, telephones are virtually everywhere. Local calls are unmetered, but long distance is still relatively expensive mostly because people got used to paying for it. They value the service monetarily because they are used to paying for it.
LD no longer is as expensive as it used to be to provide. In fact, technically, it can be provided almost free. Most of the actual telecomm costs are in "the last mile" (read: the local telephone service that you already pay a monthly bill for).
Believe me, in 10, maybe 15 or 20 years max, there will be no "long distance charge" per-minute nor per-call and the companies providing them will either be much smaller and paid some monthly amount by local providers paying for international connectivity (like ISP access to the backbone).
Why? Because the price we pay for long distance is a perceived cost based on habit, not based on the actual real value or cost of the service. The price is, thus, unnaturally high. It may take time, but the free market will ensure that an unnaturally high price comes down. And it will.
While VoIP seems to have lost it's dazzle (with the dot com boom), I think VoIP is really what's going to eventually lead to free long distance. VoIP is in its infancy. When there is more infrastructure VoIP will be able to charge less than long distance companies. To compete, the long distance companies themselves will have to resort to VoIP. And, at some point, the local telephone company will end up simply being the local POP for the VoIP network... and the long distance companies will no longer exist.
That's my guess, anyway.
I love it when people just point to money.
Sure, there are economic concerns that come in to play. But mostly it's political and strategic interests that U.S. acts on.
Did we get involved in Kuwait because of oil? Yes.
Did we care about the oil because of its economic worth? Perhaps a little, but the main reason is because our country depends on that oil. Not just economically, but socially and militarily. Take away that oil for long enough and the U.S. can't defend itself, can't travel, and society itself changes--if we're not invaded.
Sure, money was a concern. But it was way down on the list compared to strategic reasons to get involved.
Yes, we get involved all over the world. Sometimes it's annoying even to us Americans. But after December 7th, 1941, can anyone say that the United States should simply look the other way? That's what got us bombed at Pearl Harbor. We got caught with our pants down and NO, we're not going to look the other way.
Yes, we are interested in our wellbeing. Of course we are. Every country is. As the most powerful country we have more enemies and, thus, tend to be involved in more places. That with the goal that we'd rather fight in a foreign country than have our country bombed. That's just plain logical.
So before you go blaming every U.S. move on money, look at it from a strategic, political, and military standpoint. Sure, money is always a consideration, but strategic and political reasons are almost always the immediate reason for U.S. action... money is secondary.
Ok, but a model has to work in all cases to be valid. As you can see they were pretty excited because in this one particular case they got it right. I.e., they were surprised because most of the time their models don't work.
The question is whether that model worked for climate change before and after that 2-year period that it supposedly got it right.
If I flip a coin enough times I'll eventually predict global climate change, too.
In any case, whether or not, they can model the Earth as a whole, I don't see how anyone can deny that they have the ability to model the effects of each factor individually, and those models should lead you to the same conclusions.
That's not true, either. They might be able to approximate affects of some factors, but until they can approximate everything that plays a factor then it is truly impossible to say how much a given factor will affect the whole.
I'm not saying they should stop trying to model. Just that right now the models don't tell us anything and they need to keep working on it.
Uh huh... And tell me... how much has the sea risen during this time?
Arctic ice cap is thinning and will be gone by 2080
"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." You know, with all due respect, can you recognize "gloom and doom"-speak when you see it? That's a rhetorical question.
on top of all the well-respected climatologists who have concluded global warming is a very real phenomena
Have you investigated how many well-respect climatologists and physicists have concluded that it's either not real or that, at least, there's not enough data to know?
plus the highest temperature ever recorded in the last hundred years
Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there's people in more places to take more measurements? Or that we have satellites taking temperature readings 24/7? Nah, that couldn't be it.
the carbon dioxide levels have increased to 370 ppm from 250 ppm in the last 100 years
Reference/link please? And any evidence that that's inherently bad? Even if it is true, I've seen no conclusive proof that that's something I need to be worried about.
coupled with the fact that it has been shown there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures
There's a strong correlation between the number of people farting in the world and global temperatures, too, but that doesn't mean that farting is heating up the earth.
well, there's only one thing left to conclude...
Yes:
1. Icecaps are apparently melting and the sea isn't rising.
2. The Antartic will be habitable in 78 years so at least we don't have to worry as much about overpopulation; we can export people down there.
3. You haven't fully investigated how many real climatologists believe and don't believe that global warming has been proven.
4. You don't know the difference between a correlation and a relation.
Thus, the only thing left to conclude is that we don't know dick about the subject any any knee-jerk reaction would be premature.
Remember, any theory that contradicts reality is false. They might claim or suggest all kinds of weird and wonderful things in the past, but if their conclusion conflicts with what we've observed in the last 23 years, it's all sci-fi...
What's the difference?
Only by reading the biased information from both sides can you attempt to get a clue as to what the truth is, because neither side is going to give it to you 100%.
I agree. I personally believe (not based on research) that the temeprature of subsurface rock is going to be more affected by the core than it is by the surface temperature of the air.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the temperature of seismic activity was affecting the atmospheric temperature more than the atmospheric temperature was causing any major change to the temperature of surface rocks themselves.
but reading the entire thing says that rocks closer to the surface are warmer.. wich to me says its heating from the outside inwards
I think there has to be a middle point. If you go into any cave in the Mojave desert of California and are more than about a dozen feet below ground, believe me, you'll know that the surface temperature doesn't do much to the subsurface temperature. It gets downright cold.
But if you get to the core, it's hot. So I suppose it's kind of like a sine wave. It's hot at the top, gets cooler as you go down from the surface, and at some point gets hotter as you get closer to the magma that's down there somewhere.
and would most (if not all rocks) from the 1950's still be visable? let alone burried?
That's what I was wondering, too. Ok, perhaps his approach works. But I would think he'd be able to compare temperatures from hundreds of millions of years ago to perhaps millions of years ago. Anything that was on the surface even 500 years ago is either still on the surface or very close to it, except in a few exceptional cases (fault lines, volcanos, etc.).
Perhaps, but no more so than many of the pipe dreams (or nightmares) offered by some environmentalists.
From what I've read, global warming will make some parts of the world more pleasant, but it will make just as many places much less pleasant
As you said earlier in your post ("No one knows for sure what will happen if the Earth warms up a few degrees."), no-one really knows. So what you've read is just as much speculation as what I posted, but...
USA Midewest will become a dust bowl
I tend to think this is mostly to frighten the United States popultaion. The fact is, the Rocky Mountains that run through the middle of both our countries is what causes rain to fall across the U.S. midwest. Increased temperature (and thus increased ocean evaporation and clouds) will tend to cause more rain the U.S. Midwest, not less.
Unless the Rocky Mountains disappear I don't think there is much of a risk to the U.S. Midwest. Of course, global warming might melt the Rockies...
Northern Europe will actually get cooler (due to a cold artic current not running as deep in the warmer water)
I'm not informed about this point, although I'd be curious to know how much colder they'd expect it to be and what affect that would really have. Northern Europe (if we're talking Scandanavian countries) are already pretty cold.
More frequent large storms
Is that necessarily bad?
If enough ice melts, the oceans will rise
If the ice melts. While I am aware that the North Pole melts each year (my dad once spent a number of months near the North Pole on a scientific trip for the University of Washington and had pictures of the ice breaking up when they abandoned their camp), that is not the case with the South Pole.
The weather is too complicated to predict with any great accuracy, so all this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Agreed, completely. But that goes both ways and everything the environmentalists say needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well. Unfortunately, the media sensationalizes it and governments come up with drastic Protocols based on incomplete research. They've forgotten their grain of salt...
Can you provide a link? Last I checked we didn't even have a model that successfully modeled the increase at the beginning of the 20th century. And no model that takes into account the affect of solar variations and the affects of (ahem) clouds.
If modeling is really as good as you've suggested, I've apparently missed something and I'd very much like to see that model and educate myself.
Assuming sea level rises. Which it might not. And even if it does, so what? Are we so arrogant as to think that the world will always look exactly as it is? Nothing is forever. Not even Los Angeles.
Say scientists are studying something, and they have some preliminary results saying that if we continue on our current course of action, there's a 50% chance something catastrophic will happen, but they won't be certain until they've done another 20 years of study, by which time said catastrophe might be too late to avert. Do you insist on waiting for the final, conculsive results?
If the results were even 10% conclusive I'd say we ought to take some action. But we're far from even 10% sure that humans are causing any affect whatsoever on global warming.
Even so, I might backtrack on that because I'm not sure that we know that a rising sea level would be a bad thing. Just because people have to relocate doesn't mean, 200 years from now, the earth won't be a better place because of that.
There are too many variables. There's no proof that there is ongoing global warming. If there is global warming, there's no proof that humans are a significant cause of it. If there is global warming and we are causing it, there's no proof that it will bring major changes to the earth. If it does bring major changes to the earth, there's no proof that those changes will be bad in anything but the shortest-term.
So... given so much uncertainty, no, I'm not yet ready to take any significant action to address it.
Well, since you're apparently too lazy to use Google, I found this one from NASA for you.
In it you'll see that they mentioned the greatest affect on temperature changes seem to have been El Niño.
Anyway, read, learn, enjoy.
While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, your post contributed nothing to the debate and only suggests that the opposing view should not have their say.
But thanks for playing.
I wish you would, because some possible affects of global warming would be:
1. Increased evaporation from the oceans due to increased temperature.
2. Increased clouds due to the evaporation.
3. Increased rainfall over the poles where it would freeze and become ice (since, even at a degree or two warmer, the poles are still below freezing).
4. Increased rainfall over land, perhaps turning deserts into agricultural centers and feeding millions of people in Africa.
but I think it suffices to say that more people could be displaced from their homes than all of the people who have lived and died in the entire history of the world.
Hahah, I'd like you to re-read that statement. It's a logically impossible.
Nevertheless, if you are suggesting that sea level would rise, probably the opposite is true. Increased evaporation over the oceans would fall, in part, over the poles and freeze. Global warming could actually cause a decrease in sea level. The only displacement would be those moving to get closer to the receeding beach.
Now, don't you think it is important to study something that could have this effect? To try to figure out whether or not it's happening, and if so, how quickly, and how far it's likely to go?
I'm in favor of study. That's science and a good thing.
I'm 100% opposed to making anything but minor adjustments to our policies, societies, and ecomomies until such study is finished conclusively.
Where is the evidence, sir? I have seen none whatsoever. None. Zippo. I've seen lots of correlations, suggestions, and political BS. But absolutely no scientific evidence that proves this conclusively.
If you'd be so kind as to present me with a link then I will be happy to join "your side."
Non-human factors can effect global climate, therefore human factors never will be able to. Do you see how silly the argument is? There's a huge difference between "A can affect B" and "A and only A can affect B".
No, it's not that we can't. We probably do. Everything affects everything. But there is no evidence that we have anything more than a miniscule affect on global warming. The combined output of CO2 from natural sources and just plain simple water vapor is orders of magnitude more important than what we produce as humans.
The scientists say there's global warming.
Which scientists? The IPCC? That was mostly signed by environmentalists and politicians. There was a whopping 1 climate scientist that signed it. On the other hand, this petition, signed by over 15,000 scientists suggests otherwise.
So please be careful when you say scientists that there's global warming. The vast majority either say there isn't, or that there isn't any evidence of it.
Most of the scientists that say there is conclusive proof of human-caused global warming are mostly those that depend on it for their funding.
What exactly do you think happens to all the CO2 and other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere? They just disappear?
Uh, yes. Just ask your neighborhood tree or plant what they like to eat. They'll tell you they like water (which there will be more of if the earth warms and there is more evaporation) and CO2 (which apparently we're poisoning the atmosphere with).
So, yes, thanks to the plants CO2 does disappear.
Well we see one effect already in acid rain (or do you think that's a myth, too?)
No, that's not a myth. But it's not caused by the same chemicals that supposedly cause global warming.
Again, proof that humanity can indeed cause large-scale adverse climate change.
Acid rain is not usually large-scale. It usually affects a specific area downwind of the source of the pollution. A contaminating factory in Detroit isn't going to cause acid rain in Europe... THAT would be large-scale climate change, so to speak.
He's not thinking for himself. He's echoing the standard propaganda spewed by environmentalists; there's certainly no evidence he is thinking for himself and there's actually some doubt as to whether he's thinking logically.
The very fact that he believes there'd be "nothing bad" about making major cuts in CO2 without considering the affect on the wellbeing and health of humans (as a direct result of a worsening economy) shows that, at best, he is making logical conclusions based on half the information.