Possibly, but let's look at some things we DO know. The earth's temp. is rising NOW.
We don't know that. In fact, we know that in the last 23 years, for which there is a global satellite temperature record, there has been no noted warming whatsoever.
We're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere - which is a closed system.
And the plants thank us for it and give us more oxygen in return.
Now, it's perfectly logical to draw a correlation between the two.
Well, assuming there was global warming (which there hasn't been at least in the last 23 years), the best you could do is try to draw a correlation.
Mind you, a correllation is not proof, not by a longshot.
There might be a correlation between the amount of farting going on due to there being more people on the earth, but you'd be hard pressed to conclude that the increased farting is causing global warming--even though a strong correlation may exist.
#1: we continue to pump billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment - If there is a correlation, we're killing our planet. If there is no correlation, nothing bad happens.
Again, bad assumption.
You assume that a rise in global temperatures is bad. We have no proof of that. It may cause more rainfall in Africa and allow that continent to actually feed itself. That'd be a good thing. Those that automatically believe that global warming would be bad are certainly over-estimating their own ability to know what is good and bad for this planet.
Also, BTW, there is no proof whatsoever to suggest that a rise in temperature will cause sea level to rise. In fact, there is plenty of information to suggestion the opposite--that an increase in temperature will cause more evaporation from the oceans, causing more clouds to rain upon Antartica, causing more ice to form and reducing the sea level somewhat.
#2: we stop pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment - if there is a correlation, nothing bad happens. If there is no correlation, nothing bad happens.
Nothing bad, except millions of unemployed people worldwide, increased poverty because poor countries aren't able to become industrialized, more unhealthy people in the world because people in industrialized countries will be thrown out of work and unable to get medical attention for themselves and, at the same time, rich countries will be harder pressed to export "free" health aid to third world countries.
If you don't care about the wellbeing of people, sure, nothing bad happens.
So from a risk management point of view, it would be pretty stupid to continue to pollute the planet. There is no reward if you're right, but we're all dead if you're wrong.
While I'm not pro-pollution, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of making drastic cuts to address an unproven theory at the cost of the health and wellbeing of millions--possibly billions--of people worldwide.
To suggest that "we're all dead if you're wrong" is extremist propaganda. If there was ever proof of what you're saying, believe me, countries and individuals would both be willing to make sacrifices. But neither countries nor persons, in general, are going to make that sacrifice to solve an unproven problem.
But by the time we WILL have reference, we'll all be dead if we are the cause. Therefore the only logical course of action is to stop.
Again, that's extremist environmentalist propaganda. Don't buy it without thinking.
The human race will change its ways before it kills itself. But it will only change its way if there is convincing evidence that there is not just a correlation between one, but a direct relationship. That evidence does not currently exist.
Also from the article: "Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950."
Oh really? That contradicts existing information to-date, and doesn't speak about what has happened in the last 23 years that we have a satellite temperature record for (and that shows no warming whatsoever).
Fact is, there is no proof of human-caused global warming. Not even a correlation. And as mentioned above, the climate warms and gets cooler. It's part of a natural cycle.
Those that believe that humans are causing global warming fit into the same group of people that, hundreds of years ago, thought you'd fall off the edge of the world if you sailed too far and that the sun circled the earth--both very "human-centric" ways of thinking. They had no proof of either, but it was a part of popular culture nonetheless and to suggest the world was round was considered rediculous.
Likewise today, global warming is a part of
popular culture. Like before, it elevates the importance of man in the universe (or on the planet, in this case) and gives them a self-important feeling, as if man can cause or prevent the next ice age or global warming. Of course, there's absolutely no proof of this--but to suggest otherwise is often rediculed by popular culture.
Earth changed constantly over billions of years before the global warming club appeared. They definitely need to get a grip on reality and realize that the world--not even the environment--revolves around humans.
The laser-based system hopes to eventually bounce the signals off mirrors on satelites, sending keys anywhere in the world. (For a price... good for diplomats and military I suppose.)
If it's going to be bouncing light off of mirrors on satellites without actually modifying the light itself, I don't see how they can charge. Anyone that points the dish right can bounce it off the mirror. Of course it also seems you'd have no control of where it eventually ends up (since the mirror will be bouncing it to wherever the satellite is targetting it).
Guaranteed quality. I don't have time to check every mp3 I download to make sure that it was ripped by someone intelligent enough to do it correctly.
Either I've had very good luck or the problem is overblown. The vast majority of the MP3s I download have completely adequate quality. Less than 10% have problems--and when they do, I just pop online and grab another version. Problem solved.
Easy browsing. I want to _really_ be able to search by artist, song title, year, etc. And when I search by song and find the song that I want, I want to be one click away from finding other songs that that band produced.
That's what CDNOW is for. Hop on over to CDNOW, find what you are looking for, then power-up the 'ol P2P and grab it.
I just realized that I don't need to own the music. I'd be perfectly happy renting music, so long as I can rent as much as I want, and do so easily and affordably.
I think you are one of few. While many people might be willing to make micropayments to artists to get the songs they want, I don't think many people would be willing to rent them.
I used to support the idea of micropayments to artists. Now I don't even support that. Music is free now. Whether you call it "genie out of the bottle" or "invisible market forces" the fact is that music is now a free commodity.
Smart artists will realize that and, little by little, we will see that my prophecy is completely true: Music tracks will be free and will be used by artists as advertisements so that when they tour, people go. The artists make much more money from concerts than they do from record sales anyways.
I haven't bought a recorded CD in 2+ years and I don't intend to. I already bought 600+ CDs in my life; I've been robbed by the record executives long enough and have little pitty for them now that they're complaining that they're being robbed. You abuse anyone anywhere long enough and eventually you get bitten. That's what's happened to the record executives.
"We tried to sell digital music online, but it's just not a viable market"
Now all they need to realize is that they no longer have a viable business.
Music will never be obsolete. But the record companies only have existed because they were the only realistic ways to get the artists' music into the listeners' hands.
That is no longer the case. The record companies no longer have any business reason to exist.
I give them 5-10 years. Legislation or not, they'll be gone. Economics demands it.
Of course I was being a little bit sarcastic. There are some benefits of government. Those are the benefits provided what government should do: national defense, national highway system, provide for domestic tranquility, and provide for a justice system to insure everyone's rights.
The thing is that the above tasks could all be accomplished on about 15% of what the federal budget spends...
There are millions of benefits to government.
I think millions might be pushing it too far...
Try living somewhere without one and I think you will find life there nasty, brutish, and short.
I live in Mexico. While there is a government, in many senses there might as well not be. Justice is sporadic both in business law and criminal law. Highway maintenance is almost non-existant. Sad thing is they still have highway robery levels of taxation without any benefits.
That said, life is annoying (I hate potholes) and frustrating (it's a bitch seeing people get away with murder, sometimes literally) but for the typical person that just minds his own business it's not really that bad.
Nonetheless, working outside the U.S. was your choice. You can either accept what that choice costs, or you can look into becoming a citizen of your adopted home.
But that's bogus. Basically they're taxing me for my right to call myself American, since I was born there. It's bad enough that we essentially rent our property (because if you don't pay property taxes they can take the property you own), but to literally tax U.S. citizenship is basless.
If I don't use the resources and don't cost the government anything, I certainly shouldn't have to pay into their coffers.
None of that changes my fundamental belief in the necessity of government, nor in the unfortunate side effect of that necessity: The power to raise and levy taxes.
I agree. Taxes are a necesarry evil, as is some level of government.
However, even leaving the whole "How much government is justified and necessary?" discussion alone, the tax code definitely needs to be made not just fairer but more logical.
Personally, I believe the self-employment tax should by all means be eliminated. The self-employed still need to pay their income taxes, but shouldn't have to pay self-employment tax. Sure, that means no-one is paying the "employer's half" of the income taxes (which is deceptive in and of itself) for the self-employed, but since self-employment (i.e. small business) is the workhorse of the new economy they should do everything to stimulate it in the hopes that the business grows to further build the economy.
I'll disregard any supposed "small business assistance" offered by the government until self-employment tax is repealed. They can talk about helping small businesses and the entrepreneur all they want, but until they stop taxing the person who is already going out on a limb to start a new business then all it is is words...
A minor can sign a contract and there is nothing illegal about a minor signing a contract or an adult entering into a contract with a minor.
The problem is, if they ever had to enforce the terms a minor almost always has the right to "disaffirm" the contract. A contract entered into with a minor can give you a framework of the agreement, and the adult party is bound to it--but the minor may simply disaffirm the contract on the basis that he is a minor.
Hmm, I wonder what the implications of this are for a minor buying--ahem, licensing a Microsoft product. Since they are minors they can disaffirm the "contract" entirely... Perhaps I'll have to have kids buy my software in the future for me.:grin:
If you are self-employed, it is up to you to pay as you go. And, yes, you can face criminal prosecution if you don't pay. That takes a while, though. The IRS is actually pretty reasonable to deal with if you're honest about it and make an effort to pay what you owe.
I'm self-employed. I don't dick around with quarterly payments. I just file my 1040 on April 15th with everyone else and a few months later get a bill for penalty and interest for not having made my quarterly payments. But the penalty and interest is less than what my time is worth considering the amount of time I would have spent sending those four quarterly payments.
And being self-employed is something everyone ought to be required to be for at least one year in their life. So they can really get a clue as to how much they're spending on taxes. It does suck.
Who really wants to pay taxes, even when aware of the benefits of government?
I'm not aware of any benefits.
Especially in my case since I'm living overseas. Living overseas I get something like a $75,000 exemption on the income I earn over here, but I still have to pay full self-employment tax. And I don't even live in the friggin' country.
I agree. I used to have my domains registered with VeriSign. About three years ago we switched all our domains to Register.com. The switch went without a hitch and even doing a whois at NetSol shows the correct registar.
However, without fail we get invoice after invoice from Network Solutions with letters saying if we don't pay we will lose our domain. Duh...
They might not be the only one, but it is very deceptive. I think they send it so comapnies who have an A/P department see the low-dollar bill ($35/$70, whatever) and are allowed to pay it without authorization. Little do they know that they, by paying it, authorize NetSol to transfer the domains of their organization back to NetSol.
Bad, very bad. Kind of like an invoice I once received from somewhere in Europe for something like $1395. It was for being placed in some business directory. What? Obviously they were just fishing. It doesn't cost anything to send invoices and, who knows, someone might actually pay. All you have to lose is postage.
Many C statements will translate almost directly into ASM statements. Does that mean that C and ASM are the "same"? It does not.
A few 'C' statements will translate almost directly into ASM statements, but most translate into multiple machine language instructions. What machine language instructions are used depend on the compiler and you depend on your compiler to make good choices.
However, ALL assembly language instructions will translate directly into exactly one "machine language" instruction. That's why assembly language is essentially the same as machine language. You don't depend on anything but your good programming skill to choose which instructions to use.
Assembly language is machine language presented in human-readable form. No more, no less.
No sane person writes a program in machine language. They use assembly language which is slightly easier for the typical human being to remember than opcodes.
BUT, a program written directly as bits in machine language will be exactly the same as an equivalent program written in assembly language and assembled. That's why no-one writes programs in machine language because there's no benefit in doing so. You write in assembly language and produce code that is identical to the code you would have produced in machine language, but have only reduced your programming time by orders of magnitude.
Now, you can argue semantics, but the fact is that there is no practical difference in the results of a program written in machine language and one written in assembly language. Hell, you could argue that you can't even program directly in machine language because some intermediate program is going to have to convert your ASCII representation of the bits to the bits themselves.
Uh, duh, what envelope do you suggest they use to determine if a server is relaying?
The interesting thing is that very stupid bug in Lotus Domino should cause the servers to loop into oblivion everytime a potential spammer tries to relay mail through them...
You used the word "greenie" seven times, while claiming that it was a word you just added to your vocabulary tonight.
What is so funny or surprising about that?
You said that if pollutants can't be reduced to optimal levels, then they shouldn't be reduced at all. What's a 25% reduction in pollution worth compared to the fiscal well-being of heavily polluting companies?
That's one way to look at it... Another is if by making draconican cuts and chasing away the industry that is obviously employing your city you are still living in a heavily-polluted city many times over the desired level, have you really gained much? I would say not. It would be better to wait until you can find a solution that meets your goals rather than chasing away employers which, if you do it, will cause you to kill your economy and your local environmental is still mega-toast anyway.
But whatever, perhaps you see that as a valuable move. I don't.
You said that climate research is usually done by crooked scientists trying to milk the system of research dollars. You said such people should find real jobs that "actually produce something". That would be real convenient for all the polluters you champion, wouldn't it?
They're not all crooked scientists. But, yes, they do have vested interests in seeing that global warming is not discarded.
As for producing something, I never said they need to produce something that contaminates. Software, services, whatever. But something that contributes to the economy instead of burning tax dollars.
My guess is that this will quickly be eliminated. Regardless of whether the users are happy about it I seriously doubt Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, etc. are going to be willing to pay Kaza any money for referals that they didn't really generate.
This is like spammers embedding banner images in their spam and getting paid every time someone opens the email just because the banner was loaded. It's just running the meter and the entity being screwed is the website that is paying them a referral fee.
The article, in one part, reads: "Griffin said the technology is simply taking the old affiliate referral program to a new level. Most of the referrals will happen inside the Morpheus application itself after the new version is launched with a commerce section, he said."
Yeah, right. Most of the referrals will clearly be a result of their sneaky browser add-ons, not because anyone really pays attention to the commerce section of a P2P client. Heck, P2P users generally get as much as they can for FREE--not exactly the target market of much of anyone.
Hmmm fine...and in a cursory look I see companies and people that are dumping crap into the world as having alot more to lose than the "greenies", since it is essentially an argument that they should change how they do things.
If you are talking about dumping toxic waste into rivers which can very easily be shown to be detrimental to those downstream, then they need to change their ways. I have no problem with that.
If you are talking about emitting smog that has a demonstratable affect on the health of people then, perhaps, there should be some taxes levied to give them an incentive not to pollute--or to relocate perhaps in the middle of the desert where no-one cares. This, however, should only be done if doing so will really help. If smog particle X is acceptable at 5 ppm and currently is at 200 ppm and chasing away all the heavy polluting companies will reduce it to 150ppm I would submit that you shouldn't chase away those companies.
If you are talking about vague allegations of global warming that may or may not be happening and may or may not be caused by human activity then I think that it's not unreasonable to mention that the immediate affect of global warming (or not) is in the greenies research funds more than any imminent or delayed threat to the earth.
Mostly greenies are just burning up research dollars that could be better spent on something else. Working to eliminate disease, world hunger, whatever.
Whether or not global warming is real, the most immediate result of any conclusion regarding global warming is the greenie's research funds. Either they get more research funds or they have to go find a real job that actually produces something.
... to spending billions of dollars to change how factories and machinery work etc.
If the factories are truly causing physical damage to a large number of people then they need to get clean. I have no problem with that.
By the same token, if a plant locates in the middle of a desert and is emitting smog that bothers some rancher down the highway then the rancher should move since the cost to society is less for him to move than the factory which is already located far away from civilization to reduce these types of problems.
I also see that you are very quick to use a diminutive term "greenie" to describe anyone on the other side of this debate. Showing that you, yourself, are not above using apeals to frame the debate and attempt to decrease the credibility of your opponents, rather than attacking them on purely logical grounds. This of course does not invalidate any point you make, but does expose your bias.
Actually, this is the first thread I've ever used the "greenie" term. I just used it because it's so much easier than mentioning every special interest group that makes up the greenie movement. Socialists, activists without a cause, animal rights, communists, just plain liberals. It's easier to call 'em "greenies". Everyone knows who I'm talking about.
That said, my bias should be obvious based on my comments regardless of whether or not I call them "greenies."
That said, I think environmental issues are important, and we definitly need to get a global handle on them and reduce the amount of polluting we do. Regardless of whether there is a global warming problem or not.
I agree, as long as we are addressing some kind of real problem. If we're reducing factory emissions because half the city has asthma, that's worthwhile. If we're doing it so that the sky looks blue instead of grey then that's an asthetic issue, but perhaps worthwhile to a given city.
But I'm not in favor of draconian cuts in invisible emissions to solve a problem that may not even exist. If it could be done without affecting the economy that would be one thing. But, no, call me a capitalist but I am not willing to give up one dime of the world's "GDP" to address a problem that may not exist. I'm not willing to give up one dime of the U.S.'s GDP nor one dime of Nigeria's GDP. It just doesn't make sense.
As they say, if it's not broke, don't fix it. At this point we don't even know if anything is broken.
I am happy to look at this with a open mind. I have no particular axe to grin on this. You on the other hand keep quoting partial sources as if they were idependent.
I never said they were independent. Unfortunately, sources for both sides of the global warming debate are generally biased one way or the other.
The main reason the the "global warming debate" has split on partisan lines is, in large part, precisely because the global warming issue is being used to accomplish social and political ends. If it were truly about the planet you'd see more conservatives on board. Contrary to liberal propaganda, conservatives aren't inherently any more likely than liberals to trash the planet for a buck.
So... you have a bunch of liberals crying wolf and claiming, quite literally, that the sky is falling (or the earth is warming or the seas are rising). All this is based on questionable science but has the immediate affect of promoting a liberal political agenda. Is it surprising that conservatives will be opposed to that?
Do you really think that if there was any real proof that Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, and Boston would all be consumed by a rising sea within 100 years that conservatives would ignore it to make a buck? If so, then you are truly being blined by liberal propaganda.
www.national.org is a conservative think tank therefore why shouldn't I conclude that the statitics it quotes are carefully selected and partial?
You should conclude it is partial and carefully selected. Just like when you read an article that is being portayed as suggesting that an iceberg in the south is proof of global warming.
What you should do is read both biased sides of the debate. If you are lucky enough to find something truly neutral, read that too. Unfortunately neautrality is almost impossible because as someone reaches their conclusion they will almost always come down on one side or the other (unless they just say "We don't have enough information" in which case any subsequent comments is based on their opinion).
What it comes down to is:
1. Global warming is not accepted as fact. That is not to say that the theory of global warming is flawed, but there isn't any conclusive evidence that the earth is currently warming. There apparently was about a.5 degree temperature increase in the last century, but it all happened before 1940. In the last 23 years there has been no discernible warming.
2. If there were warming, it is not clear that it isn't completely natural. Temperatures were below their "normal" levels 600 years ago and temperatures have increased somewhat since then--moving towards "normal."
3. If there has been recent global warming, it is not clear that it has been caused by man. Sun cycles, earth cycles, closeness of the earth to the sun, volcanos. There are so many natural factors that can contribute to warming of the earth that it is very questionable what, if any, impact man has on the equation.
4. If man does have an affect on global warming, it is not clear exactly how much or in what fashion. If man caused 0.1 (hypothetical number) of 0.5 degrees of warming in the early 20th century does that justify draconian cuts in emissions and subsequent reductions in economic output that will reduce our ability to improve the quality of life on the planet, both at home and--eventually--in poorer countries?
5. If man does have a substantial affect on global warming, are we sure that this is a bad thing? Why do we think that the current state of the planet is best? Because we are used to it? Or could it be that changes in the climate could cause LA to be consumed by the ocean but cause the desert southwest to become farmable land which could be used to produce more of a surplus of food that could be exported to poorer countries?
All in all, there are a heck of a lot of assumptions that greenies make when they try to promote the whole "the earth is heating up" rubbish. Even if the earth is heating up the fact that they purport to know that that is necessarily bad is telling.
Nothing in this world is static. Especially the weather and, by extension, the climate.
Only about 2,000 of these 'scientists' could make any claim to be 'climate scientists' see http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html [prwatch.org] for more details.
Even if that is true, the 2000 climate scientists out of the 17,000 signatories is much better than the the greenies who had just 10% (260) of their signatories somewhat qualified to make qualified opinions, and only ONE climatologist.
The fact remains that most scientists do not believe in global warming as it is promoted by the greenies.
It is not very credible and it seems to me you are the one only listening to one side of the debate?
Au contraire, my good sir. I've visited sites on both sides of the debate. On balance the greenies lack evidence and really seem to have an agenda that benefits by global warming existing--further research grants, economic and political changes they favor, etc.
On the other hand, the 17,000+ scientists that have signed the forementioned petition have nothing to lose nor nothing to gain. They simply are fed up with what they correctly recognize to be a lot of hot air (pun intended).
I invite you to do some INDEPENDENT investigation. That means reading information from both sides of the issue, consider what each "side" has to gain or lose by their side being right or wrong, and use your own brain to come to a conclusion. Also, when reading BOTH sides, try to separate the facts from the opinions and/or vague statements.
Now, I leave further research as an excercise to the reader.
I would strongly recommend you do a little research before you attack someone in the way you did. At worst it's slander in and of itself and, at best, it makes you look like an uninformed ass.
The terms you defined (incorrectly) address terms of use, not distribution.
The terms are intermingled, sir.
Each of the definitions I provided has its terms of use and its manner of distribution.
With shareware, you are encouraged to distribute (share) the software as widely as possible, as you are with commercial demos.
Agreed. And THAT is the definition of shareware. That you can share it and that a substantial amount of the functionality is there so you can try before you buy.
The difference is that with a commercial demo, standard functionality is not enabled without payment, whereas with shareware, all functionality required to use the software is present, and the honor system is used to secure payment. If you can't afford the software, for example, you can still use it.
I disagree. Nowhere is it written that shareware has to use the honor system to secure payment. Likewise, I've seldom (if ever) seen shareware that says "Use this for free, but if you want, pay me."
In fact, shareware is software that can be distributed in its unregistered form without any threat of legal action against the person doing the sharing.
By your definition, commercial software and shareware are the same thing. So why not call it what it is?
Well, I agree with you there. Shareware, in this sense, IS commercial software. The only difference is the distribution method. Traditional commercial software comes in a shrink-wrapped package that you pick up at Best Buy, shareware is shared around the net for distribution.
But, yes, shareware is commercial software. And I'm sorry if the definitions I provided in my previous message suggested otherwise because I have always believed that shareware is commercial software. It's just distributed in a non-traditional way.
People are encouraged to copy and share the software for evaluation, then users of the software are encouraged to pay for it." Note the wording: encouraged, not forced.
Well, that's certainly open to interpretation.
Nag screens and increased functionality when the software is purchased is just "additional encouragement" and doesn't violate the quote you cited.
Perhaps expireware might go beyond your quote in spirit, although again it DOES still fit the description since the fact that the software expires is just one more way to encourage the user to purchase the software.
The fact is, the quote above doesn't indicate that the author can't implement designs that encourage more users to purchase the shareware.
And, in light of the fact that 80% of users will not purchase shareware if they don't have to, I think working on the honor system is just foolish. You might as well just call it freeware and be done with it.
Actually science shows us how global temperatures DROP after major volcano blasts
I believe there is a short-term temperature drop due to the dust in the air which blocks the sun. But that does not mean the volcano hasn't emitted massive amounts of greenhouse gasses. It has. Plenty.
In fact, it just goes to show that clouds (in this case volcanic dust) has much more affect on climate than greenhouse gasses.
So, actually, your very response has strengthened the anti-global warming cause by admitting that the greenhouse gasses emitted by a volcano, though much greater than that emitted by humans, is apparently of no consequence when compared with clouds.
I agree with that.
PS why should I blind believe you over 'the greenies'? No doubt you have an agenda to, yet you seem to think you are the only one who knows theirs
Actually, I wouldn't want you to blindly believe me. I would just hope that I would provoke you to truly STUDY the whole issue rather than listening to one side or the other. I am not a climate scientist and, unlike many greenies, I don't pretend to be one.
I will, however, defer to the 17,000 scientists who have signed the above petition that states that global warming does NOT appear to be linked to human activity.
Temperatures recorded worldwide by satellites have shown no global warming in the 23 years they've been operating (since 1979).
The satellite record is much more accurate because it covers 90%+ of the earth whereas the surface record only covers a small fraction of the earth. I.e., where there are cities, mostly in the northern hemisphere, and almost no constant readings from the high seas.
Further, the surface record is heavily biased due to the fact that urban sprawl has created "heat islands" around cities. Recording stations that used to be out in the fields are now in the middle of parking lots.
While the greenies have tried to discredit the satellite record, they haven't succeeded, and the satellite record is the most reliable and accurate information we have about global temperatures. And they haven't increased in 23 years.
Those of us that don't believe in human-caused global warming are NOT living in denial nor is it that we could care less about the planet. Those of us who don't believe in global warming have taken the time to study the facts and come to a conclusion which is very unpopular in today's culture.
But, say this to yourself until you understand what you means: THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING IN THE 23 YEARS WE'VE HAD SATELLITES MONITORING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
The greenies will say that "Mount Pinatubo masked global warming in the years following the eruption" for two reasons:
1. To try to explain away why there wasn't been any global warming in the following years when there "should have been."
2. To try to discredit the fact that volcanos naturally produce more greenhouse gasses then humans, period.
Keep in mind that the whole reason that there is life on earth is because of all the early volcanos which created so much greenhouse gasses that the earth heated up and was able to support life. That would have never happened if volcanos WEREN'T able to warm the earth.
So, yes, volcanos spew plenty of greenhouse gasses. I don't have the exact information on hand and I don't have time to search for it right now, but if you jump to google.com and do some honest research I'm sure you can find it for yourself with little trouble.
PS--Don't blindly believe the greenies. They have an agenda and the environment is their means to an end. Once you recognize that you will see all their hype in an entirely new perspective.
Exactly... The greenies use any "spectacular" or non-ordinary natural event to try to promote their agenda, regardless of whether or not there is actually any correlation.
Interestingly, the climate models that are predicting massive warming over the next 100 years and which are the basis for making draconian cuts in emissions and destroying our economy aren't even capable of taking into account the effects of a) The sun and b) the clouds.
The greenies acknowledge that the sun and the clouds have "some affect" on the climate, but they haven't been able to determine exactly what it is. So they simply throw in "fudge factors" which supposedly take those factors into account. In reality, the fudge factor is the number they have to add to the climate models to generate the amount of global warming they want to scare an appropriate number of people.
Their climate models, had they been applied to climate data in the 1900s, would have also predicted TWICE as much global warming during this century as has actually ocurred.
In fact, every time the climate models become "more accurate" (i.e. taking into account more natural factors), the prediction of the amount of global warming always comes down.
I don't know about you, but to me the BIGGEST two factors for deciding whether it's going to be hot or cold is whether there's sun beating down on us and whether there are clouds to block it. If they can't even take those two most important factors into account then I think you know where they can stick their climate models.
If we treat customers like thieves, if we claim absolute right to control all use of our creations, the backlash is going to continue.
Perhaps we treat customers like thieves because 80% are. Perhaps customers are feeling the backlash from developers who have been taken to the cleaners for too long by a public that is used to stealing their software.
To claim that programmers will feel a backlash from the public is silly; our actions are DUE to what the public has already done. If the public now is pissed off because of what has to be done to force a little bit of honesty on them, tough luck. The public had their chance with non-expiring shareware that wasn't crippled and didn't have nags. The public didn't buy. So now they have to deal with these issues.
What pisses me off, as a shareware author, is not so much that a hacker will crack my program--I figure if they want to put in the time to get around my security then they've earned a free copy and probably invested more time than what it would have cost to buy the program. What pisses me off is when they then stick that on Gnutella as if they were doing a service to the community. That's just BS.
In part I blame the big players, such as Microsoft, Adobe, etc. They've been selling software at such inflated prices for so long that people don't think twice about "sticking it to the man" and installing a pirated copy. I figure that's what Microsoft gets for selling software at inflated prices.
It's sad, however, that some people will then proceed to crack or "share" a $5 or $10 shareware program. Pirating a $400 copy of Word and not paying a multi-billion dollar company with constant profits is not the same thing as pirating a $10 program and not paying an honest programmer that's just trying to earn a decent living.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't know that. In fact, we know that in the last 23 years, for which there is a global satellite temperature record, there has been no noted warming whatsoever.
We're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere - which is a closed system .
And the plants thank us for it and give us more oxygen in return.
Now, it's perfectly logical to draw a correlation between the two.
Well, assuming there was global warming (which there hasn't been at least in the last 23 years), the best you could do is try to draw a correlation.
Mind you, a correllation is not proof, not by a longshot.
There might be a correlation between the amount of farting going on due to there being more people on the earth, but you'd be hard pressed to conclude that the increased farting is causing global warming--even though a strong correlation may exist.
#1: we continue to pump billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment - If there is a correlation, we're killing our planet. If there is no correlation, nothing bad happens.
Again, bad assumption.
You assume that a rise in global temperatures is bad. We have no proof of that. It may cause more rainfall in Africa and allow that continent to actually feed itself. That'd be a good thing. Those that automatically believe that global warming would be bad are certainly over-estimating their own ability to know what is good and bad for this planet.
Also, BTW, there is no proof whatsoever to suggest that a rise in temperature will cause sea level to rise. In fact, there is plenty of information to suggestion the opposite--that an increase in temperature will cause more evaporation from the oceans, causing more clouds to rain upon Antartica, causing more ice to form and reducing the sea level somewhat.
#2: we stop pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment - if there is a correlation, nothing bad happens. If there is no correlation, nothing bad happens.
Nothing bad, except millions of unemployed people worldwide, increased poverty because poor countries aren't able to become industrialized, more unhealthy people in the world because people in industrialized countries will be thrown out of work and unable to get medical attention for themselves and, at the same time, rich countries will be harder pressed to export "free" health aid to third world countries.
If you don't care about the wellbeing of people, sure, nothing bad happens.
So from a risk management point of view, it would be pretty stupid to continue to pollute the planet. There is no reward if you're right, but we're all dead if you're wrong.
While I'm not pro-pollution, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of making drastic cuts to address an unproven theory at the cost of the health and wellbeing of millions--possibly billions--of people worldwide.
To suggest that "we're all dead if you're wrong" is extremist propaganda. If there was ever proof of what you're saying, believe me, countries and individuals would both be willing to make sacrifices. But neither countries nor persons, in general, are going to make that sacrifice to solve an unproven problem.
But by the time we WILL have reference, we'll all be dead if we are the cause. Therefore the only logical course of action is to stop.
Again, that's extremist environmentalist propaganda. Don't buy it without thinking.
The human race will change its ways before it kills itself. But it will only change its way if there is convincing evidence that there is not just a correlation between one, but a direct relationship. That evidence does not currently exist.
Oh really? That contradicts existing information to-date, and doesn't speak about what has happened in the last 23 years that we have a satellite temperature record for (and that shows no warming whatsoever).
Fact is, there is no proof of human-caused global warming. Not even a correlation. And as mentioned above, the climate warms and gets cooler. It's part of a natural cycle.
Those that believe that humans are causing global warming fit into the same group of people that, hundreds of years ago, thought you'd fall off the edge of the world if you sailed too far and that the sun circled the earth--both very "human-centric" ways of thinking. They had no proof of either, but it was a part of popular culture nonetheless and to suggest the world was round was considered rediculous.
Likewise today, global warming is a part of popular culture. Like before, it elevates the importance of man in the universe (or on the planet, in this case) and gives them a self-important feeling, as if man can cause or prevent the next ice age or global warming. Of course, there's absolutely no proof of this--but to suggest otherwise is often rediculed by popular culture.
Earth changed constantly over billions of years before the global warming club appeared. They definitely need to get a grip on reality and realize that the world--not even the environment--revolves around humans.
Then your bad... Because he altered the "bargain", not the "deal". :)
If it's going to be bouncing light off of mirrors on satellites without actually modifying the light itself, I don't see how they can charge. Anyone that points the dish right can bounce it off the mirror. Of course it also seems you'd have no control of where it eventually ends up (since the mirror will be bouncing it to wherever the satellite is targetting it).
Either I've had very good luck or the problem is overblown. The vast majority of the MP3s I download have completely adequate quality. Less than 10% have problems--and when they do, I just pop online and grab another version. Problem solved.
Easy browsing. I want to _really_ be able to search by artist, song title, year, etc. And when I search by song and find the song that I want, I want to be one click away from finding other songs that that band produced.
That's what CDNOW is for. Hop on over to CDNOW, find what you are looking for, then power-up the 'ol P2P and grab it.
I just realized that I don't need to own the music. I'd be perfectly happy renting music, so long as I can rent as much as I want, and do so easily and affordably.
I think you are one of few. While many people might be willing to make micropayments to artists to get the songs they want, I don't think many people would be willing to rent them.
I used to support the idea of micropayments to artists. Now I don't even support that. Music is free now. Whether you call it "genie out of the bottle" or "invisible market forces" the fact is that music is now a free commodity.
Smart artists will realize that and, little by little, we will see that my prophecy is completely true: Music tracks will be free and will be used by artists as advertisements so that when they tour, people go. The artists make much more money from concerts than they do from record sales anyways.
I haven't bought a recorded CD in 2+ years and I don't intend to. I already bought 600+ CDs in my life; I've been robbed by the record executives long enough and have little pitty for them now that they're complaining that they're being robbed. You abuse anyone anywhere long enough and eventually you get bitten. That's what's happened to the record executives.
Now all they need to realize is that they no longer have a viable business.
Music will never be obsolete. But the record companies only have existed because they were the only realistic ways to get the artists' music into the listeners' hands.
That is no longer the case. The record companies no longer have any business reason to exist.
I give them 5-10 years. Legislation or not, they'll be gone. Economics demands it.
Of course I was being a little bit sarcastic. There are some benefits of government. Those are the benefits provided what government should do: national defense, national highway system, provide for domestic tranquility, and provide for a justice system to insure everyone's rights.
The thing is that the above tasks could all be accomplished on about 15% of what the federal budget spends...
There are millions of benefits to government.
I think millions might be pushing it too far...
Try living somewhere without one and I think you will find life there nasty, brutish, and short.
I live in Mexico. While there is a government, in many senses there might as well not be. Justice is sporadic both in business law and criminal law. Highway maintenance is almost non-existant. Sad thing is they still have highway robery levels of taxation without any benefits.
That said, life is annoying (I hate potholes) and frustrating (it's a bitch seeing people get away with murder, sometimes literally) but for the typical person that just minds his own business it's not really that bad.
Nonetheless, working outside the U.S. was your choice. You can either accept what that choice costs, or you can look into becoming a citizen of your adopted home.
But that's bogus. Basically they're taxing me for my right to call myself American, since I was born there. It's bad enough that we essentially rent our property (because if you don't pay property taxes they can take the property you own), but to literally tax U.S. citizenship is basless.
If I don't use the resources and don't cost the government anything, I certainly shouldn't have to pay into their coffers.
None of that changes my fundamental belief in the necessity of government, nor in the unfortunate side effect of that necessity: The power to raise and levy taxes.
I agree. Taxes are a necesarry evil, as is some level of government.
However, even leaving the whole "How much government is justified and necessary?" discussion alone, the tax code definitely needs to be made not just fairer but more logical.
Personally, I believe the self-employment tax should by all means be eliminated. The self-employed still need to pay their income taxes, but shouldn't have to pay self-employment tax. Sure, that means no-one is paying the "employer's half" of the income taxes (which is deceptive in and of itself) for the self-employed, but since self-employment (i.e. small business) is the workhorse of the new economy they should do everything to stimulate it in the hopes that the business grows to further build the economy.
I'll disregard any supposed "small business assistance" offered by the government until self-employment tax is repealed. They can talk about helping small businesses and the entrepreneur all they want, but until they stop taxing the person who is already going out on a limb to start a new business then all it is is words...
The problem is, if they ever had to enforce the terms a minor almost always has the right to "disaffirm" the contract. A contract entered into with a minor can give you a framework of the agreement, and the adult party is bound to it--but the minor may simply disaffirm the contract on the basis that he is a minor.
Hmm, I wonder what the implications of this are for a minor buying--ahem, licensing a Microsoft product. Since they are minors they can disaffirm the "contract" entirely... Perhaps I'll have to have kids buy my software in the future for me. :grin:
I'm self-employed. I don't dick around with quarterly payments. I just file my 1040 on April 15th with everyone else and a few months later get a bill for penalty and interest for not having made my quarterly payments. But the penalty and interest is less than what my time is worth considering the amount of time I would have spent sending those four quarterly payments.
And being self-employed is something everyone ought to be required to be for at least one year in their life. So they can really get a clue as to how much they're spending on taxes. It does suck.
Who really wants to pay taxes, even when aware of the benefits of government?
I'm not aware of any benefits.
Especially in my case since I'm living overseas. Living overseas I get something like a $75,000 exemption on the income I earn over here, but I still have to pay full self-employment tax. And I don't even live in the friggin' country.
However, without fail we get invoice after invoice from Network Solutions with letters saying if we don't pay we will lose our domain. Duh...
They might not be the only one, but it is very deceptive. I think they send it so comapnies who have an A/P department see the low-dollar bill ($35/$70, whatever) and are allowed to pay it without authorization. Little do they know that they, by paying it, authorize NetSol to transfer the domains of their organization back to NetSol.
Bad, very bad. Kind of like an invoice I once received from somewhere in Europe for something like $1395. It was for being placed in some business directory. What? Obviously they were just fishing. It doesn't cost anything to send invoices and, who knows, someone might actually pay. All you have to lose is postage.
A few 'C' statements will translate almost directly into ASM statements, but most translate into multiple machine language instructions. What machine language instructions are used depend on the compiler and you depend on your compiler to make good choices.
However, ALL assembly language instructions will translate directly into exactly one "machine language" instruction. That's why assembly language is essentially the same as machine language. You don't depend on anything but your good programming skill to choose which instructions to use.
Assembly language is machine language presented in human-readable form. No more, no less.
No sane person writes a program in machine language. They use assembly language which is slightly easier for the typical human being to remember than opcodes.
BUT, a program written directly as bits in machine language will be exactly the same as an equivalent program written in assembly language and assembled. That's why no-one writes programs in machine language because there's no benefit in doing so. You write in assembly language and produce code that is identical to the code you would have produced in machine language, but have only reduced your programming time by orders of magnitude.
Now, you can argue semantics, but the fact is that there is no practical difference in the results of a program written in machine language and one written in assembly language. Hell, you could argue that you can't even program directly in machine language because some intermediate program is going to have to convert your ASCII representation of the bits to the bits themselves.
The interesting thing is that very stupid bug in Lotus Domino should cause the servers to loop into oblivion everytime a potential spammer tries to relay mail through them...
What is so funny or surprising about that?
You said that if pollutants can't be reduced to optimal levels, then they shouldn't be reduced at all. What's a 25% reduction in pollution worth compared to the fiscal well-being of heavily polluting companies?
That's one way to look at it... Another is if by making draconican cuts and chasing away the industry that is obviously employing your city you are still living in a heavily-polluted city many times over the desired level, have you really gained much? I would say not. It would be better to wait until you can find a solution that meets your goals rather than chasing away employers which, if you do it, will cause you to kill your economy and your local environmental is still mega-toast anyway.
But whatever, perhaps you see that as a valuable move. I don't.
You said that climate research is usually done by crooked scientists trying to milk the system of research dollars. You said such people should find real jobs that "actually produce something". That would be real convenient for all the polluters you champion, wouldn't it?
They're not all crooked scientists. But, yes, they do have vested interests in seeing that global warming is not discarded.
As for producing something, I never said they need to produce something that contaminates. Software, services, whatever. But something that contributes to the economy instead of burning tax dollars.
This is like spammers embedding banner images in their spam and getting paid every time someone opens the email just because the banner was loaded. It's just running the meter and the entity being screwed is the website that is paying them a referral fee.
The article, in one part, reads: "Griffin said the technology is simply taking the old affiliate referral program to a new level. Most of the referrals will happen inside the Morpheus application itself after the new version is launched with a commerce section, he said."
Yeah, right. Most of the referrals will clearly be a result of their sneaky browser add-ons, not because anyone really pays attention to the commerce section of a P2P client. Heck, P2P users generally get as much as they can for FREE--not exactly the target market of much of anyone.
If you are talking about dumping toxic waste into rivers which can very easily be shown to be detrimental to those downstream, then they need to change their ways. I have no problem with that.
If you are talking about emitting smog that has a demonstratable affect on the health of people then, perhaps, there should be some taxes levied to give them an incentive not to pollute--or to relocate perhaps in the middle of the desert where no-one cares. This, however, should only be done if doing so will really help. If smog particle X is acceptable at 5 ppm and currently is at 200 ppm and chasing away all the heavy polluting companies will reduce it to 150ppm I would submit that you shouldn't chase away those companies.
If you are talking about vague allegations of global warming that may or may not be happening and may or may not be caused by human activity then I think that it's not unreasonable to mention that the immediate affect of global warming (or not) is in the greenies research funds more than any imminent or delayed threat to the earth.
Mostly greenies are just burning up research dollars that could be better spent on something else. Working to eliminate disease, world hunger, whatever.
Whether or not global warming is real, the most immediate result of any conclusion regarding global warming is the greenie's research funds. Either they get more research funds or they have to go find a real job that actually produces something.
If the factories are truly causing physical damage to a large number of people then they need to get clean. I have no problem with that.
By the same token, if a plant locates in the middle of a desert and is emitting smog that bothers some rancher down the highway then the rancher should move since the cost to society is less for him to move than the factory which is already located far away from civilization to reduce these types of problems.
I also see that you are very quick to use a diminutive term "greenie" to describe anyone on the other side of this debate. Showing that you, yourself, are not above using apeals to frame the debate and attempt to decrease the credibility of your opponents, rather than attacking them on purely logical grounds. This of course does not invalidate any point you make, but does expose your bias.
Actually, this is the first thread I've ever used the "greenie" term. I just used it because it's so much easier than mentioning every special interest group that makes up the greenie movement. Socialists, activists without a cause, animal rights, communists, just plain liberals. It's easier to call 'em "greenies". Everyone knows who I'm talking about.
That said, my bias should be obvious based on my comments regardless of whether or not I call them "greenies."
That said, I think environmental issues are important, and we definitly need to get a global handle on them and reduce the amount of polluting we do. Regardless of whether there is a global warming problem or not.
I agree, as long as we are addressing some kind of real problem. If we're reducing factory emissions because half the city has asthma, that's worthwhile. If we're doing it so that the sky looks blue instead of grey then that's an asthetic issue, but perhaps worthwhile to a given city.
But I'm not in favor of draconian cuts in invisible emissions to solve a problem that may not even exist. If it could be done without affecting the economy that would be one thing. But, no, call me a capitalist but I am not willing to give up one dime of the world's "GDP" to address a problem that may not exist. I'm not willing to give up one dime of the U.S.'s GDP nor one dime of Nigeria's GDP. It just doesn't make sense.
As they say, if it's not broke, don't fix it. At this point we don't even know if anything is broken.
I never said they were independent. Unfortunately, sources for both sides of the global warming debate are generally biased one way or the other.
The main reason the the "global warming debate" has split on partisan lines is, in large part, precisely because the global warming issue is being used to accomplish social and political ends. If it were truly about the planet you'd see more conservatives on board. Contrary to liberal propaganda, conservatives aren't inherently any more likely than liberals to trash the planet for a buck.
So... you have a bunch of liberals crying wolf and claiming, quite literally, that the sky is falling (or the earth is warming or the seas are rising). All this is based on questionable science but has the immediate affect of promoting a liberal political agenda. Is it surprising that conservatives will be opposed to that?
Do you really think that if there was any real proof that Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, and Boston would all be consumed by a rising sea within 100 years that conservatives would ignore it to make a buck? If so, then you are truly being blined by liberal propaganda.
www.national.org is a conservative think tank therefore why shouldn't I conclude that the statitics it quotes are carefully selected and partial?
You should conclude it is partial and carefully selected. Just like when you read an article that is being portayed as suggesting that an iceberg in the south is proof of global warming.
What you should do is read both biased sides of the debate. If you are lucky enough to find something truly neutral, read that too. Unfortunately neautrality is almost impossible because as someone reaches their conclusion they will almost always come down on one side or the other (unless they just say "We don't have enough information" in which case any subsequent comments is based on their opinion).
What it comes down to is:
1. Global warming is not accepted as fact. That is not to say that the theory of global warming is flawed, but there isn't any conclusive evidence that the earth is currently warming. There apparently was about a .5 degree temperature increase in the last century, but it all happened before 1940. In the last 23 years there has been no discernible warming.
2. If there were warming, it is not clear that it isn't completely natural. Temperatures were below their "normal" levels 600 years ago and temperatures have increased somewhat since then--moving towards "normal."
3. If there has been recent global warming, it is not clear that it has been caused by man. Sun cycles, earth cycles, closeness of the earth to the sun, volcanos. There are so many natural factors that can contribute to warming of the earth that it is very questionable what, if any, impact man has on the equation.
4. If man does have an affect on global warming, it is not clear exactly how much or in what fashion. If man caused 0.1 (hypothetical number) of 0.5 degrees of warming in the early 20th century does that justify draconian cuts in emissions and subsequent reductions in economic output that will reduce our ability to improve the quality of life on the planet, both at home and--eventually--in poorer countries?
5. If man does have a substantial affect on global warming, are we sure that this is a bad thing? Why do we think that the current state of the planet is best? Because we are used to it? Or could it be that changes in the climate could cause LA to be consumed by the ocean but cause the desert southwest to become farmable land which could be used to produce more of a surplus of food that could be exported to poorer countries?
All in all, there are a heck of a lot of assumptions that greenies make when they try to promote the whole "the earth is heating up" rubbish. Even if the earth is heating up the fact that they purport to know that that is necessarily bad is telling.
Nothing in this world is static. Especially the weather and, by extension, the climate.
Even if that is true, the 2000 climate scientists out of the 17,000 signatories is much better than the the greenies who had just 10% (260) of their signatories somewhat qualified to make qualified opinions, and only ONE climatologist.
The fact remains that most scientists do not believe in global warming as it is promoted by the greenies.
It is not very credible and it seems to me you are the one only listening to one side of the debate?
Au contraire, my good sir. I've visited sites on both sides of the debate. On balance the greenies lack evidence and really seem to have an agenda that benefits by global warming existing--further research grants, economic and political changes they favor, etc.
On the other hand, the 17,000+ scientists that have signed the forementioned petition have nothing to lose nor nothing to gain. They simply are fed up with what they correctly recognize to be a lot of hot air (pun intended).
I invite you to do some INDEPENDENT investigation. That means reading information from both sides of the issue, consider what each "side" has to gain or lose by their side being right or wrong, and use your own brain to come to a conclusion. Also, when reading BOTH sides, try to separate the facts from the opinions and/or vague statements.
Sure, sir.
Climate Model Uncertainties
Cliamte models still wrong
Show me the Evidence: A tale of Two Whoppers
No More Fudge Factor: Unfluxed Model Cools Warming
Now, I leave further research as an excercise to the reader.
I would strongly recommend you do a little research before you attack someone in the way you did. At worst it's slander in and of itself and, at best, it makes you look like an uninformed ass.
The terms are intermingled, sir.
Each of the definitions I provided has its terms of use and its manner of distribution.
With shareware, you are encouraged to distribute (share) the software as widely as possible, as you are with commercial demos.
Agreed. And THAT is the definition of shareware. That you can share it and that a substantial amount of the functionality is there so you can try before you buy.
The difference is that with a commercial demo, standard functionality is not enabled without payment, whereas with shareware, all functionality required to use the software is present, and the honor system is used to secure payment. If you can't afford the software, for example, you can still use it.
I disagree. Nowhere is it written that shareware has to use the honor system to secure payment. Likewise, I've seldom (if ever) seen shareware that says "Use this for free, but if you want, pay me."
In fact, shareware is software that can be distributed in its unregistered form without any threat of legal action against the person doing the sharing.
By your definition, commercial software and shareware are the same thing. So why not call it what it is?
Well, I agree with you there. Shareware, in this sense, IS commercial software. The only difference is the distribution method. Traditional commercial software comes in a shrink-wrapped package that you pick up at Best Buy, shareware is shared around the net for distribution.
But, yes, shareware is commercial software. And I'm sorry if the definitions I provided in my previous message suggested otherwise because I have always believed that shareware is commercial software. It's just distributed in a non-traditional way.
People are encouraged to copy and share the software for evaluation, then users of the software are encouraged to pay for it." Note the wording: encouraged, not forced.
Well, that's certainly open to interpretation.
Nag screens and increased functionality when the software is purchased is just "additional encouragement" and doesn't violate the quote you cited.
Perhaps expireware might go beyond your quote in spirit, although again it DOES still fit the description since the fact that the software expires is just one more way to encourage the user to purchase the software.
The fact is, the quote above doesn't indicate that the author can't implement designs that encourage more users to purchase the shareware.
And, in light of the fact that 80% of users will not purchase shareware if they don't have to, I think working on the honor system is just foolish. You might as well just call it freeware and be done with it.
I believe there is a short-term temperature drop due to the dust in the air which blocks the sun. But that does not mean the volcano hasn't emitted massive amounts of greenhouse gasses. It has. Plenty.
In fact, it just goes to show that clouds (in this case volcanic dust) has much more affect on climate than greenhouse gasses.
So, actually, your very response has strengthened the anti-global warming cause by admitting that the greenhouse gasses emitted by a volcano, though much greater than that emitted by humans, is apparently of no consequence when compared with clouds.
I agree with that.
PS why should I blind believe you over 'the greenies'? No doubt you have an agenda to, yet you seem to think you are the only one who knows theirs
Actually, I wouldn't want you to blindly believe me. I would just hope that I would provoke you to truly STUDY the whole issue rather than listening to one side or the other. I am not a climate scientist and, unlike many greenies, I don't pretend to be one.
I will, however, defer to the 17,000 scientists who have signed the above petition that states that global warming does NOT appear to be linked to human activity.
The satellite record is much more accurate because it covers 90%+ of the earth whereas the surface record only covers a small fraction of the earth. I.e., where there are cities, mostly in the northern hemisphere, and almost no constant readings from the high seas.
Further, the surface record is heavily biased due to the fact that urban sprawl has created "heat islands" around cities. Recording stations that used to be out in the fields are now in the middle of parking lots.
While the greenies have tried to discredit the satellite record, they haven't succeeded, and the satellite record is the most reliable and accurate information we have about global temperatures. And they haven't increased in 23 years.
Those of us that don't believe in human-caused global warming are NOT living in denial nor is it that we could care less about the planet. Those of us who don't believe in global warming have taken the time to study the facts and come to a conclusion which is very unpopular in today's culture.
But, say this to yourself until you understand what you means: THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING IN THE 23 YEARS WE'VE HAD SATELLITES MONITORING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
The greenies will say that "Mount Pinatubo masked global warming in the years following the eruption" for two reasons:
1. To try to explain away why there wasn't been any global warming in the following years when there "should have been."
2. To try to discredit the fact that volcanos naturally produce more greenhouse gasses then humans, period.
Keep in mind that the whole reason that there is life on earth is because of all the early volcanos which created so much greenhouse gasses that the earth heated up and was able to support life. That would have never happened if volcanos WEREN'T able to warm the earth.
So, yes, volcanos spew plenty of greenhouse gasses. I don't have the exact information on hand and I don't have time to search for it right now, but if you jump to google.com and do some honest research I'm sure you can find it for yourself with little trouble.
PS--Don't blindly believe the greenies. They have an agenda and the environment is their means to an end. Once you recognize that you will see all their hype in an entirely new perspective.
Interestingly, the climate models that are predicting massive warming over the next 100 years and which are the basis for making draconian cuts in emissions and destroying our economy aren't even capable of taking into account the effects of a) The sun and b) the clouds.
The greenies acknowledge that the sun and the clouds have "some affect" on the climate, but they haven't been able to determine exactly what it is. So they simply throw in "fudge factors" which supposedly take those factors into account. In reality, the fudge factor is the number they have to add to the climate models to generate the amount of global warming they want to scare an appropriate number of people.
Their climate models, had they been applied to climate data in the 1900s, would have also predicted TWICE as much global warming during this century as has actually ocurred.
In fact, every time the climate models become "more accurate" (i.e. taking into account more natural factors), the prediction of the amount of global warming always comes down.
I don't know about you, but to me the BIGGEST two factors for deciding whether it's going to be hot or cold is whether there's sun beating down on us and whether there are clouds to block it. If they can't even take those two most important factors into account then I think you know where they can stick their climate models.
Perhaps we treat customers like thieves because 80% are. Perhaps customers are feeling the backlash from developers who have been taken to the cleaners for too long by a public that is used to stealing their software.
To claim that programmers will feel a backlash from the public is silly; our actions are DUE to what the public has already done. If the public now is pissed off because of what has to be done to force a little bit of honesty on them, tough luck. The public had their chance with non-expiring shareware that wasn't crippled and didn't have nags. The public didn't buy. So now they have to deal with these issues.
What pisses me off, as a shareware author, is not so much that a hacker will crack my program--I figure if they want to put in the time to get around my security then they've earned a free copy and probably invested more time than what it would have cost to buy the program. What pisses me off is when they then stick that on Gnutella as if they were doing a service to the community. That's just BS.
In part I blame the big players, such as Microsoft, Adobe, etc. They've been selling software at such inflated prices for so long that people don't think twice about "sticking it to the man" and installing a pirated copy. I figure that's what Microsoft gets for selling software at inflated prices.
It's sad, however, that some people will then proceed to crack or "share" a $5 or $10 shareware program. Pirating a $400 copy of Word and not paying a multi-billion dollar company with constant profits is not the same thing as pirating a $10 program and not paying an honest programmer that's just trying to earn a decent living.