Not necessarily. I do, however, expect that global warming should be 'proven' to rather rigorous standards. Cap-and-Trade would cause a severe and horrible depression, possibly worse than the Great Depression. If AGW is correct and carbon dioxide really is an agent of horrible climate change, it might be worth causing trillions of dollars of harm to the economy of my country, with elderly poor people freezing to death in cold winters, destitute people becoming homeless, and all the rest of it... because the alternative would be even worse. If AGW is not correct, then Cap-and-Trade is worse than the alternative, and it must be stopped. It is vital that we make a correct decision here.
I think that you've hit on the elephant in the room. In order to make the changes necessary to stop CO2 driven climate change (assuming for the moment that it's all accurate) would realistically require war with China and India. It's one thing to say that "we all agree that CO2 is driving climate change and we need to stop it" but that doesn't solve anything. Cap and trade doesn't stop it, Kyoto doesn't stop it, nothing short of reducing CO2 emissions to a tiny fraction of their current amount will stop it and there's no way that doesn't mean massive poverty and war. Anything else is wishful thinking.
So, what do we do? I can change all of the light bulbs in my house to LED, install a solar system, and start bicycling to work and even if everyone in the world does this we're still set up for climate catastrophe (if the IPCC is correct.)
What I've been looking for is solutions that are in-line with out confidence in the data. I'm confident that CO2 is causing climate change. I'm not confident that CO2 will cause as much climate change that the IPCC claims. Therefore I'm willing to spend a commensurate amount of money relative to my confidence level. Investment in new and existing non-CO2 technologies has my thumbs-up. Not much else at this point.
However long term climate trends are EASY to predict!
Actually, it's easier but I wouldn't say that it is easy. Climate models work by forecasting the weather in 20-30 minute increments for 100 years many, many times and then averaging them together. While that will give you something with smaller error bars than any one climate forecast, it's still something that is subject to any bias in the models.
It's the same problem that affects financial computer models because the algorithms are non-linear and chaotic. Any single missing or incorrectly estimated assumption will drive a cumulative error that destroys the entire output.
That's why it's called a theory, not a fact or axiom.
Actually, theory is one of those pesky words in English with more than one meaning. In science theory is almost the same as axiom (law is just a theory that nobody bothers thinking about anymore.) In common-speak theory has the same meaning as hypothesis.
It's confusing, I know, but the *theory* of evolution has a meaning that is very close to the *law* of evolution.
Tell that to William Tyndale who was executed for translating the bible to English. Unless a person could read Latin, having permission to own a bible was pretty meaningless.
What your side can never tell us, however, is how exactly making money off a solution to Global Climate Change somehow impugns the science?
You completely missed the point. The point is that there is big money on both sides, so claims from either side that "your side is corrupted by money and my side isn't" is straight up bullshit.
So if Anthony Watts is an honest amature then why did he try and use the DCMA to suppress this devestating contra-evidence to his propoganda? (meat of the debunking at 5:00-6:00)
"replace an inefficient public owned monopoly with an inefficient privately owned monopoly"
That's the problem, when the "privatisation" isn't truly private, so you still have a government protected (usually through strict regulation) monopoly. You end up with the worst of both worlds: private profits and public risks.
In addition, I shudder to think of the cost burden this will eventually have on the small ISPs. Large ISPs will use this tool to knock them out.
"What? You don't have the last 3 years of audit data to show you've been 100% neutral? Too expensive you say? Well, too bad, I guess this nice lawsuit will show you what for."
But, but, I want to live in the middle of nowhere (have my cake) *and* have high speed Internet (eat it too).
Everyone's choice to live somewhere is a trade off. Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's choice of trade off? I don't expect your mother to pay for my flights to visit my family because I chose to live so far away.
I don't understand this. If there was a perfect distribution of antibiotics, that is, the exact number of people took them who needed them, wouldn't we have the same thing anyway? All of the bacteria that weren't resistant would be killed off and resistant forms would take their place?
You either have people dying from bacteria that antibiotics would have killed or people dying from bacteria that antibiotics can't touch.
I've thought about this, but it would never work. Each congress would just vote on an omnibus bill at the beginning of their session extending everything that was sunset.
For example, the constitution has a sunset provision for a standing army, and every couple of years it's automatically voted for extension. That's all that would happen.
Unions claim to protect their members from employers, but this simply isn't true. Unions protect their members from non-member competition. Once seen in that light it's easy to see the problem with unions.
Sadly, what you speak of is an ideal that is hanging on by a thread. It won't be long before this viewpoint of justice will be thought of as anachronistic, if not complete fantasy.
So, the question is, why is Verizon a monopoly? It was granted by the government. All monopolies are directly or indirectly caused by government intervention into the market.
The only government solution to monopolies is to have the government simply step aside.
I guess this means we need to shut down a bunch of industries, since they have higher than average rates of injury and death. Police, loggers, crab fishers, test pilots... the list goes on. Those people don't have the right to keep doing such dangerous things. Don't they know?
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. I do, however, expect that global warming should be 'proven' to rather rigorous standards. Cap-and-Trade would cause a severe and horrible depression, possibly worse than the Great Depression. If AGW is correct and carbon dioxide really is an agent of horrible climate change, it might be worth causing trillions of dollars of harm to the economy of my country, with elderly poor people freezing to death in cold winters, destitute people becoming homeless, and all the rest of it... because the alternative would be even worse. If AGW is not correct, then Cap-and-Trade is worse than the alternative, and it must be stopped. It is vital that we make a correct decision here.
I think that you've hit on the elephant in the room. In order to make the changes necessary to stop CO2 driven climate change (assuming for the moment that it's all accurate) would realistically require war with China and India. It's one thing to say that "we all agree that CO2 is driving climate change and we need to stop it" but that doesn't solve anything. Cap and trade doesn't stop it, Kyoto doesn't stop it, nothing short of reducing CO2 emissions to a tiny fraction of their current amount will stop it and there's no way that doesn't mean massive poverty and war. Anything else is wishful thinking.
So, what do we do? I can change all of the light bulbs in my house to LED, install a solar system, and start bicycling to work and even if everyone in the world does this we're still set up for climate catastrophe (if the IPCC is correct.)
What I've been looking for is solutions that are in-line with out confidence in the data. I'm confident that CO2 is causing climate change. I'm not confident that CO2 will cause as much climate change that the IPCC claims. Therefore I'm willing to spend a commensurate amount of money relative to my confidence level. Investment in new and existing non-CO2 technologies has my thumbs-up. Not much else at this point.
However long term climate trends are EASY to predict!
Actually, it's easier but I wouldn't say that it is easy. Climate models work by forecasting the weather in 20-30 minute increments for 100 years many, many times and then averaging them together. While that will give you something with smaller error bars than any one climate forecast, it's still something that is subject to any bias in the models.
It's the same problem that affects financial computer models because the algorithms are non-linear and chaotic. Any single missing or incorrectly estimated assumption will drive a cumulative error that destroys the entire output.
except that they didn't originate that data, they collected the data from other sources.
It's not just the data that is missing, but also the algorithms that were used to create the "value-added" data. That's missing.
That's why it's called a theory, not a fact or axiom.
Actually, theory is one of those pesky words in English with more than one meaning. In science theory is almost the same as axiom (law is just a theory that nobody bothers thinking about anymore.) In common-speak theory has the same meaning as hypothesis.
It's confusing, I know, but the *theory* of evolution has a meaning that is very close to the *law* of evolution.
Tell that to William Tyndale who was executed for translating the bible to English. Unless a person could read Latin, having permission to own a bible was pretty meaningless.
And seeing the Rapture crowd, "God hates fags" -mob, Young Earth Creationists, and other assorted lunatics, I wonder if CC actually had a point there.
Seeing the CC's opinion on child rape, I'm pretty sure that their opinion on it isn't very helpful either.
What they didn't like was the bible being translated into any other languages that the common man could read. Point still stands.
What your side can never tell us, however, is how exactly making money off a solution to Global Climate Change somehow impugns the science?
You completely missed the point. The point is that there is big money on both sides, so claims from either side that "your side is corrupted by money and my side isn't" is straight up bullshit.
So if Anthony Watts is an honest amature then why did he try and use the DCMA to suppress this devestating contra-evidence to his propoganda? (meat of the debunking at 5:00-6:00)
He didn't.
"replace an inefficient public owned monopoly with an inefficient privately owned monopoly"
That's the problem, when the "privatisation" isn't truly private, so you still have a government protected (usually through strict regulation) monopoly. You end up with the worst of both worlds: private profits and public risks.
Merchant account contracts include provisions on keeping card numbers secret. So, no.
In addition, I shudder to think of the cost burden this will eventually have on the small ISPs. Large ISPs will use this tool to knock them out.
"What? You don't have the last 3 years of audit data to show you've been 100% neutral? Too expensive you say? Well, too bad, I guess this nice lawsuit will show you what for."
More good going, guys.
But, but, I want to live in the middle of nowhere (have my cake) *and* have high speed Internet (eat it too).
Everyone's choice to live somewhere is a trade off. Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's choice of trade off? I don't expect your mother to pay for my flights to visit my family because I chose to live so far away.
"Because that money doesn't disappear from the economy, it circulates? And more money circulated means a stronger economy?"
That's known as the "broken window fallacy."
Wealth doesn't work that way.
I don't understand this. If there was a perfect distribution of antibiotics, that is, the exact number of people took them who needed them, wouldn't we have the same thing anyway? All of the bacteria that weren't resistant would be killed off and resistant forms would take their place?
You either have people dying from bacteria that antibiotics would have killed or people dying from bacteria that antibiotics can't touch.
When selling is legislated, the first thing up for sale is the legislators.
"pay for the government to stay out of their business."
That denotes the government didn't stay out of everyone else's business. Hardly an example of "no government interference."
I've thought about this, but it would never work. Each congress would just vote on an omnibus bill at the beginning of their session extending everything that was sunset.
For example, the constitution has a sunset provision for a standing army, and every couple of years it's automatically voted for extension. That's all that would happen.
Unions claim to protect their members from employers, but this simply isn't true. Unions protect their members from non-member competition. Once seen in that light it's easy to see the problem with unions.
Sadly, what you speak of is an ideal that is hanging on by a thread. It won't be long before this viewpoint of justice will be thought of as anachronistic, if not complete fantasy.
First they came for the creepy Mexican pedophiles...
Just doesn't have the same ring.
So, the question is, why is Verizon a monopoly? It was granted by the government. All monopolies are directly or indirectly caused by government intervention into the market.
The only government solution to monopolies is to have the government simply step aside.
Yes, they're all lame tools.
Sounds like the problem is the stupid tax, not the stupid smoker.
I guess this means we need to shut down a bunch of industries, since they have higher than average rates of injury and death. Police, loggers, crab fishers, test pilots... the list goes on. Those people don't have the right to keep doing such dangerous things. Don't they know?