I had an electric lawn mower for many years....in fact, bought two of them when the first one's magneto died and the company had gone out of business.
They're very good IF you get the battery-powered models...too much frustration with the electric cords. I loved both of mine...plenty of power, plenty of capability. Where I am now doesn't actually have a lawn (yet) so the latest mower is in storage.
Not that this has *squat* to do with the silliness that is the AGW theory; I just wanted to note that I like the electric mowers quite a bit.
Ferret
That's a rather self-serving definition. Is the position of the AGW theorists so weak that they must resort to Holocaust-similes to try to silence Skeptics?
I'm a scientist. I'm a Skeptic of the AGW theory...in my evaluation, what has been presented as "evidence" frankly doesn't rate any more credibility than the "evidence" presented by Creationists.
But because I am a scientist I'll gladly look at evidence as it comes in, evaluate studies, reconsider possibilities. That's what a scientist does (and to which you make an oblique reference).
Please stop calling AGW Skeptics "deniers".....it's attempting to put them on the defensive, and there's little room for discussion at that point.
Muller was "outed" as having NEVER been an AGW Skeptic shortly after the big story about how he "converted". He was always neutral-leaning-towards-the-AGW-meme and said he "switched" after the last IPCC study.
Scientists who actually take the time to look at the data and read through the modeling code nearly always come away shocked that this has gotten any serious traction at all. The huge bulk of the studies out there are basically exercises in data collection (which is good), though many of those basic activities have been tainted by poor record keeping (where did the data come from?) and/or destruction of the original data (a huge scientific no-no). About half have a paragraph or two towards the ending that say some variation of "we can't think of anything else that might be causing these temps, so we think it's AGW"....which isn't *proof* no matter how many times it's repeated, it's just a guess. Bad correlation, no causation.
The hard fact is that AGW is an interesting, if unproven (and potentially unprovable) theory, on par with Creationism in terms of evidence. Some folks buy it, most don't, and the "solutions" proposed by the more hard core advocates always seem to have more to do with siphoning money out of people's pockets rather than "fixing" anything.
Good debate! I honestly think Obama was able to hold his own on most of the foreign policy discussion, though his case fell apart when it came to the economy. Romney did a great job hammering how we've neglected our military and our allies and how a stronger economy would make doing this easier. Obama got prickly when he got interrupted; Romney tended to ramble.
Solid debate. Not sure I could really say either man won outright, though I give Romney the edge on the closing words.
Sorry, but I must disagree with what seems to be the general consensus here.
The scientists went out on a limb here and told folks there was nothing to worry about. That was very foolish, but once done it wasn't undone. Many people took those reassurances to heart and ended up dying in the following earthquake.
If I shout "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre I'm responsible for the carnage that follows. If the scientists told folks IN AN EARTHQUAKE ZONE that there was no danger, they're responsible for at least some of the deaths that followed.
I suspect *this* explanation is more closer to the reality of things than the first one, though there's a particle of fact there as well.
I don't know anybody who isn't scared to one degree or another about what's going on in the economy. I know a LOT of folks who don't drive as much, who don't buy as much, etc....and all of those will slightly reduce emission of so-called 'greenhouse gases'. The financial mess we've kicked down the road to our grandchildren is horrific.
An unscientific and unproven theory really isn't something that should be guiding people's actions anyway....let's focus on the fire at our feet (the disintegrating economy) and less on what might happen, maybe, someday, possibly.
Interesting that Warmites claim "ad-hominem attacks" when a couple of posts above it's Warmites who are calling the judge an "ass-hat", a "shithead", and "a worthless fuck"....
And that's for him BACKING your guy's coverup?!?
Seems you may want to look in the mirror a bit....
Not remotely, though I guess I can see how some would take it that way.
The hard fact is that his research, if funded by public $$$, is *all* open and accessible unless there's a national security issue. You're a touch offended he's been asked to show whether or not he doctored data? I'M a touch offended he's denying it with little more than a "trust me"--that's not how it works.
A man of integrity would want--would INSIST--on proving his innocence. This isn't the first time Mann has fought disclosure of his work; it's for a reason.
....but the lid's pretty much blown on the whole AGW false science anyway so it's a minor issue.
We know Mann long ago stopped doing real science in favor of becoming a climate zealot; the fact that he fought so hard to hide these emails is just contributory evidence...
Nice try, but you know that's not the reason.
The mainstream media....NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR and basically every newspaper in the nation are hardcore in the tank for Obama. Do you *really* think that if they couldn't effectively pin this on the Republicans that they *wouldn't*?
No, the reasons boil down to foolishness on the part of BOTH parties in Congress AND the President, and this would come out plain as day if anybody besides the financial radio shows were to talk about it (by the way, most of the financial shows are seeing this as THE major issue of the year, predicting moderate to severe recession if sequestration isn't stopped).
BOTH parties are the reason things aren't getting done, though I give kudos to the Republicans for *trying* (they keep passing bills that the Dems are too scared to even allow on the floor). BOTH parties are using this to demagogue, and BOTH parties are waiting out the election on the theory that they'll be able to dictate terms afterwards.
BOTH parties are responsible, and BOTH should have a severe drubbing.
It does seem as if the American (and to a lesser extent the European) approach usually involves "large sweeping solutions" when millions of "little" solutions can work more efficiently and more effectively. Part of this is, I think, the nature of the issue and those concerned about it--they feel that only if "the government does something" can it be solved, and by default that means a big program.
Then you get into who trusts individuals and who doesn't, and of course that's just a patina overlaying the whole thing.
IF one buys into the supposed need to sequester carbon then it's more efficiently done in a million little places rather than a couple of hundred *large* places. Rather like hog farming really....a few pigs raised on a farm for eventual slaughter doesn't overwhelm the local environment, whereas a million kept in a factory farm can destroy water supplies and lead to all kinds of funky new diseases.
In this particular case the technology needed to maintain Antarctic bases is appealing to me and I see more upside than downside to the proposal, but there's no reason why those intent on sequestering carbon couldn't do both. There's also been a great suggestion regarding fast-growing trees and stashing them in icy cold waters. Do'em all.
Nah, the Dems just a.) completely backed/supported/voted for every one of those things and b.) completed failed to undo them when they had the reigns of power.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree with the general sentiment, but probably NOT in the way an AGW believer quite means....
Ferret
I had an electric lawn mower for many years....in fact, bought two of them when the first one's magneto died and the company had gone out of business. They're very good IF you get the battery-powered models...too much frustration with the electric cords. I loved both of mine...plenty of power, plenty of capability. Where I am now doesn't actually have a lawn (yet) so the latest mower is in storage. Not that this has *squat* to do with the silliness that is the AGW theory; I just wanted to note that I like the electric mowers quite a bit. Ferret
Yep, that's the one.
To be fair, the HuffPo/DailyKos articles probably didn't mention that part, so the Muller boosters here don't know of it....
Ferret
That's a rather self-serving definition. Is the position of the AGW theorists so weak that they must resort to Holocaust-similes to try to silence Skeptics?
I'm a scientist. I'm a Skeptic of the AGW theory...in my evaluation, what has been presented as "evidence" frankly doesn't rate any more credibility than the "evidence" presented by Creationists.
But because I am a scientist I'll gladly look at evidence as it comes in, evaluate studies, reconsider possibilities. That's what a scientist does (and to which you make an oblique reference).
Please stop calling AGW Skeptics "deniers".....it's attempting to put them on the defensive, and there's little room for discussion at that point.
Ferret
Nice try, but not true.
Muller was "outed" as having NEVER been an AGW Skeptic shortly after the big story about how he "converted". He was always neutral-leaning-towards-the-AGW-meme and said he "switched" after the last IPCC study.
Scientists who actually take the time to look at the data and read through the modeling code nearly always come away shocked that this has gotten any serious traction at all. The huge bulk of the studies out there are basically exercises in data collection (which is good), though many of those basic activities have been tainted by poor record keeping (where did the data come from?) and/or destruction of the original data (a huge scientific no-no). About half have a paragraph or two towards the ending that say some variation of "we can't think of anything else that might be causing these temps, so we think it's AGW"....which isn't *proof* no matter how many times it's repeated, it's just a guess. Bad correlation, no causation.
The hard fact is that AGW is an interesting, if unproven (and potentially unprovable) theory, on par with Creationism in terms of evidence. Some folks buy it, most don't, and the "solutions" proposed by the more hard core advocates always seem to have more to do with siphoning money out of people's pockets rather than "fixing" anything.
Ferret
......THAT's not very neighborly....
...that certainly explains the recent election.
Ferret
...and this is why I won't use cloud services to store anything....
Ferret
Good debate! I honestly think Obama was able to hold his own on most of the foreign policy discussion, though his case fell apart when it came to the economy. Romney did a great job hammering how we've neglected our military and our allies and how a stronger economy would make doing this easier. Obama got prickly when he got interrupted; Romney tended to ramble. Solid debate. Not sure I could really say either man won outright, though I give Romney the edge on the closing words.
Sorry, but I must disagree with what seems to be the general consensus here.
The scientists went out on a limb here and told folks there was nothing to worry about. That was very foolish, but once done it wasn't undone. Many people took those reassurances to heart and ended up dying in the following earthquake.
If I shout "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre I'm responsible for the carnage that follows. If the scientists told folks IN AN EARTHQUAKE ZONE that there was no danger, they're responsible for at least some of the deaths that followed.
Ferretman
I'm very much interested in hearing what each candidate has to say about things *other* than Libya...in particular China.
Ferretman
I suspect *this* explanation is more closer to the reality of things than the first one, though there's a particle of fact there as well.
I don't know anybody who isn't scared to one degree or another about what's going on in the economy. I know a LOT of folks who don't drive as much, who don't buy as much, etc....and all of those will slightly reduce emission of so-called 'greenhouse gases'. The financial mess we've kicked down the road to our grandchildren is horrific.
An unscientific and unproven theory really isn't something that should be guiding people's actions anyway....let's focus on the fire at our feet (the disintegrating economy) and less on what might happen, maybe, someday, possibly.
Ferret
Excellent finding sir...thank you for digging that up.
Ferret
Interesting that Warmites claim "ad-hominem attacks" when a couple of posts above it's Warmites who are calling the judge an "ass-hat", a "shithead", and "a worthless fuck"....
And that's for him BACKING your guy's coverup?!?
Seems you may want to look in the mirror a bit....
Ferret
I don't understand...you claim he's "antis-cience" but he UPHELD Mann's hiding of his emails.....
If one *must* bring politics into the mix at all, how do you get from "protecting Mann's coverup" to "anti-science"?
Ferret
Well said, impeccably reasoned.
Ferret
Not remotely, though I guess I can see how some would take it that way.
The hard fact is that his research, if funded by public $$$, is *all* open and accessible unless there's a national security issue. You're a touch offended he's been asked to show whether or not he doctored data? I'M a touch offended he's denying it with little more than a "trust me"--that's not how it works.
A man of integrity would want--would INSIST--on proving his innocence. This isn't the first time Mann has fought disclosure of his work; it's for a reason.
Ferret
....but the lid's pretty much blown on the whole AGW false science anyway so it's a minor issue.
We know Mann long ago stopped doing real science in favor of becoming a climate zealot; the fact that he fought so hard to hide these emails is just contributory evidence...
Ferretman
Naturally it's the DEMOCRATS who are primarily responsible, but otherwise I tend to agree with you.
This is going to be a disaster if allowed to go through.
Ferret
Nice try, but you know that's not the reason. The mainstream media....NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR and basically every newspaper in the nation are hardcore in the tank for Obama. Do you *really* think that if they couldn't effectively pin this on the Republicans that they *wouldn't*? No, the reasons boil down to foolishness on the part of BOTH parties in Congress AND the President, and this would come out plain as day if anybody besides the financial radio shows were to talk about it (by the way, most of the financial shows are seeing this as THE major issue of the year, predicting moderate to severe recession if sequestration isn't stopped).
BOTH parties are the reason things aren't getting done, though I give kudos to the Republicans for *trying* (they keep passing bills that the Dems are too scared to even allow on the floor). BOTH parties are using this to demagogue, and BOTH parties are waiting out the election on the theory that they'll be able to dictate terms afterwards.
BOTH parties are responsible, and BOTH should have a severe drubbing.
Ferret
Not yet, but we'll get there.
Ferret
I see what you did there......
Ferret
I dare say I concur with you here.
It does seem as if the American (and to a lesser extent the European) approach usually involves "large sweeping solutions" when millions of "little" solutions can work more efficiently and more effectively. Part of this is, I think, the nature of the issue and those concerned about it--they feel that only if "the government does something" can it be solved, and by default that means a big program.
Then you get into who trusts individuals and who doesn't, and of course that's just a patina overlaying the whole thing.
IF one buys into the supposed need to sequester carbon then it's more efficiently done in a million little places rather than a couple of hundred *large* places. Rather like hog farming really....a few pigs raised on a farm for eventual slaughter doesn't overwhelm the local environment, whereas a million kept in a factory farm can destroy water supplies and lead to all kinds of funky new diseases.
In this particular case the technology needed to maintain Antarctic bases is appealing to me and I see more upside than downside to the proposal, but there's no reason why those intent on sequestering carbon couldn't do both. There's also been a great suggestion regarding fast-growing trees and stashing them in icy cold waters. Do'em all.
Ferret
Nah, the Dems just a.) completely backed/supported/voted for every one of those things and b.) completed failed to undo them when they had the reigns of power.
In other words, your partisanship is showing....
Ferret
I'd want to see some of the fiddly-bit details but this is already at the point I'd accept it whole-heartedly.
Good job Republicans!
Ferret