I'm aware of that. In fact, I already addressed it in my original comment. "Further, AGW proponents will point to the "fact" the the current CO2 levels exceed anything in the historical record (usually pointing to the data from Mauna Kea). I'd say that's persuasive, but not conclusively so: assuming that high levels of CO2 cause warming, then logically ice cores are only going to contain atmospheric samples up to a fairly low ambient temperature. The fact that petrified wood is also found in Antarctica would suggest that perhaps ice cores are only registering a cold-biased segment of the data."
I'd be interested to hear your response. As I stated, the fact that CO2 PPM is higher than Vostok *ever* records IS persuasive that we've entered some sort of novel temperature regime...but I was always taught that if you register a result on a test or measurement that falls outside the bounds of reasonable expectation (or measuring instrument) that meant you had to SERIOUSLY examine your method, your yardstick, or your interpretation before you extrapolate outside your hypothesized bounds. I thought about the Vostok data vs the Mauna Kea CO2 levels for quite a while, and of course realized that dishomogeneity *could* be one answer, but the consistency of the results over time (granted a certain level of 'noise') for me tends to suggest that given a broad enough data set, that dishomogeneity is probably ignorable.
But then I recognized (obviously) that ice is cold. If one asserts that CO2 causes warming (I'm not entirely convinced which is cause and which is effect, from my review of the minimally-interpreted raw data), then at a certain point global warming would logically cause warming to a point where ice no longer existed. Arguably, warming would not only destroy the extant record from times when it was warm, but there'd be a backward-erasing of the climate record of the years leading to warming, as solar energy would (in summers) melt top-layers of remaining extant ice. So not only are actual warming periods INVISIBLE to ice core samples, they likewise erase the times leading UP TO them.
By that logic, it seems irrefutable to me that the ice core data is strongly biased to only show generally cold periods - any time of actual major warming would simply no longer exist in that record.
I'm no climatologist, but I'm a little astonished that I came to what appears to be a novel conclusion. I've never read anything about a cold-era bias in ice cores anywhere, so either it's brutally obvious to everyone else (very likely I'm just slow), or I'm totally misunderstanding something (equally likely).
There will always be a demand for the Soviet-style centralized IT that RIM's system represents. It's the same old kind of mentality that insists "no personal calls on a business cell phone" or (heaven forbid) browsing the interwebs while on company time.
All the companies I know have either switched away from Blackberry, or at least opened their policies to say "get whatever phone-device you want, here's your budget, and tech-supporting it is your problem". Nobody, given that option, chooses Blackberry.
RIM will continue to be profitable, and actually their service will probably improve as the load on their systems decreases.
Look at the 'pulses' in CO2 and temperature every 120,000y or so. We're due for a pulse now, and we're getting one. Why is this a surprise?
Yes, AGW proponents will claim that the "rate-increase in CO2 is exceptional this time". However, I haven't seen that the Vostok ice cores have a reliable resolution down to centuries, certainly not the decade-detail that would be needed to confirm or refute such an assertion. Lacking a basis for comparison, such a statement is nothing more than a quasi-religious statement of belief.
Further, AGW proponents will point to the "fact" the the current CO2 levels exceed anything in the historical record (usually pointing to the data from Mauna Kea). I'd say that's persuasive, but not conclusively so: assuming that high levels of CO2 cause warming, then logically ice cores are only going to contain atmospheric samples up to a fairly low ambient temperature. The fact that petrified wood is also found in Antarctica would suggest that perhaps ice cores are only registering a cold-biased segment of the data.
In an area of science where experiments are hard to do, nature has given us 4 repetitions. The Vostock core clearly shows that when the temperature reaches 2ÂC a mechanism kicks in which sets the temperature falling again and initiates an ice-age. Since this mechanism has repeatedly worked well after 100,000 years of disuse, it seems to be robust.
Finally, we know that climactic conditions on Earth have been substantially warmer AND colder for long periods of time. Nothing we're experiencing here is outside planetary experience. It may (or may not) be suboptimal for humans and the current crop of lifeforms, but again something like 99% of all species ever existing are extinct today. We adapt or die. Humans are, as far as I'm aware, the most adaptable species we know of. I think we'll be fine.
Lest you think this is some sort of c'est la vie to environmental concerns, that's not true. I don't believe the world has to be ending to practice a 'don't shit where you live' philosophy. However, I simply don't believe that we need to prostrate ourselves before the altar of global warming trying like Lilliputians trying to fix climate to (what we think is) what's perfect for us, today.
Two points: 1) "Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now." Um, no. I'm a hardcore "denier" by eco-marxist standards, but I think his research is sound and (once it passes peer-review) will view this as reasonably conclusive. Warming is happening. Of course, one must be cautious about the terms one is discussing; eco-marxists since An Inconvenient Truth have trod a well-worn path in the field every time their assertions about AGW are criticized to busily shift the goalposts and claim "global warming is undeniable". I'm pretty certain that the 'denial' has been primarily about the A, not the GW bit.
2) "In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins." I find the astonished response to this hilarious. I know it's nearly impossible for the left to believe that 'deniers' sincerely, genuinely want the truth. I look forward to seeing more OPEN, TRANSPARENT analysis into the causes of warming.
Personally I expect that what we'll find is that indeed, humans are contributing to warming, but that the impact is nearly trivial, certainly less than the 'static' in the input of natural processes.
I'm not sure I understand why this is so complicated?
When you borrow money, isn't it logical to understand that you have to pay it back? If there is interest (as there usually is) you have to pay that back as well. Money isn't free.
When I bought my first (only) house, it seemed like we had to sign at least a couple of times confirming that we understood that in exchange for borrowing something around $100,000 we would have to pay around $300,000. (These were back in the days when a 7% interest rate was good.) It was the only point during the process when I actually physically hesitated, when I realized as a 25-year-old that I was committing to owe that staggering of an amount.
I signed my name to that, that I promised to pay it. Period.
Now, I see a lot of posts about 'predatory' lending. Simply, that's bullshit. Of COURSE your lender tries to get you to borrow more, they aren't a bloody charity. They're trying to make money.
Our loan officer was an idiot, she could barely work her calculator. So we double-checked every calculation, as well as confirming all the verbal statements were reflected in the documents. They kept telling us "you can afford more house" but we recognized that this was a serious matter and (here's the important bit) only an idiot would pay as much as they could afford leaving nothing in reserve.
Some here have posted that changes to the bankruptcy laws have made it difficult/impossible to discharge that debt. That indeed is probably the pernicious influence of debt-company lobbyists, and their government friends protecting them. Bankruptcy seems like it should remain an option, a 'reset' button for ones' financial existence...that just makes economic sense to allow someone to reset and hopefully become productive instead of desperate and hopeless. But the consequences of this reset need to be appropriately draconian, depending on the size of the default - the idea of multiple bankruptcies over a lifetime is absurd.
If people want to be exonerated from their loans, I'm fine with that. But what needs to happen is such exoneration needs to be accompanied by a personal admission of fault* and a prohibition on that person borrowing large sums for at least a decade. Yes this is draconian: If they were too stupid to understand the consequence of their commitments, that's fine, everyone makes mistakes. But the system equally needs to insulate these people from making the same mistake in the future.
*this would probably be the reason this idea would never fly; it seems passe that people be held personally accountable for their choices.
Humans have evolved a resistance to being shot in the head, it's just not a simple mechanical/physiological resistance.
It's called society.
And yes, I understand that's not what you meant - but my point is more to illustrate that coping strategies, patterns of behavior, and one might even suggest meta organizations like societies are just as clearly evolved (I very deliberately use that word) to reduce the likelihood of random violence, or at least an individual's susceptibility thereto.
I know that Social Contract theory is poo-poohed by 'serious philosophers' but to me it's inarguable that societies have evolved strategies to generally protect their members, and that cohesiveness is fostered by the expression of a collective set of values to which the members of the group can adhere/support.
The world doesn't have to be ending to practice "don't shit where you eat".
But... carbon-credit trading? That IS nothing more than a complete political scam netting Gore & his buddies $millions$. The fact that this doesn't bother the "corporate-scandal-hating" Left is simply a testimony to their tendentiousness.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae By STEPHEN LABATON
September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac â" which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt â" is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
âThere is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,â Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administrationâ(TM)s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companiesâ(TM) exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administrationâ(TM)s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
âThe current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,â Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. âWe have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,â the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
The fact that Barney Frank is gay is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.
The fact that he has had a long-term, stable, permanent sexual relationship with a senior executive at Fannie Mae - specifically, Herb Moses who was in charge of Fannie's subprime loans - is a HUGE conflict of interest. Frank was HEAD of the committee pushing to loosen oversight specifically on Fannie Mae.
All efforts by the Left to derail this as some sort of anti-gay rant are simply disingenuous. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, and they know it.
You tell me, if Karl Rove had been sleeping with a woman (or man) at Enron, that wouldn't have been a MAJOR news item? Yet somehow Barney's relationship never made it to the mainstream news.
government decides to vomit money in effort to save economy. + scam artists concoct company to score off this free money by forming company. + company evaporates with $500 million of guaranteed gov't loans in 2 years. + everyone points fingers. + government announces new piles of money being shoveled at a problem + someone references the issue = flamebait!
Bush's budget issued in 2001 warned that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were overleveraged, and said that they needed tighter controls, oversight, and a host of reforms because "their failure could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity".
D Senator Chris Dodd threatened to filibuster to block it. D Congressman Barney Frank (who was sleeping with a senior exec at Fannie Mae, coincidentally) claimed the subprime system at Fannie Mae was "fundamentally sound" and the idea it needed reforms "inane".
Nobody saw this coming? No, it was pretty clearly that some people saw it coming but the system is so totally politicized that anything anyone is predictably responded-to according to the following algorithm: 1) who said it? 2) how is he affiliated? 3) are my affiliations in opposition? 4) if they are, I oppose whatever was said.
Really, that's all that's left of intellect inside the beltway.
There's a quote in the article "Conventional U.S. geothermal production has been restricted largely to the western third of the country in geographically unique and tectonically active locations."
If you look at the map, it's abundantly clear why. Until recently, geothermal tech required fairly hot temps to be useful; the map shows that all of the areas where it would work well were predictably in the western third of the country.
That was nicely done, particularly the summary video http://berkeleyearth.org/movies.php. I'm glad we can consider the question on 'warming' settled.
Oh wait, that was only a peripheral question. Most 'deniers' I know conceded that in fact the globe probably WAS warming - although this well-done study pretty much removes any question.
Of course, it's a big step from "this is happening" to "this is WHY this is happening", and an ever-larger conceptual step to "this is what we all agree should be done about it".
1) Considering you say you "spent 2 years serving my country, 6 of them getting shot in Kandahar" I'm going to guess your math skills might be why had trouble finding a job.
2) You relocated to DC Metro...for why? Lowest unemployment not quite - US average 9.1%, Washington DC is 10.9%. Assuming you meant Arlington, etc sure, the unemployment rates are low, but there are a lot of reasons for that that have nothing to do with availability of jobs - could be that it's so damn expensive, the unemployed are forced out quickly. Personally, considering how easy the internet has made wide-ranging search and communication, the idea of moving to a place and THEN expecting to find a job there is fairly retarded. There are GIANT sections of this country between the Rockies and the Mississippi where unemployment is far below national average. Hint: jobs are in the blue states. I wonder why?
3) according to indeed.com, here's the breakdown of available EE jobs, and salaries - $40,000+ (42273) $60,000+ (29111) $80,000+ (13183) $100,000+ (4918) $120,000+ (1839) Those are pretty damn good salaries. I don't give a flying shit what your peers were offered 5 years and a different economy ago, and honestly, it shouldn't matter to you unless your main goal is self-pity.
4) I don't disagree with you about the bullshit bailouts. So why are you protesting Wall Street? We have elected representatives and big fat books of laws that were supposed to be regulating this. You're protesting wolves being wolves, when the guys we elected to watch the wolves are either entirely asleep (or worse, mating with them). Point your anger at the problem.
I respect your service. I think your choices so far (aside from an EE degree) sucked. That's not Wall Street's fault.
Successful, unchallenged capitalism makes the population so safe, so indolent, so comfortable, so well-off that it literally breeds away ambition, determination, and self-reliance.
Watching OWS protests, where we have largely a population of educated middle-class or higher kids (who are staggeringly wealthy by any world standard), who have spent their lives: - getting everything they need, and pretty much everything they want - have never known hunger - have always been basically healthy - have never seen war except as volunteers, which is pretty damn unlikely anyway (more importantly, have never faced the ravage of war across their homes)
For them, the idea that this gravy-train may stop or even be impaired is nearly inconceivable. No wonder the concept is nigh unto catastrophe. Of course, real people - people with some actual life under their belts - know that the bulk of their whinging is laughable.
Now, I'll credit them with saying (at least at first) publicly what normal people DO agree with: that the bankers and financiers whose shenanigans caused this financial crisis should NOT have been bailed out, and need to be punished to the extent of the damage they've caused. In fact, I'd love it if they were truly, biblically decimated.
Of COURSE, they also don't really understand what the real consequences of significant bank failures would have meant (see the points above), but ignorance is bliss, I guess.
I suppose it makes me a radical that I believe that the survival of the republic really required these failures. Like a forest where all fires are prevented, we've allowed socialist safety nets to suppress the normal consequences of failure so long that the next one that happens may truly be catastrophic (this one would have been borderline). But in the same sense that you can't forever prevent fires, you can't forever protect people from the consequences of their choices. That tension WILL COME OUT.
Maybe we'll finally have to recognize that leaving retirement age at 62 and guaranteeing government support for people in their increasingly-long elder years, regardless of what they paid in to the system, is unsustainable?
Nah, because if we live to 150, all the damn congressmen are going to be 135 anyway.
Do they do something as simple as draw a circle, measure the radius and back-calculate to pi (in which case I can't see getting past about 1000 digits before measurement error would exceed the calculated precision anyway), and it's irrational so (as far as I know) it's not as simple as taking 22/7 and letting it run to the trillionth decimal place....so what calculation do they do to get to the trillionth+ decimal place?
Actually, I'm happy to reply because as dismissive as I am of the protests, I believe that the frustration they represent is at least worth rational discourse.
"Your accusations regarding the protesters' hygiene habits and the crass lack of consideration for others that you are exhibiting does absolutely nothing to refute the point which is being made by these protests" No, it doesn't refute the point, and if you read my comment (instead of working up to a boiling rage) you'd see that I wasn't doing so...yet. It DOES attack the efficacy of these protests. Their lack of hygiene (when there is no lack of resources to deal with it) points ENTIRELY to their inherent narcissism, and it's pretty obvious that any group of staunch narcissists is going to have trouble accomplishing anything collectively. Self sacrifice? Dedication over the long term? Commitment? Considering that pretty much most of the protesters are unmarried, un- (or under-) employed, students....they've to-date demonstrated none of the characteristics to pursue and achieve long-term change. They have fervor, congratulations. Fervor is ephemeral.
"Well, I can see how the government and corporations will do their best to derail this movement, but I seriously doubt that "the bulk of the populace will be against you"." You pretty clearly misunderstand my point. I'm just describing what's going to happen...not advocating it. Well, maybe I *am* looking forward to some firehoses. A little bit. The point you miss (and they miss, although I'm pretty sure they is you anyway) is how grossly you misunderstand the "99%" you believe you represent. These "99%"ers have families, jobs, and responsibilities such that they NEED the system to continue working. A shitty job or three is better than no job, when you have actual responsibilities and lives depending on your earning power.
For me, the fact that you're occupying Wall Street and not Pennsylvania Ave suggests that you don't understand where the problem lies, and really are just the same leftists trotting out the same tired anti-capitalist cliches that were equally misguided 50 years ago. You want to attack the root of the problem? Attack the lawmakers whose inattention (or worse, their ability to be bought off) allowed it to go off the rails. How about if I pointed out a senior congressman on the House Financial Services committee who was sleeping for years with a senior exec with Fannie Mae (the one specifically responsible for subprime mortgages)?
Of course, he's a Democrat and gay, so double-untouchable for your protests, right? That you guys are protesting a bunch of bond-traders and letting that guy off scot-free, well, your tendentiousness is showing.
I'm not "Native" American - despite being a 4th generation born-here resident - according to the US Government and their 'free tuition' policy. I'm safe.
1) you're anonymous, congratulations on the courage of your convictions. 2) SUGGEST SOMETHING BETTER. Seriously. I agree, a system biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful sucks (unless you are one). But please, identify a single time in history in which humans were organized into political entities above the hearth that it wasn't so? Even a barbarian Dark Ages clan structure had the clan chief (invariably male), his thanes, and there was some cottar grumbling about how they all get the best cuts of meat, the best land, and the hot chicks.
A bunch of patchoulli-stinking young adults polluting a sidewalk in front of some financial buildings is going to accomplish nothing, particularly when their gross hypocrisy is so evident (campaigning against greedy corporations? Organize that on your iPhone did you? Or maybe on Facebook?). They're nothing more than the bachelor lions yowling in the night because THEY don't get a comfortable place to sleep and nobody to breed with.
And if you're really going to protest - I mean seriously try to bring the system down - understand that the full weight and force of our government, well, every government, business, and the bulk of the populace will be against you (violently so, in direct proportion to your success) as they have every reason to protect the status quo.
Or perhaps raging anonymously on an internet posting is the most you can manage. It's not an insult; that's pretty much all anyone can really manage.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware of that. In fact, I already addressed it in my original comment.
"Further, AGW proponents will point to the "fact" the the current CO2 levels exceed anything in the historical record (usually pointing to the data from Mauna Kea). I'd say that's persuasive, but not conclusively so: assuming that high levels of CO2 cause warming, then logically ice cores are only going to contain atmospheric samples up to a fairly low ambient temperature. The fact that petrified wood is also found in Antarctica would suggest that perhaps ice cores are only registering a cold-biased segment of the data."
I'd be interested to hear your response. As I stated, the fact that CO2 PPM is higher than Vostok *ever* records IS persuasive that we've entered some sort of novel temperature regime...but I was always taught that if you register a result on a test or measurement that falls outside the bounds of reasonable expectation (or measuring instrument) that meant you had to SERIOUSLY examine your method, your yardstick, or your interpretation before you extrapolate outside your hypothesized bounds.
I thought about the Vostok data vs the Mauna Kea CO2 levels for quite a while, and of course realized that dishomogeneity *could* be one answer, but the consistency of the results over time (granted a certain level of 'noise') for me tends to suggest that given a broad enough data set, that dishomogeneity is probably ignorable.
But then I recognized (obviously) that ice is cold. If one asserts that CO2 causes warming (I'm not entirely convinced which is cause and which is effect, from my review of the minimally-interpreted raw data), then at a certain point global warming would logically cause warming to a point where ice no longer existed. Arguably, warming would not only destroy the extant record from times when it was warm, but there'd be a backward-erasing of the climate record of the years leading to warming, as solar energy would (in summers) melt top-layers of remaining extant ice. So not only are actual warming periods INVISIBLE to ice core samples, they likewise erase the times leading UP TO them.
By that logic, it seems irrefutable to me that the ice core data is strongly biased to only show generally cold periods - any time of actual major warming would simply no longer exist in that record.
I'm no climatologist, but I'm a little astonished that I came to what appears to be a novel conclusion. I've never read anything about a cold-era bias in ice cores anywhere, so either it's brutally obvious to everyone else (very likely I'm just slow), or I'm totally misunderstanding something (equally likely).
I'd bet you could get a government subsidy for developing this file system.
Bonus points (from the gov'ts point of view) if you could set the delete-date to be file-creation date.
There will always be a demand for the Soviet-style centralized IT that RIM's system represents. It's the same old kind of mentality that insists "no personal calls on a business cell phone" or (heaven forbid) browsing the interwebs while on company time.
All the companies I know have either switched away from Blackberry, or at least opened their policies to say "get whatever phone-device you want, here's your budget, and tech-supporting it is your problem". Nobody, given that option, chooses Blackberry.
RIM will continue to be profitable, and actually their service will probably improve as the load on their systems decreases.
Please, point to a time in history when the climate wasn't changing.
I'll point to what I point to every time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Look at the 'pulses' in CO2 and temperature every 120,000y or so.
We're due for a pulse now, and we're getting one. Why is this a surprise?
Yes, AGW proponents will claim that the "rate-increase in CO2 is exceptional this time". However, I haven't seen that the Vostok ice cores have a reliable resolution down to centuries, certainly not the decade-detail that would be needed to confirm or refute such an assertion. Lacking a basis for comparison, such a statement is nothing more than a quasi-religious statement of belief.
Further, AGW proponents will point to the "fact" the the current CO2 levels exceed anything in the historical record (usually pointing to the data from Mauna Kea). I'd say that's persuasive, but not conclusively so: assuming that high levels of CO2 cause warming, then logically ice cores are only going to contain atmospheric samples up to a fairly low ambient temperature. The fact that petrified wood is also found in Antarctica would suggest that perhaps ice cores are only registering a cold-biased segment of the data.
A *great* analysis of global warming, particularly in regards the ice-core data is here: http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2009/01/vostok-ice-core-interpretation.html
To pull out one of many interesting points:
Finally, we know that climactic conditions on Earth have been substantially warmer AND colder for long periods of time. Nothing we're experiencing here is outside planetary experience. It may (or may not) be suboptimal for humans and the current crop of lifeforms, but again something like 99% of all species ever existing are extinct today. We adapt or die. Humans are, as far as I'm aware, the most adaptable species we know of. I think we'll be fine.
Lest you think this is some sort of c'est la vie to environmental concerns, that's not true. I don't believe the world has to be ending to practice a 'don't shit where you live' philosophy. However, I simply don't believe that we need to prostrate ourselves before the altar of global warming trying like Lilliputians trying to fix climate to (what we think is) what's perfect for us, today.
Regards,
A Denier.
Already reported 10/21
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/21/1239258/global-warming-confirmed-by-independent-study
Two points:
1) "Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."
Um, no. I'm a hardcore "denier" by eco-marxist standards, but I think his research is sound and (once it passes peer-review) will view this as reasonably conclusive. Warming is happening. Of course, one must be cautious about the terms one is discussing; eco-marxists since An Inconvenient Truth have trod a well-worn path in the field every time their assertions about AGW are criticized to busily shift the goalposts and claim "global warming is undeniable". I'm pretty certain that the 'denial' has been primarily about the A, not the GW bit.
2) "In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins."
I find the astonished response to this hilarious. I know it's nearly impossible for the left to believe that 'deniers' sincerely, genuinely want the truth. I look forward to seeing more OPEN, TRANSPARENT analysis into the causes of warming.
Personally I expect that what we'll find is that indeed, humans are contributing to warming, but that the impact is nearly trivial, certainly less than the 'static' in the input of natural processes.
I'm not sure I understand why this is so complicated?
When you borrow money, isn't it logical to understand that you have to pay it back?
If there is interest (as there usually is) you have to pay that back as well. Money isn't free.
When I bought my first (only) house, it seemed like we had to sign at least a couple of times confirming that we understood that in exchange for borrowing something around $100,000 we would have to pay around $300,000. (These were back in the days when a 7% interest rate was good.) It was the only point during the process when I actually physically hesitated, when I realized as a 25-year-old that I was committing to owe that staggering of an amount.
I signed my name to that, that I promised to pay it. Period.
Now, I see a lot of posts about 'predatory' lending. Simply, that's bullshit.
Of COURSE your lender tries to get you to borrow more, they aren't a bloody charity. They're trying to make money.
Our loan officer was an idiot, she could barely work her calculator. So we double-checked every calculation, as well as confirming all the verbal statements were reflected in the documents. They kept telling us "you can afford more house" but we recognized that this was a serious matter and (here's the important bit) only an idiot would pay as much as they could afford leaving nothing in reserve.
Some here have posted that changes to the bankruptcy laws have made it difficult/impossible to discharge that debt. That indeed is probably the pernicious influence of debt-company lobbyists, and their government friends protecting them. Bankruptcy seems like it should remain an option, a 'reset' button for ones' financial existence...that just makes economic sense to allow someone to reset and hopefully become productive instead of desperate and hopeless. But the consequences of this reset need to be appropriately draconian, depending on the size of the default - the idea of multiple bankruptcies over a lifetime is absurd.
If people want to be exonerated from their loans, I'm fine with that. But what needs to happen is such exoneration needs to be accompanied by a personal admission of fault* and a prohibition on that person borrowing large sums for at least a decade. Yes this is draconian: If they were too stupid to understand the consequence of their commitments, that's fine, everyone makes mistakes. But the system equally needs to insulate these people from making the same mistake in the future.
*this would probably be the reason this idea would never fly; it seems passe that people be held personally accountable for their choices.
Humans have evolved a resistance to being shot in the head, it's just not a simple mechanical/physiological resistance.
It's called society.
And yes, I understand that's not what you meant - but my point is more to illustrate that coping strategies, patterns of behavior, and one might even suggest meta organizations like societies are just as clearly evolved (I very deliberately use that word) to reduce the likelihood of random violence, or at least an individual's susceptibility thereto.
I know that Social Contract theory is poo-poohed by 'serious philosophers' but to me it's inarguable that societies have evolved strategies to generally protect their members, and that cohesiveness is fostered by the expression of a collective set of values to which the members of the group can adhere/support.
Exactly this.
The world doesn't have to be ending to practice "don't shit where you eat".
But ... carbon-credit trading? That IS nothing more than a complete political scam netting Gore & his buddies $millions$. The fact that this doesn't bother the "corporate-scandal-hating" Left is simply a testimony to their tendentiousness.
I too don't have time to dig into the actual budget docs to find the warnings.
But here's a biased source that DOES quote a center-center-left source, the NYT, in contemporary reports.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance
From http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
The fact that Barney Frank is gay is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.
The fact that he has had a long-term, stable, permanent sexual relationship with a senior executive at Fannie Mae - specifically, Herb Moses who was in charge of Fannie's subprime loans - is a HUGE conflict of interest. Frank was HEAD of the committee pushing to loosen oversight specifically on Fannie Mae.
All efforts by the Left to derail this as some sort of anti-gay rant are simply disingenuous. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, and they know it.
You tell me, if Karl Rove had been sleeping with a woman (or man) at Enron, that wouldn't have been a MAJOR news item? Yet somehow Barney's relationship never made it to the mainstream news.
LOL I love Slashdot.
government decides to vomit money in effort to save economy.
+ scam artists concoct company to score off this free money by forming company.
+ company evaporates with $500 million of guaranteed gov't loans in 2 years.
+ everyone points fingers.
+ government announces new piles of money being shoveled at a problem
+ someone references the issue
= flamebait!
Bush's budget issued in 2001 warned that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were overleveraged, and said that they needed tighter controls, oversight, and a host of reforms because "their failure could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity".
D Senator Chris Dodd threatened to filibuster to block it.
D Congressman Barney Frank (who was sleeping with a senior exec at Fannie Mae, coincidentally) claimed the subprime system at Fannie Mae was "fundamentally sound" and the idea it needed reforms "inane".
Nobody saw this coming? No, it was pretty clearly that some people saw it coming but the system is so totally politicized that anything anyone is predictably responded-to according to the following algorithm:
1) who said it?
2) how is he affiliated?
3) are my affiliations in opposition?
4) if they are, I oppose whatever was said.
Really, that's all that's left of intellect inside the beltway.
That's awesome, I'm going to start a new Solar Power company to assist in this research effort.
What should I call it...I was thinking "Solyndra" since that's no longer being used?
There's a quote in the article "Conventional U.S. geothermal production has been restricted largely to the western third of the country in geographically unique and tectonically active locations."
If you look at the map, it's abundantly clear why. Until recently, geothermal tech required fairly hot temps to be useful; the map shows that all of the areas where it would work well were predictably in the western third of the country.
Full map direct link at http://www.smu.edu/News/2011/~/media/Images/News/2011/Fall%202011/geothermal-UnitedStates-google-SMUlogo-14oct2011.ashx
They list 1318 firms, and then 147 super-connected...and then (arbitrarily) only list the top 50.
Their report is at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
Why the top 50? Was there some discontinuity in control that made 50 a relatively discrete bunch? Is #51 significantly different than #49?
Where's the rest of the list?
That was nicely done, particularly the summary video http://berkeleyearth.org/movies.php. I'm glad we can consider the question on 'warming' settled.
Oh wait, that was only a peripheral question. Most 'deniers' I know conceded that in fact the globe probably WAS warming - although this well-done study pretty much removes any question.
Of course, it's a big step from "this is happening" to "this is WHY this is happening", and an ever-larger conceptual step to "this is what we all agree should be done about it".
Want me to dissect your whine?
1) Considering you say you "spent 2 years serving my country, 6 of them getting shot in Kandahar" I'm going to guess your math skills might be why had trouble finding a job.
2) You relocated to DC Metro...for why? Lowest unemployment not quite - US average 9.1%, Washington DC is 10.9%. Assuming you meant Arlington, etc sure, the unemployment rates are low, but there are a lot of reasons for that that have nothing to do with availability of jobs - could be that it's so damn expensive, the unemployed are forced out quickly. Personally, considering how easy the internet has made wide-ranging search and communication, the idea of moving to a place and THEN expecting to find a job there is fairly retarded. There are GIANT sections of this country between the Rockies and the Mississippi where unemployment is far below national average. Hint: jobs are in the blue states. I wonder why?
3) according to indeed.com, here's the breakdown of available EE jobs, and salaries -
$40,000+ (42273)
$60,000+ (29111)
$80,000+ (13183)
$100,000+ (4918)
$120,000+ (1839)
Those are pretty damn good salaries. I don't give a flying shit what your peers were offered 5 years and a different economy ago, and honestly, it shouldn't matter to you unless your main goal is self-pity.
4) I don't disagree with you about the bullshit bailouts. So why are you protesting Wall Street? We have elected representatives and big fat books of laws that were supposed to be regulating this. You're protesting wolves being wolves, when the guys we elected to watch the wolves are either entirely asleep (or worse, mating with them). Point your anger at the problem.
I respect your service. I think your choices so far (aside from an EE degree) sucked. That's not Wall Street's fault.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/10/19/who-is-occupying-wall-street-a-pollster-surveys-protester/
Successful, unchallenged capitalism makes the population so safe, so indolent, so comfortable, so well-off that it literally breeds away ambition, determination, and self-reliance.
Watching OWS protests, where we have largely a population of educated middle-class or higher kids (who are staggeringly wealthy by any world standard), who have spent their lives:
- getting everything they need, and pretty much everything they want
- have never known hunger
- have always been basically healthy
- have never seen war except as volunteers, which is pretty damn unlikely anyway (more importantly, have never faced the ravage of war across their homes)
For them, the idea that this gravy-train may stop or even be impaired is nearly inconceivable. No wonder the concept is nigh unto catastrophe. Of course, real people - people with some actual life under their belts - know that the bulk of their whinging is laughable.
Now, I'll credit them with saying (at least at first) publicly what normal people DO agree with: that the bankers and financiers whose shenanigans caused this financial crisis should NOT have been bailed out, and need to be punished to the extent of the damage they've caused. In fact, I'd love it if they were truly, biblically decimated.
Of COURSE, they also don't really understand what the real consequences of significant bank failures would have meant (see the points above), but ignorance is bliss, I guess.
I suppose it makes me a radical that I believe that the survival of the republic really required these failures. Like a forest where all fires are prevented, we've allowed socialist safety nets to suppress the normal consequences of failure so long that the next one that happens may truly be catastrophic (this one would have been borderline). But in the same sense that you can't forever prevent fires, you can't forever protect people from the consequences of their choices. That tension WILL COME OUT.
Maybe we'll finally have to recognize that leaving retirement age at 62 and guaranteeing government support for people in their increasingly-long elder years, regardless of what they paid in to the system, is unsustainable?
Nah, because if we live to 150, all the damn congressmen are going to be 135 anyway.
....but how is this done, basically?
Do they do something as simple as draw a circle, measure the radius and back-calculate to pi (in which case I can't see getting past about 1000 digits before measurement error would exceed the calculated precision anyway), and it's irrational so (as far as I know) it's not as simple as taking 22/7 and letting it run to the trillionth decimal place....so what calculation do they do to get to the trillionth+ decimal place?
Thanks for the reply.
Actually, I'm happy to reply because as dismissive as I am of the protests, I believe that the frustration they represent is at least worth rational discourse.
"Your accusations regarding the protesters' hygiene habits and the crass lack of consideration for others that you are exhibiting does absolutely nothing to refute the point which is being made by these protests"
No, it doesn't refute the point, and if you read my comment (instead of working up to a boiling rage) you'd see that I wasn't doing so...yet. It DOES attack the efficacy of these protests. Their lack of hygiene (when there is no lack of resources to deal with it) points ENTIRELY to their inherent narcissism, and it's pretty obvious that any group of staunch narcissists is going to have trouble accomplishing anything collectively. Self sacrifice? Dedication over the long term? Commitment? Considering that pretty much most of the protesters are unmarried, un- (or under-) employed, students....they've to-date demonstrated none of the characteristics to pursue and achieve long-term change. They have fervor, congratulations. Fervor is ephemeral.
"...Regarding your meaningless abuse of the worn-out cliché of "OMG THEY USE IPHONES!!1!1!ONE!",..." Considering your inability to see the hypocrisy here, you're pretty much blind to irony. Yeah, they're using iPhones....pretty nearly the most *expensive* communication device you can buy. They're sleeping in (relatively new) tents and sleeping bags made in China, by grossly exploited workers. Being forced by circumstance to support your purported enemies is one thing. Cheerfully supporting the largest corporation in the world by buying their grossly overpriced flagship item? Really?
"Well, I can see how the government and corporations will do their best to derail this movement, but I seriously doubt that "the bulk of the populace will be against you"."
You pretty clearly misunderstand my point. I'm just describing what's going to happen...not advocating it. Well, maybe I *am* looking forward to some firehoses. A little bit. The point you miss (and they miss, although I'm pretty sure they is you anyway) is how grossly you misunderstand the "99%" you believe you represent.
These "99%"ers have families, jobs, and responsibilities such that they NEED the system to continue working. A shitty job or three is better than no job, when you have actual responsibilities and lives depending on your earning power.
For me, the fact that you're occupying Wall Street and not Pennsylvania Ave suggests that you don't understand where the problem lies, and really are just the same leftists trotting out the same tired anti-capitalist cliches that were equally misguided 50 years ago. You want to attack the root of the problem? Attack the lawmakers whose inattention (or worse, their ability to be bought off) allowed it to go off the rails. How about if I pointed out a senior congressman on the House Financial Services committee who was sleeping for years with a senior exec with Fannie Mae (the one specifically responsible for subprime mortgages)?
Of course, he's a Democrat and gay, so double-untouchable for your protests, right? That you guys are protesting a bunch of bond-traders and letting that guy off scot-free, well, your tendentiousness is showing.
I'm not "Native" American - despite being a 4th generation born-here resident - according to the US Government and their 'free tuition' policy. I'm safe.
Et tu, autocthones?
1) you're anonymous, congratulations on the courage of your convictions.
2) SUGGEST SOMETHING BETTER. Seriously. I agree, a system biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful sucks (unless you are one). But please, identify a single time in history in which humans were organized into political entities above the hearth that it wasn't so? Even a barbarian Dark Ages clan structure had the clan chief (invariably male), his thanes, and there was some cottar grumbling about how they all get the best cuts of meat, the best land, and the hot chicks.
A bunch of patchoulli-stinking young adults polluting a sidewalk in front of some financial buildings is going to accomplish nothing, particularly when their gross hypocrisy is so evident (campaigning against greedy corporations? Organize that on your iPhone did you? Or maybe on Facebook?). They're nothing more than the bachelor lions yowling in the night because THEY don't get a comfortable place to sleep and nobody to breed with.
And if you're really going to protest - I mean seriously try to bring the system down - understand that the full weight and force of our government, well, every government, business, and the bulk of the populace will be against you (violently so, in direct proportion to your success) as they have every reason to protect the status quo.
Or perhaps raging anonymously on an internet posting is the most you can manage. It's not an insult; that's pretty much all anyone can really manage.
Let me see if I understand the logic:
Indians deforested continent.
Columbus comes.
Indians die.
Forests grow back.
Temperature plummets.
Little Ice Age appears.
The only logical conclusion is that we're supposed to start slaughtering indigenous peoples again?
I mean, sure, if science says we have to.
I think it would be great to hack these, and then remotely trigger them for laughs.
Yeah, for some things I'll take the old-fashioned mechanical control systems.