Translation: blah blah blah I made a lot of money blah blah blah people are stupid (except me) blah blah blah I'm a pothead.
Could have saved a lot of people a lot of time with just the summary.
"Farewell notes", unless specific, positive, and heartfelt - (Dear George, you were really a fantastic coworker, and I'm proud to have worked with you...) are simply ego masturbation of one form or another. Long-winded erudition just means you're boring AND egocentric.
He DID say that the mouseclicks measurement was somewhat flippant.
And given his conclusion: "Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term." I'd say it's the summary that "Ubuntu WIPES Win7" fails, not the report itself.
The whole space weapons ban was a farce when it was signed, why would that be any different now? Aside from the FOBS system developed in 1966 and deployed in 1968 (the Space Weapons treaty was signed in 1967, I believe):
"...Nor were the anti-space-weapons treaty advocates anywhere to be seen in the face of other Russian orbital weapons: hardware built to go into space and operate there, not just merely fly up and down on earth-launched vertical sorties. The Russians built an orbital anti-satellite system that apologists pooh-poohed as "unreliable". The Russians put an air-to-air cannon on a manned spacecraft in order to kill astronauts who got too close--not a peep from the "weapons-free space" crowd. In 1987 the USSR launched the 80-ton Skif-DM, what was to be the first in a series of "space battle stations" to carry a 1-megawatt carbon-dioxide laser into orbit for anti-missile and anti-satellite tests, while preparing the Kaskad cruisers to be armed with space-to-space missiles tested on Progress missions--no objections ever recorded from keep-space-free-of-weapons advocates."
(http://www.thespacereview.com/article/744/1)
To suggest that space will NOT be a field of conflict is naive to the degree of the papal ban on crossbows in the middle ages, or the early calls to prevent the arming of aircraft. To claim unilaterally that the US *won't* do it will eventually be seen as the 21st century equivalent of "not reading other gentlemen's mail".
It seems like you're denigrating the congresspeople who struggle with these issues particularly because of their religious faith? Your answer to their questions seems to be "well duh, of COURSE they have rights!"
"Well duh" one might have said of blacks in the 19th century. "Of COURSE they have human rights."
"Well duh" one might have said of women in the 18th century. "Of COURSE they have human rights."
"Well duh" one might have said of anyone non-European in the 17th century. "Of COURSE they have human rights."
See, flippancy aside, humans of all types have a pretty SHITTY track record in extending their definition of "us" to include "them". One might point out that by simply TRYING to cross human and animal genotypes without even much or any debate on the subject regarding what would happen if the results were viable, these scientists already illustrated that they don't particularly care for the moral ramifications, but simply see the 'results' as test subjects whose context as people, or partially people, as irrelevant. And the objectification of someone is the first step toward dehumanization and amoral treatment.
Heaven forbid that some people have (on whatever basis, be it religion, philosophy, or the FSM) a moral compass and stick to it.
I see a lot of posts desperately denigrating the accomplishment by changing the terms of the comparison to per-capita or per km2.
Really? Because then if we don't want to be hypocrites, then we need to use per-capita, per-GNP$, or per-km2 output of pollution when demonizing the US as well, shouldn't we?
US pop 303 million DE pop 82 million Non US world: 6403 million
US vs Germany and Rest of World Annual CO2 Emissions in 000's of tons: US: 19t per capita Germany: 10t NonUS: 3t
GNP per capita US $45,000 Germany: $34,000 NonUS: $6000...so, while we can see that Germany is much more admirable individually than the US in terms of CO2 output per capita (around 50%), this 'efficiency' starts to disappear when you realize they're only producing about 75% of what each American produced. Still more efficient (and that's a good thing!) but not quite so cut and dried.
And then, when you see that compared to the rest of the world, the US is producing 7.5x the wealth per person, while only producing 6x the CO2 emissions, one might conclude that perhaps there are other states more worthy of demonization than the US.
(By the way, China per capita CO2 and GNP are 3t and $2444...about 5% of the productivity (of the US) at 16% of the CO2.)
Your breathless criticisms would be a lot more credible if your facts were straight.
Nixon resigned in 1972. The Soviets didn't invade/move into (depending on your PoV) until 1980.
There was President Ford, then President Carter, before President REAGAN whose administration was supplying arms to the Afghans.
I suppose it's hard to keep your 'evil Republicans' straight, I mean, all those old white dudes pretty much look alike.
Further, despite hyperbole, I don't think the US has made threats to obliterate countries, seized any embassies recently, nor supplied terrorist groups that are actually attempting genocide.
They're the stupidest creatures on God's earth, except (perhaps) domestic turkeys.
In a burning building? They don't leave. Rest of the flock is walking into a gully (essentially, off a small cliff)...just follow along. Oh, and when they get into said trouble, they tend to BLEAT WILDLY.
I use the comparison in PRECISELY this sense.
When every news station is saying "CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE APPROACHING" and (in the first place) I live BELOW SEA LEVEL, I don't think it's extraordinarily insightful thinking that's required to evacuate.
I was in no sense advocating the sort of 'survivalist' approach you seemed to read into my post. What I was pointing at was entire neighborhoods (it seemed to be groupthink, from this outsider's view) disregarding warnings until it was well past too late, then complaining about the circumstances their idiocy left them in. The barrage of looting that took place suggests that any rational calculus that took place was based on a HOPEFUL breakdown of the rule of law and amoral opportunism, more than anything.
Yes, perhaps the "American People are Sheep" analogy is overused. This doesn't make it wrong (cf. Congressional Re-election Rates). Simply because something is distasteful isn't in itself a criticism of its utility.
"Just like Katrina, we know this natural disaster is probably coming, like Katrina, we know its likely to be big and therefore affect many folks."
And just like Katrina, anyone too stupid to look after their own behinds and expect the government to come save them is an idiot who probably is due for a Darwinistic culling.
Be intelligent. Prepare yourself. Evacuate as YOUR judgement suggests is reasonable, and understand that the consequences for being wrong could be severe, so you might want to err on the side of caution.
What shamed me as an American during Katrina wasn't the much-publicized "failure" of Bush and co. No, what disgusted me was that in a society with free public education to age 18, widespread information-distribution technology, and AMPLE transportation resources, we have apparently bred a new generation of sheep, er, Americans with no interest in helping their fellow-man, so dependent and with so little motivation that even self-preservation can't get them to lift a finger in their own interest.
You are falling into the Cassandra trap - some things are bad, ergo everything is a disaster, everything is ending.
I bet that in 20 years we won't be feeding 7 billion, we'll be feeding 8.5 billion (we'll need to) and STILL starvation will have more to do with governments and flawed distribution systems than an actual shortage of food. And I bet OVERWEIGHT will be an endemic health problem no longer in the first world but almost universally through the 2nd and probably 3rd worlds.
Why does everyone seem to think that NOW is so much different from THEN?
Just about any credible source agrees that current instances of starvation are due to distribution systems and the failings of certain governments, NOT in *any* way because there's a shortage of food. So pretty much *FAIL* on your point there.
No, what the doomsayers and ecomarxists cheerfully disregard is that humans are clearly the most adaptable and accomodating creatures that have apparently ever lived on this planet. Where a flood (or a parking lot, or a powerplant) can wipe out an ecosystem and spell the end for a species of guppy or worm or deer, people can simply move. Ecosystems change.
"The situation seemed dire. In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan's third-story windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of almost unimaginable dimensions loomed."
Seen Washington DC lately? By pretty much all measures, it's been roof-deep in horseshit since at LEAST the 1950's.
OK, FFS can we stop linking to the BULLSHIT 16 paragraph=16 page articles that are meant to maximize web traffic? PLEASE?
Jesus, please: just copy the damn printable link and get it all on one page.
Slashdot is a fairly heavy-traffic site. You have the throw weight discourage this HORRIBLE style of web page design.
If the print-summary page isn't available then link the CONCLUSIONS page...readers who are smart enough to parse what WinMark scores are can *probably* figure out how to get back to the detail pages.
C'mon, this is nothing more than an ad for Rifftrax online broadcast.
1) it's nothing special. Rifftrax has been going for a while. 2) It's not "the original stars", which would be the bulk of the original cast - it's about half of them.
"Criminalize nature all you like, but it will not change nature." So, does that apply to murder (and general violence against other humans) - arguably nearly as common as sex? That should be decriminalized?
That's just a foolish argument, based as much on personal morality as the absurdity that is our current conservative anti-porn legislation.
No, the irony here is that the superconservatives and ultraliberals are actually in the same ethical boat here: both back the use of the government and legislation to 'form' peoples' behavior in ways that they feel are "right"...from the absurd prosecution of some teen chick that takes a picture of her own boob to send to her boyfriend, to the legitimization of tenuous assertions of global warming to begin the implementation of a eco-marxist agenda that they've been trying to push with Chicken-Little predictions of doom since the 70s.
The answer to BOTH is: piss off. The founding fathers proposed a de minimus role for federal government, leaving the execution of daily laws to the most LOCAL authorities, in LOCAL contexts, and (most importantly) subject to the democratic control of the LOCAL populace.
Leave it to the locality to decide if by their standards this is prosecuteable. If that community thinks so, it affects them and them alone, and people can (presumably) leave. If that community feels it's NOT a case of child abuse, then they can ignore it and need not prosecute.
Problem solved. Get government out of our daily lives.
"What, Americans make up only 5% of the world population? (10% by body mass)"
Or 25% by GDP.
Everyone remembers how fat Americans are, they seem to conveniently forget that we're on the average 6x more productive than the rest of our fellow humans.
I don't think the analogy to Katrina was particularly in terms of POWER of the event.
I think it was a specific reference to the general ignorance and unpreparedness of people in the face of terrible events.
Now, it COULD be a strong implication that "the government (specifically) should do something" or "people should prepare since the government won't save you" (depending on your political agenda and your understanding of the unfurling of events around Katrina).
What the daily doomsayers don't apparently understand is that the constant forecasts of doom were THEMSELVES to blame for some of the problems of Katrina, at least the lack of human preparation/respect for the storm. When every 1" snowfall is a "BLIZZARD" and every rain shower is "A SEVERE STORM EMERGENCY" humans begin to set their own filters about what's worth paying attention to. cf. The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
... 5 million pounds spent in developing an engine. I see tests that have demonstrated only the precooler - not the thrust, not the reliability, ie none of the things critical to it actually working.
I see no prototype having been tested.
I see something that's a hairsbreadth from the 'I've pulled this kewl idea out of my butt!'.
If someone was pouring benzine into my swimming pool, I'd be concerned.
But if there was already a gallon of benzine going into my swimming pool, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the guy with an eyedropper. Especially if all HE's going to be doing is change his output by a measly 10-20%.
Global warming tracks far closer to solar output than greenhouse gas emissions. It's been significantly warmer and cooler, both within human experience. Climate records suggest that large scale natural climate changes have occurred in very short timeframes. It's not even clear (ASSUMING the globe is warming, and ASSUMING it's anthropogenic, and ASSUMING that it's possible for us to change the carbon output of humanity with 6+ billion people riotously reproducing, and most of them now starting to want cars, TVs, etc.) that climate change would be all negative for humanity. Sure, cities would inundate but no city was positioned geographically so as to last forever. What if that chemical being poured into the pool turns out to be chlorine? To a certain degree, it could be beneficial.
Penn & Teller had it right; the 'carbon credits' industry is far more like selling indulgences (buying freedom from guilt, from people who have neither the authority nor the power to do anything with your money) than science.
It's almost like it's a snake-oil cure for an imagined ill, purveyed by an attention-whore politician* desperate to recoup some relevance.
* who, not insignificantly, stands to make a tidy sum whenever 'carbon shares' are traded through his firm...
Nah, couldn't be. Nobody would fall for the idea that a gas which makes up less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere is that big a deal, much less that humans' contribution to that gas (something like 1/10 of the natural contribution) is meaningful whatsoever.....would they?
Slashdot Mirror
Translation: blah blah blah I made a lot of money blah blah blah people are stupid (except me) blah blah blah I'm a pothead.
Could have saved a lot of people a lot of time with just the summary.
"Farewell notes", unless specific, positive, and heartfelt - (Dear George, you were really a fantastic coworker, and I'm proud to have worked with you...) are simply ego masturbation of one form or another. Long-winded erudition just means you're boring AND egocentric.
I am so sick of every thread turning into some goddamn crusade for the metric system.
Look, people, this was in the US, so we're simply going to use the imperial system (.08 to 0.6 Chrysler Imperials).
He DID say that the mouseclicks measurement was somewhat flippant.
And given his conclusion: "Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term." I'd say it's the summary that "Ubuntu WIPES Win7" fails, not the report itself.
The whole space weapons ban was a farce when it was signed, why would that be any different now?
Aside from the FOBS system developed in 1966 and deployed in 1968 (the Space Weapons treaty was signed in 1967, I believe):
"...Nor were the anti-space-weapons treaty advocates anywhere to be seen in the face of other Russian orbital weapons: hardware built to go into space and operate there, not just merely fly up and down on earth-launched vertical sorties. The Russians built an orbital anti-satellite system that apologists pooh-poohed as "unreliable". The Russians put an air-to-air cannon on a manned spacecraft in order to kill astronauts who got too close--not a peep from the "weapons-free space" crowd. In 1987 the USSR launched the 80-ton Skif-DM, what was to be the first in a series of "space battle stations" to carry a 1-megawatt carbon-dioxide laser into orbit for anti-missile and anti-satellite tests, while preparing the Kaskad cruisers to be armed with space-to-space missiles tested on Progress missions--no objections ever recorded from keep-space-free-of-weapons advocates."
(http://www.thespacereview.com/article/744/1)
To suggest that space will NOT be a field of conflict is naive to the degree of the papal ban on crossbows in the middle ages, or the early calls to prevent the arming of aircraft. To claim unilaterally that the US *won't* do it will eventually be seen as the 21st century equivalent of "not reading other gentlemen's mail".
Pollyannas don't do geopolitics very well.
It seems like you're denigrating the congresspeople who struggle with these issues particularly because of their religious faith? Your answer to their questions seems to be "well duh, of COURSE they have rights!"
"Well duh" one might have said of blacks in the 19th century. "Of COURSE they have human rights."
"Well duh" one might have said of women in the 18th century. "Of COURSE they have human rights."
"Well duh" one might have said of anyone non-European in the 17th century. "Of COURSE they have human rights."
See, flippancy aside, humans of all types have a pretty SHITTY track record in extending their definition of "us" to include "them". One might point out that by simply TRYING to cross human and animal genotypes without even much or any debate on the subject regarding what would happen if the results were viable, these scientists already illustrated that they don't particularly care for the moral ramifications, but simply see the 'results' as test subjects whose context as people, or partially people, as irrelevant. And the objectification of someone is the first step toward dehumanization and amoral treatment.
Heaven forbid that some people have (on whatever basis, be it religion, philosophy, or the FSM) a moral compass and stick to it.
I see a lot of posts desperately denigrating the accomplishment by changing the terms of the comparison to per-capita or per km2.
Really? Because then if we don't want to be hypocrites, then we need to use per-capita, per-GNP$, or per-km2 output of pollution when demonizing the US as well, shouldn't we?
US pop 303 million
DE pop 82 million
Non US world: 6403 million
US vs Germany and Rest of World
Annual CO2 Emissions in 000's of tons:
US: 19t per capita
Germany: 10t
NonUS: 3t
GNP per capita ...so, while we can see that Germany is much more admirable individually than the US in terms of CO2 output per capita (around 50%), this 'efficiency' starts to disappear when you realize they're only producing about 75% of what each American produced. Still more efficient (and that's a good thing!) but not quite so cut and dried.
US $45,000
Germany: $34,000
NonUS: $6000
And then, when you see that compared to the rest of the world, the US is producing 7.5x the wealth per person, while only producing 6x the CO2 emissions, one might conclude that perhaps there are other states more worthy of demonization than the US.
(By the way, China per capita CO2 and GNP are 3t and $2444...about 5% of the productivity (of the US) at 16% of the CO2.)
Well, if you weren't so busy discounting it, you'd notice instead that a much less subsidy-driven country is growing its renewable resources.
So aside from desperately trying to compare epeens, isn't that FUNDAMENTALLY a good thing?
But all I see are posts desperately denigrating the accomplishment by changing the terms of the comparison to per-capita or per km2.
Your breathless criticisms would be a lot more credible if your facts were straight.
Nixon resigned in 1972. The Soviets didn't invade/move into (depending on your PoV) until 1980.
There was President Ford, then President Carter, before President REAGAN whose administration was supplying arms to the Afghans.
I suppose it's hard to keep your 'evil Republicans' straight, I mean, all those old white dudes pretty much look alike.
Further, despite hyperbole, I don't think the US has made threats to obliterate countries, seized any embassies recently, nor supplied terrorist groups that are actually attempting genocide.
Ever work with sheep?
They're the stupidest creatures on God's earth, except (perhaps) domestic turkeys.
In a burning building? They don't leave. Rest of the flock is walking into a gully (essentially, off a small cliff)...just follow along. Oh, and when they get into said trouble, they tend to BLEAT WILDLY.
I use the comparison in PRECISELY this sense.
When every news station is saying "CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE APPROACHING" and (in the first place) I live BELOW SEA LEVEL, I don't think it's extraordinarily insightful thinking that's required to evacuate.
I was in no sense advocating the sort of 'survivalist' approach you seemed to read into my post. What I was pointing at was entire neighborhoods (it seemed to be groupthink, from this outsider's view) disregarding warnings until it was well past too late, then complaining about the circumstances their idiocy left them in. The barrage of looting that took place suggests that any rational calculus that took place was based on a HOPEFUL breakdown of the rule of law and amoral opportunism, more than anything.
Yes, perhaps the "American People are Sheep" analogy is overused. This doesn't make it wrong (cf. Congressional Re-election Rates). Simply because something is distasteful isn't in itself a criticism of its utility.
"Just like Katrina, we know this natural disaster is probably coming, like Katrina, we know its likely to be big and therefore affect many folks."
And just like Katrina, anyone too stupid to look after their own behinds and expect the government to come save them is an idiot who probably is due for a Darwinistic culling.
Be intelligent. Prepare yourself. Evacuate as YOUR judgement suggests is reasonable, and understand that the consequences for being wrong could be severe, so you might want to err on the side of caution.
What shamed me as an American during Katrina wasn't the much-publicized "failure" of Bush and co. No, what disgusted me was that in a society with free public education to age 18, widespread information-distribution technology, and AMPLE transportation resources, we have apparently bred a new generation of sheep, er, Americans with no interest in helping their fellow-man, so dependent and with so little motivation that even self-preservation can't get them to lift a finger in their own interest.
Actually, I'll take that bet.
You are falling into the Cassandra trap - some things are bad, ergo everything is a disaster, everything is ending.
I bet that in 20 years we won't be feeding 7 billion, we'll be feeding 8.5 billion (we'll need to) and STILL starvation will have more to do with governments and flawed distribution systems than an actual shortage of food. And I bet OVERWEIGHT will be an endemic health problem no longer in the first world but almost universally through the 2nd and probably 3rd worlds.
Why does everyone seem to think that NOW is so much different from THEN?
We just need Slashdot editors to repost this next week as a new story, and we'll be good.
Just about any credible source agrees that current instances of starvation are due to distribution systems and the failings of certain governments, NOT in *any* way because there's a shortage of food.
So pretty much *FAIL* on your point there.
No, what the doomsayers and ecomarxists cheerfully disregard is that humans are clearly the most adaptable and accomodating creatures that have apparently ever lived on this planet.
Where a flood (or a parking lot, or a powerplant) can wipe out an ecosystem and spell the end for a species of guppy or worm or deer, people can simply move. Ecosystems change.
"The situation seemed dire. In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan's third-story windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of almost unimaginable dimensions loomed."
Seen Washington DC lately?
By pretty much all measures, it's been roof-deep in horseshit since at LEAST the 1950's.
OK, FFS can we stop linking to the BULLSHIT 16 paragraph=16 page articles that are meant to maximize web traffic? PLEASE?
Jesus, please: just copy the damn printable link and get it all on one page.
Slashdot is a fairly heavy-traffic site. You have the throw weight discourage this HORRIBLE style of web page design.
If the print-summary page isn't available then link the CONCLUSIONS page...readers who are smart enough to parse what WinMark scores are can *probably* figure out how to get back to the detail pages.
Here's the damn link: http://www.firingsquad.com/print_article.asp?current_section=Hardware&fs_article_id=2404
C'mon, this is nothing more than an ad for Rifftrax online broadcast.
1) it's nothing special. Rifftrax has been going for a while.
2) It's not "the original stars", which would be the bulk of the original cast - it's about half of them.
Weak.
...it's like, a million liberal voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.
You know, I'm starting to look forward to the next 4 years more and more.
AAHAHAAHAHAHAH.
And I'll save you the trouble, TROLL +A MILLION.
"Criminalize nature all you like, but it will not change nature."
So, does that apply to murder (and general violence against other humans) - arguably nearly as common as sex? That should be decriminalized?
That's just a foolish argument, based as much on personal morality as the absurdity that is our current conservative anti-porn legislation.
No, the irony here is that the superconservatives and ultraliberals are actually in the same ethical boat here: both back the use of the government and legislation to 'form' peoples' behavior in ways that they feel are "right"...from the absurd prosecution of some teen chick that takes a picture of her own boob to send to her boyfriend, to the legitimization of tenuous assertions of global warming to begin the implementation of a eco-marxist agenda that they've been trying to push with Chicken-Little predictions of doom since the 70s.
The answer to BOTH is: piss off.
The founding fathers proposed a de minimus role for federal government, leaving the execution of daily laws to the most LOCAL authorities, in LOCAL contexts, and (most importantly) subject to the democratic control of the LOCAL populace.
Leave it to the locality to decide if by their standards this is prosecuteable. If that community thinks so, it affects them and them alone, and people can (presumably) leave. If that community feels it's NOT a case of child abuse, then they can ignore it and need not prosecute.
Problem solved. Get government out of our daily lives.
"What, Americans make up only 5% of the world population? (10% by body mass)"
Or 25% by GDP.
Everyone remembers how fat Americans are, they seem to conveniently forget that we're on the average 6x more productive than the rest of our fellow humans.
I don't think the analogy to Katrina was particularly in terms of POWER of the event.
I think it was a specific reference to the general ignorance and unpreparedness of people in the face of terrible events.
Now, it COULD be a strong implication that "the government (specifically) should do something" or "people should prepare since the government won't save you" (depending on your political agenda and your understanding of the unfurling of events around Katrina).
What the daily doomsayers don't apparently understand is that the constant forecasts of doom were THEMSELVES to blame for some of the problems of Katrina, at least the lack of human preparation/respect for the storm. When every 1" snowfall is a "BLIZZARD" and every rain shower is "A SEVERE STORM EMERGENCY" humans begin to set their own filters about what's worth paying attention to. cf. The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
... 5 million pounds spent in developing an engine.
I see tests that have demonstrated only the precooler - not the thrust, not the reliability, ie none of the things critical to it actually working.
I see no prototype having been tested.
I see something that's a hairsbreadth from the 'I've pulled this kewl idea out of my butt!'.
He'll be missed.
But honestly, his death should have been reported via a link to his blog that would THEN link to the page discussing his death.
Only a fitting tribute.
Perhaps you could link the damn video, instead of (as usual) a link to the blog that links to the video? :(
http://www.fandome.com/video/107610/The-Mystery-of-the-Yellow-Line/
If someone was pouring benzine into my swimming pool, I'd be concerned.
But if there was already a gallon of benzine going into my swimming pool, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the guy with an eyedropper. Especially if all HE's going to be doing is change his output by a measly 10-20%.
Global warming tracks far closer to solar output than greenhouse gas emissions.
It's been significantly warmer and cooler, both within human experience.
Climate records suggest that large scale natural climate changes have occurred in very short timeframes.
It's not even clear (ASSUMING the globe is warming, and ASSUMING it's anthropogenic, and ASSUMING that it's possible for us to change the carbon output of humanity with 6+ billion people riotously reproducing, and most of them now starting to want cars, TVs, etc.) that climate change would be all negative for humanity. Sure, cities would inundate but no city was positioned geographically so as to last forever. What if that chemical being poured into the pool turns out to be chlorine? To a certain degree, it could be beneficial.
Penn & Teller had it right; the 'carbon credits' industry is far more like selling indulgences (buying freedom from guilt, from people who have neither the authority nor the power to do anything with your money) than science.
It's almost like it's a snake-oil cure for an imagined ill, purveyed by an attention-whore politician* desperate to recoup some relevance.
* who, not insignificantly, stands to make a tidy sum whenever 'carbon shares' are traded through his firm...
Nah, couldn't be. Nobody would fall for the idea that a gas which makes up less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere is that big a deal, much less that humans' contribution to that gas (something like 1/10 of the natural contribution) is meaningful whatsoever.....would they?