People talk as though the evidence of catastrophic global warming were unequivocal but nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a newly released study that presents a very different picture, the Fallen Angels scenario.
In my mind, its too early to change policy. First, we need to really understand the nature of climate and the impact of industrial activity. As near as I can tell, we don't yet appreciate the natural variability of climate, much less whether our activity is harmful or not.
I certainly hope that the next ten years doesn't throw the climate into catastrophy because we need that time and more just to make sense of what is happening.
Playing a bit loose with the facts, aren't we? The Anasazi and other southwest tribes collapsed because of a prolonged drought in the 12th and 13th centuries.
While I too would like to see the DMCA repealed, I don't think that the courts are going to help out. The DMCA is a statute and does not need to respect prior court opinions. In fact, Congress will often pass a law when it does not like the effect of a court's ruling. The only reason the Supreme Court will strike down DMCA is if it is unconstitutional and I haven't yet heard a convincing argument for that. The best chance is to get Congress to repeal it.
I don't think that the important issue here is corporate power. I suspect the intent of the anonymous posters was to deceive individual investors by inventing bad news about the company. Unscrupulous short sellers often try to depress the value of a stock in this way.
I don't personally think it is a good thing when people are able to lie in order to take advantage of others. Unfortunately, unrestricted anonymous speech enables just this type of dishonesty. I think there is a place for anonymous speech but there are also times when accountability is preferable.
The policy that I would prefer is for posts on yahoo, slashdot or where ever be either explicitly anonymous or have the identity of the author authenticated and published. Then I would blow off 95% of what anonymous posters say and 50% of the rest.
You moderators call this insightful and bump it up to +3? Since when does name calling give any insight into anything other than the author's immaturity? This pitiful example makes clear that the current slashdot system gives power to unscrupulous moderators bent on advancing their own agenda.
You would think that we could just read reports such as the NAS' report on climate change and identify the conclusions of climate experts. That turns out not to be the case. Often nonscientists (sometimes with their own agendas) write the conclusions. You should take a look at this letter written by MIT Meteorologist, Richard Lindzen, one of the report authors. He claims that the summary reaches much different conclusions than the report itself. The essence of Dr. Lindezn's position is, "But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."
Slashdot Mirror
In my mind, its too early to change policy. First, we need to really understand the nature of climate and the impact of industrial activity. As near as I can tell, we don't yet appreciate the natural variability of climate, much less whether our activity is harmful or not.
I certainly hope that the next ten years doesn't throw the climate into catastrophy because we need that time and more just to make sense of what is happening.
Playing a bit loose with the facts, aren't we? The Anasazi and other southwest tribes collapsed because of a prolonged drought in the 12th and 13th centuries.
While I too would like to see the DMCA repealed, I don't think that the courts are going to help out. The DMCA is a statute and does not need to respect prior court opinions. In fact, Congress will often pass a law when it does not like the effect of a court's ruling. The only reason the Supreme Court will strike down DMCA is if it is unconstitutional and I haven't yet heard a convincing argument for that. The best chance is to get Congress to repeal it.
I don't personally think it is a good thing when people are able to lie in order to take advantage of others. Unfortunately, unrestricted anonymous speech enables just this type of dishonesty. I think there is a place for anonymous speech but there are also times when accountability is preferable.
The policy that I would prefer is for posts on yahoo, slashdot or where ever be either explicitly anonymous or have the identity of the author authenticated and published. Then I would blow off 95% of what anonymous posters say and 50% of the rest.
You moderators call this insightful and bump it up to +3? Since when does name calling give any insight into anything other than the author's immaturity? This pitiful example makes clear that the current slashdot system gives power to unscrupulous moderators bent on advancing their own agenda.
You would think that we could just read reports such as the NAS' report on climate change and identify the conclusions of climate experts. That turns out not to be the case. Often nonscientists (sometimes with their own agendas) write the conclusions. You should take a look at this letter written by MIT Meteorologist, Richard Lindzen, one of the report authors. He claims that the summary reaches much different conclusions than the report itself. The essence of Dr. Lindezn's position is, "But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."