Nuclear arms are overrated outside of WW3 and are largely ineffective offensively unless matched with a conventional force.
The notion that a country doesn't need conventional military forces so long as it has nukes is shown to be fairly laughable when you look at what is happening to Japan versus China.
China is mostly taking whatever it wants and Japan can't really do anything about it. If Japan were invaded by China, then the US is obligated by treaty to retaliate including launching nukes at china. So japan effectively has a large nuclear deterrent. However, that does not allow them to secure their interests... merely prevent a direct invasion of their mainland.
The Russians are currently making fools of the Europeans as we speak by running subs and bombers throughout their territory just to show they can move through european territory with impunity. Were they to try that over the US or China or India or even Israel they'd have their craft intercepted and forced to retreat under military escort or forced down into a US base where release would be contingent on diplomatic agreements.
Nukes are largely irrelevant unless you launch them. And I really doubt the Europeans can credibly launch nukes even in that unlikely event. How many strategic nuclear submarines do they have? Because nukes stationed in any other place are vulnerable to a first strike. If I were the Russians for example or any other hostile power with nukes... and my enemy had no nuclear submarines, I'd prevent a nuclear counter attack by targeting their launch sites first and then follow up with a bombardment of their other military facilities, possibly industrial centers, and who knows maybe just go for full genocide by wiping out all the cities.
Without the strategic submarines your credibility to maintain Mutually Assured Destruction is questionable.
The US backstops their flaws with its own nuclear arsenal. If France gets nuked then we'll nuke whomever nuked France. That is actually what protects France. Not Frances nukes unless they have them on such submarines. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think they've bothered with them.
As to religious extremism not being a threat to states... thousands of years of history raise their eyebrows in puzzlement at that statement.
All nations are nothing but belief. Religion is belief. Ideology is belief. A nation that has its beliefs challenged successfully dies. What killed the Soviet Union? A loss of belief. The West showed the people on the other side of the iron curtain what they were missing and they wondered why they were putting up with a poorer standard of living? A loss of faith killed the Union.
The same thing killed Rome. The same thing really kills every society that falls. If people continue to believe and continue to live then the old system never really dies. It just waits until it can retake power.
This is the big danger of Islam... they believe in something else more then they believe in our way.
If you sit there playing "are too" "is not" with them back and forth they'll always get the last word because you'll get tired before they do. They believe more then you do.
Actually that isn't how it works. I don't have to cite a model. I just have to show that you don't have one that has demonstrated any predictive capability.
And lacking that you lack the ability to say what will happen.
Very little is irredeemable. Though that was of course quite stupid.
A major and increasing problem in our society is the increasing power of the federal government. In large part because as the feds gain in power it is increasingly important that they be competent.
Imagine a more interdependent system where the feds do less and states do more. Even if the feds are incompetent, most of the states will do fine simply by ignoring them and using their own best judgement.
This push by many in washington on both political sides is hurting the country because it creates a too big to fail system. Where everything rides on the feds not being colossal by the numbers fuckups.
It is also bad in that it damages the "laboratory of democracy" which was one of the geniuses of our society. Every state could do things a little differently and we could see emperical results from those choices. Each state was a little experiment that would show you the merits or pitfalls of given programs or ideas.
But that is being taken away. They want to nationalize public education so every public school in the whole country has to do it the same way even though some of them were doing just fine. No, force all the schools even the ones doing well to follow the same program as if the whole country should have a one size fits all program.
Consider kids going to school in Hawaii, they should learn more about the old Hawaiian kings and hawaiian history then kids going to school in New Mexico. The kids in new mexico should learn a bit more about the local tribes and history of that state while perhaps getting more of a background in spanish. That is just more appropriate for their region. And that is just basic cultural stuff. Some regions will probably profit form different types of vocational learning. Kids never should have lost shop class, art, and music.
One size programs are increasingly inefficient as any system grows in scope. As a system grows it must become more compartmentalized and interdependent to remain efficient and effective.
Think of analogs in computer networking. You don't build a network for 100,000 machines the same way you do for 10. You break it up into smaller networks that are individually manageable then build them into hierarchies that link one organizational structure to the next.
Think Cities, Counties, States, Judicial districts, and finally the full federal level. That is how the system was set up at one point and how it should be set up now.
The people that keep trying to turn the US into a giant version of some single European country with one unitary government are completely failing to understand the inherent inefficiencies of such systems as they scale.
Repeat that without using an AC account, please. It is profoundly hypocritical to criticize the posting history of someone that is using a traceable name while you throw crap at them from the shadows. For all anyone knows you spend most of your time on this board posting racist rants.
I mean... how are we to know that you're not just mad that I shouted you down a few posts back for supporting pedophilia? You could believe anything while hiding behind your AC tag.
I don't post as AC because I'm already using a fake name. I don't need to hide even that. What kind of an absurd coward even posts AC in the first place? I don't even know why AC exists at all. Does anyone know? I don't get the point.
Voting rates don't especially mean anything. I think Iraq had a very high voting rate after the overthrow of Saddam. What exactly did that mean?
What is more, in many european countries you're required to vote so it is hardly voluntary. They either show up and cast a vote or get a fine. And contrary to what some might think that doesn't lead to a more sensible civic process since a lot of people that are forced to vote made zero effort to actually inform themselves.
It is a good thing for people that are not making an effort to inform themselves to not vote.
As to your political opinions that the republicans only care about the top one percent that is about as unbiased as the Palestinians saying the jews drink arab blood. You're spouting insanely biased propaganda.
Moderate your position please. You're also contradicting yourself. You're saying you want a higher percentage of people to vote and then you're attempting to paint HALF the voting population as puppets of some shadow corporate oligarchy... which is basically the political complexity I would expect out of a bad comic book.
... or they'll choose to do something else. There is no institutional sexism. No one has been able to find it.
All you have is a stat that shows women don't statistically pursue this career. There is no evidence that universities are discriminating and there is no evidence that companies are discriminating.
So what you are really upset about is women CHOOSING to not go into tech.
You apparently don't like people having choices. You want everyone to statistically fall into perfect little patterns and do things according to your numbers.
Only one way to do that. Force women to and men and any other arbitrary group your stupid statistics think are relevant... and force them into tech... or else... scorpions? I'll leave that up to you.
Absent that, people are not going to fall into these statistical patterns. More men are going to get into some careers. More women are going to get into others. How many male kindergarten teachers are there? How many men work at maternity wards in hospitals? Women like small children and babies. They just do. And so that is ONE example of a career women tend to be happier in then men. I am not saying they should be pushed into it or that they should do it. They personally choose to do it because they like it. It is a choice.
And men often like solitary complex tasks working long hours often for no more reason then because it is hard and if they don't do it no one will.
Men like jobs that no one else will do. We gravitate to that stuff. We like being the guy that signs up for a couple years in the Merchant Marines seeing land no more then a couple days out of a month for years. Our contacts with civilization basically being a bar crawl climaxing with a trip to a brothel. Deal with it.
Men and women are not the same. They're not. We like different things. Pretending it is all socialization and otherwise women would love action movies and guys would be crying on the couch eating ice cream while watching romantic comedies is the opinion MORONS have.
I am not a moron. However, there are clearly a lot of morons running around and quite a few people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between morons and normal people. Because the morons are being treated like they're smart.
I think part of it might be that what the morons are saying doesn't make any sense. And we tend to associate things that do not make sense these days with something so smart that it is just beyond us. Except, sometimes things that don't make sense actually don't make sense... because they're stupid.
This whole feminist kick that the media is going on these days is dumb. You are embarrassing yourselves and you're not helping women.
If you actually won, the best you'd have accomplished is cause the competency of women for a generation to be questioned because no one would know if they earned their job or if they were some sort of diversity hire.
Stop being stupid. No really. Stop eating the lead paint chips which I am assuming is a popular ingredient at jamba juice.. and just stop. It is your job to write articles and talk. I don't want you to starve.
Just try harder to not literally have the opinions of literal idiots. Not saying you are idiots... just that you happen to be thinking in much the same way and it is not acceptable.
In fairness our alternatives at the time were McCain, Hillary, and Obama.
Of the three we thought... "why not... he couldn't be any worse those those idiots"... and it seems he was if only because he didn't realize what his job was in the first place.
The one thing I've always found the most fascinating about Obama is that he doesn't know what the role of the president is in the first place. He thinks he is in charge when really his job is to EXECUTE. He is not a judge... that is for the judiciary. He is not a maker of law. That is for the legislature. He is a glorified administrator. A functionary who's job it is to see that policy is executed quickly and efficiently.
In fairness, Bush was likewise pretty stupid on this point. I think he thought of himself as some sort of moral figure.
Presidents are not about morality. They don't do things because they're right or wrong. They do them because they must be done.
That is the president I want. A politician that is good at politics so he can kiss the babies, then when he goes to work executes the law as written and in spirit. I want a politician that carries out diplomatic policy in the interests of the people that pay him his wage and put him in the seat. Americans. Should the US go out of its way to screw over other countries? Not out of its way... but we have interests and they should be our primary concern.
Oh, we do talk to other americans. Americans excel at talking as you should be more then aware at this point.
As to violent revolution... someday perhaps. Not today. It is one of the reasons we preserve our weapons. The idiots in our society have a hard time grasping that things don't last forever.
The US will fall one day. And when that happens who do they want to have the guns? Do they really want the people disarmed when order breaks down?
Why is any people afforded rights when the laws are written? Because if they are not, those people will hang the men writing them.
Literally.
And when a government does not fear its people it does not respect them either.
We need our weapons because we have a right to be dangerous and a right to be feared for in being feared we are respected.
All respect is based ultimately on fear. Fear of the consequences. The fear of "or else".
It is why you pay your bills. It is why you drive the speed limit.
The US is going through a hard time. We are still digesting the ideological poison that Europe sent us more then 100 years ago. We have weathered its effects better then any of our peers. But it is nasty stuff and in the process many of our core institutions became irreparably damaged. It will take us sometime to bypass and rebuild them.
I can't speak to the UK, but the US doesn't have that problem at the legislative level. At the executive level, so much of the government is a black box. We don't really know what they're doing and they have been caught lying to congress. So... the conspiracy theories are going to run wild. Why try to stop them.
Price of lying to congress which is a thing the NSA was caught red handed doing.
Of course, the IRS also recently lied to congress.
And the head of the new ACA or Obama care system just resigned mostly for lying to congress as well.
So... it is a thing. The executive is lying a lot. Congress really needs to get a spine and gut the executive.
The legislature is our most democratic body. The executive should fear them. But they don't. They see the legislature as a joke they can control. Largely at this point because it is full of so many useful idiots.
... When you abused the trust people put in the Government and the NSA.
Previously... before all this arrogant bullshit... you would have gotten that cooperation either publicly or covertly. But you gave everyone the finger and told them you could do what you want.
You told everyone that Due Process was for suckers and you could just do whatever whenever however. And that has a price.
You're paying it now. The whole country will be paying it.
I don't want to put this all on Obama. It is also on the people that run these agencies and it is of course on the previous administration as well.
None of them have any regard for the constitution. It is a social contract to be obeyed by the letter and the spirit. Not either or neither. Both. You do what it says and if you've come up with a clever way to get around it without breaking the letter of the law... you don't do it.
It isn't just a law. It is a relationship. It is a code. It is what other societies have for a holy writ. You don't break it or the nation cracks.
And that is what has happened. The nation has cracked... and cracked again... and it is starting to break.
Patriotism he says? This would be the patriotism that so many on the political left laugh at and spit upon? Well... why would patriotism shuffle over to the likes of Obama covered in phlegm and do his bidding?
All this anti America garbage has a price as well. How could it not. If you devalue patriotism then patriotism has been devalued. When you call upon it... the check bounces.
Take me... My patriotism is just about used up. It hasn't been honored. It hasn't been replenished. It has been condemned and devalued.
Then Obama presumes to call upon it in the name of what? More unconstitutional spying? He wants to use my love of country which he laughs at to destroy my country?
The man is delusional.
The country needs to be run people that at the very least understand what they're doing. I don't even need someone that is honest. I need someone that knows their job. Obama and the people he's got running the government do not. They don't understand what binds the country together or keeps it running.
I'll take anyone of any political bent so long as they know their jobs and honor their oaths. Beyond that they can do anything at this point. I won't be picky.
That would be the United States that has that fire power. Belgium has waffles.
The combined forces of NATO without the US were unable to defeat Yugoslavia. Go back and read/watch the reports from the time. The US stayed out of it until it became pathetically clear that Yugoslavia had fought the combined forces of NATO minus the US to a standstill.
This is an under equipt, backward, vastly out numbered, cold war dystopia... had an equivalent military force to ALL of NATO... minus the US.
Europe is weak. Everyone knows it. Especially the Europeans. Which is why they get upset when military power is held to be relevant in many situation because they haven't got any.
Europe isn't doing to do anything. They only way they're ever going to rearm is if their governments fall. Short of revolutions and the complete collapse of social order... they won't rearm.
And even if they did... the vast majority of them aren't militant. And lacking that, they aren't going to fight for anything.
Their societies were backed up by their nobility that typically was schooled in what was important to sustain a nation. A certain amount of martial prowess was understood to be required to be credible. Then they got rid of their nobles and thought "I know, lets spend all that money on free food"... which seems like a really good idea until you need to fight again.
They can't. It will take them decades to build up a military force. And the biggest barrier is in their minds.
They are at this point, vassel powers of the United States. They are afforded the right to disagree and pay no taxes to the US. But they are utterly dependent on US patronage for their strategic position.
Here a European will likely complain or presume to contradict me. But if such a fool wants to do that, I will wither his argument with the cold light of reality.
I do not say any of this by the way to brag or say the US is amazing even though it demonstrably is amazing. The reason I say this is because Europe has no credible military force. So saying they're going to go attack other countries is absurd.
That was never the problem with Christianity. Since when did Christians have a hard time killing people? They don't. Thousands of years of war in Europe AFTER the conversion to Christianity make my point rather clearly.
Rather the issue was that it created social disorder because there were a lot of pagans in Rome. All the old buildings, the old gods, the old legends, the old traditions... the whole society was polytheistic.
And some stupid emperor presumed to just change the religion of a culture that went back thousands of years in a day.
For a modern analog, consider the loss of Christianity in the west. Look at all the Christians that get annoyed by that. If you didn't switch from Christianity you'd have those people backing your society. But because you're saying you don't believe in their god they're wavering.
Forget whether you like or don't like religion. it doesn't really matter. The point is belief and politics. Societies themselves are just belief.
Consider the line "God and Country". See that? Things worth killing for. And that is what nations need to remain nations. If people don't believe in them they die.
A foolish belief of many modern politicians as well as the old Romans just before their empire fell was that people just want free stuff. And so long as you give out goodies people will believe.
Expect for that isn't how it works.You can't substitute belief with greed. You do that and the instant it is in your interest to fuck the society over you do it. There is no sacrificing made for a society you do not believe in.
Do you see? Sacrifice. Belief.
Messing about with the gods of a successful society is very dangerous for that society. It is one of the things that killed Rome.
Rome was killed by a lot of things at once. But changing its theistic center was one of them.
The legions marched with Mars in their hearts as well as a dozen other pagan gods and demigods. Some of them were specific to certain legions. A given legion might have their own patron god that watched over them. That legion would sacrifice to that god. They would carry around an alter for that god.
Then you tell them their new god is Christ and that is everyone's god and your old god is outlawed.
The legions of course did not stop worshiping their private gods. They just grew apart from the empire and became more insular.
That was only part of it. This rebellion of the peasants concept is countered by examples of societies existing for thousands of years despite their peasantry being quite poor.
It takes more then that to collapse a society.
A society is an arbitrary association of people.
What destroys all societies ultimately is belief. When a nation is not believed in anymore... it ceases to exist. The association breaks down.
So long as people believe the country, nation, empire cannot die.
Unlikely. A good deal of the west is more likely to go out with a whimper rather then a bang.
This has happened before. Rome fell under similar circumstances.
The collapse of its national religion, serious economic problems, worn out from war, massive immigration from cultures not loyal to the empire... and lots of corruption.
Citing an article and saying it agrees with you doesn't mean you score points in a discussion.
Rather, you have to actually make a fucking argument for which you CAN use external evidence.
Would it be appropriate if I slapped 100 opinions from experts into the thread and then without further explanation just walked away?
Either have a discussion in a discussion thread or bow out and don't comment again.
Want me to go through your citation point by point? FINE.
So point 1: Your study does use some storage. Not as much I would think it does. But it does use some storage.
Point 2: your system requires two way networked connections between every major power using device in every home and business and the grid. Your system ONLY works if the overwhelming majority of systems share information back and forth to allow for this "flexible demand" system. And not only is that unlikely but you're proposing that not having my stuff turn on when I turn them on is okay. With my fridge, MAYBE that is okay if as he said system is only delayed for a couple minutes. But if it takes an hour or more then it is going to start effecting the temperature of the fridge. And when we're talking about heating and cooling systems for the house itself... I do not want the system to wait even 3 minutes before it kicks on. Especially if I am turning the system on manually because I just got home or something and I want to adjust the temperature. So this flexible issue is likely unrealistic.
3. Smart routing as they term it is mostly the grid operators running themselves ragged trying to load balance the system.
Do you know how the current grid is load balanced? They are not constantly turning stuff on and off again or at least they try to avoid it. They run the grid the same way a semi truck goes down the freeway. The traffic can stop and go but the semi can't play that game. So instead, the semi goes the AVERAGE speed of the freeway neither tailgating people as the road opens up for two minutes nor slamming on the breaks when it enevidably comes to a halt. The grid operators do the same thing. They pick a supply level in excess of what demand is likely to be and just hold it up there. The excess is generally wasted.
Why do they waste that power? Because it is easier to waste that power then try to perfectly match supply to demand. The power graph tends to be pretty even and flat. They'll pitch it up during certain parts of the day and pitch it down during others. But they're not spiking the system all over the place.
You say you have a study behind you? Well who the fuck doesn't in the 21st century? Fucking everyone has a study. Want me to get a study that shows you need power storage to make this little dream happen? Because we both know there are lots of them out there.
You want more alternative power? Great... we all do. But for that to happen it has to be competitive with the existing systems OR you have to completely change the way everything is done.
In regards to solar and wind, we can avoid all that smart grid bullshit by just putting the fucking solar panels on the roofs of the houses using the power. Then the spikey power curves from unreliable solar cease to matter. The solar basically just lowers demand. And while there will be spikes, there will be so much white noise from all the panels that it should mostly balance out.
Same with wind. Rather then building big boondoggle wind projects, encourage people to build alternative energy in their backyards to lower demand. Ideally we can move towards net power producing homes or just off grid homes.
For the Urban environment... nuclear power. Nuclear power is awesome. Just because some reactors that were built in the 1960s and run continuously since then had issues when tidal waves hit them is not a reason to not use the most effective and green energy source known to man.
As to 2014 being the warmest year on record, apparently that is in direct opposition to what the satellites say about it.
As to how any climate model is supposed to account for the data... you're just giving an argument for not being able to model the climate which means you can't make predictions. I know, you said you wanted it to last 30 years before you'd take it seriously. But then you're saying 2014 is something which contradicts that position. If 10 years are irrelevant then why is 1 year relevant? And again, the sat data contradicts your conclusion about 2014. It seems like there is a lot of cherry picking going on where you'll take one bit of data as relevant one year and then say that doesn't matter but another bit of data does. And then flip that back and forth depending on which ever bit of data most closely matches what you want the conclusion to be. Which obviously isn't how science works.
As to the constant warming, I think there was a long pause in the 70s and the 80s didn't go up much. The big jump was in the 90s and without that your numbers don't look as good.
Keep in mind, they're trying to boil temperature differences of a tenth to a hundred of a degree over the whole surface of the planet over at least a year. That is a LOT of averaging. And they don't average the numbers together the same way every year.
The probability for math to get biased is huge. Especially since getting your hands on raw data is almost impossible. I've tried repeatedly and every time I get something other then raw data if I get data at all.
All told, the sat data is probably the best way to go with it because it is one source of data. The problem from that again is that raw data from the satellite is literally impossible to get so far as I've found. If you have the raw measurements from space that would be something to look at. I've read a few articles about how they've recalibrated the the data a few times. Effectively changing past records retroactively. Say what you will, you can see how that is troubling if you're trying to audit the data.
Imagine if this were an IRS audit and the numbers had been fucked with this much. You'd demand raw data so you could recalculate from scratch.That isn't unreasonable.
As to what is reasonable and climate variability, I think you have to use the same time scale standards when you talk about what supports your case as well as what threatens your case. I have noticed some double standards there in that anything no matter how small that seems to support the position is taken as evidence and anything up to even 10 years of time that contradicts it is ignored. That is troubling.
If 30 years is the minimum time required to contradict your position then 30 years must be the minimum to support it.
What is more, you can't claim that anything is evidence of your position in the future unless it persists for 30 years.
When you bump things up to a 30 year minimum then you're going to have to play by those rules.
I read the article and watched your video. You run into this with advocates. They tell white lies. They hedge. They make conditional statements.
The first thing you notice is that they're requiring that excess solar/wind be stored. That in and of itself changes what you're saying.
The second thing is that they're requiring a dynamic system that can jink the power up and down radically to deal with instability. That is a massive problem. Existing power supplies DO fail as they pointed out however they don't fail 200 times a day which is how the grid reads a power supply going from 20 to 5 and then back up to 20 over and fucking over again.
You need storage for alternative power or it should not be added to grid.
Again, a good way to compromise is to add solar and wind to the point of use. Put it on your house. i don't know why people hate this idea so much. You're wasting your roof space by not doing anything with it. Put a solar panel on it and from the grid's perspective you're using less power which means the gird needs less capacity to feed your needs.
This is especially useful for the american south and south west where there is a lot of air conditioner usage in the middle of the day. Solar would counter act most of the power used by air conditioning systems which would be a massive improvement. What is more, we can build these system to store power locally and slowly move to a system where homes are grid independent by default.
The grid concept is one that makes sense with power sources like coal and nuclear power. Once you start talking about harvesting energy from the sky or the wind the concept of the grid in that context becomes laughable.
So you're saying the pause would have to last for 30 years for you to take note?
The issue is that the warming happens often in 10 year cycles followed by ten years of cooling or flat temperatures.
It feels like you're cherry picking the data a bit. Most of the warming that people are upset about happened in the 1990s. Not in the 1980s. And not in the 1970s. In the 90s.
So it feels like you're trying to have it both ways. You're saying the 10 years from the 90s matter but the 10 years in the 2000s don't. I don't see the logic of that.
If you're saying it is all about averages... the current trends are pulling your numbers down.
As to after the fact recalculations of figures, none of that was predicted by your previous climate model. Previously climate models treated the ocean as a sink for water only. That is, they were sources of humidity. That was literally the extent of their accounting for the ocean. Now when the numbers stop matching they say it is all going into the ocean which means the ocean is not just a sink of moisture.
Something that I am very aware of in this discussion is that there is a lot of data and I know from my time at university that it was very easy to lie or fudge a report if it was very complicated because no one ever read them in that much detail. You just had to keep the fudging small and obscured by so much data that no one could tell the difference.
And I feel like that is very easy to do in climate science because of the disorganized way they manage data.
Do you honestly think you could audit a climate report?
It isn't practical. What I am looking for is not after the fact number matching but BEFORE the fact number matching. And that isn't happening. They only are able to match their numbers by remaking the model in real time. That is not how models are validated.
If Newton changed his laws of motion every time someone wanted to calculate the position of a planet then he wouldn't be the fellow of science he is today.
His laws of motion work. No modification required unless you want greater accuracy and then you get into additional calculations. But they laws are generally sound without modification which is why they're still taught in school.
Your climate models have to be tweaked every time they're used BY the people making them. And they have to know in advance both the correct answer and the data set. That isn't how models are supposed to work.
The model should work indifferent to the correct answer because it derives the correct answer inherently. And the dataset should not matter either if it is empirical because the model should work with any empirical dataset.
It does none of these things. And that is a problem.
Except for what you mean buy upgrading the grid mostly deals with storing power. And that should really be handled by the "alt power" producers given that it is a deficiency they have and coal, diesel, and nuclear do not.
once you add the cost of storage which is what gives you consisten reliable power with "alt power" you are dealing with an entirely different cost structure.
At this point, I think people should be looking more into biogas rather then solar/wind especially if you want to maintain the grid.
Solar and wind work better at REDUCING electrical demand at the point of use rather then actually replacing the coal power plant.
If you want to replace the coal power plant then you need a power source you can store. Coal for all its problems can be stored. You just make a pile of coal... bam... storage. Same thing with the other fuel based energy sources. You just store the fuel.
Consider biogas though. It is carbon neutral and can be made from garbage, farm dross, wood scraps... anything really... banana peels a la back to the future 2.
Not only would that reduce the rate at which we're filling land fills but it will provide a lot of carbon neutral power.
The problem is that the universities are going to put money wherever it is going to make a return on investment. If the universities do not invest in these companies it probably won't effect them. Someone else will just get the pay out instead.
So what is the point of yet another pointless "moral" stance that accomplishes nothing.
if you want to tackle big carbon, then provide an alternative that isn't a fucking bad joke. Absent that... fuck off.
Endless stories about women not getting into given careers. Enough. If you want women to join those careers then stop giving them the choice not to join those careers. Because they are not in these careers because of their CHOICES.
if you don't like the choices women are making then whine at THEM. Neither men, nor companies, nor the universities are excluding women. They simply do not exist in these fields in the numbers that the stats weenies desire. End of discussion.
No really. Shut the hell up unless you can show systematic CAUSAL gender bias. Not just "well women aren't here so clearly it must be sexism". That is bullshit for same reason that there are lots of jobs that women tend to dominate and men don't say "well that's clearly sexism"... it isn't. Some jobs women don't want to do and some jobs men don't want to do. Get over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear arms are overrated outside of WW3 and are largely ineffective offensively unless matched with a conventional force.
The notion that a country doesn't need conventional military forces so long as it has nukes is shown to be fairly laughable when you look at what is happening to Japan versus China.
China is mostly taking whatever it wants and Japan can't really do anything about it. If Japan were invaded by China, then the US is obligated by treaty to retaliate including launching nukes at china. So japan effectively has a large nuclear deterrent. However, that does not allow them to secure their interests... merely prevent a direct invasion of their mainland.
The Russians are currently making fools of the Europeans as we speak by running subs and bombers throughout their territory just to show they can move through european territory with impunity. Were they to try that over the US or China or India or even Israel they'd have their craft intercepted and forced to retreat under military escort or forced down into a US base where release would be contingent on diplomatic agreements.
Nukes are largely irrelevant unless you launch them. And I really doubt the Europeans can credibly launch nukes even in that unlikely event. How many strategic nuclear submarines do they have? Because nukes stationed in any other place are vulnerable to a first strike. If I were the Russians for example or any other hostile power with nukes... and my enemy had no nuclear submarines, I'd prevent a nuclear counter attack by targeting their launch sites first and then follow up with a bombardment of their other military facilities, possibly industrial centers, and who knows maybe just go for full genocide by wiping out all the cities.
Without the strategic submarines your credibility to maintain Mutually Assured Destruction is questionable.
The US backstops their flaws with its own nuclear arsenal. If France gets nuked then we'll nuke whomever nuked France. That is actually what protects France. Not Frances nukes unless they have them on such submarines. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think they've bothered with them.
As to religious extremism not being a threat to states... thousands of years of history raise their eyebrows in puzzlement at that statement.
All nations are nothing but belief. Religion is belief. Ideology is belief. A nation that has its beliefs challenged successfully dies. What killed the Soviet Union? A loss of belief. The West showed the people on the other side of the iron curtain what they were missing and they wondered why they were putting up with a poorer standard of living? A loss of faith killed the Union.
The same thing killed Rome. The same thing really kills every society that falls. If people continue to believe and continue to live then the old system never really dies. It just waits until it can retake power.
This is the big danger of Islam... they believe in something else more then they believe in our way.
If you sit there playing "are too" "is not" with them back and forth they'll always get the last word because you'll get tired before they do. They believe more then you do.
Belief is a very very powerful thing.
Actually that isn't how it works. I don't have to cite a model. I just have to show that you don't have one that has demonstrated any predictive capability.
And lacking that you lack the ability to say what will happen.
Very little is irredeemable. Though that was of course quite stupid.
A major and increasing problem in our society is the increasing power of the federal government. In large part because as the feds gain in power it is increasingly important that they be competent.
Imagine a more interdependent system where the feds do less and states do more. Even if the feds are incompetent, most of the states will do fine simply by ignoring them and using their own best judgement.
This push by many in washington on both political sides is hurting the country because it creates a too big to fail system. Where everything rides on the feds not being colossal by the numbers fuckups.
It is also bad in that it damages the "laboratory of democracy" which was one of the geniuses of our society. Every state could do things a little differently and we could see emperical results from those choices. Each state was a little experiment that would show you the merits or pitfalls of given programs or ideas.
But that is being taken away. They want to nationalize public education so every public school in the whole country has to do it the same way even though some of them were doing just fine. No, force all the schools even the ones doing well to follow the same program as if the whole country should have a one size fits all program.
Consider kids going to school in Hawaii, they should learn more about the old Hawaiian kings and hawaiian history then kids going to school in New Mexico. The kids in new mexico should learn a bit more about the local tribes and history of that state while perhaps getting more of a background in spanish. That is just more appropriate for their region. And that is just basic cultural stuff. Some regions will probably profit form different types of vocational learning. Kids never should have lost shop class, art, and music.
One size programs are increasingly inefficient as any system grows in scope. As a system grows it must become more compartmentalized and interdependent to remain efficient and effective.
Think of analogs in computer networking. You don't build a network for 100,000 machines the same way you do for 10. You break it up into smaller networks that are individually manageable then build them into hierarchies that link one organizational structure to the next.
Think Cities, Counties, States, Judicial districts, and finally the full federal level. That is how the system was set up at one point and how it should be set up now.
The people that keep trying to turn the US into a giant version of some single European country with one unitary government are completely failing to understand the inherent inefficiencies of such systems as they scale.
Repeat that without using an AC account, please. It is profoundly hypocritical to criticize the posting history of someone that is using a traceable name while you throw crap at them from the shadows. For all anyone knows you spend most of your time on this board posting racist rants.
I mean... how are we to know that you're not just mad that I shouted you down a few posts back for supporting pedophilia? You could believe anything while hiding behind your AC tag.
I don't post as AC because I'm already using a fake name. I don't need to hide even that. What kind of an absurd coward even posts AC in the first place? I don't even know why AC exists at all. Does anyone know? I don't get the point.
Voting rates don't especially mean anything. I think Iraq had a very high voting rate after the overthrow of Saddam. What exactly did that mean?
What is more, in many european countries you're required to vote so it is hardly voluntary. They either show up and cast a vote or get a fine. And contrary to what some might think that doesn't lead to a more sensible civic process since a lot of people that are forced to vote made zero effort to actually inform themselves.
It is a good thing for people that are not making an effort to inform themselves to not vote.
As to your political opinions that the republicans only care about the top one percent that is about as unbiased as the Palestinians saying the jews drink arab blood. You're spouting insanely biased propaganda.
Moderate your position please. You're also contradicting yourself. You're saying you want a higher percentage of people to vote and then you're attempting to paint HALF the voting population as puppets of some shadow corporate oligarchy... which is basically the political complexity I would expect out of a bad comic book.
Try harder.
... or they'll choose to do something else. There is no institutional sexism. No one has been able to find it.
All you have is a stat that shows women don't statistically pursue this career. There is no evidence that universities are discriminating and there is no evidence that companies are discriminating.
So what you are really upset about is women CHOOSING to not go into tech.
You apparently don't like people having choices. You want everyone to statistically fall into perfect little patterns and do things according to your numbers.
Only one way to do that. Force women to and men and any other arbitrary group your stupid statistics think are relevant... and force them into tech... or else... scorpions? I'll leave that up to you.
Absent that, people are not going to fall into these statistical patterns. More men are going to get into some careers. More women are going to get into others. How many male kindergarten teachers are there? How many men work at maternity wards in hospitals? Women like small children and babies. They just do. And so that is ONE example of a career women tend to be happier in then men. I am not saying they should be pushed into it or that they should do it. They personally choose to do it because they like it. It is a choice.
And men often like solitary complex tasks working long hours often for no more reason then because it is hard and if they don't do it no one will.
Men like jobs that no one else will do. We gravitate to that stuff. We like being the guy that signs up for a couple years in the Merchant Marines seeing land no more then a couple days out of a month for years. Our contacts with civilization basically being a bar crawl climaxing with a trip to a brothel. Deal with it.
Men and women are not the same. They're not. We like different things. Pretending it is all socialization and otherwise women would love action movies and guys would be crying on the couch eating ice cream while watching romantic comedies is the opinion MORONS have.
I am not a moron. However, there are clearly a lot of morons running around and quite a few people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between morons and normal people. Because the morons are being treated like they're smart.
I think part of it might be that what the morons are saying doesn't make any sense. And we tend to associate things that do not make sense these days with something so smart that it is just beyond us. Except, sometimes things that don't make sense actually don't make sense... because they're stupid.
This whole feminist kick that the media is going on these days is dumb. You are embarrassing yourselves and you're not helping women.
If you actually won, the best you'd have accomplished is cause the competency of women for a generation to be questioned because no one would know if they earned their job or if they were some sort of diversity hire.
Stop being stupid. No really. Stop eating the lead paint chips which I am assuming is a popular ingredient at jamba juice.. and just stop. It is your job to write articles and talk. I don't want you to starve.
Just try harder to not literally have the opinions of literal idiots. Not saying you are idiots... just that you happen to be thinking in much the same way and it is not acceptable.
Wrong. This is on Obama as well.
Do not take my sincerity to not play politics as an invitation for you to coopt my position and inject your own.
This is on both men at least equally.
To those that say otherwise, you are part of the problem.
In fairness our alternatives at the time were McCain, Hillary, and Obama.
Of the three we thought... "why not... he couldn't be any worse those those idiots"... and it seems he was if only because he didn't realize what his job was in the first place.
The one thing I've always found the most fascinating about Obama is that he doesn't know what the role of the president is in the first place. He thinks he is in charge when really his job is to EXECUTE. He is not a judge... that is for the judiciary. He is not a maker of law. That is for the legislature. He is a glorified administrator. A functionary who's job it is to see that policy is executed quickly and efficiently.
In fairness, Bush was likewise pretty stupid on this point. I think he thought of himself as some sort of moral figure.
Presidents are not about morality. They don't do things because they're right or wrong. They do them because they must be done.
That is the president I want. A politician that is good at politics so he can kiss the babies, then when he goes to work executes the law as written and in spirit. I want a politician that carries out diplomatic policy in the interests of the people that pay him his wage and put him in the seat. Americans. Should the US go out of its way to screw over other countries? Not out of its way... but we have interests and they should be our primary concern.
Oh, we do talk to other americans. Americans excel at talking as you should be more then aware at this point.
As to violent revolution... someday perhaps. Not today. It is one of the reasons we preserve our weapons. The idiots in our society have a hard time grasping that things don't last forever.
The US will fall one day. And when that happens who do they want to have the guns? Do they really want the people disarmed when order breaks down?
Why is any people afforded rights when the laws are written? Because if they are not, those people will hang the men writing them.
Literally.
And when a government does not fear its people it does not respect them either.
We need our weapons because we have a right to be dangerous and a right to be feared for in being feared we are respected.
All respect is based ultimately on fear. Fear of the consequences. The fear of "or else".
It is why you pay your bills. It is why you drive the speed limit.
The US is going through a hard time. We are still digesting the ideological poison that Europe sent us more then 100 years ago. We have weathered its effects better then any of our peers. But it is nasty stuff and in the process many of our core institutions became irreparably damaged. It will take us sometime to bypass and rebuild them.
But have no fear... we have not stopped talking.
I can't speak to the UK, but the US doesn't have that problem at the legislative level. At the executive level, so much of the government is a black box. We don't really know what they're doing and they have been caught lying to congress. So... the conspiracy theories are going to run wild. Why try to stop them.
Price of lying to congress which is a thing the NSA was caught red handed doing.
Of course, the IRS also recently lied to congress.
And the head of the new ACA or Obama care system just resigned mostly for lying to congress as well.
So... it is a thing. The executive is lying a lot. Congress really needs to get a spine and gut the executive.
The legislature is our most democratic body. The executive should fear them. But they don't. They see the legislature as a joke they can control. Largely at this point because it is full of so many useful idiots.
... When you abused the trust people put in the Government and the NSA.
Previously... before all this arrogant bullshit... you would have gotten that cooperation either publicly or covertly. But you gave everyone the finger and told them you could do what you want.
You told everyone that Due Process was for suckers and you could just do whatever whenever however. And that has a price.
You're paying it now. The whole country will be paying it.
I don't want to put this all on Obama. It is also on the people that run these agencies and it is of course on the previous administration as well.
None of them have any regard for the constitution. It is a social contract to be obeyed by the letter and the spirit. Not either or neither. Both. You do what it says and if you've come up with a clever way to get around it without breaking the letter of the law... you don't do it.
It isn't just a law. It is a relationship. It is a code. It is what other societies have for a holy writ. You don't break it or the nation cracks.
And that is what has happened. The nation has cracked... and cracked again... and it is starting to break.
Patriotism he says? This would be the patriotism that so many on the political left laugh at and spit upon? Well... why would patriotism shuffle over to the likes of Obama covered in phlegm and do his bidding?
All this anti America garbage has a price as well. How could it not. If you devalue patriotism then patriotism has been devalued. When you call upon it... the check bounces.
Take me... My patriotism is just about used up. It hasn't been honored. It hasn't been replenished. It has been condemned and devalued.
Then Obama presumes to call upon it in the name of what? More unconstitutional spying? He wants to use my love of country which he laughs at to destroy my country?
The man is delusional.
The country needs to be run people that at the very least understand what they're doing. I don't even need someone that is honest. I need someone that knows their job. Obama and the people he's got running the government do not. They don't understand what binds the country together or keeps it running.
I'll take anyone of any political bent so long as they know their jobs and honor their oaths. Beyond that they can do anything at this point. I won't be picky.
I put bullshit where it belongs. And then I flush.
No hesitation. No mercy. No remorse.
That would be the United States that has that fire power. Belgium has waffles.
The combined forces of NATO without the US were unable to defeat Yugoslavia. Go back and read/watch the reports from the time. The US stayed out of it until it became pathetically clear that Yugoslavia had fought the combined forces of NATO minus the US to a standstill.
This is an under equipt, backward, vastly out numbered, cold war dystopia... had an equivalent military force to ALL of NATO... minus the US.
Europe is weak. Everyone knows it. Especially the Europeans. Which is why they get upset when military power is held to be relevant in many situation because they haven't got any.
Europe isn't doing to do anything. They only way they're ever going to rearm is if their governments fall. Short of revolutions and the complete collapse of social order... they won't rearm.
And even if they did... the vast majority of them aren't militant. And lacking that, they aren't going to fight for anything.
Their societies were backed up by their nobility that typically was schooled in what was important to sustain a nation. A certain amount of martial prowess was understood to be required to be credible. Then they got rid of their nobles and thought "I know, lets spend all that money on free food"... which seems like a really good idea until you need to fight again.
They can't. It will take them decades to build up a military force. And the biggest barrier is in their minds.
They are at this point, vassel powers of the United States. They are afforded the right to disagree and pay no taxes to the US. But they are utterly dependent on US patronage for their strategic position.
Here a European will likely complain or presume to contradict me. But if such a fool wants to do that, I will wither his argument with the cold light of reality.
I do not say any of this by the way to brag or say the US is amazing even though it demonstrably is amazing. The reason I say this is because Europe has no credible military force. So saying they're going to go attack other countries is absurd.
That was never the problem with Christianity. Since when did Christians have a hard time killing people? They don't. Thousands of years of war in Europe AFTER the conversion to Christianity make my point rather clearly.
Rather the issue was that it created social disorder because there were a lot of pagans in Rome. All the old buildings, the old gods, the old legends, the old traditions... the whole society was polytheistic.
And some stupid emperor presumed to just change the religion of a culture that went back thousands of years in a day.
For a modern analog, consider the loss of Christianity in the west. Look at all the Christians that get annoyed by that. If you didn't switch from Christianity you'd have those people backing your society. But because you're saying you don't believe in their god they're wavering.
Forget whether you like or don't like religion. it doesn't really matter. The point is belief and politics. Societies themselves are just belief.
Consider the line "God and Country". See that? Things worth killing for. And that is what nations need to remain nations. If people don't believe in them they die.
A foolish belief of many modern politicians as well as the old Romans just before their empire fell was that people just want free stuff. And so long as you give out goodies people will believe.
Expect for that isn't how it works.You can't substitute belief with greed. You do that and the instant it is in your interest to fuck the society over you do it. There is no sacrificing made for a society you do not believe in.
Do you see? Sacrifice. Belief.
Messing about with the gods of a successful society is very dangerous for that society. It is one of the things that killed Rome.
Rome was killed by a lot of things at once. But changing its theistic center was one of them.
The legions marched with Mars in their hearts as well as a dozen other pagan gods and demigods. Some of them were specific to certain legions. A given legion might have their own patron god that watched over them. That legion would sacrifice to that god. They would carry around an alter for that god.
Then you tell them their new god is Christ and that is everyone's god and your old god is outlawed.
The legions of course did not stop worshiping their private gods. They just grew apart from the empire and became more insular.
Belief. Don't underestimate it.
That was only part of it. This rebellion of the peasants concept is countered by examples of societies existing for thousands of years despite their peasantry being quite poor.
It takes more then that to collapse a society.
A society is an arbitrary association of people.
What destroys all societies ultimately is belief. When a nation is not believed in anymore... it ceases to exist. The association breaks down.
So long as people believe the country, nation, empire cannot die.
Unlikely. A good deal of the west is more likely to go out with a whimper rather then a bang.
This has happened before. Rome fell under similar circumstances.
The collapse of its national religion, serious economic problems, worn out from war, massive immigration from cultures not loyal to the empire... and lots of corruption.
This is how the West falls.
Citing an article and saying it agrees with you doesn't mean you score points in a discussion.
Rather, you have to actually make a fucking argument for which you CAN use external evidence.
Would it be appropriate if I slapped 100 opinions from experts into the thread and then without further explanation just walked away?
Either have a discussion in a discussion thread or bow out and don't comment again.
Want me to go through your citation point by point? FINE.
So point 1:
Your study does use some storage. Not as much I would think it does. But it does use some storage.
Point 2: your system requires two way networked connections between every major power using device in every home and business and the grid. Your system ONLY works if the overwhelming majority of systems share information back and forth to allow for this "flexible demand" system. And not only is that unlikely but you're proposing that not having my stuff turn on when I turn them on is okay. With my fridge, MAYBE that is okay if as he said system is only delayed for a couple minutes. But if it takes an hour or more then it is going to start effecting the temperature of the fridge. And when we're talking about heating and cooling systems for the house itself... I do not want the system to wait even 3 minutes before it kicks on. Especially if I am turning the system on manually because I just got home or something and I want to adjust the temperature. So this flexible issue is likely unrealistic.
3. Smart routing as they term it is mostly the grid operators running themselves ragged trying to load balance the system.
Do you know how the current grid is load balanced? They are not constantly turning stuff on and off again or at least they try to avoid it. They run the grid the same way a semi truck goes down the freeway. The traffic can stop and go but the semi can't play that game. So instead, the semi goes the AVERAGE speed of the freeway neither tailgating people as the road opens up for two minutes nor slamming on the breaks when it enevidably comes to a halt. The grid operators do the same thing. They pick a supply level in excess of what demand is likely to be and just hold it up there. The excess is generally wasted.
Why do they waste that power? Because it is easier to waste that power then try to perfectly match supply to demand. The power graph tends to be pretty even and flat. They'll pitch it up during certain parts of the day and pitch it down during others. But they're not spiking the system all over the place.
You say you have a study behind you? Well who the fuck doesn't in the 21st century? Fucking everyone has a study. Want me to get a study that shows you need power storage to make this little dream happen? Because we both know there are lots of them out there.
You want more alternative power? Great... we all do. But for that to happen it has to be competitive with the existing systems OR you have to completely change the way everything is done.
In regards to solar and wind, we can avoid all that smart grid bullshit by just putting the fucking solar panels on the roofs of the houses using the power. Then the spikey power curves from unreliable solar cease to matter. The solar basically just lowers demand. And while there will be spikes, there will be so much white noise from all the panels that it should mostly balance out.
Same with wind. Rather then building big boondoggle wind projects, encourage people to build alternative energy in their backyards to lower demand. Ideally we can move towards net power producing homes or just off grid homes.
For the Urban environment... nuclear power. Nuclear power is awesome. Just because some reactors that were built in the 1960s and run continuously since then had issues when tidal waves hit them is not a reason to not use the most effective and green energy source known to man.
As to 2014 being the warmest year on record, apparently that is in direct opposition to what the satellites say about it.
As to how any climate model is supposed to account for the data... you're just giving an argument for not being able to model the climate which means you can't make predictions. I know, you said you wanted it to last 30 years before you'd take it seriously. But then you're saying 2014 is something which contradicts that position. If 10 years are irrelevant then why is 1 year relevant? And again, the sat data contradicts your conclusion about 2014. It seems like there is a lot of cherry picking going on where you'll take one bit of data as relevant one year and then say that doesn't matter but another bit of data does. And then flip that back and forth depending on which ever bit of data most closely matches what you want the conclusion to be. Which obviously isn't how science works.
As to the constant warming, I think there was a long pause in the 70s and the 80s didn't go up much. The big jump was in the 90s and without that your numbers don't look as good.
Keep in mind, they're trying to boil temperature differences of a tenth to a hundred of a degree over the whole surface of the planet over at least a year. That is a LOT of averaging. And they don't average the numbers together the same way every year.
The probability for math to get biased is huge. Especially since getting your hands on raw data is almost impossible. I've tried repeatedly and every time I get something other then raw data if I get data at all.
All told, the sat data is probably the best way to go with it because it is one source of data. The problem from that again is that raw data from the satellite is literally impossible to get so far as I've found. If you have the raw measurements from space that would be something to look at. I've read a few articles about how they've recalibrated the the data a few times. Effectively changing past records retroactively. Say what you will, you can see how that is troubling if you're trying to audit the data.
Imagine if this were an IRS audit and the numbers had been fucked with this much. You'd demand raw data so you could recalculate from scratch.That isn't unreasonable.
As to what is reasonable and climate variability, I think you have to use the same time scale standards when you talk about what supports your case as well as what threatens your case. I have noticed some double standards there in that anything no matter how small that seems to support the position is taken as evidence and anything up to even 10 years of time that contradicts it is ignored. That is troubling.
If 30 years is the minimum time required to contradict your position then 30 years must be the minimum to support it.
What is more, you can't claim that anything is evidence of your position in the future unless it persists for 30 years.
When you bump things up to a 30 year minimum then you're going to have to play by those rules.
I read the article and watched your video. You run into this with advocates. They tell white lies. They hedge. They make conditional statements.
The first thing you notice is that they're requiring that excess solar/wind be stored. That in and of itself changes what you're saying.
The second thing is that they're requiring a dynamic system that can jink the power up and down radically to deal with instability. That is a massive problem. Existing power supplies DO fail as they pointed out however they don't fail 200 times a day which is how the grid reads a power supply going from 20 to 5 and then back up to 20 over and fucking over again.
You need storage for alternative power or it should not be added to grid.
Again, a good way to compromise is to add solar and wind to the point of use. Put it on your house. i don't know why people hate this idea so much. You're wasting your roof space by not doing anything with it. Put a solar panel on it and from the grid's perspective you're using less power which means the gird needs less capacity to feed your needs.
This is especially useful for the american south and south west where there is a lot of air conditioner usage in the middle of the day. Solar would counter act most of the power used by air conditioning systems which would be a massive improvement. What is more, we can build these system to store power locally and slowly move to a system where homes are grid independent by default.
The grid concept is one that makes sense with power sources like coal and nuclear power. Once you start talking about harvesting energy from the sky or the wind the concept of the grid in that context becomes laughable.
So you're saying the pause would have to last for 30 years for you to take note?
The issue is that the warming happens often in 10 year cycles followed by ten years of cooling or flat temperatures.
It feels like you're cherry picking the data a bit. Most of the warming that people are upset about happened in the 1990s. Not in the 1980s. And not in the 1970s. In the 90s.
So it feels like you're trying to have it both ways. You're saying the 10 years from the 90s matter but the 10 years in the 2000s don't. I don't see the logic of that.
If you're saying it is all about averages... the current trends are pulling your numbers down.
As to after the fact recalculations of figures, none of that was predicted by your previous climate model. Previously climate models treated the ocean as a sink for water only. That is, they were sources of humidity. That was literally the extent of their accounting for the ocean. Now when the numbers stop matching they say it is all going into the ocean which means the ocean is not just a sink of moisture.
Something that I am very aware of in this discussion is that there is a lot of data and I know from my time at university that it was very easy to lie or fudge a report if it was very complicated because no one ever read them in that much detail. You just had to keep the fudging small and obscured by so much data that no one could tell the difference.
And I feel like that is very easy to do in climate science because of the disorganized way they manage data.
Do you honestly think you could audit a climate report?
It isn't practical. What I am looking for is not after the fact number matching but BEFORE the fact number matching. And that isn't happening. They only are able to match their numbers by remaking the model in real time. That is not how models are validated.
If Newton changed his laws of motion every time someone wanted to calculate the position of a planet then he wouldn't be the fellow of science he is today.
His laws of motion work. No modification required unless you want greater accuracy and then you get into additional calculations. But they laws are generally sound without modification which is why they're still taught in school.
Your climate models have to be tweaked every time they're used BY the people making them. And they have to know in advance both the correct answer and the data set. That isn't how models are supposed to work.
The model should work indifferent to the correct answer because it derives the correct answer inherently. And the dataset should not matter either if it is empirical because the model should work with any empirical dataset.
It does none of these things. And that is a problem.
Yeah that is a lot more complicated then you're making it out to be.
The way you make that work is through storage. There is no way around it. And storage tends to double the cost of renewables.
Except for what you mean buy upgrading the grid mostly deals with storing power. And that should really be handled by the "alt power" producers given that it is a deficiency they have and coal, diesel, and nuclear do not.
once you add the cost of storage which is what gives you consisten reliable power with "alt power" you are dealing with an entirely different cost structure.
At this point, I think people should be looking more into biogas rather then solar/wind especially if you want to maintain the grid.
Solar and wind work better at REDUCING electrical demand at the point of use rather then actually replacing the coal power plant.
If you want to replace the coal power plant then you need a power source you can store. Coal for all its problems can be stored. You just make a pile of coal... bam... storage. Same thing with the other fuel based energy sources. You just store the fuel.
Consider biogas though. It is carbon neutral and can be made from garbage, farm dross, wood scraps... anything really... banana peels a la back to the future 2.
Not only would that reduce the rate at which we're filling land fills but it will provide a lot of carbon neutral power.
Really.
The problem is that the universities are going to put money wherever it is going to make a return on investment. If the universities do not invest in these companies it probably won't effect them. Someone else will just get the pay out instead.
So what is the point of yet another pointless "moral" stance that accomplishes nothing.
if you want to tackle big carbon, then provide an alternative that isn't a fucking bad joke. Absent that... fuck off.
Endless stories about women not getting into given careers. Enough. If you want women to join those careers then stop giving them the choice not to join those careers. Because they are not in these careers because of their CHOICES.
if you don't like the choices women are making then whine at THEM. Neither men, nor companies, nor the universities are excluding women. They simply do not exist in these fields in the numbers that the stats weenies desire. End of discussion.
No really. Shut the hell up unless you can show systematic CAUSAL gender bias. Not just "well women aren't here so clearly it must be sexism". That is bullshit for same reason that there are lots of jobs that women tend to dominate and men don't say "well that's clearly sexism"... it isn't. Some jobs women don't want to do and some jobs men don't want to do. Get over it.