He was also a democrat in Arkansas. Give the man credit for what he was able to get. Consider Romney in Massachusetts. Forget whether you agree with either man's politics for a moment and merely admire their ability to thrive in hostile environments.
I frankly think the best politicians in the US are politicians that get elected in states where their party is the minority. That means that politician is getting either 100 percent of the middle or they're getting a big chunk of the opposition to vote for them. That is kind of amazing if you know anything about American politics. Most politicians get almost no votes from the opposing party. Those that get any tend to be very good politicians.
This is not to say their policies are good or their ideas are good. But rather that they're good politicians. They get people to agree with them... even their political enemies. That's impressive.
Bill Clinton was good at that. Gore has always been shitty at it. He's very arrogant and lets everyone know how arrogant he is which means no one backs him but his allies. And even his allies tend not to like him.
Listen to all the democrats that say bad things about him. Think about that. He's so good at pissing people off that he even pisses his allies off. He's a bad politician. Avoid him.
Consider Newton's laws of motion. We would both agree that is science, yes?
Okay.
What happens if I feed in known planetary information into Newton's equations at Time X and then ask you to tell me where the planets are at time X+5? Newton's laws of motion will let you do that and they'll do it fairly accurately.
Newton's equations effectively provided a model for planetary motion amongst other things.
What I am asking for is a climate model in that context. A model where I can feed in ANY data and it will output a fairly accurate prediction of how that climate system will operate. This should include being able to predict roughly what the climate conditions will be like throughout the planet over a period of some years.
At no point, should Mann or people like him make predictions about the climate beyond the accuracy of his own models. So if his models only work to a few months or a year, then his predictions should not exceed that time period. If his models are accurate to 30 or 100 years then by all means make predictions on that time scale.
From what I've been able to gather, his models are incredibly inaccurate to such an extent that they're probably not even accurate enough to handle months much less years much less decades. And yet he makes predictions that span centuries. It is absurd.
As to outside the US, that isn't the case actually. Surveys throughout the western world show that populations are increasingly taking the issue less seriously.
So the US is nothing special in this regard. You are losing the battle politically throughout the west.
And if you look at Asia, South America, Africa, the middle east... you're doing even worse.
If you want to get somewhere with climate change, you're going to have to change tactics. This Command and Control concept you're pushing has failed. What is more, even if it were not resisted it would still fail because it is a bad idea.
You solve the problem by coming up with better ways to do things. You do not do it by slapping/taxing/pointing guns in the face of/regulating everyone that does things in the most efficient means possible.
As to evidence, I asked you to show me ONE validated climate model. A model that can take known historical climate data and output known past or present climate conditions.
Does such a model exist? And keep in mind, if the model has as a component the correct answers pre fed into it... then that is clearly cheating. Mann has personally tried that trick a few times. He tried it with the Japanese and they frankly were offended by his presumption.
The model must ACTUALLY calculate accurate climate conditions. Or it isn't worth anything. And if you don't have a model that is worth anything then I wonder why you think you have a leg to stand upon.
Present ONE model. In any other field of science, you could ask me show evidence of anything and I would show you their models which have been tested and validated. In climate science... all I get is evasion, childish insults, sputtering, and transparent attempts to cloud the issue by burying me in white noise data.
I want a fucking validated model or I want the AGW advocates to step off their pedestal. This is a reality check.
With respect, neither wind nor solar are credible additions to the traditional power grid.
Both wind and solar should be implemented the point of use and used to reduce the demand of those sites on the grid itself.
That is, you implement solar by putting solar panels on homes. You implement wind by putting wind mills in back yards.
As to the urban environment, it is too dense to credibly use renewable energy in that way. So I'd suggest cities rely increasingly on nuclear power.
Here you might say "but nuclear power is bad because some power plants built in the 50s and 60s had issues after being poorly maintained and continuously running for 50 years." Think about it.
For one, those were old designs. Newer designs are better. For another, the reason they ran for so long with such poor maintenance is because they had a big too big to fail system design. Rather then a big reactor, you can have dozens or even hundreds of smaller reactors that can be replaced and repaired on a regular basis without disrupting the output of the plant.
As to wind and solar on the grid... from what people that work in the energy industry tell me, the wind and solar plants accomplish very little and mostly just make their jobs harder. The big issue is that their power is not consistent. Rather then dumping power they collect directly into the grid, they should instead store or cache it and then drain the cache at a steady and sustainable rate. That way little spikes or dips in the power flow won't be something the grid operators have to worry about because it will be smoothed out by the storage/cache system.
Very few solar and wind systems have such caches and because of that they are more nuisance then help in the grid.
As the other guy said, I'm saying Gore is an incompetent politician. Bill Clinton is a great politician. Even his enemies admire the man's skill. He had the nick name of "slick willy" because he was such a master speaker.
Gore by contrast was a wet fish. Very few politicians are as good as Bill Clinton. Again, I'm not saying his policies were good or bad... just that Bill was very good at politics. He knew how to talk to people.
Gore doesn't. He was handed the presidency on a golden platter and he fucked it up.
And after fucking it up, he went on to lead the green revolution which he's also done a shitty job at because he refuses to make friends.
He just insults and offends everyone making enemies out of people that otherwise might have supported him.
The green movement has done much the same thing. Big industry doesn't have to be your enemy. All they are going to care about is making money. Help them find a way to build a new green industry and they're not going to be your enemy.
Someone has to build all that stuff. And you're talking to people that take it as normal to build stuff on the bottom of the ocean or drill over a mile under the earth. These are not intellectual or engineering light weights. Why give them the finger and tell them they're assholes? That is not what a clever politician would have done. Such a person would have used and incorporated them.
Stupid politicians give everyone the finger, tell everyone "I'll do what I want", and then proceed to piss all over everyone. Short of a gun to my head, I'm not going to tolerate someone doing that to me. And by and large I am not alone. The only people that are putting up with it are those that think they're standing up on the pedestal with him pissing on everyone else. And over time most are coming to realize no one is up there but him a few other select interests. Which is why over time his political position is continually eroding.
That isn't a climate cmodel. That is the observation that gases or even more generally matter retains thermal energy.
Do me this favor, look up the temperature of Venus at 1 atmosphere.
Repeat that by looking at the temperature of Jupiter at 1 atmosphere.
Repeat by comparing the temperature of the earth's atmosphere at an altitude where its density matches that of Mars.
Keep in mind, what we are doing is looking at temperatures at the same pressure in each atmosphere.
Don't read beyond this point until you've looked it up..........
You'll have noticed something odd. The temperatures at equal pressures are very similar. Which means, what is actually relevant is atmospheric density. Not CO2.
This particular bombshell was dropped by a mathematician that was looking into the issue for fun. Open your eyes. You've been had.
Newton's laws of motion still work. Why do your climate models not work unless they already know the right answer?
The Japanese had this experience with Mann's models. They gave him a super computer to test his models on and he couldn't do it. It was pathetic. He had to use plug variables to tell the model what the right answer was in advance. And that was the only way it was able to get close to an accurate prediction.
That isn't a model. A model takes in all relevant variables and outputs either unstated variables concluded from the inputs or projects forward to show how the system will evolve.
I accept that his models likely aren't precise enough to project very far into the future. But they are only predictive to the extent that they can accurately project. So, if his models are good for three months into the future, then that is how far he can make climate predictions. When his models get better he can make grander predictions. Until then... they're just opinions. And opinions are like assholes... are they not?
Not necessarily. There are other ways to deal with it. The objection by republicans has less to do with an attack on big oil then it does on an expansion of federal control over business.
This is something that people of a left bent seem to have a very hard time getting about their opposition. I think they're so determined to demonize them that they don't actually bother to understand them.
Allow me to connect the dots here: The major problem with the AGW solutions is that they are enacted through federal and state taxes and regulations on business.
Consider that the environment doesn't care how you go about it. All the environment would care about is that you stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them. There are other ways to go about it.
What you must acknowledge is that AGW politics give an excuse for people of a leftward bent to do something they wanted to do anyway. They wanted to tax and regulate business before all this environmental stuff. Then Al Gore comes along and says "we need to do the stuff we already wanted to do to save the world!" Well shockingly that didn't go down well with his political opposition that didn't buy that line of shit for a second.
Now here you're going to say "but what other solutions could their possibly be!" Well, there are lots of them. Seriously fucking hundreds of ideas that get rejected almost instantly because they don't serve the secondary agenda of AGW which is about money and power. That sounds cynical I suppose to some but that is my impression of the matter given that ideas that do not increase the money and power of the advocates are always rejected.
If you want me to cite some alternatives that republicans wouldn't mind, then I'll be happy to throw a few at you.
Keep in mind, it just isn't the evil soulless republicans that aren't on board with this nonsense... most of east Asia thinks its shit as well, as does most of south america, Russia thinks its crap, and africa/middle east just don't care.
The only places you'll find anyone that actually cares is in North America and Europe. Outside that zone the "care" goes down like a rock. And if we're restraining our view to that perspective then suddenly elements like the republicans become extremely relevant as they make a large portion of the total political power.
In any case... I'm well open to a discussion. But be prepared for something different. I am not conventional.
He's also a political figure. And he was attacked by political agents for being a political agent.
There are attacks on his science as well but in this case his political personality is being attacked by political opponents. This is nothing special. It is what we like to call "Tuesday".
Scientific models are proven all the time. Newton's laws of motion are a really famous physics model that was very accurate at describing and predicting planetary movements. You could verify the model by giving the system the positions of planets, their mass, etc, and then asking where the planets are NOW? Then you could compare the output from the equations with astronomical observations. And they matched observations with a high degree of accuracy.
No current AGW climate model is capable of doing that. They are unable to actually model the global climate. And I'm not talking about predicting every hurricane but rather guessing large climate patterns.
For example, we are currently in a long term pause in the warming of the world. The climate models have no idea why that happened or even if we have paused. It is controversial as to whether the oceans are eating the temperature or if rather then pausing the heating has stopped and might even go down. They do not know.
And because they do not know they are in no position to tell me what is going on because they demonstrably do not know.
All well and good but you failed to back up anything. You just said:
"I am Chicken LIttle! Look upon my works and freak out like a child!"
I am asking pro AGW people to show me a validated climate model or admit that they don't have one. I know you don't have one. I want you to admit it. And when that happens... you'll be admitting to having no high ground upon which you can piss on those below you.
You never had that high ground... but so many on your side seem to have deluded yourselves into thinking otherwise.
It is a pity that you have such a poor grasp of how science works.
It is not my burden to come up with a model when I am merely showing that you do not have one yourself. And if you do not have a model then you do not have a theory. And if you do not have a theory, then really this is just two people bickering with each other without the backing of science. Which means what we really have in many cases is politics mascarading as science. Which of course is easily unmasked when you simply ask to see the model.
There isn't one.
And absent that... you've got nothing. Show me ONE climate model that backs up AGW that has been verified using falsifiable tests against empirical information.
It is really quite easy. Feed old climate data into your model to see if your model will predict past or current climate conditions. You either can do that or you can't.
The political argument is choking on its own blood with crushed internal organs.
Lets hope the scientific argument can do better by providing an actual model that has actually passed empirical validation.
Because if you can't provide that, then the AGW issue isn't just beaten nearly to death... it was always dead and what was beaten up was a corpse. The whole thing turned into some incredibly wasteful rerun of Weekend at Bernie's.
Bill was popular after his presidency. Gore blew it by distancing himself and then going anti gun which is something Bill never would do... because it is politically stupid.
Which is my point. The AGW lobby is being run by well connected though stupid political agents. I am telling you to get better representatives that are less stupid.
As to low light, there are a lot of security cameras that have infrared LEDs to handle low light. That is probably fine.
As to the resolution, the context and cross reference with the documentation should be fine. I don't need to pick out a face at 100 feet for the camera to do its job.
The primary point of the camera is so that the police can't manufacture a favorable accounting of the arrest. Simply having audio makes that hard for them to do. The video is just icing on the cake.
If Global Warming is a science issue then stop trying to make political arguments.
You are LOSING the political battle. Stop fighting. Everything since Al Gore started organizing this movement has been one political miscalculation after another.
Why would you expect otherwise? This is the same guy that lost to GWB after serving a Bill Clinton's Vice President for eight years. That election was in the bag. And he blew it by thinking that attacking guns in the middle of a presidential election was a good idea.
Every single serious presidential contender until Obama made sure they had a picture of themselves holding a shotgun or something in their national ads. Think about that.
Seriously. If you don't want this to a political campaign then stop treating it like a political campaign. Swiftboating? Are you fucking high? You're going to bring up that shit that John Kerry was whining about? Stop listening to failed politicians to structure your political arguments.
If you want sound political advice, talk to someone that wins. Talk to Bill Clinton. I'm sure he'd be happy to give you some advice. He'd probably tell you to stop being such royal pricks and try to build some bridges. Which is probably why you like Al Gore... he probably says "fuck the opposition we are right!"... which is possibly the dumbest political advice possible.
If you want to talk about science, then show me a tested climate model that has been subjected to an empirical test of its validity. It isn't that hard guys. We have a lot of very accurate historical data. Feed in past climate data and see if your climate model can predict the past or the present accurately. The first model that can do that which isn't just a collection of plug variables is something worth taking seriously.
Until you have that model... you have no theory. There is no global warming theory without a tested model. You have rather a global warming hypothesis. To get a theory you need a validated model. You do not have that at this moment so far as I know. Which means... you have jack.
Which is a problem because you're losing the political argument. If on top of losing the political argument you're also unable to provide a validated climate model... then what we have here is a platform sustained almost entirely by hubris and graft.
Please contradict me... show me your validated model.
Here someone will say "what about if they go to the bathroom"?
Don't point your camera at your dick. The most anyone will get out of it if you don't point your camera at your dick is the sound of you loudly farting while you use the facilities. Who cares.
Eight hours of digitally recorded video and sound every day. Maintain video on file for 7 days unless something specifically comes up. Then back up the portion of the video that is relevant.
Total cost is about 100 dollars a decent camera. Maybe 20 to 50 dollars for a battery that can drive it, plus how many ever gigabytes of space is needed for 8 hours times six memory cards because I can assume the police do not work seven days a week.
That is the cost.
Anything beyond that is someone getting fancy. You want to buy a special camera that costs 200 dollars? Fine. You're mostly paying the government mark up but whatever. You pay over 1000 and you're just wiping your asses with taxpayer dollars.
What is more, 100 terabytes of company data is a lot to download. That didn't happen in a couple weeks. In fact, a fair amount of it might have been taken PHYSICALLY from Sony's servers.
Again... hack was in progress for more then a year.
Which is the problem with nuclear weapons. Which military would you rather have... Some French ICBMs or India's conventional military with no nuclear weapons?
I'd take India's military any day. You can actually use it. Last resorts that you don't want to use are often no better then having no resort at all. All they let you do in many cases is put a stick in the eye of the person that killed you.
Look, I get your point... I do. Get mine... they should be able to produce their product smoothly without getting bumped out of line by Apple.
Except even in your example that situation was not accepted or shrugged off. The industry has taken steps to decentralize the production of storage media as a result.
I am not suggesting that companies shouldn't run into problems or that problems are not normal.
Rather, I am saying that when companies run into serious problems they need to be taken seriously and addressed in a manner that they no longer pose a strategic risk to their position.
AMD clearly needs more leverage in the supply chain. How they get that is their business. But meekly waiting in line is for suckers.
1. they assume we're going to actually subscribe to all those channels. 2. they don't appreciate that ultimately we don't want a la carte channels but rather a la carte shows. Just because I like ONE show on a network doesn't mean I want to buy them all. Imagine if Warner Brothers presumed that because you wanted to see ONE movie that you had to buy a license to their whole year of movies. No. Just no. 3. They assume that we even have to buy TV licenses. The thing is that we have a lot of competition for our entertainment. Video games, the internet, etc. I don't need to have a subscription to a channel. I only watch tv at my parents house and find the practice to be generally quaint. In my own home, I have a big screen tv that plays movies, shows, and video games. All of which without a subscription to anything but a few cheap streaming services. 4. They don't appreciate that bundling effectively subsidizes failed stations. Consider CNN or the Oxygen Network. Neither one has ratings high enough to really credit their existence. What keeps them alive is the bundling model. Without the bundling, they'd have either never been born or would have died long ago. I don't want my subscription fees used to subsidize garbage content. No one is impressed when the cable companies say "you'll get 250 channels!"... We know what that means. Cut out the trash and you're looking at maybe 25 channels that are worth a damn and that includes the three or four versions of ESPN. The actual number of channels that are worth a damn are a tiny fraction of the total catalog and everyone knows it. THOSE stations are worth paying for and the rest are not. The rest are generally worth ZERO. They're just padding to make people think they're getting an amazing deal. Look at all the stations. Then you hook it up and realize that that is just more shit to skip through to get from one of the decent stations to another. 5. They still think that we're going to hook up a regular cable connection instead of just do video on demand. Listen lackwits, traditional cable is dying of old age. Think of it like a 25 year old dog. The poor guy is blind, limps around the house, smells like death, and keeps leaving mange all over the place. Face it. Video on demand is the the future. And with a video on demand a la carte model I could buy ONE channel or ONE show and nothing else. I don't have to sign up for everything else. I know you want me to because you like money. But guess what it isn't competitive. You can't get away with that crap for much longer. Either sell me what I want and nothing else or keep whiffing.
It doesn't matter if they have other businesses. Their role in that market requires that they have the ability to produce products. If their lack of control over their supply chain is making their future in that market questionable then they need to make a choice.
Then they can't do it the way you are thinking about it.
But if they don't do something then they are in a very bad position.
I am not saying they have to do it the way YOU imagine that anyone must do it. Consider that there might be other ways. And really, that is an issue that could take a lot of time on the part of people that know a lot more then either of us to figure out.
Regardless, the point is that if they do not obtain some leverage they're fucked.
Slashdot Mirror
He was also a democrat in Arkansas. Give the man credit for what he was able to get. Consider Romney in Massachusetts. Forget whether you agree with either man's politics for a moment and merely admire their ability to thrive in hostile environments.
I frankly think the best politicians in the US are politicians that get elected in states where their party is the minority. That means that politician is getting either 100 percent of the middle or they're getting a big chunk of the opposition to vote for them. That is kind of amazing if you know anything about American politics. Most politicians get almost no votes from the opposing party. Those that get any tend to be very good politicians.
This is not to say their policies are good or their ideas are good. But rather that they're good politicians. They get people to agree with them... even their political enemies. That's impressive.
Bill Clinton was good at that. Gore has always been shitty at it. He's very arrogant and lets everyone know how arrogant he is which means no one backs him but his allies. And even his allies tend not to like him.
Listen to all the democrats that say bad things about him. Think about that. He's so good at pissing people off that he even pisses his allies off. He's a bad politician. Avoid him.
I think there was a misunderstanding.
Consider Newton's laws of motion. We would both agree that is science, yes?
Okay.
What happens if I feed in known planetary information into Newton's equations at Time X and then ask you to tell me where the planets are at time X+5? Newton's laws of motion will let you do that and they'll do it fairly accurately.
Newton's equations effectively provided a model for planetary motion amongst other things.
What I am asking for is a climate model in that context. A model where I can feed in ANY data and it will output a fairly accurate prediction of how that climate system will operate. This should include being able to predict roughly what the climate conditions will be like throughout the planet over a period of some years.
At no point, should Mann or people like him make predictions about the climate beyond the accuracy of his own models. So if his models only work to a few months or a year, then his predictions should not exceed that time period. If his models are accurate to 30 or 100 years then by all means make predictions on that time scale.
From what I've been able to gather, his models are incredibly inaccurate to such an extent that they're probably not even accurate enough to handle months much less years much less decades. And yet he makes predictions that span centuries. It is absurd.
As to outside the US, that isn't the case actually. Surveys throughout the western world show that populations are increasingly taking the issue less seriously.
So the US is nothing special in this regard. You are losing the battle politically throughout the west.
And if you look at Asia, South America, Africa, the middle east... you're doing even worse.
If you want to get somewhere with climate change, you're going to have to change tactics. This Command and Control concept you're pushing has failed. What is more, even if it were not resisted it would still fail because it is a bad idea.
You solve the problem by coming up with better ways to do things. You do not do it by slapping/taxing/pointing guns in the face of/regulating everyone that does things in the most efficient means possible.
As to evidence, I asked you to show me ONE validated climate model. A model that can take known historical climate data and output known past or present climate conditions.
Does such a model exist? And keep in mind, if the model has as a component the correct answers pre fed into it... then that is clearly cheating. Mann has personally tried that trick a few times. He tried it with the Japanese and they frankly were offended by his presumption.
The model must ACTUALLY calculate accurate climate conditions. Or it isn't worth anything. And if you don't have a model that is worth anything then I wonder why you think you have a leg to stand upon.
Present ONE model. In any other field of science, you could ask me show evidence of anything and I would show you their models which have been tested and validated. In climate science... all I get is evasion, childish insults, sputtering, and transparent attempts to cloud the issue by burying me in white noise data.
I want a fucking validated model or I want the AGW advocates to step off their pedestal. This is a reality check.
With respect, neither wind nor solar are credible additions to the traditional power grid.
Both wind and solar should be implemented the point of use and used to reduce the demand of those sites on the grid itself.
That is, you implement solar by putting solar panels on homes. You implement wind by putting wind mills in back yards.
As to the urban environment, it is too dense to credibly use renewable energy in that way. So I'd suggest cities rely increasingly on nuclear power.
Here you might say "but nuclear power is bad because some power plants built in the 50s and 60s had issues after being poorly maintained and continuously running for 50 years." Think about it.
For one, those were old designs. Newer designs are better. For another, the reason they ran for so long with such poor maintenance is because they had a big too big to fail system design. Rather then a big reactor, you can have dozens or even hundreds of smaller reactors that can be replaced and repaired on a regular basis without disrupting the output of the plant.
As to wind and solar on the grid... from what people that work in the energy industry tell me, the wind and solar plants accomplish very little and mostly just make their jobs harder. The big issue is that their power is not consistent. Rather then dumping power they collect directly into the grid, they should instead store or cache it and then drain the cache at a steady and sustainable rate. That way little spikes or dips in the power flow won't be something the grid operators have to worry about because it will be smoothed out by the storage/cache system.
Very few solar and wind systems have such caches and because of that they are more nuisance then help in the grid.
As the other guy said, I'm saying Gore is an incompetent politician. Bill Clinton is a great politician. Even his enemies admire the man's skill. He had the nick name of "slick willy" because he was such a master speaker.
Gore by contrast was a wet fish. Very few politicians are as good as Bill Clinton. Again, I'm not saying his policies were good or bad... just that Bill was very good at politics. He knew how to talk to people.
Gore doesn't. He was handed the presidency on a golden platter and he fucked it up.
And after fucking it up, he went on to lead the green revolution which he's also done a shitty job at because he refuses to make friends.
He just insults and offends everyone making enemies out of people that otherwise might have supported him.
The green movement has done much the same thing. Big industry doesn't have to be your enemy. All they are going to care about is making money. Help them find a way to build a new green industry and they're not going to be your enemy.
Someone has to build all that stuff. And you're talking to people that take it as normal to build stuff on the bottom of the ocean or drill over a mile under the earth. These are not intellectual or engineering light weights. Why give them the finger and tell them they're assholes? That is not what a clever politician would have done. Such a person would have used and incorporated them.
Stupid politicians give everyone the finger, tell everyone "I'll do what I want", and then proceed to piss all over everyone. Short of a gun to my head, I'm not going to tolerate someone doing that to me. And by and large I am not alone. The only people that are putting up with it are those that think they're standing up on the pedestal with him pissing on everyone else. And over time most are coming to realize no one is up there but him a few other select interests. Which is why over time his political position is continually eroding.
That isn't a climate cmodel. That is the observation that gases or even more generally matter retains thermal energy.
Do me this favor, look up the temperature of Venus at 1 atmosphere.
Repeat that by looking at the temperature of Jupiter at 1 atmosphere.
Repeat by comparing the temperature of the earth's atmosphere at an altitude where its density matches that of Mars.
Keep in mind, what we are doing is looking at temperatures at the same pressure in each atmosphere.
Don't read beyond this point until you've looked it up. ... ... ...
You'll have noticed something odd. The temperatures at equal pressures are very similar. Which means, what is actually relevant is atmospheric density. Not CO2.
This particular bombshell was dropped by a mathematician that was looking into the issue for fun. Open your eyes. You've been had.
Newton's laws of motion still work. Why do your climate models not work unless they already know the right answer?
The Japanese had this experience with Mann's models. They gave him a super computer to test his models on and he couldn't do it. It was pathetic. He had to use plug variables to tell the model what the right answer was in advance. And that was the only way it was able to get close to an accurate prediction.
That isn't a model. A model takes in all relevant variables and outputs either unstated variables concluded from the inputs or projects forward to show how the system will evolve.
I accept that his models likely aren't precise enough to project very far into the future. But they are only predictive to the extent that they can accurately project. So, if his models are good for three months into the future, then that is how far he can make climate predictions. When his models get better he can make grander predictions. Until then... they're just opinions. And opinions are like assholes... are they not?
Not necessarily. There are other ways to deal with it. The objection by republicans has less to do with an attack on big oil then it does on an expansion of federal control over business.
This is something that people of a left bent seem to have a very hard time getting about their opposition. I think they're so determined to demonize them that they don't actually bother to understand them.
Allow me to connect the dots here:
The major problem with the AGW solutions is that they are enacted through federal and state taxes and regulations on business.
Consider that the environment doesn't care how you go about it. All the environment would care about is that you stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them. There are other ways to go about it.
What you must acknowledge is that AGW politics give an excuse for people of a leftward bent to do something they wanted to do anyway. They wanted to tax and regulate business before all this environmental stuff. Then Al Gore comes along and says "we need to do the stuff we already wanted to do to save the world!" Well shockingly that didn't go down well with his political opposition that didn't buy that line of shit for a second.
Now here you're going to say "but what other solutions could their possibly be!" Well, there are lots of them. Seriously fucking hundreds of ideas that get rejected almost instantly because they don't serve the secondary agenda of AGW which is about money and power. That sounds cynical I suppose to some but that is my impression of the matter given that ideas that do not increase the money and power of the advocates are always rejected.
If you want me to cite some alternatives that republicans wouldn't mind, then I'll be happy to throw a few at you.
Keep in mind, it just isn't the evil soulless republicans that aren't on board with this nonsense... most of east Asia thinks its shit as well, as does most of south america, Russia thinks its crap, and africa/middle east just don't care.
The only places you'll find anyone that actually cares is in North America and Europe. Outside that zone the "care" goes down like a rock. And if we're restraining our view to that perspective then suddenly elements like the republicans become extremely relevant as they make a large portion of the total political power.
In any case... I'm well open to a discussion. But be prepared for something different. I am not conventional.
He's also a political figure. And he was attacked by political agents for being a political agent.
There are attacks on his science as well but in this case his political personality is being attacked by political opponents. This is nothing special. It is what we like to call "Tuesday".
Scientific models are proven all the time. Newton's laws of motion are a really famous physics model that was very accurate at describing and predicting planetary movements. You could verify the model by giving the system the positions of planets, their mass, etc, and then asking where the planets are NOW? Then you could compare the output from the equations with astronomical observations. And they matched observations with a high degree of accuracy.
No current AGW climate model is capable of doing that. They are unable to actually model the global climate. And I'm not talking about predicting every hurricane but rather guessing large climate patterns.
For example, we are currently in a long term pause in the warming of the world. The climate models have no idea why that happened or even if we have paused. It is controversial as to whether the oceans are eating the temperature or if rather then pausing the heating has stopped and might even go down. They do not know.
And because they do not know they are in no position to tell me what is going on because they demonstrably do not know.
All well and good but you failed to back up anything. You just said:
"I am Chicken LIttle!
Look upon my works and freak out like a child!"
I am asking pro AGW people to show me a validated climate model or admit that they don't have one. I know you don't have one. I want you to admit it. And when that happens... you'll be admitting to having no high ground upon which you can piss on those below you.
You never had that high ground... but so many on your side seem to have deluded yourselves into thinking otherwise.
It is a pity that you have such a poor grasp of how science works.
It is not my burden to come up with a model when I am merely showing that you do not have one yourself. And if you do not have a model then you do not have a theory. And if you do not have a theory, then really this is just two people bickering with each other without the backing of science. Which means what we really have in many cases is politics mascarading as science. Which of course is easily unmasked when you simply ask to see the model.
There isn't one.
And absent that... you've got nothing. Show me ONE climate model that backs up AGW that has been verified using falsifiable tests against empirical information.
It is really quite easy. Feed old climate data into your model to see if your model will predict past or current climate conditions. You either can do that or you can't.
And if you can't... then you have no model.
Actually he did not win the electoral vote. And even the democrats on the Supreme Court agreed.
Let it go.
The political argument is choking on its own blood with crushed internal organs.
Lets hope the scientific argument can do better by providing an actual model that has actually passed empirical validation.
Because if you can't provide that, then the AGW issue isn't just beaten nearly to death... it was always dead and what was beaten up was a corpse. The whole thing turned into some incredibly wasteful rerun of Weekend at Bernie's.
Bill was popular after his presidency. Gore blew it by distancing himself and then going anti gun which is something Bill never would do... because it is politically stupid.
Which is my point. The AGW lobby is being run by well connected though stupid political agents. I am telling you to get better representatives that are less stupid.
As to low light, there are a lot of security cameras that have infrared LEDs to handle low light. That is probably fine.
As to the resolution, the context and cross reference with the documentation should be fine. I don't need to pick out a face at 100 feet for the camera to do its job.
The primary point of the camera is so that the police can't manufacture a favorable accounting of the arrest. Simply having audio makes that hard for them to do. The video is just icing on the cake.
If Global Warming is a science issue then stop trying to make political arguments.
You are LOSING the political battle. Stop fighting. Everything since Al Gore started organizing this movement has been one political miscalculation after another.
Why would you expect otherwise? This is the same guy that lost to GWB after serving a Bill Clinton's Vice President for eight years. That election was in the bag. And he blew it by thinking that attacking guns in the middle of a presidential election was a good idea.
Every single serious presidential contender until Obama made sure they had a picture of themselves holding a shotgun or something in their national ads. Think about that.
Seriously. If you don't want this to a political campaign then stop treating it like a political campaign. Swiftboating? Are you fucking high? You're going to bring up that shit that John Kerry was whining about? Stop listening to failed politicians to structure your political arguments.
If you want sound political advice, talk to someone that wins. Talk to Bill Clinton. I'm sure he'd be happy to give you some advice. He'd probably tell you to stop being such royal pricks and try to build some bridges. Which is probably why you like Al Gore... he probably says "fuck the opposition we are right!"... which is possibly the dumbest political advice possible.
If you want to talk about science, then show me a tested climate model that has been subjected to an empirical test of its validity. It isn't that hard guys. We have a lot of very accurate historical data. Feed in past climate data and see if your climate model can predict the past or the present accurately. The first model that can do that which isn't just a collection of plug variables is something worth taking seriously.
Until you have that model... you have no theory. There is no global warming theory without a tested model. You have rather a global warming hypothesis. To get a theory you need a validated model. You do not have that at this moment so far as I know. Which means... you have jack.
Which is a problem because you're losing the political argument. If on top of losing the political argument you're also unable to provide a validated climate model... then what we have here is a platform sustained almost entirely by hubris and graft.
Please contradict me... show me your validated model.
Here someone will say "what about if they go to the bathroom"?
Don't point your camera at your dick. The most anyone will get out of it if you don't point your camera at your dick is the sound of you loudly farting while you use the facilities. Who cares.
Eight hours of digitally recorded video and sound every day. Maintain video on file for 7 days unless something specifically comes up. Then back up the portion of the video that is relevant.
Total cost is about 100 dollars a decent camera. Maybe 20 to 50 dollars for a battery that can drive it, plus how many ever gigabytes of space is needed for 8 hours times six memory cards because I can assume the police do not work seven days a week.
That is the cost.
Anything beyond that is someone getting fancy. You want to buy a special camera that costs 200 dollars? Fine. You're mostly paying the government mark up but whatever. You pay over 1000 and you're just wiping your asses with taxpayer dollars.
I thought they subcontracted through google such that a search in yahoo is ultimately queried by google? No?
I got one for about 1200 USD and it runs every game in the book and only overheats when I cover up the vents.
That is a big deal by the way, do NOT cover the vents.
What is more, 100 terabytes of company data is a lot to download. That didn't happen in a couple weeks. In fact, a fair amount of it might have been taken PHYSICALLY from Sony's servers.
Again... hack was in progress for more then a year.
Which is the problem with nuclear weapons. Which military would you rather have... Some French ICBMs or India's conventional military with no nuclear weapons?
I'd take India's military any day. You can actually use it. Last resorts that you don't want to use are often no better then having no resort at all. All they let you do in many cases is put a stick in the eye of the person that killed you.
Look, I get your point... I do. Get mine... they should be able to produce their product smoothly without getting bumped out of line by Apple.
Except even in your example that situation was not accepted or shrugged off. The industry has taken steps to decentralize the production of storage media as a result.
I am not suggesting that companies shouldn't run into problems or that problems are not normal.
Rather, I am saying that when companies run into serious problems they need to be taken seriously and addressed in a manner that they no longer pose a strategic risk to their position.
AMD clearly needs more leverage in the supply chain. How they get that is their business. But meekly waiting in line is for suckers.
1. they assume we're going to actually subscribe to all those channels.
2. they don't appreciate that ultimately we don't want a la carte channels but rather a la carte shows. Just because I like ONE show on a network doesn't mean I want to buy them all. Imagine if Warner Brothers presumed that because you wanted to see ONE movie that you had to buy a license to their whole year of movies. No. Just no.
3. They assume that we even have to buy TV licenses. The thing is that we have a lot of competition for our entertainment. Video games, the internet, etc. I don't need to have a subscription to a channel. I only watch tv at my parents house and find the practice to be generally quaint. In my own home, I have a big screen tv that plays movies, shows, and video games. All of which without a subscription to anything but a few cheap streaming services.
4. They don't appreciate that bundling effectively subsidizes failed stations. Consider CNN or the Oxygen Network. Neither one has ratings high enough to really credit their existence. What keeps them alive is the bundling model. Without the bundling, they'd have either never been born or would have died long ago. I don't want my subscription fees used to subsidize garbage content. No one is impressed when the cable companies say "you'll get 250 channels!"... We know what that means. Cut out the trash and you're looking at maybe 25 channels that are worth a damn and that includes the three or four versions of ESPN. The actual number of channels that are worth a damn are a tiny fraction of the total catalog and everyone knows it. THOSE stations are worth paying for and the rest are not. The rest are generally worth ZERO. They're just padding to make people think they're getting an amazing deal. Look at all the stations. Then you hook it up and realize that that is just more shit to skip through to get from one of the decent stations to another.
5. They still think that we're going to hook up a regular cable connection instead of just do video on demand. Listen lackwits, traditional cable is dying of old age. Think of it like a 25 year old dog. The poor guy is blind, limps around the house, smells like death, and keeps leaving mange all over the place. Face it. Video on demand is the the future. And with a video on demand a la carte model I could buy ONE channel or ONE show and nothing else. I don't have to sign up for everything else. I know you want me to because you like money. But guess what it isn't competitive. You can't get away with that crap for much longer. Either sell me what I want and nothing else or keep whiffing.
It doesn't matter if they have other businesses. Their role in that market requires that they have the ability to produce products. If their lack of control over their supply chain is making their future in that market questionable then they need to make a choice.
And note... not making a choice is also a choice.
Then they can't do it the way you are thinking about it.
But if they don't do something then they are in a very bad position.
I am not saying they have to do it the way YOU imagine that anyone must do it. Consider that there might be other ways. And really, that is an issue that could take a lot of time on the part of people that know a lot more then either of us to figure out.
Regardless, the point is that if they do not obtain some leverage they're fucked.