The NOAA maps show a general reduction in rainfall west of the rockies as well.
Cali has droughts and they are predictable in that they come in cycles. We can put them on a time line. You know that right after you have one you're unlikely to have another right away... right?
So... why is that if its unpredictable? If there is no pattern then you chances of getting a drought are the same every day. In fact, the droughts should end unpredictably as well. Just there one day and gone the next. That one persists for any amount of time and you know it is going to at LEAST last a certain amount of time implies a pattern. That you know you're not going to get one right after you had the last one implies a pattern.
As the saying goes, we're just arguing price now. A reference to the joke where a young woman is offered a lot of money to sleep with a man... and she accepts... he then offers a much lower price and she protests that she's not a whore. He responds that her offer of sex for money is already on record... they're just negotiating price.
That there is a pattern is beyond your ability to refute. Even within the confines of this argument without doing any research you'd have to concede a pattern. Really, all we're arguing is accuracy. And my accuracy claims had margins of error that went into about a decade give or take. That's a lot of flexibility for timing there.
What is more, making your east of the rockies argument doubly silly is that water conservation efforts east of the rockies are currently imposing much less extreme consequences on residents and farmers. Why? They have the infrastructure to deal with it.
California has over built housing and under built water infrastructure. That was my point.
Please... prove my point by being pedantic. That is exactly why things don't get fixed. That is an attitude which solves nothing. There's a reason you don't see that sort of attitude tolerated in places that require quick responses in a goal oriented environment. I mean... your every rebuttal is just an unintentional argument in my favor. See it.
The statistics on increased violent weather actually contradict that statement. Incidents of violent weather are decreasing or static. I looked up stats on Florida and Texas to confirm my memory on the issue.
Why would I speak in a manner other than what gets your attention? What is the point if it won't get your fat neckbeard layers of cognitive dissonance?
As to speaking logically, I did. As to speaking about science? I did.
What I did on top of that was slap someone around for being wrong. And while you might think that is unscientific, science actually doesn't care if your feelings get hurt. Science isn't a moral, ethical, or ideological system. Science is a tool for ferreting out truth from bullshit. And there's no reason you can't smack talk AND do that at the same time.
As to your presumption to censor someone by telling them to go somewhere else... I could very easily say the same thing. Perhaps you should go back to Tumblr or Facebook to talk about which character in the Harry Potter series you'd rather have sex with...
Eh? See how effective your sad little argument was? You're just another asshat AC angry that your pathetic feelings are yet again completely irrelevant.
People like you didn't build cities like Los Angeles. And people like you are fucking poison for the future California. We can't afford to let you whiny tools ruin it with your incompetent dithering. The solution was rather obvious to past generations that dealt with similar problems. They had these problems and they solved them in their time. Are you telling me that in all these years we've gotten worse at solving a problem like this? Get the fuck out. No really.
I'm sorry the burden of proof is on you people. You want to say this is all global warming? Have fun substantiating that.
This is my state. I know it and I know its history. Most of the chumps commenting on this are either out of state hacks that are just bandwagoning an issue they don't understand. And the rest are mostly millennial twinks that don't know what happened yesterday much less the historic climate patterns of anywhere... even the fucking state they reside within.
The AGW hissy fit has gotten old. Shouldn't we be getting MORE water if your chicken little bullshit were right? After all, more heat, more humidity, more precipitation?
We brought water to the desert. Our cities do not thrive on the rain that falls on our land. It thrives on the water we bring to our land.
No part of the country has as elaborate a water transport system as California. That is what made our cities possible and is what allowed them to grow. Men that moved the water. Our population has grown and all we have to replace those old lions of the past are a bunch of head up their ass hippies that do very little besides whine and waste money.
That is why we have a problem. There is plenty of water. The old city fathers of Los Angeles would have already taken care of this bullshit. They would have gone to any of the many places in the north that have loads of fucking water and they would have made a deal. What is more, Our water system is not well designed to share water within itself. It is frequently compartmentalized. Simply by bringing water into the top of the system and then allowing reserves in the north to spill into reserves in the south... the problem solves itself.
Here someone will say "but every place needs every drop of their water". Bullshit. Oregon and Washington state are loaded with it. You talk to them and work out an arrangement. Buy it. Move it.
Here someone will say "but its hard to do things because we're so fucking incompetent!!!"... you have to imagine that with a really whiny voice to get the statement in its proper context. The Romans moved water hundreds of miles. This is the 21st century and we're talking about a major population center that is a huge economy and huge food producer... so... The fuck? Did we lose the ability to make pipes and concrete? I was unaware that level of incompetence had been reached. Because that's straight up Idiocracy levels of fuckwittery.
Except it hasn't because in the case of California the cycle is entirely predictable.
We have droughts like this... they told us in the 70s we'd have another one in another forty years... and they gave us what they thought was the best solution so the next time it was no big deal.
People didn't do that so we got a shit show.
Number of people that died as a result of government incompetence in this case? Zero.
However, they did have to steal water from the agricultural sector to keep the cities going. Not cool. Not just crops failed but orchards died.
So I can't say this enough fucking times...
No. Wrong. Incorrect. The cycle has held. We have droughts like this... this is normal. Its unusual but so are tidal waves hitting little Japanese villages. However... it happens. You either prepare for it or you get surprised like a chump.
Choose.
Be prepared or be a chump.
I personally would like to be prepared. But all the people saying "oh there was nothing we could do about it"... they are chumps.
California suffers cyclical droughts roughly every 40 years. They tend to last about 5 years and to sustain the population, reserves of water must last through the drought.
There are two ways to make sure the reserves are enough.
1. Build reserves to match consumption for roughly 5 years. 2. Limit consumption to match 5 year reserve capacity.
If Cali does that, then its fine.
Our problem in the Golden State is that we didn't build reserves to keep pace with population growth... or we didn't limit development and zoning to what could be sustained through droughts.
To blame the whole thing on Global Warming when it was spelled out very clearly in the fucking 70s with blueprints, time tables, budget forecasts... Its fucking comical.
You're confusing a cyclical drought with global warming. We had a drought in California like that in the 1970s. It happens every 40 years or so. The water planners drew up a plan for how to deal with it last time. The plan presupposed that people would actually do it. They half assed the project and as a result the shortages were painful though not fatal.
Look... you can't understand climate unless you make an effort to understand climate. To do that you have to look at the history of climates to see what the patterns are in the first place.
Saying "oh california didn't have bad droughts before" is ignorant. You'd have a hard time finding anything in Cali that has remarkably changed from a climate stand point.
A very small scale. Possibly a few hundred or thousand would be the largest these groups should get. Have a group of this size associate into a collective and support the collective collectively.
Basically like communes. Which is entirely viable in urban as well as suburban as well as rural contexts. If the collective cannot support itself then it isn't going to work on a larger scale either. All going large will do is throw the stone harder... which won't make it "fly"... The stone either flies or it doesn't.
I am a big fan of communes. They educate people on how communal living works and will demystify the elements that people often have so many misapprehensions about. Such as people not needing to work.
And something that is nice about keeping things small is that it maintains accountability. Go big and no one can keep track of anything. People start cashing checks and doing nothing... including not even picking up litter. Nothing. Look at how many cities there are that are full of people on welfare doing nothing whilst the cities are themselves filthy. In a commune that wouldn't happen. If someone has nothing to do, the commune will find something for them to do. It might mean picking things up, cleaning, organizing, basic maintenance.
There is no labor shortage because there is no shortage of things that need to be done. Look at cities that are dirty and falling apart... no work? Things clearly are not being taken care of so clearly there is work to be done. It simply isn't being assigned.
Here people will disagree without actually thinking about it. My point is counter dogmas that people have bought into sadly.
The self supporting commune is the solution. And by self supporting, I do not mean it grows its own food. I mean its needs are met without subsidy. A collective of a thousand people should be able to produce goods and services sufficient to buy what the collective needs. And if it doesn't, then it is being managed by idiots. And a commune that allows itself to be run by idiots is populated by idiots. As to how you deal with idiots... spread them around and dilute their effect on any collective. A failed collective can be dissolved and have its population spread around the successes.
The other thing that is ideal about this situation is that it is entirely the individual's choice if they join and which one they join. If you don't join... then you should not expect to have your basic needs taken care of by a collective. The state should not act as a collective in this context. The basic day to day needs of people should either be taken care of personally through the personal industry of the individual or they should be provided by a collective of consenting adults that are personally aware of the other members of the collective and assign tasks the community needs done collectively.
Look at Greece... does it strike you as a place that is well maintained? They hand out a lot of money for people to do nothing. By all means. Have them get paid. But they should get paid from community resources generated from community profits and those that receive that money should live and work in a way that takes into consideration how they are supported.
What I have a hard time with are people that demand my money but refuse to be at all accountable to me for how they spend it or how they spend their time. That means I give something and get nothing. That is not sustainable.
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person. You can only really make these claims when you factor a lot of weather stations together and average them to get these numbers.
But the man on the street walking about... the point of the graph I showed was to make it clear that it is so subtle that you don't see it for feel with your own eyes and skin.
So explaining why people might not care is really pretty self evident.
As to peaks versus average temps during the day... how would you have an average temperature during the day from 1921? would a man sit there and write down the temperature into a ledger every 5 minutes or every hour? You're asking for something that doesn't exist. If you look at old temperature records they tend to show the temperature at a given time every day or a maximum and minimum temperature reached during that day. How long any given temperature was sustained during any given day is not recorded. And you asking for that is frankly an argument against your own knowledge of the subject.
The Min/Max temps actually give you a really good idea of what is going on in that area. If you see below freezing followed by a high of 85 degrees in the same day then you know you're dealing with some snap frost. You can run into things like that in desert climates.
Anyway... if you want to discuss this civilly you'll find me a genial fellow. If you instead want to trade barbs you'll find I know how to draw blood as well as any.
I'm not cherry picking these... that is the oldest temp from that station and the most recent temp posted into the website from that station.
This is my city. This is where I live.
Look at the first graph. Notice how the climate is basically identical to the second graph.
I'm not questioning that there is warming. I'm just not seeing it whenever I look at individual stations that I'm aware of. You tell me "well this station in Siberia has really changed"... I don't know anything about that station. All I can audit is what I am aware of in my area. And every time I've checked any of them the return is always a fat load of nothing.
And really, lets not pretend this isn't a shill post for the AGW debate. What would it take for you people to shut up? Seriously?
Show me the papers I need to sign to make the people that keep harping on about this stuff murder suicide each other. They appear to want total dictatorial control over the economy? Funding possibly in the two trillion a year range? Am I missing something?
And when whomever clarifies what they want, I'm going to just point out how it doesn't matter to the issue because the Chinese and the Indians etc aren't doing it. And for every bit of CO2 they cause to be outsourced by making doing anything in the west too obnoxious to bother with... places it is outsourced to are going to burn twice as much to do the same thing. This tactic is a net negative to your stated objectives.
Enough. Every summer is the hottest, every winter the coldest... Enough.
Pure research wasn't why the US landed on the moon first. That was applied research. Which those companies do lots of. You're attempting to goalpost shift and it isn't working.
As to the no-true-scottsman thing that the marxists love to play. I'm not interested. You want to cherry pick your pathetic ideology to make it look better by hiding its missteps? Okay... allow me to do that with your opposing ideologies and suddenly all the things you could say against them become moot because by your logic I can no-true-scottsman all of them endlessly.
So no. Eat your problem children just like everyone else.
As to your statement that socialism doesn't require centralization... define socialism please. Because you're using an unorthodox definition and neither of us will know what the other is talking about if you're just randomly changing the definitions of terms. Define it please. My definition of it, which is the official and most commonly used definition does require centralization. Saying that it doesn't means either you're wrong or you're using a different definition.
I am being kind in assuming you're working from a different definition, though I honestly suspect you've merely confused yourself.
As to capitalist class... Delightful bit of projection there. For this capitalist class thing to exist your ideology would have to describe reality. Since this is not validated you can't cite them. Capitalist class? People that own things or are we also including all the white collar workers that are naturally less morally actualized than your morally pure blue collar workers? None of this nonsense you're spouting is relevant anymore. Your ideology was crafted in the 1870s. We're poised to begin rapid automation. Where does your "worker class" concept fit into that world? Your entire world view is like applying yabba dabba do politics to George Jettison. This is checkmate. You took too long to have your grand revolution. You're going to have to adapt your entire ideology to a completely different economic context and I really doubt you're going to pull it off. Feudalism didn't survive the industrial revolution. Consider the premise of marxism and tell me how you're going to survive the information revolution. Its already over.
As to democracy resolving corruption, you've centralized power and that takes power out of the people's hands... so the more socialist you become the less democratic you become. Having a vote every two years doesn't make a system where people are at the mercy of a bureaucracy that controls their entire lives less a tyranny. Especially since as democratic as you'll claim your stupid system is... will it tolerate the people voting to dissolve it? Or is this one of those Saddam type elections where you can vote for whomever you want so long as they're the fearless leader?
As to no attempt to implement communism, actually it has been attempted many times. It fails so quickly and so obviously that stop gaps are applied instead. The thing is any example I show of your system being tried will be rejected by you if the attempt fails. You only take success of your system as evidence that it was applied. What criteria would have to be in place for your system.
As to your first hand experience, whilst you were getting one kind I was getting another. So even by your own argument you'd have to admit that you missed out on certain experiences being one place rather than another.
Beyond that, your argument is fallacious to the extent that you are arguing that because something tends to be true that it is true in this case. That has to be validated. Tends is not "is".
1. You're not going to find any AGW deniers saying anything because its like referring to a position as "Nazis"... Which is the rhetorical point of that label.
They're skeptics on the findings of a lot of things. I personally see no way to argue that there isn't warming, sea level rises, etc... What I do however find difficult to validate is the connection between CO2 and these changes. You have at BEST correlation in some cases. But I've seen a lot of evidence that you don't even have correlation. Absent correlation you can't have causation. And even with correlation you do not have causation.
There are a few geo engineering ideas. The sulfur dioxide sprayed into the upper atmosphere idea is one. The amount of the gas required to cancel the warming would be an amount that could be squirted out of two garden hoses... ideally roughly on opposite ends of the planet. The idea would involve a tube held aloft by balloons...
Another idea involves flinging sea water into air to marginally increase cloud cover. The concept either suggests that cargo ships be fitted with units do this on the rear of the ship or that purpose built ships be created to do it.
Most of the geo engineering ideas after that focus on sequestrating carbon which may or may not even be relevant. Mostly they involve simulating algae growth on a massive scale.
2. As to you finding it odd that the term "denier" in heated political discussions, a term crafted by politicians, and a term used to discredit rivals has no dirty political connotations... I think you may be naive.
It is a term rendered to associate AGW deniers with holocaust deniers and thus with neo nazis or something. Its a pathetic ploy to bury a baseless ad hominem in a title. And then just as you're doing... when this is pointed out... you'll say "who me?"...
The pretense is tiring.
3. I didn't deny the warming. So denial is inaccurate and offensive for the reasons stated above. As to proposals to stop climate change. Lets assume the warming is entirely natural for the sake of argument. If we assume the warming is a natural process that would happen with or without humanity... would you still want geo engineering to stop this climate change? Because everything you're saying is predicated on an assumption. You get upset because I don't buy into your assumption. But I don't share your assumption as you can clearly see so why would you be surprised when I wouldn't react as if I did buy into it?
Now that doesn't mean I don't see problems here. I do. I however see the problems in a different context because I don't see it as man made. For a moment, demonstrate this presumed sophistication you pretend to have and put yourself in my shoes. Can you do that? Imagine if you didn't see the changes as man made but rather a natural process. Recalculate how you'd address it.
Make an argument if you can as to why I should move heaven and earth to address something that I didn't cause and doesn't appear to be a threat to me?
Here you're going to go into chicken little mode and scream the sky is falling. What is going to happen that means I should care? If you have a good argument, I'll agree with you.
I can't offer better than that. No honest person can.
No... I could just stop there. You strawmanned me and I guess you're fishing for me to rephrase my argument over and over again until I do it a way that you feel you can start taking me out of context with actual quotes.
What I said was that communism as has never actually been implemented because it can't be implemented. Its unicorns and goblins. Has it been attempted? Many times. But actually implemented? No... its an oxymoron on so many levels. It can't exist.
Its Marxist Valhalla. The idea is you establish a socialist state to create "the new man" and once you have a society composed of "new men" you can implement communism.
Marxism makes use of "magical" or even "religious" thinking in a few places. And in the greater context of the spanning ideology... that is what Communism is... Marxist Heaven. So no, the USSR did not have Communism. It had Totalitarian socialism.
This is not the same thing as democratic socialism in that totalitarianism and democracy are not the same thing. However, socialism is socialism.
Actually its about arguing advancing a scientific position by taking a vote.
As to the rest, I apparently read the paper more closely than you. Do you want me to cite pages for you? And if I am right and you are wrong... will you kow tow? Because you've been a very fussy bunny.
Have a fee to be listed on the unlimited program. Let anyone buy a book uploaded but if the author wants the book included in the unlimited package... require an additional fee which goes to have someone actually check the book out to make sure it isn't bullshit.
And then have metrics in place where in the money from the unlimited program are held for a trial period if the author is unknown. If unusual metrics pop up... such as huge sales... possibly investigate again more closely. The money shouldn't be delayed more than a month or two for the trial period. Sales that explode immediately after the trial period would also be a red flag.
... so you don't understand hierarchical category structures? Do you know that both cars and trucks are automobiles? Do you know that both space ships and dildos are human artifacts? The irony of you starting off saying "don't be stupid" and then you basically confess that you don't know what a hierarchical category structure is... *sigh*
What do I expect from ACs... Need to be better about just ignoring ACs in general... wasting my time.
As to science and democracy... you're mixing stoic empirical examination of the universe with petty human politics.
By all means, cite your political position if you like... but its a political position. It does not mean you are correct about a scientific issue. For example, if 100 percent... literally every scientist in the world said that the world was flat... but nothing otherwise in the universe changed... Would the world be flat? I grant that your consensus is correlative with correct results. However it is not causative. Correlation and causation... I don't have to break those down, right?
So yeah, the conclusivity of so called consensus is zero. It has no ability to be used as evidence of reality. You don't see people say stuff in a paper like "well, most scientists agree with this so it is probably true"... at least not in a scientific paper. Because that isn't science. That's politics.
As to the methodological flaws in the paper, I actually cited those in my first post which you have not addressed.
As to who is and is not a sophist... that's born out by the evidence. The two are indistinguishable prior to breaking it down. Now... did you want to go over the methodology or just blindly accept a study sight unseen?
Slashdot Mirror
https://youtu.be/qeNCp6KhiTI?t...
The NOAA maps show a general reduction in rainfall west of the rockies as well.
Cali has droughts and they are predictable in that they come in cycles. We can put them on a time line. You know that right after you have one you're unlikely to have another right away... right?
So... why is that if its unpredictable? If there is no pattern then you chances of getting a drought are the same every day. In fact, the droughts should end unpredictably as well. Just there one day and gone the next. That one persists for any amount of time and you know it is going to at LEAST last a certain amount of time implies a pattern. That you know you're not going to get one right after you had the last one implies a pattern.
As the saying goes, we're just arguing price now. A reference to the joke where a young woman is offered a lot of money to sleep with a man... and she accepts... he then offers a much lower price and she protests that she's not a whore. He responds that her offer of sex for money is already on record... they're just negotiating price.
That there is a pattern is beyond your ability to refute. Even within the confines of this argument without doing any research you'd have to concede a pattern. Really, all we're arguing is accuracy. And my accuracy claims had margins of error that went into about a decade give or take. That's a lot of flexibility for timing there.
What is more, making your east of the rockies argument doubly silly is that water conservation efforts east of the rockies are currently imposing much less extreme consequences on residents and farmers. Why? They have the infrastructure to deal with it.
California has over built housing and under built water infrastructure. That was my point.
Please... prove my point by being pedantic. That is exactly why things don't get fixed. That is an attitude which solves nothing. There's a reason you don't see that sort of attitude tolerated in places that require quick responses in a goal oriented environment. I mean... your every rebuttal is just an unintentional argument in my favor. See it.
Which is why its a democrat city and state.
If the republicans run a place then you blame the republicans. If the republicans don't run the place then you blame them anyway.
It doesn't matter what anyone does. You've come to a tribal affiliation and you'll just hold to it indifferent to any external reality.
The statistics on increased violent weather actually contradict that statement. Incidents of violent weather are decreasing or static. I looked up stats on Florida and Texas to confirm my memory on the issue.
Why would I speak in a manner other than what gets your attention? What is the point if it won't get your fat neckbeard layers of cognitive dissonance?
As to speaking logically, I did. As to speaking about science? I did.
What I did on top of that was slap someone around for being wrong. And while you might think that is unscientific, science actually doesn't care if your feelings get hurt. Science isn't a moral, ethical, or ideological system. Science is a tool for ferreting out truth from bullshit. And there's no reason you can't smack talk AND do that at the same time.
As to your presumption to censor someone by telling them to go somewhere else... I could very easily say the same thing. Perhaps you should go back to Tumblr or Facebook to talk about which character in the Harry Potter series you'd rather have sex with...
Eh? See how effective your sad little argument was? You're just another asshat AC angry that your pathetic feelings are yet again completely irrelevant.
People like you didn't build cities like Los Angeles. And people like you are fucking poison for the future California. We can't afford to let you whiny tools ruin it with your incompetent dithering. The solution was rather obvious to past generations that dealt with similar problems. They had these problems and they solved them in their time. Are you telling me that in all these years we've gotten worse at solving a problem like this? Get the fuck out. No really.
http://www.sfgate.com/science/...
I'm sorry the burden of proof is on you people. You want to say this is all global warming? Have fun substantiating that.
This is my state. I know it and I know its history. Most of the chumps commenting on this are either out of state hacks that are just bandwagoning an issue they don't understand. And the rest are mostly millennial twinks that don't know what happened yesterday much less the historic climate patterns of anywhere... even the fucking state they reside within.
http://articles.latimes.com/19...
http://news.sky.com/story/1193...
http://www.californiadrought.o...
The AGW hissy fit has gotten old. Shouldn't we be getting MORE water if your chicken little bullshit were right? After all, more heat, more humidity, more precipitation?
We brought water to the desert. Our cities do not thrive on the rain that falls on our land. It thrives on the water we bring to our land.
No part of the country has as elaborate a water transport system as California. That is what made our cities possible and is what allowed them to grow. Men that moved the water. Our population has grown and all we have to replace those old lions of the past are a bunch of head up their ass hippies that do very little besides whine and waste money.
That is why we have a problem. There is plenty of water. The old city fathers of Los Angeles would have already taken care of this bullshit. They would have gone to any of the many places in the north that have loads of fucking water and they would have made a deal. What is more, Our water system is not well designed to share water within itself. It is frequently compartmentalized. Simply by bringing water into the top of the system and then allowing reserves in the north to spill into reserves in the south... the problem solves itself.
Here someone will say "but every place needs every drop of their water". Bullshit. Oregon and Washington state are loaded with it. You talk to them and work out an arrangement. Buy it. Move it.
Here someone will say "but its hard to do things because we're so fucking incompetent!!!"... you have to imagine that with a really whiny voice to get the statement in its proper context. The Romans moved water hundreds of miles. This is the 21st century and we're talking about a major population center that is a huge economy and huge food producer... so... The fuck? Did we lose the ability to make pipes and concrete? I was unaware that level of incompetence had been reached. Because that's straight up Idiocracy levels of fuckwittery.
Except it hasn't because in the case of California the cycle is entirely predictable.
We have droughts like this... they told us in the 70s we'd have another one in another forty years... and they gave us what they thought was the best solution so the next time it was no big deal.
People didn't do that so we got a shit show.
Number of people that died as a result of government incompetence in this case? Zero.
However, they did have to steal water from the agricultural sector to keep the cities going. Not cool. Not just crops failed but orchards died.
So I can't say this enough fucking times...
No. Wrong. Incorrect. The cycle has held. We have droughts like this... this is normal. Its unusual but so are tidal waves hitting little Japanese villages. However... it happens. You either prepare for it or you get surprised like a chump.
Choose.
Be prepared or be a chump.
I personally would like to be prepared. But all the people saying "oh there was nothing we could do about it"... they are chumps.
That is what you're saying. Don't be that guy.
California suffers cyclical droughts roughly every 40 years. They tend to last about 5 years and to sustain the population, reserves of water must last through the drought.
There are two ways to make sure the reserves are enough.
1. Build reserves to match consumption for roughly 5 years.
2. Limit consumption to match 5 year reserve capacity.
If Cali does that, then its fine.
Our problem in the Golden State is that we didn't build reserves to keep pace with population growth... or we didn't limit development and zoning to what could be sustained through droughts.
To blame the whole thing on Global Warming when it was spelled out very clearly in the fucking 70s with blueprints, time tables, budget forecasts... Its fucking comical.
You're confusing a cyclical drought with global warming. We had a drought in California like that in the 1970s. It happens every 40 years or so. The water planners drew up a plan for how to deal with it last time. The plan presupposed that people would actually do it. They half assed the project and as a result the shortages were painful though not fatal.
Look... you can't understand climate unless you make an effort to understand climate. To do that you have to look at the history of climates to see what the patterns are in the first place.
Saying "oh california didn't have bad droughts before" is ignorant. You'd have a hard time finding anything in Cali that has remarkably changed from a climate stand point.
A very small scale. Possibly a few hundred or thousand would be the largest these groups should get. Have a group of this size associate into a collective and support the collective collectively.
Basically like communes. Which is entirely viable in urban as well as suburban as well as rural contexts. If the collective cannot support itself then it isn't going to work on a larger scale either. All going large will do is throw the stone harder... which won't make it "fly"... The stone either flies or it doesn't.
I am a big fan of communes. They educate people on how communal living works and will demystify the elements that people often have so many misapprehensions about. Such as people not needing to work.
And something that is nice about keeping things small is that it maintains accountability. Go big and no one can keep track of anything. People start cashing checks and doing nothing... including not even picking up litter. Nothing. Look at how many cities there are that are full of people on welfare doing nothing whilst the cities are themselves filthy. In a commune that wouldn't happen. If someone has nothing to do, the commune will find something for them to do. It might mean picking things up, cleaning, organizing, basic maintenance.
There is no labor shortage because there is no shortage of things that need to be done. Look at cities that are dirty and falling apart... no work? Things clearly are not being taken care of so clearly there is work to be done. It simply isn't being assigned.
Here people will disagree without actually thinking about it. My point is counter dogmas that people have bought into sadly.
The self supporting commune is the solution. And by self supporting, I do not mean it grows its own food. I mean its needs are met without subsidy. A collective of a thousand people should be able to produce goods and services sufficient to buy what the collective needs. And if it doesn't, then it is being managed by idiots. And a commune that allows itself to be run by idiots is populated by idiots. As to how you deal with idiots... spread them around and dilute their effect on any collective. A failed collective can be dissolved and have its population spread around the successes.
The other thing that is ideal about this situation is that it is entirely the individual's choice if they join and which one they join. If you don't join... then you should not expect to have your basic needs taken care of by a collective. The state should not act as a collective in this context. The basic day to day needs of people should either be taken care of personally through the personal industry of the individual or they should be provided by a collective of consenting adults that are personally aware of the other members of the collective and assign tasks the community needs done collectively.
Look at Greece... does it strike you as a place that is well maintained? They hand out a lot of money for people to do nothing. By all means. Have them get paid. But they should get paid from community resources generated from community profits and those that receive that money should live and work in a way that takes into consideration how they are supported.
What I have a hard time with are people that demand my money but refuse to be at all accountable to me for how they spend it or how they spend their time. That means I give something and get nothing. That is not sustainable.
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person. You can only really make these claims when you factor a lot of weather stations together and average them to get these numbers.
But the man on the street walking about... the point of the graph I showed was to make it clear that it is so subtle that you don't see it for feel with your own eyes and skin.
So explaining why people might not care is really pretty self evident.
As to peaks versus average temps during the day... how would you have an average temperature during the day from 1921? would a man sit there and write down the temperature into a ledger every 5 minutes or every hour? You're asking for something that doesn't exist. If you look at old temperature records they tend to show the temperature at a given time every day or a maximum and minimum temperature reached during that day. How long any given temperature was sustained during any given day is not recorded. And you asking for that is frankly an argument against your own knowledge of the subject.
The Min/Max temps actually give you a really good idea of what is going on in that area. If you see below freezing followed by a high of 85 degrees in the same day then you know you're dealing with some snap frost. You can run into things like that in desert climates.
Anyway... if you want to discuss this civilly you'll find me a genial fellow. If you instead want to trade barbs you'll find I know how to draw blood as well as any.
Watts?
The citation I don't think had anything to do with anyone by that name. I believe the graph is raw in fact. What are you talking about?
Please show me where this Watts person is cited in my source and then tell me why that is relevant.
Exactly... and here is why:
http://www.climatestations.com...
https://www.climatestations.co...
I'm not cherry picking these... that is the oldest temp from that station and the most recent temp posted into the website from that station.
This is my city. This is where I live.
Look at the first graph. Notice how the climate is basically identical to the second graph.
I'm not questioning that there is warming. I'm just not seeing it whenever I look at individual stations that I'm aware of. You tell me "well this station in Siberia has really changed"... I don't know anything about that station. All I can audit is what I am aware of in my area. And every time I've checked any of them the return is always a fat load of nothing.
And really, lets not pretend this isn't a shill post for the AGW debate. What would it take for you people to shut up? Seriously?
Show me the papers I need to sign to make the people that keep harping on about this stuff murder suicide each other. They appear to want total dictatorial control over the economy? Funding possibly in the two trillion a year range? Am I missing something?
And when whomever clarifies what they want, I'm going to just point out how it doesn't matter to the issue because the Chinese and the Indians etc aren't doing it. And for every bit of CO2 they cause to be outsourced by making doing anything in the west too obnoxious to bother with... places it is outsourced to are going to burn twice as much to do the same thing. This tactic is a net negative to your stated objectives.
Enough. Every summer is the hottest, every winter the coldest... Enough.
Pure research wasn't why the US landed on the moon first. That was applied research. Which those companies do lots of. You're attempting to goalpost shift and it isn't working.
As to the no-true-scottsman thing that the marxists love to play. I'm not interested. You want to cherry pick your pathetic ideology to make it look better by hiding its missteps? Okay... allow me to do that with your opposing ideologies and suddenly all the things you could say against them become moot because by your logic I can no-true-scottsman all of them endlessly.
So no. Eat your problem children just like everyone else.
As to your statement that socialism doesn't require centralization... define socialism please. Because you're using an unorthodox definition and neither of us will know what the other is talking about if you're just randomly changing the definitions of terms. Define it please. My definition of it, which is the official and most commonly used definition does require centralization. Saying that it doesn't means either you're wrong or you're using a different definition.
I am being kind in assuming you're working from a different definition, though I honestly suspect you've merely confused yourself.
As to capitalist class... Delightful bit of projection there. For this capitalist class thing to exist your ideology would have to describe reality. Since this is not validated you can't cite them. Capitalist class? People that own things or are we also including all the white collar workers that are naturally less morally actualized than your morally pure blue collar workers? None of this nonsense you're spouting is relevant anymore. Your ideology was crafted in the 1870s. We're poised to begin rapid automation. Where does your "worker class" concept fit into that world? Your entire world view is like applying yabba dabba do politics to George Jettison. This is checkmate. You took too long to have your grand revolution. You're going to have to adapt your entire ideology to a completely different economic context and I really doubt you're going to pull it off. Feudalism didn't survive the industrial revolution. Consider the premise of marxism and tell me how you're going to survive the information revolution. Its already over.
As to democracy resolving corruption, you've centralized power and that takes power out of the people's hands... so the more socialist you become the less democratic you become. Having a vote every two years doesn't make a system where people are at the mercy of a bureaucracy that controls their entire lives less a tyranny. Especially since as democratic as you'll claim your stupid system is... will it tolerate the people voting to dissolve it? Or is this one of those Saddam type elections where you can vote for whomever you want so long as they're the fearless leader?
As to no attempt to implement communism, actually it has been attempted many times. It fails so quickly and so obviously that stop gaps are applied instead. The thing is any example I show of your system being tried will be rejected by you if the attempt fails. You only take success of your system as evidence that it was applied. What criteria would have to be in place for your system.
As to your first hand experience, whilst you were getting one kind I was getting another. So even by your own argument you'd have to admit that you missed out on certain experiences being one place rather than another.
Beyond that, your argument is fallacious to the extent that you are arguing that because something tends to be true that it is true in this case. That has to be validated. Tends is not "is".
1.
You're not going to find any AGW deniers saying anything because its like referring to a position as "Nazis"... Which is the rhetorical point of that label.
They're skeptics on the findings of a lot of things. I personally see no way to argue that there isn't warming, sea level rises, etc... What I do however find difficult to validate is the connection between CO2 and these changes. You have at BEST correlation in some cases. But I've seen a lot of evidence that you don't even have correlation. Absent correlation you can't have causation. And even with correlation you do not have causation.
There are a few geo engineering ideas. The sulfur dioxide sprayed into the upper atmosphere idea is one. The amount of the gas required to cancel the warming would be an amount that could be squirted out of two garden hoses... ideally roughly on opposite ends of the planet. The idea would involve a tube held aloft by balloons...
Another idea involves flinging sea water into air to marginally increase cloud cover. The concept either suggests that cargo ships be fitted with units do this on the rear of the ship or that purpose built ships be created to do it.
Most of the geo engineering ideas after that focus on sequestrating carbon which may or may not even be relevant. Mostly they involve simulating algae growth on a massive scale.
2.
As to you finding it odd that the term "denier" in heated political discussions, a term crafted by politicians, and a term used to discredit rivals has no dirty political connotations... I think you may be naive.
It is a term rendered to associate AGW deniers with holocaust deniers and thus with neo nazis or something. Its a pathetic ploy to bury a baseless ad hominem in a title. And then just as you're doing... when this is pointed out... you'll say "who me?"...
The pretense is tiring.
3.
I didn't deny the warming. So denial is inaccurate and offensive for the reasons stated above. As to proposals to stop climate change. Lets assume the warming is entirely natural for the sake of argument. If we assume the warming is a natural process that would happen with or without humanity... would you still want geo engineering to stop this climate change? Because everything you're saying is predicated on an assumption. You get upset because I don't buy into your assumption. But I don't share your assumption as you can clearly see so why would you be surprised when I wouldn't react as if I did buy into it?
Now that doesn't mean I don't see problems here. I do. I however see the problems in a different context because I don't see it as man made. For a moment, demonstrate this presumed sophistication you pretend to have and put yourself in my shoes. Can you do that? Imagine if you didn't see the changes as man made but rather a natural process. Recalculate how you'd address it.
Make an argument if you can as to why I should move heaven and earth to address something that I didn't cause and doesn't appear to be a threat to me?
Here you're going to go into chicken little mode and scream the sky is falling. What is going to happen that means I should care? If you have a good argument, I'll agree with you.
I can't offer better than that. No honest person can.
No... I could just stop there. You strawmanned me and I guess you're fishing for me to rephrase my argument over and over again until I do it a way that you feel you can start taking me out of context with actual quotes.
What I said was that communism as has never actually been implemented because it can't be implemented. Its unicorns and goblins. Has it been attempted? Many times. But actually implemented? No... its an oxymoron on so many levels. It can't exist.
Its Marxist Valhalla. The idea is you establish a socialist state to create "the new man" and once you have a society composed of "new men" you can implement communism.
Marxism makes use of "magical" or even "religious" thinking in a few places. And in the greater context of the spanning ideology... that is what Communism is... Marxist Heaven. So no, the USSR did not have Communism. It had Totalitarian socialism.
This is not the same thing as democratic socialism in that totalitarianism and democracy are not the same thing. However, socialism is socialism.
You're fucked! :D
Okay, so point 4, the seas were not rising prior to 1900.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...
Yawn. You guys think you're so smart... but you're so stupid.
Your only citation instantly debunked using a source you can't impeach without cutting the dick off your own argument.
You say that while effectively conceding that you had no argument, cannot produce a citation to back up your claim, and are at this point a liar.
You lose.
*takes all the internet argument chips, laughs at you, and leaves the table*
As to your statement to just trust you. Why don't you just trust me? I don't know you and you don't know me. Neither of us is just trusting the other.
I'm not doing that.
As to your statement that I am something... that's ad hominem. fallacious by default.
As to your statement that my arguments are fallacious. You validated that my statement was accurate so its not a fallacy.
Try again.
Actually its about arguing advancing a scientific position by taking a vote.
As to the rest, I apparently read the paper more closely than you. Do you want me to cite pages for you? And if I am right and you are wrong... will you kow tow? Because you've been a very fussy bunny.
I did a search for Trump and Cruz's name... did not get a hit.
I did a search for conservative... did not get a hit.
Please quote specifically what I said that suggested that a given group or entity is always honest.
You're in a corner... and you're fucked. Take what is left of your integrity and admit it.
Have a fee to be listed on the unlimited program. Let anyone buy a book uploaded but if the author wants the book included in the unlimited package... require an additional fee which goes to have someone actually check the book out to make sure it isn't bullshit.
And then have metrics in place where in the money from the unlimited program are held for a trial period if the author is unknown. If unusual metrics pop up... such as huge sales... possibly investigate again more closely. The money shouldn't be delayed more than a month or two for the trial period. Sales that explode immediately after the trial period would also be a red flag.
Failing to signal sophistication =/= making false statements.
You're making illogical statements.
... so you don't understand hierarchical category structures? Do you know that both cars and trucks are automobiles? Do you know that both space ships and dildos are human artifacts? The irony of you starting off saying "don't be stupid" and then you basically confess that you don't know what a hierarchical category structure is... *sigh*
What do I expect from ACs... Need to be better about just ignoring ACs in general... wasting my time.
Which group did I cite as being consistently honest?
I love watching you guys paint yourselves into corners.
As to science and democracy... you're mixing stoic empirical examination of the universe with petty human politics.
By all means, cite your political position if you like... but its a political position. It does not mean you are correct about a scientific issue. For example, if 100 percent... literally every scientist in the world said that the world was flat... but nothing otherwise in the universe changed... Would the world be flat? I grant that your consensus is correlative with correct results. However it is not causative. Correlation and causation... I don't have to break those down, right?
So yeah, the conclusivity of so called consensus is zero. It has no ability to be used as evidence of reality. You don't see people say stuff in a paper like "well, most scientists agree with this so it is probably true"... at least not in a scientific paper. Because that isn't science. That's politics.
As to the methodological flaws in the paper, I actually cited those in my first post which you have not addressed.
As to who is and is not a sophist... that's born out by the evidence. The two are indistinguishable prior to breaking it down. Now... did you want to go over the methodology or just blindly accept a study sight unseen?
Your move.