the climate change caused by the pollution that we in the West started with our consumerism?
I think you missed the parent's larger point. You previously said: "to avoid a major cataclysmic breakdown, we have to swiftly take radical action.The habitual gluttony that we embellish with names like "consumerism" or "capitalism" is coming to and end, one way or another".
It would seem the witch of the person your replying to is 'consumerism". You are telling everyone that science has proven that we need to take radical action to avoid a catastrophe that has been caused by consumerism. I think it's rather fair to suggest waiting to first see if consumers weigh the same as a duck before doing anything too radical.
And might I add, stop trying to scare everyone, your only discrediting the scientists doing real work studying the climate.
Scientists are without a doubt those best suited to evaluate what is going on, and what they have to say makes more sense to me than all these denials.... The sad fact is that the climate is changing, that we are causing it and if we want to do anything to avoid a major cataclysmic breakdown, we have to swiftly take radical action.
But the scientists with the strongest support for AGW, like the IPCC, project less than a 3 degree temperature increase over the next 100 years. They base this on the assumption that human emissions continue increasing at their current rate AND all other non-human factors remain unchanged. Given that mankind is responsible for ~5% of global CO2 emissions, all other non-human factors in climate change might be considered significant over the next 100 years. Given that 100 years ago we were riding horses, I hold out considerable hope our emissions will have been largely eliminated 100 years from now. Your statement that "to avoid a major cataclysmic breakdown, we have to swiftly take radical action" is completely at odds with the science.
The habitual gluttony that we embellish with names like "consumerism" or "capitalism" is coming to and end, one way or another; the only question is whether we want to exert some influence over how it is going to happen.
And here we see what is really shaping your opinion. Like most GW chicken littles, the real agenda is anti-capitalist and anti-globalizationist in nature. Not that I'm defending either capitalism or globalization, but I strongly object to misrepresenting climate science as proof they will lead to catastrophe.
If we do nothing or too little, too late - then we will have resource wars, starvation, epidemics and a general breakdown of society, even in Europe and America.
And that is based on hard scientific data? No need to answer, I'm being rhetorical and just a bit snide to try and keep up.
You may call this sensationalism, but that is the thing about looking at the fact objectively: you don't have to like me or my opinions - just check the data, the numbers are all there for you. And then form your own conclusion - but lay aside all the dreams about "we will find a way to continue our gluttony" because we haven't done so yet; which is why there is so much resistance against acknowledging the facts about climate change.
I call it lies and propaganda. The objective facts provide nothing to support any of the outrageous claims you are making. This is just more of the same none sense that makes many doubt climate science all together because they think actual climate scientists really beleive what you say they do.
"He may even be going so far as to dare to suggest that solar output dominates the ~5% of CO2 emissions that humans contribute to the atmosphere!"
->Do you have a citation for your 5% number?
Actually, I only had my memory of what the IPCC's TAR had cited from several years back. That's why I used th ~5% instead of stating it was exact, but I'll dig up the exact citation if it will make you happy.
Here's one from the hippies over that the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration that says C02 increased by 5% in just the past 4 years. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Now, I know it's not the same 5% you are talking about, but you tell me what 95% non-human factors are responsible for the increase.
I'm saying that 95% of the CLIMATE is controlled by non-human factors. And the link you give doesn't say a single thing about human contribution to CO2 concentrations, it only talks about the overall increase from human and non-human sources alike. Also it only talks about measurements from a particular site, which makes it more useful as a part of a larger sample set more than being definitive of it's own.
You'll find pages 137-140 talks about human contributions to CO2 levels. It states that since 1750 CO2 concentrations have increased by 36%, but "using 1750 may slightly overestimate the RF, as the changes in the mixing ratios of CO2, CH4 and N 2O after the end of this naturally cooler period may not be solely attributable to anthropogenic emissions." Which basically is saying that human contributions to CO2 concentrations since 1750 must be lower than 36%.
I haven't the time to dig through the entire report to get were my ~5% came from, but let's even settle for less than 36% for all fossil fuel emissions from humans ever. From the IPCC report you'll find that CO2 contributes approx. half the RF(radiative forcing) of the LLGHG(long-lived GHGasses). From basic climatology we all know that long lived GHG's are dominated by short lived GHG's like water vapor. So we are contributing less than a 36% increase to CO2, which contributes just under half the influence LLGHG's have on climate. LLGHG's in turn contribute less than half the changes of overall GHG's as things like water vapor are dominant. So even if we ignore solar output(which seems... foolish) we have human influence through CO2 emissions as 36%of50%of50% meaning a highly exaggerated estimate of 9% through out human history. If you use more realistic numbers though by adding things like solar output and the fact that LLGHG's aren't even near 50% of GHG forcings you can drop that 9% by another digit.
We aren't as significant as the fear mongers want you to think. And for methane increases, methane is only 17% of LLGHG's effect on climate, which is why it's not given as much attention by anyone, it doesn't affect the climate that much.
What are you trying to say? Dont be vague, just say it.
I believe GP was just saying that the whole of observed warming in the last century shouldn't be attributed to human CO2 emissions all alone. He may even be going so far as to dare to suggest that solar output dominates the ~5% of CO2 emissions that humans contribute to the atmosphere!
So if CO2 isn't a negative catalyst in global climate change, then what effect is it having on our planet? I mean, as far as I know, the CO2 isnt blowing out into outer space. Its going into the atmosphere and staying there (or being sequestered by other catalysts, but the pace of carbon output is known to currently be greater than the system can take it).
I don't think anybody refutes the notion that CO2 acts as a GHG. As a 'skeptic' myself, my point of contention is the degrees of warming that CO2 is causing. In particular, I question the contribution human emissions of CO2 have on GW.
Again, for the "anti-greenhouse gas" people, please explain what effects CO2 is having, if its not having an effect on "climate change".
This is just a strawman. The real objection is to the idea that human CO2 emissions dominate all other factors in global climate change. My personal objection is making such a grand claim on less than 100 years of data. The real scientific articles don't go beyond trying to project the effects of human CO2 emissions with all other things being equal as a base assumption.
The models the IPCC refers to predict a 2-3 degree temperature increase 100 years from now based on the assumption that human emissions continue to rise at the current rate and all other factors remain static. Given that we were riding horses 100 years ago, I don't foresee the emission projections as realistic. Given the strong correlation between climate change and other factors like solar output, I don't place much confidence in the base assumption of all other factors being equal either. Finally, when it comes down to facing a 2-3 degree temperature change over the next 100 years, I don't see that as catastrophic. It would require global changes, but distributed over 100 years, I'm confident we can manage to cope with it. In spite of all this scientific reality though, anybody that suggests that we aren't facing an impending disaster is labeled as a skeptic and unscientific heathen.
It's that idea pushed by folks like Al Gore and GreenPeace that AGW is the biggest disaster facing the world and science has proven it that has created the backlash. And it's the good kind of backlash too, because the picture the alarmists are painting doesn't match the science, not even if they cherry pick their studies.
The idea that these people will engage in mass mutual destruction/suicide once they get nuclear weapons is precisely what is being challenged, because it is plain naive.
Believing that religious zealots who already routinely blow themselves up in city streets wouldn't do the same with bigger bombs is naive. After Al-Qaeda sacrifices the lives of many of their own operatives to crash planes into the WTC, you somehow think they'd hesitate to use a nuclear weapon for fear of the consequences? Who's being naive here?
our argument does not even apply to fundamentalists/extremists (such as the khomenei, bin laden..etc). Why haven't the chief heads of al-qaeda waged an all out suicidal war in the open against the western soldiers?
Al-Qaeda cares about waging jihad the most effective way they can. Lining up to be cut down by the west without inflicting any damage back makes no sense for them. Even if Osama Bin Laden cares about his own preservation, what does he care about Pakistan or Iran's preservation? Why would someone like Osama Bin Laden fear nuclear retaliation, he's already in a position to be assassinated if ever found.
If it was as simple as you state, and the Persians think the way you think they do, they would have already attacked the US and Israel.
And Iran already has attacked Israel. They continually provide funds, weapons, training and even recruits to Hezbollah for the express purpose of attacking Israel. If they had nuclear weapons they would be able to attack it even more boldly.
The truth is they're just talking, because tough talk is what keeps them in power (kind of like over here in the good old USA). Gone are the days of conquest in the name of spreading religion.
If you believe this then you are willfully ignorant. There are very strong movements of extremist mullahs rallying precisely for the spread of Islam through jihad. You are making a very dangerous mistake to try and attribute rationality to extremist groups like Al-Qaeda.
>the surrounding Arab nations sent their nazi trained armies to exterminate them
Your entire post is a work of fiction, but this is just absurd.
Fawzi al-Qawuqji, leader of the Arab Liberation army served as Wehrmacht for the Nazis. Iraq fought WW2 for the Axis. I can go on for a long time if you really like, but it seems a little... absurd.
I have, Israel attacked pre-emptively when the surrounding nations lined their armies up on their borders. Oh, and Egypt had repeatedly made bold calls that they should destroy Israel. Have you looked at what happened later in the 70's when Israel failed to attack pre-emptively when the exact same build up was made on their borders? They were nearly routed completely, Jerusalem was nearly overrun.
White a pile of garbage! I happen to be a Pakistani in Pakistan and as I peer out my window, there is no 'civil war' going on here. The military doesn't "control the country by force". Please provide input on a subject that you know something about.
I'd be very relieved to hear I was mistaken. Most of my understanding is from this documentary from 2007 I believe. It shows an interview with the head of the ISI, who states that every good Muslim should be hoping for the defeat of the NATO forces in Afghanistan. The journalist is a moderate muslim(a former Pakistani if memory serves), and travels into Northern Pakistan and is told by the people he meets with there that the extremists still control much of the region. Many people who spoke with were terrified of speaking out against the mullahs, because a fatwah would be issued and they would be killed.
You talk of Pakistan's tribal area being beyond the control of our government. Have you ever considered that other than a few residential districts in Kabul, ALL OF AFGHANISTAN IS OUT OF NATO'S BLOODY CONTROL. Put your money and grunts where your mouth is and plug the holes. And if you're scared of the sting then at least learn not to throw stones at hornets nests.
To be blunt, I'm not as worried about Afghanistan because there aren't any nuclear missiles sitting around in it. Additionally, this is the first time I've ever heard the suggestion that the Taliban fighters are leaking into Pakistan from the other way around. I've got friends over in Afghanistan who will be back in a few weeks, hopefully I can get some first hand confirmation on which direction attacks are originating from. If you've got some sources it'd be great as well.
As for the last comment about throwing stones, in case you've forgotten, it was Osama Bin Laden that stirred this hornets nest.
So, Israel changing it's name to Palestine and recognizing a right of return for the Palestinians (which would make Israel predominantly Palestinian) would be entirely consistent with Israel's "right to exist" - and, therefore, a valid solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Of course, but it would also be entirely within Israel's rights to refuse such a solution as well. As a nation they get to make their own decisions about their own country, that aught to be pretty straight forward. As such I understand Israel's reluctance to allow right of return given how many prospective returnees are jihadists committed to restoring ALL of Palestine.
So, using embargoes (as was done with apartheid South Africa) to force Israel to stop discriminating against the Palestinians (for example, with respect to immigration policy) would be totally OK?
Again, that is entirely up to the nations that want to put embargos in place. Much like embargos against Hamas when they took power. It's Hamas decision whether or not they recognize Israel's right to exist, but it's Israel's decision if they want to continue to provide aid to a region that doesn't recognize it's right to exist.
Try anti-zionist armies. And, for those that don't know, the difference between a Jew and a Zionist is similar to the difference between a white person and a white supremacist.
Oh, I see now. When Israel declared independence in 1948, the surrounding Nazi trained armies that attacked it were only interested in killing the Zionists. Now I feel bad for judging them...
I'm sorry, but I've never met someone who questioned Israel's right to exist who didn't also define Zionists as anyone that believed in Israel's right to exist.
What is a "right"? And what does it mean for a country to exist? What if Israel wasn't predominantly Jewish?
At the end of the day, what it comes down to is that Israel's "right to exist" is actually a "privilege to discriminate" (against non-Jews).
No, Israel's "right to exist" means it's right to an autonomous government within it's borders. Removing that government by military force is what is meant by removing that right to exist.
Play as many semantics as you like, unless you support the notion of a foreign nation removing Israel's government by force, you are recognizing it's 'right to exist'. If you do support the removal of Israel's government by military force, then your attempt to smear Israel's government as the racist disgusts me.
After 4 decades of anti-semetic armies trying to destroy Israel, I understand it's aggressive policies as more defensive, than expansionist.
There's a real battle with real fronts against our real enemy going on, but we can't do the needful because we're stuck in a pointless quagmire!
The frightening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is exactly why invading Iraq was the stupidest fucking thing we could have done.
For the most part I'd agree, but I can see scenarios where the Iraq invasion serves some purpose in Pakistan. The ludicrous lies about WMD in Iraq, followed by a shock and awe campaign looks like a blunder from most angles. But it did demonstrate American will to deploy far more forces than needed to conquer Iraq(enough to militarily conquer Iran or Pakistan in fact), if WMD ever got in the hands of someone like Saddam who was willing to use them.
With the leader of the ISI(Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA) being a pro-jihadist and our new military 'allies' having been previously content to let the mullahs preach jihad against the west, a show of force may have anchored our 'allies' allegiance.
But that's alot of speculation. I think we are largely agreed that Bush/Cheney are either dangerously incompetent or dangerously corrupt, or both. But even with that, the leadership in Iran and Pakistan is a much greater threat and orders of magnitude more frightening.
Did we forget that establishing this "small piece of land where they could feel safe" involved forcefully removing the people who were living there?... Perhaps it's better to stick to truths that far more people agree with, such as "killing is wrong", and the sovereignty of existing states and international borders.
Okay, let's talk about 1948. In 1948, there was already a large jewish population living in Palestine. The Palestinians were persecuting them for the last 40 some years, as was the custom in those times. As a result the Jewish people armed themselves and had a more or less autonomous state within Palestine. This resulted in a civil war and a UN mandate for two sovereign states of Israel and Palestine, with internationally approved borders. Israel declared it's independence and accepted these borders. The surrounding arab nations though declared war on the new state and sent their Nazi trained armies to destroy it. They so outnumbered the new state that they urged all Palestinians to leave their homes to return in a few days. Don't expect any tears from me that Israel won that war. In my opinion, that on top of the UN mandate for an Israeli state earned them the right to exist, and I could care less if that angers the nations that tried to destroy it.
It's so funny, everyone wants to complain about the enrichment of nuclear technology, but no one wants to develop alternative fuel technology.
I know what you mean, I can barely contain my laughter to write this out. Worrying about Islamic fundamentalists who have called for the death of Israel,England and America pursuing nuclear weapons when we have things like peak oil to worry about makes me laugh every time.
Every time I think about how international inspectors in Iran found plans for nuclear weapons I laugh to. I mean, obviously the Iranians are telling the truth when they say that those plans just came free when they purchased their civil technology from AQ Khan. That a nuclear arms dealer like Khan would accidentally give away such plans for free is just an hilarious fail.
Let's all just keep laughing at the funny hijinx of the crazed religious dictators of the world, and their attempts to build a nuclear arsenal. Coming soon an Al-Jazeera Mondays!
For balance I'm only joking about Al-Jazeera, I honestly do believe that Fox is more biased than Al-Jazeera. But that for obvious reasons that is NOT an endorsement, no more than saying death by drowning is better than burning alive.
After Hitler, I think it was supposed to be a sort of "enough is enough!" kind of thing. I'm not clear on whether people who object to the existence of Israel are doing so on the basis of the particular spot that was chosen (The Holy Land! LOL) or on the fact that a refuge for Jews should exist at all.
Well, most of those objecting would say it is on the basis of the location that was chosen. Of course, when Israel declared it's independence and accepted the UN mandated borders for a joint Israeli and Palestinian state, the surrounding Arab nations sent their nazi trained armies to exterminate them. In my book, simply by surviving that Israel earned the right to exist, no matter how many anti-semetics it may anger. If the surrounding arab nations would work towards reducing rather than increasing the number of explosive strapped jihadists in Palestinian territory, we might see some progress towards a state for the Palestinians as well.
The Bush dynasty has been working closely with Iran, arming it, even protecting AQ Khan (the Pakistani whose stolen nuke secrets started the Iranian, N Korean and Libyan nuke projects). That's why the "Iran" in "Iran/Contra" was always the worst part of that traitorous operation out of Oliver North's White House basement office. And why the resumes of the Bush Jr "brain trust" are full of "Iran/Contra" experience.
AQ Khan wasn't selling 'stolen' secrets, he was selling the nuclear plans he used to build Pakistan's nuclear weapons. He is a hero in Pakistan for giving them the bomb to rival India. He was also selling much more than just plans for nuclear weapons, he was selling the equipment needed to implement the plans as well.
AQ Khan didn't start the Iranian program either, he just jump started it with better technology. He also sold them the plans for machining enriched Uranium into spheres(unless of course you believe the Iranians story in which case he just gave it to them for free, without even being asked). The slashdot crowd is probably aware that weapons are the ONLY use for Uranium spheres.
Of course, it gets better. AQ Khan is such a hero in Pakistan that when Musharraf made him apologize for selling nuclear technology there was a public backlash for embarassing a national hero. AQ Khan is now on loose house arrest in Pakistan and the US/CIA have been refused access to question him.
Now here's the greatest parts: 1. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces that were chased out of Afghanistan are now based in the Northern tribal region of Pakistan, where they enjoy tremendous public support. 2. After Musharraf and the Pakistan military co-operated with the US to crack down on Islamic extremism, there is a virtual civil war going on in Pakistan. On one side is the corrupt military that controls most of the country by force. Scarily, those are the 'good' guys. The other side are the religous mullahs. They aren't the moderate muslim leaders we have over here. They are pro-bin laden jihadists who we really wouldn't like to see in control of the nuclear weapons that AQ Khan built for Pakistan. The Best part is they control the region the Taliban and Al-Qaeda retreated so completely the military is scared to go there and it would be suicide for the police to enter it.
Frankly, that all scares the willies out of me.
but ignore the real world, lets worry about the Bush Dynasty and it's heinous attempts at holding a free election in Iraq.
So cry if you get thumped by the 'Corporate Giant' trying to keep the hard working hacker down. It's not about unlimited data, it's about people using tools that crush everyone elses fun using that service.
I can't believe a quote like "Tools that crush everyone else's fun", not only appears on slashdot, but gets modded up as well. The last part of parent is correct, you paid to move data for yourself. If you paid for unlimited use of a 10Mbps line, then your activity on that line had damn well better not be "crushing everyone else's fun". That 10Mbps better be there no matter how much pron your neighbour is uploading via p2p or any other protocol. I know Sen. Stevens told you that your neighbors p2p plugs the tubes, blocking the internet your boss sent you, but he was WRONG!
If users on an ISP are affecting each others traffic then the ISP is at fault and needs to stop over selling their lines, either by changing their contract terms or buying more bandwidth!
Why would you need extra-ordinary proof by the scientific method before you believe that the 11th time is different? Would you assume the cause is the same before you examine any evidence? I would want to see evidence one way or the other before I decided whether the 11th time is the same or is different. That's what seems scientific to me -- the hypothesis that the 11th time is the same needs evidence before we would be inclined to believe it.
It's the same as if someone mixed a base and an acid and claimed they got out pudding. We'd want proof, because every single previous time the results where different. It's the basic principle of the simplest explanation being preferable. When the same sequence of events have always had the same result, you don't jump to a new conclusion without additional evidence.
What you're saying is that the release of carbon dioxide was not the cause of past global warming. It does not follow that the release of carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming this time. If you show up to work late ten times in a row because of bad traffic, it does not mean that the eleventh time you're late it cannot be because your car didn't start. It looks like you could benefit from learning more about science.
But by the scientific method you certainly would want extra-ordinary proof that the 11th time wasn't the same as the last 10.
Me too. Its surprising how often we manage to not get robbed by anyone with a gun.
Sadly, this is were my anecdotal evidence completely diverges from yours. I live about two hours out of a city that is, per capita, the gang violence and murder capitol of the country. New York's per capita rates would be a dream come true.
That's why anecdotes are only useful as emotional arguments. The actual data shows a mixed bag were sometimes restrictions lower crime rates and other times removing restrictions lower them.
The fear surrounding a gunless society is absolutely bonkers.
The fear isn't supposed to even be about violent crime. It's about the ability to protect yourself, not just from criminals but from the absolute corruption of your own government. A gun less society is much easier to rule by shear military force.
You could argue that that applies to oil- or coal- burning power plants, but when one of those plants has an accident, it doesn't spew radioactive steam all over five states.
I'd like to hear what the pro-nuclear slashdotters would do to alleviate the cost- and corner-cutting that would inevitably happen in a power plant run by a private company.
Actually, people would argue that oil and coal burning power plants spew radioactive and toxic chemicals all over during normal operation.
Alleviating the cost and corner cutting is as simple as having regular government inspections and reasonable safety standards. Like the ones in place right now, that count the emissions of a typical coal plant as a disaster if they are seen coming from a nuke plant.
When Russia retreated there was a war-torn country left with a traumatized population living under extreme poverty, some of which had a lot of left over weapons (supplied by a nuclear super-power fighting a proxy war). Pray, what type of guvament did you think was going to spring from that? Pakistan has been an Afghan ally before, during, and after Taliban rule. Sheesh, the IQ level on slashdot these days is taking a nosedive.
The parent's point was that America didn't support the Taliban to fight off the Russians. He was completely correct to point out that the grandparents smug assertion about US support for the Taliban is deceptive. They supported local fighters taking back control of their land. Some of them like Osama formed Al-Qaeda, some formed the Taliban, and some like Ahmad Shah Massoud were opposed to both of those. Your comment about what should we expect to happen is more to the point. The fighters supported by the west for the most part started fighting amongst themselves for power after the removal of the Russians.
Here's what needs to be asked though. If the obvious result of leaving a power vacuum is authoritarian rule, then what is the lesson? You are missing the possibility that maybe the west is not guilty of doing too much, but of doing too little.
Being tied up in another place hasn't been a deterrent for the US before. Or did they finish in Afghanistan before heading for Iraq?
And they don't have the troops they need for Iraq as it is. The real problem though is that before either of the current wars, Iran's military was far more powerful than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. The only real course of action that was ever likely on the table against Iran would have been aerial bombing of their enrichment facilities. The closer Iran gets to having the enrichment capacity to produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a weapon the more likely that either Israel or the US will do just that. I doubt any manner of ground operations really are in the works though.
He wants to make the West look like idiots. By starting a non-weaponized nuclear program, he's inviting all sorts of suspicion from the US, EU, and UN.
When it turns out that Iran doesn't actually have weaponized "nukes," the west are left looking like idiots and aggressors.
I think he wants to do more than just make the West look stupid. Here's why: 1.He continually has stated a desire to wipe Israel off the map. 2.He has provided funding, weapons and training to Hezbollah for the express purpose of launching direct attacks against Israel. 3.He has provided funding, weapons and training to Hamas for the express purpose of launching direct attacks against Israel.
Putting 2 and 2 together, starting a nuclear weapon program gives him a deterrent to allow more aggressive attacks on Israel.
The bigger question from this release is why do you have your defense minister lead the tour of your civilian nuclear enrichment program? It looks very much like a show of strength, which plays well for his local and regional support. With America tied up in Iraq, it's a reasonably safe time for such a bold display as well.
The article makes this sound as though the Canadian government was somehow involved in all this. The Public Policy Forum is much more akin to a lobby group. It's directors include: -President and CEO General Electric Canada -Chairman of the Board Western Financial Group -Chief Brand and Communications Officer RBC Financial Group -Senior Vice President Petro-Canada This really isn't as big a deal as was made out. Corporate influence in an organization like this isn't exactly a revelation. What's important is how much stock the Canadian government will put in the PPF's opinions, to which the article says nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
the climate change caused by the pollution that we in the West started with our consumerism?
I think you missed the parent's larger point. You previously said:
"to avoid a major cataclysmic breakdown, we have to swiftly take radical action.The habitual gluttony that we embellish with names like "consumerism" or "capitalism" is coming to and end, one way or another".
It would seem the witch of the person your replying to is 'consumerism". You are telling everyone that science has proven that we need to take radical action to avoid a catastrophe that has been caused by consumerism. I think it's rather fair to suggest waiting to first see if consumers weigh the same as a duck before doing anything too radical.
And might I add, stop trying to scare everyone, your only discrediting the scientists doing real work studying the climate.
Scientists are without a doubt those best suited to evaluate what is going on, and what they have to say makes more sense to me than all these denials.
The sad fact is that the climate is changing, that we are causing it and if we want to do anything to avoid a major cataclysmic breakdown, we have to swiftly take radical action.
But the scientists with the strongest support for AGW, like the IPCC, project less than a 3 degree temperature increase over the next 100 years. They base this on the assumption that human emissions continue increasing at their current rate AND all other non-human factors remain unchanged. Given that mankind is responsible for ~5% of global CO2 emissions, all other non-human factors in climate change might be considered significant over the next 100 years. Given that 100 years ago we were riding horses, I hold out considerable hope our emissions will have been largely eliminated 100 years from now. Your statement that "to avoid a major cataclysmic breakdown, we have to swiftly take radical action" is completely at odds with the science.
The habitual gluttony that we embellish with names like "consumerism" or "capitalism" is coming to and end, one way or another; the only question is whether we want to exert some influence over how it is going to happen.
And here we see what is really shaping your opinion. Like most GW chicken littles, the real agenda is anti-capitalist and anti-globalizationist in nature. Not that I'm defending either capitalism or globalization, but I strongly object to misrepresenting climate science as proof they will lead to catastrophe.
If we do nothing or too little, too late - then we will have resource wars, starvation, epidemics and a general breakdown of society, even in Europe and America.
And that is based on hard scientific data? No need to answer, I'm being rhetorical and just a bit snide to try and keep up.
You may call this sensationalism, but that is the thing about looking at the fact objectively: you don't have to like me or my opinions - just check the data, the numbers are all there for you. And then form your own conclusion - but lay aside all the dreams about "we will find a way to continue our gluttony" because we haven't done so yet; which is why there is so much resistance against acknowledging the facts about climate change.
I call it lies and propaganda. The objective facts provide nothing to support any of the outrageous claims you are making. This is just more of the same none sense that makes many doubt climate science all together because they think actual climate scientists really beleive what you say they do.
"He may even be going so far as to dare to suggest that solar output dominates the ~5% of CO2 emissions that humans contribute to the atmosphere!"
->Do you have a citation for your 5% number?
Actually, I only had my memory of what the IPCC's TAR had cited from several years back. That's why I used th ~5% instead of stating it was exact, but I'll dig up the exact citation if it will make you happy.
Here's one from the hippies over that the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration that says C02 increased by 5% in just the past 4 years. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Now, I know it's not the same 5% you are talking about, but you tell me what 95% non-human factors are responsible for the increase.
I'm saying that 95% of the CLIMATE is controlled by non-human factors. And the link you give doesn't say a single thing about human contribution to CO2 concentrations, it only talks about the overall increase from human and non-human sources alike. Also it only talks about measurements from a particular site, which makes it more useful as a part of a larger sample set more than being definitive of it's own.
How about this from the nuts over at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in Cambridge: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ice-bubbles-reveal-biggest-rise-in-co2-for-800000-years-414711.html
The link you gave is down for me. If you go to look at the IPCC's fourth assessment though:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
You'll find pages 137-140 talks about human contributions to CO2 levels. It states that since 1750 CO2 concentrations have increased by 36%, but "using 1750
may slightly overestimate the RF, as the changes in the mixing
ratios of CO2, CH4 and N 2O after the end of this naturally
cooler period may not be solely attributable to anthropogenic
emissions." Which basically is saying that human contributions to CO2 concentrations since 1750 must be lower than 36%.
I haven't the time to dig through the entire report to get were my ~5% came from, but let's even settle for less than 36% for all fossil fuel emissions from humans ever. From the IPCC report you'll find that CO2 contributes approx. half the RF(radiative forcing) of the LLGHG(long-lived GHGasses). From basic climatology we all know that long lived GHG's are dominated by short lived GHG's like water vapor. So we are contributing less than a 36% increase to CO2, which contributes just under half the influence LLGHG's have on climate. LLGHG's in turn contribute less than half the changes of overall GHG's as things like water vapor are dominant. So even if we ignore solar output(which seems... foolish) we have human influence through CO2 emissions as 36%of50%of50% meaning a highly exaggerated estimate of 9% through out human history. If you use more realistic numbers though by adding things like solar output and the fact that LLGHG's aren't even near 50% of GHG forcings you can drop that 9% by another digit.
We aren't as significant as the fear mongers want you to think. And for methane increases, methane is only 17% of LLGHG's effect on climate, which is why it's not given as much attention by anyone, it doesn't affect the climate that much.
What are you trying to say? Dont be vague, just say it.
I believe GP was just saying that the whole of observed warming in the last century shouldn't be attributed to human CO2 emissions all alone. He may even be going so far as to dare to suggest that solar output dominates the ~5% of CO2 emissions that humans contribute to the atmosphere!
So if CO2 isn't a negative catalyst in global climate change, then what effect is it having on our planet? I mean, as far as I know, the CO2 isnt blowing out into outer space. Its going into the atmosphere and staying there (or being sequestered by other catalysts, but the pace of carbon output is known to currently be greater than the system can take it).
I don't think anybody refutes the notion that CO2 acts as a GHG. As a 'skeptic' myself, my point of contention is the degrees of warming that CO2 is causing. In particular, I question the contribution human emissions of CO2 have on GW.
Again, for the "anti-greenhouse gas" people, please explain what effects CO2 is having, if its not having an effect on "climate change".
This is just a strawman. The real objection is to the idea that human CO2 emissions dominate all other factors in global climate change. My personal objection is making such a grand claim on less than 100 years of data. The real scientific articles don't go beyond trying to project the effects of human CO2 emissions with all other things being equal as a base assumption.
The models the IPCC refers to predict a 2-3 degree temperature increase 100 years from now based on the assumption that human emissions continue to rise at the current rate and all other factors remain static. Given that we were riding horses 100 years ago, I don't foresee the emission projections as realistic. Given the strong correlation between climate change and other factors like solar output, I don't place much confidence in the base assumption of all other factors being equal either. Finally, when it comes down to facing a 2-3 degree temperature change over the next 100 years, I don't see that as catastrophic. It would require global changes, but distributed over 100 years, I'm confident we can manage to cope with it. In spite of all this scientific reality though, anybody that suggests that we aren't facing an impending disaster is labeled as a skeptic and unscientific heathen.
It's that idea pushed by folks like Al Gore and GreenPeace that AGW is the biggest disaster facing the world and science has proven it that has created the backlash. And it's the good kind of backlash too, because the picture the alarmists are painting doesn't match the science, not even if they cherry pick their studies.
The idea that these people will engage in mass mutual destruction/suicide once they get nuclear weapons is precisely what is being challenged, because it is plain naive.
Believing that religious zealots who already routinely blow themselves up in city streets wouldn't do the same with bigger bombs is naive. After Al-Qaeda sacrifices the lives of many of their own operatives to crash planes into the WTC, you somehow think they'd hesitate to use a nuclear weapon for fear of the consequences? Who's being naive here?
our argument does not even apply to fundamentalists/extremists (such as the khomenei, bin laden..etc). Why haven't the chief heads of al-qaeda waged an all out suicidal war in the open against the western soldiers?
Al-Qaeda cares about waging jihad the most effective way they can. Lining up to be cut down by the west without inflicting any damage back makes no sense for them. Even if Osama Bin Laden cares about his own preservation, what does he care about Pakistan or Iran's preservation? Why would someone like Osama Bin Laden fear nuclear retaliation, he's already in a position to be assassinated if ever found.
If it was as simple as you state, and the Persians think the way you think they do, they would have already attacked the US and Israel.
And Iran already has attacked Israel. They continually provide funds, weapons, training and even recruits to Hezbollah for the express purpose of attacking Israel. If they had nuclear weapons they would be able to attack it even more boldly.
The truth is they're just talking, because tough talk is what keeps them in power (kind of like over here in the good old USA). Gone are the days of conquest in the name of spreading religion.
If you believe this then you are willfully ignorant. There are very strong movements of extremist mullahs rallying precisely for the spread of Islam through jihad. You are making a very dangerous mistake to try and attribute rationality to extremist groups like Al-Qaeda.
>the surrounding Arab nations sent their nazi trained armies to exterminate them
Your entire post is a work of fiction, but this is just absurd.
Fawzi al-Qawuqji, leader of the Arab Liberation army served as Wehrmacht for the Nazis. Iraq fought WW2 for the Axis. I can go on for a long time if you really like, but it seems a little... absurd.
I have, Israel attacked pre-emptively when the surrounding nations lined their armies up on their borders. Oh, and Egypt had repeatedly made bold calls that they should destroy Israel. Have you looked at what happened later in the 70's when Israel failed to attack pre-emptively when the exact same build up was made on their borders? They were nearly routed completely, Jerusalem was nearly overrun.
White a pile of garbage! I happen to be a Pakistani in Pakistan and as I peer out my window, there is no 'civil war' going on here. The military doesn't "control the country by force". Please provide input on a subject that you know something about.
I'd be very relieved to hear I was mistaken. Most of my understanding is from this documentary from 2007 I believe. It shows an interview with the head of the ISI, who states that every good Muslim should be hoping for the defeat of the NATO forces in Afghanistan. The journalist is a moderate muslim(a former Pakistani if memory serves), and travels into Northern Pakistan and is told by the people he meets with there that the extremists still control much of the region. Many people who spoke with were terrified of speaking out against the mullahs, because a fatwah would be issued and they would be killed.
You talk of Pakistan's tribal area being beyond the control of our government. Have you ever considered that other than a few residential districts in Kabul, ALL OF AFGHANISTAN IS OUT OF NATO'S BLOODY CONTROL. Put your money and grunts where your mouth is and plug the holes. And if you're scared of the sting then at least learn not to throw stones at hornets nests.
To be blunt, I'm not as worried about Afghanistan because there aren't any nuclear missiles sitting around in it. Additionally, this is the first time I've ever heard the suggestion that the Taliban fighters are leaking into Pakistan from the other way around. I've got friends over in Afghanistan who will be back in a few weeks, hopefully I can get some first hand confirmation on which direction attacks are originating from. If you've got some sources it'd be great as well.
As for the last comment about throwing stones, in case you've forgotten, it was Osama Bin Laden that stirred this hornets nest.
So, Israel changing it's name to Palestine and recognizing a right of return for the Palestinians (which would make Israel predominantly Palestinian) would be entirely consistent with Israel's "right to exist" - and, therefore, a valid solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Of course, but it would also be entirely within Israel's rights to refuse such a solution as well. As a nation they get to make their own decisions about their own country, that aught to be pretty straight forward. As such I understand Israel's reluctance to allow right of return given how many prospective returnees are jihadists committed to restoring ALL of Palestine.
So, using embargoes (as was done with apartheid South Africa) to force Israel to stop discriminating against the Palestinians (for example, with respect to immigration policy) would be totally OK?
Again, that is entirely up to the nations that want to put embargos in place. Much like embargos against Hamas when they took power. It's Hamas decision whether or not they recognize Israel's right to exist, but it's Israel's decision if they want to continue to provide aid to a region that doesn't recognize it's right to exist.
Try anti-zionist armies. And, for those that don't know, the difference between a Jew and a Zionist is similar to the difference between a white person and a white supremacist.
Oh, I see now. When Israel declared independence in 1948, the surrounding Nazi trained armies that attacked it were only interested in killing the Zionists. Now I feel bad for judging them...
I'm sorry, but I've never met someone who questioned Israel's right to exist who didn't also define Zionists as anyone that believed in Israel's right to exist.
What is a "right"?
And what does it mean for a country to exist?
What if Israel wasn't predominantly Jewish?
At the end of the day, what it comes down to is that Israel's "right to exist" is actually a "privilege to discriminate" (against non-Jews).
No, Israel's "right to exist" means it's right to an autonomous government within it's borders. Removing that government by military force is what is meant by removing that right to exist.
Play as many semantics as you like, unless you support the notion of a foreign nation removing Israel's government by force, you are recognizing it's 'right to exist'. If you do support the removal of Israel's government by military force, then your attempt to smear Israel's government as the racist disgusts me.
After 4 decades of anti-semetic armies trying to destroy Israel, I understand it's aggressive policies as more defensive, than expansionist.
There's a real battle with real fronts against our real enemy going on, but we can't do the needful because we're stuck in a pointless quagmire!
The frightening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is exactly why invading Iraq was the stupidest fucking thing we could have done.
For the most part I'd agree, but I can see scenarios where the Iraq invasion serves some purpose in Pakistan. The ludicrous lies about WMD in Iraq, followed by a shock and awe campaign looks like a blunder from most angles. But it did demonstrate American will to deploy far more forces than needed to conquer Iraq(enough to militarily conquer Iran or Pakistan in fact), if WMD ever got in the hands of someone like Saddam who was willing to use them.
With the leader of the ISI(Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA) being a pro-jihadist and our new military 'allies' having been previously content to let the mullahs preach jihad against the west, a show of force may have anchored our 'allies' allegiance.
But that's alot of speculation. I think we are largely agreed that Bush/Cheney are either dangerously incompetent or dangerously corrupt, or both. But even with that, the leadership in Iran and Pakistan is a much greater threat and orders of magnitude more frightening.
Did we forget that establishing this "small piece of land where they could feel safe" involved forcefully removing the people who were living there?
Perhaps it's better to stick to truths that far more people agree with, such as "killing is wrong", and the sovereignty of existing states and international borders.
Okay, let's talk about 1948. In 1948, there was already a large jewish population living in Palestine. The Palestinians were persecuting them for the last 40 some years, as was the custom in those times. As a result the Jewish people armed themselves and had a more or less autonomous state within Palestine. This resulted in a civil war and a UN mandate for two sovereign states of Israel and Palestine, with internationally approved borders. Israel declared it's independence and accepted these borders. The surrounding arab nations though declared war on the new state and sent their Nazi trained armies to destroy it. They so outnumbered the new state that they urged all Palestinians to leave their homes to return in a few days. Don't expect any tears from me that Israel won that war. In my opinion, that on top of the UN mandate for an Israeli state earned them the right to exist, and I could care less if that angers the nations that tried to destroy it.
It's so funny, everyone wants to complain about the enrichment of nuclear technology, but no one wants to develop alternative fuel technology.
I know what you mean, I can barely contain my laughter to write this out. Worrying about Islamic fundamentalists who have called for the death of Israel,England and America pursuing nuclear weapons when we have things like peak oil to worry about makes me laugh every time.
Every time I think about how international inspectors in Iran found plans for nuclear weapons I laugh to. I mean, obviously the Iranians are telling the truth when they say that those plans just came free when they purchased their civil technology from AQ Khan. That a nuclear arms dealer like Khan would accidentally give away such plans for free is just an hilarious fail.
Let's all just keep laughing at the funny hijinx of the crazed religious dictators of the world, and their attempts to build a nuclear arsenal. Coming soon an Al-Jazeera Mondays!
For balance I'm only joking about Al-Jazeera, I honestly do believe that Fox is more biased than Al-Jazeera. But that for obvious reasons that is NOT an endorsement, no more than saying death by drowning is better than burning alive.
After Hitler, I think it was supposed to be a sort of "enough is enough!" kind of thing. I'm not clear on whether people who object to the existence of Israel are doing so on the basis of the particular spot that was chosen (The Holy Land! LOL) or on the fact that a refuge for Jews should exist at all.
Well, most of those objecting would say it is on the basis of the location that was chosen. Of course, when Israel declared it's independence and accepted the UN mandated borders for a joint Israeli and Palestinian state, the surrounding Arab nations sent their nazi trained armies to exterminate them. In my book, simply by surviving that Israel earned the right to exist, no matter how many anti-semetics it may anger. If the surrounding arab nations would work towards reducing rather than increasing the number of explosive strapped jihadists in Palestinian territory, we might see some progress towards a state for the Palestinians as well.
The Bush dynasty has been working closely with Iran, arming it, even protecting AQ Khan (the Pakistani whose stolen nuke secrets started the Iranian, N Korean and Libyan nuke projects). That's why the "Iran" in "Iran/Contra" was always the worst part of that traitorous operation out of Oliver North's White House basement office. And why the resumes of the Bush Jr "brain trust" are full of "Iran/Contra" experience.
AQ Khan wasn't selling 'stolen' secrets, he was selling the nuclear plans he used to build Pakistan's nuclear weapons. He is a hero in Pakistan for giving them the bomb to rival India. He was also selling much more than just plans for nuclear weapons, he was selling the equipment needed to implement the plans as well.
AQ Khan didn't start the Iranian program either, he just jump started it with better technology. He also sold them the plans for machining enriched Uranium into spheres(unless of course you believe the Iranians story in which case he just gave it to them for free, without even being asked). The slashdot crowd is probably aware that weapons are the ONLY use for Uranium spheres.
Of course, it gets better. AQ Khan is such a hero in Pakistan that when Musharraf made him apologize for selling nuclear technology there was a public backlash for embarassing a national hero. AQ Khan is now on loose house arrest in Pakistan and the US/CIA have been refused access to question him.
Now here's the greatest parts:
1. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces that were chased out of Afghanistan are now based in the Northern tribal region of Pakistan, where they enjoy tremendous public support.
2. After Musharraf and the Pakistan military co-operated with the US to crack down on Islamic extremism, there is a virtual civil war going on in Pakistan. On one side is the corrupt military that controls most of the country by force. Scarily, those are the 'good' guys. The other side are the religous mullahs. They aren't the moderate muslim leaders we have over here. They are pro-bin laden jihadists who we really wouldn't like to see in control of the nuclear weapons that AQ Khan built for Pakistan. The Best part is they control the region the Taliban and Al-Qaeda retreated so completely the military is scared to go there and it would be suicide for the police to enter it.
Frankly, that all scares the willies out of me.
but ignore the real world, lets worry about the Bush Dynasty and it's heinous attempts at holding a free election in Iraq.
So cry if you get thumped by the 'Corporate Giant' trying to keep the hard working hacker down. It's not about unlimited data, it's about people using tools that crush everyone elses fun using that service.
I can't believe a quote like "Tools that crush everyone else's fun", not only appears on slashdot, but gets modded up as well. The last part of parent is correct, you paid to move data for yourself. If you paid for unlimited use of a 10Mbps line, then your activity on that line had damn well better not be "crushing everyone else's fun". That 10Mbps better be there no matter how much pron your neighbour is uploading via p2p or any other protocol. I know Sen. Stevens told you that your neighbors p2p plugs the tubes, blocking the internet your boss sent you, but he was WRONG!
If users on an ISP are affecting each others traffic then the ISP is at fault and needs to stop over selling their lines, either by changing their contract terms or buying more bandwidth!
Why would you need extra-ordinary proof by the scientific method before you believe that the 11th time is different? Would you assume the cause is the same before you examine any evidence? I would want to see evidence one way or the other before I decided whether the 11th time is the same or is different. That's what seems scientific to me -- the hypothesis that the 11th time is the same needs evidence before we would be inclined to believe it.
It's the same as if someone mixed a base and an acid and claimed they got out pudding. We'd want proof, because every single previous time the results where different. It's the basic principle of the simplest explanation being preferable. When the same sequence of events have always had the same result, you don't jump to a new conclusion without additional evidence.
What you're saying is that the release of carbon dioxide was not the cause of past global warming. It does not follow that the release of carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming this time. If you show up to work late ten times in a row because of bad traffic, it does not mean that the eleventh time you're late it cannot be because your car didn't start. It looks like you could benefit from learning more about science.
But by the scientific method you certainly would want extra-ordinary proof that the 11th time wasn't the same as the last 10.
I live in a country with strict gun control.
Me too.
Its surprising how often we manage to not get robbed by anyone with a gun.
Sadly, this is were my anecdotal evidence completely diverges from yours. I live about two hours out of a city that is, per capita, the gang violence and murder capitol of the country. New York's per capita rates would be a dream come true.
That's why anecdotes are only useful as emotional arguments. The actual data shows a mixed bag were sometimes restrictions lower crime rates and other times removing restrictions lower them.
The fear surrounding a gunless society is absolutely bonkers.
The fear isn't supposed to even be about violent crime. It's about the ability to protect yourself, not just from criminals but from the absolute corruption of your own government. A gun less society is much easier to rule by shear military force.
You could argue that that applies to oil- or coal- burning power plants, but when one of those plants has an accident, it doesn't spew radioactive steam all over five states.
I'd like to hear what the pro-nuclear slashdotters would do to alleviate the cost- and corner-cutting that would inevitably happen in a power plant run by a private company.
Actually, people would argue that oil and coal burning power plants spew radioactive and toxic chemicals all over during normal operation.
Alleviating the cost and corner cutting is as simple as having regular government inspections and reasonable safety standards. Like the ones in place right now, that count the emissions of a typical coal plant as a disaster if they are seen coming from a nuke plant.
When Russia retreated there was a war-torn country left with a traumatized population living under extreme poverty, some of which had a lot of left over weapons (supplied by a nuclear super-power fighting a proxy war). Pray, what type of guvament did you think was going to spring from that? Pakistan has been an Afghan ally before, during, and after Taliban rule. Sheesh, the IQ level on slashdot these days is taking a nosedive.
The parent's point was that America didn't support the Taliban to fight off the Russians. He was completely correct to point out that the grandparents smug assertion about US support for the Taliban is deceptive. They supported local fighters taking back control of their land. Some of them like Osama formed Al-Qaeda, some formed the Taliban, and some like Ahmad Shah Massoud were opposed to both of those. Your comment about what should we expect to happen is more to the point. The fighters supported by the west for the most part started fighting amongst themselves for power after the removal of the Russians.
Here's what needs to be asked though. If the obvious result of leaving a power vacuum is authoritarian rule, then what is the lesson? You are missing the possibility that maybe the west is not guilty of doing too much, but of doing too little.
Being tied up in another place hasn't been a deterrent for the US before. Or did they finish in Afghanistan before heading for Iraq?
And they don't have the troops they need for Iraq as it is. The real problem though is that before either of the current wars, Iran's military was far more powerful than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. The only real course of action that was ever likely on the table against Iran would have been aerial bombing of their enrichment facilities. The closer Iran gets to having the enrichment capacity to produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a weapon the more likely that either Israel or the US will do just that. I doubt any manner of ground operations really are in the works though.
He wants to make the West look like idiots. By starting a non-weaponized nuclear program, he's inviting all sorts of suspicion from the US, EU, and UN.
When it turns out that Iran doesn't actually have weaponized "nukes," the west are left looking like idiots and aggressors.
I think he wants to do more than just make the West look stupid. Here's why:
1.He continually has stated a desire to wipe Israel off the map.
2.He has provided funding, weapons and training to Hezbollah for the express purpose of launching direct attacks against Israel.
3.He has provided funding, weapons and training to Hamas for the express purpose of launching direct attacks against Israel.
Putting 2 and 2 together, starting a nuclear weapon program gives him a deterrent to allow more aggressive attacks on Israel.
The bigger question from this release is why do you have your defense minister lead the tour of your civilian nuclear enrichment program? It looks very much like a show of strength, which plays well for his local and regional support. With America tied up in Iraq, it's a reasonably safe time for such a bold display as well.
The article makes this sound as though the Canadian government was somehow involved in all this. The Public Policy Forum is much more akin to a lobby group. It's directors include:
-President and CEO General Electric Canada
-Chairman of the Board Western Financial Group
-Chief Brand and Communications Officer RBC Financial Group
-Senior Vice President Petro-Canada
This really isn't as big a deal as was made out. Corporate influence in an organization like this isn't exactly a revelation. What's important is how much stock the Canadian government will put in the PPF's opinions, to which the article says nothing.