I think as CO2 concentration goes up this will cause more vigorous growth of plants, hence a net increase in sequestered CO2, so then plants acts as a sink.
If CO2 goes down, plant life will act as a source.
I am routing all my traffic that I want to privacy-protect through a TOR VM which acts as the network device for my protected VMs. Nothing can leak out that way.
Your second point, which I did not contest to begin with, is indeed valid and already known from the original article.
true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
And if not, is there any guarantee nature will not do it again in the foreseeable future?
And if there's no such guarantee, or even a more than slight probability, then why bother about our own produced CO2?
Because clearly we can't beat nature. Can we?
Do you believe there is no negative feedback?
Do we fully understand how the climate works, and do we understand the non-linearities that will affect the current theories once things have heated up 1 degree?
No, we don't. So there's no certainty that all those doom predictions will actually come true.
Yes, there are some nice elaborate simulations, but they are limited by the incomplete knowledge they are based on.
Political interests and greed are too much driving this discussion, so I smell a rat and say: "No, thank you".
The problem with this free state is that this state has to decide on what currency to use and how to back it. Then they'll find that backing it with gold and having the state run the central bank, exclusively issuing money, is the best idea ever, so the population will not get sucked empty by a bunch of predatory private banks, but will pay interest to the state, which transforms that into infrastructure, health care and education, and what not.
Then that free state will prosper like no other state, except maybe North Dakota in a way, which already has a state run central bank.
Then the Federal Reserve Bank (which isn't Federal, doesn't have any reserve and actually isn't a bank, but rather a lobbying institute for the various large private banks) will notice that, (order Trump--or whoever is the POTUS--to) send the military and there goes the 'free state'. Oh wait, maybe they'll send the terrorists to fight the proxy war for them, so they can't be tied to the demise of the free state.
And the other good thing is investors in the company that you're running with their money won't find out how stupid you are and how easy it is to steal their money so they won't dump their shares in the company you're running and/or fire you.
Until they find it out, plus that you didn't inform the SEC, so that by now the shares will take the hit anyway.
That's a bit of an over-generalization. Have you never seen an engineer or scientist who had it wrong at some point?
The rest of your post is irrelevant as we already know he's doing this because he wants to be a member of the board.
You can call yourself a 'doctor' upon completing your PhD.
You can call yourself a 'attorney' upon completing your law degree.
I totally agree that a civil engineer has to be licensed in order to sign off on projects, but I think it's blatantly stupid if after successfully completing a study in electrical engineering at a university you still can't call yourself an engineer.
That's my logic. If a state doesn't trust the certificates of their universities, they better regulate those, instead of their graduates.
Wasn't I being clear? I said we don't know whether it's all.
You describe a mechanism that would heat up the earth, but you assume there isn't a mechanism that counteracts it. There are too many instances where climate scientists find mechanisms which they hadn't found before, but that still doesn't keep them from communicating definitive conclusions, although they don't have yet a totally comprehensive insight in what's exactly and totally going on.
If you want to exercise 'science', then you have to exclude that any (or enought) cooling is going on. It's not sufficient to describe some cooling effects that you have found and then 'convince' others that that's all. No, you have to prove it.
Ok, that is one of my main problems.
Then there is politics, and the climate science 'thought collective', and how easily that is manipulated.
Take the example of nutrition. Sugar. Saturated fat. Biochemically quite simple one would think, no? Or comparably complex to climate, no?
Yet the nutrition thought collective had it all wrong in following Ancel Keys and destroying (yes: href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin">destroying) John Yudkin, who had it all right, while Ancel Keys cherry picked the countries on beforehand and got the result he wanted because of that.
People like Al Gore and who knows who more with all kinds of scary agendas are clearly out to profit off from the climate scare narrative.
Just like the sugar industry successfully launched a campaign to profit off from the saturated fat scare.
It's not that I don't like Al Gore, the whole climate change debate is getting just a bit too religious to my likings and it is profitable.
'Believe the priests of science, or else doom will come over us and it'll be all your fault!', seems to be the main narrative now.
I simply don't have time to follow all the developments in climate change, but I sure as hell also don't believe anything that any collective pushes upon me as science. Too many interests involved and opposition is squashed.
And you don't need a 'conspiracy', 'thought collective' does it quite well.
No thanks, you have it your way if you like, I'll have it my way.
Yes, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned gain, just savings.
However, your claim that gold will go down to a few hundred dollars an ounce contradicts your observation that gold's value is flat.
With a zero interest for money, continuous inflation and 'flat' (i.e.: a value compensating the inflation) gold value, it performs better than regular money.
And nobody was mentioning the SHTF scenarios you're bringing up here, I think, but in that case I'd suggest to invest in bullets.
Slashdot Mirror
I think as CO2 concentration goes up this will cause more vigorous growth of plants, hence a net increase in sequestered CO2, so then plants acts as a sink.
If CO2 goes down, plant life will act as a source.
I am routing all my traffic that I want to privacy-protect through a TOR VM which acts as the network device for my protected VMs. Nothing can leak out that way.
Your second point, which I did not contest to begin with, is indeed valid and already known from the original article.
What will be written first? If it's the SBX, then why wouldn't the battery give up while writing the SBX file? Your picture will be lost.
true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
And if not, is there any guarantee nature will not do it again in the foreseeable future?
And if there's no such guarantee, or even a more than slight probability, then why bother about our own produced CO2?
Because clearly we can't beat nature. Can we?
I have no idea whether you are serious or not...
Over the last 100 million years CO2 almost hasn't been as low as it currently is.
(goes into hiding)
Do you believe there is no negative feedback?
Do we fully understand how the climate works, and do we understand the non-linearities that will affect the current theories once things have heated up 1 degree?
No, we don't. So there's no certainty that all those doom predictions will actually come true.
Yes, there are some nice elaborate simulations, but they are limited by the incomplete knowledge they are based on.
Political interests and greed are too much driving this discussion, so I smell a rat and say: "No, thank you".
I think The Netherlands have much higher house prices, and surely a higher population density.
A dome house would be better.
The problem with this free state is that this state has to decide on what currency to use and how to back it. Then they'll find that backing it with gold and having the state run the central bank, exclusively issuing money, is the best idea ever, so the population will not get sucked empty by a bunch of predatory private banks, but will pay interest to the state, which transforms that into infrastructure, health care and education, and what not.
Then that free state will prosper like no other state, except maybe North Dakota in a way, which already has a state run central bank.
Then the Federal Reserve Bank (which isn't Federal, doesn't have any reserve and actually isn't a bank, but rather a lobbying institute for the various large private banks) will notice that, (order Trump--or whoever is the POTUS--to) send the military and there goes the 'free state'. Oh wait, maybe they'll send the terrorists to fight the proxy war for them, so they can't be tied to the demise of the free state.
Ok, maybe you can't, but I can tell you you're an engineer. :)
If they did that on me, they would get the IP of the exit server that my TOR virtual machine comes out of.
...Snowden only accessed the documents on computers not connected...
Yes, because nobody was to know that Snowden was the leaker... oh, wait.
Yes of course he's an idiot and should never get that position. ;)
...an Engineering degree.
Voila! Complete the course, you're an engineer.
And yes, for working as an engineer you need a license.
And the other good thing is investors in the company that you're running with their money won't find out how stupid you are and how easy it is to steal their money so they won't dump their shares in the company you're running and/or fire you.
Until they find it out, plus that you didn't inform the SEC, so that by now the shares will take the hit anyway.
...engineers are wrong...
That's a bit of an over-generalization. Have you never seen an engineer or scientist who had it wrong at some point?
The rest of your post is irrelevant as we already know he's doing this because he wants to be a member of the board.
You can call yourself a 'doctor' upon completing your PhD.
You can call yourself a 'attorney' upon completing your law degree.
I totally agree that a civil engineer has to be licensed in order to sign off on projects, but I think it's blatantly stupid if after successfully completing a study in electrical engineering at a university you still can't call yourself an engineer.
That's my logic. If a state doesn't trust the certificates of their universities, they better regulate those, instead of their graduates.
Sorry about the link.
Wasn't I being clear? I said we don't know whether it's all.
You describe a mechanism that would heat up the earth, but you assume there isn't a mechanism that counteracts it. There are too many instances where climate scientists find mechanisms which they hadn't found before, but that still doesn't keep them from communicating definitive conclusions, although they don't have yet a totally comprehensive insight in what's exactly and totally going on.
If you want to exercise 'science', then you have to exclude that any (or enought) cooling is going on. It's not sufficient to describe some cooling effects that you have found and then 'convince' others that that's all. No, you have to prove it.
Ok, that is one of my main problems.
Then there is politics, and the climate science 'thought collective', and how easily that is manipulated.
Take the example of nutrition. Sugar. Saturated fat. Biochemically quite simple one would think, no? Or comparably complex to climate, no?
Yet the nutrition thought collective had it all wrong in following Ancel Keys and destroying (yes: href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin">destroying) John Yudkin, who had it all right, while Ancel Keys cherry picked the countries on beforehand and got the result he wanted because of that.
People like Al Gore and who knows who more with all kinds of scary agendas are clearly out to profit off from the climate scare narrative.
Just like the sugar industry successfully launched a campaign to profit off from the saturated fat scare.
It's not that I don't like Al Gore, the whole climate change debate is getting just a bit too religious to my likings and it is profitable.
'Believe the priests of science, or else doom will come over us and it'll be all your fault!', seems to be the main narrative now.
I simply don't have time to follow all the developments in climate change, but I sure as hell also don't believe anything that any collective pushes upon me as science. Too many interests involved and opposition is squashed.
And you don't need a 'conspiracy', 'thought collective' does it quite well.
No thanks, you have it your way if you like, I'll have it my way.
Edge case? They fucked up the same way as Gates did with his 640 kB goof, whether he said it or not.
Yes... but... changing the birth date would amount to fraud and because terrurusm...
You only need one...
So you missed the three meta-studies mentioned in some post above?
Yes, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned gain, just savings.
However, your claim that gold will go down to a few hundred dollars an ounce contradicts your observation that gold's value is flat.
With a zero interest for money, continuous inflation and 'flat' (i.e.: a value compensating the inflation) gold value, it performs better than regular money.
And nobody was mentioning the SHTF scenarios you're bringing up here, I think, but in that case I'd suggest to invest in bullets.