The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation is, the slower its birth rate and the better its environmental record.
You are aware that you disagree with every single "skeptic" who claims that any action against Global Warming would wreck the economy.
If it wasn't for government action, people would still be hauling coal out of the ground and burning it in the dirtiest (i.e. cheapest) ways.
Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
I guess you are not trying to present evidence for the vast "Global Warming Conspiracy" for now?
So that's another thing you don't what it is. Mentioning that your argument is wrong is not an ad hominem simply because it contains the letter-combination YOU.
18 years 5 months no temperature rise, and a slight decline trend.
Nature as always has the last laugh.
Denial of facts. See, there are actual deniers right here. And the "skeptics" not only say nothing about them being wrong, they claim they can't see them, that they don't exist.
Hint: How come 2014 was the warmest year on record if temperatures didn't rise? Has Earth always been exactly that warm?
If you can find evidence that global warming isn't happening, I'm interested in reading it.
What would be unusual is if climate change wasn't happening. When I hear the phrase "climate change denier" (which I know you didn't use, so just putting this out there), I wonder if anybody even exists who fits that description.
Well, apart from those who directly state that there never was warming? Because I have seen plenty of those? Or apart from those who, as "evidence" against Anthropogenic Climate Change, quote one of those true deniers - which sums up to all "skeptics" I've ever seen.
So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?
Quite the opposite: I care a great deal in minimizing harm. Even based on the rather biased IPCC reports themselves, it is clear that the cost of action on AGW is staggering, while the cost of doing nothing is small.
But in the real world the evidence for AGW continues to pile up regardless of how much you convince yourself otherwise.
We aren't saying that it isn't happening, we are saying that it doesn't matter whether it's happening or not.
And you base your claims on what exactly? Output from "models" (IOW sock-puppets like not-a-Lord Monckton) is not evidence - it's the opposite of evidence.
A123: We will sue you
Apple: What we are doing is legal bring it on
A123: In the lawsuit we will publicly release the projects they are working on
Profit
Anything more specific than "batteries", then? "Batteries for cars", but unlike those that croaked in a Fisker during a Consumer Report test? "Batteries for use in electrical power distribution networks" - I'm sure Apple would want to keep that secret for now. "Batteries for small devices"?
In the U.S.A. it is a lot cheaper to settle than go to court.
Not if you have an in-house legal department.
Only if your in-house legal department has even one trial lawyer in the team, not when it consist of people writing EULAs and other contracts. So why don't you present us one trial lawyer working for Apple?
Well, the suit claimed that Apple hired Mujeeb Ijaz (in charge of R&D), who in turn enticed his key scientists and engineers to follow him. A123 claims that:
- Ijaz has a non-compete clause in his contract,
Bing-bing-bing. How exactly do Apple and A123 compete? Or will compete? Will Apple suddenly go in the business of selling batteries to other companies?
If your start-up (i.e. poor) company is dependent on the work your lead researcher is doing, and an other company offers $bignum to hire her (with a co-hiring bonus for every former cow-irker that follows), and everyone involved except you are in on the deal, how can you possibly bid to keep your top dog, especially since he already has a fairly good understanding of what you can - and cannot - afford to pay?
Errm, A123 was founded in 2001 as a MIT spin-off, and non of the original founders were poached.
Being a big company, Apple has many to be careful not to use its size to kill companies. Simply put, if Apple wants A123's tech and it can simply provide key A123 employees an offer they can't refuse, it gives them an unfair advantage and they can do this to any company. A company the size of Apple is able to do this many times over and it simply becomes an unstoppable monopoly which goes against the the whole spirit of capitalism when one company can control everything.
What gives you the idea that it was Apple's poaching that drove A123 into bankruptcy - considering the 5 people left after the filing - more than a year later.
Considering they are two completely different things you shouldn't be struggling with it.
The first, apple colluding with others, was a violation of the law. Market collusion between competitors is illegal, in this case in particular it cost hundereds of people thousands of dollars apiece.
The second, was a civil suit between companies likely for unfair competition. Apple's settlement of suit, rather than just going to court and winning indicates that Apple might have engaged in some improper behavior in acquiring those employees.
The only the first was illegal, the second very well could have opened Apple up to a civil lawsuit or they could have just settled to avoid the legal fees. Here's a tip for you, anyone can sue anyone (including themselves) for any reason. It's not till you get to court that you have to actually justify that suit and present evidence.
So your argument is that Apple, Google, Adobe and all the other should have sued each other for poaching their employees instead? Because going to court is the American way?
I think the biggest problem with this whole debate (at least insofar as slashdot) is illustrated in your post...
Are you specifying "deniers" as in 'deniers of Anthropogenic Climate Change', or as in 'deniers or climate change' (the latter noticeably minus the human component)?
The biggest problem is of course that no denying can change the fact that virtually everybody who "is a skeptic" about Anthropogenic Climate Change has at least once denied climate change in one of his arguments, if only by presenting as evidence a "paper" that is fully based on that denial.
Which his the whole MO of deniers, shovelling around lots of arguments at a fast pace, seemingly disproving AGW, no matter how discredited, and certainly no matter how much at disagreement with each other. All in the hope that one will stick. Which BTW is not how real skepticism works.
There is nothing wrong with sceptics, its the deniers you want to eliminate
Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
Gee, could you decide if you are the persecuted Jews, or if you are called Nazis. Claiming both makes you look stupid squared.
Any study can be turned to favor whatever you want it to say.
Want to see real number check out http://langpop.com/
The funny thing is that in most every case C beats out C++, C#, and Swift (Which is so low it doesn't even show up.)
Gee, could there be a reason for that? "Last data update: Fri Oct 25 17:17:19 -0400 2013" - Maybe that?
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation is, the slower its birth rate and the better its environmental record.
You are aware that you disagree with every single "skeptic" who claims that any action against Global Warming would wreck the economy.
Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
I guess you are not trying to present evidence for the vast "Global Warming Conspiracy" for now?
Ad hominem ?
So that's another thing you don't what it is. Mentioning that your argument is wrong is not an ad hominem simply because it contains the letter-combination YOU.
Try the 2000 year graph
The one you didn't link to? Jesus, do you actually want us to dig up your evidence from the swamp that is Wazzup.com?
18 years 5 months no temperature rise, and a slight decline trend.
Nature as always has the last laugh.
Denial of facts. See, there are actual deniers right here. And the "skeptics" not only say nothing about them being wrong, they claim they can't see them, that they don't exist.
Hint: How come 2014 was the warmest year on record if temperatures didn't rise? Has Earth always been exactly that warm?
PS: ...where did Charles Darwin come from? I didn't know he was a climatologist.
Neither are almost all of the skeptics. What's your point?
If you can find evidence that global warming isn't happening, I'm interested in reading it.
What would be unusual is if climate change wasn't happening.
PS, but more importantly: why? Why is climate change happening? Why would it be unusual if it didn't?
If you can find evidence that global warming isn't happening, I'm interested in reading it.
What would be unusual is if climate change wasn't happening. When I hear the phrase "climate change denier" (which I know you didn't use, so just putting this out there), I wonder if anybody even exists who fits that description.
Well, apart from those who directly state that there never was warming? Because I have seen plenty of those? Or apart from those who, as "evidence" against Anthropogenic Climate Change, quote one of those true deniers - which sums up to all "skeptics" I've ever seen.
Bullshit. There is a massive difference between 1C temp raise and 4.
Oh. You think the ~ 1C temperature rise we had since 1910 is already all that we will see in the future? Because "warming has stopped"?
Quite the opposite: I care a great deal in minimizing harm. Even based on the rather biased IPCC reports themselves, it is clear that the cost of action on AGW is staggering, while the cost of doing nothing is small.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/sea-rise-threatens-florida-coast-but-no-statewide-plan/ar-BBjy2pG - the cost of doing nothing amounts to $400 million in Miami Beach alone, and just for new storm water pumps. Now, not in some far away future.
Got some $400 million left in your sofa cushions?
We aren't saying that it isn't happening, we are saying that it doesn't matter whether it's happening or not.
And you base your claims on what exactly? Output from "models" (IOW sock-puppets like not-a-Lord Monckton) is not evidence - it's the opposite of evidence.
You're welcome for the history less.
You couldn't have provided less history.
Correct. In fact ONLY the US has not increased their CO2 emissions year over year.
Provably false in 2013 and 2014. Looks like the recession is finally over.
Those engineers were allegedly working on a car battery for Apple. Perhaps Apple was concerned that details of their work for Apple would leak out.
Interesting point, especially now that A123 is Chinese owned, working with several Chinese car makers.
A123: We will sue you Apple: What we are doing is legal bring it on A123: In the lawsuit we will publicly release the projects they are working on
Profit
Anything more specific than "batteries", then? "Batteries for cars", but unlike those that croaked in a Fisker during a Consumer Report test? "Batteries for use in electrical power distribution networks" - I'm sure Apple would want to keep that secret for now. "Batteries for small devices"?
Who cares about buying 51% of the stock when you can hire 100% of the employees away.
5 people is 100% of >2500 employees? Remind not to hire you for any job involving Math. Or Reason. Or sweeping the floor.
Not if you have an in-house legal department.
Only if your in-house legal department has even one trial lawyer in the team, not when it consist of people writing EULAs and other contracts. So why don't you present us one trial lawyer working for Apple?
Well, the suit claimed that Apple hired Mujeeb Ijaz (in charge of R&D), who in turn enticed his key scientists and engineers to follow him. A123 claims that: - Ijaz has a non-compete clause in his contract,
Bing-bing-bing. How exactly do Apple and A123 compete? Or will compete? Will Apple suddenly go in the business of selling batteries to other companies?
If your start-up (i.e. poor) company is dependent on the work your lead researcher is doing, and an other company offers $bignum to hire her (with a co-hiring bonus for every former cow-irker that follows), and everyone involved except you are in on the deal, how can you possibly bid to keep your top dog, especially since he already has a fairly good understanding of what you can - and cannot - afford to pay?
Errm, A123 was founded in 2001 as a MIT spin-off, and non of the original founders were poached.
Being a big company, Apple has many to be careful not to use its size to kill companies. Simply put, if Apple wants A123's tech and it can simply provide key A123 employees an offer they can't refuse, it gives them an unfair advantage and they can do this to any company. A company the size of Apple is able to do this many times over and it simply becomes an unstoppable monopoly which goes against the the whole spirit of capitalism when one company can control everything.
What gives you the idea that it was Apple's poaching that drove A123 into bankruptcy - considering the 5 people left after the filing - more than a year later.
Considering they are two completely different things you shouldn't be struggling with it.
The first, apple colluding with others, was a violation of the law. Market collusion between competitors is illegal, in this case in particular it cost hundereds of people thousands of dollars apiece.
The second, was a civil suit between companies likely for unfair competition. Apple's settlement of suit, rather than just going to court and winning indicates that Apple might have engaged in some improper behavior in acquiring those employees.
The only the first was illegal, the second very well could have opened Apple up to a civil lawsuit or they could have just settled to avoid the legal fees. Here's a tip for you, anyone can sue anyone (including themselves) for any reason. It's not till you get to court that you have to actually justify that suit and present evidence.
So your argument is that Apple, Google, Adobe and all the other should have sued each other for poaching their employees instead? Because going to court is the American way?
It looks like the scientists of NASA's biggest agenda is to protect this planet, why would you think otherwise?
But, but, but - That's not their JOB! Air and Space, not Earth! Rah, rah, rah!
I think the biggest problem with this whole debate (at least insofar as slashdot) is illustrated in your post...
Are you specifying "deniers" as in 'deniers of Anthropogenic Climate Change', or as in 'deniers or climate change' (the latter noticeably minus the human component)?
The biggest problem is of course that no denying can change the fact that virtually everybody who "is a skeptic" about Anthropogenic Climate Change has at least once denied climate change in one of his arguments, if only by presenting as evidence a "paper" that is fully based on that denial.
Which his the whole MO of deniers, shovelling around lots of arguments at a fast pace, seemingly disproving AGW, no matter how discredited, and certainly no matter how much at disagreement with each other. All in the hope that one will stick. Which BTW is not how real skepticism works.
Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
Gee, could you decide if you are the persecuted Jews, or if you are called Nazis. Claiming both makes you look stupid squared.
Any study can be turned to favor whatever you want it to say. Want to see real number check out http://langpop.com/ The funny thing is that in most every case C beats out C++, C#, and Swift (Which is so low it doesn't even show up.)
Gee, could there be a reason for that? "Last data update: Fri Oct 25 17:17:19 -0400 2013" - Maybe that?