Please describe some of these perks. I've never heard of a public employee getting a year end bonus. Only Sarah Palin is able to claim per diem while staying at home. The last Park Ranger I met looked like he could barely afford to feed himself, and unlike a private tour guide, he is forbidden by law for accepting gifts. But that's what you get for having a graduate degree. At lease he seemed to enjoy his job.
Maybe the (government run) health care is better than what the private sector gets?
Ideally, taxes should be based upon wealth, rather than income, because wealth is the stake you have in a stable state that can guarantee public order. Suppose you have a net worth of $10M and I, on the other hand have nothing but $30k in credit card debt. If the state collapses, you stand to lose $10M and will probably have your throat slit by the people who take it from you. I, on the other hand, will lose $30k in debt and will probably have joined the roving band that is breaking down the door where the rest of your family have barricaded themselves.
An extreme example, yes, but people who have less than nothing tend to make extreme choices. It does point out how the rich benefit more from public order than the poor do. It also points out a reason the rich shouldn't be bitching about taxes, when their tax rates are based upon income, which puts them at a lower percentage of their wealth going to taxes than the poor pay.
In the US, government jobs pay significantly better than private sector jobs on average.
One of the famous "lie while telling the truth" games that the right loves to play. The average US government job does pay more than the average private sector job. But US government jobs are NOT average jobs. Most require higher levels of education and experience than the average private sector job.
When compared to others of equal education and experience, US government workers are paid about 20% less than private sector workers. The discrepancy is worse for workers in medical fields and legal fields where the discrepancy approaches 45% (i.e. VA hospitals don't pay well) The only government workers that are paid better than their private sector workers are the ones at the bottom of the salary scale, janitors and menial laborers, and those, only by about 4%.
But apparently the right thinks a government lawyer should be paid like a grocery store clerk.
The very idea that the human race could affect a planetary ecosystem would mean we would have to conclude we are in possession of technology that could express energy equivalents that equal natural forces.
We don't have technologies that express the energy equivalents of natural forces. What we do have is the ability to reduce the efficiency of infrared radiation by the earth by a small amount. When you multiply that small amount by the energy of sunlight reach the earth and accumulate it over many years it becomes a very large amount.
In essence your argument is that because a nuclear explosion is much larger than the energy in a 9V battery, you can't trigger a nuclear bomb with a 9V battery. Which is both wrong and idiotic.
Yes, because the idea that we don't understand what's happening is patently false. Right now there's a pretty big list of ways high atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be bad. Not all of them will happen, but regardless the costs will be enormous. There is no corresponding list of how high atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be good.
Yes it took off after the IR, but why was it so much higher before then [grida.no], when human populations were rather sparse?
Some was the natural slow increase for the interglacial period. Some was deforestation, both natural and artifical. It releases CO2 and prevents absorption of CO2. Humans burning forests to clear the way for croplands. Formation and expansion of the Sahara. Transformation of the Middle East from temperate lands to a desert. Nobody is saying all climate change is man made. We're just really good at doing it quickly.
On the contrary. There are scenarios where everyone and everything dies. Usually they involve an unknown or underestimated reservoir of greenhouse gases (usually methane) being released due to melting permafrost or undersea ices resulting in a runaway greenhouse effect. The oceans boil and the solar system gets a Venus look alike.
It's very unlikely, of course, or someone would be yelling about it. But it would be a great time to say "I told you so" to all the denialists.
The hottest year game is of little use, the hottest year (until Hansen starting adjusting the old data down) was in the 1930s.
Another common denialist claim. Try something that hasn't been debunked. 1934 was the hottest year in the United States. I know a lot of Americans don't know it, but the US is much smaller than the world. It's only like 2% of it. You really need to try to include the rest of the world in your analysis.
Well it's pretty clear that wealthy people are normal human beings and wouldn't spend a dollar to save the life of someone they don't know or, even worse, someone who hasn't been born yet. Money and who has it, that's all the argument has ever been about.
Sorry, I meant to post 1998, but other than that it is in full agreement with TFA. The 1998 had a strong El Nino event, so atmospheric temperatures are higher in this data than in the NASA data. So you could say 2010 is tied with 2005 and 1998. In any rate the trend has definitely been upward since 1998.
That's not how our effect on global warming was determined, so you building a straw man. I believe that the latest CO2 balance calculations indicate that we are responsible for at least 80% of the change in CO2 since preindustrial times is man made. (Although I'm not finding it on line right now, maybe because my subscription to Science has expired.) Analysis of recent data indicates higher percentages in the 20th century. So we're causing the CO2 increase. The CO2 increase is causing the warming. Ergo, we're causing the warming.
Well, wouldn't those answers challenge the idea that there is 'more choice in the App Store than the Marketplace at the moment'. Choice isn't measured by the number of things you want or by the illusion of choice Steve gives you.
Is the cause is man made? (Consider volcanoes as a major CO2 source, sun energy output, etc)
Yes. That it is predominantly man made has been conclusively shown.
Is the change significant?
Yes it is, and will be getting even more significant as time progresses.
Is the change preventable? (this is related to environmental factors that we have little control over, such as sun energy output)
Theoretically, yes. It is even economically feasible to do so. But I highly doubt that humanity has the collective brains to do anything about it. So no, the future changes will not be prevented. When things get bad enough, humanity will start doing stupid and dangerous things to try to repair the damage.
What major sources of energy can we make available to replace oil and coal? One way or another, we have to answer this question eventually. Remember that we use close to the energy that the sun delivers to the Earth, so the combination of solar, hydro, bio fuel, and other sun energy sources will not be enough.
What? Someone is giving you bad information. Incoming solar radiation (correcting for cloud losses) is 2.8 Million exajoules per year. Current human consumption is 484 exajoules per year, or about 0.017% of the solar input. So solar, wind, wave, hydroelectric, geothermal, bio, and nuclear will be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Please describe some of these perks. I've never heard of a public employee getting a year end bonus. Only Sarah Palin is able to claim per diem while staying at home. The last Park Ranger I met looked like he could barely afford to feed himself, and unlike a private tour guide, he is forbidden by law for accepting gifts. But that's what you get for having a graduate degree. At lease he seemed to enjoy his job.
Maybe the (government run) health care is better than what the private sector gets?
Julian is withholding information for personal gain.
I'm not sure trying not to be killed or otherwise disappeared would qualify as personal gain.
And I'm sick and tired of hearing about poor people bitching about taxes, since they don't pay any.
And I sick and tired of rich people bitching about taxes for the same reason.
Ideally, taxes should be based upon wealth, rather than income, because wealth is the stake you have in a stable state that can guarantee public order. Suppose you have a net worth of $10M and I, on the other hand have nothing but $30k in credit card debt. If the state collapses, you stand to lose $10M and will probably have your throat slit by the people who take it from you. I, on the other hand, will lose $30k in debt and will probably have joined the roving band that is breaking down the door where the rest of your family have barricaded themselves.
An extreme example, yes, but people who have less than nothing tend to make extreme choices. It does point out how the rich benefit more from public order than the poor do. It also points out a reason the rich shouldn't be bitching about taxes, when their tax rates are based upon income, which puts them at a lower percentage of their wealth going to taxes than the poor pay.
In the US, government jobs pay significantly better than private sector jobs on average.
One of the famous "lie while telling the truth" games that the right loves to play. The average US government job does pay more than the average private sector job. But US government jobs are NOT average jobs. Most require higher levels of education and experience than the average private sector job.
When compared to others of equal education and experience, US government workers are paid about 20% less than private sector workers. The discrepancy is worse for workers in medical fields and legal fields where the discrepancy approaches 45% (i.e. VA hospitals don't pay well) The only government workers that are paid better than their private sector workers are the ones at the bottom of the salary scale, janitors and menial laborers, and those, only by about 4%.
But apparently the right thinks a government lawyer should be paid like a grocery store clerk.
It has been conclusively shown that global warming is manmade by proved-to-be-corrupted scietific entity called EPA.
A plain and simple lie. The EPA doesn't do that sort of work. Where do you get this crap?
The very idea that the human race could affect a planetary ecosystem would mean we would have to conclude we are in possession of technology that could express energy equivalents that equal natural forces.
We don't have technologies that express the energy equivalents of natural forces. What we do have is the ability to reduce the efficiency of infrared radiation by the earth by a small amount. When you multiply that small amount by the energy of sunlight reach the earth and accumulate it over many years it becomes a very large amount.
In essence your argument is that because a nuclear explosion is much larger than the energy in a 9V battery, you can't trigger a nuclear bomb with a 9V battery. Which is both wrong and idiotic.
Yes, because the idea that we don't understand what's happening is patently false. Right now there's a pretty big list of ways high atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be bad. Not all of them will happen, but regardless the costs will be enormous. There is no corresponding list of how high atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be good.
Considering we have no working climate models, no explanations for why things happen, no working predictions, no reproducible results
Now that's a political opinion! It's also totally false.
Is his opinion on climate change a political one?
Yes it took off after the IR, but why was it so much higher before then [grida.no], when human populations were rather sparse?
Some was the natural slow increase for the interglacial period. Some was deforestation, both natural and artifical. It releases CO2 and prevents absorption of CO2. Humans burning forests to clear the way for croplands. Formation and expansion of the Sahara. Transformation of the Middle East from temperate lands to a desert. Nobody is saying all climate change is man made. We're just really good at doing it quickly.
Under no scenarios will billions die
On the contrary. There are scenarios where everyone and everything dies. Usually they involve an unknown or underestimated reservoir of greenhouse gases (usually methane) being released due to melting permafrost or undersea ices resulting in a runaway greenhouse effect. The oceans boil and the solar system gets a Venus look alike.
It's very unlikely, of course, or someone would be yelling about it. But it would be a great time to say "I told you so" to all the denialists.
I think you've been misinformed, or are confusing the workings of the Carbonate Silicate cycle with CO2 levels.
Heres a plot of half a million years of CO2 levels
Jerry Pournelle isn't exactly objective or willing to use reason if the answer doesn't conform with his philosophy.
The hottest year game is of little use, the hottest year (until Hansen starting adjusting the old data down) was in the 1930s.
Another common denialist claim. Try something that hasn't been debunked. 1934 was the hottest year in the United States. I know a lot of Americans don't know it, but the US is much smaller than the world. It's only like 2% of it. You really need to try to include the rest of the world in your analysis.
You think man can destroy the earth? What intoxicating vanity.
No, but I'd bet you dollars to donuts that man can destroy man.
BTW, Michael Crichton was an ignorant fool. And that's not speaking ill of the dead. For him, that's a compliment.
Yep, a very special kind of stupid. And then they post graphs they don't even understand.
Well it's pretty clear that wealthy people are normal human beings and wouldn't spend a dollar to save the life of someone they don't know or, even worse, someone who hasn't been born yet. Money and who has it, that's all the argument has ever been about.
Sorry, I meant to post 1998, but other than that it is in full agreement with TFA. The 1998 had a strong El Nino event, so atmospheric temperatures are higher in this data than in the NASA data. So you could say 2010 is tied with 2005 and 1998. In any rate the trend has definitely been upward since 1998.
CO2 levels are probably the highest they've been in 8 million decades. Does that help?
That's not how our effect on global warming was determined, so you building a straw man. I believe that the latest CO2 balance calculations indicate that we are responsible for at least 80% of the change in CO2 since preindustrial times is man made. (Although I'm not finding it on line right now, maybe because my subscription to Science has expired.) Analysis of recent data indicates higher percentages in the 20th century. So we're causing the CO2 increase. The CO2 increase is causing the warming. Ergo, we're causing the warming.
Well, wouldn't those answers challenge the idea that there is 'more choice in the App Store than the Marketplace at the moment'. Choice isn't measured by the number of things you want or by the illusion of choice Steve gives you.
Um, no. When CO2 goes up by a factor of 20, it's partial pressure goes up by a factor of 20.
Is the cause is man made? (Consider volcanoes as a major CO2 source, sun energy output, etc)
Yes. That it is predominantly man made has been conclusively shown.
Is the change significant?
Yes it is, and will be getting even more significant as time progresses.
Is the change preventable? (this is related to environmental factors that we have little control over, such as sun energy output)
Theoretically, yes. It is even economically feasible to do so. But I highly doubt that humanity has the collective brains to do anything about it. So no, the future changes will not be prevented. When things get bad enough, humanity will start doing stupid and dangerous things to try to repair the damage.
What major sources of energy can we make available to replace oil and coal? One way or another, we have to answer this question eventually. Remember that we use close to the energy that the sun delivers to the Earth, so the combination of solar, hydro, bio fuel, and other sun energy sources will not be enough.
What? Someone is giving you bad information. Incoming solar radiation (correcting for cloud losses) is 2.8 Million exajoules per year. Current human consumption is 484 exajoules per year, or about 0.017% of the solar input. So solar, wind, wave, hydroelectric, geothermal, bio, and nuclear will be fine.
What, you mean the page that says "2010 tied with 2005 for hottest year on record"? That seems to agree entirely with TFA.