You true believers have absolutely no idea how foolish you come across.
He's the foolish one for repeating boring old talking points without bringing any new science to the table. If he wanted an honest debate, he shouldn't start with outright lies.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I made no such claim.
I was referring to the claim in the article, where he said: "[IPCC's] mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years", which is simply not true. Possible non-human causes have been looked at, and quantified, and they come short of explaining the temperature rise.
It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
There was no imminent threat of an ice age. These things take thousands of years. And at the current rate of CO2 production, we can prevent an ice age in decades.
Starving people contribute neither production nor consumption
Feeding starving people only helps production if they help to produce more than they consume. If they could do that, they wouldn't have been starving in the first place. And consumption without production doesn't help anybody.
A system that provides at least subsistence-level income for all its members will outcompete a system that doesn't through sheer endurance.
My point was that it was indeed "thought about" before the days of Elon.
True, and I realized that when I was writing my reply. The actual idea of "reusable launchers" isn't new, but the guy still deserves a lot of credit for pursuing it where others have ignored it, or given up on the concept.
The space shuttle reusable launcher idea didn't really work as intended, requiring a very extensive refurbishing after every launch. After that, nobody cared enough about reusable launchers to come up with a better design.
I think it's just a short lived fad for most people. They get to wear something nice and shiny, but after a few weeks of the same daily routine, and the same values on the fitness tracker, where's the added benefit ?
This is the marriage of two mature technologies -- electric motors and automobile chassis -- plus modern batteries.
And Virgin has no experience in any of those things. It's very rare for a business to succeed in a new market that has so little overlap with their current.
we need to discuss this. but the dialog does not ever happen. why? the ceo's don't want to shine light on their evil little plans....
The problem isn't just the CEOs. It's also the kids that have lost interest in education. Why should they ? They have pizza, computer games, cool shoes, and a parent that drives them everywhere.
Reading and writing are very useful skills you use on a daily basis, even if you're not writing novels. The ability to write computer programs is mostly useless, outside actually writing computer programs.
This is not a technical problem, it is a political one.
Political problems can be solved too. Germany has been very active with solar and wind, and France has plenty of nuclear plants, and now they are proposing this new law to increase use of solar.
If it is, then we have to take drastic measures to avoid it, and that includes shutting down most fossil fuel power plants.
800 ppm is a bigger problem than 700 ppm, and 700 ppm is a bigger problem than 600, 500 or 400. Obviously, we can't stop using fossil fuel right now. The best we can do is use less of it. That'll buy us some more time to work on the new challenges.
If it isn't, then why bother changing anything?
Even if CO2 is not a problem, fossil fuels are going to peak in production. After the peak, we'll be forced to reduce consumption.
Nitrogen fixation can be quickly started up and shut down without damage to the system, and requires an enormous amount of worldwide energy.
You can do something similar with aluminum refining, which uses high power electrolysis. If we look around, I'm sure that other processes can be reorganized to make use of varying supply of electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
Keeping adding the same energy to a system. Reduce energy going out. System warms up.
That's predictive and settled.
You true believers have absolutely no idea how foolish you come across.
He's the foolish one for repeating boring old talking points without bringing any new science to the table. If he wanted an honest debate, he shouldn't start with outright lies.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I made no such claim.
I was referring to the claim in the article, where he said: "[IPCC's] mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years", which is simply not true. Possible non-human causes have been looked at, and quantified, and they come short of explaining the temperature rise.
Because there's no such thing as a 4 year climate "trend". At those time scales, you're staring at noise.
It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
There was no imminent threat of an ice age. These things take thousands of years. And at the current rate of CO2 production, we can prevent an ice age in decades.
To berate a person for wanting to investigate non-human causes is political, not scientific
Non-human causes have been investigated, and are still being investigated. Claiming that this is not the case, is simply lying or ignorance.
Starving people contribute neither production nor consumption
Feeding starving people only helps production if they help to produce more than they consume. If they could do that, they wouldn't have been starving in the first place. And consumption without production doesn't help anybody.
A system that provides at least subsistence-level income for all its members will outcompete a system that doesn't through sheer endurance.
Proof ?
Nothing but one long list of typical denier misrepresentations and ignorance.
Ah, so that's what the article says. Hats off to you for being able to parse it.
Future historians will also let people starve. Why would you think things will be different in the future ?
My point was that it was indeed "thought about" before the days of Elon.
True, and I realized that when I was writing my reply. The actual idea of "reusable launchers" isn't new, but the guy still deserves a lot of credit for pursuing it where others have ignored it, or given up on the concept.
The hope of humans will lie in the fact that humans have endless ingenuity and that sabotaging a robot will always be possible.
Until the robots get a better brain that humans.
Space shuttle?
The space shuttle reusable launcher idea didn't really work as intended, requiring a very extensive refurbishing after every launch. After that, nobody cared enough about reusable launchers to come up with a better design.
I think it's just a short lived fad for most people. They get to wear something nice and shiny, but after a few weeks of the same daily routine, and the same values on the fitness tracker, where's the added benefit ?
This is the marriage of two mature technologies -- electric motors and automobile chassis -- plus modern batteries.
And Virgin has no experience in any of those things. It's very rare for a business to succeed in a new market that has so little overlap with their current.
And it will also beat you in chessboxing.
Here's a bunch of youtube movies of the Atrias robot:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...
we need to discuss this. but the dialog does not ever happen. why? the ceo's don't want to shine light on their evil little plans....
The problem isn't just the CEOs. It's also the kids that have lost interest in education. Why should they ? They have pizza, computer games, cool shoes, and a parent that drives them everywhere.
you may find Virgin competing with the Tesla in the car business as we do in the space business.
Sure, except that Virgin isn't competing in the space business. Virgin's business is suborbital fun rides.
Reading and writing are very useful skills you use on a daily basis, even if you're not writing novels. The ability to write computer programs is mostly useless, outside actually writing computer programs.
This is not a technical problem, it is a political one.
Political problems can be solved too. Germany has been very active with solar and wind, and France has plenty of nuclear plants, and now they are proposing this new law to increase use of solar.
If CO2 is the problem that it is made out to be, then we need to stop using coal and natural gas.
We can have a phased solution with different transitions to new energy mixes. This isn't something we can fix in a day.
If it is, then we have to take drastic measures to avoid it, and that includes shutting down most fossil fuel power plants.
800 ppm is a bigger problem than 700 ppm, and 700 ppm is a bigger problem than 600, 500 or 400. Obviously, we can't stop using fossil fuel right now. The best we can do is use less of it. That'll buy us some more time to work on the new challenges.
If it isn't, then why bother changing anything?
Even if CO2 is not a problem, fossil fuels are going to peak in production. After the peak, we'll be forced to reduce consumption.
Your facial features, voice and speech patterns have now been included in the cloud databases. Thank you for your cooperation.
Nitrogen fixation can be quickly started up and shut down without damage to the system, and requires an enormous amount of worldwide energy.
You can do something similar with aluminum refining, which uses high power electrolysis. If we look around, I'm sure that other processes can be reorganized to make use of varying supply of electricity.