I don't see how remaining silent on an auto-erase feature on your phone amounts to "erasing your phone". Do police have a right to compel information about the operation of your phone from you as well? What's the legal justification?
Regardless of what legal justification you use, passwords need to be protected against compulsion by police. I mean, what do you imagine happens when someone says, "Sorry, I don't remember the password?" If police have the legal right compel you to give up your password, they can simply lock you up until you do remember it, which is a real problem if you actually don't. That is not something we should encourage in our legal system.
Furthermore, anybody who cares about secrecy would use multiple passwords and give up a password for embarrassing but non-incriminating information. So, such policies are likely to be ineffective against serious criminals anyway.
Lobbies buy ads that tell YOU what you should care about. You then vote for the politician that they put money into. Most people do their political research by watching TV ads, so this approach works well.
Yes, and between the lobbies that buy ads and the politican that does your bidding is the voter, an autonomous individual with free will. Hence, it is not the lobbies that decide what politicians do, it's voters.
The 10-12 degree temperature drop took that 100,000 years, so ecosystems could migrate at a leisurely pace
Species don't adapt to ice sheets that are a mile thick. The glaciations are recurring ecological disasters by the standard of global warming alarmists.
The carbon in fossil fuels is from that time. A time of far greater CO2 concentration than the Holocene.
So what? What is your point?
OP is samzenpus
Obviously, I was referring to the OP in this thread.
The species that we lose today are lost with respect to humanity. Cats won't speciate again on human time scales. Depending on the climate in 10 million years, a mammal or reptile might fill that niche, but that won't help Homo sapiens.
Help us? In what way do you imagine the loss of tigers hurts humans?They are going away because their ecological niche has been filled by us.
Futhermore, if we really wanted to fill that ecological niche, we could easily do it on human time scales.
Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").
There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters. Politicians listen to lobbies only in areas where voters don't care.
The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.
And that answer obviously is wrong. If matter has clumped together into planets, it obviously hasn't clumped together into stars or black holes, and instead has clumped together into objects that are very hard to detect.
Arguments against dark matter being rogue planets are generally based on lack of enough microlensing observations and expected size distributions. But those are far from definitive.
So, the answer is: it is possible that dark matter is all rogue planets, although most physicists believe that it is not.
So how do you intend to stop us taking action on climate change? Will you beg? Will you offer us money?
"Action on climate change" means political action (it's what climate activists demand, hence the name): legislation and international agreements. In the US, that's going to be stopped at the ballot box. In Europe, it probably isn't going to be stopped and Europeans are going to pay a steep price.
I encourage you to reduce your own carbon footprint. That's how we will become carbon neutral in the long run: through individual, free choices.
Cite me proposing any such thing.
I just did: you consider yourself to be a member of a group that "takes action on climate change". The ordinary meaning of that is that you are an activist demanding legislation and international agreements. If you use the term to refer to personal free market choices instead of legislation, you are using it incorrectly. Maybe you simply aren't familiar enough with the language to understand the distinction (you might be German, French, or even British).
Just point out you how you and your kind lost the trust of the average person (like me). A continual stream of assertions which proved wrong
The reason you don't trust me is because you are scientifically and politically illiterate.
And I should care why, exactly?
You implied that progressivism was a feature of American politics and you didn't have to care about it outside of the US. In fact, progressivism has been a dominant feature of politics in all modern democracies. The fact that you don't know that just shows how politically illiterate you are.
Obamacare doesn't redistribute from "the wealthy" to "the poor". For "the wealthy", health insurance is an insignificant expense. Obamacare, like most of those redistribution programs, redistributes from many above average income earners to many below average income earners. That is, people like software developers, engineers, and scientists tend to pay for it.
Furthermore, while the post seems to imply that this is helping people, that's doubtful. While the recipient of the redistribution enjoys a short-term benefit, long term, everybody loses. Contrary to what advocates of such programs say, redistributing money does't help people get out of poverty long term.
That perhaps also resolve the mystery why "Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians": many people want jobs and growth, not handouts and redistribution. The problem here is that wealthy liberal elites think people object to these programs because they hate the poor and are greedy, when the actual reason is that many people believe such programs to be an ineffective and potentially harmful waste of money. The record of redistributive programs and "the war on poverty" is not good.
Denmark’s clean energy roadmap is a useful reminder that it can be done—but it’s not the only such blueprint out there. In the past Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson has told me that massive economies like California can and will run entirely on clean energy—and his own peer-reviewed roadmaps demonstrate how. "There's about a 95 percent chance that [California] will be powered by 100 percent clean energy," he said.
Danes: Hey, we can do this because the people in California are doing it.
Californians: Hey, we can do this because the people in Denmark are doing it.
The current climate change is faster and in the wrong direction to conclude that the end of the last glaciation was "far more devastating climate change". Certainly the long descent into the glaciation wasn't devastating. That took the lions share of the 100,000 years. It was relaxing.
Half the northern hemisphere covered in thick ice sheets was "relaxing"? Are you kidding?
OP didn't imply that.
OP: "And won't be nobody to write it by then if mankind loses."
Because climate change is going to affect the species that currently exist. The fact that the we are returning the climate to a state is was a couple of hundred million years ago is bad because the species that exist now aren't the ones that can survive in that climate.
The way you phrase that just shows that you have no concept of the massive swings in climate the planet has experienced over the past couple of hundred million years. There is no "state" to return to.
However the drop of biodiversity in Tigers in the taiga will mean that taiga species vulnerable to the particular genetic configuration of existent taiga Tigers will suffer, and others will be under selection pressure in only one direction from Tigers, and that will tend to reduce their genetic diversity. (And with it their capacity to evolve in response to changing environment, and to speciate).
So what? I mean, I like tigers, but it would hardly be an ecological disaster. Tiger-like species have evolved many times independently, and they can evolve again, from other felines or other vertebrates.
True enough. But considering just how straight white male oriented the tech industry is, it's good to point out that occasionally we have other possibilities.
That's a self-serving lie of political activists, usually with no connection to the tech industry.
That seems unlikely. In any case, there is no plausible scenario by which climate change will produce such an outcome, and the IPCC report (representing the best available analysis) doesn't outline any such scenario.
What kind of role model for is a 50-something single workaholic with helmet hair? Appearing with your same sex partner at public events is a nice way of coming out. Announcing it publicly on a stage in order to make some political or social point is not.
What do you mean by long term? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? 1 million years?
I don't think I need to explain that. If you don't understand what I mean by it, you have to read up a bit on those cultures and their history yourself.
If human beings go extinct gradually losing population over the next 100,000 years until we get to 10,000 people, and then the last 10,000 people get wiped out in 2 or 3 generations, when someone (an alien?) asks "Why did human's go extinct?" Will this person be asking "Why did the last 10,000 humans go extinct?" or will it be asking "What caused the human population to decline to the point of no return?"
Right now, there is no indication of a human population decline, nor of a human population explosion; the human population is stabilizing.
If climate change were to cause human populations to decline, the cause would be a reduction in carrying capacity. Human populations would simply decline until they match the new carrying capacity; they don't continue to decline magically beyond that.
The only way humans could go extinct is if there were no significant ecological niche where we can survive, and that just isn't going to happen.
Sure if you're used to looking at a Mercator projection map
The problem here is that you are used to looking at a Mercator projection map and waving your hands instead of doing what you ought to be doing, namely look at specific regions now and in the future under climate change scenarios.
There are some studies that have attempted that, e.g., http://iopscience.iop.org/1748... For different scenarios, they predict somewhere between a slight decrease and a slight increase in arable land. Almost all the impact is from changes.
However, there is a reasonable case to be made that their criteria for arability are too narrow: cold temperatures are a much stronger bar to arability than warm temperatures, in particular as technology improves. Hence, I think it's likely we will end up with more arable land (not that we actually need it).
The post was about alternatives to the extreme action strawman. Please do try to keep up.
What "alternatives"? You didn't provide any. You simply accused people of astroturfing.
Climate activists demand government action to bring about a carbon neutral economy. That is ineffective and harmful; it won't speed reductions in carbon emissions, it will delay such reductions, and at the same time make mitigation more costly and difficult.
Cite the relevant scientific journal specifying that reducing emissions is ineffective.
Reducing emissions is quite effective. What is ineffective is the way you are proposing to go about it: namely legislation and international agreement.
But certainly, no species of primate that is currently existent were doing fine during periods that had higher CO2 concentrations than we're going to be seeing
Why are your weasly qualifications ("currently exist") relevant? Humans are one of the most adaptable species around.
Fact is that complex vertebrates have been around for a long time and were doing fine with CO2 concentrations greater than 2000 ppm. (Carbon concentrations can't get any higher than that because there simply isn't enough carbon to burn.)
Furthermore, in the past 100000 years alone, humans have survived far more devastating climate chnage than any predicted from global warming: the last "ice age" (glacial period).
There is simply no plausible way in which climate change could reasonably be claimed to cause human extinction as the OP implied.
I don't see how speciation could occur without internal variation in a species. There's nothing to differentially select for.
A "drop in genetic diversity" (even if it existed) doesn't mean "absence of internal variation".
Moreover, within an ecological system, a drop in genetic diversity of a species can result in a drop in species biodiversity of the system, and vice-versa
The fact that there are no tigers in the ecosystem of my home doesn't mean that tigers have gone extinct.
Slashdot Mirror
There's tons of literature on it. Here's a good summary:
http://www.econlib.org/library...
I don't see how remaining silent on an auto-erase feature on your phone amounts to "erasing your phone". Do police have a right to compel information about the operation of your phone from you as well? What's the legal justification?
Regardless of what legal justification you use, passwords need to be protected against compulsion by police. I mean, what do you imagine happens when someone says, "Sorry, I don't remember the password?" If police have the legal right compel you to give up your password, they can simply lock you up until you do remember it, which is a real problem if you actually don't. That is not something we should encourage in our legal system.
Furthermore, anybody who cares about secrecy would use multiple passwords and give up a password for embarrassing but non-incriminating information. So, such policies are likely to be ineffective against serious criminals anyway.
Biometric identifiers are lousy protection against people who can use physical force, so you shouldn't use them.
Legally, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and this seems like a reasonable place.
Yes, and between the lobbies that buy ads and the politican that does your bidding is the voter, an autonomous individual with free will. Hence, it is not the lobbies that decide what politicians do, it's voters.
You're absolutely right. But ultimately, it's up to voters to figure it out. There is simply no alternative.
The US. Get over your delusions and get the facts.
Species don't adapt to ice sheets that are a mile thick. The glaciations are recurring ecological disasters by the standard of global warming alarmists.
So what? What is your point?
Obviously, I was referring to the OP in this thread.
Help us? In what way do you imagine the loss of tigers hurts humans?They are going away because their ecological niche has been filled by us.
Futhermore, if we really wanted to fill that ecological niche, we could easily do it on human time scales.
There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters. Politicians listen to lobbies only in areas where voters don't care.
The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.
If you're going to copy an answer from a post on another website, at least give the link:
http://astronomy.stackexchange...
And that answer obviously is wrong. If matter has clumped together into planets, it obviously hasn't clumped together into stars or black holes, and instead has clumped together into objects that are very hard to detect.
Arguments against dark matter being rogue planets are generally based on lack of enough microlensing observations and expected size distributions. But those are far from definitive.
So, the answer is: it is possible that dark matter is all rogue planets, although most physicists believe that it is not.
"Action on climate change" means political action (it's what climate activists demand, hence the name): legislation and international agreements. In the US, that's going to be stopped at the ballot box. In Europe, it probably isn't going to be stopped and Europeans are going to pay a steep price.
I encourage you to reduce your own carbon footprint. That's how we will become carbon neutral in the long run: through individual, free choices.
I just did: you consider yourself to be a member of a group that "takes action on climate change". The ordinary meaning of that is that you are an activist demanding legislation and international agreements. If you use the term to refer to personal free market choices instead of legislation, you are using it incorrectly. Maybe you simply aren't familiar enough with the language to understand the distinction (you might be German, French, or even British).
The reason you don't trust me is because you are scientifically and politically illiterate.
You implied that progressivism was a feature of American politics and you didn't have to care about it outside of the US. In fact, progressivism has been a dominant feature of politics in all modern democracies. The fact that you don't know that just shows how politically illiterate you are.
Obamacare doesn't redistribute from "the wealthy" to "the poor". For "the wealthy", health insurance is an insignificant expense. Obamacare, like most of those redistribution programs, redistributes from many above average income earners to many below average income earners. That is, people like software developers, engineers, and scientists tend to pay for it.
Furthermore, while the post seems to imply that this is helping people, that's doubtful. While the recipient of the redistribution enjoys a short-term benefit, long term, everybody loses. Contrary to what advocates of such programs say, redistributing money does't help people get out of poverty long term.
That perhaps also resolve the mystery why "Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians": many people want jobs and growth, not handouts and redistribution. The problem here is that wealthy liberal elites think people object to these programs because they hate the poor and are greedy, when the actual reason is that many people believe such programs to be an ineffective and potentially harmful waste of money. The record of redistributive programs and "the war on poverty" is not good.
Danes: Hey, we can do this because the people in California are doing it.
Californians: Hey, we can do this because the people in Denmark are doing it.
Well, that's all we're discussing here.
As for the long term future of the human race, really, that's a separate discussion.
Half the northern hemisphere covered in thick ice sheets was "relaxing"? Are you kidding?
OP: "And won't be nobody to write it by then if mankind loses."
The way you phrase that just shows that you have no concept of the massive swings in climate the planet has experienced over the past couple of hundred million years. There is no "state" to return to.
So what? I mean, I like tigers, but it would hardly be an ecological disaster. Tiger-like species have evolved many times independently, and they can evolve again, from other felines or other vertebrates.
That's a self-serving lie of political activists, usually with no connection to the tech industry.
That seems unlikely. In any case, there is no plausible scenario by which climate change will produce such an outcome, and the IPCC report (representing the best available analysis) doesn't outline any such scenario.
What kind of role model for is a 50-something single workaholic with helmet hair? Appearing with your same sex partner at public events is a nice way of coming out. Announcing it publicly on a stage in order to make some political or social point is not.
Given how much the American left despises CEOs, it seems odd for them to view a gay CEO as a positive role model.
I don't think I need to explain that. If you don't understand what I mean by it, you have to read up a bit on those cultures and their history yourself.
Right now, there is no indication of a human population decline, nor of a human population explosion; the human population is stabilizing.
If climate change were to cause human populations to decline, the cause would be a reduction in carrying capacity. Human populations would simply decline until they match the new carrying capacity; they don't continue to decline magically beyond that.
The only way humans could go extinct is if there were no significant ecological niche where we can survive, and that just isn't going to happen.
The problem here is that you are used to looking at a Mercator projection map and waving your hands instead of doing what you ought to be doing, namely look at specific regions now and in the future under climate change scenarios.
There are some studies that have attempted that, e.g., http://iopscience.iop.org/1748... For different scenarios, they predict somewhere between a slight decrease and a slight increase in arable land. Almost all the impact is from changes.
However, there is a reasonable case to be made that their criteria for arability are too narrow: cold temperatures are a much stronger bar to arability than warm temperatures, in particular as technology improves. Hence, I think it's likely we will end up with more arable land (not that we actually need it).
What "alternatives"? You didn't provide any. You simply accused people of astroturfing.
Climate activists demand government action to bring about a carbon neutral economy. That is ineffective and harmful; it won't speed reductions in carbon emissions, it will delay such reductions, and at the same time make mitigation more costly and difficult.
Reducing emissions is quite effective. What is ineffective is the way you are proposing to go about it: namely legislation and international agreement.
Why are your weasly qualifications ("currently exist") relevant? Humans are one of the most adaptable species around.
Fact is that complex vertebrates have been around for a long time and were doing fine with CO2 concentrations greater than 2000 ppm. (Carbon concentrations can't get any higher than that because there simply isn't enough carbon to burn.)
Furthermore, in the past 100000 years alone, humans have survived far more devastating climate chnage than any predicted from global warming: the last "ice age" (glacial period).
There is simply no plausible way in which climate change could reasonably be claimed to cause human extinction as the OP implied.
A "drop in genetic diversity" (even if it existed) doesn't mean "absence of internal variation".
The fact that there are no tigers in the ecosystem of my home doesn't mean that tigers have gone extinct.