Great post... except you don't actually KNOW these sciences, you've just looked up pro-agw arguments and plagiarized them. Let's look at your arguments, and pick apart where you've been misled (or are trying to mislead me):
RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1) = 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2 concentration - Fourier's 1824 prediction of the GHG properties of CO2 derived from it's spectra. Faraday confirmed Fourier's predictions by experiment in the 1850's. A modern version of that experiment can be seen here [youtube.com].
Great. And this is correct. If the CO2 concentration that we had in 1824 doubled that would lead to an increase in solar radiation (the consequences of which have not been uniform warming as you imply, or at least not linearly, illustrating my other point about thermodynamic equilibrium).
But you're right. Doubling the co2 concentration from 120 ppm (thereabouts) to 240 ppm will result in increased forcing. Increasing it to 300 ppm will result to another rise, although by a much smaller amount. After 350 ppm, it does not rise anymore. Whoops.
Why does this happen ? Surely this formula of yours predicts otherwise. That's because this formula is only to be applied to the sunlight that passes through the athmosphere, avoids co2 on it's way in, hits the ground, gets re-emitted and then hits co2 on it's way out. The IPCC report mentions this (3 pages away from the formula, of course, after several paragraphs dealing with administrative administration, which I'm sure is just a coincidence).
Whoops. What is the concentration of co2 again ? 380 ppm. So the additional co2 produced since, oh, 1970 or so has produced ZERO warming (not 100% true, localised disturbances in co2 concentration make it that it warms in some places, and cools others, which lead to different results each year). But still we could increase the co2 concentration in the athmosphere a thousand times and it would not make any difference at this point (despite your formula). As we'll see later, making the amount of co2 100x smaller will not change anything either, for other reasons. Furthermore there is the issue as to what the temperature of the earth is in relation to re-transmitting. Well, the amount of energy retransmitted is dependant on the 4th power of the earth temperature, meaning that even a tiny increase in temperature will create a huge increase in outgoing radiation. The percentage caught by the co2 does not change though, so more temperature escapes. There is a very narrow temperature range that the earth could never hope to get out of, no matter the amount of radiative forcing due to any source.
So what does the IPCC claim is happening ? Why has the temperature risen even when Co2 is no longer causing it ? Well, the increased temperature has lead to more water vapor, which increases warming further (which is included in the formula you quote, and is another source of major deception).
Of course this theory makes their policies totally incomprehensible. After all, H2O does much more warming than CO2 at this point (which is why "causes of warming" graphs are never shown, only "anthropogenic causes of warming" are shown, excluding water vapor. Oh wait, no sorry, this is another coincidence), and, if true, global warming is now feeding back solely on itself. Which makes all policies you could possibly think of useless. Even removing 100% of all co2 from the athmosphere would merely bring back the warming to the level it was in 1985. Well actually it would also prove lethal to all photosynthetic organisms for obvious reasons, it would kill all trees, or more general anything that is green.
So a co2 reduction policy, which the IPCC is pushing, despite the science clearly stating that it won't work, is merely very bad for plants.
Again this is supposed to be a coincidence.
Anyone mentioning the subtle detail that climate is chaotic
You don't seriously think that there are any law graduates (or politicians who are ex-law students) who want to see that any other way ?
The problem is that these fights over science are polarizing us. Science is supposed to be the discipline of doubt, the exercise of extreme restraint, and utterly dependant on experiments. But you only find people wholly against science (but e.g. fundamentalist muslims see no contradiction in using cell phones to make bombs blowing up people for believing in science). Or people stating that science should be the new dictator of the world (usually science is represented, obviously, by some political party. Even when scientific theory has totally undermined the basis of said party, e.g. communists or "socialists", or (the more extreme) "conservatives").
To push science above law (whether that "law" is in the form of democratic law, a religion, or merely social pressure) means admitting 2 things: 1) we're potentially (maybe even probably) powerless to change anything about a great many processes. These processes may even have big consequences, from typhoons to cancer. (not meant to be anti-agw, though obviously, until tried or proven from first principles, the jury is still out. Philosophically speaking, the only thing that decides what science is correct or not is not a consensus, no matter how universal, but the real world, through experiments) 2) We don't even know what is going on in a great many instances, as we only understand small pieces of the whole, and have no hope of unifying them (at the moment). Furthermore, we already know that even if we understand every single component of the universe, we'll *still* not be able to predict, or even explain what is currently going on, except for the small subset we do understand. Science is certainly not as advanced as the average idiot on the street thinks it is. Theoretically it is known that even given infinite time and infinite research resources, we will not be able to fully unlock the laws of nature.
But if the AGW "debate" proves anything, it's that science is no longer allowed to tell people "we don't know". Otherwise, for one thing, there'd be a third side stating that the climate models are certainly not acceptable proof of anything. Of course, that means that flaws in those models are not proof of anything either, and that policies should be considered individually, on their individual merit.
They'd simply say. The only systems we can predict are systems that are, thermodynamically speaking, in equilibrium. It's not that research in non-equilibrium systems is nonexistent, but it is certainly not ready to make predictions about any real systems. And the earth is most certainly not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so the effect of adding energy could theoretically be anything. That energy could be transferred into the earth core and not heat the crust or athmosphere at all, or even a tiny addition, or even blatant removal of energy could burn the whole of humanity to a nice toasty overdone steak. Removal of energy, for example, could take away the effect that's cooling the crust, and in a few months time we'd all be swimming in magma.
In fact I believe that my philosophy of science class would encourage this sort of responce to any scientific question: 1) we don't know 2) keeping 1) in mind, here's what we've seen in the past, which would seem to indicate this is going to happen 3) change the theory if the prediction doesn't match (especially this part is contentious. An honest scientist would admit that the IPCC predictions for 2000-2010 were horribly off the mark, and actual temperatures are vastly outside their "98% certain" predictions, not just a little bit. A perceptive person would note that this has not resulted in a reconsideration of the policies that that prediction led to)
Science is not popular because it doesn't provide answers the way people like. You'd get shot on sight at the IPCC for asking the thermodynamic question. Anyone mentioning the subtle detai
Holy crap, after 12 years you're still an admin and you feel proud about this?
Are you still trying to make a valid point ? Because everyone here understands exactly why you would leave an admin job, or any other skilled position for that matter.
once the treaty is signed there is pressure to pass laws to bring the countries laws into line with the treaty.
Just be glad it's merely "pressure". In the EU treaties are law, the second they are signed. They can even override the constitution (this was originally done by a court to prevent the arrest and life imprisonment of a middle eastern dictator (yes that one) who had been convicted under the local law system, but was later accepted as a general principle : treaties can override the constitution).
That may be true, except of course that the comission members won't have any trouble whatsoever paying just about any amount of tax on it.
And they really want to get their way.
Besides, not even in the US do citizens get vote on foreign relations treaties, never mind on specific provisions of such treaties. Those treaties are negotiated by the president('s representative) and confirmed or vetoed by congress.
In the US foreign law is negotiated by the members of the executive branch of government, and... NOT... presented to parliament (which is why the "EU constitution", which is legally a trade agreement did not need to be ratified by parliaments, only by executive government representatives (whether that meant president, minister, or even king). Those individuals took the final decision).
Of course this is a(nother) loophole in the pseudo-democratic status that the EU somehow still maintains. The EU is not America, and executive branch politicians have final authority about import/export taxes (taking this power away from parliaments is called "harmonisation"). In the EU legislative power rests (also) in the executive branch.
Not only that, but EU courts directly enforce EU-negotiated treaties as law, despite those "laws" obviously not having passed parliament.
You may be right, but I'm still not okay with the insinuation given. Defense is, unfortunately, not (anymore) in the top 3 government expenses.
I wonder what kind of toilet seats they have in the unemployment offices, or medicare centers (or are only Obama's czars entitled to superior ass-wipes ? Someone ought to check it). Lots of money disappears there, and we all know it's not going to unemployed people, docters or patients.
Or perhaps Darwin is right... of course that would mean that the number of unemployed people is going to expand indefinitely, until it breaks the back of the government, after which famine and crime will take care of unemployment a few months at most.
If you use both mass transit and bikes for an equivalent distance, you might as well be driving a car.
If you travel larger distances using mass transit than biking (highly likely), you're actually making your environmental impact bigger than if you drove a car.
Again the policy, intention and result problem. You don't care about the result, just the policy. You're supposedly a better human being because of this, even if the consequences of these actions are worse than what you started with.
I would quite happily eat those consequences if I had any practical choice in the matter.
And I'm sure you would accept this response from those corporate "exploiters" of the earth ? No ?
Well then, why would anyone accept it from you ?
There is only one practical way to meaningfully reduce the impact of your existence on others. Since you cannot function efficiently, without harming others, due to the second law of thermodynamics (but don't worry : you're nowhere near the efficiency limit that law imposes : you're thousands of times worse).
The only solution to your impact is also evident from that law : end the energy exchanges between the world and your body, even those inside your body.
Of course, the condition of stopping energy exchange (I believe the democrat term is "stealing") with the environment has a name :
death
You should not fool yourself. "In the limit", as mathematicians like to say to describe the ultimate destination of a certain principle, genocide, on both humans and animals, is the only working "green" policy.
If you have any practical choice in the matter... would you kill yourself ? If not, why bother with the environuts idiocy at all ?
The whole point of the post was to point out that so-called "environmental policies" have themselves "exploited" the earth. Frequently much worse than the ill they tried to fix. Oil is what's keeping billions of humans alive. Oil is what's enabling us to do environmental protection. The green policy, biofuels, destroyed a tiny part of that, but even that small destruction caused death, huge starvation, and massive environmental damage. But of course it's only black children dying (for now).
Surely you, as a green supporter, should be forced to "eat the consequences you force on everyone", no ? Of course the punishment for causing famines is no laughing matter. Surely this punishment should be applied to you, for supporting and enabling these life-destroying measures ?
I have little hope of a post that would more succinctly and effectively prove my accusation : that you are not interested in the environment, nor are you interested in the consequences of the policies forced on others by the greens. You are simply interested in the power itself. Your goal is simply to exert power over others, through violence and coercion.
That your policies and ideas cause starvation and environmental destruction is irrelevant to you. It is not even worth a thought in your mind, not worth a single nod in your response. What you did wrong, simply does not exist, and certainly should not be discussed. And God forbid you be held accountable for the results of these policies.
No, everyone else should be held accountable. Not to facts, but to what you think are the facts. The fact that you participated and encouraged policies that lead to devastation and starvation should be overlooked. It does not even exist in your mind, nor do any of your shortcomings and environmental impact. You're perfect and innocent, and if I do not believe you to be capable of instructing me I should be fought and violently subdued.
Of course, not by you, that work is beneath you. You do not care to see the victims of your policies, of your ideas. Just let some faceless government soldier do that for you. Your hands should remain as clean and innocent as any other dictator, who does not care to deal with the messy details of killing himself.
Those bastard exploiters, who do much less damage than environuts' policies should :
"eat the consequences they force on everyone"
But of course, not you.
Thank you for illustrating my point, that the green policies are not meant to actually improve life, either for humans or "for the planet", they are meant as an excuse to force your idea of the perfect social order on others. The results of these policies are not important to you, only that you get to force them on others. Only the violent confirmation of your need to force you onto others is.
One must be completely blind to the obvious to think that the greens are actually worried about the planet. Or rather, to think that they are somehow more worried than any normal guy. Rather, the greens, nearly uniformly lefties, see this as their great excuse for social engineering.
The purpose is to push their idea of utopia on the rest of us. There are countless examples of green legislation backfiring, the most obvious being the spectacular failure of nature preserves to... preserve nature (this is an old problem). Nature preserves are basically large gardens, where humans interfere in everything and protect the balance "of nature", mainly with guns (by enforcing size limits on predator populations, for example, or exterminating "invading" weeds. Of course nothing about those size limits or exterminations is natural).
Likewise several other green projects have backfired spectacularly. The most recent blatant example is "green" fuel. It has been shown to be a disaster for all involved. Not only does it drive up the cost of fuel, cost jobs and lives (because thanks to the greens the price paid to keep humans alive, agriculture, has to compete with fuel prices. Many people, needless to say, cannot pay such a price and go hungry, and die).
But other than the cost in lost prosperity, lost jobs and lost lives it has also been shown to be spectacularly bad for the environment, due to the subsidized acceleration in the destruction of natural land to be replaced by farms. This effect is beyond obvious in Brazil, but you can see the same happening in California, and certainly farmers will tell you this is happening.
So you'd think that greens would have repealed this sort of subsidies and legislation. But no, they have done in fact the opposite, they've increased the mandates and the subsidies. Needless to say, you'd have to be an utter buffoon to believe they're so totally disinterested in the real world they have not seen the consequences of their action.
But the purpose of these legislations is the real source of the problem of understanding. It is logical : the "greens", who live in enormously concentrated cities where the only green is prepared gardens and weeds growing next to the road, are not interested in changing the large, great world that they never see. Rather, they're interested in redesigning their own environment, and while that may mean roads, public buildings in small quantities, it means changing the people.
The purpose of global warming legislation is not cooling the earth. It is totally independant of the condition of the earth (average temperature has shifted far more than 2 degrees in all centuries before the 21st, what everybody is so worried about is beyond me. Furthermore, we are not capable of stopping whatever nature has planned for us. While a certain (minimal) "due diligence" may be required in dealing with the environment, that is all that any reality expects from us).
The purpose of global warming legislation is to redesign people, mainly those living close to greens, in their image. Nothing more, nothing less. And if they have to obliterate the environment, kill faraway black and yellow children, and raise taxes to do it, they don't care about those anyway. Besides it's only the big "evil" companies, who are doing the bidding of those very same greens, who are actually starving children, obliterating forests and "stealing" money. It's their laws forcing this to happen, but of course they are innocent.
It is completely and utterly unfair to point out the consequences of their "social engineering" as being somehow their fault.
So it does not matter in the slightest possible bit for these idiots that methods are known to fix the problems we face. The only device that can "fix the environment", as defined by the democrat party of america, is a mind control ray. Seas, forests, co2, trees, flowers and even children are just words. Words that, due to lack of other means, have to take the place of the mind control ray, for bett
Seems to me that a singular unelected and unaccountable head of state is a pretty desirable job, as far as benefits go. Seems to me a lot of people might be willing to kill to get it, resulting in the fact that it is very likely the person getting the job is merely the best murderer amongst the candidates. Therefore being the "champion of murderers" seems to indicate to me an embodiment of the lack of conscience you're deriding.
Actually that would probably be a good example of why power corrupts. Julius Caesar didn't choose to overthrow the government, or at least he was presented with the choice between death and becoming caesar.
His first choice, incidentally, was death, or at least, his first choice was to go on a very difficult military mission that could very well have been the end of him. There was just one tiny little problem : he aced that mission.
Of course, when he tried to go back "parliament" threw every trick at him : they tried to lure his soldiers against him with money. They put a price on his head. They told another guy they would make him caesar if he killed Julius Caesar. They... Of course they weren't exactly popular rulers, they were cowards and so decadent it was a rare day that 10% of them were sober. They made laws that Caesar couldn't return.
Of course, it was one of those times in history that even an intellectual agreed that laws without guns (or spears in these times) behind them. Well those laws and 2 oxen was worth exactly 2 oxen. If they didn't get stolen.
Why did power corrupt, why did Caesar become a dictator ? Well he (and a lot of contemporary historians) put it this way : it was that, or the end of Rome, and his own personal death.
Ah the moral equivalence... what a beautiful argument. Especially since it can be used to justify... anything.
I could kill your family, rape your kids, and this defence would STILL apply to that act. After all, I'm only doing the same as you're doing in the company you work for.
I think the correct way to state facts would be he used military on Chavez... judging by what happened since, he should have hit a LOT harder on the bastard.
Of course the straight answer, that close to the only reason a product becomes successfull through popularity, is not admitted by many people.
It hits too close to home. Humans are pack animals. People first and foremost imitate one another. John Q. Public buys a product because he's seen John P. Public already has one. So a critical mass of a product in the view of people is what makes people successfull. The amount of buzz a product generates, the visibility it has (positive or negative, e.g. even things like terrorism are partly caused by the attention these mass murdering muslims get), is the first and foremost cause of it's success, not the reverse way around.
Apple products are not popular due to any amount of technical merit, despite what fanboys claim. Apple products are popular due to the visibility they have, first on tv, then in what you might call "executive" circles, then everyone.
There is a bit of a qualification to this : of course it helps that a product is useable enough that users don't throw it away out of utter disgust after using it for 2 minutes.
Of course you're right. The only reason cost tends toward energy cost of the creation of an object is that the profit tends towards zero in a perfect market-based system, and that can of course be distorted in a myriad of ways.
What I think does deserve mention in your post is that all the examples you gave, of course, were only possible due to government interference, due to the use of tax money or law (ie. violence) to force specific outcomes, even if they had good intentions (e.g. the telephone example was done so people in less affluent cities would have telephone service even if it's not cost-effective to provide it).
No I do not. I don't know if cd's (and/or dvd's) are or are not the exception to the rule.
But as special effects, quantity and quality of team members and price of the brand name (e.g. harry potter) are both the main determinants of sales success and determinants of price (yes, most dvds start at the same price, but that doesn't last even a single month for "bad" (ie. cheap) titles, while it lasts years for "good" titles (harry potter 2 is still not marked down here)).
Energy input determines, much more than creativity or anything else, the price of a work. And yes there are the lucky exceptions, the "blair with project" alikes. But not many.
So in short, it seems to me that energy input = price is as true for "intellectual property" as it is for physical objects.
That's only true for a replicator that is unlimited. If the replicator had imperfections, what you say is nonsense.
Maybe cost of energy would be the defining criterium for the cost of goods (that would be about the same situation as today, energy input is the most highly correlated property to the price of a good).
If it was only able to re-arrange atoms you would still need mines to get to the necessary minerals, and many things would remain rare (e.g. you wouldn't be able to make gold jewels any cheaper).
If it required at least the same mass as input to create an object, that too would create scarcity, requiring again an economy (though probably different than today's)
The world would hardly be different, and we'd still need the economy to supply us.
And another post... pompidom... You're the type of guy they invented restraining orders for.
Wonder how long you'll keep it up.
The only link put up was the wikipedia link. You know the article where anyone defending the American system is simply scolded for being an "asshole", "idiot", "racist" (of course), and others.
Heh you probably are "enriching" the wikipedia discussion too. They sure have your style of discussion.
But the page is a very good example of how discriminatory and utterly biased wikipedia really is. Tolerance for alternative opinions is zero, and rules are routinely violated for political ends.
This gets published:
Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States."
Guyatt, G.H. et al. 2007. A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States. Open Medicine, Vol 1, No 1.
What is wrong with this claim ? Doesn't "Open Medicine, Vol 1, No 1" seem a bit suspicious ?
Needless to say, a look at the magazine's site will confirm what one fears : it is a magazine with lots and lots of political articles, interspersed with some medical papers whose dubious methods are only exceeded by their irrelevance.
It's a "medical" magazine that's specifically created to push political ends. It has no credibility and is more biased than a democrat. Hell, it's a monologue and they still can't resist insulting their "opponents".
And claims like the following are "somehow" inadequately referenced:
"Today, five million Canadians are without a family doctor. A 2005 survey found that just 23 per cent of Canadians were able to see a physician the same day they needed one - placing this country last among the six studied, including the U.S., Britain and Australia. Canada's doctor-patient ratio is among the worst of any industrialized nation: with just 2.2 physicians per thousand people, it ranks 24th out of 28 OECD countries (well below the average of three). And among the G8 countries, Canada ranks dead last when it comes to physician supply." -Canada's Doctor Shortage Worsening (Macleans)
Strange, isn't it ? Combined with the less-than-polite "discussion" page illustrates the utter lack of trustworthiness and the purely political nature of the "research".
Of course the article says nothing about the inherent disadvantages of socialized healthcare, such as the necessity of so-called "death panels", which make treatments illegal. It also neglects the obvious economic truth : socialized health care can only provision as much health care as can be expected you'll produce in future value (taxes). Needless to say, that is VERY bad news for anyone who plans on getting old. States, obviously, have "profit" motive too, as "profits" in health care enable spending on other programs.
Since you clearly don't care about bias, let me just reply with an article of my own :
Actually I was right - you'll keep posting like you're personally attacked despite having lost the argument.
Yes you've made your imaginary totally not-backed-up claim. And yes I disagree with it. You've not shown anyone any numbers, nor have you made any attempt to explain where the difference comes from.
Now the question is how long you'll have to keep ventilating until you can utter coherent sentences again.
And the insults restart. Guess you feel you've lost the argument again.
You really are a typical democrat. Very "tolerant", except you know, when it's time to actually tolerate someone. Your opinions should be forced on everyone without any discussion or -God forbid- the suggestion that you might be wrong.
You expect me to accept your unfounded assertion about cost, and you expect me to believe the only reason for it is a big evil republican conspiracy (why not throw in satan ?).
This makes you, of course, a totalitarian, who believes that choices in your best intrest should be forced on everyone. And you have few qualms about using violence to achieve these ends.
If you had any power at all, you'd be a monster.
Unfortunately the only reason you're pushing healthcare legislation, as is plain for anyone to see, is that you've coupled your self-worth to it's acceptance. You clearly feel desperation when any reasoned argument is made against you. You're ready to insult and randomly attack anyone just at the suggestion you're wrong.
Are you truly this insecure and shamed about others expressing opinions that it warrants immediate attacks from you ? It's rather sad. Especially since you're not all that good at it.
Slashdot Mirror
Great post ... except you don't actually KNOW these sciences, you've just looked up pro-agw arguments and plagiarized them. Let's look at your arguments, and pick apart where you've been misled (or are trying to mislead me) :
RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1) = 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2 concentration - Fourier's 1824 prediction of the GHG properties of CO2 derived from it's spectra. Faraday confirmed Fourier's predictions by experiment in the 1850's. A modern version of that experiment can be seen here [youtube.com].
Great. And this is correct. If the CO2 concentration that we had in 1824 doubled that would lead to an increase in solar radiation (the consequences of which have not been uniform warming as you imply, or at least not linearly, illustrating my other point about thermodynamic equilibrium).
But you're right. Doubling the co2 concentration from 120 ppm (thereabouts) to 240 ppm will result in increased forcing. Increasing it to 300 ppm will result to another rise, although by a much smaller amount. After 350 ppm, it does not rise anymore. Whoops.
Why does this happen ? Surely this formula of yours predicts otherwise. That's because this formula is only to be applied to the sunlight that passes through the athmosphere, avoids co2 on it's way in, hits the ground, gets re-emitted and then hits co2 on it's way out. The IPCC report mentions this (3 pages away from the formula, of course, after several paragraphs dealing with administrative administration, which I'm sure is just a coincidence).
Whoops. What is the concentration of co2 again ? 380 ppm. So the additional co2 produced since, oh, 1970 or so has produced ZERO warming (not 100% true, localised disturbances in co2 concentration make it that it warms in some places, and cools others, which lead to different results each year). But still we could increase the co2 concentration in the athmosphere a thousand times and it would not make any difference at this point (despite your formula). As we'll see later, making the amount of co2 100x smaller will not change anything either, for other reasons. Furthermore there is the issue as to what the temperature of the earth is in relation to re-transmitting. Well, the amount of energy retransmitted is dependant on the 4th power of the earth temperature, meaning that even a tiny increase in temperature will create a huge increase in outgoing radiation. The percentage caught by the co2 does not change though, so more temperature escapes. There is a very narrow temperature range that the earth could never hope to get out of, no matter the amount of radiative forcing due to any source.
So what does the IPCC claim is happening ? Why has the temperature risen even when Co2 is no longer causing it ? Well, the increased temperature has lead to more water vapor, which increases warming further (which is included in the formula you quote, and is another source of major deception).
Of course this theory makes their policies totally incomprehensible. After all, H2O does much more warming than CO2 at this point (which is why "causes of warming" graphs are never shown, only "anthropogenic causes of warming" are shown, excluding water vapor. Oh wait, no sorry, this is another coincidence), and, if true, global warming is now feeding back solely on itself. Which makes all policies you could possibly think of useless. Even removing 100% of all co2 from the athmosphere would merely bring back the warming to the level it was in 1985. Well actually it would also prove lethal to all photosynthetic organisms for obvious reasons, it would kill all trees, or more general anything that is green.
So a co2 reduction policy, which the IPCC is pushing, despite the science clearly stating that it won't work, is merely very bad for plants.
Again this is supposed to be a coincidence.
Anyone mentioning the subtle detail that climate is chaotic
Usually doesn't know th
You don't seriously think that there are any law graduates (or politicians who are ex-law students) who want to see that any other way ?
The problem is that these fights over science are polarizing us. Science is supposed to be the discipline of doubt, the exercise of extreme restraint, and utterly dependant on experiments. But you only find people wholly against science (but e.g. fundamentalist muslims see no contradiction in using cell phones to make bombs blowing up people for believing in science). Or people stating that science should be the new dictator of the world (usually science is represented, obviously, by some political party. Even when scientific theory has totally undermined the basis of said party, e.g. communists or "socialists", or (the more extreme) "conservatives").
To push science above law (whether that "law" is in the form of democratic law, a religion, or merely social pressure) means admitting 2 things :
1) we're potentially (maybe even probably) powerless to change anything about a great many processes. These processes may even have big consequences, from typhoons to cancer.
(not meant to be anti-agw, though obviously, until tried or proven from first principles, the jury is still out. Philosophically speaking, the only thing that decides what science is correct or not is not a consensus, no matter how universal, but the real world, through experiments)
2) We don't even know what is going on in a great many instances, as we only understand small pieces of the whole, and have no hope of unifying them (at the moment). Furthermore, we already know that even if we understand every single component of the universe, we'll *still* not be able to predict, or even explain what is currently going on, except for the small subset we do understand. Science is certainly not as advanced as the average idiot on the street thinks it is. Theoretically it is known that even given infinite time and infinite research resources, we will not be able to fully unlock the laws of nature.
But if the AGW "debate" proves anything, it's that science is no longer allowed to tell people "we don't know". Otherwise, for one thing, there'd be a third side stating that the climate models are certainly not acceptable proof of anything. Of course, that means that flaws in those models are not proof of anything either, and that policies should be considered individually, on their individual merit.
They'd simply say. The only systems we can predict are systems that are, thermodynamically speaking, in equilibrium. It's not that research in non-equilibrium systems is nonexistent, but it is certainly not ready to make predictions about any real systems. And the earth is most certainly not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so the effect of adding energy could theoretically be anything. That energy could be transferred into the earth core and not heat the crust or athmosphere at all, or even a tiny addition, or even blatant removal of energy could burn the whole of humanity to a nice toasty overdone steak. Removal of energy, for example, could take away the effect that's cooling the crust, and in a few months time we'd all be swimming in magma.
In fact I believe that my philosophy of science class would encourage this sort of responce to any scientific question :
1) we don't know
2) keeping 1) in mind, here's what we've seen in the past, which would seem to indicate this is going to happen
3) change the theory if the prediction doesn't match (especially this part is contentious. An honest scientist would admit that the IPCC predictions for 2000-2010 were horribly off the mark, and actual temperatures are vastly outside their "98% certain" predictions, not just a little bit. A perceptive person would note that this has not resulted in a reconsideration of the policies that that prediction led to)
Science is not popular because it doesn't provide answers the way people like. You'd get shot on sight at the IPCC for asking the thermodynamic question. Anyone mentioning the subtle detai
Holy crap, after 12 years you're still an admin and you feel proud about this?
Are you still trying to make a valid point ? Because everyone here understands exactly why you would leave an admin job, or any other skilled position for that matter.
once the treaty is signed there is pressure to pass laws to bring the countries laws into line with the treaty.
Just be glad it's merely "pressure". In the EU treaties are law, the second they are signed. They can even override the constitution (this was originally done by a court to prevent the arrest and life imprisonment of a middle eastern dictator (yes that one) who had been convicted under the local law system, but was later accepted as a general principle : treaties can override the constitution).
That may be true, except of course that the comission members won't have any trouble whatsoever paying just about any amount of tax on it.
And they really want to get their way.
Besides, not even in the US do citizens get vote on foreign relations treaties, never mind on specific provisions of such treaties. Those treaties are negotiated by the president('s representative) and confirmed or vetoed by congress.
In the US foreign law is negotiated by the members of the executive branch of government, and ... NOT ... presented to parliament (which is why the "EU constitution", which is legally a trade agreement did not need to be ratified by parliaments, only by executive government representatives (whether that meant president, minister, or even king). Those individuals took the final decision).
Of course this is a(nother) loophole in the pseudo-democratic status that the EU somehow still maintains. The EU is not America, and executive branch politicians have final authority about import/export taxes (taking this power away from parliaments is called "harmonisation"). In the EU legislative power rests (also) in the executive branch.
Not only that, but EU courts directly enforce EU-negotiated treaties as law, despite those "laws" obviously not having passed parliament.
You may be right, but I'm still not okay with the insinuation given. Defense is, unfortunately, not (anymore) in the top 3 government expenses.
I wonder what kind of toilet seats they have in the unemployment offices, or medicare centers (or are only Obama's czars entitled to superior ass-wipes ? Someone ought to check it). Lots of money disappears there, and we all know it's not going to unemployed people, docters or patients.
Or perhaps Darwin is right ... of course that would mean that the number of unemployed people is going to expand indefinitely, until it breaks the back of the government, after which famine and crime will take care of unemployment a few months at most.
Nice quote from independance day.
(do remember though that said movie is classified as "fiction")
Never let yourself be seduced into actually trying to make a point. After all you are right, just because you're so special.
As it is I mitigate my environmental impact by using mass transit and riding a bicycle.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
If you use both mass transit and bikes for an equivalent distance, you might as well be driving a car.
If you travel larger distances using mass transit than biking (highly likely), you're actually making your environmental impact bigger than if you drove a car.
Again the policy, intention and result problem. You don't care about the result, just the policy. You're supposedly a better human being because of this, even if the consequences of these actions are worse than what you started with.
I would quite happily eat those consequences if I had any practical choice in the matter.
And I'm sure you would accept this response from those corporate "exploiters" of the earth ? No ?
Well then, why would anyone accept it from you ?
There is only one practical way to meaningfully reduce the impact of your existence on others. Since you cannot function efficiently, without harming others, due to the second law of thermodynamics (but don't worry : you're nowhere near the efficiency limit that law imposes : you're thousands of times worse).
The only solution to your impact is also evident from that law : end the energy exchanges between the world and your body, even those inside your body.
Of course, the condition of stopping energy exchange (I believe the democrat term is "stealing") with the environment has a name :
death
You should not fool yourself. "In the limit", as mathematicians like to say to describe the ultimate destination of a certain principle, genocide, on both humans and animals, is the only working "green" policy.
If you have any practical choice in the matter ... would you kill yourself ? If not, why bother with the environuts idiocy at all ?
The whole point of the post was to point out that so-called "environmental policies" have themselves "exploited" the earth. Frequently much worse than the ill they tried to fix. Oil is what's keeping billions of humans alive. Oil is what's enabling us to do environmental protection. The green policy, biofuels, destroyed a tiny part of that, but even that small destruction caused death, huge starvation, and massive environmental damage. But of course it's only black children dying (for now).
Surely you, as a green supporter, should be forced to "eat the consequences you force on everyone", no ? Of course the punishment for causing famines is no laughing matter. Surely this punishment should be applied to you, for supporting and enabling these life-destroying measures ?
I have little hope of a post that would more succinctly and effectively prove my accusation : that you are not interested in the environment, nor are you interested in the consequences of the policies forced on others by the greens. You are simply interested in the power itself. Your goal is simply to exert power over others, through violence and coercion.
That your policies and ideas cause starvation and environmental destruction is irrelevant to you. It is not even worth a thought in your mind, not worth a single nod in your response. What you did wrong, simply does not exist, and certainly should not be discussed. And God forbid you be held accountable for the results of these policies.
No, everyone else should be held accountable. Not to facts, but to what you think are the facts. The fact that you participated and encouraged policies that lead to devastation and starvation should be overlooked. It does not even exist in your mind, nor do any of your shortcomings and environmental impact. You're perfect and innocent, and if I do not believe you to be capable of instructing me I should be fought and violently subdued.
Of course, not by you, that work is beneath you. You do not care to see the victims of your policies, of your ideas. Just let some faceless government soldier do that for you. Your hands should remain as clean and innocent as any other dictator, who does not care to deal with the messy details of killing himself.
Those bastard exploiters, who do much less damage than environuts' policies should :
"eat the consequences they force on everyone"
But of course, not you.
Thank you for illustrating my point, that the green policies are not meant to actually improve life, either for humans or "for the planet", they are meant as an excuse to force your idea of the perfect social order on others. The results of these policies are not important to you, only that you get to force them on others. Only the violent confirmation of your need to force you onto others is.
One must be completely blind to the obvious to think that the greens are actually worried about the planet. Or rather, to think that they are somehow more worried than any normal guy. Rather, the greens, nearly uniformly lefties, see this as their great excuse for social engineering.
The purpose is to push their idea of utopia on the rest of us. There are countless examples of green legislation backfiring, the most obvious being the spectacular failure of nature preserves to ... preserve nature (this is an old problem). Nature preserves are basically large gardens, where humans interfere in everything and protect the balance "of nature", mainly with guns (by enforcing size limits on predator populations, for example, or exterminating "invading" weeds. Of course nothing about those size limits or exterminations is natural).
Likewise several other green projects have backfired spectacularly. The most recent blatant example is "green" fuel. It has been shown to be a disaster for all involved. Not only does it drive up the cost of fuel, cost jobs and lives (because thanks to the greens the price paid to keep humans alive, agriculture, has to compete with fuel prices. Many people, needless to say, cannot pay such a price and go hungry, and die).
But other than the cost in lost prosperity, lost jobs and lost lives it has also been shown to be spectacularly bad for the environment, due to the subsidized acceleration in the destruction of natural land to be replaced by farms. This effect is beyond obvious in Brazil, but you can see the same happening in California, and certainly farmers will tell you this is happening.
So you'd think that greens would have repealed this sort of subsidies and legislation. But no, they have done in fact the opposite, they've increased the mandates and the subsidies. Needless to say, you'd have to be an utter buffoon to believe they're so totally disinterested in the real world they have not seen the consequences of their action.
But the purpose of these legislations is the real source of the problem of understanding. It is logical : the "greens", who live in enormously concentrated cities where the only green is prepared gardens and weeds growing next to the road, are not interested in changing the large, great world that they never see. Rather, they're interested in redesigning their own environment, and while that may mean roads, public buildings in small quantities, it means changing the people.
The purpose of global warming legislation is not cooling the earth. It is totally independant of the condition of the earth (average temperature has shifted far more than 2 degrees in all centuries before the 21st, what everybody is so worried about is beyond me. Furthermore, we are not capable of stopping whatever nature has planned for us. While a certain (minimal) "due diligence" may be required in dealing with the environment, that is all that any reality expects from us).
The purpose of global warming legislation is to redesign people, mainly those living close to greens, in their image. Nothing more, nothing less. And if they have to obliterate the environment, kill faraway black and yellow children, and raise taxes to do it, they don't care about those anyway. Besides it's only the big "evil" companies, who are doing the bidding of those very same greens, who are actually starving children, obliterating forests and "stealing" money. It's their laws forcing this to happen, but of course they are innocent.
It is completely and utterly unfair to point out the consequences of their "social engineering" as being somehow their fault.
So it does not matter in the slightest possible bit for these idiots that methods are known to fix the problems we face. The only device that can "fix the environment", as defined by the democrat party of america, is a mind control ray. Seas, forests, co2, trees, flowers and even children are just words. Words that, due to lack of other means, have to take the place of the mind control ray, for bett
Seems to me that a singular unelected and unaccountable head of state is a pretty desirable job, as far as benefits go. Seems to me a lot of people might be willing to kill to get it, resulting in the fact that it is very likely the person getting the job is merely the best murderer amongst the candidates. Therefore being the "champion of murderers" seems to indicate to me an embodiment of the lack of conscience you're deriding.
Actually that would probably be a good example of why power corrupts. Julius Caesar didn't choose to overthrow the government, or at least he was presented with the choice between death and becoming caesar.
His first choice, incidentally, was death, or at least, his first choice was to go on a very difficult military mission that could very well have been the end of him. There was just one tiny little problem : he aced that mission.
Of course, when he tried to go back "parliament" threw every trick at him : they tried to lure his soldiers against him with money. They put a price on his head. They told another guy they would make him caesar if he killed Julius Caesar. They ... Of course they weren't exactly popular rulers, they were cowards and so decadent it was a rare day that 10% of them were sober. They made laws that Caesar couldn't return.
Of course, it was one of those times in history that even an intellectual agreed that laws without guns (or spears in these times) behind them. Well those laws and 2 oxen was worth exactly 2 oxen. If they didn't get stolen.
Why did power corrupt, why did Caesar become a dictator ? Well he (and a lot of contemporary historians) put it this way : it was that, or the end of Rome, and his own personal death.
Then again, maybe that's just propaganda.
Ah the moral equivalence ... what a beautiful argument. Especially since it can be used to justify ... anything.
I could kill your family, rape your kids, and this defence would STILL apply to that act. After all, I'm only doing the same as you're doing in the company you work for.
I think the correct way to state facts would be he used military on Chavez ... judging by what happened since, he should have hit a LOT harder on the bastard.
Of course the straight answer, that close to the only reason a product becomes successfull through popularity, is not admitted by many people.
It hits too close to home. Humans are pack animals. People first and foremost imitate one another. John Q. Public buys a product because he's seen John P. Public already has one. So a critical mass of a product in the view of people is what makes people successfull. The amount of buzz a product generates, the visibility it has (positive or negative, e.g. even things like terrorism are partly caused by the attention these mass murdering muslims get), is the first and foremost cause of it's success, not the reverse way around.
Apple products are not popular due to any amount of technical merit, despite what fanboys claim. Apple products are popular due to the visibility they have, first on tv, then in what you might call "executive" circles, then everyone.
There is a bit of a qualification to this : of course it helps that a product is useable enough that users don't throw it away out of utter disgust after using it for 2 minutes.
Of course you're right. The only reason cost tends toward energy cost of the creation of an object is that the profit tends towards zero in a perfect market-based system, and that can of course be distorted in a myriad of ways.
What I think does deserve mention in your post is that all the examples you gave, of course, were only possible due to government interference, due to the use of tax money or law (ie. violence) to force specific outcomes, even if they had good intentions (e.g. the telephone example was done so people in less affluent cities would have telephone service even if it's not cost-effective to provide it).
I assume you mean wholesale price.
No I do not. I don't know if cd's (and/or dvd's) are or are not the exception to the rule.
But as special effects, quantity and quality of team members and price of the brand name (e.g. harry potter) are both the main determinants of sales success and determinants of price (yes, most dvds start at the same price, but that doesn't last even a single month for "bad" (ie. cheap) titles, while it lasts years for "good" titles (harry potter 2 is still not marked down here)).
Energy input determines, much more than creativity or anything else, the price of a work. And yes there are the lucky exceptions, the "blair with project" alikes. But not many.
So in short, it seems to me that energy input = price is as true for "intellectual property" as it is for physical objects.
Strange how half their stories revolve around greed anyway. Lots of stuff is rare and valuable in the "utopia", including ironically, slave labor.
But also other things : latium, land on earth, military ranks, political positions, collectibles, ...
And there's the never ending stream of people that seem to want to leave the federation.
That's only true for a replicator that is unlimited. If the replicator had imperfections, what you say is nonsense.
Maybe cost of energy would be the defining criterium for the cost of goods (that would be about the same situation as today, energy input is the most highly correlated property to the price of a good).
If it was only able to re-arrange atoms you would still need mines to get to the necessary minerals, and many things would remain rare (e.g. you wouldn't be able to make gold jewels any cheaper).
If it required at least the same mass as input to create an object, that too would create scarcity, requiring again an economy (though probably different than today's)
The world would hardly be different, and we'd still need the economy to supply us.
And another post ... pompidom ... more insults ...
And another post ... pompidom ... You're the type of guy they invented restraining orders for.
Wonder how long you'll keep it up.
The only link put up was the wikipedia link. You know the article where anyone defending the American system is simply scolded for being an "asshole", "idiot", "racist" (of course), and others.
Heh you probably are "enriching" the wikipedia discussion too. They sure have your style of discussion.
But the page is a very good example of how discriminatory and utterly biased wikipedia really is. Tolerance for alternative opinions is zero, and rules are routinely violated for political ends.
This gets published :
Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States."
Guyatt, G.H. et al. 2007. A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States. Open Medicine, Vol 1, No 1.
What is wrong with this claim ? Doesn't "Open Medicine, Vol 1, No 1" seem a bit suspicious ?
Needless to say, a look at the magazine's site will confirm what one fears : it is a magazine with lots and lots of political articles, interspersed with some medical papers whose dubious methods are only exceeded by their irrelevance.
It's a "medical" magazine that's specifically created to push political ends. It has no credibility and is more biased than a democrat. Hell, it's a monologue and they still can't resist insulting their "opponents".
And claims like the following are "somehow" inadequately referenced :
"Today, five million Canadians are without a family doctor. A 2005 survey found that just 23 per cent of Canadians were able to see a physician the same day they needed one - placing this country last among the six studied, including the U.S., Britain and Australia. Canada's doctor-patient ratio is among the worst of any industrialized nation: with just 2.2 physicians per thousand people, it ranks 24th out of 28 OECD countries (well below the average of three). And among the G8 countries, Canada ranks dead last when it comes to physician supply." -Canada's Doctor Shortage Worsening (Macleans)
Strange, isn't it ? Combined with the less-than-polite "discussion" page illustrates the utter lack of trustworthiness and the purely political nature of the "research".
Of course the article says nothing about the inherent disadvantages of socialized healthcare, such as the necessity of so-called "death panels", which make treatments illegal. It also neglects the obvious economic truth : socialized health care can only provision as much health care as can be expected you'll produce in future value (taxes). Needless to say, that is VERY bad news for anyone who plans on getting old. States, obviously, have "profit" motive too, as "profits" in health care enable spending on other programs.
Since you clearly don't care about bias, let me just reply with an article of my own :
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Go ahead and start with the insults. You sure need a hell of a lot of ventilation.
Actually I was right - you'll keep posting like you're personally attacked despite having lost the argument.
Yes you've made your imaginary totally not-backed-up claim. And yes I disagree with it. You've not shown anyone any numbers, nor have you made any attempt to explain where the difference comes from.
Now the question is how long you'll have to keep ventilating until you can utter coherent sentences again.
I actually wonder if you'll shut up -ever- if I just keep posting.
Of course you've long since lost the argument, but it's a good thing to ventilate a bit, isn't it ?
And the insults restart. Guess you feel you've lost the argument again.
You really are a typical democrat. Very "tolerant", except you know, when it's time to actually tolerate someone. Your opinions should be forced on everyone without any discussion or -God forbid- the suggestion that you might be wrong.
You expect me to accept your unfounded assertion about cost, and you expect me to believe the only reason for it is a big evil republican conspiracy (why not throw in satan ?).
This makes you, of course, a totalitarian, who believes that choices in your best intrest should be forced on everyone. And you have few qualms about using violence to achieve these ends.
If you had any power at all, you'd be a monster.
Unfortunately the only reason you're pushing healthcare legislation, as is plain for anyone to see, is that you've coupled your self-worth to it's acceptance. You clearly feel desperation when any reasoned argument is made against you. You're ready to insult and randomly attack anyone just at the suggestion you're wrong.
Are you truly this insecure and shamed about others expressing opinions that it warrants immediate attacks from you ? It's rather sad. Especially since you're not all that good at it.
Asshole.