Sorry, it's so common to encounter rabid true believers in the faith of AGW I misinterpreted what you said. You're correct, and we do agree that they need much better data than a deliberately manipulated hockey stick data graph to prove the point.
Seriously, what will it take to change the minds of the true believers? How much evidence do we need to show that the worlds biggest "correlation equals causation" scam is, well, a scam to create a profitable carbon trading market for the liberal elite? Despite the public exposure of naked data manipulation, how about evidence suggesting CO2 isn't the culprit, but rather CFC's and cosmic rays? http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012/l
What about previous temperature fluctuations prior to industrialization? What's the excuse for that? Answer: there isn't any.
Geoengineering is such a spectacularly bad idea as to warrant armed revolt in order to prevent it. History has shown again and again that scientists understand far less about the complexity of natural systems than they think they do. Just look at the eggs: back in the day they were considered good, nutritious food. Then suddenly they were demonized for their cholesterol content. Oops! Guess again! They're a good source of omega fatty acids and really are good for you!
The law of unintended consequences comes into play as well. They guy is using a mathematical model. What's the model missing? "Garbage in, garbage out" is not a principle we want to apply to altering the global environment.
Any efforts to reverse "Anthropogenic global warming" should be confined to reducing the supposed causes. What's our incentive to stop polluting if we can "fix" it by blowing bubbles in the ocean?
This does seem almost too good to be true, particularly in the context of existing treatments. Despite years of effort, 20 year survival rates for cancers have not really moved. You can burn it out, cut it out or poison it out, but if you don't get it all (and you usually don't) current treatments can extend a patient's life but don't generally effect a cure. It will be interesting in the extreme to see how this pans out.+
Tens of thousands of years, or until a chlorophyll-using plant gets hold of it - whichever comes first.
Your post is a classic example of the kind of selective misdirection employed so liberally by climate change fanatics. Actual science doesn't matter if it doesn't support your dogma.
I just read somewhere that Norway is taking this approach. Unless you're going to die without them, antibiotics are not prescribed. Antibiotic resistance has plummeted as a result. Between this and banning their addition to farm feed I'd bet things turn around inside of 10 years, except it will take a major catastrophe in the US to overcome the political resistance to farm use.
Hooray! What a brave new world! Seriously, where do these idiots get off romanticizing slums? So they realized that people forced to live on virtually nothing use less resources? DUH!!! News flash: this does not make slum living attractive - I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of slum dwellers cling to the hope of one day getting OUT of slums.
Certainly suburban sprawl is idiotic - we plow under prime farmland to grow sterile housing developments. The latest trend is for developers to build shopping centers that resemble "town centers" Perhaps someday they'll connect the dots and start adding (GASP!) HOUSING and create actual town centers...
The "no nukes" movement back in the '80's successfully confused nuclear weapons with nuclear power in the mind of the public. Nukes have been on the outs ever since. This is a step in the right direction, but the main issue with nuclear power remains unaddressed: what to do with the waste. I don't think loan guarantees alone are enough to induce industry to dive back into building nuke plants. If obama somehow manages to get harry reid to go fuck himself so yucca mountain can open, something of value will be accomplished.
It's simple, Gore took an issue and propagandized it into the biggest "save the earth" crusade he could. The point of this was political: to draw as many people into the democratic party as possible. Gore is a politician, not a scientist. Why is this so hard to understand? The science was never the point, he successfully personalized AGW for anyone fool enough to believe him. Everyone with a ration of sense knows there isn't a damn thing you can do about CO2 emissions. The US could cut emissions to zero only for china and india to pick up the slack and china in particular has absolutely no intention of doing anything about it. China is putting up coal fired power plants as fast as they can and people over there are buying cars as fast as they can make them. Besides, it's not the CO2, it's the CFC's and we already banned them. Go play outside.
I'd say it's all about creating another bureaucracy for democratic party patronage and to act as a mouthpiece for liberal/democrat ideas about climate change. Think of it as kind of like giving Al Gore his own personal branch of government so he can spew his nonsense on the taxpayer's dime.
This is condescending nonsense. I've watched all the star wars films in every version. The original cut of ep 4 is still the best. Why? Because it isn't laden with stupid "look at the funny alien" humor. It's dark, violent and unforgiving and the protagonists aren't aware of having super magic "I win" powers. The one Jedi in the film who does is killed. The humor is largely sarcastic and many sympathetic characters are slaughtered - Luke's family, the Jawas, many of the rebels. Even the Jawas are a little scary. Compare that to the Ewoks, who are just walking teddy bears. The bar scene alone has 3 killings. Nowhere in the series does Lucas's ineptitude show more clearly than with the stupid CGI singer dropped in the middle of this scene.
There's plenty of movies I liked as a kid that I couldn't bear to watch now. Why do you assume I'm unable to apply a critical eye to this film when the others are so comparably bad?
I recall watching the original Ep.4 as a 12 year old. The bar scene was particularly intense because it showed humans as a bit player in a big, bad universe. Fast forward to the updated remake with the CGI singer - just another funny looking alien to laugh at. The two headed announcer in the pod race scene is another example - funny aliens who exist primarily for the amusement of a human dominated universe. I don't think Lucas ever grasped this difference.
Looks like yet another solution looking for a problem. The point of the drilling is to remove infected dentin and leave healthy dentin intact. When teeth decay it's a process in which bacteria are demineralizing and destroying the hard structures of the tooth. Simply killing the bacteria is not sufficient to restore the damaged structures; the damaged structures themselves must be removed, along with any undamaged structures that have been undermined by decay. Additionally, if disinfection were the only goal the decay would still need to be exposed via drilling in order to effect disinfection. As much as people hate the drills, they also provide tactile feedback as to the location of decay. Hard tissue lasers are extremely expensive relative to the drills and provide no such feedback. Visual inspection is often insufficient to determine the quality of the dentin which is why we are always poking with those sharp little explorers. Another issue is being able to determine whether or not the bacteria have all been killed. Leaving infected dentin behind means the decay will simple continue from that point. Removing all of the softened, infected dentin is necessary to prevent recurrence of decay. Incidentally, traditional dental amalgam fillings (mercury, silver and tin) are inherently somewhat antibacterial. The metal tends to inhibit bacterial growth providing a small measure of protection to recurrence. However preventative measures like good daily diet and hygiene (e.g. cutting out the sugar and brushing/flossing) is still the best means of preserving your teeth.
Other methods of disinfection have been tried and failed, hence "drill and fill" remains the most reliable method of restoration.
Manufacturing is easier, provided you first have a stable supply of the element. In the future, rare earth elements will dominate the high tech economy. China is the world's largest producer.
Basically, instead of the middle east having us by the short hairs, in the future it's going to be the Chinese.
So what you're saying is that despite the existence of quality studies to the contrary, anecdote should continue to drive the debate? So, what will it take to prove that climate change research has been deliberately buggered? I bet if someone found a cache of emails detailing deliberate fraud it would change people's minds! Oops! Never mind!
Clearly you're trolling, but lest anyone take you seriously please recall that implementing these measures would require the worst sort of totalitarian state.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, it's so common to encounter rabid true believers in the faith of AGW I misinterpreted what you said. You're correct, and we do agree that they need much better data than a deliberately manipulated hockey stick data graph to prove the point.
How's the kool aid?
Seriously, what will it take to change the minds of the true believers? How much evidence do we need to show that the worlds biggest "correlation equals causation" scam is, well, a scam to create a profitable carbon trading market for the liberal elite? Despite the public exposure of naked data manipulation, how about evidence suggesting CO2 isn't the culprit, but rather CFC's and cosmic rays? http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012/l
What about previous temperature fluctuations prior to industrialization? What's the excuse for that? Answer: there isn't any.
Geoengineering is such a spectacularly bad idea as to warrant armed revolt in order to prevent it. History has shown again and again that scientists understand far less about the complexity of natural systems than they think they do. Just look at the eggs: back in the day they were considered good, nutritious food. Then suddenly they were demonized for their cholesterol content. Oops! Guess again! They're a good source of omega fatty acids and really are good for you!
The law of unintended consequences comes into play as well. They guy is using a mathematical model. What's the model missing? "Garbage in, garbage out" is not a principle we want to apply to altering the global environment.
Any efforts to reverse "Anthropogenic global warming" should be confined to reducing the supposed causes. What's our incentive to stop polluting if we can "fix" it by blowing bubbles in the ocean?
This does seem almost too good to be true, particularly in the context of existing treatments. Despite years of effort, 20 year survival rates for cancers have not really moved. You can burn it out, cut it out or poison it out, but if you don't get it all (and you usually don't) current treatments can extend a patient's life but don't generally effect a cure. It will be interesting in the extreme to see how this pans out.+
Yup. This guy is an idiot. How does he know government can always be trusted with the information, among other things.
Yup. How's that whole "hope and change" think working out?
"ask your doctor"
Tens of thousands of years, or until a chlorophyll-using plant gets hold of it - whichever comes first.
Your post is a classic example of the kind of selective misdirection employed so liberally by climate change fanatics. Actual science doesn't matter if it doesn't support your dogma.
It's very interesting to see how power is being apportioned in the EU. Government is only as good as the ability of citizens to effect change.
I just read somewhere that Norway is taking this approach. Unless you're going to die without them, antibiotics are not prescribed. Antibiotic resistance has plummeted as a result. Between this and banning their addition to farm feed I'd bet things turn around inside of 10 years, except it will take a major catastrophe in the US to overcome the political resistance to farm use.
Didn't you get the memo? It's because obama said so. BTW you're a racist, too.
Hooray! What a brave new world! Seriously, where do these idiots get off romanticizing slums? So they realized that people forced to live on virtually nothing use less resources? DUH!!! News flash: this does not make slum living attractive - I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of slum dwellers cling to the hope of one day getting OUT of slums.
Certainly suburban sprawl is idiotic - we plow under prime farmland to grow sterile housing developments. The latest trend is for developers to build shopping centers that resemble "town centers" Perhaps someday they'll connect the dots and start adding (GASP!) HOUSING and create actual town centers...
That's not how I actually spelled it...
Stupid should hurt. If you don't care that your neighbor is downloading kiddy porn using your network you've earned the consequences.
It's fun renaming people's hotspots when they leave them open and defaulted. I renamed my libtard neighbor's wifi "FOBAMA".
The "no nukes" movement back in the '80's successfully confused nuclear weapons with nuclear power in the mind of the public. Nukes have been on the outs ever since. This is a step in the right direction, but the main issue with nuclear power remains unaddressed: what to do with the waste. I don't think loan guarantees alone are enough to induce industry to dive back into building nuke plants. If obama somehow manages to get harry reid to go fuck himself so yucca mountain can open, something of value will be accomplished.
It's simple, Gore took an issue and propagandized it into the biggest "save the earth" crusade he could. The point of this was political: to draw as many people into the democratic party as possible. Gore is a politician, not a scientist. Why is this so hard to understand? The science was never the point, he successfully personalized AGW for anyone fool enough to believe him. Everyone with a ration of sense knows there isn't a damn thing you can do about CO2 emissions. The US could cut emissions to zero only for china and india to pick up the slack and china in particular has absolutely no intention of doing anything about it. China is putting up coal fired power plants as fast as they can and people over there are buying cars as fast as they can make them. Besides, it's not the CO2, it's the CFC's and we already banned them. Go play outside.
I'd say it's all about creating another bureaucracy for democratic party patronage and to act as a mouthpiece for liberal/democrat ideas about climate change. Think of it as kind of like giving Al Gore his own personal branch of government so he can spew his nonsense on the taxpayer's dime.
Have you ever even LOOKED at a breakdown of the budget, or do you parrot idiocy as a hobby?
This is condescending nonsense. I've watched all the star wars films in every version. The original cut of ep 4 is still the best. Why? Because it isn't laden with stupid "look at the funny alien" humor. It's dark, violent and unforgiving and the protagonists aren't aware of having super magic "I win" powers. The one Jedi in the film who does is killed. The humor is largely sarcastic and many sympathetic characters are slaughtered - Luke's family, the Jawas, many of the rebels. Even the Jawas are a little scary. Compare that to the Ewoks, who are just walking teddy bears. The bar scene alone has 3 killings. Nowhere in the series does Lucas's ineptitude show more clearly than with the stupid CGI singer dropped in the middle of this scene.
There's plenty of movies I liked as a kid that I couldn't bear to watch now. Why do you assume I'm unable to apply a critical eye to this film when the others are so comparably bad?
I recall watching the original Ep.4 as a 12 year old. The bar scene was particularly intense because it showed humans as a bit player in a big, bad universe. Fast forward to the updated remake with the CGI singer - just another funny looking alien to laugh at. The two headed announcer in the pod race scene is another example - funny aliens who exist primarily for the amusement of a human dominated universe. I don't think Lucas ever grasped this difference.
Looks like yet another solution looking for a problem. The point of the drilling is to remove infected dentin and leave healthy dentin intact. When teeth decay it's a process in which bacteria are demineralizing and destroying the hard structures of the tooth. Simply killing the bacteria is not sufficient to restore the damaged structures; the damaged structures themselves must be removed, along with any undamaged structures that have been undermined by decay. Additionally, if disinfection were the only goal the decay would still need to be exposed via drilling in order to effect disinfection. As much as people hate the drills, they also provide tactile feedback as to the location of decay. Hard tissue lasers are extremely expensive relative to the drills and provide no such feedback. Visual inspection is often insufficient to determine the quality of the dentin which is why we are always poking with those sharp little explorers. Another issue is being able to determine whether or not the bacteria have all been killed. Leaving infected dentin behind means the decay will simple continue from that point. Removing all of the softened, infected dentin is necessary to prevent recurrence of decay. Incidentally, traditional dental amalgam fillings (mercury, silver and tin) are inherently somewhat antibacterial. The metal tends to inhibit bacterial growth providing a small measure of protection to recurrence. However preventative measures like good daily diet and hygiene (e.g. cutting out the sugar and brushing/flossing) is still the best means of preserving your teeth.
Other methods of disinfection have been tried and failed, hence "drill and fill" remains the most reliable method of restoration.
Manufacturing is easier, provided you first have a stable supply of the element. In the future, rare earth elements will dominate the high tech economy. China is the world's largest producer.
Basically, instead of the middle east having us by the short hairs, in the future it's going to be the Chinese.
So what you're saying is that despite the existence of quality studies to the contrary, anecdote should continue to drive the debate? So, what will it take to prove that climate change research has been deliberately buggered? I bet if someone found a cache of emails detailing deliberate fraud it would change people's minds! Oops! Never mind!
Clearly you're trolling, but lest anyone take you seriously please recall that implementing these measures would require the worst sort of totalitarian state.
One thing for sure, a "gun free zone" is also an "easy target zone".