I believe it is you who need to "go learn" - specifically, reading comprehension.
In my original post, did I ONCE deny that global warming exists? Did I deny any facts about global warming? I believe a close reading of what I ACTUALLY said will show that I did not.
I was questioning the motives of the people who insist that behavior change is the ONLY way to stop climate change, discounting possible technological solutions. Note that that category does NOT include scientists, because generally they stick to descriptive statements, not prescriptive ones. A scientific report will say "Global warming is happening, and CO2 put in the air by Man is the cause" or "If the rate of CO2 pumped into teh atmosphere drops to Level X by Time Y, we believe Z will happen." It is politicians and activists who take those scientific results and translate them into "And therefor buy hybrids, carbon credits, etc, etc."
I view ANYONE telling me what I should be doing with suspicion. Why should I believe that the government and corporations are lying to me out of greed an lust for power, but Al Gore is telling the truth out of the purity of his motives? They are ALL people, and there aren't a whole lot of living saints out there.
You immediately jumped to conclusions on my views based, not on WHAT I said, but on the fact that I cast aspersions on the motives of people you admire. Maybe you can take a course in humility while brushing up on reading comprehension.
I used that example in a project meeting when explaining why throwing bodies onto a construction site could only get you so far. I'm not sure if the women were offended or amused.
Boy, you really showed me. I provided a theory as to people's motivations ASIDE from the scientific reasons, and you totally obliterated my argument by pointing out that environmentalist are simply right, and that their motivations are correct.
I've never been subject to such a rhetorical lashing. I've soiled myself in shame, and will NEVER, EVER question people's motivations again. You have proven to me unequivocally that everything a person says should be taken at face value as true and right, and I'm mortified that I ever thought otherwise.
FTA: "decided to test the idea that liberal and conservative (or "protective") social beliefs are related to individuals' sensitivity to threat."
So really what they tested was whether people who have more protective attitudes toward others react more to fear stimulus. Well, isn't that obvious? Correlation OR causation, it seems a pretty direct link that if you are afraid of something, you'd want to protect against it, and if you are afraid of more things, you'd want to protect against more things, and if the intensity of your fear is higher, the level of protection would increase.
So how on Earth did they translate that into "conservative" political views?
1. The climate change "community" may not be monolithic, but you certainly don't serve as an example to its diversity - see response to #2.
2. If you wanted to "address climate change itself", you would be looking for ways to directly change the climate - great big mirros out in space, whatever. You are instead proposing to address climate change by a secondary method - reducing the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. You propose that the means of doing that is to "reduc[e] resource usage" because that "is the single most effective and eminently most available way to reduce the causes of climate change" EXCEPT, in the YEARS that environmentalists have been screaming for people to change their habits, IT HASN'T HAPPENED. If it was so easy and direct, it would be done already. It turns out that controlling the behavior of 6 billion people, or 275 million if you only count the US (And after all, it is all our fault) is pretty damned hard, as evidenced by the fact that it hasn't succeeded despite massive effort by those who want that opinion changed.
Now, a reasonable person would look at that situation and say "Hmmm, this isn't working. Let's try something else to get the CO2 out of the air". The fact that the mainstream Global Climate Change "movement" rejects these options out of hand indicates that there may be a different agenda at work. That's why I used words like "seems" - the motives of many in that movement seem suspect because their stated goals don't jibe with their actions.
As for my use of the word "crowd", you yourself state that "There are many people in this world with an opinion about global warming". From Merriam Webster: "a group of people having something (as a habit, interest, or occupation) in common". Just because you associate the word "crowd" with "rabble-rousing mob" doesn't mean that's my meaning; in fact I'd say it offers a window into what you really think about the cause you associate with.
Sooo, what you are saying is that we could save 4-6% by doing both.
And the 5-10 years excuse is lame - if we had done it 5-10 years ago, when it was proposed before (and the same lame excuses made), we would be reaping the benefits now. So if we don't do it now, are we going to be saying the same thing in the future?
"So when Mr. Obama said that keeping your tires inflated would be as effective as offshore US drilling, he was pretty much right.
AFAIK, the "data" he is relying on assumes EVERYBODY in the US is driving on underinflated tires, and that is not the case. If I am wrong, please provide a reference so I can educate myself.
"What is the problem with putting the putting the emissions back in the ground?"
Because that would be a technological solution to the problem. One of reasons that there is still a lot of resistance to the Global Climate Change crowd is that there seems to be a "hair shirt" mentality about it - they aren't yelling because the Earth is going to melt down. Rather, they really want us using fewer resources because we are BAD for doing so. It is a behavior change they are looking for, not really a change in the percentage of CO2 put into the atmosphere. So a technological solution that allows the world to continue using energy like a drunken sailor uses his paycheck is unacceptable.
30 MW is tiny. A baseload powerplant in the US runs about 1000MW. So, if this process can scale up 30x, AND we can figure out what to do with 30x the CO2, then I'll get excited.
Nuke plants had many of the same issues - a 1000MW powerplant is NOT simply a Navy aircraft carrier scaled up, although it looks that way in the Visitor's center.
The paradigm for data center cooling has been based so far on the mainframe model - great big equipment that needs meticulous care. But with the advent of commodity equipment, it's easier to just throw the damned thing away. Dust and humidity control are pretty trivial - 35% filters are fine, and as long as the interior is non-condensing, humidity can be whatever.
"I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that while I believe in intellectual property rights, most people around me don't. Of course the vast majority of those people have never tried to make a living by producing something for the mass market."
How condescending. "Nobody knows what it's like...". Bullshit.
I build buildings. Not with my 2 hands, but I hire people and companies, monitor their work, and pay them. After I'm done, the building is still there. Right there in broad daylight, where anyone can look at it, go into it, work in it, etc. Guess how much I get paid for that ongoing use? $0. Nothing. I get paid for the work that I do; i don't KEEP getting paid as long as somebody uses my work.
"Intellectual property rights" is an historical fluke; only over the last 200 odd years has the concept even existed that one could OWN a song, or a story. People got paid for the original work, or for additional performances (also work). They got paid once, end of transaction. Maybe it's a pity that people who have been relying on continuing royalties are about to get screwed when things revert to the way they were, but buggy whip makers got screwed too.
Intellectual property may be ensconced in the law, but it is rapidly becoming like speed limits - no one pays attention unless they think they will get busted.
"Waivers are only legal if they meet certain conditions. They must be clear, they can only waive neglegence (IE: not intentional harm), they must be unambiguous and clear, they must be between two parties with equal bargaining power, and they can not be applied to essential services."
You forgot another category - statutorily protected activities. There are some rights you CANNOT waive, because there is state law stating that it is unwaiveable. And it can really be random. For instance, in the construction industry it is customary to require that subcontractors waive the ability to place a lien on the property. Under the common law, this is perfectly acceptable; however, some states have decided that such waivers are against the public interest, so they CAN'T waive that avenue of redress, and any contract clause that specifies it is null and void. And you can't pull a "Notwithstanding NY State Law Section XXX.YYY" either.
"This is exactly why I use asbsetos food wrap and drink only out of cups made from coal."
Actually, INGESTION of asbestos and coal would be no problem. It's only inhalation that is an issue, and even then the risk is magnified enormously when one is already a smoker.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it is you who need to "go learn" - specifically, reading comprehension.
In my original post, did I ONCE deny that global warming exists? Did I deny any facts about global warming? I believe a close reading of what I ACTUALLY said will show that I did not.
I was questioning the motives of the people who insist that behavior change is the ONLY way to stop climate change, discounting possible technological solutions. Note that that category does NOT include scientists, because generally they stick to descriptive statements, not prescriptive ones. A scientific report will say "Global warming is happening, and CO2 put in the air by Man is the cause" or "If the rate of CO2 pumped into teh atmosphere drops to Level X by Time Y, we believe Z will happen." It is politicians and activists who take those scientific results and translate them into "And therefor buy hybrids, carbon credits, etc, etc."
I view ANYONE telling me what I should be doing with suspicion. Why should I believe that the government and corporations are lying to me out of greed an lust for power, but Al Gore is telling the truth out of the purity of his motives? They are ALL people, and there aren't a whole lot of living saints out there.
You immediately jumped to conclusions on my views based, not on WHAT I said, but on the fact that I cast aspersions on the motives of people you admire. Maybe you can take a course in humility while brushing up on reading comprehension.
I used that example in a project meeting when explaining why throwing bodies onto a construction site could only get you so far. I'm not sure if the women were offended or amused.
Boy, you really showed me. I provided a theory as to people's motivations ASIDE from the scientific reasons, and you totally obliterated my argument by pointing out that environmentalist are simply right, and that their motivations are correct.
I've never been subject to such a rhetorical lashing. I've soiled myself in shame, and will NEVER, EVER question people's motivations again. You have proven to me unequivocally that everything a person says should be taken at face value as true and right, and I'm mortified that I ever thought otherwise.
Yeah - it's the same law that says it's cheaper to put 40 people on a bus than send them in 40 cars. It's the law of economics, and Europe has it too.
FTA: "decided to test the idea that liberal and conservative (or "protective") social beliefs are related to individuals' sensitivity to threat."
So really what they tested was whether people who have more protective attitudes toward others react more to fear stimulus. Well, isn't that obvious? Correlation OR causation, it seems a pretty direct link that if you are afraid of something, you'd want to protect against it, and if you are afraid of more things, you'd want to protect against more things, and if the intensity of your fear is higher, the level of protection would increase.
So how on Earth did they translate that into "conservative" political views?
Response:
1. The climate change "community" may not be monolithic, but you certainly don't serve as an example to its diversity - see response to #2.
2. If you wanted to "address climate change itself", you would be looking for ways to directly change the climate - great big mirros out in space, whatever. You are instead proposing to address climate change by a secondary method - reducing the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. You propose that the means of doing that is to "reduc[e] resource usage" because that "is the single most effective and eminently most available way to reduce the causes of climate change" EXCEPT, in the YEARS that environmentalists have been screaming for people to change their habits, IT HASN'T HAPPENED. If it was so easy and direct, it would be done already. It turns out that controlling the behavior of 6 billion people, or 275 million if you only count the US (And after all, it is all our fault) is pretty damned hard, as evidenced by the fact that it hasn't succeeded despite massive effort by those who want that opinion changed.
Now, a reasonable person would look at that situation and say "Hmmm, this isn't working. Let's try something else to get the CO2 out of the air". The fact that the mainstream Global Climate Change "movement" rejects these options out of hand indicates that there may be a different agenda at work. That's why I used words like "seems" - the motives of many in that movement seem suspect because their stated goals don't jibe with their actions.
As for my use of the word "crowd", you yourself state that "There are many people in this world with an opinion about global warming". From Merriam Webster: "a group of people having something (as a habit, interest, or occupation) in common". Just because you associate the word "crowd" with "rabble-rousing mob" doesn't mean that's my meaning; in fact I'd say it offers a window into what you really think about the cause you associate with.
Sooo, what you are saying is that we could save 4-6% by doing both.
And the 5-10 years excuse is lame - if we had done it 5-10 years ago, when it was proposed before (and the same lame excuses made), we would be reaping the benefits now. So if we don't do it now, are we going to be saying the same thing in the future?
Damnit - I typed "rotates" and then changed it.
"So when Mr. Obama said that keeping your tires inflated would be as effective as offshore US drilling, he was pretty much right.
AFAIK, the "data" he is relying on assumes EVERYBODY in the US is driving on underinflated tires, and that is not the case. If I am wrong, please provide a reference so I can educate myself.
"What will exactly happen when the liquid CO2 will eventually warm up undergorund and then some future seismic event will open a crack ?
I hope this storage is somwhere in Sahara desert, not in the heart of densly populated Europe."
Future Headline:
"Earth Farts; Thousands die in Europe"
Followed by the world continuing to revolve about its axis.
"What is the problem with putting the putting the emissions back in the ground?"
Because that would be a technological solution to the problem. One of reasons that there is still a lot of resistance to the Global Climate Change crowd is that there seems to be a "hair shirt" mentality about it - they aren't yelling because the Earth is going to melt down. Rather, they really want us using fewer resources because we are BAD for doing so. It is a behavior change they are looking for, not really a change in the percentage of CO2 put into the atmosphere. So a technological solution that allows the world to continue using energy like a drunken sailor uses his paycheck is unacceptable.
30 MW is tiny. A baseload powerplant in the US runs about 1000MW. So, if this process can scale up 30x, AND we can figure out what to do with 30x the CO2, then I'll get excited.
Nuke plants had many of the same issues - a 1000MW powerplant is NOT simply a Navy aircraft carrier scaled up, although it looks that way in the Visitor's center.
Wait a minute, you say you EAT your God? On a regular basis?
That's insane! Why, I'm a Catholic and...I...err...nevermind.
On Long John Silver's, too true - worst case of food poisoning I ever had. To this day I get nauseous if I drive by one.
Now Arby's - I'm pretty sure it's not really roast beef, but whatever it is, it's Gooood!
Most excellent link.
So:
"No, because 'tis fun. Be off away, killjoy. Oh, and "Arrr""
Hmmm, loses something in translation.
"jesus, hasn't this lame fad died yet???
No, because it's fun. Go away, killjoy.
Oh, and "Arrr".
The paradigm for data center cooling has been based so far on the mainframe model - great big equipment that needs meticulous care. But with the advent of commodity equipment, it's easier to just throw the damned thing away. Dust and humidity control are pretty trivial - 35% filters are fine, and as long as the interior is non-condensing, humidity can be whatever.
"I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that while I believe in intellectual property rights, most people around me don't. Of course the vast majority of those people have never tried to make a living by producing something for the mass market."
How condescending. "Nobody knows what it's like...". Bullshit.
I build buildings. Not with my 2 hands, but I hire people and companies, monitor their work, and pay them. After I'm done, the building is still there. Right there in broad daylight, where anyone can look at it, go into it, work in it, etc. Guess how much I get paid for that ongoing use? $0. Nothing. I get paid for the work that I do; i don't KEEP getting paid as long as somebody uses my work.
"Intellectual property rights" is an historical fluke; only over the last 200 odd years has the concept even existed that one could OWN a song, or a story. People got paid for the original work, or for additional performances (also work). They got paid once, end of transaction. Maybe it's a pity that people who have been relying on continuing royalties are about to get screwed when things revert to the way they were, but buggy whip makers got screwed too.
Intellectual property may be ensconced in the law, but it is rapidly becoming like speed limits - no one pays attention unless they think they will get busted.
Hmmm. So, do you think I should be concerned about my wife spending all her waking hours playing Civ?
"Waivers are only legal if they meet certain conditions. They must be clear, they can only waive neglegence (IE: not intentional harm), they must be unambiguous and clear, they must be between two parties with equal bargaining power, and they can not be applied to essential services."
You forgot another category - statutorily protected activities. There are some rights you CANNOT waive, because there is state law stating that it is unwaiveable. And it can really be random. For instance, in the construction industry it is customary to require that subcontractors waive the ability to place a lien on the property. Under the common law, this is perfectly acceptable; however, some states have decided that such waivers are against the public interest, so they CAN'T waive that avenue of redress, and any contract clause that specifies it is null and void. And you can't pull a "Notwithstanding NY State Law Section XXX.YYY" either.
"Criminals will always be using a stolen plate on the car they stole from elsewhere anyway."
That argument hasn't worked against gun control advocates; don't expect it to work now.
"Using glass jars sure caused a lot of food poisoning!"
Actually, yes it did (and does). Improperly sealing glass containers used to cause many deaths from botulism, and is still a risk in home canning.
"This is exactly why I use asbsetos food wrap and drink only out of cups made from coal."
Actually, INGESTION of asbestos and coal would be no problem. It's only inhalation that is an issue, and even then the risk is magnified enormously when one is already a smoker.
I wonder if they will compare the instances of disease to those from food poisoning from earlier methods of food storage?
Anybody else read that as "3M Pocket Protector"? Because with those specs, that would be AWESOME!