Doesn't every large group of people have a lunatic fringe? Should I be turned off Christianity because of Westboro Baptist Church? Should I be turned off Islam because of a handful of terrorists? Why not just ignore the crazies when evaluating the big picture?
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not mean we stop driving cars. It means the cars will be powered by something other than fossil fuels. We need cars that run on electricity, fuel cells, or biofuels. We need power plants that run on nuclear, solar, or wind. That's a change that cannot be done on an individual basis. If the US and Europe ban fossil fuels, we can tax imports from China, Russia, and Africa until they do the same. If you consider the cost of dealing with the warming that results from fossil fuels, alternative energy sources just may be cheaper in the long run. In any case, the fossil fuels will run out someday, and by then we better have alternatives in place. Why not start switching to alternatives now, while we have the time to make the switch?
Cars kill thousands of people each year. It's time we get rid of this menace from society!
In case anyone misses the point, if we mention only the negative aspects of just about anything, we can make a poor argument for getting rid of it. Of course, this argument will convince only someone who already believes that because it's what that person wants to hear.
The companies that produce things raise money by selling shares of their company (stocks) or borrowing money (bonds) on Wall Street. So, no, Wall Street doesn't produce anything on its own, but it provides a service that enables others to. It certainly doesn't resemble a casino. In fact, I was outraged when I heard my son's class was using coin flips to determine the winners and losers in the class's "stock market". Investing is not gambling!
You're referring to a single research paper. If you pick any particular research paper, it has a decent chance of being wrong. Any scientist will tell you that one research paper is only the beginning. Actual science requires reproducibility.
He means we'll all be okay in the end because we'll evolve. As a species, that's almost certainly true. But I wouldn't want to have been around during the time of the major extinctions, even though we all did get through it as a group. The individuals who were there went through hell. George Carlin said it best: "The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"
I see people driving dangerously all the time and I realize the driver is thinking "Hey, I've done this hundreds of times before and it's never been a problem." And they're right. Until the one time they're not right. Then it's too late. I don't think getting away with something many times is an excuse to keep doing it. People die that way every day.
But the thing to remember that modifying your thought process is right up there with some of the hardest things in life.
Like most things, it's nearly impossible until you figure out what works. When you figure out what works, it's easy. Try hypnotic suggestions. Hypnotherapy changed my life around by literally reprogramming my subconscious mind. I would recommend visits to a licensed professional, but the determined individual can certainly learn self-hypnosis, and with the right suggestions, can change the thought process. When you are doing it right, you should see significant effects within a week or two.
Sure students can verify the heliocentric model of the solar system. It's just hard to do so. As you point out, it would take quite a bit of work.
Why don't you enlighten us all what mechanisms climate change is based on if you think you know. Could you give us a reference? What I've said matches everything I've read about climate change, which you can find all over the place with a simple Google search.
The bottom line is that you seem to agree with me, except that you say I'm wrong about something but can't say what is wrong or what the correct information is. It's not very convincing to me at all.
We have spacecraft in orbit around the sun, flying to Mars and out of the solar system.
How do you know we have spacecraft in orbit around the sun? Aren't you just believing what you've been told? You just don't get it, do you? Show me evidence by which we know that the earth goes around the sun. It's not easy at all! I'm sure that "there are" millions of measurements that prove a heliocentric solar system, but the fact that you cannot list even one specific measurement shows just how hard it is to produce the actual evidence when asked.
You can do something on a tabletop that seems vaguely similar to the greenhouse effect, but is actually quite different.
People may have believed that the earth went around the sun thousands of years ago. But it was just hundreds of years ago that we knew it to be so. You're confusing belief with science. I challenge you to demonstrate exactly how we know the earth goes around the sun. If you know the masses of the sun and earth and know the law of gravity, it is trivial. How do you determine the mass of the earth, the mass of the sun, and the law of gravity? It isn't easy.
Understanding how greenhouse gases warm the earth is trivial in comparison. I can demonstrate the greenhouse effect on a tabletop, then show you the charts of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global average temperature. The evidence is ridiculously easy to understand! You don't have to understand all of climatology to understand it, in exactly the same way you don't have to understand human physiology to understand how a blanket keeps you warm.
Try this experiment once: Try to convince someone that the sun goes around the earth that the earth actually goes around the sun. The chain of inference we had to use to deduce that is complex. That's why we didn't know until just hundreds of years ago. You can teach these things as science, even though you can't provide all the evidence from scratch.
Teaching climate change is easy. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. When fossil fuels are burnt, they produce carbon dioxide. This will warm the planet. You can then show charts of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global mean temperature. It's actually pretty easy to understand the chain of evidence.
I have yet to see any evidence that refute AGW. Care to share it? I'm truly interested. Why has not one single published scientific paper mentioned any of this evidence. Let me guess... it's all a huge conspiracy, this "dogma" as you call it?
The problem with warming is that sea level rise will displace millions of people, and droughts can cause starvation. It's not that we have the perfect climate, but the changes that are predicted to happen as a result of warming due to greenhouse gasses have an overall negative impact. You can read the many studies for yourself. If you want a quick review you can start here or here.
We've also never seen tectonic plates move thousands of miles, but we have evidence that they have done so. We've never seen the inside of the sun, but we have evidence that hydrogen fuses into helium. We've never even seen a nucleus of an atom either! Science doesn't work by directly observing the phenomena it explains. Science works by making hypotheses about things and making testable predictions about things that we can observe. If we fail to observe what the hypothesis predicts, that's evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect.
I don't see any people here saying "God doesn't exist." In particular, science says nothing about God, because no evidence can ever prove God doesn't exist. There isn't any "God doesn't exist" talk going on here except yours. It seems its only people who are big on religion who think science and religion are mutally exclusive.
But don't they have computers they can run software on? Their children can be exposed to computer programming today, with no need to order another computer.
No need to be rude -- I'm only asking what's the draw for Raspberry Pi. So it's the video? That's the point -- it's a cheap system with decent video capabilities? Help me out here. The APC is coming out next month and it has higher specs, but only 720p video and it's $49.
So what kind of project do you need a cheap system and 1080p video for? I'm really only asking because I'm curious. What sort of project is it?
For hobbiest devices we have Arduino on the low end and PandaBoard on the high end. Where does Raspberry Pi fit into the hobbiest space? I suppose I can understand why someone would choose Raspberry Pi over PandaBoard -- the price is over $100 less! Why would I want to build my latest project with a Raspberry Pi instead of Arduino?
I guess it's easier for fanbois to mod me down rather than finally explain what the point of it is. Is the point for fanbois to love it and hate people who don't also love it? Ugh! Count me out!
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't every large group of people have a lunatic fringe? Should I be turned off Christianity because of Westboro Baptist Church? Should I be turned off Islam because of a handful of terrorists? Why not just ignore the crazies when evaluating the big picture?
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not mean we stop driving cars. It means the cars will be powered by something other than fossil fuels. We need cars that run on electricity, fuel cells, or biofuels. We need power plants that run on nuclear, solar, or wind. That's a change that cannot be done on an individual basis. If the US and Europe ban fossil fuels, we can tax imports from China, Russia, and Africa until they do the same. If you consider the cost of dealing with the warming that results from fossil fuels, alternative energy sources just may be cheaper in the long run. In any case, the fossil fuels will run out someday, and by then we better have alternatives in place. Why not start switching to alternatives now, while we have the time to make the switch?
Cars kill thousands of people each year. It's time we get rid of this menace from society!
In case anyone misses the point, if we mention only the negative aspects of just about anything, we can make a poor argument for getting rid of it. Of course, this argument will convince only someone who already believes that because it's what that person wants to hear.
Day trading is not investing either.
The companies that produce things raise money by selling shares of their company (stocks) or borrowing money (bonds) on Wall Street. So, no, Wall Street doesn't produce anything on its own, but it provides a service that enables others to. It certainly doesn't resemble a casino. In fact, I was outraged when I heard my son's class was using coin flips to determine the winners and losers in the class's "stock market". Investing is not gambling!
Yes. No, yes. No ferrets. Died. Yes!
You're referring to a single research paper. If you pick any particular research paper, it has a decent chance of being wrong. Any scientist will tell you that one research paper is only the beginning. Actual science requires reproducibility.
It certainly is peer reviewed. You can see Peter Norvig's analysis of the research. You're just making shit up.
He means we'll all be okay in the end because we'll evolve. As a species, that's almost certainly true. But I wouldn't want to have been around during the time of the major extinctions, even though we all did get through it as a group. The individuals who were there went through hell. George Carlin said it best: "The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"
I see people driving dangerously all the time and I realize the driver is thinking "Hey, I've done this hundreds of times before and it's never been a problem." And they're right. Until the one time they're not right. Then it's too late. I don't think getting away with something many times is an excuse to keep doing it. People die that way every day.
Like most things, it's nearly impossible until you figure out what works. When you figure out what works, it's easy. Try hypnotic suggestions. Hypnotherapy changed my life around by literally reprogramming my subconscious mind. I would recommend visits to a licensed professional, but the determined individual can certainly learn self-hypnosis, and with the right suggestions, can change the thought process. When you are doing it right, you should see significant effects within a week or two.
Sure students can verify the heliocentric model of the solar system. It's just hard to do so. As you point out, it would take quite a bit of work.
Why don't you enlighten us all what mechanisms climate change is based on if you think you know. Could you give us a reference? What I've said matches everything I've read about climate change, which you can find all over the place with a simple Google search.
The bottom line is that you seem to agree with me, except that you say I'm wrong about something but can't say what is wrong or what the correct information is. It's not very convincing to me at all.
How do you know we have spacecraft in orbit around the sun? Aren't you just believing what you've been told? You just don't get it, do you? Show me evidence by which we know that the earth goes around the sun. It's not easy at all! I'm sure that "there are" millions of measurements that prove a heliocentric solar system, but the fact that you cannot list even one specific measurement shows just how hard it is to produce the actual evidence when asked.
The greenhouse effect was first demonstrated on a tabletop.
People may have believed that the earth went around the sun thousands of years ago. But it was just hundreds of years ago that we knew it to be so. You're confusing belief with science. I challenge you to demonstrate exactly how we know the earth goes around the sun. If you know the masses of the sun and earth and know the law of gravity, it is trivial. How do you determine the mass of the earth, the mass of the sun, and the law of gravity? It isn't easy.
Understanding how greenhouse gases warm the earth is trivial in comparison. I can demonstrate the greenhouse effect on a tabletop, then show you the charts of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global average temperature. The evidence is ridiculously easy to understand! You don't have to understand all of climatology to understand it, in exactly the same way you don't have to understand human physiology to understand how a blanket keeps you warm.
Try this experiment once: Try to convince someone that the sun goes around the earth that the earth actually goes around the sun. The chain of inference we had to use to deduce that is complex. That's why we didn't know until just hundreds of years ago. You can teach these things as science, even though you can't provide all the evidence from scratch.
Teaching climate change is easy. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. When fossil fuels are burnt, they produce carbon dioxide. This will warm the planet. You can then show charts of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global mean temperature. It's actually pretty easy to understand the chain of evidence.
I have yet to see any evidence that refute AGW. Care to share it? I'm truly interested. Why has not one single published scientific paper mentioned any of this evidence. Let me guess... it's all a huge conspiracy, this "dogma" as you call it?
The problem with warming is that sea level rise will displace millions of people, and droughts can cause starvation. It's not that we have the perfect climate, but the changes that are predicted to happen as a result of warming due to greenhouse gasses have an overall negative impact. You can read the many studies for yourself. If you want a quick review you can start here or here.
Sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to disbelieve. Why not look at the evidence and see for yourself what the facts are?
We've also never seen tectonic plates move thousands of miles, but we have evidence that they have done so. We've never seen the inside of the sun, but we have evidence that hydrogen fuses into helium. We've never even seen a nucleus of an atom either! Science doesn't work by directly observing the phenomena it explains. Science works by making hypotheses about things and making testable predictions about things that we can observe. If we fail to observe what the hypothesis predicts, that's evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect.
I don't see any people here saying "God doesn't exist." In particular, science says nothing about God, because no evidence can ever prove God doesn't exist. There isn't any "God doesn't exist" talk going on here except yours. It seems its only people who are big on religion who think science and religion are mutally exclusive.
But don't they have computers they can run software on? Their children can be exposed to computer programming today, with no need to order another computer.
No need to be rude -- I'm only asking what's the draw for Raspberry Pi. So it's the video? That's the point -- it's a cheap system with decent video capabilities? Help me out here. The APC is coming out next month and it has higher specs, but only 720p video and it's $49.
So what kind of project do you need a cheap system and 1080p video for? I'm really only asking because I'm curious. What sort of project is it?
For hobbiest devices we have Arduino on the low end and PandaBoard on the high end. Where does Raspberry Pi fit into the hobbiest space? I suppose I can understand why someone would choose Raspberry Pi over PandaBoard -- the price is over $100 less! Why would I want to build my latest project with a Raspberry Pi instead of Arduino?
I guess it's easier for fanbois to mod me down rather than finally explain what the point of it is. Is the point for fanbois to love it and hate people who don't also love it? Ugh! Count me out!
s/OLAP/OLPC/g