I don't know whether a Republican president or Congress would be any better, but I think they can hardly be worse
I recall observations by several reporters in recent years that the White House is in their living memory in terms of secrecy and abuse of the press, the worst that it has ever been. But what is particularly alarming, is that they would have said the same of the G W Bush and Clinton periods as well, sometimes even before that (a lot of journalists aren't fans of the Reagan and Bush elder administrations either).
My view is that voting for different candidates won't necessarily reverse the terrible trends of recent decades (which are themselves continuation of trends over even longer periods of US history). It is not enough in itself. This move to tyranny is bipartisan. But it can help, especially, if those who advocate freedom, no matter the level of government, are elected.
Huawei is both thought to be connected to the People's Liberation Army (the armed forces of China) (as mentioned in your first link), and an avenue for Chinese espionage. That alone would justify espionage versus the company. After all, if you're helping someone spy on other people, then that makes you fair game.
Obviously, NSA motives are far from pure and it appears that they also were trying to compromise Huawei technology in order to spy on a variety of customers of Huawei.
Now are US oil companies assisting in spying on Chinese interests? I don't know. But I doubt China is merely engaging in tit for tat, but rather hoovering up anything of value that they can steal.
So what? The President and the Senate were also part of that grinding government to a halt. And note that nobody is threatening to do that now because it's not that effective a use of power.
You should have written something else other than:
That's what the science shows
And now you write:
This article is the appropriate place to include the opinions of the researchers.
When one looks at your links, they see that your claims aren't supported. I already noted this such as quoting what the research actually said versus your exaggerated claims of what the research said.
I'm really tired of people who just assert things, take scientific research way out of context, and then claim it's science. Then when they called out, they claim that they're just expressing opinions. This is far from the first time this game has been played.
Sure, I'll agree with that last bit. You're expressing an opinion. But when that opinion isn't founded in reason or science, then so what? There's no point to paying any attention to it.
I care when unscientific sci-fantasies about "the species" and colonizing the Solar System are pushed as if they're just around the corner after a sub-orbital joyride.
Sure, you do. But why do you think it matters if opinions about the viability of space technologies are "scientific" or not? Seems to me that engineering or economics would be highly relevant here, but science would not since the principles of rockets and space dynamics are well understood.
but shifts in the energy economy are going to benefit new players and old players
willing to adapt
And harm everyone who depends on energy, which is everyone else. I think one of the silliest aspects of the climate change game is the complete ignorance of the suffering of humanity, just to push a dubious environmental agenda. How will the energy economy adapt seamlessly aside from a few "old players" not willing to adapt?
I note, for example, that Germany and Denmark both have tried to go heavily renewable energy, resulting in much higher electricity costs for their residents. Spain has just dropped its solar power scheme after a bit of failure. Carbon cap and trade schemes in Europe haven't worked all that hot either.
And China is eating everyone's lunch while producing a huge share of the greenhouse gas emissions. Europe might succeed at developing the renewable technology that obsoletes fossil fuels this century, but China will be the ones to make it.
My take on this is that various renewable energy schemes probably will improve with time, but they aren't near future replacements for fossil fuel infrastructure, particularly, for the near future needs of the developing world. As a result, the IPCC's latest demands simply won't be met.
Adaptation will be the real plan. And here, I think the IPCC is being dishonest by grossly exaggerating the cost of adapting to what they view as climate change.
A sawmill is "useful", SpaceShipTwo is not "useful".
SpaceShipTwo is useful to Virgin Galactic's future plans. Scaled Composites wasn't making the vehicle for you - unless you intend to fly on it at some point.
Having the guy that stands to make billions, talking about the heroic deaths of two of his employees that were doing their jobs (which is more or less trying to make him richer) is just disgusting.
So what? When has showing gratitude become "disgusting"? Never. What is wrong here that can't be solved by you finding better, genuine things to be "disgusted" by?
But there is nothing heroic in being a pilot transporting rich tourists.
The person who died wasn't a pilot transporting rich tourists.
They used to be great entertainment in 2000 with their shameless plugs for really bad companies (especially with the trainwreck of the dotcom burst on the horizon) and clueless commentary. Good to see that they haven't moved far from their roots.
Whether one Canadian territory losing an area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined in one year can be described as 'dramatic' is a personal judgement
You do realize that Canadian territories are big? And doubling the average acreage of wildfires by 2100 is a pretty insignificant trend.
And look at the two links I provided. The area that you see being covered by ash (which incidentally doesn't mean that the rest of Greenland didn't receive volcanic ash) also has a more pronounced melting than the parts that weren't so well covered.
I like how a "detectable warming effect" as described by the actual research morphs into "dramatic climate change" and a few unsubstantiated superlatives. I guess the science really does show something supporting the grand parent post.
Where is your evidence that volcanic activity plays a major role ? And which active volcano is actually capable of spewing rocks and lava anywhere near Greenland ?
The Icelandic volcanoes are in a good position to cause this sort of thing. For example, a series of eruptions in mid 2010 covered a significant portion of Greenland in ash. Coincidentally (or not), "record melting" of Greenland's ice sheet was observed at the end of 2010 with the greatest "melt day anomalies" (as described in the link) observed in southern Greenland which was also the most affected by the volcanic ash released by the eruptions.
The current melting in Greenland follows a even larger eruption (up to perhaps double the size of the 2010 eruptions) this year (which is still ongoing more than two months later). There isn't as much ash generated from what I read, but you don't really need a lot of ash to change albedo of snow.
Well, I agree as long as it's the most bone-headed way possible to enforce that regulation. But if they should find a smart way to do that? Hell no. Peoples' lives aren't that important!
You can always find idiots who don't think about and don't care about consequences and they occasionally end up in power. But they don't stay in power.
Large fuel chunks coming loose and obstructing the rocket nozzle is a well known failure mode. Maybe inexperience with the new fuel mixture led to structural flaws in the fuel grain.
Space exploration will allow humanity the chance to meat new worlds and civilizations in order to enslave them, and enlighten then with our own backwards form of morality.
Please point to the civilizations that will be enslaved by these dastardly humans.
. If you disagree with me you are not human, and I have every right to make your my bitch.
Oh no. An Internet Tough Guy making it real.
Here's my take. We know of no such civilizations to dominate or be dominated by. And we don't even know of an extraterrestrial ecosystem to despoil. All this emo is pretty pointless right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least you are making sounder claims than originally. That is progress.
I don't know whether a Republican president or Congress would be any better, but I think they can hardly be worse
I recall observations by several reporters in recent years that the White House is in their living memory in terms of secrecy and abuse of the press, the worst that it has ever been. But what is particularly alarming, is that they would have said the same of the G W Bush and Clinton periods as well, sometimes even before that (a lot of journalists aren't fans of the Reagan and Bush elder administrations either).
My view is that voting for different candidates won't necessarily reverse the terrible trends of recent decades (which are themselves continuation of trends over even longer periods of US history). It is not enough in itself. This move to tyranny is bipartisan. But it can help, especially, if those who advocate freedom, no matter the level of government, are elected.
Huawei is both thought to be connected to the People's Liberation Army (the armed forces of China) (as mentioned in your first link), and an avenue for Chinese espionage. That alone would justify espionage versus the company. After all, if you're helping someone spy on other people, then that makes you fair game.
Obviously, NSA motives are far from pure and it appears that they also were trying to compromise Huawei technology in order to spy on a variety of customers of Huawei.
Now are US oil companies assisting in spying on Chinese interests? I don't know. But I doubt China is merely engaging in tit for tat, but rather hoovering up anything of value that they can steal.
They've ground government to a halt.
So what? The President and the Senate were also part of that grinding government to a halt. And note that nobody is threatening to do that now because it's not that effective a use of power.
That's what the science shows
And now you write:
This article is the appropriate place to include the opinions of the researchers.
When one looks at your links, they see that your claims aren't supported. I already noted this such as quoting what the research actually said versus your exaggerated claims of what the research said.
I'm really tired of people who just assert things, take scientific research way out of context, and then claim it's science. Then when they called out, they claim that they're just expressing opinions. This is far from the first time this game has been played.
Sure, I'll agree with that last bit. You're expressing an opinion. But when that opinion isn't founded in reason or science, then so what? There's no point to paying any attention to it.
I would want evidence instead. Opinions are remarkably overvalued in climatology.
I care when unscientific sci-fantasies about "the species" and colonizing the Solar System are pushed as if they're just around the corner after a sub-orbital joyride.
Sure, you do. But why do you think it matters if opinions about the viability of space technologies are "scientific" or not? Seems to me that engineering or economics would be highly relevant here, but science would not since the principles of rockets and space dynamics are well understood.
but shifts in the energy economy are going to benefit new players and old players willing to adapt
And harm everyone who depends on energy, which is everyone else. I think one of the silliest aspects of the climate change game is the complete ignorance of the suffering of humanity, just to push a dubious environmental agenda. How will the energy economy adapt seamlessly aside from a few "old players" not willing to adapt?
I note, for example, that Germany and Denmark both have tried to go heavily renewable energy, resulting in much higher electricity costs for their residents. Spain has just dropped its solar power scheme after a bit of failure. Carbon cap and trade schemes in Europe haven't worked all that hot either.
And China is eating everyone's lunch while producing a huge share of the greenhouse gas emissions. Europe might succeed at developing the renewable technology that obsoletes fossil fuels this century, but China will be the ones to make it.
My take on this is that various renewable energy schemes probably will improve with time, but they aren't near future replacements for fossil fuel infrastructure, particularly, for the near future needs of the developing world. As a result, the IPCC's latest demands simply won't be met.
Adaptation will be the real plan. And here, I think the IPCC is being dishonest by grossly exaggerating the cost of adapting to what they view as climate change.
Stop.Please.
All you need to do is take the best rocket we have, make it 1% better,
Or make it in bulk. Every rocket design would have better economics, if it were manufactured in bulk.
A sawmill is "useful", SpaceShipTwo is not "useful".
SpaceShipTwo is useful to Virgin Galactic's future plans. Scaled Composites wasn't making the vehicle for you - unless you intend to fly on it at some point.
but is there a more irresponsible endeavor than space tourism when discussing Climate Change?
Breathing.
Anything is arguable. Anything.
If you're not going to make the argument, then there doesn't seem to be any point to your observation.
Having the guy that stands to make billions, talking about the heroic deaths of two of his employees that were doing their jobs (which is more or less trying to make him richer) is just disgusting.
So what? When has showing gratitude become "disgusting"? Never. What is wrong here that can't be solved by you finding better, genuine things to be "disgusted" by?
But there is nothing heroic in being a pilot transporting rich tourists.
The person who died wasn't a pilot transporting rich tourists.
"Maybe"? Sounds like we're not talking science any more, but rather personal opinion.
They used to be great entertainment in 2000 with their shameless plugs for really bad companies (especially with the trainwreck of the dotcom burst on the horizon) and clueless commentary. Good to see that they haven't moved far from their roots.
The obvious, devastating rebuttal is that I could have had that money instead. Why don't the rich people think of me?
Whether one Canadian territory losing an area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined in one year can be described as 'dramatic' is a personal judgement
You do realize that Canadian territories are big? And doubling the average acreage of wildfires by 2100 is a pretty insignificant trend.
And look at the two links I provided. The area that you see being covered by ash (which incidentally doesn't mean that the rest of Greenland didn't receive volcanic ash) also has a more pronounced melting than the parts that weren't so well covered.
I like how a "detectable warming effect" as described by the actual research morphs into "dramatic climate change" and a few unsubstantiated superlatives. I guess the science really does show something supporting the grand parent post.
Where is your evidence that volcanic activity plays a major role ? And which active volcano is actually capable of spewing rocks and lava anywhere near Greenland ?
The Icelandic volcanoes are in a good position to cause this sort of thing. For example, a series of eruptions in mid 2010 covered a significant portion of Greenland in ash. Coincidentally (or not), "record melting" of Greenland's ice sheet was observed at the end of 2010 with the greatest "melt day anomalies" (as described in the link) observed in southern Greenland which was also the most affected by the volcanic ash released by the eruptions.
The current melting in Greenland follows a even larger eruption (up to perhaps double the size of the 2010 eruptions) this year (which is still ongoing more than two months later). There isn't as much ash generated from what I read, but you don't really need a lot of ash to change albedo of snow.
Well, I agree as long as it's the most bone-headed way possible to enforce that regulation. But if they should find a smart way to do that? Hell no. Peoples' lives aren't that important!
You can always find idiots who don't think about and don't care about consequences and they occasionally end up in power. But they don't stay in power.
Large fuel chunks coming loose and obstructing the rocket nozzle is a well known failure mode. Maybe inexperience with the new fuel mixture led to structural flaws in the fuel grain.
Space exploration will allow humanity the chance to meat new worlds and civilizations in order to enslave them, and enlighten then with our own backwards form of morality.
Please point to the civilizations that will be enslaved by these dastardly humans.
. If you disagree with me you are not human, and I have every right to make your my bitch.
Oh no. An Internet Tough Guy making it real.
Here's my take. We know of no such civilizations to dominate or be dominated by. And we don't even know of an extraterrestrial ecosystem to despoil. All this emo is pretty pointless right now.