It is very telling when the grave ills of the world can be improved by you merely growing up and changing how you view the world.
We don't try to impeach YOUR shitty President for massive crimes when you've worked tirelessly to impeach ours over blowjobs.
You mean that the bad,evil Rethuglicans will actually persecute presidents for committing crimes (here, perjury which is a felony), while you will overlook "massive crimes"? So you are less moral than even the Rethuglicans? That's pretty pathetic.
And don't ride my ass about Obama, he's a fucking failure. I only voted for him because we all know Mitt Romney would have been worse.
"We" know no such thing. But we do know from what you wrote above that you vote for fucking failures.
When I look at the pathological, fake morality, the epic bad decisions, and the naked bigotry, I just have to wonder, why are you wasting our time with this crap? Can't you see the intellectually toxic sewer you dwell in?
I'm curious what part of the world would think that founding a revolutionary group, based on communist principles and which bombed a variety of government and military targets in order to protest a war, would not be leftist? Just because Bill Ayers happens to live in the US doesn't mean that it is somehow impossible for him to be a leftist.
I think it more likely that the self-appointed gatekeepers for the definition of "left" are merely completely clueless.
No, what we currently have is an extremely weak government, with power diffused to anyone who can afford it.
Wait, what led you to that conclusion? It's not much of a stretch to say that a government which sells itself to the highest bidder is weaker than a government which just controls everything, but that's not the same as a weak government. After all, collectively, it retains all political power.
Do we say that a telephone monopoly is weak just because they sell their services?
I have seen talented and creative people - more talented than anyone you see in the media - get drowned out just because he doesn't know the right people.
That is a very important talent as well. You seem to have a deeply flawed understanding of how innovation happens. It's not "Come up with a better idea and wonderful things magically happen."
Knowing the "right" people (or just enough "wrong" people with the resources you need), is a part of how things work. How is a "right" person supposed to know a great idea? A network of connections provides both a filter against bad ideas and a degree of trust.
That's not very relevant. 30% of $100 is $30. 30% of $1 million is $300,000. For who is it worth more to reduce their taxes? The person looking at a $300k tax bill.
And suppose you could, for $5000, reduce your tax bill from 30% to 29%? For the first taxpayer, that's $5000 spent to save $1. For the second, it's $5000 spent to save $10,000.
I like having those things and can't pay for them all by myself...
And you know what? Government doesn't pay for them either. That means everyone does. Shouldn't you care about how to provide for the golden gooses paying for all that wonderful stuff you want, but aren't willing to pay for yourself?
(and therefore demand billions of humans change the way they live their lives to avoid a predicted future disaster derived in part from those ice cores)
If there was no such huge stake, would you bother to disagree so strongly with the ice core records? Cosmologists make a number of claims about the size of the universe (which aren't backed by direct measurements of the distances in question and thus, have similar empirical problems), but these claims don't affect tens of billions a year in public funding or the future of the human race.
They have absolutely NO empirical proof of the reliability of those cores and their accuracy....
Why is it impossible to make scientifically useful estimates of the diffusion of such gases in ice over such periods of time? Why is it impossible to compare it to ice core samples retrieved from historical times or to compare the ice core estimates to other estimates of atmospheric concentrations? Sure, it is impossible to measure such things directly, but not to estimate them.
Can you not even remember what you said in the past?
No, I don't have perfect memory. Thank you for the reminder. I can now adequately address your concerns.
Let's briefly go over the actual evidence. The problem is considered to be "climate change" which is better described, scientifically, by the term, anthropogenic global warming (which I usually refer to as AGW).
What actual evidence is there for AGW? The CO2 concentration data is pretty good for the recent past and ice cores give decent estimates through to the past 800k years or so. Thirty years of really good global climate data from satellite, a century and a half of moderately good proxy data from weather stations through to the mid-19th century, and progressively weaker temperature proxy data as we look further into the past.
We also have weak guesses for, what is supposed to be the most rigorous part of the theory of AGW, the radiative forcing for CO2 in our world. Uncertainty of a factor of two are commonplace. From page 42 of that link:
Finally, in the ensemble studies, by far most of the climate model versions
have climate sensitivity near 3C, and only a small number of models have sensitivities below 2C or above 4C. I have argued here for the âoeconsensusâ range
of past IPCC reports of 3C +/- 1.5C, as the goal of this paper is to revisit the
basics. But taking all ensemble studies and other constraints together, my personal assessment (and that of a growing number of other researchers) is that the
uncertainty range can now be described more realistically as 3C +/- 1C.
This is a 2008 paper.
Thus, the various models for AGW are based on weak data for all but the most recent human history. And they are based on very poorly understood climate dynamics.
Finally, it's worth noting that the sums of public money spend on AGW mitigation, such as development of renewable energy technologies and subsidies, carbon dioxide emission markets, development of alternative transportation (for example, biofuels and electric cars), and now, AGW reparations, currently are many tens of billions a year which possibly could go up to hundreds of billions a year. The same advocates for those huge expenditures also control funding for climatology research. There is a huge conflict of interest.
That is my evidence.
I'll just note that it is my opinion that we're seeing a massive scientific fraud occurring as a result of this conflict of interest.
Now, let's move on to the matter of Tuvalu. A poster, Impy the Impiuos Imp had noted that AGW mitigation involves a radical destruction of human innovation and a great increase in human poverty. You posted "Except that moving inward from the sea, for many people, will mean that their country will no longer exist."
I took this (rightly, I still think) to mean that you thought that the territorial integrity of Tuvalu was more important than the suffering of the entire human race. Why should I care when so much is at stake?
It probably was a bit callous to note that Tuvalu can always move elsewhere and to imply (rightly, I still think) that there is little value to the existence of Tuvalu as a country. And these countries have problems because of their flaws not because of AGW. It is not that hard to move elsewhere. If your country falls apart because you are incapable of such a feat, then it's not my problem nor should it be.
At this point, it might have again been a bit callous to suggest "How could [come] everyone wants my stuff rather than just taking modest steps to improve their own lives?" It's not that hard to move when your home becomes a bit untenable. And by what right should you claim my wealth, just because you can't adapt?
I heard rumors that in order to engage in illegal betting online (in the USA), you needed to have some secret squirrel bank accounts.
Nah, you just need to have money in a foreign bank. Not everyone is as pathological about gambling as the US is. The UK and Ireland have a pretty common sense approach to it, for example. The credit card companies won't have anything to do with it (internet gamblers are notorious for canceling charges for losses apparently).
The problems caused by global warming are already starting to manifest themselves now and will only get worse as time goes on.
Sure, I've heard that claim too. I haven't actually seen evidence supporting it though.
Risk management practices say the less you understand about how bad a problem will be the more value there is in trying to avoid it. If you understand the risks well then it's easier to specifically address them.
No, risk management practices would say that the less you understand about how bad a problem is, then the more value there is in trying to understand it. There may be net value in avoiding the problem, there may not. But acting from ignorance, when you don't have to, isn't a risk management practice.
The spread of disease, desertification, and poverty all are exacerbated by global warming.
And several of those are also exacerbated by proposed mitigation efforts for global warming.
It's idealistic to think we can do away with corruption. It's something built in to the human psyche and all we can do is try to keep it to as low a level as possible.
Nor do I propose to go the idealist route. I just pointed it out as a more significant problem than global warming.
Further, as I see it, corruption is a significant driver for proposed mitigation measures. The whole field is a very lucrative revenue stream for the corrupt.
However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.
And your basis for that claim is?
The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.
Why not? Inequal treatment by law enforcement is a classic gateway to tyranny, institutional discrimination, and corruption.
I think experience has shown the human race that directly addressing a problem is usually cheaper than ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
Usually != always. And AGW as a problem has features that make it far from usual. The problem is a considerable distance in the future while the proposed addressing is a cost imposed now. That runs afoul of the concept of "time value" where value now is considerably more than value in the far future.
Second, we don't understand well enough the extent to which it will be a problem. It's worth remembering that we have a bit over three decades of good satellite data and the rest is proxy data of declining quality the further we look in the past. Merely, gathering data for three more decades would double the quantity of good data we have.
Finally, AGW can't be treated in isolation. There are other problems. What's the rationale for putting resources into addressing AGW instead of addressing these other problems such as preventable disease, desertification, poverty, corruption, etc?
I note here that you don't actually disagree with me. I'm sure you do disagree (one doesn't go through that sort of trouble to agree), but you don't communication by making irrelevant ad hominem attacks and lazy generalizations. I'm sure a Jesuit could sort you out on that.
because you imagine that they need to justify the need for climate action to you
You talk about fairies - I talk about evidence. Who's looking at the science here? Yes, I think they need to justify the need for "climate action" to me.
the guy who previously said that Tuvaluans should be trying to "better themselves"
I googled around but couldn't find this statement in any of my slashdot posts. Where's a link so we can look at the context for this alleged statement? Also, what is wrong with advocating that people better themselves? Should they worsen themselves instead?
They've taught us, through millions of 30 second tv-spots and with a little help from collaborators, that their world - the "free" market economy is somehow normal and natural, a basic truth and not an ideology of greed and lying and cold blooded disdain for human weakness while every other ideology, of compassion and sharing, for example, is old-fashioned and silly.
I get the impress you think the lesson is misleading (and that you think you've characterized it well). The problem is that most ideologies of "compassion and sharing" aren't in practice about such things (but rather about the greed, lying, disdain stuff). And trade is a basic feature of human society, an activity of mutual benefit to all involved.
I find most people who have such sentiments (especially with your call to action at the end) are profoundly ignorant of economics. No offense, but you ought to learn something about that before you post any more on this subject. What is the point of advocating "compassion and sharing" without having an inkling of whether actions yield that or not?
Ok, I get the feeling you have something to say here. So where's the supporting evidence for your assertion? Note that point 1 is irrelevant since buried ice doesn't have a nearby gas that it can sublimate to. And point 2 merely means that one needs to understand the diffusion of gases in compressed ice.
There is no ice anywhere on Earth that can be proven to hold pristine samples of past atmospheres...
So what? You can't prove anything empirically.
This is a case of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
Climate Change denial arises from the same mechanism.
We could also speak of the original sin "mechanism" inherent in "climate change" (otherwise know as "anthropogenic global warming"). We should consider the near religious faith that we are bad and need to sacrifice to become better. I bet that is comforting too, but it is much of the current problem as the alleged denial you speak of. It seems imprudent to me to speak only of the dogma of one side of a complex discussion while ignoring the dogma of the other side.
What bothers me is that AGW mitigation advocates have yet to justify their position. Sure, for the most part we believe that there is some cost to AGW. But for the most part we also believe there is some cost to mitigating the effects of AGW. To say that AGW is bad and we will need to do something about that, is in error unless one has a good idea that the benefits of such an approach outweigh its costs. Such cost/benefit analysis should be the core of our arguments about this subject.
The problem with the "You don't want this to bite you in the ass, do you?" argument is that every time, say, the Democratic Party tries to abide by some legislative tradition during majority, they get steamrolled by the GOP when they're in the minority over the same traditions. This even occurs when the Democrats try to abide by traditions in the minority, finding the GOP, say, drastically increasing the frequency of filibusters when the Democrats are in the majority. The assumption that the other side won't do as long as you play nice now is inherently flawed.
Your entire argument is ridiculous. We should allow Republicans to have access to such loopholes and exploits because they're aggressive, "give an inch, take a mile" type of people. What could possibly go wrong?
Second, Obama has put the IRS in charge of overseeing your participation in Obamacare...
Congress did that. Obama just signed the resulting law. The thing is that Obama is fundamentally responsible for these activities. He needs to at least remove those responsible. If I were in charge, I'd go further and pursue criminal charges, but that's not something the Obama administration has ever been inclined to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's be clear about what happened here. There was no "harassment".
And counter to your assertion, we have the word of IRS agents who say there was such "harassment".
And Obama had the good fortune of his disaster being in the far more competent New York City area rather than Louisiana.
We don't try to impeach YOUR shitty President for massive crimes when you've worked tirelessly to impeach ours over blowjobs.
You mean that the bad,evil Rethuglicans will actually persecute presidents for committing crimes (here, perjury which is a felony), while you will overlook "massive crimes"? So you are less moral than even the Rethuglicans? That's pretty pathetic.
And don't ride my ass about Obama, he's a fucking failure. I only voted for him because we all know Mitt Romney would have been worse.
"We" know no such thing. But we do know from what you wrote above that you vote for fucking failures.
When I look at the pathological, fake morality, the epic bad decisions, and the naked bigotry, I just have to wonder, why are you wasting our time with this crap? Can't you see the intellectually toxic sewer you dwell in?
I'm curious what part of the world would think that founding a revolutionary group, based on communist principles and which bombed a variety of government and military targets in order to protest a war, would not be leftist? Just because Bill Ayers happens to live in the US doesn't mean that it is somehow impossible for him to be a leftist.
I think it more likely that the self-appointed gatekeepers for the definition of "left" are merely completely clueless.
No, what we currently have is an extremely weak government, with power diffused to anyone who can afford it.
Wait, what led you to that conclusion? It's not much of a stretch to say that a government which sells itself to the highest bidder is weaker than a government which just controls everything, but that's not the same as a weak government. After all, collectively, it retains all political power.
Do we say that a telephone monopoly is weak just because they sell their services?
I have seen talented and creative people - more talented than anyone you see in the media - get drowned out just because he doesn't know the right people.
That is a very important talent as well. You seem to have a deeply flawed understanding of how innovation happens. It's not "Come up with a better idea and wonderful things magically happen."
Knowing the "right" people (or just enough "wrong" people with the resources you need), is a part of how things work. How is a "right" person supposed to know a great idea? A network of connections provides both a filter against bad ideas and a degree of trust.
30% of any amount of money is still 30%.
That's not very relevant. 30% of $100 is $30. 30% of $1 million is $300,000. For who is it worth more to reduce their taxes? The person looking at a $300k tax bill.
And suppose you could, for $5000, reduce your tax bill from 30% to 29%? For the first taxpayer, that's $5000 spent to save $1. For the second, it's $5000 spent to save $10,000.
I like having those things and can't pay for them all by myself...
And you know what? Government doesn't pay for them either. That means everyone does. Shouldn't you care about how to provide for the golden gooses paying for all that wonderful stuff you want, but aren't willing to pay for yourself?
The "tax is theft" people certainly would disagree. They would see that as $500 per person not stolen. Depends on your view, doesn't it?
(and therefore demand billions of humans change the way they live their lives to avoid a predicted future disaster derived in part from those ice cores)
If there was no such huge stake, would you bother to disagree so strongly with the ice core records? Cosmologists make a number of claims about the size of the universe (which aren't backed by direct measurements of the distances in question and thus, have similar empirical problems), but these claims don't affect tens of billions a year in public funding or the future of the human race.
They have absolutely NO empirical proof of the reliability of those cores and their accuracy....
Why is it impossible to make scientifically useful estimates of the diffusion of such gases in ice over such periods of time? Why is it impossible to compare it to ice core samples retrieved from historical times or to compare the ice core estimates to other estimates of atmospheric concentrations? Sure, it is impossible to measure such things directly, but not to estimate them.
Can you not even remember what you said in the past?
No, I don't have perfect memory. Thank you for the reminder. I can now adequately address your concerns.
Let's briefly go over the actual evidence. The problem is considered to be "climate change" which is better described, scientifically, by the term, anthropogenic global warming (which I usually refer to as AGW).
What actual evidence is there for AGW? The CO2 concentration data is pretty good for the recent past and ice cores give decent estimates through to the past 800k years or so. Thirty years of really good global climate data from satellite, a century and a half of moderately good proxy data from weather stations through to the mid-19th century, and progressively weaker temperature proxy data as we look further into the past.
We also have weak guesses for, what is supposed to be the most rigorous part of the theory of AGW, the radiative forcing for CO2 in our world. Uncertainty of a factor of two are commonplace. From page 42 of that link:
Finally, in the ensemble studies, by far most of the climate model versions have climate sensitivity near 3C, and only a small number of models have sensitivities below 2C or above 4C. I have argued here for the âoeconsensusâ range of past IPCC reports of 3C +/- 1.5C, as the goal of this paper is to revisit the basics. But taking all ensemble studies and other constraints together, my personal assessment (and that of a growing number of other researchers) is that the uncertainty range can now be described more realistically as 3C +/- 1C.
This is a 2008 paper.
Thus, the various models for AGW are based on weak data for all but the most recent human history. And they are based on very poorly understood climate dynamics.
Finally, it's worth noting that the sums of public money spend on AGW mitigation, such as development of renewable energy technologies and subsidies, carbon dioxide emission markets, development of alternative transportation (for example, biofuels and electric cars), and now, AGW reparations, currently are many tens of billions a year which possibly could go up to hundreds of billions a year. The same advocates for those huge expenditures also control funding for climatology research. There is a huge conflict of interest.
That is my evidence.
I'll just note that it is my opinion that we're seeing a massive scientific fraud occurring as a result of this conflict of interest.
Now, let's move on to the matter of Tuvalu. A poster, Impy the Impiuos Imp had noted that AGW mitigation involves a radical destruction of human innovation and a great increase in human poverty. You posted "Except that moving inward from the sea, for many people, will mean that their country will no longer exist."
I took this (rightly, I still think) to mean that you thought that the territorial integrity of Tuvalu was more important than the suffering of the entire human race. Why should I care when so much is at stake?
It probably was a bit callous to note that Tuvalu can always move elsewhere and to imply (rightly, I still think) that there is little value to the existence of Tuvalu as a country. And these countries have problems because of their flaws not because of AGW. It is not that hard to move elsewhere. If your country falls apart because you are incapable of such a feat, then it's not my problem nor should it be.
At this point, it might have again been a bit callous to suggest "How could [come] everyone wants my stuff rather than just taking modest steps to improve their own lives?" It's not that hard to move when your home becomes a bit untenable. And by what right should you claim my wealth, just because you can't adapt?
For some reason, we're supposed
I heard rumors that in order to engage in illegal betting online (in the USA), you needed to have some secret squirrel bank accounts.
Nah, you just need to have money in a foreign bank. Not everyone is as pathological about gambling as the US is. The UK and Ireland have a pretty common sense approach to it, for example. The credit card companies won't have anything to do with it (internet gamblers are notorious for canceling charges for losses apparently).
Why not? Hearsay isn't admissible as an admission to knowledge of a crime.
The problems caused by global warming are already starting to manifest themselves now and will only get worse as time goes on.
Sure, I've heard that claim too. I haven't actually seen evidence supporting it though.
Risk management practices say the less you understand about how bad a problem will be the more value there is in trying to avoid it. If you understand the risks well then it's easier to specifically address them.
No, risk management practices would say that the less you understand about how bad a problem is, then the more value there is in trying to understand it. There may be net value in avoiding the problem, there may not. But acting from ignorance, when you don't have to, isn't a risk management practice.
The spread of disease, desertification, and poverty all are exacerbated by global warming.
And several of those are also exacerbated by proposed mitigation efforts for global warming.
It's idealistic to think we can do away with corruption. It's something built in to the human psyche and all we can do is try to keep it to as low a level as possible.
Nor do I propose to go the idealist route. I just pointed it out as a more significant problem than global warming.
Further, as I see it, corruption is a significant driver for proposed mitigation measures. The whole field is a very lucrative revenue stream for the corrupt.
However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.
And your basis for that claim is?
The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.
Why not? Inequal treatment by law enforcement is a classic gateway to tyranny, institutional discrimination, and corruption.
I think experience has shown the human race that directly addressing a problem is usually cheaper than ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
Usually != always. And AGW as a problem has features that make it far from usual. The problem is a considerable distance in the future while the proposed addressing is a cost imposed now. That runs afoul of the concept of "time value" where value now is considerably more than value in the far future.
Second, we don't understand well enough the extent to which it will be a problem. It's worth remembering that we have a bit over three decades of good satellite data and the rest is proxy data of declining quality the further we look in the past. Merely, gathering data for three more decades would double the quantity of good data we have.
Finally, AGW can't be treated in isolation. There are other problems. What's the rationale for putting resources into addressing AGW instead of addressing these other problems such as preventable disease, desertification, poverty, corruption, etc?
I note here that you don't actually disagree with me. I'm sure you do disagree (one doesn't go through that sort of trouble to agree), but you don't communication by making irrelevant ad hominem attacks and lazy generalizations. I'm sure a Jesuit could sort you out on that.
wishing on fairies [...] phlostigen imbalance
[...]
because you imagine that they need to justify the need for climate action to you
You talk about fairies - I talk about evidence. Who's looking at the science here? Yes, I think they need to justify the need for "climate action" to me.
the guy who previously said that Tuvaluans should be trying to "better themselves"
I googled around but couldn't find this statement in any of my slashdot posts. Where's a link so we can look at the context for this alleged statement? Also, what is wrong with advocating that people better themselves? Should they worsen themselves instead?
They've taught us, through millions of 30 second tv-spots and with a little help from collaborators, that their world - the "free" market economy is somehow normal and natural, a basic truth and not an ideology of greed and lying and cold blooded disdain for human weakness while every other ideology, of compassion and sharing, for example, is old-fashioned and silly.
I get the impress you think the lesson is misleading (and that you think you've characterized it well). The problem is that most ideologies of "compassion and sharing" aren't in practice about such things (but rather about the greed, lying, disdain stuff). And trade is a basic feature of human society, an activity of mutual benefit to all involved.
I find most people who have such sentiments (especially with your call to action at the end) are profoundly ignorant of economics. No offense, but you ought to learn something about that before you post any more on this subject. What is the point of advocating "compassion and sharing" without having an inkling of whether actions yield that or not?
There is no ice anywhere on Earth that can be proven to hold pristine samples of past atmospheres...
So what? You can't prove anything empirically.
This is a case of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
Climate Change denial arises from the same mechanism.
We could also speak of the original sin "mechanism" inherent in "climate change" (otherwise know as "anthropogenic global warming"). We should consider the near religious faith that we are bad and need to sacrifice to become better. I bet that is comforting too, but it is much of the current problem as the alleged denial you speak of. It seems imprudent to me to speak only of the dogma of one side of a complex discussion while ignoring the dogma of the other side.
What bothers me is that AGW mitigation advocates have yet to justify their position. Sure, for the most part we believe that there is some cost to AGW. But for the most part we also believe there is some cost to mitigating the effects of AGW. To say that AGW is bad and we will need to do something about that, is in error unless one has a good idea that the benefits of such an approach outweigh its costs. Such cost/benefit analysis should be the core of our arguments about this subject.
The problem with the "You don't want this to bite you in the ass, do you?" argument is that every time, say, the Democratic Party tries to abide by some legislative tradition during majority, they get steamrolled by the GOP when they're in the minority over the same traditions. This even occurs when the Democrats try to abide by traditions in the minority, finding the GOP, say, drastically increasing the frequency of filibusters when the Democrats are in the majority. The assumption that the other side won't do as long as you play nice now is inherently flawed.
Your entire argument is ridiculous. We should allow Republicans to have access to such loopholes and exploits because they're aggressive, "give an inch, take a mile" type of people. What could possibly go wrong?
Second, Obama has put the IRS in charge of overseeing your participation in Obamacare...
Congress did that. Obama just signed the resulting law. The thing is that Obama is fundamentally responsible for these activities. He needs to at least remove those responsible. If I were in charge, I'd go further and pursue criminal charges, but that's not something the Obama administration has ever been inclined to do.
So how is it damaging exactly? The IRS will get to keep on doing whatever it likes.
Well, for starters by keeping the IRS from doing whatever it likes.
If it were a lessor organization the leader would be fired, never mind the supposed "underlings".
We'll probably see someone resign over it. But fired? That's extremely rare.
And I think Obama would have to be pretty stupid to put that on tape after what happened to Nixon.