But a lot of that "red tape" is put into place by pretty clueless people especially at the regulator and legislature level or by people with ulterior motives.
So what did the company do to inherit liability? Did they magically know this guy was going to do this? Of course not. Did they create an environment of unaccountability in which such acts could occur? Maybe. If there's a history of employees doing this sort of thing (especially managers!), then there's a case. But if the company tried to a reasonable degree to prevent such acts, then what's the case for liability?
Well, if it's a heat exchange system, you can get higher efficiencies than 100%, because the energy is expended in transferring a greater amount of heat from a heat source (usually the outdoors) to the water.
Right, we've been over this, and it seems you like the other guy don't understand the way evolution works, but also seem to believe you have an ability no one else on earth has yet managed - the ability to determine the outcome of extremely complex chaotic systems.
Frogs depending on survival by actively generated mist? Doesn't sound complex to me. They'll die out again when the mist goes away. Show the model is wrong before continuing to use up my time.
And the whole blather about "complex systems" is pure reductionism. It's a "complex system" so your argument must be right.
Things treachorous to humans like diseases, viruses and so forth can sit dormant for a long time. Anthrax is one obvious well known example. You assume they need a human host, that's false, how do you think Malaria most commonly spreads? Diseases resistance does quickly return you're right, the problem is you're talking about a population too small to cope with that, and that's kind of the point.
They need a host. Any atmospheric oxygen imbalance that kills off humans globally without mechanical assistance, is going to wipe out the non-human hosts. All it takes is a little thinking.
And once humans come into contact with diseases again, they'll build up immunity again just as they did over the past few thousand years.
I don't think there's much point taking this any further as you clearly don't have a decent grasp of the way both evolution, disease spread and resistance work.
You are one to talk. I tire of the ignorant lecturing me on subjects I'm familiar with.
Unless you reinforce the "roof" (typically the first floor of the home) over the cellar, or take other steps to ensure that things can't fall in on you (and this includes debris from a catastrophic collapse of the house itself), a basement won't necessarily protect you from an F4 or F5 "monster" tornado.
The only perfect protection is to not be there in the first place.
And what sort of cover do these bad guys have while they're ineffectively dinging the front of this guy's house? A fortified home can be easily cracked by enough people with good tactics and decent equipment. Hanging out at the front of the killing zone and doing stupid stuff isn't going to do it.
And that leads us to another point. Why crack a fortified home, when an unfortified one is available? A lot of the rationale behind this sort of thing is that it makes your home look a lot less vulnerable than the home next door. Unless the bad guys have a reason to break into this particular home, they'll be greatly encouraged to just go elsewhere.
And put a lot of people out of a job, don't forget that.
Every time you make a system too efficient, you reduce the number of workers but with economies it's important to have as many people working as possible.
The obvious solution is persistent, self-sustainable jobs. For example, if we turn those ex-employees into glue, then they'll be employed for a long time, say, holding layers of plywood together, a task for which they're admirably suited. They'll also stop needing basic needs and social services, and be far less of a drain on the rest of society.
The only drawback is that tax revenue might decline for a time. But given that we can spend without actual revenue, I don't see this as a significant issue.
As a non-humorous aside, why pay people to do nothing when we could be paying them to do something? It's not important to have as many people working as possible, when working means sucking cash from chumps who actually produce value.
Development implies cutting down trees. The impact of this on, well, everything is unimaginable.
I have no trouble doing this imagination thing and I suspect from the amounts of sarcasm oozing out of my screen, you are similarly equipped. I share this distrust of the certainty that certain AGW advocates, such as the IPCC, have with respect to AGW and its effects.
Sure, there is. You're demonstrating it right now.
What is the rush? Why have peak oil now when we can have it in twenty or forty years and be wealthier and more capable when we do have it?
Yes. The thing is I'm on the side of people who are adapting. You want to put off change for 50 years.
Absolutely. And I bet we can do it.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence.
Bury your head in the sand if you want. Your denial is irrelevant.
You should heed your own advice. Come back with real, hard evidence. Then we'll have something to talk about.
If one looks at actual history rather than peak oil hysteria, one sees a remarkable ability to adapt. I see no reason to make expensive and poverty inducing changes now when we can make those changes later, when we actually need to make them.
Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
It's not some vague worry, its already happening.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence. AGW theories of extreme weather remain one of the two most unscientific parts of the AGW belief complex (the other being the catastrophic version of AGW).
Well, two points come to mind. First, that extinction of very specialized species in small niches just isn't that big of a deal. And it's going to happen anyway. Second, it really does matter how difficult it is for an extinction to occur. Here, we have a species that will go extinct in the wild again, if their misting system breaks down. Consider that against humanity which could only go extinct under some extreme circumstances, such as a massive asteroid (probably have to be considerably worse than whatever caused the Permian extinction), a cunning genetically modified disease, or an aggressive and superior life form or machine.
"And one can always come up with biological, mechanical, or electrical means to make up the balance of oxygen need."
In the space of a few weeks when half the world is in panic?
Yes. There's a difference between being in a panic half a world away and being in a panic in the middle of your ark of survival. Just don't build the future of humanity in the middle of a riot zone. It's surprising what you can accomplish when you don't do that. Or you can hang out in nuclear subs for those few weeks until everyone has died and then get to work.
You might be able to save pockets of disease prone humans but statistically you may end up with someone who has something like AIDs, or some STD that can lead to infertility - have fun when that breaks out.
And how are these diseases going to survive? They need hosts, and the hosts just died. Plus disease resistance quickly returns once lethal diseases do.
we can't even deal with CO2 emissions when the world isn't in panic and we have many countries and many billions being spent on it and within a timeframe of decades.
And almost no reason to bother either. I see you forget that there are bigger problems for humanity than slight global warming. Consider why that dam, which has caused so much trouble for these frogs, was built in the first place.
When those weather patterns change and two years in a row of hurricanes do something which has always been unusual, it's enough to take notice.
Except that those weather patterns, while infrequent, aren't unusual. The claims about extreme weather have always been some of the shakiest stuff coming out of the AGW advocacy.
So what? Development patterns explain the weather-loss events just by themselves. The title you quote should have been a clue what was actually going on. What's magical about North America that it should experience weather-loss events disproportionate to the rest of the world? The answer is US federal flood insurance.
It's got to be a pretty simple calculation with at best maybe 100 data points.
I disagree. Note the phrase "gridded normal" partway through the list of data products. That means a spatial grid probably of the US, with a large number of points (hundreds to thousands would be my guess), for which statistical calculations are made for each point of the grid (meaning one has enough data for each point of that grid to produce such calculations). There's also a lot of state data in those data products (which is 50 regions for which calculations need to be made). It's still trivial for a modern computer to calculate, but there's a lot more data there than 100 data points.
What do you mean by "worked" and for whom? You imply that trickle down works for "old money", for example. As another replier noted, one has greater control over where consumption is spent than over where investment is made. So trickle down may have worked, just not for the class of people you wanted to help in the region you wanted to help them in.
and that there's no documented case of trickle-down working (as this report supported)
I'll just note that there's plenty of cases that both support and deny this. It depends in part who your sponsors and their interests are.
I don't think you get how evolution works. It doesn't work rapidly, it works over an extended period of time.
These toads were fitted to the environment they were in, and no species can change to destruction of their environment overnight.
But for some organisms, destruction of their environment would require the radical changing say of most of Europe and global human civilization and others it would require a modest alteration of a waterfall.
4) You say you see no evidence of niche species expanding, and yet that is by definition what must always happen.
Not by definition.
If man fucked up some kind of experiment and it drastically altered the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere for example over the period of mere weeks, we ourselves would not manage to survive
I disagree. We have a remarkable ability to adapt even over very short time periods. For example, nuclear subs would remain habitable for years. That would be enough time to reestablish a human presence on the surface of Earth. And one can always come up with biological, mechanical, or electrical means to make up the balance of oxygen need.
If people don't have money to purchase your goods and services that investment is worthless.
While sometimes people invest in things that don't have customers, that usually isn't the case.
Economic activity is demand driven
The fundamental unit of economic activity is the trade between the one who wants something and the one providing it. Demand is only half of that transaction. Thus, economic activity is driven by both supply and demand. Things don't just happen because someone has money. Someone needs to supply the want. Investment builds the infrastructure that provides the supply and does so for far longer than demand-driven approaches can provide hte demand.
And why speak just of short term economic activity? Another aspect of the investment versus consumption issue, is that investment tends to be longer term.
The economy is not driven by the purchase of luxury goods.
That would just be more demand and hence, more driving of the economy. At least for the luxury goods that are still produced in the US.
OTOH, we do need to consider that the paper did have real problems. For example, there are almost no dynamics considered. Very few of the variables are lagged. That was one of the Republican complaints.
And it misses some important economic issues such as the declining value of labor versus capital (one would expect owners of capital to do relatively well in a global market with extremely cheap labor available and for that capital to move to foreign locations) and the burden of regulation (which has considerable effect on hiring people and creating new businesses, both which would favor those who own established, working capital). In other words, there are two big, contrary effects which might mask any economic benefit from cutting taxes for the highest income bracket.
As to the article being pulled, it was allegedly done at the behest of Senate Republicans who are a minority in the Senate. Why didn't Democrats block that? In fact, who actually asked for and sequestered the report? Doesn't seem to be a Republican thing to ask for stuff that might run counter to their agenda, but maybe the people who requested it thought they could bury anything inconvenient.
Usually the reasonning is that since they will have more money, they will consume more and that will help the economy. If you give a tax break to low income people for the same amount of tax dollars, they will use that money as well. They are not going to set it on fire, they will use it in a grocery store.
I understand the usual reasoning along those lines is that the rich will invest the money and the poor will consume it. The implicit assumption for those who support high income tax cuts is that investment is better than consumption.
Setting aside rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice, etc, severe weather events are much more common now.
You have no evidence. Your purported weather-lose claims evidence merely shows that people are building in more vulnerable areas now. We already knew that.
Are you really going to continue to claim that building an expensive hotel or condo (and hence, increasing the number of weather-loss related events) on the beach causes extreme weather?
No, a hurricane trashing the Florida coast would have been exactly the sort of storm that appears in the alternate universe where there is no correlation between global warming and storm severity. A Hurricane hitting the Northeast was atypical in the former climate, and that's why it's getting so much press. We are not accustomed to seeing hurricanes and flooding shut down the most heavily industrialized region of our nation.
The only problem with what you wrote? It's wrong. Hurricanes have hit that region before. There's nothing unusual about this storm in terms of its location. Infrequent doesn't imply atypical.
I'm sorry but if you're not aware that climate is weather occurring over a long period of time
It's not. Weather and climate are separated by time scale. One can say that climate is weather in the long term and conversely that weather is climate in the short term. But that just illustrates the division. It's not claiming that the two are the same subject.
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the ï½average weatherï½, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
They give lip service to the WMO definition, but they don't agree with it.
Slashdot Mirror
But a lot of that "red tape" is put into place by pretty clueless people especially at the regulator and legislature level or by people with ulterior motives.
So what did the company do to inherit liability? Did they magically know this guy was going to do this? Of course not. Did they create an environment of unaccountability in which such acts could occur? Maybe. If there's a history of employees doing this sort of thing (especially managers!), then there's a case. But if the company tried to a reasonable degree to prevent such acts, then what's the case for liability?
The danegeld doesn't get rid of the Dane? Who knew?
Well, if it's a heat exchange system, you can get higher efficiencies than 100%, because the energy is expended in transferring a greater amount of heat from a heat source (usually the outdoors) to the water.
Right, we've been over this, and it seems you like the other guy don't understand the way evolution works, but also seem to believe you have an ability no one else on earth has yet managed - the ability to determine the outcome of extremely complex chaotic systems.
Frogs depending on survival by actively generated mist? Doesn't sound complex to me. They'll die out again when the mist goes away. Show the model is wrong before continuing to use up my time.
And the whole blather about "complex systems" is pure reductionism. It's a "complex system" so your argument must be right.
Things treachorous to humans like diseases, viruses and so forth can sit dormant for a long time. Anthrax is one obvious well known example. You assume they need a human host, that's false, how do you think Malaria most commonly spreads? Diseases resistance does quickly return you're right, the problem is you're talking about a population too small to cope with that, and that's kind of the point.
They need a host. Any atmospheric oxygen imbalance that kills off humans globally without mechanical assistance, is going to wipe out the non-human hosts. All it takes is a little thinking.
And once humans come into contact with diseases again, they'll build up immunity again just as they did over the past few thousand years.
I don't think there's much point taking this any further as you clearly don't have a decent grasp of the way both evolution, disease spread and resistance work.
You are one to talk. I tire of the ignorant lecturing me on subjects I'm familiar with.
Unless you reinforce the "roof" (typically the first floor of the home) over the cellar, or take other steps to ensure that things can't fall in on you (and this includes debris from a catastrophic collapse of the house itself), a basement won't necessarily protect you from an F4 or F5 "monster" tornado.
The only perfect protection is to not be there in the first place.
And what sort of cover do these bad guys have while they're ineffectively dinging the front of this guy's house? A fortified home can be easily cracked by enough people with good tactics and decent equipment. Hanging out at the front of the killing zone and doing stupid stuff isn't going to do it.
And that leads us to another point. Why crack a fortified home, when an unfortified one is available? A lot of the rationale behind this sort of thing is that it makes your home look a lot less vulnerable than the home next door. Unless the bad guys have a reason to break into this particular home, they'll be greatly encouraged to just go elsewhere.
And put a lot of people out of a job, don't forget that.
Every time you make a system too efficient, you reduce the number of workers but with economies it's important to have as many people working as possible.
The obvious solution is persistent, self-sustainable jobs. For example, if we turn those ex-employees into glue, then they'll be employed for a long time, say, holding layers of plywood together, a task for which they're admirably suited. They'll also stop needing basic needs and social services, and be far less of a drain on the rest of society.
The only drawback is that tax revenue might decline for a time. But given that we can spend without actual revenue, I don't see this as a significant issue.
As a non-humorous aside, why pay people to do nothing when we could be paying them to do something? It's not important to have as many people working as possible, when working means sucking cash from chumps who actually produce value.
Development implies cutting down trees. The impact of this on, well, everything is unimaginable.
I have no trouble doing this imagination thing and I suspect from the amounts of sarcasm oozing out of my screen, you are similarly equipped. I share this distrust of the certainty that certain AGW advocates, such as the IPCC, have with respect to AGW and its effects.
There's no hysteria, only the fact of peak oil.
Sure, there is. You're demonstrating it right now. What is the rush? Why have peak oil now when we can have it in twenty or forty years and be wealthier and more capable when we do have it?
Yes. The thing is I'm on the side of people who are adapting. You want to put off change for 50 years.
Absolutely. And I bet we can do it.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence.
Bury your head in the sand if you want. Your denial is irrelevant.
You should heed your own advice. Come back with real, hard evidence. Then we'll have something to talk about.
Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
It's not some vague worry, its already happening.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence. AGW theories of extreme weather remain one of the two most unscientific parts of the AGW belief complex (the other being the catastrophic version of AGW).
Right, but what's your point?
Well, two points come to mind. First, that extinction of very specialized species in small niches just isn't that big of a deal. And it's going to happen anyway. Second, it really does matter how difficult it is for an extinction to occur. Here, we have a species that will go extinct in the wild again, if their misting system breaks down. Consider that against humanity which could only go extinct under some extreme circumstances, such as a massive asteroid (probably have to be considerably worse than whatever caused the Permian extinction), a cunning genetically modified disease, or an aggressive and superior life form or machine.
"And one can always come up with biological, mechanical, or electrical means to make up the balance of oxygen need."
In the space of a few weeks when half the world is in panic?
Yes. There's a difference between being in a panic half a world away and being in a panic in the middle of your ark of survival. Just don't build the future of humanity in the middle of a riot zone. It's surprising what you can accomplish when you don't do that. Or you can hang out in nuclear subs for those few weeks until everyone has died and then get to work.
You might be able to save pockets of disease prone humans but statistically you may end up with someone who has something like AIDs, or some STD that can lead to infertility - have fun when that breaks out.
And how are these diseases going to survive? They need hosts, and the hosts just died. Plus disease resistance quickly returns once lethal diseases do.
we can't even deal with CO2 emissions when the world isn't in panic and we have many countries and many billions being spent on it and within a timeframe of decades.
And almost no reason to bother either. I see you forget that there are bigger problems for humanity than slight global warming. Consider why that dam, which has caused so much trouble for these frogs, was built in the first place.
When those weather patterns change and two years in a row of hurricanes do something which has always been unusual, it's enough to take notice.
Except that those weather patterns, while infrequent, aren't unusual. The claims about extreme weather have always been some of the shakiest stuff coming out of the AGW advocacy.
So what? Development patterns explain the weather-loss events just by themselves. The title you quote should have been a clue what was actually going on. What's magical about North America that it should experience weather-loss events disproportionate to the rest of the world? The answer is US federal flood insurance.
It's got to be a pretty simple calculation with at best maybe 100 data points.
I disagree. Note the phrase "gridded normal" partway through the list of data products. That means a spatial grid probably of the US, with a large number of points (hundreds to thousands would be my guess), for which statistical calculations are made for each point of the grid (meaning one has enough data for each point of that grid to produce such calculations). There's also a lot of state data in those data products (which is 50 regions for which calculations need to be made). It's still trivial for a modern computer to calculate, but there's a lot more data there than 100 data points.
and that there's no documented case of trickle-down working (as this report supported)
I'll just note that there's plenty of cases that both support and deny this. It depends in part who your sponsors and their interests are.
The one providing the money is traditionally labeled the "demand" or "consumer".
This is a good point. Investment wouldn't necessarily be in the country with the tax break. Consumption is a bit easier to control.
I don't think you get how evolution works. It doesn't work rapidly, it works over an extended period of time.
These toads were fitted to the environment they were in, and no species can change to destruction of their environment overnight.
But for some organisms, destruction of their environment would require the radical changing say of most of Europe and global human civilization and others it would require a modest alteration of a waterfall.
4) You say you see no evidence of niche species expanding, and yet that is by definition what must always happen.
Not by definition.
If man fucked up some kind of experiment and it drastically altered the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere for example over the period of mere weeks, we ourselves would not manage to survive
I disagree. We have a remarkable ability to adapt even over very short time periods. For example, nuclear subs would remain habitable for years. That would be enough time to reestablish a human presence on the surface of Earth. And one can always come up with biological, mechanical, or electrical means to make up the balance of oxygen need.
If people don't have money to purchase your goods and services that investment is worthless.
While sometimes people invest in things that don't have customers, that usually isn't the case.
Economic activity is demand driven
The fundamental unit of economic activity is the trade between the one who wants something and the one providing it. Demand is only half of that transaction. Thus, economic activity is driven by both supply and demand. Things don't just happen because someone has money. Someone needs to supply the want. Investment builds the infrastructure that provides the supply and does so for far longer than demand-driven approaches can provide hte demand.
And why speak just of short term economic activity? Another aspect of the investment versus consumption issue, is that investment tends to be longer term.
The economy is not driven by the purchase of luxury goods.
That would just be more demand and hence, more driving of the economy. At least for the luxury goods that are still produced in the US.
OTOH, we do need to consider that the paper did have real problems. For example, there are almost no dynamics considered. Very few of the variables are lagged. That was one of the Republican complaints.
And it misses some important economic issues such as the declining value of labor versus capital (one would expect owners of capital to do relatively well in a global market with extremely cheap labor available and for that capital to move to foreign locations) and the burden of regulation (which has considerable effect on hiring people and creating new businesses, both which would favor those who own established, working capital). In other words, there are two big, contrary effects which might mask any economic benefit from cutting taxes for the highest income bracket.
As to the article being pulled, it was allegedly done at the behest of Senate Republicans who are a minority in the Senate. Why didn't Democrats block that? In fact, who actually asked for and sequestered the report? Doesn't seem to be a Republican thing to ask for stuff that might run counter to their agenda, but maybe the people who requested it thought they could bury anything inconvenient.
Usually the reasonning is that since they will have more money, they will consume more and that will help the economy. If you give a tax break to low income people for the same amount of tax dollars, they will use that money as well. They are not going to set it on fire, they will use it in a grocery store.
I understand the usual reasoning along those lines is that the rich will invest the money and the poor will consume it. The implicit assumption for those who support high income tax cuts is that investment is better than consumption.
Setting aside rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice, etc, severe weather events are much more common now.
You have no evidence. Your purported weather-lose claims evidence merely shows that people are building in more vulnerable areas now. We already knew that.
Are you really going to continue to claim that building an expensive hotel or condo (and hence, increasing the number of weather-loss related events) on the beach causes extreme weather?
No, a hurricane trashing the Florida coast would have been exactly the sort of storm that appears in the alternate universe where there is no correlation between global warming and storm severity. A Hurricane hitting the Northeast was atypical in the former climate, and that's why it's getting so much press. We are not accustomed to seeing hurricanes and flooding shut down the most heavily industrialized region of our nation.
The only problem with what you wrote? It's wrong. Hurricanes have hit that region before. There's nothing unusual about this storm in terms of its location. Infrequent doesn't imply atypical.
I'm sorry but if you're not aware that climate is weather occurring over a long period of time
It's not. Weather and climate are separated by time scale. One can say that climate is weather in the long term and conversely that weather is climate in the short term. But that just illustrates the division. It's not claiming that the two are the same subject.
and 30 years is considered the minimum
It's not. IPCC considers "months" the minimum time scale.
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the ï½average weatherï½, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
They give lip service to the WMO definition, but they don't agree with it.