but look at our world (as we naturally must for all such predictions): The richest portions of the world are the ones with the lowest population growth, including negative. People traditionally had many children because of 1) lack of birth control 2) needing extra labor for their farms 3) high mortality rate among children from illness etc. That only leaves culture as a reason to reproduce beyond replacement rate
No, there are other reasons as well. In fact this analysis is very subjective - there are no other examples of life forms that slow their own reproductive rate for any reason other than lack of resources.
You raise an interesting point, though. One that was examined in "The Mote in God's Eye" by Niven and Pournelle. The sentient species in question spoiler alert - if you haven't read the book was unable to slow its reproductive rate, due to the way they had evolved their reproduction. So they colonized their own solar system (extensively), but were unable to advance far enough to travel elsewhere. The conflicts of resources was dramatic, so they basically ended up blowing themselves back to the stone age over and over again, only to rise again, mine resources, re-colonize the solar system, escalate their resource battles, and destroy themselves again.
Seems a bit of a stretch, but maybe we're better at birth control that most...
I think that in many cases, civilizations reach a point where a small group can convince the mass of population that they have to alter their lifestyles to prevent their own advancement from destroying their environment. Thus cowed, the rulers, without any motivation for advancing the species, and living in luxury by the labor of a vast cadre of dependent and ignorant masses, push the rest of the civilization into more primitive lifestyles.
Preserving this stable lifestyle becomes and end itself, all ambitions of extra-planetary exploration forgotten. Eventually, the civilization runs out of local resources, too late to escape their own gravity well, and die off never having attained their potential.
What do you think? I call it the Enviro-Gorbama effect.
Inevitable comment from one of the AGW faithful in the Cathedral. And, of course, you are wrong. Just like you are wrong about AGW being "settled". And you reveal your bias by claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with that assertion simply "refuse to accept reality".
It worries me to notice here on Slashdot an apparent correlation between the mod points and support of the AGW.
The merits of/.'s mod system are many, but somehow every discussion touching on AGW seems to be immune from rational moderation and instead becomes filled with viewpoint-based mods. The most inane and inflammatory remarks supporting AGW end up with +5, while many of the most reasoned and interesting discussions get buried as flamebait or troll if they in any way question either AGW or the globalist agendas being justified as AGW "solutions".
Not the typical way that the mod system works, but seems to happen every time when AGW is involved.
Well that's what I said: I don't know WTF you are calling "extreme left", because they don't seem very mainstream to me - although I guess you could argue that since 1.2 billion people live under a communist regime, only places like North Korea and Laos would be considered left of mainstream.
So, what? Andy Sterns? George "New World Order" Soros? Michael Moore? La Raza? Maurice Strong? ICLEI?
Flamebait, huh? Weird. I guess I don't know what "extreme left-wing view" is referring to? Mao Tse Dong isn't considered extremist in the rest of the world? Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are mainstream? Because that's what the extreme left-wing view int he US wants to emulate.
An extreme left-wing view in the US wouldn't be an extremist view in the rest of the world by any stretch.
Too bad the "rest of the world" isn't taking the lesson about how the most prosperous, powerful, and generous country in the world got to be that way. Instead, the statists and the entitlement junkies would rather make over the US to be more like Europe and Canada.
I wonder how kind the Chinese will be to the rest of the world when they become the richest and most powerful?
That would cross the line. The rest of the site does not.
A full mirror of everything from the original website (with no commentary or mark-up) doesn't cross the line? I guess to you there is nothing that would, then.
You do realize Narconon is heavily connected to Scientology right? The book that Willian in the quote was reading was "Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought"
Frankly, I think any politician supporting Narconon needs to be shunned far away from public office. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter, cults aren't okay.
Narconon is pretty successful at rehabilitating drug users, though. I really don't know how "connected" they are with Scientology, but can it really be worse than drug addiction and prison?
As much as I despise Hannity, I'd prefer to see Beck go through twice.
Why is Beck hated so much? I get Hannity - he's obviously a partisan GOP shill, that throws strawmen at his guests and demands yes or no answers to in ever ruder and dismissive tones.
Beck is more of a historian / conspiracy theorist. He researches facts, then draws nefarious patterns around them. He should be easy to marginalize. I think pretty much all of his sponsors are gone other than GoldLine (which is now being directly attacked by Rep. Weiner). So why all the hate? Shouldn't he just be a non-entity, rather than getting all this vitriolic attention?
In addition it appears that the only interactive function on the fake site is the capturing of names of persons seeking to add their names and email addresses as supporters of Sharron Angle.
Surely the Reid campaign is not planning to obtain the names and email addresses of Angle supporters under false pretenses and then to misuse those names and email addresses for some purposes other than the purposes for which the individual signors intended!
There are really only 2 possibilities: either the recent warming trend is natural, or it has an anthropogenic component. If the anthropogenic component is large enough (highly debatable), there may be a chance to reverse or slow the trend.
Unfortunately, the current models that theorize large anthropogenic effects have been unable to make any accurate predictions in climate effects more than a year or two in advance.
Your sentence is incorrect. The climate history may show that CO2 release follows warming, but that does not mean that warming does not follow increased CO2 proportions.
Which it may, as I said. Which doesn't make my sentence "incorrect".
And for stating this simple fact, I have been called a "denier", ignorant, a creationist, a "cretiodenialist", modded as "flamebait", and troll, etc., etc.
And this is why the warmers are losing the battle for public opinion: they cannot engage in rational debate without attacking any questioners as enemies and shills, or ignorant puppets. New facts and points of view are disallowed just as they are in a religious conclave.
...and anyone not convinced by now is either insufficiently informed or has a religious-style determination not to believe it. I assume you are the latter; no amount of arguing from myself will convince you.
I think it is you and others like you that are more like religiously devoted and unable to acknowledge any criticism of your beliefs. A read through this thread and the ones around it confirms that.
and a pretty complete scientific consensus.
There is, but of what? You won't acknowledge any doubt or gaps in scientific knowledge whatsoever. I acknowledged the CO2/warming correlation, and other well-established facts regarding climate changes and human-caused contributions to CO2. But you refuse to even acknowledge that the historical record shows only warming followed by CO2 - yes, I understand why and how, and that the reverse is a plausible theory. But you guys can't even start with factual information. Sorry, but as much climate science as there is out there, there are still plenty of unknowns.
Because your question was out of context. Judge them based on what? If the opinions stay in academia, and only affect the approach of other theorists and climatologist.
But if the information is used for policy decisions by ignorant policy-makers that will directly affect the lives of millions of people, there needs to be a higher standard.
you have confused the issue by leaving out the part about CO2 concentrations always occurring after the temperature rise
Great. That old creationist, I mean, denialist canard. Educate yourself.
I don't know why I would respond to this kind of name-calling and attempt to paint me with some broad brush of "unwashed ignorant masses", but... That article confirms what I said, it doesn't refute it. I simply stated facts without interpretation. Your article attempts to interpret the facts, but doesn't refute them.
Anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 amount to about 3 - 4% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). To me, that's small.
Once again, the article does not address the percentage of human-generated CO2's affect on global warming. You're trying to create straw men out of what I said, and then calling me names and associating me with "creationists" and "holocaust deniers" ("creatiodenialist" - cute).
And somehow because it's about global warming, this kind of propaganda seems perfectly acceptable - even encouraged - on/.
You are obviously deeply ignorant. Why don't you educate yourself instead of mindlessly parroting denialist talking points?
You are mistaken, but I won't stoop to name-calling and ad-hominems.
There is none. That is, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas concentrations have caused the earth to warm in the past. There are correlations between CO2 and warming, but they have been an increase in CO2 after a period of increased warming, not the other way around. Of course, it makes since that it can happen, there is just no evidence that it ever has.
You have mis-characterized what I said AND what your article claims. I never said that the timing "disproves the link" - only that there is no evidence of increased CO2 concentrations causing subsequent temperature increases.
The article you linked to confirms that fact. So, no, it is NOT "debunked". Why would you make that kind of claim?
Way to parse statements and present that as evidence of poor moderation.
Thanks, I thought it was cool, too. Still, even if you read the whole of both posts, there's no way an objective view of the quality of the content (disregarding the viewpoint), there is no way the contrast in mod levels makes sense.
Hmmmmmm...I'm feeding the trolls. The denial-bots are at work on Slashdot today. Oh well here goes.
...but they have been an increase in CO2 after a period of increased warming, not the other way around. Of course, it makes since that it can happen, there is just no evidence that it ever has.
You seem to state this as if you and/or your favorite GW denier was the first to notice this, and as if it went unnoticed by those who spend their lives analyzing this data. This is called an implicit straw man argument, implying that your opponents hold an erroneous opinion which they don't actually hold, and then using this distortion to defeat them.
OMG Wat? Are you serious with this BS? You're going to deconstruct my argument? Really?
You're making no sense. Try to deal with life and reality. sheesh.
Slashdot Mirror
but look at our world (as we naturally must for all such predictions): The richest portions of the world are the ones with the lowest population growth, including negative. People traditionally had many children because of 1) lack of birth control 2) needing extra labor for their farms 3) high mortality rate among children from illness etc. That only leaves culture as a reason to reproduce beyond replacement rate
No, there are other reasons as well. In fact this analysis is very subjective - there are no other examples of life forms that slow their own reproductive rate for any reason other than lack of resources.
You raise an interesting point, though. One that was examined in "The Mote in God's Eye" by Niven and Pournelle. The sentient species in question spoiler alert - if you haven't read the book was unable to slow its reproductive rate, due to the way they had evolved their reproduction. So they colonized their own solar system (extensively), but were unable to advance far enough to travel elsewhere. The conflicts of resources was dramatic, so they basically ended up blowing themselves back to the stone age over and over again, only to rise again, mine resources, re-colonize the solar system, escalate their resource battles, and destroy themselves again.
Seems a bit of a stretch, but maybe we're better at birth control that most...
I have a different theory.
I think that in many cases, civilizations reach a point where a small group can convince the mass of population that they have to alter their lifestyles to prevent their own advancement from destroying their environment. Thus cowed, the rulers, without any motivation for advancing the species, and living in luxury by the labor of a vast cadre of dependent and ignorant masses, push the rest of the civilization into more primitive lifestyles.
Preserving this stable lifestyle becomes and end itself, all ambitions of extra-planetary exploration forgotten. Eventually, the civilization runs out of local resources, too late to escape their own gravity well, and die off never having attained their potential.
What do you think? I call it the Enviro-Gorbama effect.
Yeah, I think
No, you really don't. At least, not for yourself.
Inevitable comment from one of the AGW faithful in the Cathedral. And, of course, you are wrong. Just like you are wrong about AGW being "settled". And you reveal your bias by claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with that assertion simply "refuse to accept reality".
It worries me to notice here on Slashdot an apparent correlation between the mod points and support of the AGW.
The merits of /.'s mod system are many, but somehow every discussion touching on AGW seems to be immune from rational moderation and instead becomes filled with viewpoint-based mods. The most inane and inflammatory remarks supporting AGW end up with +5, while many of the most reasoned and interesting discussions get buried as flamebait or troll if they in any way question either AGW or the globalist agendas being justified as AGW "solutions".
Not the typical way that the mod system works, but seems to happen every time when AGW is involved.
^ This.
Libertarian Socialist (aka Anarchist) society
Wat? Did you mean to say Republican Democratic (aka Communist)?
Well that's what I said: I don't know WTF you are calling "extreme left", because they don't seem very mainstream to me - although I guess you could argue that since 1.2 billion people live under a communist regime, only places like North Korea and Laos would be considered left of mainstream.
So, what? Andy Sterns? George "New World Order" Soros? Michael Moore? La Raza? Maurice Strong? ICLEI?
Flamebait, huh? Weird. I guess I don't know what "extreme left-wing view" is referring to? Mao Tse Dong isn't considered extremist in the rest of the world? Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are mainstream? Because that's what the extreme left-wing view int he US wants to emulate.
An extreme left-wing view in the US wouldn't be an extremist view in the rest of the world by any stretch.
Too bad the "rest of the world" isn't taking the lesson about how the most prosperous, powerful, and generous country in the world got to be that way. Instead, the statists and the entitlement junkies would rather make over the US to be more like Europe and Canada.
I wonder how kind the Chinese will be to the rest of the world when they become the richest and most powerful?
That would cross the line. The rest of the site does not.
A full mirror of everything from the original website (with no commentary or mark-up) doesn't cross the line? I guess to you there is nothing that would, then.
You do realize Narconon is heavily connected to Scientology right? The book that Willian in the quote was reading was "Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought" Frankly, I think any politician supporting Narconon needs to be shunned far away from public office. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter, cults aren't okay.
Narconon is pretty successful at rehabilitating drug users, though. I really don't know how "connected" they are with Scientology, but can it really be worse than drug addiction and prison?
As much as I despise Hannity, I'd prefer to see Beck go through twice.
Why is Beck hated so much? I get Hannity - he's obviously a partisan GOP shill, that throws strawmen at his guests and demands yes or no answers to in ever ruder and dismissive tones.
Beck is more of a historian / conspiracy theorist. He researches facts, then draws nefarious patterns around them. He should be easy to marginalize. I think pretty much all of his sponsors are gone other than GoldLine (which is now being directly attacked by Rep. Weiner). So why all the hate? Shouldn't he just be a non-entity, rather than getting all this vitriolic attention?
Have we really resorted to just picking the lesser douche?
Only for the last 50 years or so...
From the C&D Letter:
Doesn't really fall under fair use - at all.
Thanks for proving my point.
There are really only 2 possibilities: either the recent warming trend is natural, or it has an anthropogenic component. If the anthropogenic component is large enough (highly debatable), there may be a chance to reverse or slow the trend.
Unfortunately, the current models that theorize large anthropogenic effects have been unable to make any accurate predictions in climate effects more than a year or two in advance.
Your sentence is incorrect. The climate history may show that CO2 release follows warming, but that does not mean that warming does not follow increased CO2 proportions.
Which it may, as I said. Which doesn't make my sentence "incorrect".
And for stating this simple fact, I have been called a "denier", ignorant, a creationist, a "cretiodenialist", modded as "flamebait", and troll, etc., etc.
And this is why the warmers are losing the battle for public opinion: they cannot engage in rational debate without attacking any questioners as enemies and shills, or ignorant puppets. New facts and points of view are disallowed just as they are in a religious conclave.
...and anyone not convinced by now is either insufficiently informed or has a religious-style determination not to believe it. I assume you are the latter; no amount of arguing from myself will convince you.
I think it is you and others like you that are more like religiously devoted and unable to acknowledge any criticism of your beliefs. A read through this thread and the ones around it confirms that.
and a pretty complete scientific consensus.
There is, but of what? You won't acknowledge any doubt or gaps in scientific knowledge whatsoever. I acknowledged the CO2/warming correlation, and other well-established facts regarding climate changes and human-caused contributions to CO2. But you refuse to even acknowledge that the historical record shows only warming followed by CO2 - yes, I understand why and how, and that the reverse is a plausible theory. But you guys can't even start with factual information. Sorry, but as much climate science as there is out there, there are still plenty of unknowns.
You didn't answer the question. How come?
Because your question was out of context. Judge them based on what? If the opinions stay in academia, and only affect the approach of other theorists and climatologist.
But if the information is used for policy decisions by ignorant policy-makers that will directly affect the lives of millions of people, there needs to be a higher standard.
Nobody thinks only human activity affects the climate.
There's the straw-man in your argument right there. The claim you're refuting was never made.
Great. That old creationist, I mean, denialist canard. Educate yourself.
I don't know why I would respond to this kind of name-calling and attempt to paint me with some broad brush of "unwashed ignorant masses", but... That article confirms what I said, it doesn't refute it. I simply stated facts without interpretation. Your article attempts to interpret the facts, but doesn't refute them.
Yet another creatiodenialist canard. Educate yourself.
Once again, the article does not address the percentage of human-generated CO2's affect on global warming. You're trying to create straw men out of what I said, and then calling me names and associating me with "creationists" and "holocaust deniers" ("creatiodenialist" - cute).
And somehow because it's about global warming, this kind of propaganda seems perfectly acceptable - even encouraged - on /.
You are obviously deeply ignorant. Why don't you educate yourself instead of mindlessly parroting denialist talking points?
You are mistaken, but I won't stoop to name-calling and ad-hominems.
There is none. That is, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas concentrations have caused the earth to warm in the past. There are correlations between CO2 and warming, but they have been an increase in CO2 after a period of increased warming, not the other way around. Of course, it makes since that it can happen, there is just no evidence that it ever has.
This argument has been debunked time and time again.
You have mis-characterized what I said AND what your article claims. I never said that the timing "disproves the link" - only that there is no evidence of increased CO2 concentrations causing subsequent temperature increases.
The article you linked to confirms that fact. So, no, it is NOT "debunked". Why would you make that kind of claim?
Way to parse statements and present that as evidence of poor moderation.
Thanks, I thought it was cool, too. Still, even if you read the whole of both posts, there's no way an objective view of the quality of the content (disregarding the viewpoint), there is no way the contrast in mod levels makes sense.
Hmmmmmm...I'm feeding the trolls. The denial-bots are at work on Slashdot today. Oh well here goes.
...but they have been an increase in CO2 after a period of increased warming, not the other way around. Of course, it makes since that it can happen, there is just no evidence that it ever has.
You seem to state this as if you and/or your favorite GW denier was the first to notice this, and as if it went unnoticed by those who spend their lives analyzing this data. This is called an implicit straw man argument, implying that your opponents hold an erroneous opinion which they don't actually hold, and then using this distortion to defeat them.
OMG Wat? Are you serious with this BS? You're going to deconstruct my argument? Really?
You're making no sense. Try to deal with life and reality. sheesh.
WTF are you talking about?