Considering the small affect that CO2 has on climate, co
Here we go again:
What are you, Ronald Reagan or something?
after fighting strawmen for a while, you make a bold unsubstantiated claim. It is certainly NOT agreed that CO2 has only small effect, nor is that supported by any science.
Rather, there is strong geo-historical evidence to suggest CO2 level has very strong correlation with surface and atmospheric temperatures, as well as credible theories explain causality from concentration to temperature.
I already talked about the correlation, but you have confused the issue by leaving out the part about CO2 concentrations always occurring after the temperature rise.
As far as CO2, I think you are confused about the idea of greenhouse gases in general. Anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 amount to about 3 - 4% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). To me, that's small. And if you have anything that refutes it, please let me know.
And hey, for good measure you attach this to goofball conspiracy theory. I think I need to attach your arguments as poster-child for kinds of bullshit climate change deniers use.
And for this kind of unfounded attack, you get a +5 insightful mod. Stunning.
while underemphasizing the past role of greenhouse gas concentrations in causing the Earth to warm.
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.
And if the climate is currently warming, and we can (and have) eliminated other possible causes for that change, then human produced greenhouse gasses are the most likely cause of our current warming.
There is no way you can make the claim that every possible cause for warming except human produced greenhouse gasses have been eliminated. In fact, this is the essence of the real debate. We simply do not have the level of understanding of climate change that you seem to think we do. Human-released greenhouse gasses are, in fact, a small factor in the climate no matter how you look at it, based on our current understanding. And while it can be shown that human activity is correlative with recent temperature increases (depending on how that data is collected and interpreted), saying that all but the release of CO2 have been eliminated as causes is disingenuous, at best.
Believe that we are the only thing impacting the climate is fucking stupid.
Nobody relevant believes that.
That's not even close to true. There are plenty of people that are quite "relevant" to policy changes, typically referred to as "swing voters" and there are those that encourage that belief, as long as it provides them with the votes to gain power.
Ultimately, the plan is to justify a global scheme of wealth redistribution, with those at the very top with the most to gain. For the likes of Maurice Strong and Edmund de Rothschild, those ignorant voters with enough fear of change to cede authority is exactly the catalyst they need for their designs on greater wealth and power. They don't care how inaccurate the belief is.
People in the "human activity can't change the global climate, it's all natural" extreme, however...
I don't think there are any more people that think that way than there are that think changing to CFL bulbs and switching to a hybrid can control the climate. Considering the small affect that CO2 has on climate, coupled with the small affect that human activity has on CO2 concentrations, it would take an overwhelmingly dramatic and immediate shift in worldwide activity to even have a chance of making an impact on climate change. And that would cause more suffering and damage than the climate change itself. Better to make reasonable adjustments and spend our resources mitigating the eventual bad effects of climate change.
So a bunch of professors got together and cleared... one of their own. No surprise there. You can read the first 2 paragraphs under the "Background of the alleged misconduct" and you can tell right away what the conclusion is going to be by the way it's written.
They actually did know what it meant. They knew what teabagging was, and thought it would be hilarious to imply that they would be dipping their balls into the mouths of liberals.
Interesting that you claim that now, yet 2 posts above you claim that they didn't. spun said:
Now that teabaggers know what the term means, they call themselves tea partiers. But back in the day, they carried teabags around and called themselves teabaggers.
Selective "fact" finding? You even posted an article to support your above contention.
And just to be clear, I have zero respect for most so called teabaggers.
Yea, I think that comes through just fine, as well as your lumping a lot of defenders of liberty in with all kinds of ignorant crazies and GOP establishment types.
Perhaps it is only a few bad apples that make the group look crazy, but any group that lets its craziest members speak for it, that in fact encourages the crazies, deserves no respect.
You're looking at it from the outside, and must be relying bad (read: opposition) sources for your information, because there is plenty of effort to ignore/quiet/distance the "crazies" from the movement.
Part of the issue just a basic difference in the Liberty movement and the Progressive movement. The conservative activists tend to want to let everyone express themselves, and not try to control the message, while the progressives do exactly the opposite, to the point that their ultimate end-game (return to Feudalism) isn't even discussed, but instead is wrapped in rhetorical terms like "Democracy" and "Social Justice", and the message is carefully controlled, without getting into the details of the policies they support. This is evident by checking the progressive sites like MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, Media Matters, etc., where user content isn't allowed. Compare this to sites like CampaignForLiberty.org, where users can sign up, create blogs, post comments, and freely discuss their views.
If you don't like people calling you a fucking cretin, I suggest you refrain from discussing your politics online, or stick to the right wing echo chambers where your views will be encouraged.
Good demonstration of the progressive mind-set. "Shut up and let your betters speak for you."
Moot or not, it is now a disgusting slur used to denigrate a large group. This cannot be excused by claiming that they (actually, a tiny subset of the group you refer to) used it first without knowledge of its connotations.
That would be the same as looking at the origins of a racial slur, and finding that "Well, slaves from Niger called themselves that long ago, so it's perfectly neutral to refer to all African-descended people with that term now."
So, yes, they are offended by it, you know that they are offended by it, but you defend your use of it, claiming that no one can view your use as intentionally pejorative. You're as obstinate in your belligerence as a 17th-century plantation master.
They are the ones who thought it was a good idea to "tea bag the white house" and "tea bag the liberal dems before the tea bag you!" ("Tea Partiers'" words, not mine)
In other words, they are a political group so out-of-touch with mainstream America that they fail to recognize commonplace sexual slang.
I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.
Did you know the original Teabaggers were protesting the fact that the wealthy British lowered taxes on their own tea below the taxes on the colonial tea?
That's a pretty inaccurate depiction of the Tea Act and why the colonists opposed it. In essence, the British government was protecting it's own favored company (East India Company), in favor of other traders (and smugglers, because tea carried a hefty tax). So actually the colonists favored free trade instead of crony capitalism (or fascism, if you prefer), and when the British government tried to pass laws that provided monopolies for East India, the colonists rebelled.
I think that's a pretty good analogy with motivations of the modern-day Tea Party protesters.
Nice (second attempt) at this revisionist history, but you are the one that has it wrong.
Nope, that proves nothing other than some people are as ignorant as yourself. That article was written in December, 2009. And the author apparently didn't know anything about the Tea Parties that had been happening for almost three years - he seems under the (mistaken, or intentionally misleading) assumption it had something to do with Obama's election.
Here's an article, and a video from an early tea party where nobody called themselves "teabaggers" (yea, it came from the snarky left, apparently in fear of a grass-roots conservative movement).
Nope, that proves nothing other than some people are as ignorant as yourself. That article was written in December, 2009. And the author apparently didn't know anything about the Tea Parties that had been happening for almost three years - he seems under the (mistaken, or intentionally misleading) assumption it had something to do with Obama's election.
Haha. You guys still haven't figured out that "progressive" is a term we've been using for a deviant sexual act. LOL! That's why we guffaw when you call yourself a "progressive". I mean, the only thing we can thing to ourselves is, "well, yea, somebody tried to progressivize me in college, but I just wasn't drunk and horny enough to get into it."
The problem with both sectors is not deregulation, but regulatory agencies that are not in fact actually inspecting to see if existing regulations are being followed (or to be more precise, ignoring violations of existing regulations).
I think government may be the only organization that when it fails to fulfill its responsibilities people seem to think the answer is to give it more responsibility.
It's worse than that. The regulations are always written to provide certain protections for an industry or set of power players in the industry. Then the usual suspects float between the corporations that actually benefited and the regulatory agencies, all while assigning blame and pointing fingers and convincing the electorate if they would just allow more centralized authority everything would get better. Then when the electorate agrees they get together and figure out how to divvy up the extra money and power they are going to extract from the people.
The root of the problem is that we have a meaningless currency based on absolutely nothing, with that comes insane inflation.
Every country on the planet has currency based on nothing other than the word of the government. So to say that's the cause of the problem is a silly and pointless exercise in mental masturbation.
Not at all. In fact, it's the reason that every country in the world was dragged into a financial crisis caused entirely by the US and its central bank.
Now we've all seen your e-peen and know it's lacking. Move on to actual issues, rather than some personal preference for the gold standard or whatever you'd like currency to be based off. Though we had plenty of inflation when we were on the gold standard, so don't let facts get in the way of your insane rants.
Unfortunately, the "facts" you are spouting are not facts at all. Inflation in a gold standard exists because gold can be mined, so the supply can increase. But that's caused by actual labor, so it has a natural limit. Not so with fiat currency, the creators of which have no limits and suffer no consequences for inflicting inflation on those further downstream. Throughout history, the most ruinous and damaging inflation has always occurred in a fiat system, never in a natural value system.
Yea, it will require a large initial investment, but then moving stuff in and out of Earth's gravity well becomes really cheap. So cheap, in fact, that asteroid mining operations may become feasible.
I honestly don't know why there isn't a lot more effort in this direction already. Some lucky country on the equator could be in for some boom times!
It is simpler than that. The scientific thinkers have thought and decided what platforms they support and determined who they are going to vote for.
The anti-science people have not, and are easily swayed by rhetoric and political theater.
Politicians go after the easily swayed.
Do you mean to say that "scientific thinkers" always vote Democrat? I'll admit that it seems like a lot of them do. Unfortunately, that just makes them irrelevant to the politicians. That is, when politicians view a voting block (say, "scientific thinkers" in this case) as always voting for Team R or Team D, then the issues those voters care about don't matter. Politicians know they will get those votes (or not), and it won't matter what they do or say.
So, yes, politicians pay more attention to "swing" voters, as well as "issue" voters that don't stick to party lines. Maybe if the "scientific thinkers" tried doing a little thinking about the issues instead of trusting the platform statement of one party or another, they could have an influence in how their government is run.
A couple of good examples:
Moral majority / Christian Coalition voters became an influential voice in elections a few years back. But it didn't last long. They quickly made themselves irrelevant when politicians realized that those voters are always on Team R, so there was no reason to pay attention to their issues.
The GBLT vote, even though they represent a small portion of the vote, are very influential. That's because they pay attention to issues, and will vote for candidates from either party (yes, they really do) based on how the candidate supports GBLT issues.
You speak like the modern age has had a fundamentally different attitude towards science.
From what I'm told (I didn't live during that time, so I don't have firsthand knowledge), we used to have a government that strongly encouraged scientific research and development and considered it part of the greatness of our nation. Whether you consider it a problem with faith or with politics or with capitalism or education or whatever, I don't think you can say that about our relationship with science today.
The political class is endangered by a properly educated populace, and keeping the educational system from actually educating people has been done deliberately. I used to think it was just hyperbole, and the problems with the education system was simply an accident of incompetent administration, but I have come to realize it has been done on purpose.
It's no wonder you can't find kids interested in pursuing a career in science the way it is presented in school these days.
Besides being one of the best photo managers I have worked with, you can directly edit the metadata for each file. The only downside is that it usually comes bundled with other Adobe software, which can be costly.
Yea, that seems like a significant draw-back.
*Adobe Bridge is not available in standalone versions of these CS5 components: Adobe Acrobat Pro, Flash Catalyst, Flash Builder, Contribute®, Soundbooth®, and Adobe OnLocation.
So, what, I spend $700 for photoshop (and at least have something useful for my money), or buy InCopy for $250 and just install Bridge since InCopy is useless crap by itself?
There's got to be a better way of tagging photo files than dealing with Adobe, their crappy website, and their annoying phone-home DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
Who else would you have judge them? Laymen with no experience with the issue, or the vagaries of academe involved?
Oh, gee, I'm sorry. I guess I was speaking above my grade. Please forgive this lowly unwashed for daring to question those above his class.
... the socially accepted response ... blahblahblah
Socialist blather.
Considering the small affect that CO2 has on climate, co
Here we go again:
What are you, Ronald Reagan or something?
after fighting strawmen for a while, you make a bold unsubstantiated claim. It is certainly NOT agreed that CO2 has only small effect, nor is that supported by any science. Rather, there is strong geo-historical evidence to suggest CO2 level has very strong correlation with surface and atmospheric temperatures, as well as credible theories explain causality from concentration to temperature.
I already talked about the correlation, but you have confused the issue by leaving out the part about CO2 concentrations always occurring after the temperature rise.
As far as CO2, I think you are confused about the idea of greenhouse gases in general. Anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 amount to about 3 - 4% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). To me, that's small. And if you have anything that refutes it, please let me know.
And hey, for good measure you attach this to goofball conspiracy theory. I think I need to attach your arguments as poster-child for kinds of bullshit climate change deniers use.
And for this kind of unfounded attack, you get a +5 insightful mod. Stunning.
while underemphasizing the past role of greenhouse gas concentrations in causing the Earth to warm.
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.
And if the climate is currently warming, and we can (and have) eliminated other possible causes for that change, then human produced greenhouse gasses are the most likely cause of our current warming.
There is no way you can make the claim that every possible cause for warming except human produced greenhouse gasses have been eliminated. In fact, this is the essence of the real debate. We simply do not have the level of understanding of climate change that you seem to think we do. Human-released greenhouse gasses are, in fact, a small factor in the climate no matter how you look at it, based on our current understanding. And while it can be shown that human activity is correlative with recent temperature increases (depending on how that data is collected and interpreted), saying that all but the release of CO2 have been eliminated as causes is disingenuous, at best.
In all seriousness, can you at least post some reputable links refuting my statements.
= -1: Flamebait
You don't deserve a refutation. You deserve to be sent to the corner and made to wear a pointy hat.
= +5 Insightful
Not sure these moderations are really about the quality of the posts.
Thank you - exactly on target. MOD PARENT UP.
Believe that we are the only thing impacting the climate is fucking stupid.
Nobody relevant believes that.
That's not even close to true. There are plenty of people that are quite "relevant" to policy changes, typically referred to as "swing voters" and there are those that encourage that belief, as long as it provides them with the votes to gain power.
Ultimately, the plan is to justify a global scheme of wealth redistribution, with those at the very top with the most to gain. For the likes of Maurice Strong and Edmund de Rothschild, those ignorant voters with enough fear of change to cede authority is exactly the catalyst they need for their designs on greater wealth and power. They don't care how inaccurate the belief is.
People in the "human activity can't change the global climate, it's all natural" extreme, however...
I don't think there are any more people that think that way than there are that think changing to CFL bulbs and switching to a hybrid can control the climate. Considering the small affect that CO2 has on climate, coupled with the small affect that human activity has on CO2 concentrations, it would take an overwhelmingly dramatic and immediate shift in worldwide activity to even have a chance of making an impact on climate change. And that would cause more suffering and damage than the climate change itself. Better to make reasonable adjustments and spend our resources mitigating the eventual bad effects of climate change.
So a bunch of professors got together and cleared ... one of their own. No surprise there. You can read the first 2 paragraphs under the "Background of the alleged misconduct" and you can tell right away what the conclusion is going to be by the way it's written.
This is no different than the Investigation of Chris Dodd's Mortgage deal.. A so-called "inquiry" by members of his own party concluded that receiving "VIP" mortgage deals did not constitute preferential treatment.
A whitewash is a whitewash is a whitewash.
Well, they did just catch a bunch of Russian spies...
They actually did know what it meant. They knew what teabagging was, and thought it would be hilarious to imply that they would be dipping their balls into the mouths of liberals.
Interesting that you claim that now, yet 2 posts above you claim that they didn't. spun said:
Selective "fact" finding? You even posted an article to support your above contention.
And just to be clear, I have zero respect for most so called teabaggers.
Yea, I think that comes through just fine, as well as your lumping a lot of defenders of liberty in with all kinds of ignorant crazies and GOP establishment types.
Perhaps it is only a few bad apples that make the group look crazy, but any group that lets its craziest members speak for it, that in fact encourages the crazies, deserves no respect.
You're looking at it from the outside, and must be relying bad (read: opposition) sources for your information, because there is plenty of effort to ignore/quiet/distance the "crazies" from the movement.
Part of the issue just a basic difference in the Liberty movement and the Progressive movement. The conservative activists tend to want to let everyone express themselves, and not try to control the message, while the progressives do exactly the opposite, to the point that their ultimate end-game (return to Feudalism) isn't even discussed, but instead is wrapped in rhetorical terms like "Democracy" and "Social Justice", and the message is carefully controlled, without getting into the details of the policies they support. This is evident by checking the progressive sites like MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, Media Matters, etc., where user content isn't allowed. Compare this to sites like CampaignForLiberty.org, where users can sign up, create blogs, post comments, and freely discuss their views.
If you don't like people calling you a fucking cretin, I suggest you refrain from discussing your politics online, or stick to the right wing echo chambers where your views will be encouraged.
Good demonstration of the progressive mind-set. "Shut up and let your betters speak for you."
Moot or not, it is now a disgusting slur used to denigrate a large group. This cannot be excused by claiming that they (actually, a tiny subset of the group you refer to) used it first without knowledge of its connotations.
That would be the same as looking at the origins of a racial slur, and finding that "Well, slaves from Niger called themselves that long ago, so it's perfectly neutral to refer to all African-descended people with that term now."
So, yes, they are offended by it, you know that they are offended by it, but you defend your use of it, claiming that no one can view your use as intentionally pejorative. You're as obstinate in your belligerence as a 17th-century plantation master.
They are the ones who thought it was a good idea to "tea bag the white house" and "tea bag the liberal dems before the tea bag you!" ("Tea Partiers'" words, not mine) In other words, they are a political group so out-of-touch with mainstream America that they fail to recognize commonplace sexual slang.
I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.
Did you know the original Teabaggers were protesting the fact that the wealthy British lowered taxes on their own tea below the taxes on the colonial tea?
That's a pretty inaccurate depiction of the Tea Act and why the colonists opposed it. In essence, the British government was protecting it's own favored company (East India Company), in favor of other traders (and smugglers, because tea carried a hefty tax). So actually the colonists favored free trade instead of crony capitalism (or fascism, if you prefer), and when the British government tried to pass laws that provided monopolies for East India, the colonists rebelled.
I think that's a pretty good analogy with motivations of the modern-day Tea Party protesters.
And, what a surprise, even Wikipedia backs that up (with a picture and everything)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Use_of_term_.22teabagger.22
Weird... misinformation on Wikipedia disparaging a conservative movement. Whodathunkit?
... but my fellow Tea Partiers complain pretty loudly, e.g., here: here.
Paul B.
Dude, the mods are constantly on the lookout for C4L folks posting on here. If you keep that signature (
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
), be prepared for quick "Troll" or "Offtopic" mods, regardless of what you may have to say.
Nice (second attempt) at this revisionist history, but you are the one that has it wrong.
Nope, that proves nothing other than some people are as ignorant as yourself. That article was written in December, 2009. And the author apparently didn't know anything about the Tea Parties that had been happening for almost three years - he seems under the (mistaken, or intentionally misleading) assumption it had something to do with Obama's election.
Here's an article, and a video from an early tea party where nobody called themselves "teabaggers" (yea, it came from the snarky left, apparently in fear of a grass-roots conservative movement).
Nope, that proves nothing other than some people are as ignorant as yourself. That article was written in December, 2009. And the author apparently didn't know anything about the Tea Parties that had been happening for almost three years - he seems under the (mistaken, or intentionally misleading) assumption it had something to do with Obama's election.
Here's some insight from some of the progenitor tea parties.
Haha. You guys still haven't figured out that "progressive" is a term we've been using for a deviant sexual act. LOL! That's why we guffaw when you call yourself a "progressive". I mean, the only thing we can thing to ourselves is, "well, yea, somebody tried to progressivize me in college, but I just wasn't drunk and horny enough to get into it."
The problem with both sectors is not deregulation, but regulatory agencies that are not in fact actually inspecting to see if existing regulations are being followed (or to be more precise, ignoring violations of existing regulations). I think government may be the only organization that when it fails to fulfill its responsibilities people seem to think the answer is to give it more responsibility.
It's worse than that. The regulations are always written to provide certain protections for an industry or set of power players in the industry. Then the usual suspects float between the corporations that actually benefited and the regulatory agencies, all while assigning blame and pointing fingers and convincing the electorate if they would just allow more centralized authority everything would get better. Then when the electorate agrees they get together and figure out how to divvy up the extra money and power they are going to extract from the people.
The root of the problem is that we have a meaningless currency based on absolutely nothing, with that comes insane inflation. Every country on the planet has currency based on nothing other than the word of the government. So to say that's the cause of the problem is a silly and pointless exercise in mental masturbation.
Not at all. In fact, it's the reason that every country in the world was dragged into a financial crisis caused entirely by the US and its central bank.
Now we've all seen your e-peen and know it's lacking. Move on to actual issues, rather than some personal preference for the gold standard or whatever you'd like currency to be based off. Though we had plenty of inflation when we were on the gold standard, so don't let facts get in the way of your insane rants.
Unfortunately, the "facts" you are spouting are not facts at all. Inflation in a gold standard exists because gold can be mined, so the supply can increase. But that's caused by actual labor, so it has a natural limit. Not so with fiat currency, the creators of which have no limits and suffer no consequences for inflicting inflation on those further downstream. Throughout history, the most ruinous and damaging inflation has always occurred in a fiat system, never in a natural value system.
I think you're confusing "teaching" with "tyrannical indoctrination".
Space Elevator. Now.
Yea, it will require a large initial investment, but then moving stuff in and out of Earth's gravity well becomes really cheap. So cheap, in fact, that asteroid mining operations may become feasible.
I honestly don't know why there isn't a lot more effort in this direction already. Some lucky country on the equator could be in for some boom times!
It is simpler than that. The scientific thinkers have thought and decided what platforms they support and determined who they are going to vote for.
The anti-science people have not, and are easily swayed by rhetoric and political theater.
Politicians go after the easily swayed.
Do you mean to say that "scientific thinkers" always vote Democrat? I'll admit that it seems like a lot of them do. Unfortunately, that just makes them irrelevant to the politicians. That is, when politicians view a voting block (say, "scientific thinkers" in this case) as always voting for Team R or Team D, then the issues those voters care about don't matter. Politicians know they will get those votes (or not), and it won't matter what they do or say.
So, yes, politicians pay more attention to "swing" voters, as well as "issue" voters that don't stick to party lines. Maybe if the "scientific thinkers" tried doing a little thinking about the issues instead of trusting the platform statement of one party or another, they could have an influence in how their government is run.
A couple of good examples:
You speak like the modern age has had a fundamentally different attitude towards science.
From what I'm told (I didn't live during that time, so I don't have firsthand knowledge), we used to have a government that strongly encouraged scientific research and development and considered it part of the greatness of our nation. Whether you consider it a problem with faith or with politics or with capitalism or education or whatever, I don't think you can say that about our relationship with science today.
The political class is endangered by a properly educated populace, and keeping the educational system from actually educating people has been done deliberately. I used to think it was just hyperbole, and the problems with the education system was simply an accident of incompetent administration, but I have come to realize it has been done on purpose.
It's no wonder you can't find kids interested in pursuing a career in science the way it is presented in school these days.
Adobe Bridge sounds perfect.
Besides being one of the best photo managers I have worked with, you can directly edit the metadata for each file. The only downside is that it usually comes bundled with other Adobe software, which can be costly.
Yea, that seems like a significant draw-back.
So, what, I spend $700 for photoshop (and at least have something useful for my money), or buy InCopy for $250 and just install Bridge since InCopy is useless crap by itself?
There's got to be a better way of tagging photo files than dealing with Adobe, their crappy website, and their annoying phone-home DRM.