You're lucky then. Here in the USA, AT&T recently imposed a 150 GB/month cap and raised my rate from $45 to $48. I've lived here 5 years, and instead of getting better, things have gotten worse. Of course, they're just doing it because they can--because the only competition here is the local cable company, which wants $70 a month and insists on buying cable TV with it.
Sometimes I wonder if those "The Internet was nice while it lasted" comments are right.
Well it should be! AT&T has a virtual monopoly on service here, and what has happened in the last 5 years? They've added a bandwidth cap and increased the monthly rate, without even increasing performance. It's like a slap in the face--thumbing their noses at their powerless customers while exploiting them mercilessly.
If that's not what the FCC should be regulating, what is?!
It is no coincidence that the time period when the majority of Americans were financially comfortable in the middle class was also the time period of the highest taxes and regulation the nation has ever known. Tax men used to go door to door to audit your possessions, but today we're oppressed by the lowest tax rates in American history and the atrocity of filing our taxes online from the comfort of our own home. 50% of American households earn less than $45,000 a year. After deductions taxable income is closer to $30,000. At a tax of 20% that is $6,000, and an effective tax of only 13.3%. Google only paid an effective 2.4% tax. How can you fund a nation on this? You can not. The "beast" of American government is on life support while clinging to weapons and frantically trying to disconnect the very machines keeping it alive because they "cost to much". This is not hyperbole, this is the America the Republican have made.
You sure do make a lot of assertions without any facts to back them up. Not to mention your meaningless statement, "How can you fund a nation on this? You can not." I hope people don't fall for such non sequiturs. What does it even mean to "fund a nation"?
Childish and divisive are precisely what your remarks are. All you've done is make illogical statements and blame all problems on one political party.
Your fundamental argument is that the government knows best--you are against personal liberty and responsibility, and in favor of the government babysitting and sucking its citizens dry.
Now I can understand some sentiment toward that in light of the power of modern corporations--but taking it to the opposite extreme is not the answer. What you advocate is contrary to the principles upon which this nation was founded. Maybe you'd find what you're looking for in Europe.
I truly don't understand people like you. Where does your desire for the government to control you come from? Are you so fearful of the future and the unknown, of your own inability to survive, that you're willing to give up your freedom and your own control of your own resources to people who are just as human and fallible as yourself? What a great opportunity for power-hungry, greedy people: positions in which people are legally required to give them money and power. Oh, of course, they are incorruptible and selfless--completely trustworthy. They won't embezzle, they won't take bribes, they won't give favors to remain in power. Your money is safe in their hands, and you can count on them to put it to the best use for your own good.
Tax men used to go door to door to audit your possessions, but today we're oppressed by the lowest tax rates in American history and the atrocity of filing our taxes online from the comfort of our own home.
You want tax men coming to your door to write down what you own? Who are you? What are you?
It's reasonable to expect that a graphics app will not make your system vulnerable to hostile takeover. Actually, this is a reasonable expectation for every kind of software.
It's not the same thing at all. If I buy a house, I can do whatever I want with it, because I own it. They are claiming to license the software, not sell it--the user is not free to fix problems at will.
Actually, since it's a license, it would be reasonable to expect a refund at-will. Theoretically, if I give up the license, I can't use the software. They're basically claiming to rent the software, or a right to use it, for a one-time fee. Since the fee is one-time, if I give up the license, I should receive the fee back. This is in contrast to, e.g. a monthly fee, in which case I'd simply stop paying the fee.
You have not comprehended the argument. Whether that's due to dishonesty or a mistake, only you can say.
OP: "Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes"
You: "that debate has been over at least a decade . Not that it was ever in much of a debate."
Me: "You're lying about the debate"
You: "We've known for over a decade that volcanoes represent approximately 1% of human emissions"
That's a strawman argument. The debate in question--the OP's--is not how much CO2 volcanoes emit, but "how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes".
That is the entire point: we do not know for certain how much humans have affected the climate. Logically, it's not possible to know that for certain without an alternate universe to refer to. Anyone who says that it's possible to know for certain is not telling the truth--whether due to ignorance or lying to pursue an agenda.
If you can't behave better than 3 year old throwing a tantrum, please feel free to leave.
If you can't behave better than making ad hominems, please feel free to do whatever you want, because this is the Internet.
He says on that page, "According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year." Is he lying or confused or...? Are his or your sources wrong? Is there a unit conversion problem?
You think I'm conned and confused and mindless--I think you're naive. This has never been a simple situation. The politics and money machines have been building this up for 40 years. Climate change has never been an issue of determining the truth and then determining a course of action. It's been set up as a vehicle for carrying agendas, regardless of the truth and the science. Just look at the book, "Why We Disagree About Climate Change." "The myth transcends the science," and we should ask "not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us."
I think you are the one who's being conned.
We should be good stewards of the environment--conservationists. That doesn't mean that:
a) humans are causing climate change; or b) humans are causing dangerous climate change; or c) climate change could be averted; or d) climate change should be averted; or e) humans are bad while plants and animals are good; or f) that the action necessary to make a difference, if possible and if wise, would do more good than harm.
I think someday, years from now, people will look back and laugh at the knowledge and understanding we think we have. The earth and its climate are enormously large and complex. We might be right, we might be partially right, or we might be wrong. Time will tell.
In the meantime, rationally pursuing the truth is the answer--not labeling, stereotyping, and attacking while blindly pursuing an agenda that might not be wise or necessary.
Obviously, though there is a single truth, interpretations of it vary wildly. You should account for this in your arguments. As I said, your argument boiled down to, "I'm right, I have truth, whoever disagrees with me is a denier of reality." And that's not science--that's just labeling.
It's rather arrogant of anyone to think he can fully understand or predict a system as enormous as the entire Earth's climate. You should be a bit more careful with your claims, lest time prove you wrong someday.
"As one who disagrees with me, you do not understand why I am right. You do not understand reality, but I do. Basically, you are an idiot."
FTFY.
You should stop labeling, attacking, and insulting. It doesn't help your case. Let your arguments rest on their merits. Otherwise it looks as if you have an agenda other than the pursuit of truth.
More labeling. In this thread you even kick it up a notch from "denier" to "denialist." What's next, "denialism"? I thought this was supposed to be about the science, about the facts. Why the ad hominems?
Appealing to consensus is appealing to popularity, which is a logical fallacy--not science.
Actually a lot of the argument for AGW is that CO2 levels increase when temperature increases--which is that correlation equals causation. However, there is evidence that CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes, in which case it would be an indicator, not a factor. Lindzen explains this in his video. You haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.
Another issue is that the predictive models exaggerate the amplifying effect of other greenhouse gases in order to force the models to match observations; then those flawed models are used to extrapolate into the future. Lindzen also explains this in his video. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.
Another issue is that the GATA fluctuations are within the margins of error--they are statistically insignificant, and therefore prove nothing. Lindzen also explains this in his video. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.
Another issue is that the data on sea levels may not be sufficient for analysis. Lindzen also explains this in his video--he even quotes a fellow MIT professor who has published on sea levels. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.
Finally, humans only produce 6% of the CO2 produced annually. Six percent. I've read that that is within the margin of error of the natural sources' production. If so, that further casts into doubt the significance of human CO2 production.
I'd be happy to read your responses to these five issues, but only if you address the facts and logic--I've no interest in labeling and personal attacks. If your science and logic are sound, you need not do anything but state them.
According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources. Estimates of CO2 from natural sources are very crude as evidenced by the large error factors. Reports with headlines like, "Forests soak up more CO2 than thought" and "Old-growth forests absorb CO2 too: study" keep appearing. In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons, but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle. Spread the human annual production across the planet and it doesn't even show on the world map. The pattern confirms this because it reflects natural sources.
Are these numbers true? If they are true, what do they mean?
"In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons [of CO2], but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle."
By those numbers, humans produce merely 6% of total CO2 which, "is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources."
If that is true, then even measurement of human CO2 output is statistically insignificant, and therefore irrelevant to the debate. If that is true, then it would seem to invalidate the entire AGW hypothesis.
By your logic, isolationists were responsible for deaths which would have been prevented had the U.S. entered WWII sooner, and those opposed to the Iraq War would have been responsible for those additional deaths which would have occurred under Hussein's regime.
Claiming that any group of people--one which you conveniently oppose--is responsible for a natural disaster of global proportion which has yet to even occur is beyond words.
They don't need a new hypothesis--the AGW hypothesis doesn't fit the facts. Many of the "facts" that are cited to support AGW aren't even facts, but extrapolations of data points which are within margins of error.
The lie is that AGW is a fact, and that it's supported by facts. Statistically insignificant data are not facts.
Slashdot Mirror
You're lucky then. Here in the USA, AT&T recently imposed a 150 GB/month cap and raised my rate from $45 to $48. I've lived here 5 years, and instead of getting better, things have gotten worse. Of course, they're just doing it because they can--because the only competition here is the local cable company, which wants $70 a month and insists on buying cable TV with it.
Sometimes I wonder if those "The Internet was nice while it lasted" comments are right.
Well it should be! AT&T has a virtual monopoly on service here, and what has happened in the last 5 years? They've added a bandwidth cap and increased the monthly rate, without even increasing performance. It's like a slap in the face--thumbing their noses at their powerless customers while exploiting them mercilessly.
If that's not what the FCC should be regulating, what is?!
It is no coincidence that the time period when the majority of Americans were financially comfortable in the middle class was also the time period of the highest taxes and regulation the nation has ever known. Tax men used to go door to door to audit your possessions, but today we're oppressed by the lowest tax rates in American history and the atrocity of filing our taxes online from the comfort of our own home. 50% of American households earn less than $45,000 a year. After deductions taxable income is closer to $30,000. At a tax of 20% that is $6,000, and an effective tax of only 13.3%. Google only paid an effective 2.4% tax. How can you fund a nation on this? You can not. The "beast" of American government is on life support while clinging to weapons and frantically trying to disconnect the very machines keeping it alive because they "cost to much". This is not hyperbole, this is the America the Republican have made.
You sure do make a lot of assertions without any facts to back them up. Not to mention your meaningless statement, "How can you fund a nation on this? You can not." I hope people don't fall for such non sequiturs. What does it even mean to "fund a nation"?
Childish and divisive are precisely what your remarks are. All you've done is make illogical statements and blame all problems on one political party.
Your fundamental argument is that the government knows best--you are against personal liberty and responsibility, and in favor of the government babysitting and sucking its citizens dry.
Now I can understand some sentiment toward that in light of the power of modern corporations--but taking it to the opposite extreme is not the answer. What you advocate is contrary to the principles upon which this nation was founded. Maybe you'd find what you're looking for in Europe.
I truly don't understand people like you. Where does your desire for the government to control you come from? Are you so fearful of the future and the unknown, of your own inability to survive, that you're willing to give up your freedom and your own control of your own resources to people who are just as human and fallible as yourself? What a great opportunity for power-hungry, greedy people: positions in which people are legally required to give them money and power. Oh, of course, they are incorruptible and selfless--completely trustworthy. They won't embezzle, they won't take bribes, they won't give favors to remain in power. Your money is safe in their hands, and you can count on them to put it to the best use for your own good.
Tax men used to go door to door to audit your possessions, but today we're oppressed by the lowest tax rates in American history and the atrocity of filing our taxes online from the comfort of our own home.
You want tax men coming to your door to write down what you own? Who are you? What are you?
Your post is full of strawmen and red herrings.
It's reasonable to expect that a graphics app will not make your system vulnerable to hostile takeover. Actually, this is a reasonable expectation for every kind of software.
It's not the same thing at all. If I buy a house, I can do whatever I want with it, because I own it. They are claiming to license the software, not sell it--the user is not free to fix problems at will.
Actually, since it's a license, it would be reasonable to expect a refund at-will. Theoretically, if I give up the license, I can't use the software. They're basically claiming to rent the software, or a right to use it, for a one-time fee. Since the fee is one-time, if I give up the license, I should receive the fee back. This is in contrast to, e.g. a monthly fee, in which case I'd simply stop paying the fee.
Dude, whose side are you on, anyway?
In what way is Debian not available entirely free-of-charge?
If someone is your enemy, it's OK to do anything you can get away with to them. Anything.
No, that's simply evil.
Your attitude is actually more morally bankrupt than the studios' attitude.
Who decides who your enemy is? Where do you draw the line? Murder? Hey, you said "Anything."
Even war, which is all about killing people, has rules.
How did you come upon such a psychopathic attitude? What's wrong with you?
You have not comprehended the argument. Whether that's due to dishonesty or a mistake, only you can say.
OP: "Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes"
You: "that debate has been over at least a decade . Not that it was ever in much of a debate."
Me: "You're lying about the debate"
You: "We've known for over a decade that volcanoes represent approximately 1% of human emissions"
That's a strawman argument. The debate in question--the OP's--is not how much CO2 volcanoes emit, but "how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes".
That is the entire point: we do not know for certain how much humans have affected the climate. Logically, it's not possible to know that for certain without an alternate universe to refer to. Anyone who says that it's possible to know for certain is not telling the truth--whether due to ignorance or lying to pursue an agenda.
If you can't behave better than 3 year old throwing a tantrum, please feel free to leave.
If you can't behave better than making ad hominems, please feel free to do whatever you want, because this is the Internet.
He says on that page, "According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year." Is he lying or confused or...? Are his or your sources wrong? Is there a unit conversion problem?
You think I'm conned and confused and mindless--I think you're naive. This has never been a simple situation. The politics and money machines have been building this up for 40 years. Climate change has never been an issue of determining the truth and then determining a course of action. It's been set up as a vehicle for carrying agendas, regardless of the truth and the science. Just look at the book, "Why We Disagree About Climate Change." "The myth transcends the science," and we should ask "not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us."
I think you are the one who's being conned.
We should be good stewards of the environment--conservationists. That doesn't mean that:
a) humans are causing climate change; or
b) humans are causing dangerous climate change; or
c) climate change could be averted; or
d) climate change should be averted; or
e) humans are bad while plants and animals are good; or
f) that the action necessary to make a difference, if possible and if wise, would do more good than harm.
I think someday, years from now, people will look back and laugh at the knowledge and understanding we think we have. The earth and its climate are enormously large and complex. We might be right, we might be partially right, or we might be wrong. Time will tell.
In the meantime, rationally pursuing the truth is the answer--not labeling, stereotyping, and attacking while blindly pursuing an agenda that might not be wise or necessary.
Obviously, though there is a single truth, interpretations of it vary wildly. You should account for this in your arguments. As I said, your argument boiled down to, "I'm right, I have truth, whoever disagrees with me is a denier of reality." And that's not science--that's just labeling.
It's rather arrogant of anyone to think he can fully understand or predict a system as enormous as the entire Earth's climate. You should be a bit more careful with your claims, lest time prove you wrong someday.
Seems that I misunderstood you, then. :)
"As one who disagrees with me, you do not understand why I am right. You do not understand reality, but I do. Basically, you are an idiot."
FTFY.
You should stop labeling, attacking, and insulting. It doesn't help your case. Let your arguments rest on their merits. Otherwise it looks as if you have an agenda other than the pursuit of truth.
More labeling. In this thread you even kick it up a notch from "denier" to "denialist." What's next, "denialism"? I thought this was supposed to be about the science, about the facts. Why the ad hominems?
Appealing to consensus is appealing to popularity, which is a logical fallacy--not science.
Actually a lot of the argument for AGW is that CO2 levels increase when temperature increases--which is that correlation equals causation. However, there is evidence that CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes, in which case it would be an indicator, not a factor. Lindzen explains this in his video. You haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.
Another issue is that the predictive models exaggerate the amplifying effect of other greenhouse gases in order to force the models to match observations; then those flawed models are used to extrapolate into the future. Lindzen also explains this in his video. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.
Another issue is that the GATA fluctuations are within the margins of error--they are statistically insignificant, and therefore prove nothing. Lindzen also explains this in his video. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.
Another issue is that the data on sea levels may not be sufficient for analysis. Lindzen also explains this in his video--he even quotes a fellow MIT professor who has published on sea levels. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.
Finally, humans only produce 6% of the CO2 produced annually. Six percent. I've read that that is within the margin of error of the natural sources' production. If so, that further casts into doubt the significance of human CO2 production.
I'd be happy to read your responses to these five issues, but only if you address the facts and logic--I've no interest in labeling and personal attacks. If your science and logic are sound, you need not do anything but state them.
http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-cannot-be-the-co2/
According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources. Estimates of CO2 from natural sources are very crude as evidenced by the large error factors. Reports with headlines like, "Forests soak up more CO2 than thought" and "Old-growth forests absorb CO2 too: study" keep appearing. In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons, but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle. Spread the human annual production across the planet and it doesn't even show on the world map. The pattern confirms this because it reflects natural sources.
Are these numbers true? If they are true, what do they mean?
You're lying about the debate, and you're oversimplifying the science. What's your agenda?
While we're "isolating and monitoring" people we disagree with "for their own safety and ours," I nominate you to be isolated and monitored.
The debate is over? Are you lying or just ignorant?
I have no such interest. I argue that there is a debate.
For example, according to this page:
"In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons [of CO2], but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle."
By those numbers, humans produce merely 6% of total CO2 which, "is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources."
If that is true, then even measurement of human CO2 output is statistically insignificant, and therefore irrelevant to the debate. If that is true, then it would seem to invalidate the entire AGW hypothesis.
Are those numbers true?
And so you beg the question of whether we're sliding toward a pit, a question of which the answer cannot be known.
"Modern concepts of tolerance"?
By your logic, isolationists were responsible for deaths which would have been prevented had the U.S. entered WWII sooner, and those opposed to the Iraq War would have been responsible for those additional deaths which would have occurred under Hussein's regime.
Claiming that any group of people--one which you conveniently oppose--is responsible for a natural disaster of global proportion which has yet to even occur is beyond words.
Shame on you.
They don't need a new hypothesis--the AGW hypothesis doesn't fit the facts. Many of the "facts" that are cited to support AGW aren't even facts, but extrapolations of data points which are within margins of error.
The lie is that AGW is a fact, and that it's supported by facts. Statistically insignificant data are not facts.
How's that for an inconvenient truth.
Yes. Please post this more. I'm tired of reading, "The science is settled," when it's simply not. Now that's an inconvenient truth.
Red herring. Argument fail.
That makes as much sense as someone saying, "God exists because I say so." And I say that as a Christian.
Your argument is simply, "Reality is what I say it is. Anyone who disagrees with me is a denier of reality."