You also have to consider we shifted the production of CO2 offshore by outsourcing most of our industrial production.
So while it looks good on paper "US reduces CO2 emissions" "CO2 emissions reduced in US by 70%", truth is they weren't just moved somewhere else on the planet.
So in 60 years the temperature will rise by what,.6 degrees?
Data shows that over the last 100 years the average temps haven't risen much over 1.5 degrees F. That's 100 years!
Data models are predicting warming trends based on CO2 levels being CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So then we have the untested unproven theory there, climate is warming. Now we have the data while it shows a warming trend it doesn't show the dire trend as it's preached.
Does this mean it should be ignored? Hell no, we should be proactive in this.
The major question is will our fuel supplies run out prior to significant levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to raise global temps more than a tenth of a degree per decade.
When a hypothesis has been made, tested and results either support or refute the hypothesis.
In terms of climate consider a single week let's say second week of December. Now measuring the temp all that week and other variables is that enough data to form a hypothesis about climate for the entire year?
Seems ridiculous but when you consider climate as a whole you have to consider the immense spans of time we are dealing with, we aren't talking a few hundred years we are talking eons.
While current data may show a warming trend we don't have data far back enough to prove it's warming due to whatever reason and not part of natural climate change.
I do realize we can measure CO2 levels etc. Even these have been significantly higher and lower throughout history.
You do realize the policy will not be about reducing or even limiting CO2 emissions.
The large producers of CO2 will keep churning away what it will do is stop the smaller producers by raising the bar they have to meet.
Policy is like when corps get fines, take the EPA Company X gets caught illegally dumping waste they have to pay cleanup and then some fees to the EPA, in reality what they pay for this is probably far less than what it would cost them to do it properly, this scenario only takes into account they've been doing the same thing all along and only been caught the once meaning they could have dumped several hundred tons of waste and only gotten caught dumping a small percentage of that.
There are no consequences just slaps on the wrist with a finger wave and a stern "Well don't do that again".
If an app developer chooses to devote their resources into certain platforms I can understand which would include not devoting resources into platforms that won't pay off.
Imagine if his same logic is applied to software. Should Outlook be ported for both Apple, Linux, and any other OS out there simply because it's fair?
Here's a tip, if developers aren't adopting your platform it may be due to something besides neutrality. Could your business model suck? Could they perceive your platform as not having as large a user base?
Instead of crying that things should be made even look at your business model and business strategy.
Here's a novel thought, contact those developers on other platforms and ask them what your company could do to encourage them and possibly other developers to also develop on your platform.
If you ask me the "Crackberry" fad has entered winter.
Slashdot Mirror
We will know we are at that point when we are there.
Sadly by that time it will be too late to stop.
That you can duplicate, but you can't duplicate a few hundred thousand years of actual measurement.
But science usually tends to change their beliefs based on data. If the data refutes a belief the belief is altered until there is new data.
Earth is the center of the universe new data Earth revolves around the Sun.
You also have to consider we shifted the production of CO2 offshore by outsourcing most of our industrial production.
So while it looks good on paper "US reduces CO2 emissions" "CO2 emissions reduced in US by 70%", truth is they weren't just moved somewhere else on the planet.
Fuck that, we can't be trusted to pick an insurance policy that isn't substandard remember?
What makes you think the masses are any more qualified to make a decision about the climate?
Funny, if the same data has been used to claim a warming trend and the same data is used to say otherwise I'd call that invalid data.
It should then be ignored. As it's proven flawed on both counts.
That's how science works.
So in 60 years the temperature will rise by what, .6 degrees?
Data shows that over the last 100 years the average temps haven't risen much over 1.5 degrees F. That's 100 years!
Data models are predicting warming trends based on CO2 levels being CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So then we have the untested unproven theory there, climate is warming. Now we have the data while it shows a warming trend it doesn't show the dire trend as it's preached.
Does this mean it should be ignored? Hell no, we should be proactive in this.
The major question is will our fuel supplies run out prior to significant levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to raise global temps more than a tenth of a degree per decade.
Even still it doesn't mean we should willy nilly ignore pumping CO2 into the atmos.
When a hypothesis has been made, tested and results either support or refute the hypothesis.
In terms of climate consider a single week let's say second week of December. Now measuring the temp all that week and other variables is that enough data to form a hypothesis about climate for the entire year?
Seems ridiculous but when you consider climate as a whole you have to consider the immense spans of time we are dealing with, we aren't talking a few hundred years we are talking eons.
While current data may show a warming trend we don't have data far back enough to prove it's warming due to whatever reason and not part of natural climate change.
I do realize we can measure CO2 levels etc. Even these have been significantly higher and lower throughout history.
You do realize the policy will not be about reducing or even limiting CO2 emissions.
The large producers of CO2 will keep churning away what it will do is stop the smaller producers by raising the bar they have to meet.
Policy is like when corps get fines, take the EPA Company X gets caught illegally dumping waste they have to pay cleanup and then some fees to the EPA, in reality what they pay for this is probably far less than what it would cost them to do it properly, this scenario only takes into account they've been doing the same thing all along and only been caught the once meaning they could have dumped several hundred tons of waste and only gotten caught dumping a small percentage of that.
There are no consequences just slaps on the wrist with a finger wave and a stern "Well don't do that again".
They aren't 100% guaranteed to work on your preferred platform either.
If an app developer chooses to devote their resources into certain platforms I can understand which would include not devoting resources into platforms that won't pay off.
Imagine if his same logic is applied to software. Should Outlook be ported for both Apple, Linux, and any other OS out there simply because it's fair?
Here's a tip, if developers aren't adopting your platform it may be due to something besides neutrality. Could your business model suck? Could they perceive your platform as not having as large a user base?
Instead of crying that things should be made even look at your business model and business strategy.
Here's a novel thought, contact those developers on other platforms and ask them what your company could do to encourage them and possibly other developers to also develop on your platform.
If you ask me the "Crackberry" fad has entered winter.
Will it let me flag Facebook as False?
Doesn't matter NSA still has your IP logged to a page that contained images of child nudity.
It's adorable that you have so much faith in the government that they wouldn't sell that data outright or you know allow it for some type of kickback.
That doesn't matter to the agenda, it was a Republican idea and we had to do something.
There's a difference there Bush had high profile terror attack to get the people behind him, once that happened he had carte blanche.
With Obama's sidestepping and reinterpretation of laws and the Constitution a very dangerous precedent has been set for us.
Ethics and logic when making a reference to government, I see what you did there!
When we the people demand it.
That's what the government is in business for, "wasting taxpayers money" at one time they were in the business of governing.
Peaceful, just and secure society when referring to the US, now I know you're trolling.
We've seen this happen under the guise of healthcare.
Actually kill off 6 and the remain 1 will probably be pissed and no doubt ill suited to carry on as we normally do.
How low a UID and for how much?
See I think we need to change not due to CO2 but due to reliance on a waning fuel source.