In other words, 98% of the scientists that study the subject in detail and publish agree. I don't care what ecologists think about climate science, just as I don't care what chemists think about computer science.
Going from 280ppm to 400ppm is a big increase. We've known since the Nineteenth Century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing it will, other things being equal, raise the temperature. The percentage of change is over 40%, which is pretty significant.
If you're going to post a reply, you might want to make the reply relevant to the post.
The fact is that, when someone criticizes Trump or his actions, it's very likely that someone will disparage Hillary Clinton as if that's an answer. Look, guys, you won. You now are responsible for what happens. Clinton lost. She isn't responsible. Get over it and take some responsibility, instead of sniveling about how Clinton would have been worse.
I think I can safely predict that even you wouldn't voluntarily put your retirement savings into a fund that couldn't even keep up with inflation over a 25-year period.
The government's main mission is not to turn a profit. This looks like a relatively inexpensive way to push businesses into investing in solar panel production, which is overall good for the economy.
In discussions about the relocation camps, I've noticed that liberals tend to call it racist and unacceptable while conservatives are more likely to justify it.
The people doing this present save-the-planet crap are NOT principled people; they are nearly all doing it out of spite over the loss of the 2016 election
In general, they're doing it because they're in favor of lowering CO2 emissions, and after Trump won it will have to be done at the local level.
I doubt ANY of them are for the feds no longer funding planned parenthood, or social security, or Obamacare, or foodstamps
Those are appropriations that are explicitly allowed in the Constitution, and it's reasonable for people to support such spending. They're not automatically wrong because you disagree.
No, actually, it's not well documented, particularly if we're considering charity towards everyone. Conservatives are more likely to give to people like themselves, not people in general who need help. Conservatives give more money to churches, and although churches are pretty much automatically tax-deductible they don't spend all their money on charity. The situation is a lot more complicated than that.
Selflessness is reflected in me campaigning to have my own taxes raised.
CO2 isn't pollution and is a red hearing argument to justify any action the manipulators want.
Plants breathe it.
CO2 in excess is pollution, regardless of what breathes it. It is already causing problems.
There are historical times when it has been much higher than it is now.
False. Those times are prehistorical, not historical. It really doesn't matter to us, as a practical matter, what the world was like fifty million years ago. What matters is that we evolved under certain conditions, and civilization developed under certain conditions, and so major changes are going to disrupt things.
Volcano's release it at staggering rates that may or may not outpace what humanity does.
Actually, we measure these things. Volcanos are a very minor source.
If you want to lower CO2 levels plant more plants to breathe it in and quit polluting the oceans
Plants can't handle an increase of this size, and they're a temporary measure anyway since they eventually rot and release the CO2 to the air. There have been experiments with trying to create blooms in the ocean that will result in plants tying up carbon in the hope that they'll sink to the bottom, but last I checked they didn't go very well.
That money was meant to weaken the U.S. to knock us down a few notches
That money is far too little to have that effect. The amount of money needed to go down a notch is really, really big to a very large economy.
Businesses try to set their prices according to the supply and demand curves. They almost never have the opportunity to pass increased costs to the customer, no matter how much they complain about it.
- I wonder how many little kids have been hit and killed in the grocery store parking lot because a pregnant mother of 4 had to park 1/2 mile away because the first 20 spaces, 18 vacant, were marked handicap only?
If the parking lot extends half a mile, providing access to another 18 spaces is going to do almost nothing to help her.
- I wonder how many non-disabled elderly have died from heart attacks while hiking across a parking lot because all the close spots were disabled?
As far as the close spots being already filled? If there's a serious chance that excessive walking is going to cause a heart attack, the old guy needs to get a handicapped parking permit, because that is a disability, and then with the ADA the old person can park close.
lawyers who make their living suing businesses who have their toilet stall 3" too narrow or pull up bar 1" taller than code
The rules are well known. If a business owner can't be bothered to hire people who can follow simple instructions, why should the business continue to exist? The same attitude towards electrical work or plumbing or natural gas would result in safety problems.
The reality is that having a fleet of disabled accessible vehicles is unreasonable on it's face because the fleet doesn't exist,
Nobody's talking about a large fleet of accessible vehicles. If they don't exist, then it's Uber's responsibility to provide some.
(so the driver would need a larger fee for handicapped accommodation, also illegal per the ADA)
The law says the passenger can't be charged more, not that the driver can't be paid more.
Uber is not just a middleman. Uber runs the system. Uber tries to pass itself off as something other than a transportation company, while running a transportation company.
Concrete discrimination against whites today starts from exactly the ideology where whitey cannot possibly be hurt, or damaged, or discriminated against in any way.
Got any concrete discrimination to show us, and any support for your claim that people consider that whites are invulnerable?
So we have things like gender-based admission quotas that stop applying the second that the proportion of women to men increases past 1:1, 3:2, or whatever it was;
That isn't discrimination against whites.
assistance for the underclasses that're deliberately inapplicable to white people regardless of background.
Would you care to give an example? I can't think of any.
In the US, hate speech or hate crimes are only illegal if the underlying action was already illegal. However, sentences are not fixed per crime, and hate crime is normally punished more severely, because it can intimidate groups. Killing someone for their money isn't terrorism, but killing them for their race, and making sure it's known it was because of their race, is a form of terrorism.
Really? I'd believe that blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime than whites, but determining who actually commits more crimes is harder than that.
Enforcing color-blind rules is one way of perpetuating racism. In the US, whites are generally better off than blacks. If we say that races are equal and it doesn't matter, it's easy to fall into the belief that whites are better and more competent than blacks.
And so the new users find they have to do a lot of work to avoid assholes, and go somewhere else. This is not going to work for commercial websites. The Usenet of old was largely wiped out, even with killfiles, and even after the Eternal September people on Usenet were typically more committed and tech-savvy than the typical web user.
The primary concern of a commercial website is making enough money to continue, and that means attracting a large number of customers, since they're typically not that easy to monetize. It has no obligation to provide freedom of speech, and people who want to say things the site disapprove of can get their own websites.
Assume, under the present system, one state has a small population and the entire national reserves of a crucial resource, which is a highly unlikely counterfactual in the first place. That state would have three electoral votes, one Representative, and two Senators. There would be nothing stopping the country from electing a President, Senate, and House determined to plunder the resources, which would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war.
You're supporting a system because it would do exactly the same as an improved system in a highly unlikely contingency.
You do realize most of the people attacking Trump are even richer, right?
What is Trump's net worth? If it's over a million dollars, that's more than us or any of our friends, and most of us are anti-Trump and have attacked him in some way.
They are sovereign states and our national government is a republic of sovereign states.
Sovereign states can control their borders, conduct foreign policy, and issue money of any type. Most US states have never been sovereign, and none are anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, 98% of the scientists that study the subject in detail and publish agree. I don't care what ecologists think about climate science, just as I don't care what chemists think about computer science.
Going from 280ppm to 400ppm is a big increase. We've known since the Nineteenth Century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing it will, other things being equal, raise the temperature. The percentage of change is over 40%, which is pretty significant.
The models are reasonably accurate, overall.
If you're going to post a reply, you might want to make the reply relevant to the post.
The fact is that, when someone criticizes Trump or his actions, it's very likely that someone will disparage Hillary Clinton as if that's an answer. Look, guys, you won. You now are responsible for what happens. Clinton lost. She isn't responsible. Get over it and take some responsibility, instead of sniveling about how Clinton would have been worse.
The government's main mission is not to turn a profit. This looks like a relatively inexpensive way to push businesses into investing in solar panel production, which is overall good for the economy.
Actually, Oklan Warrior was complaining about legal immigrants, and some people apparently thought it was about illegal immigrants.
In discussions about the relocation camps, I've noticed that liberals tend to call it racist and unacceptable while conservatives are more likely to justify it.
The interstate commerce clause has, in my opinion, been overstretched since the 1940s. It's beyond "currently".
In general, they're doing it because they're in favor of lowering CO2 emissions, and after Trump won it will have to be done at the local level.
Those are appropriations that are explicitly allowed in the Constitution, and it's reasonable for people to support such spending. They're not automatically wrong because you disagree.
No, actually, it's not well documented, particularly if we're considering charity towards everyone. Conservatives are more likely to give to people like themselves, not people in general who need help. Conservatives give more money to churches, and although churches are pretty much automatically tax-deductible they don't spend all their money on charity. The situation is a lot more complicated than that.
Selflessness is reflected in me campaigning to have my own taxes raised.
CO2 in excess is pollution, regardless of what breathes it. It is already causing problems.
False. Those times are prehistorical, not historical. It really doesn't matter to us, as a practical matter, what the world was like fifty million years ago. What matters is that we evolved under certain conditions, and civilization developed under certain conditions, and so major changes are going to disrupt things.
Actually, we measure these things. Volcanos are a very minor source.
Plants can't handle an increase of this size, and they're a temporary measure anyway since they eventually rot and release the CO2 to the air. There have been experiments with trying to create blooms in the ocean that will result in plants tying up carbon in the hope that they'll sink to the bottom, but last I checked they didn't go very well.
That money is far too little to have that effect. The amount of money needed to go down a notch is really, really big to a very large economy.
Uber has been known to buy cars and lease them to drivers. They can toss a few handicap-accessible vans in there.
Don't be so sure. That's been argued a lot, and it will continue to be since Uber drivers are close to the dividing line.
Businesses try to set their prices according to the supply and demand curves. They almost never have the opportunity to pass increased costs to the customer, no matter how much they complain about it.
If the parking lot extends half a mile, providing access to another 18 spaces is going to do almost nothing to help her.
As far as the close spots being already filled? If there's a serious chance that excessive walking is going to cause a heart attack, the old guy needs to get a handicapped parking permit, because that is a disability, and then with the ADA the old person can park close.
The rules are well known. If a business owner can't be bothered to hire people who can follow simple instructions, why should the business continue to exist? The same attitude towards electrical work or plumbing or natural gas would result in safety problems.
Nobody's talking about a large fleet of accessible vehicles. If they don't exist, then it's Uber's responsibility to provide some.
The law says the passenger can't be charged more, not that the driver can't be paid more.
Uber is not just a middleman. Uber runs the system. Uber tries to pass itself off as something other than a transportation company, while running a transportation company.
That's a no-win solution. Internet forums either do something to stop trolls and assholes or they die. I've watched it happen.
Got any concrete discrimination to show us, and any support for your claim that people consider that whites are invulnerable?
That isn't discrimination against whites.
Would you care to give an example? I can't think of any.
In the US, hate speech or hate crimes are only illegal if the underlying action was already illegal. However, sentences are not fixed per crime, and hate crime is normally punished more severely, because it can intimidate groups. Killing someone for their money isn't terrorism, but killing them for their race, and making sure it's known it was because of their race, is a form of terrorism.
Really? I'd believe that blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime than whites, but determining who actually commits more crimes is harder than that.
Enforcing color-blind rules is one way of perpetuating racism. In the US, whites are generally better off than blacks. If we say that races are equal and it doesn't matter, it's easy to fall into the belief that whites are better and more competent than blacks.
And so the new users find they have to do a lot of work to avoid assholes, and go somewhere else. This is not going to work for commercial websites. The Usenet of old was largely wiped out, even with killfiles, and even after the Eternal September people on Usenet were typically more committed and tech-savvy than the typical web user.
The primary concern of a commercial website is making enough money to continue, and that means attracting a large number of customers, since they're typically not that easy to monetize. It has no obligation to provide freedom of speech, and people who want to say things the site disapprove of can get their own websites.
In other words, the majority of job growth comes with really crappy pay. Is this a trend we want to encourage?
If he's an incredibly apt reflection of the population at large, why did he lose the popular vote? You'd expect such a President to win it decisively.
Assume, under the present system, one state has a small population and the entire national reserves of a crucial resource, which is a highly unlikely counterfactual in the first place. That state would have three electoral votes, one Representative, and two Senators. There would be nothing stopping the country from electing a President, Senate, and House determined to plunder the resources, which would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war.
You're supporting a system because it would do exactly the same as an improved system in a highly unlikely contingency.
What is Trump's net worth? If it's over a million dollars, that's more than us or any of our friends, and most of us are anti-Trump and have attacked him in some way.
The Electoral College as described in the Federalist Papers would not have elected Trump.
Sovereign states can control their borders, conduct foreign policy, and issue money of any type. Most US states have never been sovereign, and none are anymore.