This is Canadian Oil. You say it is reducing costs for the US. Why would US have any cost to begin with? Why can't Canada just export the oil from Canada instead of shipping it down to my neighborhood (Deep South). The refinery argument makes perfect sense to explain this. What is the scenario in which this is good for the US, if in fact this oil is just to be exported?
It's already been 4 months. It's old news in a sense; I had forgotten about it. His company was supposed to tank already. At least, according to Limbaugh.
I expected your comment to be modded funny. Smoke a joint to save the environment. I consider myself environmentally conscious, but (if you weren't actually trying to get a laugh) that argument is ridiculous. I'm sure nobody runs just for the high. They run for their health. Telling people they shouldn't run because it's bad for the environment is wack. Probably modded up by obese people because it justifies not exercising.
So if you don't use early injection, how do you clean the DPF when it gets clogged? Or do the higher combustion temperatures (that produce more NOx) also prevent ash from clogging the DPF?
Send supplies ahead of the crew in several stages. Continue sending supplies after the crew has landed, giving them both the tools they need to build a colony as well as backup supplies should their plans fail.
Anna. Yes, there is a difference. Scientists (alone or in groups) publishing science that conflicts with mainstream is encouraged. But that's not the case here. This is about very large corporations (oil, gas, and coal) being accused of deliberately misleading the public for their own gain. That is, these companies are very well aware of the actual science, which poses a threat to their business. So they fund campaigns to cast doubt on solid scientific evidence.
This has happened before, repeatedly. Most notably with cigarettes, where the companies' own internal documents, from their own scientists proved cigarettes caused cancer in the 50's. Yet, for over 30 years they publicly denied any health issues and actively spread doubt on the growing evidence against cigarettes. "Merchants of Doubt" is an outstanding account of the history and methods industry has used and is using today to spread doubt on otherwise sound science.
I don't know that I'm for RICO. I am attempting to thwart attempts to misrepresent the argument, as was the case here.
So we know we're changing the climate, but don't know how it's going to work out. Might be bad. Possibly not. Conclusion... continue on with the experiment.
Found some tasty berries in the woods and started eating them. Might be good for me. Might kill me. Could possibly make me immune to snake bites. Tastes good - I'll keep eating them.
If you had read the linked article, you would know that this is a RICO "investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change", not scientists submitting unorthodox views, as you are attempting to frame it.
This isn't about censorship. It's about massive and deliberate deception that causes harm. Cigarettes killed people for 40+ years AFTER the evidence was clear. Clear data showing cigarettes caused disease and death wasn't enough because the cigarette companies launched a massive campaign to cast doubt among people. The same thing is happening now, scarily often from the same groups and people (Heritage Foundation, Fred Singer). "Merchants of Doubt" contains impressive research on the subject, for those who want details.
Do know a single person who wants to "slam the brakes on business"? A global conspiracy among client scientists to slow down the economy - how does anybody take that seriously? The same people who say the government is hopelessly inefficient and incompetent claim the same government has coordinated a global effort to deceive the public, recruiting the entire population of publishing climate scientists for 20+ years. To what end? "to slam the brakes on business". (Brain explodes)
Or maybe it's this simple. Those that stand to lose money (coal, oil, and gas) launch a campaign to cast doubt on the science that would hurt their core business.
This has happened before with cigarettes. History is a great teacher.
And before you throw labels at me, I value liberty above "safety". I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the previous two elections. Ultimately I look for the truth, and it is as clear as clear gets for AGW.
"destroying your enemies with lawfare" Who are EPA's enemies? And can you please give specific examples of the EPA being used as an anti-business tool and show how the "extreme leftists" controlled it. Disband? How would that not cause environmental quality to revert?
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not wrong or harmful.
Stacking the ISO committee to ram through OOXML was wrong and harmful, but legal. Breaking Java on Windows was wrong and harmful. The "embrace, extend, and extinguish" tactic used often as with Kerberos was wrong and harmful, but legal.
I think the term evil is misused here on slashdot and I wouldn't call Microsoft's acts evil. I would call it despicable. I would call it dishonorable. That anyone would think this is a good thing just makes me sad.
You're arguing a false premise, that choosing to eliminate our production of greenhouse gases is simultaneously a choice to ignore poverty in India. I don't consider myself a "selfish self-centered coastal living fuck", yet I am concerned about global warming. I'm also concerned about helping people in poverty and do contribute to that cause as well.
And you're obviously a global warming denier. Otherwise you would realize that while the Earth will go on, the threat of global warming is to our entire race. It's impossible to predict exactly what will happen, but as Musk and others have said, greenhouse gas emissions are "the dumbest experiment in history". Once you've realized the full effect, you can't exactly start the experiment over and do things differently next time. It won't matter that the poor people in India were able to improve their standard of living with cheap coal if that coal makes the planet inhabitable for humans.
"Most likely at some point in the next 5, 10, 15 years the evidence will become obvious enough to overcome your ideological blinders"
No it won't because this is the same type of denial suffered by drug abusers and alcoholics. The proof couldn't be much stronger than it is.
Most people who deny that our pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm, deny because they simply don't want to believe it and no amount of evidence will change their mind. Add to that the deliberate attempt to cast doubt on the issue by people and organizations (motivated by money and political ideology) and you can understand where we are at. This has happened before most notably with tobacco. Tobacco was known (by tobacco companies) to cause cancer in the 50's. Despite strong evidence and scientific consensus, it wasn't until the 90's that the general public realized smoking caused cancer. And many didn't believe it (and some still don't) because they simply don't want to.
The book "Merchant's of Doubt" contains incredibly thorough investigations into this phenomenon.
We can't do much about China directly. What we CAN do is LEAD. We should do our best to fix problems at home and demonstrate a system China WILL WANT to replicate. They're pretty good at copying, you know. I agree that nukes should be on the table as modern designs look promising. Also to consider though is that solar and wind, with the advent of grid storage and falling prices, is considerably more cost effective than it was even a year ago.
I owned a N800 and N900. Maemo was good and would have allowed Nokia to maintain the control and distinctiveness they had with Symbian. With support for Android apps, it was a win-win. They needed united support for Maemo internally, but instead got Elop. Elop decided to throw out Maemo and Sybian and throw everything behind Windows Phone. The rest is history.
Going Android would have been a bad move also, because they would have no edge over the other Android players. Having their own OS with support for Android apps was a better solution.
So Tesla rigged the gauge when they did the swap? That's a bold claim. Would you accept that his car didn't run out of energy while driving after the swap?
You're referring to methane as part of the carbon cycle, but methane has it's own cycle (global methane cycle) that behave differently from CO2. Unlike CO2, methane is neutralized in the atmosphere by OH. I don't know what the state of methane's affect of warming is, just saying maybe it shouldn't be lumped in with CO2.
Slashdot Mirror
Broken Window Fallacy
It's not so much the current temp that's a concern, but the driver that caused it. And most importantly where that driver is taking us.
First, I'll say I'm not versed in this issue. I just don't follow the logic in your argument.
The US can't export oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is Canadian Oil. You say it is reducing costs for the US. Why would US have any cost to begin with? Why can't Canada just export the oil from Canada instead of shipping it down to my neighborhood (Deep South). The refinery argument makes perfect sense to explain this. What is the scenario in which this is good for the US, if in fact this oil is just to be exported?
It's already been 4 months. It's old news in a sense; I had forgotten about it. His company was supposed to tank already. At least, according to Limbaugh.
If we're talking about how to build out the grid, you could run the figures with nuclear and/or grid storage for a 100% renewable grid.
I expected your comment to be modded funny. Smoke a joint to save the environment. I consider myself environmentally conscious, but (if you weren't actually trying to get a laugh) that argument is ridiculous. I'm sure nobody runs just for the high. They run for their health. Telling people they shouldn't run because it's bad for the environment is wack. Probably modded up by obese people because it justifies not exercising.
So if you don't use early injection, how do you clean the DPF when it gets clogged? Or do the higher combustion temperatures (that produce more NOx) also prevent ash from clogging the DPF?
Send supplies ahead of the crew in several stages. Continue sending supplies after the crew has landed, giving them both the tools they need to build a colony as well as backup supplies should their plans fail.
Because whatever takes out the earth (asteroid) will probably take out the moon too, or at least set it on a bad trajectory.
Anna. Yes, there is a difference. Scientists (alone or in groups) publishing science that conflicts with mainstream is encouraged. But that's not the case here. This is about very large corporations (oil, gas, and coal) being accused of deliberately misleading the public for their own gain. That is, these companies are very well aware of the actual science, which poses a threat to their business. So they fund campaigns to cast doubt on solid scientific evidence.
This has happened before, repeatedly. Most notably with cigarettes, where the companies' own internal documents, from their own scientists proved cigarettes caused cancer in the 50's. Yet, for over 30 years they publicly denied any health issues and actively spread doubt on the growing evidence against cigarettes. "Merchants of Doubt" is an outstanding account of the history and methods industry has used and is using today to spread doubt on otherwise sound science.
I don't know that I'm for RICO. I am attempting to thwart attempts to misrepresent the argument, as was the case here.
So we know we're changing the climate, but don't know how it's going to work out. Might be bad. Possibly not. Conclusion ... continue on with the experiment.
Found some tasty berries in the woods and started eating them. Might be good for me. Might kill me. Could possibly make me immune to snake bites. Tastes good - I'll keep eating them.
If you had read the linked article, you would know that this is a RICO "investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change", not scientists submitting unorthodox views, as you are attempting to frame it.
What's up with the mods? How is this obviously weak argument a 5? The data was solid for cigarettes and it is solid (and has been) for AGW.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
This isn't about censorship. It's about massive and deliberate deception that causes harm. Cigarettes killed people for 40+ years AFTER the evidence was clear. Clear data showing cigarettes caused disease and death wasn't enough because the cigarette companies launched a massive campaign to cast doubt among people. The same thing is happening now, scarily often from the same groups and people (Heritage Foundation, Fred Singer). "Merchants of Doubt" contains impressive research on the subject, for those who want details.
Do know a single person who wants to "slam the brakes on business"? A global conspiracy among client scientists to slow down the economy - how does anybody take that seriously? The same people who say the government is hopelessly inefficient and incompetent claim the same government has coordinated a global effort to deceive the public, recruiting the entire population of publishing climate scientists for 20+ years. To what end? "to slam the brakes on business". (Brain explodes)
Or maybe it's this simple. Those that stand to lose money (coal, oil, and gas) launch a campaign to cast doubt on the science that would hurt their core business.
This has happened before with cigarettes. History is a great teacher.
And before you throw labels at me, I value liberty above "safety". I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the previous two elections. Ultimately I look for the truth, and it is as clear as clear gets for AGW.
Are we supposed to read their minds? What measure would you suggest?
97% of peer reviewed studies conclude global warming is man made. http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...
So where do your figures come from? Or are you just making them up?
"destroying your enemies with lawfare" Who are EPA's enemies? And can you please give specific examples of the EPA being used as an anti-business tool and show how the "extreme leftists" controlled it. Disband? How would that not cause environmental quality to revert?
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not wrong or harmful.
Stacking the ISO committee to ram through OOXML was wrong and harmful, but legal. Breaking Java on Windows was wrong and harmful. The "embrace, extend, and extinguish" tactic used often as with Kerberos was wrong and harmful, but legal.
I think the term evil is misused here on slashdot and I wouldn't call Microsoft's acts evil. I would call it despicable. I would call it dishonorable. That anyone would think this is a good thing just makes me sad.
You're arguing a false premise, that choosing to eliminate our production of greenhouse gases is simultaneously a choice to ignore poverty in India. I don't consider myself a "selfish self-centered coastal living fuck", yet I am concerned about global warming. I'm also concerned about helping people in poverty and do contribute to that cause as well.
And you're obviously a global warming denier. Otherwise you would realize that while the Earth will go on, the threat of global warming is to our entire race. It's impossible to predict exactly what will happen, but as Musk and others have said, greenhouse gas emissions are "the dumbest experiment in history". Once you've realized the full effect, you can't exactly start the experiment over and do things differently next time. It won't matter that the poor people in India were able to improve their standard of living with cheap coal if that coal makes the planet inhabitable for humans.
"Most likely at some point in the next 5, 10, 15 years the evidence will become obvious enough to overcome your ideological blinders"
No it won't because this is the same type of denial suffered by drug abusers and alcoholics. The proof couldn't be much stronger than it is.
Most people who deny that our pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm, deny because they simply don't want to believe it and no amount of evidence will change their mind. Add to that the deliberate attempt to cast doubt on the issue by people and organizations (motivated by money and political ideology) and you can understand where we are at. This has happened before most notably with tobacco. Tobacco was known (by tobacco companies) to cause cancer in the 50's. Despite strong evidence and scientific consensus, it wasn't until the 90's that the general public realized smoking caused cancer. And many didn't believe it (and some still don't) because they simply don't want to.
The book "Merchant's of Doubt" contains incredibly thorough investigations into this phenomenon.
We can't do much about China directly. What we CAN do is LEAD. We should do our best to fix problems at home and demonstrate a system China WILL WANT to replicate. They're pretty good at copying, you know. I agree that nukes should be on the table as modern designs look promising. Also to consider though is that solar and wind, with the advent of grid storage and falling prices, is considerably more cost effective than it was even a year ago.
I owned a N800 and N900. Maemo was good and would have allowed Nokia to maintain the control and distinctiveness they had with Symbian. With support for Android apps, it was a win-win. They needed united support for Maemo internally, but instead got Elop. Elop decided to throw out Maemo and Sybian and throw everything behind Windows Phone. The rest is history.
Going Android would have been a bad move also, because they would have no edge over the other Android players. Having their own OS with support for Android apps was a better solution.
So Tesla rigged the gauge when they did the swap? That's a bold claim. Would you accept that his car didn't run out of energy while driving after the swap?
Hmm. Who is better at interpreting NOAA data sets. Crashmarik on slashdot or NOAA https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni... ?
You're referring to methane as part of the carbon cycle, but methane has it's own cycle (global methane cycle) that behave differently from CO2. Unlike CO2, methane is neutralized in the atmosphere by OH. I don't know what the state of methane's affect of warming is, just saying maybe it shouldn't be lumped in with CO2.