If you want to settle an argument with 'fact' then the bulk of mankinds 'facts' are at your fingertips. Try it. checking your own 'facts' can be quite an education sometimes, particularly if your like me and left HS before most slashdotters were born.
Which is why the IPCC's scientific report is remarkable. Contrary to popular opinion those reports err on the conservative side, which is exactly what you would expect when thousands of scientists must agree on a summary of current knowledge.
Rational human beings are a mythological creature, much like unicorns.
That's just a rationialization that allows you to stop thinking and do what ever "feels good". A Sagan quote seems in order here...“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the Unites States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”
Agree. "Living standards" reflect the reality of the software industry much more accurately, as long as they stay backwardly compatible with previous generations of the standard the I don't see the problem. If you need to break backward compatibility* then you need to fork the standard. Snapshot standards are ok for technologies that have more or less stopped evolving.
* - Backward compatibility is what users need, forward compatibiliy is what users want, and they will get it when the first software dev gets his hands on a time machine.
When has anyone ever paid attention to that clause? Surely you remember Bush giving Saddam 48hrs to "get out of town"? - And then when the time was up firing a cruise missle directly at him, which of course missed and killed a Jordainian taxi driver.
Here in Oz equal access to political advertising services, means equal access. If google allows a donate button for one candidate then they must by law allow it for all candidates. I work with a guy who knows Fiona personally, I'd like to see a couple of reps from one issue (socially liberal) parties such as this get a seat in parliment. The problem they have is that nationally there is some support for them but politics is local and you need enough voters in one spot to get past the post (or some strange preference deals and a lot of luck).
They can refuse to do business with anyone they want.
That's not how it works here, there are rules about equal access to media services for political candidates in an attempt to ensure that one rich party cannot hog all the eyeballs, besides the paid for adverts from registered political parties always come with an "authorised by", so you know who to blame should you be offended.
Agree, I'm careless about spelling and grammar when posting on something like slashdot, not caring doesn't imply I feel entitled, it means I don't care.
Being careless has repercussions in pretty much all areas
Not really, it just means I don't care much about spelling and grammar when posting on something like slashdot. If someone can't figure from the context that I meant "you're" when I typed "your", I'm really not that interested in conversing with them anyway.
and I really don't think that carelessness is something you turn on and off
My level of care varies but that just means I don't bother proof reading it properly, for example if I proof read my CV like I do my slashdot posts I would be unemployed, but I'm not because I care about my CV much more than my slasdot rants. I'm also a crothcy old fart that never learnt to touch type (which hasn't stopped me making a good living as a software dev for the last 20+yrs). There is a line somewhere between obsesive compulsive and total apathy all the different situation I find myself in, "choosing"* the same extreme for everything I did would be classed as a mental illness.
* - "choosing", scare quote beacuse I don't think people consciously decide what they care about.
You do not even know what the IPCC does and yet you have concluded a video put out by a retired paper industry executive is a better source of information. For your edification the IPCC does NOT "do science".
But hey, don't go to the IPCC site and find out what they are actually doing since that migh force you to question what you already know to be "fact", keep putting your faith in people like the director of that video who has no qualifications in climate science, has published no journal papers on the subject, made his millions turning forrests into paper, and warns you of the evil IPCC. Don't listen to the thousands of boffins who DONATE millions of manhours of tedious work reviewing and summarising mankind's current state of knowledge on the subject. Don't pay any attention to the billions of dollars spent collecting and analying data via everything from research ships to space ships. The boffins are just there to get free planes rides and access to confrence rooms so they refine their NWO plans. And of course who pays for these things, politicains! Sure those politicans come from over 120 very different nations but they are politicians so by definition anyone who deals with them must be untrustworthy, right?
No, wrong. You are the victim of propoganda from vested interests. However if you think that's an insult to your intelligence, then you're not very intelligent.
Why is the parent currently moderated troll?
It should be obvious to any half-wit that you cannot unsay a public statement when someone calls you on it. You are responsible for your own public utterances. If you run around making death threats or inciting riots, then eventually someone will take you seriously and the rest of us will hold you to account. It's a quaint concept called modern civilization, it's not always logical or fair, and its stubborn rules have been famously compared to an ass. However it does provide us with a superior quality and longer length of life compared to all known alternatives.
Does any of this mean the parent post or I agree/disagree with this particular ruling? - Hell no, the parent didn't state their opinon one way or the other, and I barely skimmed the summary, let alone checked it's claims.
Now, just for fun of being a trollish devils advocate let's change the wording of the GP's quote, we can sensationalise it a bit and correct the claim to accurately reflect the situation that is described in TFSummary...Imagine putting a burning cross on your front lawn. A month later you hose it down and bring it inside your house. Since the sign was public, does that mean you can refuse a court order to hand it over?
Since when is it economic alarmism when someone wants to shutdown the economy?
So who is this someone? - Other than the "tear it all down and start again" types who turn up at tea party rallies and OWS sit-ins, I don't know of anyone who wants to "shutdown the economy"? If you are so certain about your basic assumption, surely you can give us a name and point to their published economic analysis? In fact if you are certain your claim is not alarmisim I would expect you would would also be able to point to an overwhelming consensus among working economists. AFAIK published economic modelling generally predicts a worst case senario of a 0-10% drop in global GDP over a 50yr period. To put that into perspective global GDP has more than doubled since 1995.
A real skeptic questions their own assumptions which is how (over a 30yr period) I became convinced that burning all known FF deposits would be a catastrophic course of action, as a grandfather of three toddlers I am seriously fucked off that burning every last bit of coal, gas, and oil we can find is exactly what we are planning to do for no other reason than preserving the bussiness model of some very rich and powerfull luddites
OTOH: I'm probably talking to a young "free market" ideologue who didn't hear the FF industry "cry wolf" when Nixon introduced the clean air act, or Reagan introduced cap and trade on sulphur emissions, or whoever it was that took the lead out of petrol. So I don't really expect my little rant will persuade you to question yourself. Besides being wrong would imply you have been recruited as a "useful idiot" by someone you already trust, and nobody likes to admit they have been fooled by what others see as obvious propoganda.
So in other words the IPCC is "yucky", did you come up with that devestating critique all by yourself? - Or did a 3yo give you some tips on how to defeat rational arguments?
I suggest you go read the IPCC's disscusion on attribution in its reports before attempting to attack the conclusions. The +/- forcings due to changes in solar fux are swamped by the +/- forcings due to human activity to such an extent that it is difficult to detect any signal in the data. The areosols released by China alone do far more to cool the planet than changes in solar flux. Also your assumption that solar flux caused the little ice age is not supported by the data, solar fux is the least understood of many causes that might explain the the little ice age .
The underlying problem is too hard to solve with current political will. Nobody is suggesting we change everything overnight but considering we burn 5 billion tons of coal/yr and that every fuctioning coal plant on the planet has been built (and in many cases rebuilt) since I was born, 50yrs is plenty of time to convert to renewables. If it wasn't for vested interests this would happen in a similar way to how the current FF infrastructure was built (hardly noticable to the casual observer). If you want more evidence of what a determined government can build in that sort of time span then just compare 1970's China to it's current status as an economic super-power.
BTW: The top two sources of CO2 emissions are coal and oil in that order, concrete and land use come a distant 3rd and 4th. However we don't have to stop all emissions, what we need to do is get them back down to the 3Gt can be safely absorbed by the biosphere. This is where the "cap" in "cap and trade" comes from.
A 'skeptic' who denounces a claim without investigating the evidence is mearly an opinionated contrairian. Maybe if you acted like a real skeptic, the failure of Hawkings to denounce the Higgs and Dark Matter would be less surprising.
Not a small number of industries are important for strategic reasons rather than financial ones, protecting certain industries is not all about money and votes, there are other considerations.
"Hide the decline" was an attempt to assisinate the characters of Jones, Mann, the UAE, Nature Journal, and others by implying/claiming they conspired to decive the public for political/financial gain. It's interesting to note that in the subsequent formal investigation(s) the usual suspects such as Peabody Coal took it apon themselves to turn up and "help".
But aside from that if you don't believe personal attacks were used against them in the MSM, then go and read Andrew Bolt's column/blog from the Herald-Sun in Australia, If the "most read columnist in Australia" isn't enough then there are equivalents in the UK and US I can point you to such as the Daily Mail or the slavering ideologues that Fox seems to think are interseting enough to warrant their own show. Claiming Jones was Mann were not personally attacked can mean only one of two things, either you wern't paying attention or you took part in the attacks in your own small way.
Slashdot Mirror
It's time to start colonizing Mars, the Moon and other celestial objects
The slashdot equivalent of "let them eat cake".
If you want to settle an argument with 'fact' then the bulk of mankinds 'facts' are at your fingertips.
Try it. checking your own 'facts' can be quite an education sometimes, particularly if your like me and left HS before most slashdotters were born.
+1 Poe's law.
"No currently viable alternative" - This is just total bullshit, the only thing stopping renewables from powering our civilization is political will.
Which is why the IPCC's scientific report is remarkable. Contrary to popular opinion those reports err on the conservative side, which is exactly what you would expect when thousands of scientists must agree on a summary of current knowledge.
Rational human beings are a mythological creature, much like unicorns.
That's just a rationialization that allows you to stop thinking and do what ever "feels good". A Sagan quote seems in order here...“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the Unites States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”
Agree. "Living standards" reflect the reality of the software industry much more accurately, as long as they stay backwardly compatible with previous generations of the standard the I don't see the problem. If you need to break backward compatibility* then you need to fork the standard. Snapshot standards are ok for technologies that have more or less stopped evolving.
* - Backward compatibility is what users need, forward compatibiliy is what users want, and they will get it when the first software dev gets his hands on a time machine.
When has anyone ever paid attention to that clause? Surely you remember Bush giving Saddam 48hrs to "get out of town"? - And then when the time was up firing a cruise missle directly at him, which of course missed and killed a Jordainian taxi driver.
Here in Oz equal access to political advertising services, means equal access. If google allows a donate button for one candidate then they must by law allow it for all candidates. I work with a guy who knows Fiona personally, I'd like to see a couple of reps from one issue (socially liberal) parties such as this get a seat in parliment. The problem they have is that nationally there is some support for them but politics is local and you need enough voters in one spot to get past the post (or some strange preference deals and a lot of luck).
They can refuse to do business with anyone they want.
That's not how it works here, there are rules about equal access to media services for political candidates in an attempt to ensure that one rich party cannot hog all the eyeballs, besides the paid for adverts from registered political parties always come with an "authorised by", so you know who to blame should you be offended.
I'd replace "dumb" with "careless".
Agree, I'm careless about spelling and grammar when posting on something like slashdot, not caring doesn't imply I feel entitled, it means I don't care.
Being careless has repercussions in pretty much all areas
Not really, it just means I don't care much about spelling and grammar when posting on something like slashdot. If someone can't figure from the context that I meant "you're" when I typed "your", I'm really not that interested in conversing with them anyway.
and I really don't think that carelessness is something you turn on and off
My level of care varies but that just means I don't bother proof reading it properly, for example if I proof read my CV like I do my slashdot posts I would be unemployed, but I'm not because I care about my CV much more than my slasdot rants. I'm also a crothcy old fart that never learnt to touch type (which hasn't stopped me making a good living as a software dev for the last 20+yrs). There is a line somewhere between obsesive compulsive and total apathy all the different situation I find myself in, "choosing"* the same extreme for everything I did would be classed as a mental illness.
* - "choosing", scare quote beacuse I don't think people consciously decide what they care about.
You do not even know what the IPCC does and yet you have concluded a video put out by a retired paper industry executive is a better source of information. For your edification the IPCC does NOT "do science".
But hey, don't go to the IPCC site and find out what they are actually doing since that migh force you to question what you already know to be "fact", keep putting your faith in people like the director of that video who has no qualifications in climate science, has published no journal papers on the subject, made his millions turning forrests into paper, and warns you of the evil IPCC. Don't listen to the thousands of boffins who DONATE millions of manhours of tedious work reviewing and summarising mankind's current state of knowledge on the subject. Don't pay any attention to the billions of dollars spent collecting and analying data via everything from research ships to space ships. The boffins are just there to get free planes rides and access to confrence rooms so they refine their NWO plans. And of course who pays for these things, politicains! Sure those politicans come from over 120 very different nations but they are politicians so by definition anyone who deals with them must be untrustworthy, right?
No, wrong. You are the victim of propoganda from vested interests. However if you think that's an insult to your intelligence, then you're not very intelligent.
Agree, I don't think size is much of a hindernace but I am old enough to recognise that fashion repeats itself.
Good god man, a best selling conspriacy theory? That's what you call a reference? What next - quotes from the Da-Vinci code?
Why is the parent currently moderated troll?
It should be obvious to any half-wit that you cannot unsay a public statement when someone calls you on it. You are responsible for your own public utterances. If you run around making death threats or inciting riots, then eventually someone will take you seriously and the rest of us will hold you to account. It's a quaint concept called modern civilization, it's not always logical or fair, and its stubborn rules have been famously compared to an ass. However it does provide us with a superior quality and longer length of life compared to all known alternatives.
Does any of this mean the parent post or I agree/disagree with this particular ruling? - Hell no, the parent didn't state their opinon one way or the other, and I barely skimmed the summary, let alone checked it's claims.
Now, just for fun of being a trollish devils advocate let's change the wording of the GP's quote, we can sensationalise it a bit and correct the claim to accurately reflect the situation that is described in TFSummary...Imagine putting a burning cross on your front lawn. A month later you hose it down and bring it inside your house. Since the sign was public, does that mean you can refuse a court order to hand it over?
Since when is it economic alarmism when someone wants to shutdown the economy?
So who is this someone? - Other than the "tear it all down and start again" types who turn up at tea party rallies and OWS sit-ins, I don't know of anyone who wants to "shutdown the economy"? If you are so certain about your basic assumption, surely you can give us a name and point to their published economic analysis? In fact if you are certain your claim is not alarmisim I would expect you would would also be able to point to an overwhelming consensus among working economists. AFAIK published economic modelling generally predicts a worst case senario of a 0-10% drop in global GDP over a 50yr period. To put that into perspective global GDP has more than doubled since 1995.
A real skeptic questions their own assumptions which is how (over a 30yr period) I became convinced that burning all known FF deposits would be a catastrophic course of action, as a grandfather of three toddlers I am seriously fucked off that burning every last bit of coal, gas, and oil we can find is exactly what we are planning to do for no other reason than preserving the bussiness model of some very rich and powerfull luddites
OTOH: I'm probably talking to a young "free market" ideologue who didn't hear the FF industry "cry wolf" when Nixon introduced the clean air act, or Reagan introduced cap and trade on sulphur emissions, or whoever it was that took the lead out of petrol. So I don't really expect my little rant will persuade you to question yourself. Besides being wrong would imply you have been recruited as a "useful idiot" by someone you already trust, and nobody likes to admit they have been fooled by what others see as obvious propoganda.
So in other words the IPCC is "yucky", did you come up with that devestating critique all by yourself? - Or did a 3yo give you some tips on how to defeat rational arguments?
Cherry pick your data.
Now, what was it you were saying about being current?
I suggest you go read the IPCC's disscusion on attribution in its reports before attempting to attack the conclusions. The +/- forcings due to changes in solar fux are swamped by the +/- forcings due to human activity to such an extent that it is difficult to detect any signal in the data. The areosols released by China alone do far more to cool the planet than changes in solar flux. Also your assumption that solar flux caused the little ice age is not supported by the data, solar fux is the least understood of many causes that might explain the the little ice age .
The underlying problem is too hard to solve with current political will. Nobody is suggesting we change everything overnight but considering we burn 5 billion tons of coal/yr and that every fuctioning coal plant on the planet has been built (and in many cases rebuilt) since I was born, 50yrs is plenty of time to convert to renewables. If it wasn't for vested interests this would happen in a similar way to how the current FF infrastructure was built (hardly noticable to the casual observer). If you want more evidence of what a determined government can build in that sort of time span then just compare 1970's China to it's current status as an economic super-power.
BTW: The top two sources of CO2 emissions are coal and oil in that order, concrete and land use come a distant 3rd and 4th. However we don't have to stop all emissions, what we need to do is get them back down to the 3Gt can be safely absorbed by the biosphere. This is where the "cap" in "cap and trade" comes from.
Ready to turn the world's economy on it's head to to fix this supposed problem?
Economic alarmisim makes even less sense than the other kind.
A 'skeptic' who denounces a claim without investigating the evidence is mearly an opinionated contrairian. Maybe if you acted like a real skeptic, the failure of Hawkings to denounce the Higgs and Dark Matter would be less surprising.
Not a small number of industries are important for strategic reasons rather than financial ones, protecting certain industries is not all about money and votes, there are other considerations.
Claiming Jones was Mann
Bugger, I have let the cat out of the bag on the real secret. /sarcasam
"Hide the decline" was an attempt to assisinate the characters of Jones, Mann, the UAE, Nature Journal, and others by implying/claiming they conspired to decive the public for political/financial gain. It's interesting to note that in the subsequent formal investigation(s) the usual suspects such as Peabody Coal took it apon themselves to turn up and "help".
But aside from that if you don't believe personal attacks were used against them in the MSM, then go and read Andrew Bolt's column/blog from the Herald-Sun in Australia, If the "most read columnist in Australia" isn't enough then there are equivalents in the UK and US I can point you to such as the Daily Mail or the slavering ideologues that Fox seems to think are interseting enough to warrant their own show. Claiming Jones was Mann were not personally attacked can mean only one of two things, either you wern't paying attention or you took part in the attacks in your own small way.