"In addition to not countering my point (which was that plants grow better in higher CO2 environments, which is true)"
Everyone agrees on that point, why would I (or greenman) try and counter it?
Like all good propoganda it is based on misrepresentation. Sure plants grow better with higher CO2 when all other things are held equal. But will that extra growth make up for the devasting drought that has cut Australia's grain harvest in half for all but 2-3 seasons in the last 12yrs? Will it compenstae for the crops lost in the Russian drought that is so severe they have suspended wheat exports? The mediteranian drought? The south american drought? The US and Asian floods?
And to pre-empt your retort, no, none of these individual disasters can be said to be directly caused by AGW but what can be said is that these unusual events will continue to become more frequent as the globe warms.
"it's based on computer simulation and therefore worthless
Imperfect does not imply useless, if it did then by definition all science would be useless. Science is basically the art of building models that accurately describe and predict the real world within well definined bounds. I doubt you look at all the other scientific, military, and industrial uses of finite element analysis with the same derision, so why not do yourself a favour, drop the irrational bullshit and find out what climate models can and cannot do?
I think you have missunderstood the meaning of the tragedy of the commons. It basically describes the market mechanisim that creates what economists call a negative externality.
It will do more than register ire. The greens are set to hold the balance of power in the senate so they will stop pretending to appease senator Fielding with an internet filter and start pretending to appease the greens.
I confidently predict that after the election the never ending inquiry into internet filtering will rapidly be dropped in favour of a never ending inquiry into renewable energy.
Putting the car on the train to cross the Nullabor plain in Australia is a common thing to do. However it's not cheap to ship a ton of metal across a few thousand km of desert by any method, plus the train trip takes several days compared to a few hours by plane. That's why fly/drive is still the most popular (and often the cheapest) option when travelling to the world's most isolated city (Perth).
Also a typical peak hour train here in Melbourne holds about 1000 passangers, you're going to need a mighty long train to fit 1000 cars on it.
Pollution is not about simple minded disapproval of anyone's lifestyle, it's what is known as the "tradgedy of the commons". There's only one sure fire way to halt the tradgedy and that's to retool the free market such that it becomes painfully unprofitable to pollute.
No, 350 is the best approximation of the point where major changes start to take place such as the melting of polar ice and permafrost which in turn accelerate the changes by feedback mechanisims. This is not only backed by hard science but also by detailed observations that closely match the past predictions of said science.
Our civilization and agriculture has evolved in a symbiotic relationship with a stable climate, major changes to the climate are almost certainly going to induce major changes in our civilization, by all rational accounts they will not be benificial changes.
"For some applications, like establishing an optimum CO2 level for plant growth, we would do better to double CO2 levels."
That propoganda induced urban myth was the subject of a recent climate crock episode.
I would argue that big blue does all three, eg: Explorer = IBM labs, Pioneer = Smart grids, Settler = Open source adoption. Their only problem is they have a tendency to smother it all under a mountain of mindless paper work.
Just out of curiosity, what do people who live out in the middle of nowhere do to defend themselves against thieves? It's one thing when the police are minutes away in the city, but in the outback, I'm sure that's not always the case.
I lived in the middle of nowhere, I never saw a cop, the closest police station was a 1.5 hour drive away. Some people had shotguns or rifles for hunting or protecting livestock from ferral dogs. However as another poster has pointed out there was no need to lock the doors let alone own a gun to defend themselves against thieves.
When there are 50 people in a town and one of them is a thief, it's not hard to work out who it is. Dogs take the place of a gun in the bedside table and since there are usually more dogs than people in isolated towns there is no way a stranger can even get into town without the entire population knowing about it.
Wether you live in the city or the middle of nowhere a medium to large sized dog is the most effective defence against thieves. A gun is useless if your not at home to use it.
"Really, it's the same mindset as the RIAA/MPAA companies who are ignominiously featured on Slashdot so often."
Funny thing is that Murdoch turned his Aussie fiefdom into an empire during the 80's by curcumventing the similar mentality of the Fleet St unions who refused to allow newspapers to modernise their printing presses. He did it by setting up his own modern digital printing presses in direct competion with the old clunky mechanical stuff the unions had under their control. Now the worm has turned and it's Murdoch who is desprately clinging to the old clunky methods and crying foul about others who are modernising the industry.
It's not about logic it's about social norms, in the US it's always been common for someone to have a handgun in the house, in Australia it's always been frowned on by society (even when it was perfectly legal to own a gun for self-defense). The gun laws in both countries are simply a reflection of the norms that each society had already imposed on itself.
If the jurour knew about the alledged circumstances of the arrest then you would have a point but just knowing the fact they were arrested for crime X does not predjudice the case. If that were true then it would be impossible to form a jury. OTOH you can dissmiss a potential juror if they are too stupid to understand what the term "presumption of innocence" means.
"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates, (circa 400BC)
"Why would I want to do an assignment in an if statement"
Because you can assign a variable and check for an error in a single statement, eg...
if (NULL == (p = somefunction()))
"I spend most of my time tearing my hair out at bugs"
You can eliminate a lot of == vs = bugs simply by putting the error constant on the left since assigning anything to a constant is a syntax error.
"I'm sure there are good reasons for it that make sense to proper programmers, but personally I'd like to give whoever came up with this syntax a kick in the bollocks."
Proper programmers think that C is the definition of elegance. If you have never read K&R do yourself a favour and order a copy now. To miss out on such a classic text is akin to punching yourself in the bollocks.
I agree, I have been saying that the whole thing is a "Yes Minister" episode since the first Conroy story appeared on slashdot. However I don't think Liberal and Labor will stop playing the game (that started with Howard in the late 90's) and if the libs get in then you will see them swap roles (again). It's simply a ruse by the two majors to keep nutjob independents chasing their own tail, neither party are serious about mandatory filters even though BOTH SIDES have put forward legislation advocating it, BOTH SIDES have also blocked those bills.
I wouldn't worry about Fielding, his nickname is "Mr 2%" due to the fact he only got 2% of the primary vote, he won his seat because both the majors directed their preferences to him so as to keep the greens candidate out. He hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of being re-elected since labour have cut a preference deal with the Greens that will most likely give them the balance of power in the senate and will definitely leave Fielding out of a job.
WTF? The parent post is "flamebait" and the GP is "insightful"???
As someone who has lived in both city and country Victoria for half a century I would say the parent is informative and the GP is a know nothing bogon.
Aside from the acurate points in the parent post, natives did not control burn mountain forests as the GP claims. They lit uncontrolled fires in grasslands, purely for hunting purposes.
"Thinking that maybe other humanoids had a prior civilization, and we aren't unique is hardly anti-science."
Of course not, that is just wild speculation.
The part of your OP that is a conspiracy theory is; "Some people even lost their jobs over it. Why? It seems that before Darwin, they went by the evidence and didn't need to make anything "fit" a timeline. After Darwin was firmly rooted, evidence was covered up, because it didn't fit the timeline. Some people who stood by their work, were just fired or blacklisted. There is case after case in the book."
Slashdot Mirror
"In addition to not countering my point (which was that plants grow better in higher CO2 environments, which is true)"
Everyone agrees on that point, why would I (or greenman) try and counter it?
Like all good propoganda it is based on misrepresentation. Sure plants grow better with higher CO2 when all other things are held equal. But will that extra growth make up for the devasting drought that has cut Australia's grain harvest in half for all but 2-3 seasons in the last 12yrs? Will it compenstae for the crops lost in the Russian drought that is so severe they have suspended wheat exports? The mediteranian drought? The south american drought? The US and Asian floods?
And to pre-empt your retort, no, none of these individual disasters can be said to be directly caused by AGW but what can be said is that these unusual events will continue to become more frequent as the globe warms.
"it's based on computer simulation and therefore worthless
Imperfect does not imply useless, if it did then by definition all science would be useless. Science is basically the art of building models that accurately describe and predict the real world within well definined bounds. I doubt you look at all the other scientific, military, and industrial uses of finite element analysis with the same derision, so why not do yourself a favour, drop the irrational bullshit and find out what climate models can and cannot do?
I think you have missunderstood the meaning of the tragedy of the commons. It basically describes the market mechanisim that creates what economists call a negative externality.
It will do more than register ire. The greens are set to hold the balance of power in the senate so they will stop pretending to appease senator Fielding with an internet filter and start pretending to appease the greens.
I confidently predict that after the election the never ending inquiry into internet filtering will rapidly be dropped in favour of a never ending inquiry into renewable energy.
Putting the car on the train to cross the Nullabor plain in Australia is a common thing to do. However it's not cheap to ship a ton of metal across a few thousand km of desert by any method, plus the train trip takes several days compared to a few hours by plane. That's why fly/drive is still the most popular (and often the cheapest) option when travelling to the world's most isolated city (Perth).
Also a typical peak hour train here in Melbourne holds about 1000 passangers, you're going to need a mighty long train to fit 1000 cars on it.
Pollution is not about simple minded disapproval of anyone's lifestyle, it's what is known as the "tradgedy of the commons". There's only one sure fire way to halt the tradgedy and that's to retool the free market such that it becomes painfully unprofitable to pollute.
"350ppm is an arbitrary number"
No, 350 is the best approximation of the point where major changes start to take place such as the melting of polar ice and permafrost which in turn accelerate the changes by feedback mechanisims. This is not only backed by hard science but also by detailed observations that closely match the past predictions of said science.
Our civilization and agriculture has evolved in a symbiotic relationship with a stable climate, major changes to the climate are almost certainly going to induce major changes in our civilization, by all rational accounts they will not be benificial changes.
"For some applications, like establishing an optimum CO2 level for plant growth, we would do better to double CO2 levels."
That propoganda induced urban myth was the subject of a recent climate crock episode.
I would argue that big blue does all three, eg: Explorer = IBM labs, Pioneer = Smart grids, Settler = Open source adoption. Their only problem is they have a tendency to smother it all under a mountain of mindless paper work.
Mabye a couple of Bengal tigers. :)
I would advise your cousin to get a dog since his guns don't seem to be working as an effective deterent. Better still, get two dogs.
"People stealing TVs from an occupied residence thereby demonstrate their willingness to destroy any opposing humans therein."
If that were true then then why do they bother sneaking in, why not just kick the door down and start shooting?
Middle of nowhere
Just out of curiosity, what do people who live out in the middle of nowhere do to defend themselves against thieves? It's one thing when the police are minutes away in the city, but in the outback, I'm sure that's not always the case.
I lived in the middle of nowhere, I never saw a cop, the closest police station was a 1.5 hour drive away. Some people had shotguns or rifles for hunting or protecting livestock from ferral dogs. However as another poster has pointed out there was no need to lock the doors let alone own a gun to defend themselves against thieves.
When there are 50 people in a town and one of them is a thief, it's not hard to work out who it is. Dogs take the place of a gun in the bedside table and since there are usually more dogs than people in isolated towns there is no way a stranger can even get into town without the entire population knowing about it. Wether you live in the city or the middle of nowhere a medium to large sized dog is the most effective defence against thieves. A gun is useless if your not at home to use it.
"Really, it's the same mindset as the RIAA/MPAA companies who are ignominiously featured on Slashdot so often."
Funny thing is that Murdoch turned his Aussie fiefdom into an empire during the 80's by curcumventing the similar mentality of the Fleet St unions who refused to allow newspapers to modernise their printing presses. He did it by setting up his own modern digital printing presses in direct competion with the old clunky mechanical stuff the unions had under their control. Now the worm has turned and it's Murdoch who is desprately clinging to the old clunky methods and crying foul about others who are modernising the industry.
It's not about logic it's about social norms, in the US it's always been common for someone to have a handgun in the house, in Australia it's always been frowned on by society (even when it was perfectly legal to own a gun for self-defense). The gun laws in both countries are simply a reflection of the norms that each society had already imposed on itself.
If the jurour knew about the alledged circumstances of the arrest then you would have a point but just knowing the fact they were arrested for crime X does not predjudice the case. If that were true then it would be impossible to form a jury. OTOH you can dissmiss a potential juror if they are too stupid to understand what the term "presumption of innocence" means.
You just made me spray beer over my woman, thanks for the laugh. :)
"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates, (circa 400BC)
"Why would I want to do an assignment in an if statement"
Because you can assign a variable and check for an error in a single statement, eg...
if (NULL == (p = somefunction()))
"I spend most of my time tearing my hair out at bugs"
You can eliminate a lot of == vs = bugs simply by putting the error constant on the left since assigning anything to a constant is a syntax error.
"I'm sure there are good reasons for it that make sense to proper programmers, but personally I'd like to give whoever came up with this syntax a kick in the bollocks."
Proper programmers think that C is the definition of elegance. If you have never read K&R do yourself a favour and order a copy now. To miss out on such a classic text is akin to punching yourself in the bollocks.
I agree, I have been saying that the whole thing is a "Yes Minister" episode since the first Conroy story appeared on slashdot. However I don't think Liberal and Labor will stop playing the game (that started with Howard in the late 90's) and if the libs get in then you will see them swap roles (again). It's simply a ruse by the two majors to keep nutjob independents chasing their own tail, neither party are serious about mandatory filters even though BOTH SIDES have put forward legislation advocating it, BOTH SIDES have also blocked those bills.
I wouldn't worry about Fielding, his nickname is "Mr 2%" due to the fact he only got 2% of the primary vote, he won his seat because both the majors directed their preferences to him so as to keep the greens candidate out. He hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of being re-elected since labour have cut a preference deal with the Greens that will most likely give them the balance of power in the senate and will definitely leave Fielding out of a job.
So where should I move to? - Moscow?
WTF? The parent post is "flamebait" and the GP is "insightful"???
As someone who has lived in both city and country Victoria for half a century I would say the parent is informative and the GP is a know nothing bogon.
Aside from the acurate points in the parent post, natives did not control burn mountain forests as the GP claims. They lit uncontrolled fires in grasslands, purely for hunting purposes.
Mostly mundane; strong wind + not so strong trees. IIRC about 1/3 of all our bushfires are caused by power lines.
"Thinking that maybe other humanoids had a prior civilization, and we aren't unique is hardly anti-science."
Of course not, that is just wild speculation.
The part of your OP that is a conspiracy theory is; "Some people even lost their jobs over it. Why? It seems that before Darwin, they went by the evidence and didn't need to make anything "fit" a timeline. After Darwin was firmly rooted, evidence was covered up, because it didn't fit the timeline. Some people who stood by their work, were just fired or blacklisted. There is case after case in the book."
Here in Oz power lines are a major cause of bushfires without any help from solar flares.
Agreed, bad random choice.