I'm all for reducing carbon emissions, if it comes in the form of non-subsidized nuclear, wind, and solar energy.
When you come down to it deniers are always deniers because of conflicts with their political beliefs. It's never really down to science. Deniers are invariably Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, believers in small government, believers in the free market and other right wing groups. They feel that any attempt to do something about AGW conflicts with their ideology. So they will grasp at anything to deny it.
They are like the tobacco companies and their lobbyists and apologists that denied that tobacco smoking causes cancer, and kept on denying it for decades after the science was clear that it did. For them, the freedom to make money from selling tobacco in an unrestricted fashion is more important than the fact that it kills lots of people. But rather than being honest about that, they just denied that it killed people.
The money came as a result of designing excellent products; His objective was always to change the world with brilliantly designed products. And he did.
BTW, you're an Amiga fan? Amigas were brilliant products in their day. Unfortunately, unlike Apple, Commodore didn't manage to survive the Windows PC onslaught.
In a nutshell she is in full support of the report. She just had a problem with some of the things Muller said about the report. Ergo: She accepts global warming is happening, and she's not claiming that global warming stopped over the last 10 years.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious âClimategateâ(TM) scandal two years ago.
So your claim is that BEST only shows a 30 year warming trend. And that's too short. And the case made by your link is that BEST shows no warming for the last 10 years. You're saying that 30 years is too short, yet 10 years is significant.
"Code-speak", "cult"? Have you been living under a rock? It's generic slang in the way I used it - well to the same extent that the word "fucking" is in the way you used it.
iPhone 5? There's no such thing. We've already established you don't know what you're talking about with regard to what carriers pay for their "free" phones. Why do you continue with your ill-informed opinions which are based on nothing.
I am not, and was not, "irate". However, you obviously think you know a lot more about me than you really do.
I don't know that much about you, but your politics are as plain as day in the opinions you give. For some reason you're shy about identifying your politics. I'm not shy about identifying your politics.
I won't say much about the "Tea Party", since it doesn't exist anymore, having been usurped by Republicans.
The Tea Party was never what it pretended to be. It was created by "Americans For Prosperity", a lobbying and astroturfing group financed by the Koch Brothers. They were inspired by a rant by Rick Santelli. And it was boosted by the buffoon Glenn Beck and the rest of Fox News. It died away quickly because it had never really existed as a grass roots organisation it claimed to be. Once it has outlived it's usefulness for astroturfing, the Kochs financing disappeared, and Glenn Beck was fired from Fox News. That's why it doesn't exist anymore.
Tobacco polutes the atmosphere. One person burning it effacts others around him that are not burning it. It kills people. Fossil fuels polute the atmosphere. One person burning it effacts others around him that are not burning it. It kills people.
The analogy is perfect. Its a perfect comparison. You just want to avoid it because you know it means you've lost the argument.
"Reality Distortion Field"? Were you determined to show that you're a hater who doesn't know what he's talking about? Was ignorance of the financial reality not enough for you?
By the time Apple brought Jobs back, their market share had been falling for 5 years. It did of course take awhile to turn the ship around. But Mac market share has been growing again since around 2004. Obviously the point at which falling market share tuens to rising market share is the lowest point. Thus it's bound to happen during the tenure of the platform's saviour. http://fairerplatform.com/2011/07/apples-18-year-mac-odyssey/
Killing Mac clones, developing new Mac with high design standards, and creating OSX from NeXTStep were all parts of the way Jobs saved the platform. None of that is "Reality Distortion". It's reality. Real life success. Part of the bigger success that turned Apple from near bankruptcy to the largest company in the world in 14 years.
I see. I'm one of those people, eh? That type. Interesting that you would lump them all together and call them by derogatory names.
Sure I group them all together. They are all right wingers. Yes the libertarians just as much as the rest. And the right wing groups are where deniers invariably come from. Including you.
Oh I'm sure you're not planning on going anywhere. I'm sure none of the MSFT cheerleaders were planning on going anywhere. There just came a time when they were too embarrassed to stay.
No. On the contrary. I am aware that there is no scientific evidence for greater weather extremes due to warmer temperatures. After all, we have data showing past temperatures that were warmer than the present. But the evidence does not indicate greater extremes during those times. Nor, for that matter, as it has warmed up during the last half-century or so, have extreme events like tsunamis occurred more frequently.
LOL! You think Tsunamis are weather events? That is relevant to the climate change debate? LOL! Tsunamis are of course invariably symptoms of geological events. Well bar the occasional chunk of ice falling off antarctica causing one. That I suppose could be linked to GW. But earthquakes and their symptoms are not WEATHER extremes.
Just as I thought. Unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.
Money? Now if there was money involved, sure I'd put in the work. But you're not paying. You're a denier who knows full well you have no claim to make that hasn't already been refuted by other people who HAVE been willing to waste their time.
You can call me a "denier" all you want, but it is you who are denying simple facts.
OK, your a denier. And its YOU who's denying the simple facts. And ignoring that which you can't defend. Such as the perfect analogy between the need for government action on tobacco and the need for government action on fossil fuels.
There was no link. There was a URL, but no link. And no I didn't read it. It's hardly the only trade club in the world.
Qualifications are what is required to "know whether you are qualified". The clue is in the name.
Re:That's why the world works.
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We have a name for what Woz did. He was an engineer. Jobs was an entrepreneur and product manager.
Woz was an extremely good engineer. I don't know that he was the best in the world. But for the sake of argument lets say he was. Jobs was a extremely good entrepreneur and product manager. I think probably the best in the world.
Which is more important? Here on Slashdot a lot of people think Woz. Because there's a lot of engineers here. They idolise engineering and don't really like managers. On sites filled with entrepreneurs, product managers or designers, they'd say Jobs was the more important.
My take is that there are plenty of talented engineers in the world. And in any case, Woz gave up back in the 1980s. The pinnacle of his achievement was the Apple II. Jobs as an entrepreneur and product manager was the best in the world at what he did. And he didn't stop after the Apple II. He went on to many more successful product developments, and moved Apple from near bankruptcy to the biggest capitalised company in the world in just 14 years.
In my book Jobs was far more important than Woz. Woz is undoubtably a nicer guy than Jobs was, but that's rather irrelevant to a discussion on their influence and achievement.
People were saying that in the mid to late 1990s. For a few years I had an annual experiment. I'd try out the latest and greatest Linux distribution. And every year it was a disappointment. I didn't like Windows, but it was a hell of a lot better than Linux. Linux was horrible to install, had poor hardware support, and the GUIs stank. So I'd abandon it and give it another year.
Then BeOS came along. It was everything Linux and Windows wasn't. Apart from the hardware support. But at least, unlike Windows, the hardware support was clear. Hardware was either supported out of the box, or it wasn't supported at all. There was no wild goose chases around the internet trying different advice, and different software. But sadly BeOS died. And then a little later OS X became good enough, and I tried that. Haven't looked back since.
Nothing would entice me to try Linux out now. On the one hand I don't have a problem with OSX. On the other hand I remember all too well the assurances time and time again that Linux was ready for the big time. Truth is, of all the OSs that I've ever used, Linux sucked the most. And I see nothing in anything I see on the internet that anything's changed.
Credit where credit is due: There's a lot to dislike about Windows, but the range and longevity of their hardware support is incredible. I haven't touched Linux since I moved on to OS X 10 years ago. But Linux's hardware support was sparse back then. I'd have thought that by now Linux might have closed the gap. But apparently not. By the sounds of it, even that limited range of hardware that did work with Linux 10 years ago isn't supported now.
(Should I put GNU/Linux to please RMS? Bollocks! He's not reading this, as apparently his principles extend to not using the WWW!)
Which directly contradicts what you wrote earlier, and in fact simply proves my point.
It doesn't contradict anything I've ever written. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. And I must say it's impossible to see how it proves your point. If it did, I suspect you'd have spelled it out.
"The gaps into which they squeeze their denial gets ever smaller." Claiming it is so does not make it so, nor does your propaganda about Republicans (which I am not, by the way).
And yet it is so. Not because I claim it, but because it is. And no, you're not a Republican, as I pointed out elsewhere you're a small government/libertarian/tea bagger type.
The reason I put "Republican" as the header of my list is that is makes a nice pairing with "Democrat" in step 5. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other varieties of right winger that are deniers. It's just a funny way to point out that once the denial is over, the deniers still won't admit to being wrong. They'll pretend they never were deniers in the first place and blame other people.
I remember being on the Motley Fool financial web-site a decade ago, with lots of obnoxious Microsoft investors crowing about how successful Microsoft was. Saying Apple was fucked etc. I told them MS was lacking all sense of direction since Ballmer took over. And that if they wanted growth, Apple was where they should invest. I was looking forward to telling them "I told you so". And as the years progresses and the share price graph showed huge growth for AAPL and flatlining for MSFT, they continued to deny. But the volume was less every year. Until when it finally became undeniable - when AAPL passed MSFT in market cap etc. They'd all disappeared. Not a single one of them stayed long enough to say "I was wrong and you were right.
I detect the volume from AGW deniers decreasing. I'd note down your name to come and revisit this topic in a few years time. But I know that once you get to the stage where you feel ridiculous denying any more, you won't be here any more. You'll have disappeared. Either gone off somewhere else, or changed your login-name to start afresh with a new identity.
Just to be really clear, are you denying the fact that temperatures have risen, or are you unaware that higher temperature averages result in more extreme weather conditions?
Personally I won't be spending my time with you hunting out links on the internet. Been there, done that. Experience shows that deniers such as yourself won't ever admit when they are shown to be wrong. Prove that one particular claim is a myth, and they'l be straight back to Steve McIntyre's site to pick up another canard that been shown to be wrong time and time again. A bit of debate is fun from time to time, but hurling link ammunition is boring.
I made no statements about any "conspiracy"!!! Stop trying to put words in my mouth! I made no comment about reasons for the spending at all; I simply stated that it exists. YOU are the one trying to shoehorn what you think you know about my "beliefs" into the conversation... tell me: have you made any money yet with that mind-reading act?
You know how mind readers work? One of the ways is they often have foreknowledge of the the person, that the person didn't realise. Of course you have posted many things to Slashdot. I don't know what you choose to label you politics as. But I do know you lie in the small-government/libertarian area. And indeed in your postings in this very thread you express those very politics. But rather strangely you get irate because I point out what your politics are. Are you not comfortable with your beliefs?
Your political beliefs are relevant, because invariably the deniers, such as yourself, come from the right. Conservatives/Republicans/Tea partiers/Libertarians. Denial isn't about genuine disagreement on the science. It's just politics. AGW can only be solved by governments. By limiting growth. By regulation. And the right wingers don't like that. So like the tobacco companies and their apologists of decades ago, they deny the very problem, so they don't have to tackle it.
And before you say it, the reverse isn't true. 99% of scientists accept that there is AGW. 99% of scientists aren't left wing.
The other poster has of course won the argument. You say it has to be industry that solves the problem. He points out the tobacco industry. An industry that did no only not solve the problem that their product was killing lots of people, but lied and dissembled about it, claiming it wasn't a problem when they knew it was. For decades! All around the world, the only countries where smoking was reduced were those where the governments tackled the problem.
R-I-G-H-T. So, we'll just outlaw coal. Good plan. Keep it up. We'll solve this problem yet.
And this is your response to the other person being right, and you knowing they have got you. Not one of your long, well argued posts. But rather a short expression of exasperation, and a complete failure to address his winning point.
Not only that, but you start talking about "banning", which of course never happened with tobacco, so is a complete red-herring. A straw man. How governments dealt with tobacco was to realise that prohibition wasn't an answer, and rather to educate, reduce advertising, and to raise taxes in order to discourage it's use. More recently there have been restrictions over where it can be used. But no ban.
In countries where the government don't tackle the problem, even after all these decades, the rate of smoking remains high. And the tobacco companies continue to push their tobacco there.
This of course is an exact parallel of what has to be done to reduce "coal" and other fossil fuel use. The energy companies won't ever deal with the problem without government pushing them. Governments need to educate, encourage alternatives, and discourage fossil fuel use, whilst encouraging renewable alternatives through selective taxation.
An uncomfortable truth for a small-government/libertarian such as yourself. But a truth none the less. And whatever argument you make, if you actually think about it, you know it's true.
I would be very interested to see a refutation of the idea that grant money has in fact been spent preferentially for pro-global-warming ideas. It would actually give me quite a bit of relief, and to some degree restore my faith in humanity, if someone could show me that it were not so.
What you're saying is rather than proving your conspiracy theory right, you want other people to prove it wrong.
My interest is the truth, without bias.
Not so much. Your anti-science belief set follows your political belief. You want small government; libertarianism - I don't know how you'd identify your specific stance but it's somewhere in that area. And the fact that AGW needs tackling means that small government, and allowing people to continue to do whatever they like to the environment, aren't the answers.
Congratulations. Whilst most here are stuck on step 2, you've progressed to step 4.
The Republican 5 step plan to Global Warming Denial. 1) There is no such thing as Global Warming 2) There is such a thing as Global Warming, but man isn't a cause. 3) Man is a cause of Global Warming, but other causes are more significant. 4) Man is a significant cause of Global Warming, but Global warming is not detrimental to Man. 5) Global Warming is detrimental to Man, blame the (by now incumbent) Democrats for not having taken action sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for reducing carbon emissions, if it comes in the form of non-subsidized nuclear, wind, and solar energy.
When you come down to it deniers are always deniers because of conflicts with their political beliefs. It's never really down to science. Deniers are invariably Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, believers in small government, believers in the free market and other right wing groups. They feel that any attempt to do something about AGW conflicts with their ideology. So they will grasp at anything to deny it.
They are like the tobacco companies and their lobbyists and apologists that denied that tobacco smoking causes cancer, and kept on denying it for decades after the science was clear that it did. For them, the freedom to make money from selling tobacco in an unrestricted fashion is more important than the fact that it kills lots of people. But rather than being honest about that, they just denied that it killed people.
Jobs didn't believe that, and neither do I.
The money came as a result of designing excellent products; His objective was always to change the world with brilliantly designed products. And he did.
BTW, you're an Amiga fan? Amigas were brilliant products in their day. Unfortunately, unlike Apple, Commodore didn't manage to survive the Windows PC onslaught.
Indeed, what about Prof Curry herself. She blogged about that particular Daily Mail article and the fact that it misquoted and misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526 [judithcurry.com]
In a nutshell she is in full support of the report. She just had a problem with some of the things Muller said about the report. Ergo: She accepts global warming is happening, and she's not claiming that global warming stopped over the last 10 years.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious âClimategateâ(TM) scandal two years ago.
The Mail on Sundays CLAIMS she said that. Prof Curry herself says that she was misquoted and misrepresented by the Mail On Sunday on this and several other things.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526
For those not from the UK: The Mail on Sunday, and it's Sister paper The Daily Mail are are pretty much the Fox News of British journalism.
So your claim is that BEST only shows a 30 year warming trend. And that's too short.
And the case made by your link is that BEST shows no warming for the last 10 years.
You're saying that 30 years is too short, yet 10 years is significant.
How desperate are you?
The reality is that BEST finds warming since at least the mid 1950s.
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct
And they show that global warming has not stopped.
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped
"Code-speak", "cult"? Have you been living under a rock? It's generic slang in the way I used it - well to the same extent that the word "fucking" is in the way you used it.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hater
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fucking
Apple own Siri.
iPhone 5? There's no such thing. We've already established you don't know what you're talking about with regard to what carriers pay for their "free" phones. Why do you continue with your ill-informed opinions which are based on nothing.
I am not, and was not, "irate". However, you obviously think you know a lot more about me than you really do.
I don't know that much about you, but your politics are as plain as day in the opinions you give. For some reason you're shy about identifying your politics. I'm not shy about identifying your politics.
I won't say much about the "Tea Party", since it doesn't exist anymore, having been usurped by Republicans.
The Tea Party was never what it pretended to be. It was created by "Americans For Prosperity", a lobbying and astroturfing group financed by the Koch Brothers. They were inspired by a rant by Rick Santelli. And it was boosted by the buffoon Glenn Beck and the rest of Fox News. It died away quickly because it had never really existed as a grass roots organisation it claimed to be. Once it has outlived it's usefulness for astroturfing, the Kochs financing disappeared, and Glenn Beck was fired from Fox News. That's why it doesn't exist anymore.
I trust you weren't suckered into it yourself?
Tobacco polutes the atmosphere. One person burning it effacts others around him that are not burning it. It kills people.
Fossil fuels polute the atmosphere. One person burning it effacts others around him that are not burning it. It kills people.
The analogy is perfect. Its a perfect comparison. You just want to avoid it because you know it means you've lost the argument.
Apple was never near bankruptcy.
“We were 90 days from going bankrupt.” -- Steve Jobs.
They were so near bankruptcy they had to accept a $150 million bail out from their arch-competitor rival.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/06/02/steve-jobs-90-days/
"Reality Distortion Field"? Were you determined to show that you're a hater who doesn't know what he's talking about? Was ignorance of the financial reality not enough for you?
By the time Apple brought Jobs back, their market share had been falling for 5 years. It did of course take awhile to turn the ship around. But Mac market share has been growing again since around 2004. Obviously the point at which falling market share tuens to rising market share is the lowest point. Thus it's bound to happen during the tenure of the platform's saviour.
http://fairerplatform.com/2011/07/apples-18-year-mac-odyssey/
Killing Mac clones, developing new Mac with high design standards, and creating OSX from NeXTStep were all parts of the way Jobs saved the platform. None of that is "Reality Distortion". It's reality. Real life success. Part of the bigger success that turned Apple from near bankruptcy to the largest company in the world in 14 years.
Whether you like it or not.
I see. I'm one of those people, eh? That type. Interesting that you would lump them all together and call them by derogatory names.
Sure I group them all together. They are all right wingers. Yes the libertarians just as much as the rest. And the right wing groups are where deniers invariably come from. Including you.
Oh I'm sure you're not planning on going anywhere. I'm sure none of the MSFT cheerleaders were planning on going anywhere. There just came a time when they were too embarrassed to stay.
No. On the contrary. I am aware that there is no scientific evidence for greater weather extremes due to warmer temperatures. After all, we have data showing past temperatures that were warmer than the present. But the evidence does not indicate greater extremes during those times. Nor, for that matter, as it has warmed up during the last half-century or so, have extreme events like tsunamis occurred more frequently.
LOL! You think Tsunamis are weather events? That is relevant to the climate change debate? LOL! Tsunamis are of course invariably symptoms of geological events. Well bar the occasional chunk of ice falling off antarctica causing one. That I suppose could be linked to GW. But earthquakes and their symptoms are not WEATHER extremes.
Just as I thought. Unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.
Money? Now if there was money involved, sure I'd put in the work. But you're not paying. You're a denier who knows full well you have no claim to make that hasn't already been refuted by other people who HAVE been willing to waste their time.
You can call me a "denier" all you want, but it is you who are denying simple facts.
OK, your a denier. And its YOU who's denying the simple facts. And ignoring that which you can't defend. Such as the perfect analogy between the need for government action on tobacco and the need for government action on fossil fuels.
Thanks mom!
There was no link. There was a URL, but no link. And no I didn't read it. It's hardly the only trade club in the world.
Qualifications are what is required to "know whether you are qualified". The clue is in the name.
We have a name for what Woz did. He was an engineer. Jobs was an entrepreneur and product manager.
Woz was an extremely good engineer. I don't know that he was the best in the world. But for the sake of argument lets say he was.
Jobs was a extremely good entrepreneur and product manager. I think probably the best in the world.
Which is more important? Here on Slashdot a lot of people think Woz. Because there's a lot of engineers here. They idolise engineering and don't really like managers.
On sites filled with entrepreneurs, product managers or designers, they'd say Jobs was the more important.
My take is that there are plenty of talented engineers in the world. And in any case, Woz gave up back in the 1980s. The pinnacle of his achievement was the Apple II.
Jobs as an entrepreneur and product manager was the best in the world at what he did. And he didn't stop after the Apple II. He went on to many more successful product developments, and moved Apple from near bankruptcy to the biggest capitalised company in the world in just 14 years.
In my book Jobs was far more important than Woz. Woz is undoubtably a nicer guy than Jobs was, but that's rather irrelevant to a discussion on their influence and achievement.
People were saying that in the mid to late 1990s. For a few years I had an annual experiment. I'd try out the latest and greatest Linux distribution. And every year it was a disappointment. I didn't like Windows, but it was a hell of a lot better than Linux. Linux was horrible to install, had poor hardware support, and the GUIs stank. So I'd abandon it and give it another year.
Then BeOS came along. It was everything Linux and Windows wasn't. Apart from the hardware support. But at least, unlike Windows, the hardware support was clear. Hardware was either supported out of the box, or it wasn't supported at all. There was no wild goose chases around the internet trying different advice, and different software. But sadly BeOS died. And then a little later OS X became good enough, and I tried that. Haven't looked back since.
Nothing would entice me to try Linux out now. On the one hand I don't have a problem with OSX. On the other hand I remember all too well the assurances time and time again that Linux was ready for the big time. Truth is, of all the OSs that I've ever used, Linux sucked the most. And I see nothing in anything I see on the internet that anything's changed.
Credit where credit is due: There's a lot to dislike about Windows, but the range and longevity of their hardware support is incredible. I haven't touched Linux since I moved on to OS X 10 years ago. But Linux's hardware support was sparse back then. I'd have thought that by now Linux might have closed the gap. But apparently not. By the sounds of it, even that limited range of hardware that did work with Linux 10 years ago isn't supported now.
(Should I put GNU/Linux to please RMS? Bollocks! He's not reading this, as apparently his principles extend to not using the WWW!)
Which directly contradicts what you wrote earlier, and in fact simply proves my point.
It doesn't contradict anything I've ever written. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. And I must say it's impossible to see how it proves your point. If it did, I suspect you'd have spelled it out.
"The gaps into which they squeeze their denial gets ever smaller."
Claiming it is so does not make it so, nor does your propaganda about Republicans (which I am not, by the way).
And yet it is so. Not because I claim it, but because it is. And no, you're not a Republican, as I pointed out elsewhere you're a small government/libertarian/tea bagger type.
The reason I put "Republican" as the header of my list is that is makes a nice pairing with "Democrat" in step 5. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other varieties of right winger that are deniers. It's just a funny way to point out that once the denial is over, the deniers still won't admit to being wrong. They'll pretend they never were deniers in the first place and blame other people.
I remember being on the Motley Fool financial web-site a decade ago, with lots of obnoxious Microsoft investors crowing about how successful Microsoft was. Saying Apple was fucked etc. I told them MS was lacking all sense of direction since Ballmer took over. And that if they wanted growth, Apple was where they should invest. I was looking forward to telling them "I told you so". And as the years progresses and the share price graph showed huge growth for AAPL and flatlining for MSFT, they continued to deny. But the volume was less every year. Until when it finally became undeniable - when AAPL passed MSFT in market cap etc. They'd all disappeared. Not a single one of them stayed long enough to say "I was wrong and you were right.
I detect the volume from AGW deniers decreasing. I'd note down your name to come and revisit this topic in a few years time. But I know that once you get to the stage where you feel ridiculous denying any more, you won't be here any more. You'll have disappeared. Either gone off somewhere else, or changed your login-name to start afresh with a new identity.
Just to be really clear, are you denying the fact that temperatures have risen, or are you unaware that higher temperature averages result in more extreme weather conditions?
Personally I won't be spending my time with you hunting out links on the internet. Been there, done that. Experience shows that deniers such as yourself won't ever admit when they are shown to be wrong. Prove that one particular claim is a myth, and they'l be straight back to Steve McIntyre's site to pick up another canard that been shown to be wrong time and time again. A bit of debate is fun from time to time, but hurling link ammunition is boring.
I made no statements about any "conspiracy"!!! Stop trying to put words in my mouth! I made no comment about reasons for the spending at all; I simply stated that it exists. YOU are the one trying to shoehorn what you think you know about my "beliefs" into the conversation... tell me: have you made any money yet with that mind-reading act?
You know how mind readers work? One of the ways is they often have foreknowledge of the the person, that the person didn't realise. Of course you have posted many things to Slashdot. I don't know what you choose to label you politics as. But I do know you lie in the small-government/libertarian area. And indeed in your postings in this very thread you express those very politics. But rather strangely you get irate because I point out what your politics are. Are you not comfortable with your beliefs?
Your political beliefs are relevant, because invariably the deniers, such as yourself, come from the right. Conservatives/Republicans/Tea partiers/Libertarians. Denial isn't about genuine disagreement on the science. It's just politics. AGW can only be solved by governments. By limiting growth. By regulation. And the right wingers don't like that. So like the tobacco companies and their apologists of decades ago, they deny the very problem, so they don't have to tackle it.
And before you say it, the reverse isn't true. 99% of scientists accept that there is AGW. 99% of scientists aren't left wing.
The other poster has of course won the argument. You say it has to be industry that solves the problem. He points out the tobacco industry. An industry that did no only not solve the problem that their product was killing lots of people, but lied and dissembled about it, claiming it wasn't a problem when they knew it was. For decades! All around the world, the only countries where smoking was reduced were those where the governments tackled the problem.
R-I-G-H-T. So, we'll just outlaw coal.
Good plan. Keep it up. We'll solve this problem yet.
And this is your response to the other person being right, and you knowing they have got you. Not one of your long, well argued posts. But rather a short expression of exasperation, and a complete failure to address his winning point.
Not only that, but you start talking about "banning", which of course never happened with tobacco, so is a complete red-herring. A straw man. How governments dealt with tobacco was to realise that prohibition wasn't an answer, and rather to educate, reduce advertising, and to raise taxes in order to discourage it's use. More recently there have been restrictions over where it can be used. But no ban.
In countries where the government don't tackle the problem, even after all these decades, the rate of smoking remains high. And the tobacco companies continue to push their tobacco there.
This of course is an exact parallel of what has to be done to reduce "coal" and other fossil fuel use. The energy companies won't ever deal with the problem without government pushing them. Governments need to educate, encourage alternatives, and discourage fossil fuel use, whilst encouraging renewable alternatives through selective taxation.
An uncomfortable truth for a small-government/libertarian such as yourself. But a truth none the less. And whatever argument you make, if you actually think about it, you know it's true.
I would be very interested to see a refutation of the idea that grant money has in fact been spent preferentially for pro-global-warming ideas. It would actually give me quite a bit of relief, and to some degree restore my faith in humanity, if someone could show me that it were not so.
What you're saying is rather than proving your conspiracy theory right, you want other people to prove it wrong.
My interest is the truth, without bias.
Not so much. Your anti-science belief set follows your political belief. You want small government; libertarianism - I don't know how you'd identify your specific stance but it's somewhere in that area. And the fact that AGW needs tackling means that small government, and allowing people to continue to do whatever they like to the environment, aren't the answers.
Furthermore, it's not a "problem".
Congratulations. Whilst most here are stuck on step 2, you've progressed to step 4.
The Republican 5 step plan to Global Warming Denial.
1) There is no such thing as Global Warming
2) There is such a thing as Global Warming, but man isn't a cause.
3) Man is a cause of Global Warming, but other causes are more significant.
4) Man is a significant cause of Global Warming, but Global warming is not detrimental to Man.
5) Global Warming is detrimental to Man, blame the (by now incumbent) Democrats for not having taken action sooner.