Driving a Prius is cheaper than driving an F-150. Running your air conditioner on high is pretty expensive when faced with a 100+ degree heat wave that lasts weeks or even months. Paying a higher price for food because of a widespread drought or widespread flooding can get expensive.
Energy costs money. Saving energy thus means...saving money.
I doubt that it will happen so fast there will be a need for "scramble".
But we're already seeing some "scrambling". And what about poor countries where the majority of the populace can't go inside and huddle around an air conditioner in weeks or months of 100+ degree heat. And how about famine caused by mass crop failures...
For years, the environmentalists have believed that it was necessary to exaggerate.
Examples? And how about conservatives that hyperventilate while exaggerating the costs of climate change mitigation? And if anything, the rate of climate change has been underestimated by the IPCC.
How much will CO2 mitigation cost -- not just in terms of direct and indirect monetary damages, but in terms of human life lost?
The cost of mitigating CO2 are INSIGNIFICANT next to the cost of NOT mitigating CO2.
Mass transit over highway congestion. Fuel efficient or battery operated vehicles over using one ton pickups as passenger cars. Better home insulation. Solar panels and wind farms over coal.
Compared to resource wars, famine from drought, lives lost and billions spent as the result of more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, relocating entire island nations as they sink into the ocean....
FFS, there's no comparison here. And before anyone whines that green energy is too expensive, the U.S. currently spends at least$1.2 trillion a year on it's military. Slash that to a much more reasonable 200 billion a year (still drastic overkill for America's actual defense needs) and that leaves a trillion dollars a year left over for solar panels and wind farms and re-insulating homes and mass transit.
There's no way you can get the governments or the farmers in that area to cooperate with such a project, when it requires taking the land out of production for a year.
Yeah, there is. Its called private property.
Forgot an essential ingredient, Libertarian Magic Dust. Oversight and cooperation are the solutions to this problem, not counting on 'rational self-interest' to solve everything. See also: the dust bowl.
Word salad that doesn't mean anything. Problem X leads to Problems A, B and C and we can try to prevent that from happening (or not) with J, I and K.
the assertion it has gotten warmer
It has.
the prediction that it will get a lot warmer due to feedback mechanisms in the future
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and decreased arctic ice mean less light will be reflected back into space. It's not that complicated.
the idea that significant warming will have catastrophic consequences
It's already had catastrophic consequences. Pacific island nations are literally disappearing under the sea. Hotter, more humid weather means more and stronger storms.
If you don't accept all propositions, you are branded as unscientific and a luddite. In fact, there is firm evidence only for the first proposition, namely that global average temperatures have increased. The other propositions are increasingly based on guesses and opinion.
And now the filibustering, with a side order of victim complex. This also isn't that hard: replace fossil fuel power sources with green energy while reducing energy use overall. None of this will require that we go back to living in caves or melting under the summer son.
Mass transit over highway sprawl. Better home insulation. A trillion dollars from the annual war budget would put up a lot of solar panels and wind farms. Geothermal. Small-scale hydro power.
If you don't accept all propositions, you are branded as unscientific and a luddite.
If you are engaging in knee-jerk denialism for the sake of knee-jerk denialism or because Fox said so, then you are an unscientific luddite. The objections to AGW aren't based on science, they're based on appeals to self-centered egos stoked by the fossil fuel industry.
Indeed it's not. The whole damned point of torturing a suspect to get information is because you think he's withholding intel and that the only way to get it is to torture the bastard.
So your suspect wont give you the answers you want? He's withholding intel, pull out another fingernail! Barring mind reading powers on the part of the interregator, this is no. way. to. tell. the. difference. between lying and withholding information. And if you could read his mind, you wouldn't "need" to torture him in the first place.
Which puts you back at square one, with motivation of anyone being tortured is to stop being tortured. You try thinking about that fact. This "conditioning" crap is a bullshit rationalization to get your Jack Bauer on.
However, if the interrogator already has some information, s/he can teach the victim that lying causes pain in a way that saying the truth doesn't. If victims don't know the exact extent of the interrogator's knowledge, they'll be afraid to lie.
And how does the interrogator tell the difference between withholding information and ignorance?
They don't, of course. So they apply increasing amounts of pain until they get the answer they want. And you're right back to square one, with the victim saying whatever he things his captors want to hear.
The counter-argument presented in the post states that the signatories of the letter are not "climate scientists." Well, this argument holds about as much water as the argument that NASA is not a climate agency.
Apples to irrelevant oranges. If NASA hires a bunch of doctors and comes out with a study on osteoporosis and bone density would you dismiss it out of hand "because they're not a medical agency"?
When anyone with an expertise in one of the necessary science branches decides to weigh in on arguments, it makes no sense to outright dismiss him as a non-climate-scientist
Would a bunch of physicists protesting the bone study on purely political grounds be taken seriously?
Well, if you dismiss an astro-physicist weighing in on results of temperature distribution studies (as seen from space) because he is not a "climate scientist", why listen to NASA which is not a "climate agency"?
Absurd reasoning, see above.
those blessed by the priesthood of the climate scientists
Are you seriously suggesting that shooting and killing someone is a crime 100% of the time?
Are you seriously suggesting that you can initiate a confrontation with an innocent person, kill them, and not be arrested under suspicion of murder? Go ahead and offer whatever hypotheticals you want for justified homicides - none of them will come close to what happened in this case.
But none of those hypotheticals apply in the case from Zimmerman's 911 calls alone, which established that he was in his car following a pedestrian who was armed with some tea and skittles.
The authorities don't press charges unless they believe they have a reasonable case to proceed on.
Which they obviously do in this case based on Zimmerman's on 911 calls alone.
Instead of misdirecting your rage at the local officers
The local officers that didn't take Zimmerman's clothes as evidence, who didn't arrest Zimmerman on suspicion of homicide, who performed a toxicology test on the dead kid but not the shooter, who took down Zimmerman's story of his injuries but didn't photograph them?
The existing "Castle Doctrine" already provides for self-defense with lethal force, so the "make my day" laws are a false solution to the problem of prosecutorial misconduct.
That and they don't even work as advertized when somebody actually defends themselves. At least the NRA showed up with a bushel of $10,000 an hour lawyers to defend the guys right to defend himself.
Oh wait, they didn't. Funny how often that happens.
Let me guess . . . you think that his nose would fall off if it wasn't taped in place? Broken noses don't work like that.
They do usually work by leaving large amounts of blood over a person's clothes, though. It's possible that the nose was painfully broken without bleeding, but there's no way Zimmerman could have received large gashes to his head requiring first aid without then having a bandage on his head and blood on his clothes.
The police CCTV showed neither of those things were the case.
The GFs testimony has Martin initiating vocal confrontation and then the line going dead.
No it doesn't. It has Martin demanding to know why Zimmerman was following him. Following someone in a car, then getting out of said car to confront them is, you know, confronting them....
So? You still write a virius for it, you just have to find the weak spot.
So it can't take over the whole machine, only your personal files.
There have been virii for Unix-ish machines too
Also no comparison to what Windows users have had to deal with. The sense of proportion/risk assessment in this story is as broken as a helmetless motorcycle rider talking about how how he refuses to fly because he's afraid that the plane might crash.
Billions in tax subsidies for oil companies that not only don't need them to survive, but are some of the most profitable business entities in the history of the human race.
Hundreds of billions to subsidize gas guzzling commuting habits (federal highways).
Billions to deal with oil spills (Gulf of Mexico, Exxon Valdez).
Billions to deal with pollution.
And the ultimate subsidy: the Department of Defense which is mainly concerned with keeping a certain level of "stability" in the world's gas station (the Middle East), costing taxpayers over a trillion dollars a year.
And then there's the ultimate cost: global climate change. Force migrations, resource wars, unable to grow crops because of wild swings in temperatures and rainfalls....
We've already fucking argued this on the merits, for centuries. Government intrusion into our lives = BAD.
Because the government telling corporations that they can't sell you rotten food or dump toxic waste into your water supply is EXACTLY the same as government tapping your phones or forcing you to worship the state religion.
Apple fanboy bloggers like Horace and Gruber claimed an Apple win based on the number of devices and made twisted arguments about how Android device shipments can never exceed Apple's.
Slashdot Mirror
Driving a Prius is cheaper than driving an F-150. Running your air conditioner on high is pretty expensive when faced with a 100+ degree heat wave that lasts weeks or even months. Paying a higher price for food because of a widespread drought or widespread flooding can get expensive.
Energy costs money. Saving energy thus means...saving money.
But we're already seeing some "scrambling". And what about poor countries where the majority of the populace can't go inside and huddle around an air conditioner in weeks or months of 100+ degree heat. And how about famine caused by mass crop failures...
Examples? And how about conservatives that hyperventilate while exaggerating the costs of climate change mitigation? And if anything, the rate of climate change has been underestimated by the IPCC.
The cost of mitigating CO2 are INSIGNIFICANT next to the cost of NOT mitigating CO2.
Mass transit over highway congestion. Fuel efficient or battery operated vehicles over using one ton pickups as passenger cars. Better home insulation. Solar panels and wind farms over coal.
Compared to resource wars, famine from drought, lives lost and billions spent as the result of more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, relocating entire island nations as they sink into the ocean....
FFS, there's no comparison here. And before anyone whines that green energy is too expensive, the U.S. currently spends at least $1.2 trillion a year on it's military. Slash that to a much more reasonable 200 billion a year (still drastic overkill for America's actual defense needs) and that leaves a trillion dollars a year left over for solar panels and wind farms and re-insulating homes and mass transit.
Forgot an essential ingredient, Libertarian Magic Dust. Oversight and cooperation are the solutions to this problem, not counting on 'rational self-interest' to solve everything. See also: the dust bowl.
Word salad that doesn't mean anything. Problem X leads to Problems A, B and C and we can try to prevent that from happening (or not) with J, I and K.
It has.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and decreased arctic ice mean less light will be reflected back into space. It's not that complicated.
It's already had catastrophic consequences. Pacific island nations are literally disappearing under the sea. Hotter, more humid weather means more and stronger storms.
And now the filibustering, with a side order of victim complex. This also isn't that hard: replace fossil fuel power sources with green energy while reducing energy use overall. None of this will require that we go back to living in caves or melting under the summer son.
Mass transit over highway sprawl. Better home insulation. A trillion dollars from the annual war budget would put up a lot of solar panels and wind farms. Geothermal. Small-scale hydro power.
If you are engaging in knee-jerk denialism for the sake of knee-jerk denialism or because Fox said so, then you are an unscientific luddite. The objections to AGW aren't based on science, they're based on appeals to self-centered egos stoked by the fossil fuel industry.
Obviously.
Indeed it's not. The whole damned point of torturing a suspect to get information is because you think he's withholding intel and that the only way to get it is to torture the bastard.
So your suspect wont give you the answers you want? He's withholding intel, pull out another fingernail! Barring mind reading powers on the part of the interregator, this is no. way. to. tell. the. difference. between lying and withholding information. And if you could read his mind, you wouldn't "need" to torture him in the first place.
Which puts you back at square one, with motivation of anyone being tortured is to stop being tortured. You try thinking about that fact. This "conditioning" crap is a bullshit rationalization to get your Jack Bauer on.
And how does the interrogator tell the difference between withholding information and ignorance?
They don't, of course. So they apply increasing amounts of pain until they get the answer they want. And you're right back to square one, with the victim saying whatever he things his captors want to hear.
Apples to irrelevant oranges. If NASA hires a bunch of doctors and comes out with a study on osteoporosis and bone density would you dismiss it out of hand "because they're not a medical agency"?
Would a bunch of physicists protesting the bone study on purely political grounds be taken seriously?
Absurd reasoning, see above.
Is the rent high under that bridge of yours?
Are you seriously suggesting that you can initiate a confrontation with an innocent person, kill them, and not be arrested under suspicion of murder? Go ahead and offer whatever hypotheticals you want for justified homicides - none of them will come close to what happened in this case.
But none of those hypotheticals apply in the case from Zimmerman's 911 calls alone, which established that he was in his car following a pedestrian who was armed with some tea and skittles.
It's either rationalized racism or profound ignorance, take your pick.
Since when do the cops call up the DA and ask him if they can arrest someone.
Which they obviously do in this case based on Zimmerman's on 911 calls alone.
The local officers that didn't take Zimmerman's clothes as evidence, who didn't arrest Zimmerman on suspicion of homicide, who performed a toxicology test on the dead kid but not the shooter, who took down Zimmerman's story of his injuries but didn't photograph them?
Blame starts with local law enforcement.
The existing "Castle Doctrine" already provides for self-defense with lethal force, so the "make my day" laws are a false solution to the problem of prosecutorial misconduct.
That and they don't even work as advertized when somebody actually defends themselves. At least the NRA showed up with a bushel of $10,000 an hour lawyers to defend the guys right to defend himself.
Oh wait, they didn't. Funny how often that happens.
They do usually work by leaving large amounts of blood over a person's clothes, though. It's possible that the nose was painfully broken without bleeding, but there's no way Zimmerman could have received large gashes to his head requiring first aid without then having a bandage on his head and blood on his clothes.
The police CCTV showed neither of those things were the case.
Are you?
No it doesn't. It has Martin demanding to know why Zimmerman was following him. Following someone in a car, then getting out of said car to confront them is, you know, confronting them....
Not being used until he's in court with the evidence being heard by a jury of his peers, it's not.
This brought to you from conservative cockbag false equivalencies.
You mean a screwdriver in a backpack.
Ever proven to have been stolen or that Martin was the one who stole it?
For having an empty bag that once contained pot.
So it can't take over the whole machine, only your personal files.
Also no comparison to what Windows users have had to deal with. The sense of proportion/risk assessment in this story is as broken as a helmetless motorcycle rider talking about how how he refuses to fly because he's afraid that the plane might crash.
Billions in tax subsidies for oil companies that not only don't need them to survive, but are some of the most profitable business entities in the history of the human race.
Hundreds of billions to subsidize gas guzzling commuting habits (federal highways).
Billions to deal with oil spills (Gulf of Mexico, Exxon Valdez).
Billions to deal with pollution.
And the ultimate subsidy: the Department of Defense which is mainly concerned with keeping a certain level of "stability" in the world's gas station (the Middle East), costing taxpayers over a trillion dollars a year.
And then there's the ultimate cost: global climate change. Force migrations, resource wars, unable to grow crops because of wild swings in temperatures and rainfalls....
Wish the Randian morans would go ahead and move to their Libertarian paradise so they can see their ideology in full glory....
Because the government telling corporations that they can't sell you rotten food or dump toxic waste into your water supply is EXACTLY the same as government tapping your phones or forcing you to worship the state religion.
Randian idiots...
[Citation needed]
Every company has a 'monopoly' on their branded products. Ford has a 'monopoly' on Mustangs. Proctor & Gamble have a 'monopoly' on Tide. Etc.