When someone dares suggest we could make a few simple changes and massively reduce our emissions of CO2 , you should see the panic set in!
Just yesterday we had a guy here claim that to make what on paper is an expensive but by no means unaffordable switch the clean energy would cause our civilisation to collapse and send us back to the caves to live in. Talk about alarmism!
Nuclear power is dead because it's more expensive than burning stuff to make power, and has a lot of other pre-requisites that are missing in large swathes of the world.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a role to play.
Nope. Unfortunately their opinions are relevant to the outcome of elections, which in turn makes them relevant to actually using this science.
If they have a problem with using the science (which some of them get to vote on) they should say why the science should not be used.
This is what the (now former) PM of Australia, the right honourable Tony Abbott MP did. He said "Climate Change is real, and we are going to do nothing". He said what denialists actually think. They generally don't speak so plainly though, because to do so exposes their previous arguments about corrupt scientists to be a lie. The Right Honourable Tony Abbott though he was too powerful to be touched and now he is gone, replaced by the one person in his party who publicly spoke out against his climate lunacy.
Where in the world is there a denialist with enough credibility to actually get elected? Maybe the US, in the Senate and Congressional races. But again, those guys are just poisoning their own well, and letting their stance on this issue poison others so that they don't get elected because of it and thus they lose the chance to have a say on other issues where their view is (potentially) valid and worth considering. Sooner or later that stupidity will end.
Many people wrongly labeled as "deniers" aren't denying anything. They're merely taking a far more stringent and critical look at the data than those who have political agendas to push do. The wrongly-accused "deniers" are just doing science as it's meant to be done.
That seems to me to be an outcome that doesn't match our observations.
1. If more people are carrying guns, there is more opportunity to obtain a gun, if you need one, because you can steal one off someone. like this.
2. In my country, criminals rarely, if ever, carry guns. Not because guns are hard to find (although they are under lock and key, and there are heavy penalties for having one without a licence). It's because (a) the penalty for armed robbery is much higher than straight robbery (b) you carry a gun if you intend to shoot someone or if you need to defend yourself from someone intending to shoot you. Unless you are a crime boss of some sort, criminals have no interest in shooting you, this is not hollywood.
Sometimes the scale of atrocities under Bush are so large that it can trip you up. Really, the "number of drone strikes" isn't a good metric unless you think that only drones kill people. Plus at the time, and even now, not a lot of people in the US like to talk about the actual number of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps hoping that those atrocities will slip quietly into the night. But too late. It might help you sleep at night, but some us can't forget so easily.
The actual numbers are pretty hard to come by: possibly due to the logistical difficulties of gathering information on the ground. However, estimates of the dead in Iraq range up to 500 000 with 250 000 being directly attributed to the war. Estimates for Afghanistan suggest about 92000 .
Estimated civilian deaths under Obama are somewhat shy of 10000 which is still an astoundingly high number, but an order of magnitude less. Given he didn't start those wars, attributing Iraqi/Afghan deaths to the Obama administration is somewhat skewed. Especially considering those wars were not started with any notion of furthering the interests of the United States, nor, to date, has any plausible reason for invading Iraq been forthcoming, let alone one that justifies even a single Iraqi death, let alone 250000.
Under normal circumstances, we might regard Obama's actions in killing people (2400 at last count) using drones to be somewhat homicidal. How does one justify something like that? But we forget scale. We forget that Bush, in Iraq, set a new precedent, and we live in a new normal. Back in those days, I could log on to Slashdot and hear people justify Abu Graib, justifications or indiscriminate torture and rape, justify the killing of and dismemberment of children, and lie lie lie to us about why: why were these people killed? Why were kids blown apart? why were people strung up, and hung, why did people have electrical current passed through their genitals?
So yep, Obama's actions ought to be closely examined and he needs to justify those deaths. But to compare his administration to the butchery under Cheney/Bush administration just show you've already forgotten what happened.
How reductive would you like to get, and how much do you know about the role of the militias (read: private citizens with individual weapons) in the early and middle stages of the conflict?
You mean the losing? Or the bit where the militias were taking commands from the government?
My primary point, however, was with regards to the absurd statement with regards to the French doing "all" of the heavy lifting, while acknowledging their absolutely crucial role.
Unless there's a tank in everyone's yard, and a drone trained on everyone, I fail to see your point. Public gun ownership keeps government honest.
Has it worked?
Does it prevent tyrrany? No.
So it doesn't work?
No. But it raises the consequences for any would-be tinpot dictator who might get it in his head to have the police or newly-minted 'deputies' going around searching everyone's houses for subversive materials. Is that likely to happen anyway in the US? No. But gun ownership (not necessarily universal, but not uncommon) is a form of herd immunity against it.
Well firstly: no it doesn't. The consequence for the would-be tinpot dictator would only arise if some was prepared to break the law and shoot said dictator.
I'm pretty sure that the legality of Lee Harvey Oswald's gun is a minor consideration: the major consideration is him pointing it at the president's head and squeezing the trigger.
You have noticed that those other methods are currently not at all effective, right?
Clearly the ammo box isn't working either, otherwise you wouldn't be in the situation you are in.
The fact of the matter is, the many authoritarians in the US government support private ownership of guns in the populace because it keeps the population compliant. If you weren't compliant, you would have risen up already.
If there is an argument that having a gun mens you win wars then the fact that the people with guns consistently lose wars seems fairly relevant to me.
Lemme help you understand how "gun control" is "anti-gun". Fact is, the stricter the gun laws get, then more bad people manage to get guns.
Can't see how that could possibly be true. If half the population is carrying a gun, then a criminal has a ready supply of free guns to choose from. Guns can be stolen as easily as anything else. Your body will accept a bullet from you gun as readily as anybody else's body.
The Soap Box/Ballot Box/Jury Box/Ammo Box argument relies on it being legal to use each box.
The problem with the Ammo Box is that it's illegal.
It's just as illegal to shoot a public official in the US as it is anywhere else in the world.
I'm not exaggerating here: it's exactly like owning a ballot paper in a country where voting is illegal. It's a piece of paper. And your gun is just a hunk of metal unless you can actually fire it at a guy you want dead.
So: either you need to make shooting public officials legal, or you need to be prepared to act in a way that's illegal. In the latter case, it's hard to understand why you have qualms about buying a gun (a) when it's needed (b) using markets which your enemy disapproves of. Seems odd to be at once bowing and scraping to the notion of the government's view of the legality of your weapon whilst at the same time wanting to shoot them.
Do you think guns are hard to come by when conflicts break out? How naive.
That's the battle of Saratoga? The battle won by Washington? The general appointed by Congress? That is to say, a general appointed by the government, leading a professional army?
Isn't Saratoga in fact the complete opposite of what you need as an example?
If we expect to set up colonies on Mars that allow the growing of food crops, I think it's a reasonable expectation that our space travel technology would also improve.
What if we begin with the expectation that we wouldn't go unless there was a reason to do so?
There have been many criticisms of Climate science, including my favorite of Big Climate. But this was the first time I heard climate science "privileges, quite explicitly, manly endeavors and adventures in the field". Like the scientists are not supposed to go out in the field for research?
My favourite criticism of the day is "Climate science denies that the climate is always changing" - umm anything we know about the climate changing comes from climate science. It is getting more and more difficult to consider these claims as genuinely arising from ignorance rather than deliberate obtuseness.
So really, as silly as the gender bias angle is, it is no more ridiculous than other claims made about climate science.
Slashdot Mirror
When someone dares suggest we could make a few simple changes and massively reduce our emissions of CO2 , you should see the panic set in!
Just yesterday we had a guy here claim that to make what on paper is an expensive but by no means unaffordable switch the clean energy would cause our civilisation to collapse and send us back to the caves to live in. Talk about alarmism!
I tend to be a skeptic myself,
Really? What evidence supports the alternative theory?
That at least explains a lot.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a role to play.
Nope. Unfortunately their opinions are relevant to the outcome of elections, which in turn makes them relevant to actually using this science.
If they have a problem with using the science (which some of them get to vote on) they should say why the science should not be used.
This is what the (now former) PM of Australia, the right honourable Tony Abbott MP did. He said "Climate Change is real, and we are going to do nothing". He said what denialists actually think. They generally don't speak so plainly though, because to do so exposes their previous arguments about corrupt scientists to be a lie. The Right Honourable Tony Abbott though he was too powerful to be touched and now he is gone, replaced by the one person in his party who publicly spoke out against his climate lunacy.
Where in the world is there a denialist with enough credibility to actually get elected? Maybe the US, in the Senate and Congressional races. But again, those guys are just poisoning their own well, and letting their stance on this issue poison others so that they don't get elected because of it and thus they lose the chance to have a say on other issues where their view is (potentially) valid and worth considering. Sooner or later that stupidity will end.
Why would we need to reach them? Is their opinion relevant to the impacts of climate change?
Many people wrongly labeled as "deniers" aren't denying anything. They're merely taking a far more stringent and critical look at the data than those who have political agendas to push do. The wrongly-accused "deniers" are just doing science as it's meant to be done.
Where is this science? Show it to us.
1. If more people are carrying guns, there is more opportunity to obtain a gun, if you need one, because you can steal one off someone. like this.
2. In my country, criminals rarely, if ever, carry guns. Not because guns are hard to find (although they are under lock and key, and there are heavy penalties for having one without a licence). It's because (a) the penalty for armed robbery is much higher than straight robbery (b) you carry a gun if you intend to shoot someone or if you need to defend yourself from someone intending to shoot you. Unless you are a crime boss of some sort, criminals have no interest in shooting you, this is not hollywood.
It wasn't me that made the comparison.
The actual numbers are pretty hard to come by: possibly due to the logistical difficulties of gathering information on the ground. However, estimates of the dead in Iraq range up to 500 000 with 250 000 being directly attributed to the war. Estimates for Afghanistan suggest about 92000 .
Estimated civilian deaths under Obama are somewhat shy of 10000 which is still an astoundingly high number, but an order of magnitude less. Given he didn't start those wars, attributing Iraqi/Afghan deaths to the Obama administration is somewhat skewed. Especially considering those wars were not started with any notion of furthering the interests of the United States, nor, to date, has any plausible reason for invading Iraq been forthcoming, let alone one that justifies even a single Iraqi death, let alone 250000.
Under normal circumstances, we might regard Obama's actions in killing people (2400 at last count) using drones to be somewhat homicidal. How does one justify something like that? But we forget scale. We forget that Bush, in Iraq, set a new precedent, and we live in a new normal. Back in those days, I could log on to Slashdot and hear people justify Abu Graib, justifications or indiscriminate torture and rape, justify the killing of and dismemberment of children, and lie lie lie to us about why: why were these people killed? Why were kids blown apart? why were people strung up, and hung, why did people have electrical current passed through their genitals?
So yep, Obama's actions ought to be closely examined and he needs to justify those deaths. But to compare his administration to the butchery under Cheney/Bush administration just show you've already forgotten what happened.
How reductive would you like to get, and how much do you know about the role of the militias (read: private citizens with individual weapons) in the early and middle stages of the conflict?
You mean the losing? Or the bit where the militias were taking commands from the government?
My primary point, however, was with regards to the absurd statement with regards to the French doing "all" of the heavy lifting, while acknowledging their absolutely crucial role.
You should have read what I said more carefully.
Unless there's a tank in everyone's yard, and a drone trained on everyone, I fail to see your point. Public gun ownership keeps government honest.
Has it worked?
Does it prevent tyrrany? No.
So it doesn't work?
No. But it raises the consequences for any would-be tinpot dictator who might get it in his head to have the police or newly-minted 'deputies' going around searching everyone's houses for subversive materials. Is that likely to happen anyway in the US? No. But gun ownership (not necessarily universal, but not uncommon) is a form of herd immunity against it.
Well firstly: no it doesn't. The consequence for the would-be tinpot dictator would only arise if some was prepared to break the law and shoot said dictator.
I'm pretty sure that the legality of Lee Harvey Oswald's gun is a minor consideration: the major consideration is him pointing it at the president's head and squeezing the trigger.
You have noticed that those other methods are currently not at all effective, right?
Clearly the ammo box isn't working either, otherwise you wouldn't be in the situation you are in.
The fact of the matter is, the many authoritarians in the US government support private ownership of guns in the populace because it keeps the population compliant. If you weren't compliant, you would have risen up already.
If there is an argument that having a gun mens you win wars then the fact that the people with guns consistently lose wars seems fairly relevant to me.
Lemme help you understand how "gun control" is "anti-gun". Fact is, the stricter the gun laws get, then more bad people manage to get guns.
Can't see how that could possibly be true. If half the population is carrying a gun, then a criminal has a ready supply of free guns to choose from. Guns can be stolen as easily as anything else. Your body will accept a bullet from you gun as readily as anybody else's body.
The Soap Box/Ballot Box/Jury Box/Ammo Box argument relies on it being legal to use each box.
The problem with the Ammo Box is that it's illegal.
It's just as illegal to shoot a public official in the US as it is anywhere else in the world.
I'm not exaggerating here: it's exactly like owning a ballot paper in a country where voting is illegal. It's a piece of paper. And your gun is just a hunk of metal unless you can actually fire it at a guy you want dead.
So: either you need to make shooting public officials legal, or you need to be prepared to act in a way that's illegal. In the latter case, it's hard to understand why you have qualms about buying a gun (a) when it's needed (b) using markets which your enemy disapproves of. Seems odd to be at once bowing and scraping to the notion of the government's view of the legality of your weapon whilst at the same time wanting to shoot them.
Do you think guns are hard to come by when conflicts break out? How naive.
"well reasoned" indeed.
Isn't Saratoga in fact the complete opposite of what you need as an example?
Or political opponents.
Just like they do in the Sudan - that shining light of freedom and empowerment of the citizenry.
Or disenfranchised citizens.
And how is that working out for you? Are your citizens enfranchised?
Or colonists rebelling against the crown.
Let us know if that ever works (without the French/a professionally trained and equipped army to do the heavy lifting).
Projects that require billions of dollars and are generally unpopular need more reasons than that.
If we expect to set up colonies on Mars that allow the growing of food crops, I think it's a reasonable expectation that our space travel technology would also improve.
What if we begin with the expectation that we wouldn't go unless there was a reason to do so?
The problem at this point is that it's become to politicized to trust regardless of the source.
So you don't have a quote from the actual science that said the ice caps would be gone by 2014?
Why did you say that you did?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Can you cite where the 'science' said this?
You mean to tell me I should believe the people
You mean to tell us that what you do or don't *believe* should be a matter of concern for us for some reason?
There have been many criticisms of Climate science, including my favorite of Big Climate. But this was the first time I heard climate science "privileges, quite explicitly, manly endeavors and adventures in the field". Like the scientists are not supposed to go out in the field for research?
My favourite criticism of the day is "Climate science denies that the climate is always changing" - umm anything we know about the climate changing comes from climate science. It is getting more and more difficult to consider these claims as genuinely arising from ignorance rather than deliberate obtuseness.
So really, as silly as the gender bias angle is, it is no more ridiculous than other claims made about climate science.