You say you have found some rational people but it is not clear what objective criteria you applied to judge them as rational versus irrational. It is hardly a black and white issue. Everybody is capable of being rational as well as irrational, and everybody is a mix of both the rational and irrational. Levels of irrationality don't really seem to correlate to following one religious belief or another.
Were this not the case (i.e. there exists a group which is basically rational) then someone would be able to point to this grouping and say: "those people defined by x are rational." This still holds true based on your response - you say you know rational people but don't identify them. This seems to all the world like a useless anecdote.
If you take people today, vet them very carefully for being rational and non-religious, and make them start a colony, for what reason would religion appear?
You'd end up with nobody. There aren't any rational and non-religious people. There are people who think they are rational, but that is just a belief arising from not looking too closely at the underlying assumptions.
"Still, we're starting to ramp up our Mars exploration plans"
No: No, we aren't. A few dozen enthusiasts on the internet talking about how they would like to go to Mars does not equal a "ramp up". Fantasy stories wherein earth's technologies can be replicated without the base materials and manufacturing that earth provides does not equal a "ramp up".
People that we generously let in here are shooting us because of their sick, twisted "religion" (which is more of a social system than anything we would think of as a religion).
You mean Sikhism?
They are at war with their neighbors all over the world, and anywhere they do gain power they create a "religious" police state that is actually what leftists merely imagine Christianity to be.
Can you name a place in the world where what you have described has actually happened (Sikhs creating a religious police state)?
Doesn't that statement apply even more in the case of adaption to climate change?
There's no chance it will cause the economy to "collapse" as long as the transition is gradual. Coal is mostly being replaced by natural gas.
It sounds like you've addressed your own concerns. Coal has become economically nonviable anyway, despite the massive injection of public funds to keep it afloat. Cheaper, simpler and cleaner technologies (including solar and wind) are already replacing Coal fired plants.
But since you asked: I think that the most likely answer is neither - you entered into a conversation about GHGs without knowing how they work
Your choice is incorrect.
Well, if you didn't mistakenly misrepresent the science that can only mean that you did it deliberately: you deliberately misrepresented the science.
Your claims depend on convincing people that Paris is in the United States of America, and that the universe began less than 2 months ago.
What is it with you and your bizarre accusations?
What's bizarre about repeating what you said?
The Paris shootings don't belong if we only want to look at the effect of US gun law
Thanks for aptly reminding us of the subject currently under discussion.
How does a bullet entering the body of a non-combatant behave differently if fired by a terrorist?
That's not the harm that we were talking about.
Yes it is.
If I google the required information and find that there were more unintentional deaths by shooting in the US in 2015 than there were deaths by terrorists in the US in 2015.
Not so interested in talking about greenhouse warming now, eh?
Wrong again.
Did I change the subject between 2 consecutive questions, or did you fail reading comprehension?
Not sure why you have to ask me, it seems that this is something you should already know.
But since you asked: I think that the most likely answer is neither - you entered into a conversation about GHGs without knowing how they work, and are now too embarrassed to admit it: hence the piteous attempts to avoid explaining your bizarre statements.
I don't need to convince you,
Keep telling yourself that. You can add that delusion to the one that places Paris (France) in the United States of America, and the one where I am Svante Arrhenius, risen from the grave.
I'm just pointing out how dishonest and incredible you are to everyone else.
Your claims depend on convincing people that Paris is in the United States of America, and that the universe began less than 2 months ago.
I don't recall every saying it was a fantasy. Can you provide a cite in which I said it was a fantasy?
No answer? I'm not convinced by your assertion that my argument constitutes a fantasy.
Dishonest liar.
Are you speaking of yourself? Didn't you just imply that Paris is in the United States?
You said the harm was the same. I just pointed out that the harm is not the same.
How does a bullet entering the body of a non-combatant behave differently if fired by a terrorist?
Like I said, not my job to chase up information for you. But since you are struggling to open google, I'll make you a deal. If I google the required information and find that there were more unintentional deaths by shooting in the US in 2015 than there were deaths by terrorists in the US in 2015, you will put the following disclaimer into any posts you make on Slashdot: In December of 2015 I made a claim that there were more people in the US killed by terrorists than by accidental shooting. That claim was wrong.
Modern economies see gradual changes over 20+ year periods as approximately the same as "stability".
If that were the case, why do you feel threatened by the changes that are currently underway to replace coal and fossil fuel based energy generation with direct extraction of energy from renewables?
Why do you think that small change poses a greater risk than the enormous infrastructural, agricultural and economic changes needed to adapt to a +2 degree change in climate?
Global elites say you can "save the world" by giving more money and power to global elites. You believe them, but I'm the one who is naive.
Of course: it's all a giant conspiracy! Those diabolic economists have been working for hundreds of years to build my trust, just for this very purpose, to take my money and give it to the masons or the knights templar, or the jews or whoever these shadowy figures are behind the conspiracy. Why didn't I see it before?
The point is that technology to solve the world's problems will be cheaper in the future, not more expensive. It always is.
You keep repeating this as a mantra hoping it will come true if you say it enough. Might as well wave your wand and shout expecto patronum. Perhaps something white will fly out and drive away the cloying and cold grip of reality.
So you create your own fantasy where the people trying to stop mass shooters are not on anyone's side, and then use that to say "friendly fire" cannot possibly be used here.
I don't recall every saying it was a fantasy. Can you provide a cite in which I said it was a fantasy?
Afraid to find out, are you?
No. I'm not here to chase down information for you. If it is of interest to you, you should look it up yourself.
You didn't say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
What is factually incorrect about that statement?
What is significant about it is that you now imply that you meant this comment to be about greenhouses. But prior to this comment you said: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates? in reply to my comment: Don't you know? See the works of Arrhenius et. al.
If the second comment was truly about greenhouses (and not the greenhouse warming outlined by Arrhenius et al.) can you explain why you suddenly changed the subject between those 2 remarks?
Define "friendly fire" and how the usage is incorrect.
I would define friendly fire as being shot/injured by someone who is ostensibly on the same side as you. The gullible ideologues in question aren't on the same side as the general public that their fire is injuring. They are just acting out their internal fantasies. There are more than 2 sides in this scenario.
List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".
Please explain the mechanism of this "economy collapse" due to climate change, and especially why you think it will affect a Russian's ability to afford to heat his home. Gradual changes over several decades don't tend to cause modern economies to collapse.
You could always look it up yourself. Also you'll find that "modern economies" are very susceptible to the kinds of changes we'll see becuase they rely on fixed infrastructure and are invested heavily in stability.
Why do you think the leaders of these economies are so interested in arresting climate change below 2 degrees? Do you think they care about polars bears and penguins and coral reefs? Such naevity.
The trend for the last couple hundred years has been that technology becomes cheaper and available to more people
It's not magical. Technology advances because there is investment in it. That's why shovels, wheelbarrows, toothpicks and pencils have remained basically unchanged for 100 years.
If the temperature rises enough to make siberia tropical then we are all dead. That would require a delta of probably 40 degrees (C) - or more. At that range, water vapour would become dominant in the atmosphere and runaway warming would render the planet uninhabitable.
Er.... out of all the countries on Earth, with the possible exception of Canada, I struggle to think of a country that's more likely to be a net beneficiary of climate change than Russia.
Utter comprehension failure on your part. Again. How long ago was it that you mistook thermodynamic for exothermic? A month? Did you manage to go a month without another monumental fail?
Lie all you want, putting words in my mouth won't make them mine.
You didn't say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire.
Incorrectly.
You used "friendly fire" for an event that wasn't.
To demonstrate your error.
Doesn't matter. You treat the criminals who use guns to harm others as the same category as citizens using guns in self defense.
Strawman. The harm is the same - doesn't matter if you are shot by a terrorist or a gullible ideologue who thinks he's equipped to handle dangerous situations because he has a weapon. The harm is the same, the people are different.
Because they are the ones that benefit. Why does the world owe a Kiribati resident a problem-free life on a tropical island?
The difference between adults and children is that adults have to take responsibility for problems, even problems that they have only contributed to, rather than caused.
Why does the Kiribati's problem with sea level take precedence over the Russian who wants to heat his home in the winter? Or the guy in India or Africa who wants running water and air conditioning in the summer? Or the Chinese woman who wants to buy fresh fruits and vegetables that need to be transported to her town?
It doesn't take precedence - it's the same problem. The Russian won't be able to heat his home when the economy collapses due to climate change. These people will still need to pay to move to new technologies because in fact, climate change doesn't go away, not matter how long you ignore it. It's annoying like that. Eventually, we will have to reduce our GHG output. Now is the best time because now (a) we have the finances, not later, when we are made poor, but still facing the same problem and (b) renewables are at price parity, and due their flexibility and low startup costs, ideal for places like india and africa, since you don't need to spend quidtillions on poles and wires.
The longer we leave it, the more expensive (in real terms) it will be.
Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.
So two citizens just killed 14 people with "friendly fire". Which way does the harm meter swing on that one?
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
Except for the, you know, 360 odd occasions (every year) where the citizens are using guns to take lives instead.
I don't see how this could be. If it was constant, the earth would be very hot or very cold. The climate record indicates that the climate fluctuates - it's not constant.
So the question for you is: if CO2 is not a driver of climate change, what is driving the current (dramatic) climate event?
Protesting climate change is as effective as protesting the daily sunrise/sunset.
I think you'll find that they aren't protesting the fact of climate change, but rather that we are deliberately changing the climate to our own detriment: which makes as much sense as stabbing yourself in the eye "oh well, the knife is already on the way to my eye, can't stop it now".
So unless you think that the sunrise/sunsets occur due to human activity, I'd guess that you are mistaken.
The author makes some statements about declining violence and says: The only sound way to appraise the state of the world is to count. How many violent acts has the world seen compared with the number of opportunities? And is that number going up or down? As Bill Clinton likes to say, “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines.” We will see that the trend lines are more encouraging than a news junkie would guess.
But then - no numbers.
It has some details about declining rates of violence in the US, UK and Mexico. But are those numbers indicative of a worldwide trend? Does every country resemble either the US, or the UK, or Mexico?
The article also says that Worldwide, about five to 10 times as many people die in police-blotter homicides as die in wars. And in most of the world, the rate of homicide has been sinking.
The first is a statistic, not a correlation - there is no reason to think that escalating domestic violence will lead to war, or vice versa. The second statement And in most of the world, the rate of homicide has been sinking. is not evidenced by any numbers. It could be true.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing clear about climate change is that every day we learn that we know less and less about the Climate.
So the outcome could in fact be much WORSE than the current IPCC projections?
You say you have found some rational people but it is not clear what objective criteria you applied to judge them as rational versus irrational. It is hardly a black and white issue. Everybody is capable of being rational as well as irrational, and everybody is a mix of both the rational and irrational. Levels of irrationality don't really seem to correlate to following one religious belief or another.
Were this not the case (i.e. there exists a group which is basically rational) then someone would be able to point to this grouping and say: "those people defined by x are rational." This still holds true based on your response - you say you know rational people but don't identify them. This seems to all the world like a useless anecdote.
Have you?
Not sure whether you are being sarcastic or real, either way I guess you are just making my point.
I'm not claiming rational people are perfect.
But you do seem to assume that they exist. If they exist, where are they?
http://mars.nasa.gov/images/13... That's not a "ramp up"???
Such timelines have been around for 30 years - we are no closer to meeting the timelines than we were 30 years ago.
If you take people today, vet them very carefully for being rational and non-religious, and make them start a colony, for what reason would religion appear?
You'd end up with nobody. There aren't any rational and non-religious people. There are people who think they are rational, but that is just a belief arising from not looking too closely at the underlying assumptions.
No: No, we aren't. A few dozen enthusiasts on the internet talking about how they would like to go to Mars does not equal a "ramp up". Fantasy stories wherein earth's technologies can be replicated without the base materials and manufacturing that earth provides does not equal a "ramp up".
People that we generously let in here are shooting us because of their sick, twisted "religion" (which is more of a social system than anything we would think of as a religion).
You mean Sikhism?
They are at war with their neighbors all over the world, and anywhere they do gain power they create a "religious" police state that is actually what leftists merely imagine Christianity to be.
Can you name a place in the world where what you have described has actually happened (Sikhs creating a religious police state)?
It is bad for some people and good for others.
Doesn't that statement apply even more in the case of adaption to climate change?
There's no chance it will cause the economy to "collapse" as long as the transition is gradual. Coal is mostly being replaced by natural gas.
It sounds like you've addressed your own concerns. Coal has become economically nonviable anyway, despite the massive injection of public funds to keep it afloat. Cheaper, simpler and cleaner technologies (including solar and wind) are already replacing Coal fired plants.
But since you asked: I think that the most likely answer is neither - you entered into a conversation about GHGs without knowing how they work
Your choice is incorrect.
Well, if you didn't mistakenly misrepresent the science that can only mean that you did it deliberately: you deliberately misrepresented the science.
Your claims depend on convincing people that Paris is in the United States of America, and that the universe began less than 2 months ago.
What is it with you and your bizarre accusations?
What's bizarre about repeating what you said?
The Paris shootings don't belong if we only want to look at the effect of US gun law
Thanks for aptly reminding us of the subject currently under discussion.
How does a bullet entering the body of a non-combatant behave differently if fired by a terrorist?
That's not the harm that we were talking about.
Yes it is.
If I google the required information and find that there were more unintentional deaths by shooting in the US in 2015 than there were deaths by terrorists in the US in 2015.
Don't move the goalposts.
I don't intend to.
Not so interested in talking about greenhouse warming now, eh?
Wrong again.
Did I change the subject between 2 consecutive questions, or did you fail reading comprehension?
Not sure why you have to ask me, it seems that this is something you should already know.
But since you asked: I think that the most likely answer is neither - you entered into a conversation about GHGs without knowing how they work, and are now too embarrassed to admit it: hence the piteous attempts to avoid explaining your bizarre statements.
I don't need to convince you,
Keep telling yourself that. You can add that delusion to the one that places Paris (France) in the United States of America, and the one where I am Svante Arrhenius, risen from the grave.
I'm just pointing out how dishonest and incredible you are to everyone else.
Your claims depend on convincing people that Paris is in the United States of America, and that the universe began less than 2 months ago.
I don't recall every saying it was a fantasy. Can you provide a cite in which I said it was a fantasy?
No answer? I'm not convinced by your assertion that my argument constitutes a fantasy.
Dishonest liar.
Are you speaking of yourself? Didn't you just imply that Paris is in the United States?
You said the harm was the same. I just pointed out that the harm is not the same.
How does a bullet entering the body of a non-combatant behave differently if fired by a terrorist?
Like I said, not my job to chase up information for you. But since you are struggling to open google, I'll make you a deal. If I google the required information and find that there were more unintentional deaths by shooting in the US in 2015 than there were deaths by terrorists in the US in 2015, you will put the following disclaimer into any posts you make on Slashdot: In December of 2015 I made a claim that there were more people in the US killed by terrorists than by accidental shooting. That claim was wrong.
Deal?
Modern economies see gradual changes over 20+ year periods as approximately the same as "stability".
If that were the case, why do you feel threatened by the changes that are currently underway to replace coal and fossil fuel based energy generation with direct extraction of energy from renewables?
Why do you think that small change poses a greater risk than the enormous infrastructural, agricultural and economic changes needed to adapt to a +2 degree change in climate?
Global elites say you can "save the world" by giving more money and power to global elites. You believe them, but I'm the one who is naive.
Of course: it's all a giant conspiracy! Those diabolic economists have been working for hundreds of years to build my trust, just for this very purpose, to take my money and give it to the masons or the knights templar, or the jews or whoever these shadowy figures are behind the conspiracy. Why didn't I see it before?
The point is that technology to solve the world's problems will be cheaper in the future, not more expensive. It always is.
You keep repeating this as a mantra hoping it will come true if you say it enough. Might as well wave your wand and shout expecto patronum. Perhaps something white will fly out and drive away the cloying and cold grip of reality.
So you create your own fantasy where the people trying to stop mass shooters are not on anyone's side, and then use that to say "friendly fire" cannot possibly be used here.
I don't recall every saying it was a fantasy. Can you provide a cite in which I said it was a fantasy?
Afraid to find out, are you?
No. I'm not here to chase down information for you. If it is of interest to you, you should look it up yourself.
You didn't say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
What is factually incorrect about that statement?
What is significant about it is that you now imply that you meant this comment to be about greenhouses. But prior to this comment you said: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates? in reply to my comment: Don't you know? See the works of Arrhenius et. al. If the second comment was truly about greenhouses (and not the greenhouse warming outlined by Arrhenius et al.) can you explain why you suddenly changed the subject between those 2 remarks?
Define "friendly fire" and how the usage is incorrect.
I would define friendly fire as being shot/injured by someone who is ostensibly on the same side as you. The gullible ideologues in question aren't on the same side as the general public that their fire is injuring. They are just acting out their internal fantasies. There are more than 2 sides in this scenario.
List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".
Do it yourself.
Hmm. That's something new.
No, it's not.
Please explain the mechanism of this "economy collapse" due to climate change, and especially why you think it will affect a Russian's ability to afford to heat his home. Gradual changes over several decades don't tend to cause modern economies to collapse.
You could always look it up yourself. Also you'll find that "modern economies" are very susceptible to the kinds of changes we'll see becuase they rely on fixed infrastructure and are invested heavily in stability.
Why do you think the leaders of these economies are so interested in arresting climate change below 2 degrees? Do you think they care about polars bears and penguins and coral reefs? Such naevity.
The trend for the last couple hundred years has been that technology becomes cheaper and available to more people
It's not magical. Technology advances because there is investment in it. That's why shovels, wheelbarrows, toothpicks and pencils have remained basically unchanged for 100 years.
If the temperature rises enough to make siberia tropical then we are all dead. That would require a delta of probably 40 degrees (C) - or more. At that range, water vapour would become dominant in the atmosphere and runaway warming would render the planet uninhabitable.
Er.... out of all the countries on Earth, with the possible exception of Canada, I struggle to think of a country that's more likely to be a net beneficiary of climate change than Russia.
But how likely is "more likely"?
Utter comprehension failure on your part. Again. How long ago was it that you mistook thermodynamic for exothermic? A month? Did you manage to go a month without another monumental fail?
Lie all you want, putting words in my mouth won't make them mine.
You didn't say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire.
Incorrectly.
You used "friendly fire" for an event that wasn't.
To demonstrate your error.
Doesn't matter. You treat the criminals who use guns to harm others as the same category as citizens using guns in self defense.
Strawman. The harm is the same - doesn't matter if you are shot by a terrorist or a gullible ideologue who thinks he's equipped to handle dangerous situations because he has a weapon. The harm is the same, the people are different.
Because they are the ones that benefit. Why does the world owe a Kiribati resident a problem-free life on a tropical island?
The difference between adults and children is that adults have to take responsibility for problems, even problems that they have only contributed to, rather than caused.
Why does the Kiribati's problem with sea level take precedence over the Russian who wants to heat his home in the winter? Or the guy in India or Africa who wants running water and air conditioning in the summer? Or the Chinese woman who wants to buy fresh fruits and vegetables that need to be transported to her town?
It doesn't take precedence - it's the same problem. The Russian won't be able to heat his home when the economy collapses due to climate change. These people will still need to pay to move to new technologies because in fact, climate change doesn't go away, not matter how long you ignore it. It's annoying like that. Eventually, we will have to reduce our GHG output. Now is the best time because now (a) we have the finances, not later, when we are made poor, but still facing the same problem and (b) renewables are at price parity, and due their flexibility and low startup costs, ideal for places like india and africa, since you don't need to spend quidtillions on poles and wires.
The longer we leave it, the more expensive (in real terms) it will be.
A month? Did you manage to go a month without another monumental fail?
So two citizens just killed 14 people with "friendly fire". Which way does the harm meter swing on that one?
That's not friendly fire, you illiterate moron.
And do you think "friendly fire" means friendly fire, or perchance, did I quote that phrase for a reason?
Idiot.
Except for the, you know, 360 odd occasions (every year) where the citizens are using guns to take lives instead.
Ignoring the difference between criminals and law abiding citizens? Dishonest political hack.
Please point out where exactly in that sentence I used the words law abiding.
Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.
So two citizens just killed 14 people with "friendly fire". Which way does the harm meter swing on that one?
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
Except for the, you know, 360 odd occasions (every year) where the citizens are using guns to take lives instead.
The climate has not changed dramatically.
Cite the relevant study supporting that assertion.
CO2 is a terrible predictor of global temperatures, with the same probabilities than random guessing.
Cite the relevant study supporting that assertion.
To put it blunty, if man-made CO2 is indeed the cause of global warming, homeopathy works.
Cite the relevant study supporting that assertion.
Climate change is a constant
I don't see how this could be. If it was constant, the earth would be very hot or very cold. The climate record indicates that the climate fluctuates - it's not constant.
So the question for you is: if CO2 is not a driver of climate change, what is driving the current (dramatic) climate event?
Protesting climate change is as effective as protesting the daily sunrise/sunset.
I think you'll find that they aren't protesting the fact of climate change, but rather that we are deliberately changing the climate to our own detriment: which makes as much sense as stabbing yourself in the eye "oh well, the knife is already on the way to my eye, can't stop it now".
So unless you think that the sunrise/sunsets occur due to human activity, I'd guess that you are mistaken.
The author makes some statements about declining violence and says: The only sound way to appraise the state of the world is to count. How many violent acts has the world seen compared with the number of opportunities? And is that number going up or down? As Bill Clinton likes to say, “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines.” We will see that the trend lines are more encouraging than a news junkie would guess.
But then - no numbers.
It has some details about declining rates of violence in the US, UK and Mexico. But are those numbers indicative of a worldwide trend? Does every country resemble either the US, or the UK, or Mexico?
The article also says that Worldwide, about five to 10 times as many people die in police-blotter homicides as die in wars. And in most of the world, the rate of homicide has been sinking.
The first is a statistic, not a correlation - there is no reason to think that escalating domestic violence will lead to war, or vice versa. The second statement And in most of the world, the rate of homicide has been sinking. is not evidenced by any numbers. It could be true.