you just gave me a new catch phrase for a phenomenon that I previously didn't have a name for - "The outrage machine" the modern media's obsession with everything being either a crisis, save the children or save the planet.
yes, it was probably before they burnt it all down and caused mass extinction of the super mammals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna. they introduced fire to a country that was otherwise lush and green. i find it amusing that the wiki article calls this "management" of the environment.
so your suggesting it's a secret sauce that us mere mortals can't comprehend? i find that hard to believe. I don't need to be any kind of expert to see how extrapolating tree rings into CO2 readings might have massive opportunity for error, indeed it's this idea that we should just trust the experts that have made the line "don't worry i'm an expert" cause for laughter on many occasions...
The whole thing is a giant strawman to begin with. they don't want limits on skeptics - if i piped up told them i believed in big foot they would be plenty skeptical. what they really want is AGW to be a protected subject, with no one allowed to rock the boat. it's completely stupid and typical of AGW fanatics, but it has one saving grace, the more of this bullshit they pull the more skeptics they will create. it has a streisand like effect when you demand no one challenges your authority.
thats nice. now show me how that translates into man made CO2 and into warming. ice bubbles is a LONG way from having anything solid enough to demand we spend trillions on changing the worlds economy.
I've visited Mauthausen, and seen plenty of video and eye witness accounts of it. so yes i do have direct proof of it. If there wasn't any of the old camps still standing, no eye witnesses and no video footage then yes i'd be a skeptic.
hah i love the peer reviewed journal response. it's a perfect closed loop, you can make the challenge because you know no scientific journal is going to publish an anti AGW paper, and it lets you avoid answering any questions.
ask yourself what's so threatening about someone like me asking why CO2 lags temperature gain? after all i'm just an armchair scientist, your mighty peer reviewing brain should be able to crush my arguements with ease, right?
it's funny you mention people not listening. if there is any group out there that isn't interested in listening to rebuttals it's definately the global warming crowd.
from day 1 i've never met an AGW believer who i've been able make pause for even a second when i mention warming on other planets in the solar system, the fact CO2 only supplies 2% of the warming effect, the fact CO2 rise lags warming, the fact the warmest years on record were in the 1940's. all of this nevers gets a look in, even in the mid 90's when this whole debarcle was gaining momentum. The discussion always degrades into an emotive name calling exercise from them. accusations of being paid off are frequent.
I think at it's core, the promblem for AGW believers is they have invested so much in the arguement that the gaps in their hypothesis are filled with faith rather then science. and i'm all for faith in an idea before it's proven (many break throughs have happened this way), but NOT when your forcing me to agree and forcing trillions of dollars to be spent to combat what could well be a non issue.
unfortunately the heretic repsonse is all too common. here in australia it's so out of control we actually have a department of climate change (thanks kevin bloody rudd). we sent 60 people to the summit, even a baggage handler. this whole thing is going to be a big waste of money, i can already see it.
The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science. global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it's being treated as a religion, and anyone questioning it is a heretic.
we are in serious trouble if someone can't question manual manipulation of dataset's which are the basis of spending trillions of dollars of tax payers money on carbon trading. it's even more disturbing is the fact they get labels such as "denialist" - if you are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door, then you aren't fit to be argueing the science.
telling in what way, that i don't agree with you? judging by your sig maybe you think i'm paid or something - if you know somewhere i can get paid for pointing out the obvious like i am, sign me up!
but seriously, are you suggesting if i come up with a protocol for transfering data between x and y, i shouldn't be able to charge people to use it? i've already pointed out i don't agree with patenting a protocol, so please don't waste time retreating into that.
yeah right how dare they not just do it all for free right? there's no reason you can't charge a license for a protocol, just like any other piece of software. there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version. that's why patent are bad, but this is not.
please show me where i said getting out of the car was acting like an asshole? come on? oic that's not what i said was it.
what i was getting at, was don't just presume this guy is telling the whole story, or that he is telling the truth at all. I'm not condoning public servants bashing people, but certainly if they needed to defend themselfs or had to use force to make him comply, i would fully support the use of force.
you have to remmeber border gaurds are people with familes back home just like everyone else, if it was me in their shoes and i was suddenly confronted with someone who was threatening me, i'd give them a nightstick across the back of the legs and take them down as well. why should they put their health or even life at risk?
"If you take it as a given that a large number of border patrol officers are gigantic dicks "
why is it you would take that as a given but fail to believe this guy with an axe to grind isn't a huge dick himself? this form of selective hearing people seem to have is whats wrong with the world.
I've crossed many borders many times including the US, and it've never had a single problem. you know why? because i don't act like an asshole the moment one of these guys tries to do his job. i've been scanned, sniffed, searched the whole lot and the grand total time in 10 years of travel that this has cost me wouldn't be more then 1 hour tops.
next time some over worked under paid public servant stops you and asks to look in your bag, how about you try being polite, smiling ask them how their day is going and say thanks have a nice day when they are done? i'd bet money that's not what this guy did...
I'm not from the right, but i think you have to be a complete idiot not to see government has siezed of an unproven hypothesis as a chance to tax more and acheive their own political agenda's.
this whole political push to "solve" global warming is NOT based in any desire to help the environment, or on good science.
I'm not going to apologise for not proof reading something i posted on slashdot 50 times to avoid grama nazis, i just don't care ok (plus it's funny when you point the finger and then include such gems as a;) )
that aside, i'd like you to provide some examples of modern drugs that wouldn't exist without patents. I hear this kind of defence for patents, but never any actual examples to back it up. again my proposed 3 year limit to bring it to market would protect these anyway.
But your so wrong, patents are the road block with innovation, because there's no point in investing in RnD when some patent troll already has some board patent on what your working on. the patent Troll won't ever produce the invention, they are just going to suck the life out of anyone doing the RnD. So no one produces anything new because most stuff is covered under ridiculous patents.
to me the best solution is either force them to produce a prototype or limit the patent to 3 years if nothing is brought to market. to me if you can't produce a atleast ONE unit in 3 years, then your just squandering the oppertunity that someone else could actually do something with.
Slashdot Mirror
i bet this is a case of the bloggers seeing a line like " if 1 then: 3 " which is so generic and thinking it belongs to them SCO style.
you just gave me a new catch phrase for a phenomenon that I previously didn't have a name for - "The outrage machine" the modern media's obsession with everything being either a crisis, save the children or save the planet.
yes, it was probably before they burnt it all down and caused mass extinction of the super mammals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna. they introduced fire to a country that was otherwise lush and green. i find it amusing that the wiki article calls this "management" of the environment.
so your suggesting it's a secret sauce that us mere mortals can't comprehend? i find that hard to believe. I don't need to be any kind of expert to see how extrapolating tree rings into CO2 readings might have massive opportunity for error, indeed it's this idea that we should just trust the experts that have made the line "don't worry i'm an expert" cause for laughter on many occasions...
The whole thing is a giant strawman to begin with. they don't want limits on skeptics - if i piped up told them i believed in big foot they would be plenty skeptical. what they really want is AGW to be a protected subject, with no one allowed to rock the boat. it's completely stupid and typical of AGW fanatics, but it has one saving grace, the more of this bullshit they pull the more skeptics they will create. it has a streisand like effect when you demand no one challenges your authority.
thats nice. now show me how that translates into man made CO2 and into warming. ice bubbles is a LONG way from having anything solid enough to demand we spend trillions on changing the worlds economy.
google climategate. it shows very clearly the CRU guys cooking up ways to discredit or sink journals publishing anything anti AGW
I've visited Mauthausen, and seen plenty of video and eye witness accounts of it. so yes i do have direct proof of it. If there wasn't any of the old camps still standing, no eye witnesses and no video footage then yes i'd be a skeptic.
ask yourself what's so threatening about someone like me asking why CO2 lags temperature gain? after all i'm just an armchair scientist, your mighty peer reviewing brain should be able to crush my arguements with ease, right?
from day 1 i've never met an AGW believer who i've been able make pause for even a second when i mention warming on other planets in the solar system, the fact CO2 only supplies 2% of the warming effect, the fact CO2 rise lags warming, the fact the warmest years on record were in the 1940's. all of this nevers gets a look in, even in the mid 90's when this whole debarcle was gaining momentum. The discussion always degrades into an emotive name calling exercise from them. accusations of being paid off are frequent.
I think at it's core, the promblem for AGW believers is they have invested so much in the arguement that the gaps in their hypothesis are filled with faith rather then science. and i'm all for faith in an idea before it's proven (many break throughs have happened this way), but NOT when your forcing me to agree and forcing trillions of dollars to be spent to combat what could well be a non issue.
imprecise is another word for WRONG is it?
without einstein who was skeptical of some of newton's predictions, we wouldn't have relativity today.
if they do know more about the topic then answering the skepticism shouldn't be a problem should it?
unfortunately the heretic repsonse is all too common. here in australia it's so out of control we actually have a department of climate change (thanks kevin bloody rudd). we sent 60 people to the summit, even a baggage handler. this whole thing is going to be a big waste of money, i can already see it.
we are in serious trouble if someone can't question manual manipulation of dataset's which are the basis of spending trillions of dollars of tax payers money on carbon trading. it's even more disturbing is the fact they get labels such as "denialist" - if you are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door, then you aren't fit to be argueing the science.
well, they wanted equal treatment didn't they?
sincerely, the internet.
but seriously, are you suggesting if i come up with a protocol for transfering data between x and y, i shouldn't be able to charge people to use it? i've already pointed out i don't agree with patenting a protocol, so please don't waste time retreating into that.
yeah right how dare they not just do it all for free right? there's no reason you can't charge a license for a protocol, just like any other piece of software. there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version. that's why patent are bad, but this is not.
what i was getting at, was don't just presume this guy is telling the whole story, or that he is telling the truth at all. I'm not condoning public servants bashing people, but certainly if they needed to defend themselfs or had to use force to make him comply, i would fully support the use of force.
you have to remmeber border gaurds are people with familes back home just like everyone else, if it was me in their shoes and i was suddenly confronted with someone who was threatening me, i'd give them a nightstick across the back of the legs and take them down as well. why should they put their health or even life at risk?
why is it you would take that as a given but fail to believe this guy with an axe to grind isn't a huge dick himself? this form of selective hearing people seem to have is whats wrong with the world.
I've crossed many borders many times including the US, and it've never had a single problem. you know why? because i don't act like an asshole the moment one of these guys tries to do his job. i've been scanned, sniffed, searched the whole lot and the grand total time in 10 years of travel that this has cost me wouldn't be more then 1 hour tops.
next time some over worked under paid public servant stops you and asks to look in your bag, how about you try being polite, smiling ask them how their day is going and say thanks have a nice day when they are done? i'd bet money that's not what this guy did...
this whole political push to "solve" global warming is NOT based in any desire to help the environment, or on good science.
that aside, i'd like you to provide some examples of modern drugs that wouldn't exist without patents. I hear this kind of defence for patents, but never any actual examples to back it up. again my proposed 3 year limit to bring it to market would protect these anyway.
to me the best solution is either force them to produce a prototype or limit the patent to 3 years if nothing is brought to market. to me if you can't produce a atleast ONE unit in 3 years, then your just squandering the oppertunity that someone else could actually do something with.
ok lets compare your vinyl record after you've played it 1000 times. oic not so hot now is it.