Not even that. Except for the die-hard Democrats, who really cares if the candidate's husband had a DUI 20 years ago? it has nothing to do with her qualifications and everything to do with how desperately her opponents are looking for mud to sling.
the DNS for the spam domain having a very low TTL value set.
That, in and of itself shouldn't be enough. It might be that the domain's hosted from the domain owner's private box, on Dynamic IP. Although I don't do that, I do use EveryDNS.net to give my home machine a routable name on my domain for personal use. They use a TTL of one hour, and recommend that you update your IP about every two hours to keep it current. Probably, using registration at one of those "privacy protecting registrars" is more of a tip-off.
Subpoena the customer list of these registrars under conspiracy to avoid taxation.
Good idea, wrong terminology. "Tax avoidance" is using deductions, tax shelters and so on to lower the amount of tax you're liable for. What you're thinking of is "tax evasion." Back in the 1920s (I think) there was a Supreme Court ruling that "tax avoidance is not tax evasion." That's right, they actually tried to prosecute somebody for using legal means to lower his taxes and it took SCOTUS to say "NO" and make it stick.
...a good number of Linux fans would spam for Microsoft.
I can foresee something much, much worse. Imagine a bunch of One True Distro Linux fanbois (We all know a few, don't we?) spamming in the name of some other, hated distro. Gentoo fanatics sending out Slackware spam, Ubuntu users spamming in the name of Fedora, Damned Small Linux lovers sending out Puppy Linux spam. Oh the horror! Oh the humanity! Oh tempora, oh more! Oh, the spam-filled inboxes!
Like you I belived that cooling was all the rage and did a bit of research to try and convince someone of that about 10yrs ago - I was wrong.
Actually, I never really believed in it; it seemed so unlikely. Of course, if I'd known then how fast an Ice Age can grow, I might have thought differently, but back then, I just wondered. Maybe it was mostly the difference in ages; five years at that age can make a big difference in how easily you accept what you're told or read. Well, live and learn I always say.
And to anticipate your next point, that doesn't mean that predicting changes in the climate is impossible.
Agreed. Weather is short-term fluctuations, climate is long-term trends. I was probably being a tad unfair. However, we still can't (among other things) predict El Nino or La Nina conditions; if anybody has anything better than guesses about what causes them, I've not heard of them. I suspect they may be more a part of long term climate than short term weather, but that's only a very uneducated guess.
There are two big things I don't like about Global Warming: first, the almost hysterical insistence that "it's a done deal, we have a consensus, there's nothing to argue about." I just can't get those people to understand that the Real World doesn't care about consensus; facts are facts. Second, is the people insisting on radical, irrevocable changes without even a shred of evidence that they will help. No, I'm going to continue being a contrarian in this and demand proof because most of my opponents don't really have any, and I can learn from those who do.
Thank you. I know they weren't able to raise/catch/make everything they needed (timber was always a problem) but they did manage to have enough surplus to trade for what they needed. This lasted for several centuries. I've always gathered that part of the reason they died out is that unlike the natives, they weren't willing to switch to a hunter-gatherer economy based largely on seals, walruses and whales. The more realistic ones left, the more stubborn ones died trying to keep up the old standards. That article you cited mentioned how shipping gradually died out. As the climate was getting colder, the passage would get harder, until even such hardy seafarers as the Norse would find it difficult, so that's no surprise. Again, thank you for your very informative response.
These things happen. BTW, in terms of conservation, I've long avoided plastic bags for groceries. You need more of them, they're so weak that they have to be double-bagged to hold a full load (wasteful) and, as I like to point out, "trees grow back; oil wells don't."
To me, at least, the claim that mankind is causing climate change on a global scale is an extraordinary claim. As such, it need extraordinary evidence. Most of what I've seen is not so much evidence as handwaving, rhetoric and hysteria. I consider the claim Not Proven.
I find that very interesting. I know that there are a few dairy cattle in Greenland, mostly as a stunt. Any idea before it's economically practical again, as it was in the Viking times? I'm not being sarcastic here, just Very Interested.
Yes, as a matter of fact there was. I remember reading, back then, articles in the newspapers and magazines about how the climate was getting cooler and how me might be heading into a new Ice Age. Those, btw, didn't start until after I left the US Navy in '73.
You're obviously not a scientist. It's easy to find models that match what has already happened.
If they can start from 20 years ago and predict the present, they can predict tomorrow. If what you say is true, why can't we predict the weather with any accuracy?
I remember an article in Scientific American, about ten or twelve years ago that's germane. (Alas, I don't have the issue any more, and can't give a citation.) The author had done an experiment with terrariums, sealing them and providing them with an internal atmosphere much richer in CO2 than is normal. The result, in every case, was much more growth of the plants inside than you'd normally get. This rather implies that much of that CO2 would be taken up by plants instead of hanging around for centuries. Alas, he didn't go on to do what I thought was the most important experiment: set up a high-CO2 terrarium without an outside gas source and let it seek equilibrium. I'd have been interested to learn how close that was to normal.
And you are claiming that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for those changes.
No. I'm stating that we don't know what caused those changes. As far as the Little Ice Age, that coincided with the Maunder Minimum, and scientists are trying to figure out if there's a relationship between the two. (correlation does not equal causation) This might be important, as the Sun seems to be heading into another long minimum of sunspots, although nobody's sure of that yet.
That doesn't change the effect expected, and probably seen, from carbon dioxide.
Of course not. My point was, as you point out so well, that the effect from water vapor overpowers that of CO2 for most purposes and that most people discussing global warming act as to CO2 was the be-all and end-all of greenhouse gases. BTW, there's another carbon-base greenhouse gas that has increased due to mankind: methane, mostly released into the atmosphere by cow farts, but you don't hear anybody (except some of the more extreme vegetarians) saying we should do anything about it.
Calling for absolute proof in science is a delaying tactic, although many don't realise this.
I don't expect absolute proof. I do, however, expect some proof that a computer model works before I base my actions on it.
One thing I would like to know, though: if it is true, as you think, that humanity is causing the climate to get warmer, how did humanity cause the Early Medieval Warm? Things were much warmer then (As they possibly were in the time of Caesar and Augustus, I might add.) so if we're warming the environment now, they must have been doing it then.
No, I'm sure some of them believe they're right, but are in it for the money anyway. That is, they'd still be saying the same things if there were no profit in it, but they wouldn't be saying it so loudly or publicly. I also don't think it's a conspiracy because I find the idea of people actually getting together to plan this so implausible. No, people are capable of looking out for #1, and if that means pushing an agenda they don't really believe in, many people will gladly do it.
CO2 is the problem, the climate was working fine with the water vapor.
The biggest problem is the very inconvenient truth that the climate is constantly changing, sometimes getting warmer, sometimes cooler. Right now, it seems to be getting warmer, even though there are reports about the ice in the Arctic covering more area than it has in decades. And, the most inconvenient truth is that we don't know why, although some people think we do. Frankly, I think we should be spending money on learning more about how the climate changes instead of just assuming that CO2 is the One True Answer. Until we have a computer model that can start from 20 years ago and predict today correctly, we won't know enough to say that we understand what's happening. And, I might add, it's not a good idea to make drastic changes until we do. I will agree, however, that an open-ended experiment of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is probably not a Good Idea.
The idea that every person who is reporting/informing/pushing/(whatever spin you like) the idea of global warming is altruistic and just wants to help by asking people to conserve a little is as absurd as it is naive.
Exactly. The Global Warming Industry was my rather sarcastic term for those people who are pushing for extreme measures not because they believe in them but because they expect to profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even that. Except for the die-hard Democrats, who really cares if the candidate's husband had a DUI 20 years ago? it has nothing to do with her qualifications and everything to do with how desperately her opponents are looking for mud to sling.
My parent's house doesn't have a basement you insensitive clod! I'm stuck in the den!
That, in and of itself shouldn't be enough. It might be that the domain's hosted from the domain owner's private box, on Dynamic IP. Although I don't do that, I do use EveryDNS.net to give my home machine a routable name on my domain for personal use. They use a TTL of one hour, and recommend that you update your IP about every two hours to keep it current. Probably, using registration at one of those "privacy protecting registrars" is more of a tip-off.
Good idea, wrong terminology. "Tax avoidance" is using deductions, tax shelters and so on to lower the amount of tax you're liable for. What you're thinking of is "tax evasion." Back in the 1920s (I think) there was a Supreme Court ruling that "tax avoidance is not tax evasion." That's right, they actually tried to prosecute somebody for using legal means to lower his taxes and it took SCOTUS to say "NO" and make it stick.
I can foresee something much, much worse. Imagine a bunch of One True Distro Linux fanbois (We all know a few, don't we?) spamming in the name of some other, hated distro. Gentoo fanatics sending out Slackware spam, Ubuntu users spamming in the name of Fedora, Damned Small Linux lovers sending out Puppy Linux spam. Oh the horror! Oh the humanity! Oh tempora, oh more! Oh, the spam-filled inboxes!
Actually, I never really believed in it; it seemed so unlikely. Of course, if I'd known then how fast an Ice Age can grow, I might have thought differently, but back then, I just wondered. Maybe it was mostly the difference in ages; five years at that age can make a big difference in how easily you accept what you're told or read. Well, live and learn I always say.
Agreed. Weather is short-term fluctuations, climate is long-term trends. I was probably being a tad unfair. However, we still can't (among other things) predict El Nino or La Nina conditions; if anybody has anything better than guesses about what causes them, I've not heard of them. I suspect they may be more a part of long term climate than short term weather, but that's only a very uneducated guess.
There are two big things I don't like about Global Warming: first, the almost hysterical insistence that "it's a done deal, we have a consensus, there's nothing to argue about." I just can't get those people to understand that the Real World doesn't care about consensus; facts are facts. Second, is the people insisting on radical, irrevocable changes without even a shred of evidence that they will help. No, I'm going to continue being a contrarian in this and demand proof because most of my opponents don't really have any, and I can learn from those who do.
Thank you. I know they weren't able to raise/catch/make everything they needed (timber was always a problem) but they did manage to have enough surplus to trade for what they needed. This lasted for several centuries. I've always gathered that part of the reason they died out is that unlike the natives, they weren't willing to switch to a hunter-gatherer economy based largely on seals, walruses and whales. The more realistic ones left, the more stubborn ones died trying to keep up the old standards. That article you cited mentioned how shipping gradually died out. As the climate was getting colder, the passage would get harder, until even such hardy seafarers as the Norse would find it difficult, so that's no surprise. Again, thank you for your very informative response.
These things happen. BTW, in terms of conservation, I've long avoided plastic bags for groceries. You need more of them, they're so weak that they have to be double-bagged to hold a full load (wasteful) and, as I like to point out, "trees grow back; oil wells don't."
To me, at least, the claim that mankind is causing climate change on a global scale is an extraordinary claim. As such, it need extraordinary evidence. Most of what I've seen is not so much evidence as handwaving, rhetoric and hysteria. I consider the claim Not Proven.
I find that very interesting. I know that there are a few dairy cattle in Greenland, mostly as a stunt. Any idea before it's economically practical again, as it was in the Viking times? I'm not being sarcastic here, just Very Interested.
Yes, as a matter of fact there was. I remember reading, back then, articles in the newspapers and magazines about how the climate was getting cooler and how me might be heading into a new Ice Age. Those, btw, didn't start until after I left the US Navy in '73.
If they can start from 20 years ago and predict the present, they can predict tomorrow. If what you say is true, why can't we predict the weather with any accuracy?
I remember an article in Scientific American, about ten or twelve years ago that's germane. (Alas, I don't have the issue any more, and can't give a citation.) The author had done an experiment with terrariums, sealing them and providing them with an internal atmosphere much richer in CO2 than is normal. The result, in every case, was much more growth of the plants inside than you'd normally get. This rather implies that much of that CO2 would be taken up by plants instead of hanging around for centuries. Alas, he didn't go on to do what I thought was the most important experiment: set up a high-CO2 terrarium without an outside gas source and let it seek equilibrium. I'd have been interested to learn how close that was to normal.
My conclusion, as you call it is simple: I don't believe global warming has been proven or disproven, but I'm dubious.
No. I'm stating that we don't know what caused those changes. As far as the Little Ice Age, that coincided with the Maunder Minimum, and scientists are trying to figure out if there's a relationship between the two. (correlation does not equal causation) This might be important, as the Sun seems to be heading into another long minimum of sunspots, although nobody's sure of that yet.
Of course not. My point was, as you point out so well, that the effect from water vapor overpowers that of CO2 for most purposes and that most people discussing global warming act as to CO2 was the be-all and end-all of greenhouse gases. BTW, there's another carbon-base greenhouse gas that has increased due to mankind: methane, mostly released into the atmosphere by cow farts, but you don't hear anybody (except some of the more extreme vegetarians) saying we should do anything about it.
No, I acknowledged that I had the ratio wrong. Again, try to keep up.
I don't expect absolute proof. I do, however, expect some proof that a computer model works before I base my actions on it.
One thing I would like to know, though: if it is true, as you think, that humanity is causing the climate to get warmer, how did humanity cause the Early Medieval Warm? Things were much warmer then (As they possibly were in the time of Caesar and Augustus, I might add.) so if we're warming the environment now, they must have been doing it then.
Of course they do. Didn't you know they're Bourne Again Pastafarians?
No, I'm sure some of them believe they're right, but are in it for the money anyway. That is, they'd still be saying the same things if there were no profit in it, but they wouldn't be saying it so loudly or publicly. I also don't think it's a conspiracy because I find the idea of people actually getting together to plan this so implausible. No, people are capable of looking out for #1, and if that means pushing an agenda they don't really believe in, many people will gladly do it.
We're not talking about how CO2 and water vapor get into the atmosphere, we're talking about their effects after they do. Try to keep up, please.
The biggest problem is the very inconvenient truth that the climate is constantly changing, sometimes getting warmer, sometimes cooler. Right now, it seems to be getting warmer, even though there are reports about the ice in the Arctic covering more area than it has in decades. And, the most inconvenient truth is that we don't know why, although some people think we do. Frankly, I think we should be spending money on learning more about how the climate changes instead of just assuming that CO2 is the One True Answer. Until we have a computer model that can start from 20 years ago and predict today correctly, we won't know enough to say that we understand what's happening. And, I might add, it's not a good idea to make drastic changes until we do. I will agree, however, that an open-ended experiment of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is probably not a Good Idea.
Exactly. The Global Warming Industry was my rather sarcastic term for those people who are pushing for extreme measures not because they believe in them but because they expect to profit.
I heard a speaker last week using that figure and quoted it. If it's wrong, I sit corrected.