The US needs illegal immigration. That's the issue. The US would become far too uncomfortable for everyone else if they were to leave, as prices would rise across the board.
They are derided because they use an old book to "know" the truth, then try to shoe-horn observations into it. That is not how grown-ups approach learning.
We need to maintain a balanced amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as only a small amount of it has powerful consequences. You yourself admit it - it's a trace gas, yet essential to life. Too much or too little and it's not great for life as we know it.
All the raw data is available. Everything is available. Just because you want to think it isn't, and don't look for it, and ignore its very existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You sound like an absolute fool parroting these nonsensical claims.
You could just go on Google and find out, but I guess it's more fun pretending to be a free-thinking awesome superhero armchair scientist fighting the AGW cabal. Playing pretend is fun!
No they're not. I'm sure it gives you a great case of the smugs to think that's the case, but as it's not based on reality in any way, it reflects quite poorly on you that you believe it and believe it so vehemently that you would post it to a public forum for all to see...
The research shows you are wrong, and yet you still post. That's why your remarks deserve nothing more than "childish" attacks as you are trying to debunk an entire field of science by writing a few childish lines of pseudologic in a slashdot post, and acting as if you are some sort of amazing free-thinker. You're not. You are wrong, and the worst thing is this: you have the tools to easily educate yourself on just how wrong you are, yet refuse to do so. You are part of the problem.
It limits the amount of pollution. So if you pollute, you buy some credits and use those. That means someone else won't pollute as much, maintaining the amount of pollution being emitted, making it quantifiable and more manageable.
Just because you don't like/understand carbon credits doesn't mean the science they're drawing on is bunk.
Your "solution" still has a basic flaw you have not addressed - it keeps the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as demand for energy increases, your "solution" ensures more and more CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. All your solution does is preserve existing fossil fuel reserves. That's it. It isn't sustainable, and will not help in the long run.
Nuclear power is great for the base load - I don't disagree with you on that point. We just need better reactors.
The IPCC's reports show (with a high certainty) that AGW will be a problem, and we do need to find solutions. Saying otherwise reflects very poorly on you, as it's all spelled out nice and neatly.
The "general attitude" of the rest of the world isn't what you seem to think it is. You sound like you've been listening to Christopher Monckton.
You are parroting the unfounded opinions of others, and it's pathetic. Your attitude is a major reason why this issue has become so politicised. What should be a simple case of follow-the-science (that has yielded a massive decrease in population, massive increases in quality of life, etc.) has turned into a case of lets-argue-against-science-because-we-don't-like-what-the-science-says-even-though-it's-sound-science. Again, it's pathetic. Future generations will be embarrassed that people like you ever existed.
What's with the false dichotomies? It is about science, as the science is providing the evidence that bad things are and will continue to happen. Politics is needed in order to create solutions, as they require many countries working together in unison.
The political fight in the US is a joke, but elsewhere in the world it is far from being lost - quite the opposite, in fact.
So you can keep your made-up options. The science says the environment as we know it can't continue the way it is if we keep pumping CO2 out, and politics is trying to figure out ways to implement solutions to protect our little blue/green life-raft.
Then you should check up on how science works, as that is clearly what happens.
If we didn't assume certain things to be settled, no-one could use them as the basis for their work. If we assume evolution isn't settled, there would be no medicine.
I know it's easy to just claim climate change isn't settled, but that's not what the evidence or the scientists say. It makes you look a fool every time you parrot that ridiculous claim. You are denying science, just as creationists and anti-vaxxers do.
Lots of people want to talk about population. In fact, it's a major topic. There are plenty of ways to decrease the global population without resorting to killing people. The easiest way is to increase the quality of life for people in countries which are experiencing a large population growth. Happy people whose children are likely to grow up tend to have fewer children. After a few generations of that, the population stabilises.
I know it's easy to think "too many people = we should kill some", but that's beyond childish.
Your lack of scientific literacy is astounding, as are your hand-waiving of problems which will affect many millions of people (and important cities which can't be walled in) severely hurting the global economy in the process.
You, and those who think as lazily as you, are dangerous.
Nope - the sun's influence has been shown to not be as important as CO2 when it comes to global warming.
You can't use such simple, childish logic to try to establish the cause of a phenomenon in such a complicated system. You end up looking incredibly foolish, and learning nothing in the process.
Your closed loop system doesn't work as it's woefully inefficient, and as energy demands increase, the amount of temporary CO2 in the atmosphere will increase. It will help (slightly) but is rather short-sighted, and is no long-term solution. Also using electricity to create fuel from the atmospheric CO2 suffers from the same issue - it will not reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will continue to rise even if everyone used your system.
The real solutions are:
1. Carbon sequestration (a fair bit of research is required) 2. Sensible nuclear power (new reactors & fuel cycles) 3. Improved use of renewable and carbon-neutral energy sources.
Carbon credits make sense as they limit the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the companies in the market, allowing companies to buy and sell the permission to release CO2. They are not a solution, but they are a quick fix to lessen the problems in the short-term while long-term solutions are found.
A solution where everyone is happy will not be found, as people will find problems with anything, even if it's simply because the person suggesting it is from the wrong "team", hence the need for politics.
1. The science is settled. This is not up for negotiation just to make some scientifically-illiterate numpty happy 2. The science is not political, but the solutions are, as they require broad cooperation to implement. That is non-negotiable, too.
The real options are:
1. Accept the scientific method, accept the findings of the world's climatologists, and implement solutions.
oh, wait, that's it. You don't seem to understand the difference between the science and the politics.
Any problem which requires cross-the-board action to resolve will quickly become political, and will never be separated from politics. In more sane countries where the them-vs-us mentality isn't so pronounced, the politics doesn't degrade into a yelling match. That seems to be reserved for developing countries and the US.
Now, that being said, that does not reflect on the science one bit. The science is sound, the problems are real, and the time to implement solutions is now. How loudly people argue over it doesn't change the research, so your claim about "scientific purity" is abject nonsense from the get-go - science doesn't work like that.
There is no respect in a scientific discussion for those who ignore the scientific method and the findings that result from it. There simply can't be, by very definition. If we are having a discussion on scientific findings, and someone says they're bogus (but can't show how, or tries to show but their claims are demonstrably bogus themselves, as is the case with every AGW cynic) and sticks to their guns even though their issues have been debunked time and time and time again, how should the discussion proceed? Accept their opinion as equally valid as the scientific findings so as to not upset them by highlighting their inanity? That's no answer.
Translation: "I agree that CO2 is changing the atmosphere, but as I am selfish, if it inconveniences me at all to do something about it, I won't, and I will happily condemn future generations to deal with the problem as I simply can't be fucked". Lovely person.
That doesn't work. If you tell your router to, say, throttle a service to ~10KB/s, and the source of that service is sending out data at ~20KB/s (as it doesn't know about your QoS settings), clearly your router is going to fill up with data. That will eventually make your router stop routing, which defeats the whole purpose. Please stop telling everyone QoS can work if you just set it up on your network - it might look as if it is working, but it won't work for long, and will cause all sorts of problems in the long run.
Nope. QoS - to work correctly - needs the cooperation of more than just your network, otherwise you end up with your router filling its buffers and degrading everything.
It's not a decrease in violence in general, but the decrease in shootings, which is what we are discussing. Of course if you move the goalposts it's easy to make it look like a failure, but if we stick to the topic at hand - gun violence - then yes, overwhelmingly, countries which have enforced good gun control laws have seen drastic reductions in gun violence.
Just get proper doors and windows on your house if you are that scared of other people. In civilised countries people don't have to retreat from anything, as there is nothing to be scared of. Home invasions don't happen, burglaries (when they do happen) happen to empty houses, and burglars don't have guns as they are simply not needed - if they're disturbed in the act they flee. So yes - your attitude is precisely the problem as it's resigned you to the notion that it's perfectly normal to need a place to never retreat from, as if you are in some war. Defending your family by increasing the chances they die (either by your gun or the gun of the scary people you think will come get you) doesn't make much sense.
Slashdot Mirror
The US needs illegal immigration. That's the issue. The US would become far too uncomfortable for everyone else if they were to leave, as prices would rise across the board.
They are derided because they use an old book to "know" the truth, then try to shoe-horn observations into it. That is not how grown-ups approach learning.
We need to maintain a balanced amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as only a small amount of it has powerful consequences. You yourself admit it - it's a trace gas, yet essential to life. Too much or too little and it's not great for life as we know it.
All the raw data is available. Everything is available. Just because you want to think it isn't, and don't look for it, and ignore its very existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You sound like an absolute fool parroting these nonsensical claims.
You could just go on Google and find out, but I guess it's more fun pretending to be a free-thinking awesome superhero armchair scientist fighting the AGW cabal. Playing pretend is fun!
No they're not. I'm sure it gives you a great case of the smugs to think that's the case, but as it's not based on reality in any way, it reflects quite poorly on you that you believe it and believe it so vehemently that you would post it to a public forum for all to see...
The research shows you are wrong, and yet you still post. That's why your remarks deserve nothing more than "childish" attacks as you are trying to debunk an entire field of science by writing a few childish lines of pseudologic in a slashdot post, and acting as if you are some sort of amazing free-thinker. You're not. You are wrong, and the worst thing is this: you have the tools to easily educate yourself on just how wrong you are, yet refuse to do so. You are part of the problem.
It limits the amount of pollution. So if you pollute, you buy some credits and use those. That means someone else won't pollute as much, maintaining the amount of pollution being emitted, making it quantifiable and more manageable.
Just because you don't like/understand carbon credits doesn't mean the science they're drawing on is bunk.
Your "solution" still has a basic flaw you have not addressed - it keeps the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as demand for energy increases, your "solution" ensures more and more CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. All your solution does is preserve existing fossil fuel reserves. That's it. It isn't sustainable, and will not help in the long run.
Nuclear power is great for the base load - I don't disagree with you on that point. We just need better reactors.
The IPCC's reports show (with a high certainty) that AGW will be a problem, and we do need to find solutions. Saying otherwise reflects very poorly on you, as it's all spelled out nice and neatly.
The "general attitude" of the rest of the world isn't what you seem to think it is. You sound like you've been listening to Christopher Monckton.
You are parroting the unfounded opinions of others, and it's pathetic. Your attitude is a major reason why this issue has become so politicised. What should be a simple case of follow-the-science (that has yielded a massive decrease in population, massive increases in quality of life, etc.) has turned into a case of lets-argue-against-science-because-we-don't-like-what-the-science-says-even-though-it's-sound-science. Again, it's pathetic. Future generations will be embarrassed that people like you ever existed.
What's with the false dichotomies? It is about science, as the science is providing the evidence that bad things are and will continue to happen. Politics is needed in order to create solutions, as they require many countries working together in unison.
The political fight in the US is a joke, but elsewhere in the world it is far from being lost - quite the opposite, in fact.
So you can keep your made-up options. The science says the environment as we know it can't continue the way it is if we keep pumping CO2 out, and politics is trying to figure out ways to implement solutions to protect our little blue/green life-raft.
Then you should check up on how science works, as that is clearly what happens.
If we didn't assume certain things to be settled, no-one could use them as the basis for their work. If we assume evolution isn't settled, there would be no medicine.
I know it's easy to just claim climate change isn't settled, but that's not what the evidence or the scientists say. It makes you look a fool every time you parrot that ridiculous claim. You are denying science, just as creationists and anti-vaxxers do.
Lots of people want to talk about population. In fact, it's a major topic. There are plenty of ways to decrease the global population without resorting to killing people. The easiest way is to increase the quality of life for people in countries which are experiencing a large population growth. Happy people whose children are likely to grow up tend to have fewer children. After a few generations of that, the population stabilises.
I know it's easy to think "too many people = we should kill some", but that's beyond childish.
Your lack of scientific literacy is astounding, as are your hand-waiving of problems which will affect many millions of people (and important cities which can't be walled in) severely hurting the global economy in the process.
You, and those who think as lazily as you, are dangerous.
Nope - the sun's influence has been shown to not be as important as CO2 when it comes to global warming.
You can't use such simple, childish logic to try to establish the cause of a phenomenon in such a complicated system. You end up looking incredibly foolish, and learning nothing in the process.
Your closed loop system doesn't work as it's woefully inefficient, and as energy demands increase, the amount of temporary CO2 in the atmosphere will increase. It will help (slightly) but is rather short-sighted, and is no long-term solution. Also using electricity to create fuel from the atmospheric CO2 suffers from the same issue - it will not reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will continue to rise even if everyone used your system.
The real solutions are:
1. Carbon sequestration (a fair bit of research is required)
2. Sensible nuclear power (new reactors & fuel cycles)
3. Improved use of renewable and carbon-neutral energy sources.
Carbon credits make sense as they limit the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the companies in the market, allowing companies to buy and sell the permission to release CO2. They are not a solution, but they are a quick fix to lessen the problems in the short-term while long-term solutions are found.
A solution where everyone is happy will not be found, as people will find problems with anything, even if it's simply because the person suggesting it is from the wrong "team", hence the need for politics.
1. The science is settled. This is not up for negotiation just to make some scientifically-illiterate numpty happy
2. The science is not political, but the solutions are, as they require broad cooperation to implement. That is non-negotiable, too.
The real options are:
1. Accept the scientific method, accept the findings of the world's climatologists, and implement solutions.
oh, wait, that's it. You don't seem to understand the difference between the science and the politics.
Any problem which requires cross-the-board action to resolve will quickly become political, and will never be separated from politics. In more sane countries where the them-vs-us mentality isn't so pronounced, the politics doesn't degrade into a yelling match. That seems to be reserved for developing countries and the US.
Now, that being said, that does not reflect on the science one bit. The science is sound, the problems are real, and the time to implement solutions is now. How loudly people argue over it doesn't change the research, so your claim about "scientific purity" is abject nonsense from the get-go - science doesn't work like that.
There is no respect in a scientific discussion for those who ignore the scientific method and the findings that result from it. There simply can't be, by very definition. If we are having a discussion on scientific findings, and someone says they're bogus (but can't show how, or tries to show but their claims are demonstrably bogus themselves, as is the case with every AGW cynic) and sticks to their guns even though their issues have been debunked time and time and time again, how should the discussion proceed? Accept their opinion as equally valid as the scientific findings so as to not upset them by highlighting their inanity? That's no answer.
Translation: "I agree that CO2 is changing the atmosphere, but as I am selfish, if it inconveniences me at all to do something about it, I won't, and I will happily condemn future generations to deal with the problem as I simply can't be fucked". Lovely person.
So easy. Herp.
That doesn't work. If you tell your router to, say, throttle a service to ~10KB/s, and the source of that service is sending out data at ~20KB/s (as it doesn't know about your QoS settings), clearly your router is going to fill up with data. That will eventually make your router stop routing, which defeats the whole purpose. Please stop telling everyone QoS can work if you just set it up on your network - it might look as if it is working, but it won't work for long, and will cause all sorts of problems in the long run.
Nope. QoS - to work correctly - needs the cooperation of more than just your network, otherwise you end up with your router filling its buffers and degrading everything.
It's not a decrease in violence in general, but the decrease in shootings, which is what we are discussing. Of course if you move the goalposts it's easy to make it look like a failure, but if we stick to the topic at hand - gun violence - then yes, overwhelmingly, countries which have enforced good gun control laws have seen drastic reductions in gun violence.
Just get proper doors and windows on your house if you are that scared of other people. In civilised countries people don't have to retreat from anything, as there is nothing to be scared of. Home invasions don't happen, burglaries (when they do happen) happen to empty houses, and burglars don't have guns as they are simply not needed - if they're disturbed in the act they flee. So yes - your attitude is precisely the problem as it's resigned you to the notion that it's perfectly normal to need a place to never retreat from, as if you are in some war. Defending your family by increasing the chances they die (either by your gun or the gun of the scary people you think will come get you) doesn't make much sense.
Or you could move to a part of the world where such a scenario would seem ridiculously barbaric and incredibly unnecessary...