"I...I...I...I...My...I...My...I....I...I..." etc.
Pay attention now. Obama uses personal pronouns less than any modern president. Yes, there has been empirical analysis on the topic. In particular, I refer you to the work of James W. Pennebaker, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, who specialises in the use of pronouns.
None of this matters, of course, because political discourse continues to devolve to "four-legs-good, obama-bad" for the right. One might reasonably think that the left is just as bad, and they are pretty bad; however, this is simply not true. And for that, I refer you to the obama hate machine, which chronicles just how bizarre republican vitriol has become in the last 4 years.
And your comment is a perfect case in point. In the absence of any real criticism, we have nonsensical and factually inaccurate ad-hominems. There is plenty to criticise Obama about without making stuff up.
As somebody who was involved in the underground music scene in Saint John's, I can say that the record labels are useless to new musicians. The best way for new musicians to finance themselves is to play all-ages shows, sell merchandise, and apply for (small) grants from the government. All the labels do is engage a high-risk high-return advertising machine, and work the musicians to the bone.
Fine if a person wants to be that, but I'm not taking economic nor technological policy from a bunch of drug-addled loonies.
I'm not particularly interested in what greenpeace has to say on the issue. But I am interested in what scientists have to say. As for cap-and-trade, this is a neoliberal solution that was applied to both CFCs and acid rain emissions. In both cases:
+ Right-wing think tanks accused environmentalists of fear-mongering.
+ Somewhat ironically, these same think-tank fear-mongered about economic catastrophy if the regulations were put in place, and asserted that they wouldn't work.
+ In both cases, the regulations did work and there was nigh on zero economic hardship
+ In both cases, the right-wing think thanks never admitted that they were wrong
There is a whole body of literature out there on the history of this stuff. You are been played by people who cannot see their blind-spots. Do yourself a favour, and read Merchants of Doubt, and verify its accuracy by spot-checking the references.
Including the cost of pollution into the basic cost of coal/oil would provide the market incentives to find alternatives, and also use less energy. This worked for both acid rain and CFCs, and cause very little economic hardship. (Some coal mines suffered because their coal had a high sulpher content.)
So there you have it. Two empirical real world examples of how you are wrong. And the theory as well.
It's not content free. Scientists don't live in a black and white world. It is very precise. It's asking the scientist if they think climate change has a significant anthropogentic contribution. Can't get more straight-forward then that. How would you phrase the question?
Don't know why they header doesn't specify the address in the same way that utf8 specifies numbers. Sure it means that the numbers of sometimes longer, but for non-routable addresses, you should be able to use just 1 or 2 bytes. (Say, make all addresses 32000 unroutable.)
Sorry, wrong study. I should have linked Doran 2009. Skeptics have responded to these two studies by saying they are flawed (of course). If you are interested you should read the studies, spot check the references, read what skeptics and scientists have to say on the issue.
Nonsense the IPCC predicted that at 350ppm C02 the climate would become unstable, there would be continuous storms and droughts and wars over water supply.
If you read Merchants of Doubt, you will see a hideously long paper trail of extensive resources that have been put into the anti-environmental campaign. It is all sourced and documented.
What you say is simply not true.
The fossil-fuel industry outspends greenpeace 10-1 on lobbying and advertising in the USA. That is not a level playing field.
When you get a bit older, you will realise the myopia that humans have regarding their own beliefs, and how destructive it can be. This will be no help in explaining to younger people that they should open their minds and learn something. The buddha called it ignorance, and it is the root of suffering.
However try taking the position that GW is not entirely man-made, or that GW will not be as damaging as to justify billions of investments. You will get attacked almost in the way blasphemists were attacked in the middle ages.
You will not be attacked by scientists. In fact, scientists will applaud your honesty in saying that you don't thing AGW is worth spending money on. Most people who don't want to spend money on environmental issues just deny that they are happening. Scientists are inclined to say "how dare you disagree", when denial is used as a cover for one's real motives.
You could learn something about the debate, by trying to explain to a denier that AGW is probably happening, and then enjoy the circular claims, outright fabrications and indignation that characterise typical climate change skepticism. That should open your eyes.
If there's anything we learned from the climategate emails, it's that a lot of the scientists working on this problem are not working in good faith.
Yet there have been numerous independent inquiries that found no wrong-doing. I've read the email myself, and find the "skeptics" interpretation to be laughable. Nature magazine called the interpretation laughable.
The scientists in question are being hounded and bullied in a witch hunt designed to chill discussion on the topic. When people engage in such horrible behaviour, they almost always justify their behaviour by disparaging the victim. The human mind will clutch at straws to hold onto false beliefs, and this is especially potent when done in groups. Do yourself a favour, and stop reading purely partisan blogs on the issue, and learn something about what the actual scientists have to say on the issue.
Of course, the scientists are all untrustworthy, because that is emotionally easier for you to deal with -- right?
You obviously formed this opinion by reading someones blog, or something like that. Climate change is the most well studied phenomenon in the history of the world. Go read what actual scientists have to say on the issue.
"Back in the Kyoto talks, we were TOLD that if no action was taken, then the point of no return was something like 2007.
Citation needed.
My odds are 1000000-1 that this statement was never made. Scientists speak in very measured language -- what people like you call weasel words. "Likely, probably, uncertainty, somewhat unlikely", etc. If you open the IPCC reports, at the very beginning, you will see statistical bars for the definitions of these words.
No scientist talks the way you have characterised -- but I am sure that someone like you will read your statement, and it will become implicit proof for them that scientists are alarmists. This is are rumours go on and on forever.
Freaking morons who like nuclear don't take into account the amount of radioactive waste, decomissioning of the reactor, and the amount of uranium mining tailings that contaminate construction materials.
The more people actually know about nuclear, the less worried they are about it. The people who know the most -- nuclear engineers -- are pretty good a math, and can do the sums you are talking about.
Can you? or did you just read about how the numbers look bad, and trusted some 3rd party source, who probably trusted some other 3rd party source, etc.
What if the tax is revenue neutral? As in, carbon is taxed, and the revenue is returned as rebates? That's what was proposed in Australia. Would that mitigate your concerns?
Are you sure you bought enough carbon credits to cover the cost of your post?
An intelligent and wise person would look deeply into both claims -- and the sources of those claims. An idiot would just interpret incoming information in a self-serving way, since they are right.
Judging from your comment, you/are/ an idiot, since they is no intellectually serious debate on AGW. I could provide you with facts, however, research shows that presenting facts causes ignorant people to dig their heels in even more.
Nigh on everybody wants to see less abortion,/but/, the "pro-life" crowd to not have the right to tell people what to do, and cause other people suffering. I thought this country was about freedom -- when in fact, the "freedom-touters" are simply oppressed when they are not allowed to push others around.
They just happen to be together as part of the same political party in part because decades ago the Democrats ousted the God believers with it's position on abortion
Actually, if you look at the history, you will see that christians stayed out of politics until Reagan, who made a concerted effort to bring fundamentalists into the fold, with the lure of political power.
Slashdot Mirror
"I...I...I...I...My...I...My...I....I...I..." etc.
Pay attention now. Obama uses personal pronouns less than any modern president. Yes, there has been empirical analysis on the topic. In particular, I refer you to the work of James W. Pennebaker, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, who specialises in the use of pronouns.
None of this matters, of course, because political discourse continues to devolve to "four-legs-good, obama-bad" for the right. One might reasonably think that the left is just as bad, and they are pretty bad; however, this is simply not true. And for that, I refer you to the obama hate machine, which chronicles just how bizarre republican vitriol has become in the last 4 years.
And your comment is a perfect case in point. In the absence of any real criticism, we have nonsensical and factually inaccurate ad-hominems. There is plenty to criticise Obama about without making stuff up.
So then you'd be making internet teleconferencing pay the content industry for the next 100 years to come.
Seems fair enough to me. What if someone sings "Happy Birthday" during one of those conference calls? Somebody has to compensate the artist.
You may argue that people should be playing locally, but to achieve global fame one needs very, very expensive promotion.
Hopefully, in the future, band managers will be able to buy promotion on an as needed basis in a fluid market place. No need for the label.
They also provide financing for new musicians,
As somebody who was involved in the underground music scene in Saint John's, I can say that the record labels are useless to new musicians. The best way for new musicians to finance themselves is to play all-ages shows, sell merchandise, and apply for (small) grants from the government. All the labels do is engage a high-risk high-return advertising machine, and work the musicians to the bone.
The banking sector was not, on the whole, deregulated over the last few years. Nor did they fail to need to document their provision of loans.
The banking sector is still highly regulated, by the important regulations have been removed. See the best way to rob a bank is to own one.
Fine if a person wants to be that, but I'm not taking economic nor technological policy from a bunch of drug-addled loonies.
I'm not particularly interested in what greenpeace has to say on the issue. But I am interested in what scientists have to say. As for cap-and-trade, this is a neoliberal solution that was applied to both CFCs and acid rain emissions. In both cases:
There is a whole body of literature out there on the history of this stuff. You are been played by people who cannot see their blind-spots. Do yourself a favour, and read Merchants of Doubt, and verify its accuracy by spot-checking the references.
Including the cost of pollution into the basic cost of coal/oil would provide the market incentives to find alternatives, and also use less energy. This worked for both acid rain and CFCs, and cause very little economic hardship. (Some coal mines suffered because their coal had a high sulpher content.)
So there you have it. Two empirical real world examples of how you are wrong. And the theory as well.
It's not content free. Scientists don't live in a black and white world. It is very precise. It's asking the scientist if they think climate change has a significant anthropogentic contribution. Can't get more straight-forward then that. How would you phrase the question?
Don't know why they header doesn't specify the address in the same way that utf8 specifies numbers. Sure it means that the numbers of sometimes longer, but for non-routable addresses, you should be able to use just 1 or 2 bytes. (Say, make all addresses 32000 unroutable.)
Sorry, wrong study. I should have linked Doran 2009. Skeptics have responded to these two studies by saying they are flawed (of course). If you are interested you should read the studies, spot check the references, read what skeptics and scientists have to say on the issue.
Nonsense the IPCC predicted that at 350ppm C02 the climate would become unstable, there would be continuous storms and droughts and wars over water supply.
Citation needed.
If you read Merchants of Doubt, you will see a hideously long paper trail of extensive resources that have been put into the anti-environmental campaign. It is all sourced and documented.
What you say is simply not true.
The fossil-fuel industry outspends greenpeace 10-1 on lobbying and advertising in the USA. That is not a level playing field.
The Tobacco FUD campaign went on successfully for 50 years.
So good luck when all the alarmists wake up!
When you get a bit older, you will realise the myopia that humans have regarding their own beliefs, and how destructive it can be. This will be no help in explaining to younger people that they should open their minds and learn something. The buddha called it ignorance, and it is the root of suffering.
No one has come up with anything credible that GW is happening either. Score so far; 0-0.
This is simply not true. Go read the IPCC report.
However try taking the position that GW is not entirely man-made, or that GW will not be as damaging as to justify billions of investments. You will get attacked almost in the way blasphemists were attacked in the middle ages.
You will not be attacked by scientists. In fact, scientists will applaud your honesty in saying that you don't thing AGW is worth spending money on. Most people who don't want to spend money on environmental issues just deny that they are happening. Scientists are inclined to say "how dare you disagree", when denial is used as a cover for one's real motives.
Scientists speak in measured tones, like we are 90% confident that climate change is anthropogenic in origin. That's a far cry from "entirely man-made".
You could learn something about the debate, by trying to explain to a denier that AGW is probably happening, and then enjoy the circular claims, outright fabrications and indignation that characterise typical climate change skepticism. That should open your eyes.
If there's anything we learned from the climategate emails, it's that a lot of the scientists working on this problem are not working in good faith.
Yet there have been numerous independent inquiries that found no wrong-doing. I've read the email myself, and find the "skeptics" interpretation to be laughable. Nature magazine called the interpretation laughable.
The scientists in question are being hounded and bullied in a witch hunt designed to chill discussion on the topic. When people engage in such horrible behaviour, they almost always justify their behaviour by disparaging the victim. The human mind will clutch at straws to hold onto false beliefs, and this is especially potent when done in groups. Do yourself a favour, and stop reading purely partisan blogs on the issue, and learn something about what the actual scientists have to say on the issue.
Of course, the scientists are all untrustworthy, because that is emotionally easier for you to deal with -- right?
There may be an almost consensus that climate change is happening, but there is far from a consensus that it is caused by man's actions or inactions.
This is simply untrue. We are 90% certain that warming is anthropogenic, and furthermore, 97% of climate scientists support that figure.
You obviously formed this opinion by reading someones blog, or something like that. Climate change is the most well studied phenomenon in the history of the world. Go read what actual scientists have to say on the issue.
"Back in the Kyoto talks, we were TOLD that if no action was taken, then the point of no return was something like 2007.
Citation needed.
My odds are 1000000-1 that this statement was never made. Scientists speak in very measured language -- what people like you call weasel words. "Likely, probably, uncertainty, somewhat unlikely", etc. If you open the IPCC reports, at the very beginning, you will see statistical bars for the definitions of these words.
No scientist talks the way you have characterised -- but I am sure that someone like you will read your statement, and it will become implicit proof for them that scientists are alarmists. This is are rumours go on and on forever.
The fact that most anti- climate science is not peer-reviewed causes folks like me to just toss it all to the side.
FTFY.
Freaking morons who like nuclear don't take into account the amount of radioactive waste, decomissioning of the reactor, and the amount of uranium mining tailings that contaminate construction materials.
The more people actually know about nuclear, the less worried they are about it. The people who know the most -- nuclear engineers -- are pretty good a math, and can do the sums you are talking about.
Can you? or did you just read about how the numbers look bad, and trusted some 3rd party source, who probably trusted some other 3rd party source, etc.
What if the tax is revenue neutral? As in, carbon is taxed, and the revenue is returned as rebates? That's what was proposed in Australia. Would that mitigate your concerns?
Didn't think so.
Are you sure you bought enough carbon credits to cover the cost of your post?
An intelligent and wise person would look deeply into both claims -- and the sources of those claims. An idiot would just interpret incoming information in a self-serving way, since they are right.
/are/ an idiot, since they is no intellectually serious debate on AGW. I could provide you with facts, however, research shows that presenting facts causes ignorant people to dig their heels in even more.
Judging from your comment, you
Nigh on everybody wants to see less abortion, /but/, the "pro-life" crowd to not have the right to tell people what to do, and cause other people suffering. I thought this country was about freedom -- when in fact, the "freedom-touters" are simply oppressed when they are not allowed to push others around.
They just happen to be together as part of the same political party in part because decades ago the Democrats ousted the God believers with it's position on abortion
Actually, if you look at the history, you will see that christians stayed out of politics until Reagan, who made a concerted effort to bring fundamentalists into the fold, with the lure of political power.