Some reach for the moral argument you just put forward. Others think the moral, neigh Christian, thing to do is to help the poor. Still others believe in studying society, and figuring out how to reduce overall costs, including hidden costs such as crime. This is hard work, takes time, and no answers are a priori correct. Do you know what this last category thinks about the so-called "Obamaphone"?
It is a fallacy that addressing AGW means limiting the poor's access to energy. There will be change no matter what, and change begets winners and losers, and the losers are the current crop of plutocrats who run the GOP rage machine, and this nonsense about addressing climate change making us collectively poorer is just one of many pratts.
This is because mainstream liberals adopted conservative policies like the ACA (aka Obamacare), and cap-and-trade. Following the Gingrich doctrine "24/7 campaign, always attack, never admit fault", they dug themselves into this hole. The USA has a center-right party and nationalist-conspiratorial-party.
Haha, maybe, and maybe the GP is spot on the mark. Just 'cause someone has deeply held political views doesn't mean they cannot be dead wrong. Can you imagine the shame of people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh if God almighty touched them with the veridicality of AGW? It would be crushing. I don't think there is any point coddling the preachers of hate and their "rebel" flock.
I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra and focus on air and water quality.
Depending on the media you consume you may not know this. About 50% of conservatives willing accept AGW if presented with free-market solutions. About 90% of liberals don't care if the solution is free-market or government -- they just want a solution.
My take on the whole thing, it is only a scandal with the OTHER side does it.
There is such a thing as a manufactured scandal. American politics is replete with them -- esp. conservative politics, which panders to a rather conspiratorial base.
Which is why I am a libertarian, both sides are corrupt
There is also a long well documented history of plutocrats using libertarian talking points to push their cronyism. It's an imperfect world.
As of 2015, the total levelized cost of coal is in the ballpark of solar/wind. (Levelized cost includes capital costs, but does not include pollution costs -- consider how cheap coal is that we count the cost of medical bills, let alone AGW.) In a few decades, it will be cheaper to use renewables than mine coal to run an existing coal plant. Notice how fast Kodak went out of business? That is what the coal industry is staring down.
The financial crisis in 2008 was due to a bipartisan legislative agenda that reaches back to Reagan. Alan Greenspan and Lawrence Summers are on the same team. Bush did a *lot* wrong with the economy -- his treasury secretary resigned over his attitude towards debt. Main stream economists did not, and do not believe in the fantasy that the Bush tax cuts would spur much growth. And then there was all of those military expenses too. Both the dotcom bubble and the 2008 financial crisis were more complicated than just one presidents doing -- *but* thanks to Bush's insanity, the government wasn't in the position to do the right thing when the time came.
As I recall, there was an attempt at a grand bargain in 2011. The aim was to reform taxes and spending and _not_ merely kick the can down the road. As I recall, one party refused to countenance any tax increases no matter the amount of cuts -- and no matter what professional economists have to say on the issue. Other policies, such as the ACA, also affect debt. I'd say the president does have some measure of control over the debt -- though your main point is correct, that it is really congress and the senate that decide how much money to spend, and how much to raise in taxes.
Unfortunately, the power company is still expected to make sure that the power comes in at the right voltage and frequency. And with control on only part of the inputs, that's a lot harder. The fewer inputs they control, the harder...
Sounds like an R&D project, and something easily solvable. (We are already solving it in the midwest with wind, and short-term weather forecasting.) Lack of high-voltage capacity is the real obstacle to more renewable -- other than those trying to write their old business models into the law. High voltage capacity would be easy to build except for the nimby crowd.
Society is run by interest groups. Money creates its own interest groups (e.g., Monsanto), but not every interest group is some type of money. For example, the people who got the UN to ban land-mines -- was just a bunch of average Joes. (Personally I think this is a mistake, because landmine technology has come a long way.) The scientists against Oz are just a bunch of average Joe scientists.
Wow, this is puerile and ill-thought out even for slashdot. It's like you never heard of crankery, and think all opinions are equally valid. Ya know what? There's a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, and I also have fairies living in my backyard.
t's gets silly these days to think of congresscritters as "Democrat" or "Republican" on issues like this. Who represents Comcast? Who represents Google? For damn sure none of them represent voters.
This is true; however, it seems the net neutrality is going to become a partisan issue, because Comcast et al can use GOP economic rhetoric (baseless or not), and the GOP leadership think the money is worth the political risk.
Once anything becomes a partisan issue, then tribalism replaces sanity. Expect some GOP faithful computer geeks to slowly edge towards the party line.
If you have questions, then you should find credible sources with information. You can follow the references to actual peer reviewed original research on the subject. If you really want to understand, then you'll need to do a graduate degree on it.
Which probably means no major extinction event in the near future....
Behold the contrarian school of science, where assertions require no studies, and are just known to be correct because they have a pleasant ring to the political faithful.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. If you add acid to something, are you making it more acidic? That's another way of looking at it. Meanwhile, you're successfully shelved the real issue by splitting hairs over a pointless distinction, which is precisely how deep contrarian arguments go.
I love how you moved straight past the content of the comment to reveal your political stripes on the issue. Suppose you think you know a lot about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Some reach for the moral argument you just put forward. Others think the moral, neigh Christian, thing to do is to help the poor. Still others believe in studying society, and figuring out how to reduce overall costs, including hidden costs such as crime. This is hard work, takes time, and no answers are a priori correct. Do you know what this last category thinks about the so-called "Obamaphone"?
It is a fallacy that addressing AGW means limiting the poor's access to energy. There will be change no matter what, and change begets winners and losers, and the losers are the current crop of plutocrats who run the GOP rage machine, and this nonsense about addressing climate change making us collectively poorer is just one of many pratts.
This is because mainstream liberals adopted conservative policies like the ACA (aka Obamacare), and cap-and-trade. Following the Gingrich doctrine "24/7 campaign, always attack, never admit fault", they dug themselves into this hole. The USA has a center-right party and nationalist-conspiratorial-party.
Haha, maybe, and maybe the GP is spot on the mark. Just 'cause someone has deeply held political views doesn't mean they cannot be dead wrong. Can you imagine the shame of people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh if God almighty touched them with the veridicality of AGW? It would be crushing. I don't think there is any point coddling the preachers of hate and their "rebel" flock.
I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra and focus on air and water quality.
Depending on the media you consume you may not know this. About 50% of conservatives willing accept AGW if presented with free-market solutions. About 90% of liberals don't care if the solution is free-market or government -- they just want a solution.
You may find this short video interesting.
My take on the whole thing, it is only a scandal with the OTHER side does it.
There is such a thing as a manufactured scandal. American politics is replete with them -- esp. conservative politics, which panders to a rather conspiratorial base.
Which is why I am a libertarian, both sides are corrupt
There is also a long well documented history of plutocrats using libertarian talking points to push their cronyism. It's an imperfect world.
As of 2015, the total levelized cost of coal is in the ballpark of solar/wind. (Levelized cost includes capital costs, but does not include pollution costs -- consider how cheap coal is that we count the cost of medical bills, let alone AGW.) In a few decades, it will be cheaper to use renewables than mine coal to run an existing coal plant. Notice how fast Kodak went out of business? That is what the coal industry is staring down.
The financial crisis in 2008 was due to a bipartisan legislative agenda that reaches back to Reagan. Alan Greenspan and Lawrence Summers are on the same team. Bush did a *lot* wrong with the economy -- his treasury secretary resigned over his attitude towards debt. Main stream economists did not, and do not believe in the fantasy that the Bush tax cuts would spur much growth. And then there was all of those military expenses too. Both the dotcom bubble and the 2008 financial crisis were more complicated than just one presidents doing -- *but* thanks to Bush's insanity, the government wasn't in the position to do the right thing when the time came.
You sir, sound like someone who is determined not to understand what happened in the financial crisis. Because it makes your ears burn.
As I recall, there was an attempt at a grand bargain in 2011. The aim was to reform taxes and spending and _not_ merely kick the can down the road. As I recall, one party refused to countenance any tax increases no matter the amount of cuts -- and no matter what professional economists have to say on the issue. Other policies, such as the ACA, also affect debt. I'd say the president does have some measure of control over the debt -- though your main point is correct, that it is really congress and the senate that decide how much money to spend, and how much to raise in taxes.
Unfortunately, the power company is still expected to make sure that the power comes in at the right voltage and frequency. And with control on only part of the inputs, that's a lot harder. The fewer inputs they control, the harder...
Sounds like an R&D project, and something easily solvable. (We are already solving it in the midwest with wind, and short-term weather forecasting.) Lack of high-voltage capacity is the real obstacle to more renewable -- other than those trying to write their old business models into the law. High voltage capacity would be easy to build except for the nimby crowd.
Most scientists who know something about it are pro-GMO. Even avowedly liberal scientists are pro-GMO.
Society is run by interest groups. Money creates its own interest groups (e.g., Monsanto), but not every interest group is some type of money. For example, the people who got the UN to ban land-mines -- was just a bunch of average Joes. (Personally I think this is a mistake, because landmine technology has come a long way.) The scientists against Oz are just a bunch of average Joe scientists.
Wow, this is puerile and ill-thought out even for slashdot. It's like you never heard of crankery, and think all opinions are equally valid. Ya know what? There's a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, and I also have fairies living in my backyard.
Because that's ultimately what you're asking, and I'm having a hard time formulating such a thing.
Judges interpret the law, and they sure as hell aren't computers. For example, terms like "reasonable" appear in laws all the time.
AC doesn't know what a natural monopoly is. AC probably thinks they are an expert on economics. AC only reads a certain kind of website.
t's gets silly these days to think of congresscritters as "Democrat" or "Republican" on issues like this. Who represents Comcast? Who represents Google? For damn sure none of them represent voters.
This is true; however, it seems the net neutrality is going to become a partisan issue, because Comcast et al can use GOP economic rhetoric (baseless or not), and the GOP leadership think the money is worth the political risk.
Once anything becomes a partisan issue, then tribalism replaces sanity. Expect some GOP faithful computer geeks to slowly edge towards the party line.
Current volcanoes are putting out carbon as well.
If you have questions, then you should find credible sources with information. You can follow the references to actual peer reviewed original research on the subject. If you really want to understand, then you'll need to do a graduate degree on it.
You can do something called "accounting", where you sum up the amounts of CO2 coming from different sources.
Which probably means no major extinction event in the near future....
Behold the contrarian school of science, where assertions require no studies, and are just known to be correct because they have a pleasant ring to the political faithful.
Projection is not a river in Egypt.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. If you add acid to something, are you making it more acidic? That's another way of looking at it. Meanwhile, you're successfully shelved the real issue by splitting hairs over a pointless distinction, which is precisely how deep contrarian arguments go.
I love how you moved straight past the content of the comment to reveal your political stripes on the issue. Suppose you think you know a lot about it.
That's why you have to follow the science, and not the cranks. Otherwise you might be a crank yourself. (Cranks never know that they are cranks.)
Sharks are part of a food chain.