It's not because they are rich - it's because they are powerful and have a political agenda. Rich is an enabling factor, but not as casual as the rest.
There are plenty of rich responsible people, who think very little of such things.
My friend, on page 45 of said book, Soloman states quite clearly that human beings are causing climate change.
So... what's your point again?
PS: There is a difference between science and propaganda. Epistemology is the philosophy of how you know something for certain. A person with 60 IQ points could work out that the nile is a river in egypt.
To believe 0.5% of the alarmist anti-Gore propaganda, you'd have to have zero education in the sciences, or be so completely partisan as to turn a blind eye to the most blatant Machiavellian politics.
I can provide specific, recent examples of things that have happened simply because of a cash disparity and not enough regulation in place to stop it from happening, but if you still think a free market is a good idea then likely you have your fingers in your ears going "la la la I'm not listening"
It is the inability to process information - it can be heard, but the brain cannot process it. Equivalent to someone trying to explain to you what your blind spots are.
In spite of what you may believe, the people out there looking to make money off of you aren't trying to be your friend. If there's no oversight, well, there's anarchy
No my commie adversary - the government is a HUGE moral hazard, and you just don't see it. In your best interests, I'm going to take away all of those government controls, so that the free market can fix that moral hazard. As a conservative - I'm also going to support starting wars with foreigners I've never met, and sent the poorest to fight. Since it's in everybodies best moral interest.
Unfortunately, you are too stupid to understand all of this.
However, I fear that some politically correct idiots will mod you down...
So... you think you can just dominate problems away. Interesting. Say - you wouldn't be one of those conservatives you thinks that liberals are just a bunch of control freaks, would you?
Once they feel they have the right to pass a single restriction, the floodgates will open for all kinds of bad restrictions: no packets that don't identify the originator, no packets that don't pass unencrypted through a government router, no packets that contain foul language, no packets critical of the demopublican party, no packets that contain atheist sentiments, etc.
You do realise that this type of censorship is routine for corporate media. The best quality news comes from public broadcasting - and that's a world-wide phenomena.
The change from one type of climate system to the other probably involved mass extinction - and that would have been over 1000s of years.
We're rolling the dice, and we have little reason to be optimistic about the result - unless we change our behaviour. But that's the kicker, right? People will say the most ridiculous things to avoid change.
Unfortunately the Labour Party (Current Federal Government) seems to be strongly influenced by people who have the attitude of "We must protect the Children" or "We know what is best for this county" or some such "Holy than thou" ideas.
I think the labour party is doing this because of the rise of the christian right in Australia. Labour will never will votes from family first, and pandering to moral authoritarianism (a conservative platform) will alienate the labour base.
If correct conclusions are the goal, then studies should withstand the attentions of skeptics.
The studies/have/ withstood the attention of skeptics - except they're not making an honest argument. Besides, the skeptics could have gotten the small proprietary sections of data from the original sources. But they were/never/ interested in the data. All they wanted was to give these scientists a bloody nose.
So why should we respect their "honest" skepticism?
And as a side note, "Fuck You" is never a valid response to any question covering scientific study.
Problem is - the team at Fox news aren't questioning the scientific study. They are engaging in a public relations smear campaign.
Almost all of the data was provided, except propriety data they weren't allowed to pass on. The "skeptics" were welcome to chase down the proprietary data from the/correct/ source, but instead they saw the opportunity to impugn scientific openness - when the system was perfectly open.
Watch this typical example of how the anti-AGW camp operates. The journal "Nature" has said that scientists are in a street-fight. I mean, wtf? You'd think that people would be interested in what scientists have to say, but actually, we have reason on one side, and a dangerous delusional psychotic lunatic on the other side. Of course the delusional psychotic lunatic is going to engage in mirror-image projections to defend its ego.
So sad. So pointless.
We will destroy this world, because of our ignorance.
The denialists are hypocrites when it comes to accuracy. Hypocrisy persists because the self remains unexamined. Hypocrites always piss of people. We will destroy this world because of the tyranny of ignorance.
At my (Canadian) university, the fees are around $3000 per semester, and that covers 20% of the cost of running the university. The rest comes from private grants and the government.
You free-market types sure know how to get shafted.
Being able to explain scientific concepts to non-scientists is not "lying" or "marketing", it's fucking called "teaching".
Wooosh.
I mean seriously.
Don't want to come down too hard on you - but consider this. Some people dedicate their lives to managing the perceptions of others. They are professional manipulators. These are the people who are responsible for one-word campaign slogans like "hope" and "nope".
As is empirically established, you cannot fit anything intelligent into this type of activity. It's about playing with peoples emotions and triggers. Marketroids are empirical snake-oil salesman. Their ethics book is "if we made money, we did good".
Scientists are completely out of their league here, because science doesn't fit between two commercials, and they are far more principled about the use and dissemination of knowledge.
So... how should scientists fit the AGW argument into a single word, in an effort to "teach" the public who are being manipulated by a vast well-oiled media machine that captures even very intelligent people?
The problem isn't with science, it is with the ethics of certain power-brokers in this world. We can only hope that they choke on their hubris.
Hi,
I had the same problem looking on the internet. The s/n ration is just too high.
I have a copy of the book back at home (i.e.: in Canada, I'm currently in Australia for a few months.)
Sorry! If I remember (in September) I'll update this link =(
Slashdot Mirror
Ain't rich people grand?
It's not because they are rich - it's because they are powerful and have a political agenda. Rich is an enabling factor, but not as casual as the rest.
There are plenty of rich responsible people, who think very little of such things.
Seriously this is news?
There's an army of GOP voters who tune this type of stuff out - presumably so that they can feel good about their existence.
Why anyone thinks that certainty is a remotely interesting aspect of knowledge is beyond me
You have two claims, and want to know which is more certain to be correct.
My point is that there are in fact other SCIENTISTS
Who?
I'm sure you could find a list on a denialist site somewhere - but that's just hear-say.
I *dare* you to find a list of other SCIENTISTS, and contact 10 random names on the list - should be a rather enlightening experience for you.
The truth is there are Many Scientists
My friend, on page 45 of said book, Soloman states quite clearly that human beings are causing climate change.
So... what's your point again?
PS: There is a difference between science and propaganda. Epistemology is the philosophy of how you know something for certain. A person with 60 IQ points could work out that the nile is a river in egypt.
To believe 0.5% of the alarmist anti-Gore propaganda, you'd have to have zero education in the sciences, or be so completely partisan as to turn a blind eye to the most blatant Machiavellian politics.
Which are you?
They really ought to be inflating the price, so we learn to conserve helium now while we still have plenty left.
Commie.
It is well known in conservative economic circles that the economy can fundamentally do without natural resources.
You are just holding back progress, out of some misguided notion of what is right for you is right for others. Control freak.
Greed & Power eh? There's no /intelligence/ there I see.
I can provide specific, recent examples of things that have happened simply because of a cash disparity and not enough regulation in place to stop it from happening, but if you still think a free market is a good idea then likely you have your fingers in your ears going "la la la I'm not listening"
It is the inability to process information - it can be heard, but the brain cannot process it. Equivalent to someone trying to explain to you what your blind spots are.
In spite of what you may believe, the people out there looking to make money off of you aren't trying to be your friend. If there's no oversight, well, there's anarchy
No my commie adversary - the government is a HUGE moral hazard, and you just don't see it. In your best interests, I'm going to take away all of those government controls, so that the free market can fix that moral hazard. As a conservative - I'm also going to support starting wars with foreigners I've never met, and sent the poorest to fight. Since it's in everybodies best moral interest.
Unfortunately, you are too stupid to understand all of this.
However, I fear that some politically correct idiots will mod you down...
So... you think you can just dominate problems away. Interesting. Say - you wouldn't be one of those conservatives you thinks that liberals are just a bunch of control freaks, would you?
Once they feel they have the right to pass a single restriction, the floodgates will open for all kinds of bad restrictions: no packets that don't identify the originator, no packets that don't pass unencrypted through a government router, no packets that contain foul language, no packets critical of the demopublican party, no packets that contain atheist sentiments, etc.
You do realise that this type of censorship is routine for corporate media. The best quality news comes from public broadcasting - and that's a world-wide phenomena.
we no longer have any claim on being a moral nation
Haha! If facts would have stopped that particular US canard, then they would have stopped preaching about their moral superiority long ago.
Never underestimate the power of delusion.
Except that if such a metric were used in the future - it would punish the most entertaining and trilling form of play.
In chess, you win or lose. If players started "grinding" just to raise their ratings - ick.
The change from one type of climate system to the other probably involved mass extinction - and that would have been over 1000s of years.
We're rolling the dice, and we have little reason to be optimistic about the result - unless we change our behaviour. But that's the kicker, right? People will say the most ridiculous things to avoid change.
Dear anonymous coward, THERE WAS CONSENSUS IN 1979
Unfortunately the Labour Party (Current Federal Government) seems to be strongly influenced by people who have the attitude of "We must protect the Children" or "We know what is best for this county" or some such "Holy than thou" ideas.
I think the labour party is doing this because of the rise of the christian right in Australia. Labour will never will votes from family first, and pandering to moral authoritarianism (a conservative platform) will alienate the labour base.
I'm just going to consume pop-corn and laugh.
If correct conclusions are the goal, then studies should withstand the attentions of skeptics.
/have/ withstood the attention of skeptics - except they're not making an honest argument. Besides, the skeptics could have gotten the small proprietary sections of data from the original sources. But they were /never/ interested in the data. All they wanted was to give these scientists a bloody nose.
The studies
So why should we respect their "honest" skepticism?
And as a side note, "Fuck You" is never a valid response to any question covering scientific study.
/correct/ source, but instead they saw the opportunity to impugn scientific openness - when the system was perfectly open.
Problem is - the team at Fox news aren't questioning the scientific study. They are engaging in a public relations smear campaign.
Almost all of the data was provided, except propriety data they weren't allowed to pass on. The "skeptics" were welcome to chase down the proprietary data from the
Watch this typical example of how the anti-AGW camp operates. The journal "Nature" has said that scientists are in a street-fight. I mean, wtf? You'd think that people would be interested in what scientists have to say, but actually, we have reason on one side, and a dangerous delusional psychotic lunatic on the other side. Of course the delusional psychotic lunatic is going to engage in mirror-image projections to defend its ego.
So sad. So pointless.
We will destroy this world, because of our ignorance.
The denialists are hypocrites when it comes to accuracy. Hypocrisy persists because the self remains unexamined. Hypocrites always piss of people. We will destroy this world because of the tyranny of ignorance.
90%.
haha
At my (Canadian) university, the fees are around $3000 per semester, and that covers 20% of the cost of running the university. The rest comes from private grants and the government.
You free-market types sure know how to get shafted.
Being able to explain scientific concepts to non-scientists is not "lying" or "marketing", it's fucking called "teaching".
Wooosh.
I mean seriously.
Don't want to come down too hard on you - but consider this. Some people dedicate their lives to managing the perceptions of others. They are professional manipulators. These are the people who are responsible for one-word campaign slogans like "hope" and "nope".
As is empirically established, you cannot fit anything intelligent into this type of activity. It's about playing with peoples emotions and triggers. Marketroids are empirical snake-oil salesman. Their ethics book is "if we made money, we did good".
Scientists are completely out of their league here, because science doesn't fit between two commercials, and they are far more principled about the use and dissemination of knowledge.
So... how should scientists fit the AGW argument into a single word, in an effort to "teach" the public who are being manipulated by a vast well-oiled media machine that captures even very intelligent people?
The problem isn't with science, it is with the ethics of certain power-brokers in this world. We can only hope that they choke on their hubris.
Loops that escape upon some condition are, by defition, not infinite.
What if that condition is the power switch? Perfectly plausible for a microcontroller.
Hi, I had the same problem looking on the internet. The s/n ration is just too high. I have a copy of the book back at home (i.e.: in Canada, I'm currently in Australia for a few months.) Sorry! If I remember (in September) I'll update this link =(