If you don't vote, then you're helping to perpetuate the system. I know a lot of people who recycle, but who don't see the point of voting. You know what? Recycling a single bottle doesn't really do anything more than casting a single ballot. But you do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do.
Don't you understand the genius? They cut taxes now and increase spending, thus guaranteeing that when the Democrats get into power the Democrats HAVE to raise taxes - thus reinforcing the Republican arguments that the Democrats are the party of higher taxes. Genius!
It is clear from ice core samples that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 3X what it has been at any time in the last 600,000 years.
Actually, it's not "even" 2x yet. We're currently at about 380 ppmv, and the high prior to the industrial age was about 280 ppmv. The low over the last 800,000 years was about 180 ppmv (when we've been in ice ages). Just trying to keep the facts straight.
NOAA (with their obvious liberal agenda - I mean after all aren't they part of that left-wing Bush administration?) or some author that actually believes that in "1421 a Chinese Imperial Navy squadron sailed right round the Arctic and found no ice anywhere"? (I downloaded the PDF that is supposed to have references and found no references for this ludicrous claim. Granted, he did not invent this claim himself, but I guess he's afraid to provide a citation for that.)
Call me a skeptic, but I decided to do a little research into limbicsystem to see if that held any water. Here's all I found:
For someone with a slightly lower UID than mine (715536 is his UID), I find it surprising that he's never posted any comments (at least none that I can see).
He also has no "friends" or "fans" (or even "foes" or "freaks").
His URL goes to a web-site named Vischeck.com. (Nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out.)
For someone who supports the Sierra Club (as I myself do), I find it odd that he never would have commented on any of the posts where the environment is an issue.
Let's see, on one hand we have an article that is full of utter nonsense. (Right, you expect me to believe - without any references - that the Chinese sailed the Arctic in 1421 and didn't find any ice?) On the other hand, we have NASA. I hope you'll forgive me if I choose to believe NASA over a bunch of loons who like to invent their own facts.
They called it Greenland to convince their fellow Vikings to settle there. It wouldn't be as attractive if they called "Tundraland" now, would it? Do you think that con men are a new invention?
Who would write it? Lawyers of course, most politicians are lawyers and know how to make an issue statement without taking a stance, only another lawyer could compose a question in such a way to make a candidate pick a side.
See, the problem is you want it to be unbiased AND understandable by most voters! The only thing worse than having lawyers write it would be to have those people who write the tech manuals write it! (Or perhaps to have me write it!)
If for no other reason than to help prove the election is rigged! Seriously, if the election is rigged, the more people who vote, the harder it will be to rig without getting caught.
But highly improbable. Many political scientists have pointed out that in the real world, having enough people who prefer A to B to C, enough people who prefer B to C to A, and enough people who prefer C to A to B, means that the Condorcet method is perfectly viable. If you want to make it as good as the current system, just state that in the extremely unlikely scenario above, the one with the most first-place (or least last-place if you prefer) votes wins.
On years divisible by 2 but not by 4, we elect "midterms". Midterms are the office assistants that do the work that neither pages nor interns wish to do.
require candidates to complete a simple YEA/NAY survey on the issues
Sounds good, until you ask the question: who gets to write the survey that states the issues? How the question is asked can make quite a difference. Choosing which questions to ask also makes a difference. For example, I've seen very few politicians state their position on any environmental issue. I don't recall seeing any of the politicians I'm voting for in this election make any environmental statements. Maybe each party on the ticket could submit a list of n "issues" worded the way they choose to word it, and each politician needs to vote yea/nay/pass on every issue. In such a case, however, 3rd (or nth) party candidates might have a bigger impact. IMO, that's a Good Thing.
So, basically, I guess it still sounds good to me.
No skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer than it has been for 400 years (since the Little Ice Age)
As far as the satellites are concerned, there is a slight warming during the satellite era (since 1979) which is significant. If the El Nino year of 1998 is removed, the warming trend disappears.
Am I somehow taking THESE out of context?!? (Btw, it's also currently warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.)
"Secondly, 'polar amplification of global warming' and 'global warming' or 'anthropogenic global warming' are not the same thing"
I never said that they were. Is it just a tactic to make claims about things I have not said?
No, but you strongly implied it when you started off with "That's the funny thing about climate change alarmists: they don't even bother to read the citations they've given." Speaking of making "claims about things I have not said":
There's nothing realistic about claiming that the sky if falling
Can you post a URL to the post where I claimed that?
There's nothing realistic about global warming being a bigger threat than terrorism - its simply ridiculous on its face, a piece of hyperbole by David King that no-one credibly believes it to be true. Past global warmings have been extremely beneficial - it's the cooling periods where things come apart, societies, kingdoms, foodchains.
First of all, I don't even know who David King is. It's a comparison I came up with because many of the same people who like to label climatologists as "alarmist" like to shout "Boo! Terrorist!" quite frequently as well. I will qualify my statement somewhat, however. If we did as little about terrorism as we do about global warming, then it would be a bigger threat - at least in the short run. As for past global warmings being beneficial, are you aware of the distinction between vitamin and poison? Too much of a vitamin makes it a poison.
Why wondering about how a system handle malformed documents (except by rejecting them) when there is no good reason to have malformed documents in the first place ?
If the system universally rejects malformed documents, that is acceptable, IMO. However, if it doesn't, then how it handles them is very relevant as one must be concerned about malicious XML being used to perform a buffer overflow attack, for example.
(I came across this post while meta-moderating, in case you're wondering...)
It's bad enough to bleed money into the military to fight random wars, we need not lose it in other ways. Especially since there is more vital science to be had.
The likelyhood that simple RF is how advanced cultures communicate is ludicrous. I don't want to get all sci-fi on this thread, but chances are something like subspace (e.g. faster than light) communication is required to really be effective. Otherwise you'll have years and years to wait for a reply from anything, especially given the nearest possibly populated planets are what, hundreds of light years away?
Now granted, radio telescopy is used for more than just audio/video. They use it to take pseudo-colour images of things like x-ray and gamma-ray bursts . cool stuff, but honestly not really a priority. On the one hand we can learn to grow better crops, treat diesease and advance physics, on the other we can build really large [brute force] radio telescopy to take better pictures of things that were going on, supposedly, billions of years ago.
First of all, talking to LGM is not what Arecibo is about (as your last paragraph does at least give some credit to). Secondly, FTL communication only exists in science fiction, for the most part. (I.e., there are a few serious scientists who ponder such possibilities, but current theory precludes it.) Finally, Arecibo advances astrophysics which DOES "advance physics".
Here's an idea for getting funding back to Arecibo. Perhaps we should point out that without the Mount Wilson observatory, Hubble's Law would not have been demonstrated, which was an important cornerstone in demonstrating the validity of general relativity. Without GR, we wouldn't be able to have high precision GPS. And where would modern warfare be without high precision GPS?
Rush Limbaugh once made the claim that we have satellites that can detect the effect of the moon on global temperatures yet can't actually detect the supposed global warming. So, your statement that "no skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer" does not hold up. Furthermore, your claim about the 30's being the hottest in the 20th century was what I was directly addressing.
Secondly, "polar amplification of global warming" and "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" are not the same thing.
Finally, if you're calling me an "alarmist", then you either haven't read what I've posted very carefully, or you have a very weak definition of "alarmist" - something akin to "realist", I reckon. I do believe that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, but that's more because I'm not a terrorism "alarmist" than it is because I'm exaggerating the threat of global warming.
Actually, polar bears are a distinct species from the grizzly/brown bear. Note: the grizzly bear and the brown bear ARE the same species, and there is debate as to whether the grizzly bear is even a proper sub-species of the brown bear. Perhaps you're confusing the Polar Bear with the Kodiak Bear (which is also a Brown Bear)?
P.S.: We can do a lot more about global warming than pole reversals or the Yellowstone caldera. Also, global warming is far more likely to have a significant impact during our lifetime (assuming you're younger than I am, or at least not much older) than either of those issues.
I agree that there are wackos on both sides of the debate. I'll also admit to being evangelical myself. To me, the environment is the single most important cause in the current political debate. More important than terrorism, more important than CCTV, and yes, even more important than what John Kerry said or Mark Foley did.:P
And, thank you for not providing the laundry list, because then I might be tempted to bring out my laundry list of wackos on the other side, and it's quite a long list, and it's already getting late...:)
P.S. I'm not unilaterally against GM foods, although I think caution is appropriate. I also support nuclear power as the most pragmatic option to coal - although I hope it goes without saying that caution is appropriate here, too!
(A) I've linked to that page twice (not several times) to show that the president believes in AGW.
(B) I did admit it was a copy/paste error for the first one, and it is also a copy/paste error here, because I didn't realize the error for the first one yet. This should be obvious if you look at the date/time stamps of the aforementioned post.
(C) I have since done a little more due diligence to find out that although the president has admitted to believe in AGW, he has also virtually denied it. So, whether or not he believes it right now, I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
hockey stick
medieval warm period
actual history
Seriously, do you really believe it?
Right?
If you don't vote, then you're helping to perpetuate the system. I know a lot of people who recycle, but who don't see the point of voting. You know what? Recycling a single bottle doesn't really do anything more than casting a single ballot. But you do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do.
Please vote - it's your civic duty.
Don't you understand the genius? They cut taxes now and increase spending, thus guaranteeing that when the Democrats get into power the Democrats HAVE to raise taxes - thus reinforcing the Republican arguments that the Democrats are the party of higher taxes. Genius!
(Excuse me why I go puke.)
That went out before habeas corpus, IIRC.
NOAA (with their obvious liberal agenda - I mean after all aren't they part of that left-wing Bush administration?) or some author that actually believes that in "1421 a Chinese Imperial Navy squadron sailed right round the Arctic and found no ice anywhere"? (I downloaded the PDF that is supposed to have references and found no references for this ludicrous claim. Granted, he did not invent this claim himself, but I guess he's afraid to provide a citation for that.)
- For someone with a slightly lower UID than mine (715536 is his UID), I find it surprising that he's never posted any comments (at least none that I can see).
- He also has no "friends" or "fans" (or even "foes" or "freaks").
- His URL goes to a web-site named Vischeck.com. (Nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out.)
For someone who supports the Sierra Club (as I myself do), I find it odd that he never would have commented on any of the posts where the environment is an issue.Let's see, on one hand we have an article that is full of utter nonsense. (Right, you expect me to believe - without any references - that the Chinese sailed the Arctic in 1421 and didn't find any ice?) On the other hand, we have NASA. I hope you'll forgive me if I choose to believe NASA over a bunch of loons who like to invent their own facts.
And if you believe anything that article has to say, I've got some beachfront property to sell you in Arizona...
From a quick overview, they've distorted: the "hockey stick", the climate trends in Europe, and actual history. These guys are certifiable loons.
They called it Greenland to convince their fellow Vikings to settle there. It wouldn't be as attractive if they called "Tundraland" now, would it? Do you think that con men are a new invention?
See, the problem is you want it to be unbiased AND understandable by most voters! The only thing worse than having lawyers write it would be to have those people who write the tech manuals write it! (Or perhaps to have me write it!)
If for no other reason than to help prove the election is rigged! Seriously, if the election is rigged, the more people who vote, the harder it will be to rig without getting caught.
You might want to let these people know...
But highly improbable. Many political scientists have pointed out that in the real world, having enough people who prefer A to B to C, enough people who prefer B to C to A, and enough people who prefer C to A to B, means that the Condorcet method is perfectly viable. If you want to make it as good as the current system, just state that in the extremely unlikely scenario above, the one with the most first-place (or least last-place if you prefer) votes wins.
On years divisible by 2 but not by 4, we elect "midterms". Midterms are the office assistants that do the work that neither pages nor interns wish to do.
Sounds good, until you ask the question: who gets to write the survey that states the issues? How the question is asked can make quite a difference. Choosing which questions to ask also makes a difference. For example, I've seen very few politicians state their position on any environmental issue. I don't recall seeing any of the politicians I'm voting for in this election make any environmental statements. Maybe each party on the ticket could submit a list of n "issues" worded the way they choose to word it, and each politician needs to vote yea/nay/pass on every issue. In such a case, however, 3rd (or nth) party candidates might have a bigger impact. IMO, that's a Good Thing.
So, basically, I guess it still sounds good to me.
Am I somehow taking THESE out of context?!? (Btw, it's also currently warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.)
No, but you strongly implied it when you started off with "That's the funny thing about climate change alarmists: they don't even bother to read the citations they've given." Speaking of making "claims about things I have not said":
Can you post a URL to the post where I claimed that?
First of all, I don't even know who David King is. It's a comparison I came up with because many of the same people who like to label climatologists as "alarmist" like to shout "Boo! Terrorist!" quite frequently as well. I will qualify my statement somewhat, however. If we did as little about terrorism as we do about global warming, then it would be a bigger threat - at least in the short run. As for past global warmings being beneficial, are you aware of the distinction between vitamin and poison? Too much of a vitamin makes it a poison.
If the system universally rejects malformed documents, that is acceptable, IMO. However, if it doesn't, then how it handles them is very relevant as one must be concerned about malicious XML being used to perform a buffer overflow attack, for example.
(I came across this post while meta-moderating, in case you're wondering...)
First of all, talking to LGM is not what Arecibo is about (as your last paragraph does at least give some credit to). Secondly, FTL communication only exists in science fiction, for the most part. (I.e., there are a few serious scientists who ponder such possibilities, but current theory precludes it.) Finally, Arecibo advances astrophysics which DOES "advance physics".
Here's an idea for getting funding back to Arecibo. Perhaps we should point out that without the Mount Wilson observatory, Hubble's Law would not have been demonstrated, which was an important cornerstone in demonstrating the validity of general relativity. Without GR, we wouldn't be able to have high precision GPS. And where would modern warfare be without high precision GPS?
Rush Limbaugh once made the claim that we have satellites that can detect the effect of the moon on global temperatures yet can't actually detect the supposed global warming. So, your statement that "no skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer" does not hold up. Furthermore, your claim about the 30's being the hottest in the 20th century was what I was directly addressing.
Secondly, "polar amplification of global warming" and "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" are not the same thing.
Finally, if you're calling me an "alarmist", then you either haven't read what I've posted very carefully, or you have a very weak definition of "alarmist" - something akin to "realist", I reckon. I do believe that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, but that's more because I'm not a terrorism "alarmist" than it is because I'm exaggerating the threat of global warming.
I would just say that he was for fighting global warming before he was against it. ;)
Actually, polar bears are a distinct species from the grizzly/brown bear. Note: the grizzly bear and the brown bear ARE the same species, and there is debate as to whether the grizzly bear is even a proper sub-species of the brown bear. Perhaps you're confusing the Polar Bear with the Kodiak Bear (which is also a Brown Bear)?
P.S.: We can do a lot more about global warming than pole reversals or the Yellowstone caldera. Also, global warming is far more likely to have a significant impact during our lifetime (assuming you're younger than I am, or at least not much older) than either of those issues.
I agree that there are wackos on both sides of the debate. I'll also admit to being evangelical myself. To me, the environment is the single most important cause in the current political debate. More important than terrorism, more important than CCTV, and yes, even more important than what John Kerry said or Mark Foley did. :P
And, thank you for not providing the laundry list, because then I might be tempted to bring out my laundry list of wackos on the other side, and it's quite a long list, and it's already getting late... :)
P.S. I'm not unilaterally against GM foods, although I think caution is appropriate. I also support nuclear power as the most pragmatic option to coal - although I hope it goes without saying that caution is appropriate here, too!
(A) I've linked to that page twice (not several times) to show that the president believes in AGW.
(B) I did admit it was a copy/paste error for the first one, and it is also a copy/paste error here, because I didn't realize the error for the first one yet. This should be obvious if you look at the date/time stamps of the aforementioned post.
(C) I have since done a little more due diligence to find out that although the president has admitted to believe in AGW, he has also virtually denied it. So, whether or not he believes it right now, I don't know.