It sounds like you're of the opinion that once we run out of fossil fuel, we're hosed. (I'm assuming that you're not a YEC who believes that fossil fuels are renewable.) Don't you think we have the technological know-how to develop other means of generating a sufficient amount of electricity?
Remind me to try that (smuggling milkbones, that is) next time I fly somewhere. Boy, would that be a funny misunderstanding. Well, for some definitions of the word "funny".
On the other hand, devastating the world's economy in order to reduce (not eliminate) growth in CO2 production will cause millions to die, and everyone else to live at a significantly reduced quality of life.
Most studies, however, suggest that we do not need to devastate the world's economy. In fact, I'm not aware of any studies that suggest we would. Are you?
We should start a movement for an Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to resist unlawful arrest.
Absolutely. I think it's crazy that you can be (legally) penalized for resisting an arrest that had no original merit. That said, unless you're willing to suffer the consequences (see also: civil disobedience), the best path right now is to allow yourself to be arrested and then fight back legally. (I'm assuming that you have no reason to fear extraordinary rendition. Some people do have a reason to fear that, and I would consequently recommend a different course of action for them.)
I just don't think you're the arbiter of fashion. I'd say it was "fashionable" in the early 80s, if not late 70s. Rush Limbaugh was already attacking it in the 80s, so surely it was "fashionable" by then.
what faith can we have in people who's entire fields funding depends on their finding new and more horrific predictions?
If funding of entire fields did indeed depend on that, you might have a point. As it doesn't, you don't.
I never said you said anything — how was I putting words in your mouth? It seems that you are inferring that I was inferring that you were inferring they asked him to leave — or at least that's what I'm inferring from your "Don't put words in my mouth" comment.
That said, regardless of your intent, the point remains that they didn't ask him to leave, so that particular argument is not relevant to this particular instance. Did the poster you responded to actually need to add "without being asked to leave" when he talked about the guy "attempting to communicate to an open forum, with invitation to the public", or could that not have been inferred from the context?
Im not sure an effect predicted with hundreds of years worth of data can be tested in the 10 years since anthropogenic global warming became fashionable.. I think this may be an excellent example of basic science tainted by obscene analysis.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences reports that global temperatures could rise 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if carbon dioxide levels double. "A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late," the group warns.
As early as the late 50s some scientists were already discussing how increased CO2 would lead to higher temperatures. This issue is not 10 years old.
I'll give you points for making an argument I hadn't heard before, even if it's wrong. The basic science is only a starting point, but detailed analysis allow you to make meaningful predictions about what happens when the concentration of CO2 increases. In fact, these predictions have borne out fairly well.
And I wasn't disappointed. You also managed to please me with your inclusion of the bogus "The Great Global Warming Swindle", "Global Cooling", and conspiracy theories. Excellent!
As an interesting aside, I thought that this argument had been dropped because it was a little too easy to shoot down:
Because the ocean can hold less CO2 when it is warmed.
The interesting thing is that, despite warming temperatures, the oceans are holding more CO2 than before (which lowers their pH level as CO2 + H20 = C2H03, carbonic acid). This is possible because increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (as we've done significantly) more than counteracts the decreased solubility due to temperature rises. It's possible that in the past this was a factor (although you should read up on those time courses and realize that your 800 year figure is also bogus), but it's clearly not true today. Global warming theories aren't based on correlations, they're based on fundamental principles of science.
Golden. I think you need to change your sig to something like:
I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to be tasered for saying it. – Voltaire
Alternatively, you could cite it to Allesandro Volta.
At what point did they ask him to leave? He was asked to get to the point and to cede the microphone, but I never heard them ask him to leave. Immediately after cutting his microphone, the campus police started to arrest him. It appeared (briefly) that he was about to shut up right before the cops tried to arrest him.
Seriously, I have no idea what legally constitutes "arresting". If they weren't technically arresting him, then I suppose he wasn't technically resisting arrest. Naturally, IANAL.
But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser?
Actually, but the time he was tasered, I think there were six officers. Two more walked in as the original four were maneuvering him up the aisle. (You can see this best in the first YouTube video linked.)
There are restrictions to Free Speech (shouting 'fire' in a crowed, etc). The RIGHT to protest doesn't extend to the HOW and WHERE.
Yes, there are rightful restrictions to free speech. This is not one of those. That said, the guy was resisting arrest, and should have complied with the officers. After which, he could rightfully make all the noise he wanted about how his first amendment rights were violated.
I guess they figure that, for most people, DRMing music that's intended for a short-term trial is more effective than having a click-through license that makes you promise to stop listening to it after 30 days. I'm not saying this will work, but there is some method to their madness.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I hadn't, um, mistyped that in the first place. Damn typos.
It sounds like you're of the opinion that once we run out of fossil fuel, we're hosed. (I'm assuming that you're not a YEC who believes that fossil fuels are renewable.) Don't you think we have the technological know-how to develop other means of generating a sufficient amount of electricity?
Your car might drive you into the ground first. Please make sure, for your sake and others', that you're at least keeping your car safe.
Remind me to try that (smuggling milkbones, that is) next time I fly somewhere. Boy, would that be a funny misunderstanding. Well, for some definitions of the word "funny".
I never said you said anything — how was I putting words in your mouth? It seems that you are inferring that I was inferring that you were inferring they asked him to leave — or at least that's what I'm inferring from your "Don't put words in my mouth" comment.
That said, regardless of your intent, the point remains that they didn't ask him to leave, so that particular argument is not relevant to this particular instance. Did the poster you responded to actually need to add "without being asked to leave" when he talked about the guy "attempting to communicate to an open forum, with invitation to the public", or could that not have been inferred from the context?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20113753/site/newsweek/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/etc/cron.html
You'll note this bit from 1979 (nearly 30 years ago): As early as the late 50s some scientists were already discussing how increased CO2 would lead to higher temperatures. This issue is not 10 years old.
Number 3 is something akin to citizenship: participating in meetings, bringing in guest speakers, etc.
I'll give you points for making an argument I hadn't heard before, even if it's wrong. The basic science is only a starting point, but detailed analysis allow you to make meaningful predictions about what happens when the concentration of CO2 increases. In fact, these predictions have borne out fairly well.
But it's not as funny when you say it that way...
So, is what you're basically saying is that this study was tainted by sloppy analysis?
And I wasn't disappointed. You also managed to please me with your inclusion of the bogus "The Great Global Warming Swindle", "Global Cooling", and conspiracy theories. Excellent!
As an interesting aside, I thought that this argument had been dropped because it was a little too easy to shoot down: The interesting thing is that, despite warming temperatures, the oceans are holding more CO2 than before (which lowers their pH level as CO2 + H20 = C2H03, carbonic acid). This is possible because increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (as we've done significantly) more than counteracts the decreased solubility due to temperature rises. It's possible that in the past this was a factor (although you should read up on those time courses and realize that your 800 year figure is also bogus), but it's clearly not true today. Global warming theories aren't based on correlations, they're based on fundamental principles of science.Golden. I think you need to change your sig to something like:
I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to be tasered for saying it. – Voltaire
Alternatively, you could cite it to Allesandro Volta.
He mentioned hitting the officer's fist with your face. I'd like to think that most juries wouldn't convict you for that.
At what point did they ask him to leave? He was asked to get to the point and to cede the microphone, but I never heard them ask him to leave. Immediately after cutting his microphone, the campus police started to arrest him. It appeared (briefly) that he was about to shut up right before the cops tried to arrest him.
Seriously, I have no idea what legally constitutes "arresting". If they weren't technically arresting him, then I suppose he wasn't technically resisting arrest. Naturally, IANAL.
Then what was he resisting that would be an arrestable offense?
Right after they cut off his microphone, they started arresting him. It looked (to me) like he might have quit right after they cut him off.
I guess they figure that, for most people, DRMing music that's intended for a short-term trial is more effective than having a click-through license that makes you promise to stop listening to it after 30 days. I'm not saying this will work, but there is some method to their madness.