BSD, MIT, etc. are simple, but they don't give you any protection from patent aggressors. And so I am wary of using them, because it's patent suits that are the largest problem.
GPLv3, LGPLv3, AGPLv3 are the strongest within the constraints that RMS set.
I think the key phrase here is "within the constraints that RMS set." What he wanted and what others want are different. I don't know about the MIT, Apache, or other licenses but I like BSD licenses because they allow me to close my own source, not the source others contributed but mine.
Unfortunately I said it for years but haven't done it yet however I want to start my own photography business. Because I can't afford to buy a new computer system and software I've been thinking about looking for BSDed software I can run on what I have now. I could then modify the code to get it to do what I want, however I think that if I were to spend the tyme to program the modifications then in order the recoup some of the expense I'd like to be able to sell it to others. Using the GPL I couldn't prevent others from distributing it but I could if I use a BSD license.
License not contract, no rights that you already had are restricted, etc.
Sure there are rights being restricted. If you use GPL code you can not close your own code and still distribute it. The LGPL may allow it but I'm not aware that it does.
Put another way, BSD licenses grant freedom to programmers and the GPL grants freedom to users. The negative part is that by using a BSD license you the programmer aren't guaranteed the ability to use others' improvements if your code is released, they can close those improvements just as you can close your code.
There are a lot of weaknesses in your statement, but I will concentrate on one point. It appears that you are not taking into consideration the amount of time, effort and money it costs to change platforms, tech or language. Such change-over costs can be prohibitive.
That's true of any change. Now do you want to keep using 1995 tech or something modern? Heck, the upgrade from Windows 95, 98 to ME, Vista or from NT4 to XP to Vista was expensive too. Now you could continue using old tech but support will be expensive as well. What almost if not every shop should do is setup a testbed system from large enterprises to the self employed. Then when the bugs are ironed out deploy the system.
Until they don't use gas. All three Detroit companies, Chrysler, Ford, and GM, have or are releasing EVs. Along with Tesla they are also working on fuel cells and plug-ins. Only Natural Gas benefits from either of these, not oil. LNG is used to produce hydrogen and LNG supplies 21.4% of the USA's electricity, second only to coal. Petroleum only supplies 1.1%. However alternative sources are growing as fast if not faster than other sources of energy. Actually more and more people are going off the grid and are producing their own energy. They are finding it a practical alternative. Combining EVs with solar and wind doesn't leave petroleum much moving space. However the ones using their profits to invest in alternative energy sources, Exxon-Mobile is researching the use of algae to produce hydrogen and BP Solar is part of British Petroleum, will come out ahead. In 2004 BP had 20% of the world market for solar panels.
And you still have people worried that China will buy up everything that Canada can supply.
And where did I say that? Or is that more FUD?
Why is it "astroturfing for oil companies" to point out that it is stupid to expect them to conduct climate studies or absorb the cost of a tax increase?
Why is it using the oil companies as boogey men to point out oil companies have more money to spend on research than others have? Others have pointed out just as I have that it is in the interest of those accused of polluting to prove that what they do has no effect. When you stop making things up I'll stop saying you're astroturfing.
The demand for gasoline is pretty price inelastic. Maybe europe could tax it to the point that people would give it up, but if the US did that, the country's economy would completely dry up.
From iMarketNews.com, "EIA's revised outlook is for global liquid fuels consumption to grow by 1.2 million bbl/d in 2010 and 1.6 million bbl/d in 2011 after showing annual declines in 2008 and 2009".
From "New York Times", Prices and gasoline demand, "Given time, however, higher prices could lead to a repeat of the 70s-80s experience, when the US auto fleet became a lot more fuel efficient."
From The Economist, "Small cars, big question
Can Americans learn to love small cars? The industry's future depends on it
Cross-Price Elasticity of Demand VIII
"For Christy LaBadie, a sophomore at Northampton Community College, the 30-minute drive from her home to the Bethlehem, Pa., campus has become a financial hardship now that gasoline prices have soared to more than $4 a gallon. So this semester she decided to take an online course to save herself the trip--and the money...."
"Many institutions say their online summer enrollments have jumped significantly, compared with last summer's, and that fuel prices are a key factor in the increase. The Tennessee Board of Regents, for instance, reports that summer enrollment in online courses is up 29 percent this summer over last year."
That was quick, if I spend more tyme I can find more. Unfortunately I keep getting interrupted, even by my brother-in-law who's a Certified Financial Planner and keeps calling me. Still want to say if not believe "The demand for gasoline is pretty price inelastic"? Quite simply when gas prices go high people buy less gas.
Companies do pay taxes, that is corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Shell, and Chevron do. As does Walmart.
The effect on Exxon's bottom line from a new carbon tax will be negligible, because I'll still have to put gas in my tank to get to work
Aha, yes they pass on the cost of taxes to buyers but those buyers will buy less thus lower the petroleum industry's revenue and thus their profits. If people have to pay more for fuel, as they did leading up to the summer of 2008, they buy more fuel efficient vehicles. That's one reason the Detroit big, well except Ford, had to be bailed out. They did not have the fuel efficient vehicles buyers wanted. Looky now, they are all trumpeting how efficient their vehicles are now. Ford has ads for Fusion, it's hybrid, as does Chevy. Chevy even goes further saying a number of it's vehicles have better mileage than Honda, except for the Honda lawn mower.
So even when they pass on the costs of new taxes they lose.
If the US economy goes tits up, and Exxon can't sell their fuel here, they'll sell the fuel to China, or India, or whichever economy is still going.
Haven't you heard, China and India's economy has suffered too. And they both have their own oil companies. Heck there was an uproar a few years back when a Chinese petroleum business put in a bid to buy a US oil company, Chevron I think, let me check... No, it was Unocal. In 2005 before Chevron merged with Unocal the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation tried to buy it. It was only after a vote by the US House of Reps that referred the bid to President Bush when the Chinese company dropped it's bid. Heck some in the US is worried China will buy all of Canada's production from the Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada. The article China's oil sands role tests U.S., published in 2004, is about that. Here's another article in the BBC about the Oil Sands, China invests in Canada oil sands.
Please stop using the oil companies as boogey men.
Well, I could put the same question to you. By what right do the "others" force the US, Europe and China to restructure their economies?
That's backwards, by what right does a minority of the population have the right to force the majority to change their economy and life?
In fact, the "others" in most cases would have meet a higher burden, since they are the ones asking for positive action, rather than defending the current state of affairs.
No, in fact they would be defending their own state of affairs. And even in the US civil law cases don't require higher burdens to win, the burden is actually lower. That's why OJ won the murder, criminal, case against him but lost the civil case. While criminal cases require belief in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases only require a verdict of guilt based on the preponderance of evidence.
So, it's usually a waste of time to point out the truth, but if you're interested you could look into the proxy temperature record of the Holocene period. Maybe Wikipedia would be an easy place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
Yes, I know climates change. So what? Nowhere in the wiki article you link to does it say anything about what the CO2 levels were (neither carbon nor co2 even appear in it), or what the rate of change of the climate was. Climate is changing more rapidly than it has previously giving little tyme for ecological systems to adjust to cooler or warmer, and dryer or wetter climates.
Caveats
Not enough data points,
scientific consensus exists
"Given the limited spatial sampling, it is unclear whether the slightly warmer period during the Holocene climatic optimum corresponds to a statistically significant difference."
"it is more reasonably described as a regional rather than a local temperature measurement."
There are 3 more caveats.
PS. "Deniers" is a reference to holocaust deniers. You can do better than to resort to Godwin.
Of the ten results of googling deniers the first 2 are Holocaust deniers. One of the results is the definition of denier, which lists 6 definitions. And the other 7 results are about climate deniers. Your use of "denier" gets 2 results while mine gets 7. Try a better argument.
Falcon
Oh, BTW I don't mean to support or diminish Holocaust Deniers. I met and talked with a concentration camp survivor, she showed us her tattooed number. I like to think if any such thing were to happen again I'd be one of those helping those being persecuted, if I weren't one myself. In the same way I'd want to be one of those who helped during the genocide in Rwanda, during Pol Pot's horrific reign, or one of those who helped the Maya while they were being massacred in Central America, massacred with US support of the regimes doing so.
Oh, wait. You're one of those guys that think big companies and governments have unlimited resources. My bad.
No, I'm saying they have deeper pockets and can spend much more on climate research than NGOs can. And unlike NGOs, their future depends on that research. If because of inaction, no research disproving Climate Change, the fossil fuel industries have new laws and taxes they have to pay they may find they can not compeat with those who do not have those laws and taxes never mind these new competitors actually getting subsidized.
Exxon-Mobile had profits, profits not revenue, of $304,186 Billion last year. Chevron had profits of $167,402 Billion. And Royal Dutch Shell, $278,186 Billion. Walmart, a petroleum retailer, had profits of $400,216 Billion. Oil exporters like the Middle East and Russia, along with the USA's 2 largest oil suppliers Canada and Mexico, and India and China (who fund the USA's deficit) have even more money. The only reason none of them should have scientific proof disproving Climate Change is because there is none. I seriously doubt all of the environmental NGOs world wide received $10 Billion.
well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
I guess I'm a bit behind, I know what the Climate Research Unit is but I never heard of it referred to as CRU. Thanks for the heads up.
also changing from global warming to climate change is a cop out.
No, this is the cop-out. Global Warming was first used in 1975. Before that "inadvertent climate modification" was used. Climate change did come later but it is more accurate, while some places would warm up others would cool off. And of course if some places cool off those like you can say "see Global Warming" is not real. But you can't easily deny that climate is changing.
more and more evidence is coming forward that shows a SHIT load of people are blowing smoke out their asses about the human cause of "global warming" and an awful lot more people are profiteering by the spreading of utter FUD about it too.
And a hell of a lot more can profit off of proving it is wrong. Exxon-Mobile as much deeper pockets than Greenpeace. So does the Middle East, China, India, and Russia. I bet any scientist who can deinitively prove climate change is false can get paid a lot from these businesses and nations. So why aren't they stepping up with that proof?
and the global warming hero Al fucking gore.. the rankest of all the hypocrites...spreading FUD AND a major shareholder in Occidental Petrolium
I just posted the same thing, except for "spreading FUD", which I do not believe. Like you I think Gore is being a bit of a hypocrite, not disclosing the shares in Oxy. However he didn't buy the stocks himself. His father Al Gore Sr was a friend of Armand Hammer who was the CEO of Oxy and he worked for the company becoming head of the subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company after he lost his senate seat. Further the wiki article says "Albert Gore Jr., however, did not exercise control over the shares, which were eventually sold when the estate closed".
Actually I found out about Gore's connection to Oxy back in the '90s. Back then Oxy wanted to explore and drill for oil in the U'wa tribe's homeland in Colombia. The tribe had threatened to commit mass suicide if the Colombian government allowed them to drill.
always odd how when the smell of bullshit is often along the same path as the smell of hypocrisy and money
Mann, Jones and their cronies have done everything possible to hide the data they used to produce their theories. They have actively set out to destroy documentation and raw data in order to deny anyone who many disagree with them the opportunity to review their work (their words, not mine). Even if they were correct, their theory cannot be taken on their honor alone. If their results were reproducible or maybe even if they publicized their methods that would bring them closer to actual science. But they do not and will not, viz. what they are up to is not science.
Who has deeper pockets, the fossil fuel industries or environmental NGOs? I bet Exxon-Mobile has deeper pockets than Greenpeace. So why aren't they releasing scientific studies for peer review that proves climate change isn't real?
Yes, we're removing large amounts of fossil carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere, but how is that necessarily a problem?
Yes there is a problem. If for no other reason all the CO2 being emitted is acidifying the oceans which are the cradle of life. A majority of the world's population lives on or near the coast and depend on the seas for food. Disregarding overfishing, acidification threatens most of the life in the oceans. There are also all the changes in climate to deal with, some places becoming deserts while others get flooded.
I honestly find it difficult to come with an argument for substantial United States support for the United Nations.
It was relatively good for what it was originally setup for, peace. After it was started there were no major world wide wars, World War III, with lots of deaths. On the other hand NATO was specifically set up to protect parts of Europe from the Soviet Union. The Soviets are gone but NATO is not. As they say bureaucracies don't die, not easily. I'd also get rid of SEATO as well as most other collective defense organizations.
But we have had more than 10 years of cooling. How many more years does it take to be climate?
Oh to the contrary, the decade from 2000 to 2009 was the hottest on record. Now if you have evidence supporting your position then share it and let us see if it stands up to peer review.
And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
Maybe in the UK but not where I am. It's warmer than usual here. Historically the average temperature on this date is 25F however today, and yesterday, it was 29.4F. Last weekend it was warm enough for the ice and snow on the sidewalks to melt. Actually the decade between 2000 and 2009 was the hottest on record.
The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet. It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change.
No, the real question is does one group of people have the right to force others to change their life style? And right now if climate change is real then that's exactly what the population of the US is telling everyone else to do. Of course China and Europe can also be blamed. China because it became the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases in 2008 or 2009 and the EU because Malaysia became the third largest emitter. Now some may ask why blame Europeans for that. That's because Malaysians have been burning and cutting down their rainforest so they can plant palm oil plantations which they then use to make biofuels which is sold to Europe. All Europe did was shift where GHGs were produced.
lol... it doesn't deny climate change, what it does do it show where source material came from
And my science link didn't sat where it came from? If you want me to believe that then you didn't read it.
also i think you'll find that little things such as the CRU data leak which showed them to be a bunch of number fiddling and lying turds also throw doubt on the human cause of any climate change.
Where did I say anything about CRU? Without googling it I don't even know what the CRU is.
now where you have people fiddling numbers and using dubious sources i think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable doubt.
Oh, I agree. Let's take for instance where deniers are saying we're in a cooling trend. If fact the 2000s were the hottest decade on record. The only way to make it look like there's been some cooling is by using 1998 as the starting date. Because of El Nino that was a hot year and temperatures spiked as shown by this graph. There is no cooling, in fact the 2000s was the hottest decade.
however i think it you google a little you will find the net awash with 3660 hits for "IPCC student dissertation climbing magazine"
And if you google Syed Hasnain new scientist magazine ipcc you'll find about 200,000. The first one is the link I provided with the two following also from "New Scientist". I don't know, maybe they were both used, so I'm willing to let that go for now.
there also happens to be an ASSLOAD of people making truckloads of money out of ittwinned with a mass of rank hypocrisy
And just as above, about "people fiddling numbers", there are lots of people who could make tankers full of money out of disproving Global Warming. Coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuel industries stand to lose a lot of money if their products are regulated and or taxed. Now which has the deeper pockets, Exxon-Mobile or Greenpeace?
Now I'm not saying we have to do whatever it takes to stop Global Warming. I don't even like that term and prefer Climate Change. What I would like to see is alternative energy sources developed and for the US to work on them before we become has-beens. While China is busy building new coal fired power plants they are also busy building massive wind farms and installing solar energy systems. Mexico and the Philippines are using geothermal energy and so can the US. By one estimate, SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan, solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electricity and 35% of it's total energy by 2050 using just a part of the Southwest. And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States lays out the wind potential of different areas of the US. The Rockies from Canada to northern Texas for instance contain enough potential energy to supply all 48 continuous states with electricity. However they aren't the only places. On the West Coast from British Columbia to Southern CA then east through AZ and NM to west Texas there's good wind sites. To the east from the Appalachians in the south up through the Northeast there is good wind potential both on-shore and off-shore. NIMBYs, notably the deceased Ted Kennedy, did whatever they could to stop offshore wind farms. In 2007 California, already mentioned for solar and wind power, got 4.5% of it energy from geothermal sources.
You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a ! and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.
No, no, no, it's a math error. That was supposed to be a 1 + X not 1 - X. So now the sun will not burst into a supernova.
After all, even most of the die-hard warming advocates admit that they can't explain the current cooling trend in their models.
Is it cooling now? Just last weekend it got warm enough here, MN which shares a border with Canada, that all of the snow and ice on the sidewalks outside melted. Instead of it being below zero (F) it was above freezing.
And nobody can explain a cooling trend, if there is one? What is this pdf I found on Rudger University's website, Surface Cooling Due to Forest Fire Smoke, then? Though it's a lot I don't know how many tymes I've heard scientists say that all the smoke from forest fires can cool the atmosphere. And currently the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil is being burned at a faster rate than at any recorded period. Meanwhile Malaysia became the third largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases because the rainforests there are being cleared to plant palm oil plantations. Now what are these plantations for? To supply Europe with biofuel to run their vehicles. So the EU can pass off it's GHGs to a nation that needs the money.
try reading the linked and even copied article above... and possibly weep into the beverage of your choice..........
Why don't you do the same? You link to a newspaper that denies Climate change while I link to a science magazine. Gee, I'll believe in science first. Oh, and I did read the "Telegraph" article.
to suppose we should spend billions of dollars on fixing a potential non-problem, trusting in what we know to be bad science, that's just fucking bullshit.
And not to do anything about a potential catastrophe is fucking bullshit as well. No, to do something without having understanding isn't good but sitting on your ass isn't good either.
oh right so the linked article which shows that they used a geography students dissertation and an anecdotal story from a climbing magazine is a nonsense? it's been in many papers, on the BBC news and also on a few other programs too
It is not based on a student's dissertation, it is based on a comment made by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain to an author for the New Scientist in 1999.
I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.
Like whom? India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh or the current chairman of the UN's IPCC Dr. RK Pachauri? I hope more of the first and less of the later. After fighting against science for 8 years it's about tyme the US supported science.
Slashdot Mirror
BSD, MIT, etc. are simple, but they don't give you any protection from patent aggressors. And so I am wary of using them, because it's patent suits that are the largest problem.
GPLv3, LGPLv3, AGPLv3 are the strongest within the constraints that RMS set.
I think the key phrase here is "within the constraints that RMS set." What he wanted and what others want are different. I don't know about the MIT, Apache, or other licenses but I like BSD licenses because they allow me to close my own source, not the source others contributed but mine.
Unfortunately I said it for years but haven't done it yet however I want to start my own photography business. Because I can't afford to buy a new computer system and software I've been thinking about looking for BSDed software I can run on what I have now. I could then modify the code to get it to do what I want, however I think that if I were to spend the tyme to program the modifications then in order the recoup some of the expense I'd like to be able to sell it to others. Using the GPL I couldn't prevent others from distributing it but I could if I use a BSD license.
License not contract, no rights that you already had are restricted, etc.
Sure there are rights being restricted. If you use GPL code you can not close your own code and still distribute it. The LGPL may allow it but I'm not aware that it does.
Put another way, BSD licenses grant freedom to programmers and the GPL grants freedom to users. The negative part is that by using a BSD license you the programmer aren't guaranteed the ability to use others' improvements if your code is released, they can close those improvements just as you can close your code.
Falcon
There are a lot of weaknesses in your statement, but I will concentrate on one point. It appears that you are not taking into consideration the amount of time, effort and money it costs to change platforms, tech or language. Such change-over costs can be prohibitive.
That's true of any change. Now do you want to keep using 1995 tech or something modern? Heck, the upgrade from Windows 95, 98 to ME, Vista or from NT4 to XP to Vista was expensive too. Now you could continue using old tech but support will be expensive as well. What almost if not every shop should do is setup a testbed system from large enterprises to the self employed. Then when the bugs are ironed out deploy the system.
Falcon
So Slashdot is in favor of copyright licenses today? Just checking, since in piracy articles, they seem to be vehemently against them.
Actually that has nothing to do with this case. In this case both sides claimed and tried to use copyright, only one was successful.
Falcon
People use less gas, sure, but at higher prices.
Until they don't use gas. All three Detroit companies, Chrysler, Ford, and GM, have or are releasing EVs. Along with Tesla they are also working on fuel cells and plug-ins. Only Natural Gas benefits from either of these, not oil. LNG is used to produce hydrogen and LNG supplies 21.4% of the USA's electricity, second only to coal. Petroleum only supplies 1.1%. However alternative sources are growing as fast if not faster than other sources of energy. Actually more and more people are going off the grid and are producing their own energy. They are finding it a practical alternative. Combining EVs with solar and wind doesn't leave petroleum much moving space. However the ones using their profits to invest in alternative energy sources, Exxon-Mobile is researching the use of algae to produce hydrogen and BP Solar is part of British Petroleum, will come out ahead. In 2004 BP had 20% of the world market for solar panels.
And you still have people worried that China will buy up everything that Canada can supply.
And where did I say that? Or is that more FUD?
Why is it "astroturfing for oil companies" to point out that it is stupid to expect them to conduct climate studies or absorb the cost of a tax increase?
Why is it using the oil companies as boogey men to point out oil companies have more money to spend on research than others have? Others have pointed out just as I have that it is in the interest of those accused of polluting to prove that what they do has no effect. When you stop making things up I'll stop saying you're astroturfing.
Falcon
The demand for gasoline is pretty price inelastic. Maybe europe could tax it to the point that people would give it up, but if the US did that, the country's economy would completely dry up.
Can Americans learn to love small cars? The industry's future depends on it
"For Christy LaBadie, a sophomore at Northampton Community College, the 30-minute drive from her home to the Bethlehem, Pa., campus has become a financial hardship now that gasoline prices have soared to more than $4 a gallon. So this semester she decided to take an online course to save herself the trip--and the money...." "Many institutions say their online summer enrollments have jumped significantly, compared with last summer's, and that fuel prices are a key factor in the increase. The Tennessee Board of Regents, for instance, reports that summer enrollment in online courses is up 29 percent this summer over last year."
That was quick, if I spend more tyme I can find more. Unfortunately I keep getting interrupted, even by my brother-in-law who's a Certified Financial Planner and keeps calling me. Still want to say if not believe "The demand for gasoline is pretty price inelastic"? Quite simply when gas prices go high people buy less gas.
Falcon
Companies do pay taxes, that is corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Shell, and Chevron do. As does Walmart.
The effect on Exxon's bottom line from a new carbon tax will be negligible, because I'll still have to put gas in my tank to get to work
Aha, yes they pass on the cost of taxes to buyers but those buyers will buy less thus lower the petroleum industry's revenue and thus their profits. If people have to pay more for fuel, as they did leading up to the summer of 2008, they buy more fuel efficient vehicles. That's one reason the Detroit big, well except Ford, had to be bailed out. They did not have the fuel efficient vehicles buyers wanted. Looky now, they are all trumpeting how efficient their vehicles are now. Ford has ads for Fusion, it's hybrid, as does Chevy. Chevy even goes further saying a number of it's vehicles have better mileage than Honda, except for the Honda lawn mower.
So even when they pass on the costs of new taxes they lose.
If the US economy goes tits up, and Exxon can't sell their fuel here, they'll sell the fuel to China, or India, or whichever economy is still going.
Haven't you heard, China and India's economy has suffered too. And they both have their own oil companies. Heck there was an uproar a few years back when a Chinese petroleum business put in a bid to buy a US oil company, Chevron I think, let me check... No, it was Unocal. In 2005 before Chevron merged with Unocal the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation tried to buy it. It was only after a vote by the US House of Reps that referred the bid to President Bush when the Chinese company dropped it's bid. Heck some in the US is worried China will buy all of Canada's production from the Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada. The article China's oil sands role tests U.S., published in 2004, is about that. Here's another article in the BBC about the Oil Sands, China invests in Canada oil sands.
Please stop using the oil companies as boogey men.
Stop astroturfing for the oil companies.
Falcon
Well, I could put the same question to you. By what right do the "others" force the US, Europe and China to restructure their economies?
That's backwards, by what right does a minority of the population have the right to force the majority to change their economy and life?
In fact, the "others" in most cases would have meet a higher burden, since they are the ones asking for positive action, rather than defending the current state of affairs.
No, in fact they would be defending their own state of affairs. And even in the US civil law cases don't require higher burdens to win, the burden is actually lower. That's why OJ won the murder, criminal, case against him but lost the civil case. While criminal cases require belief in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases only require a verdict of guilt based on the preponderance of evidence.
Falcon
So, it's usually a waste of time to point out the truth, but if you're interested you could look into the proxy temperature record of the Holocene period. Maybe Wikipedia would be an easy place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
Yes, I know climates change. So what? Nowhere in the wiki article you link to does it say anything about what the CO2 levels were (neither carbon nor co2 even appear in it), or what the rate of change of the climate was. Climate is changing more rapidly than it has previously giving little tyme for ecological systems to adjust to cooler or warmer, and dryer or wetter climates.
Once we came out of the ice 12,000 years ago, we warmed up to a peak temperature about 8,000 years ago. Since then the temperature has been falling (see the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [Note: Now is on the left]).
Caveats
Not enough data points,
scientific consensus exists
"Given the limited spatial sampling, it is unclear whether the slightly warmer period during the Holocene climatic optimum corresponds to a statistically significant difference."
"it is more reasonably described as a regional rather than a local temperature measurement."
There are 3 more caveats.
PS. "Deniers" is a reference to holocaust deniers. You can do better than to resort to Godwin.
Of the ten results of googling deniers the first 2 are Holocaust deniers. One of the results is the definition of denier, which lists 6 definitions. And the other 7 results are about climate deniers. Your use of "denier" gets 2 results while mine gets 7. Try a better argument.
Falcon
Oh, BTW I don't mean to support or diminish Holocaust Deniers. I met and talked with a concentration camp survivor, she showed us her tattooed number. I like to think if any such thing were to happen again I'd be one of those helping those being persecuted, if I weren't one myself. In the same way I'd want to be one of those who helped during the genocide in Rwanda, during Pol Pot's horrific reign, or one of those who helped the Maya while they were being massacred in Central America, massacred with US support of the regimes doing so.
Oh, wait. You're one of those guys that think big companies and governments have unlimited resources. My bad.
No, I'm saying they have deeper pockets and can spend much more on climate research than NGOs can. And unlike NGOs, their future depends on that research. If because of inaction, no research disproving Climate Change, the fossil fuel industries have new laws and taxes they have to pay they may find they can not compeat with those who do not have those laws and taxes never mind these new competitors actually getting subsidized.
Exxon-Mobile had profits, profits not revenue, of $304,186 Billion last year. Chevron had profits of $167,402 Billion. And Royal Dutch Shell, $278,186 Billion. Walmart, a petroleum retailer, had profits of $400,216 Billion. Oil exporters like the Middle East and Russia, along with the USA's 2 largest oil suppliers Canada and Mexico, and India and China (who fund the USA's deficit) have even more money. The only reason none of them should have scientific proof disproving Climate Change is because there is none. I seriously doubt all of the environmental NGOs world wide received $10 Billion.
Falcon
well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
I guess I'm a bit behind, I know what the Climate Research Unit is but I never heard of it referred to as CRU. Thanks for the heads up.
also changing from global warming to climate change is a cop out.
No, this is the cop-out. Global Warming was first used in 1975. Before that "inadvertent climate modification" was used. Climate change did come later but it is more accurate, while some places would warm up others would cool off. And of course if some places cool off those like you can say "see Global Warming" is not real. But you can't easily deny that climate is changing.
more and more evidence is coming forward that shows a SHIT load of people are blowing smoke out their asses about the human cause of "global warming" and an awful lot more people are profiteering by the spreading of utter FUD about it too.
And a hell of a lot more can profit off of proving it is wrong. Exxon-Mobile as much deeper pockets than Greenpeace. So does the Middle East, China, India, and Russia. I bet any scientist who can deinitively prove climate change is false can get paid a lot from these businesses and nations. So why aren't they stepping up with that proof?
and the global warming hero Al fucking gore.. the rankest of all the hypocrites...spreading FUD AND a major shareholder in Occidental Petrolium
I just posted the same thing, except for "spreading FUD", which I do not believe. Like you I think Gore is being a bit of a hypocrite, not disclosing the shares in Oxy. However he didn't buy the stocks himself. His father Al Gore Sr was a friend of Armand Hammer who was the CEO of Oxy and he worked for the company becoming head of the subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company after he lost his senate seat. Further the wiki article says "Albert Gore Jr., however, did not exercise control over the shares, which were eventually sold when the estate closed".
Actually I found out about Gore's connection to Oxy back in the '90s. Back then Oxy wanted to explore and drill for oil in the U'wa tribe's homeland in Colombia. The tribe had threatened to commit mass suicide if the Colombian government allowed them to drill.
always odd how when the smell of bullshit is often along the same path as the smell of hypocrisy and money
Yeap, and that works both ways.
Falcon
Mann, Jones and their cronies have done everything possible to hide the data they used to produce their theories. They have actively set out to destroy documentation and raw data in order to deny anyone who many disagree with them the opportunity to review their work (their words, not mine). Even if they were correct, their theory cannot be taken on their honor alone. If their results were reproducible or maybe even if they publicized their methods that would bring them closer to actual science. But they do not and will not, viz. what they are up to is not science.
Who has deeper pockets, the fossil fuel industries or environmental NGOs? I bet Exxon-Mobile has deeper pockets than Greenpeace. So why aren't they releasing scientific studies for peer review that proves climate change isn't real?
So is Exxon hiding data? Or do they not have any?
Falcon
Yes, we're removing large amounts of fossil carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere, but how is that necessarily a problem?
Yes there is a problem. If for no other reason all the CO2 being emitted is acidifying the oceans which are the cradle of life. A majority of the world's population lives on or near the coast and depend on the seas for food. Disregarding overfishing, acidification threatens most of the life in the oceans. There are also all the changes in climate to deal with, some places becoming deserts while others get flooded.
Falcon
Yea, some plants grow more with more CO2 in the air, like poison ivy which becomes even more poinsonous, but other plants grow slower. Here's an article from "New Scientist" on it, Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production.
Falcon
I honestly find it difficult to come with an argument for substantial United States support for the United Nations.
It was relatively good for what it was originally setup for, peace. After it was started there were no major world wide wars, World War III, with lots of deaths. On the other hand NATO was specifically set up to protect parts of Europe from the Soviet Union. The Soviets are gone but NATO is not. As they say bureaucracies don't die, not easily. I'd also get rid of SEATO as well as most other collective defense organizations.
Falcon
But we have had more than 10 years of cooling. How many more years does it take to be climate?
Oh to the contrary, the decade from 2000 to 2009 was the hottest on record. Now if you have evidence supporting your position then share it and let us see if it stands up to peer review.
Falcon
And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
Maybe in the UK but not where I am. It's warmer than usual here. Historically the average temperature on this date is 25F however today, and yesterday, it was 29.4F. Last weekend it was warm enough for the ice and snow on the sidewalks to melt. Actually the decade between 2000 and 2009 was the hottest on record.
Falcon
No, its very easy to be preachy when the data remains inconclusive. You just change the data.
See Al Gore.
And the fossil fuel industry.
That's redundant, Gore used to own stocks in Occidental Petroleum, Oxy.
Falcon
The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet. It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change.
No, the real question is does one group of people have the right to force others to change their life style? And right now if climate change is real then that's exactly what the population of the US is telling everyone else to do. Of course China and Europe can also be blamed. China because it became the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases in 2008 or 2009 and the EU because Malaysia became the third largest emitter. Now some may ask why blame Europeans for that. That's because Malaysians have been burning and cutting down their rainforest so they can plant palm oil plantations which they then use to make biofuels which is sold to Europe. All Europe did was shift where GHGs were produced.
Falcon
lol... it doesn't deny climate change, what it does do it show where source material came from
And my science link didn't sat where it came from? If you want me to believe that then you didn't read it.
also i think you'll find that little things such as the CRU data leak which showed them to be a bunch of number fiddling and lying turds also throw doubt on the human cause of any climate change.
Where did I say anything about CRU? Without googling it I don't even know what the CRU is.
now where you have people fiddling numbers and using dubious sources i think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable doubt.
Oh, I agree. Let's take for instance where deniers are saying we're in a cooling trend. If fact the 2000s were the hottest decade on record. The only way to make it look like there's been some cooling is by using 1998 as the starting date. Because of El Nino that was a hot year and temperatures spiked as shown by this graph. There is no cooling, in fact the 2000s was the hottest decade.
however i think it you google a little you will find the net awash with 3660 hits for "IPCC student dissertation climbing magazine"
And if you google Syed Hasnain new scientist magazine ipcc you'll find about 200,000. The first one is the link I provided with the two following also from "New Scientist". I don't know, maybe they were both used, so I'm willing to let that go for now.
there also happens to be an ASSLOAD of people making truckloads of money out of ittwinned with a mass of rank hypocrisy
And just as above, about "people fiddling numbers", there are lots of people who could make tankers full of money out of disproving Global Warming. Coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuel industries stand to lose a lot of money if their products are regulated and or taxed. Now which has the deeper pockets, Exxon-Mobile or Greenpeace?
Now I'm not saying we have to do whatever it takes to stop Global Warming. I don't even like that term and prefer Climate Change. What I would like to see is alternative energy sources developed and for the US to work on them before we become has-beens. While China is busy building new coal fired power plants they are also busy building massive wind farms and installing solar energy systems. Mexico and the Philippines are using geothermal energy and so can the US. By one estimate, SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan, solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electricity and 35% of it's total energy by 2050 using just a part of the Southwest. And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States lays out the wind potential of different areas of the US. The Rockies from Canada to northern Texas for instance contain enough potential energy to supply all 48 continuous states with electricity. However they aren't the only places. On the West Coast from British Columbia to Southern CA then east through AZ and NM to west Texas there's good wind sites. To the east from the Appalachians in the south up through the Northeast there is good wind potential both on-shore and off-shore. NIMBYs, notably the deceased Ted Kennedy, did whatever they could to stop offshore wind farms. In 2007 California, already mentioned for solar and wind power, got 4.5% of it energy from geothermal sources.
Also don't
You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a ! and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.
No, no, no, it's a math error. That was supposed to be a 1 + X not 1 - X. So now the sun will not burst into a supernova.
Sent from the SPL
Falcon
After all, even most of the die-hard warming advocates admit that they can't explain the current cooling trend in their models.
Is it cooling now? Just last weekend it got warm enough here, MN which shares a border with Canada, that all of the snow and ice on the sidewalks outside melted. Instead of it being below zero (F) it was above freezing.
And nobody can explain a cooling trend, if there is one? What is this pdf I found on Rudger University's website, Surface Cooling Due to Forest Fire Smoke, then? Though it's a lot I don't know how many tymes I've heard scientists say that all the smoke from forest fires can cool the atmosphere. And currently the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil is being burned at a faster rate than at any recorded period. Meanwhile Malaysia became the third largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases because the rainforests there are being cleared to plant palm oil plantations. Now what are these plantations for? To supply Europe with biofuel to run their vehicles. So the EU can pass off it's GHGs to a nation that needs the money.
Falcon
try reading the linked and even copied article above... and possibly weep into the beverage of your choice..........
Why don't you do the same? You link to a newspaper that denies Climate change while I link to a science magazine. Gee, I'll believe in science first. Oh, and I did read the "Telegraph" article.
Falcon
to suppose we should spend billions of dollars on fixing a potential non-problem, trusting in what we know to be bad science, that's just fucking bullshit.
And not to do anything about a potential catastrophe is fucking bullshit as well. No, to do something without having understanding isn't good but sitting on your ass isn't good either.
Falcon
oh right so the linked article which shows that they used a geography students dissertation and an anecdotal story from a climbing magazine is a nonsense? it's been in many papers, on the BBC news and also on a few other programs too
It is not based on a student's dissertation, it is based on a comment made by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain to an author for the New Scientist in 1999.
Get your facts straight.
Falcon
I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.
Like whom? India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh or the current chairman of the UN's IPCC Dr. RK Pachauri? I hope more of the first and less of the later. After fighting against science for 8 years it's about tyme the US supported science.
Falcon