This is not an unreasonable solution, but you'll hear it decried as "punishing small business owners", and "deterring recycling". The fact that these aren't really true won't keep opportunistic politicians at bay.
In an immediate sense, which is part of why money is an abstraction rather than a literal stand-in. I'm not advocating neo-liberalism here, I'm just saying every choice to do something is an implicit choice to not do quite as much of something else.
I'm sorry, but money is always an issue for literally everything. We live in a world of finite workers and resources, and thus the abstraction of that, which we call money, is an important limiting factor on any task, no matter what the risk or rewards. The amusing irony is that treating money like its not a factor makes money more of a factor, by causing the limitations to appear at unexpected times.
Analogies: making incorrect people feel good about their bad ideas since forever.
1. You're treating a static sampling as the same as a first derivative trend sampling. 2. You're suggesting that a tropical place is warm, thus more likely to have errors in co2 measurement. What?
Well, it has to other require revolutionary energy technologies or an order of magnitude lower energy cost to perform. Those both seem "amazing" to me.
You've overstepped into hyperbole. They just have repeatedly landed themselves into the top 10 hottest, and one of them(2008 was it?) was a number 11. Be careful, because the people you're disagreeing with will seize upon the fact that you're wrong as complete invalidation of anything you're saying.
So, your post prompted me to research the history of Midwestern droughts in the United States, and I have to admit, there's a lot of history there. Suffice it to say, the data suggest that 2012 is only a little worse in terms of total dryness than 1988, and another shift of the same degree over the NEXT 25 years would only be slightly worse.
Still, climate change is an accelerating process, and it could still be that bad. There are other factors like dwindling aquifers and increasing industrial usage of water involved too, but I think all that might not actually add up to enough to overcome Americans' lack of interest in boring, important things like water rights. I should have reviewed that information first, so I apologize for jumping on that scenario.
25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.
No individual nation benefits from moving to fix this alone. International diplomacy operates at the kindergarten argument level by virtue of no leader wanting to appear as though they're screwing over their populace for people of another nation.
Imagine getting a room full of five year olds with toys to sit quietly for an hour, even if the promise is candy for everyone. That's what climate change negotiations are like.
This is one of those things, isn't it. Where you argue against something I never said. Never implied. Never even suggested. I won't say no one called for pre-judgement, but to imply that was the norm or default comes from a special kind of paranoia that is unique to the American right wing. I can't even respectfully disagree here, as you're inventing a narrative to make someone who shot and killed another human being seem persecuted because he's going to trial for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, it's not like "supply and demand" is a concept firmly rooted in strictly abstract price points.
Yes, I hope it never gets to the point where we're so inundated with examples that we can't even muster a little outrage.
That's a different argument. I agree that there is misallocation of resources, but to say "money doesn't matter" is sticking one's head in the sand.
This is not an unreasonable solution, but you'll hear it decried as "punishing small business owners", and "deterring recycling". The fact that these aren't really true won't keep opportunistic politicians at bay.
So, what you're saying is that money is not a factor when money is made into a factor? Color me confused.
In an immediate sense, which is part of why money is an abstraction rather than a literal stand-in. I'm not advocating neo-liberalism here, I'm just saying every choice to do something is an implicit choice to not do quite as much of something else.
I'm sorry, but money is always an issue for literally everything. We live in a world of finite workers and resources, and thus the abstraction of that, which we call money, is an important limiting factor on any task, no matter what the risk or rewards. The amusing irony is that treating money like its not a factor makes money more of a factor, by causing the limitations to appear at unexpected times.
Ok, so that addresses #2. #1 is clearly the bigger problem.
What's obvious to someone who's looked at the data and systems involved is completely shocking to the denialist.
Analogies: making incorrect people feel good about their bad ideas since forever.
1. You're treating a static sampling as the same as a first derivative trend sampling.
2. You're suggesting that a tropical place is warm, thus more likely to have errors in co2 measurement. What?
A fraction of one percent of the non-biological co2 emissions are the problem. Of course.
Not a good point, all the smartphones track datetime with 64 bit numbers because they're on modern OS's
Where is the earth-shattering kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom.
So you support misrepresenting your position if it sounds more impressive?
Well, it has to other require revolutionary energy technologies or an order of magnitude lower energy cost to perform. Those both seem "amazing" to me.
Do you even own any 32 bit devices?
Is this meant to relate to my post in some way?
You've overstepped into hyperbole. They just have repeatedly landed themselves into the top 10 hottest, and one of them(2008 was it?) was a number 11. Be careful, because the people you're disagreeing with will seize upon the fact that you're wrong as complete invalidation of anything you're saying.
So, your post prompted me to research the history of Midwestern droughts in the United States, and I have to admit, there's a lot of history there. Suffice it to say, the data suggest that 2012 is only a little worse in terms of total dryness than 1988, and another shift of the same degree over the NEXT 25 years would only be slightly worse.
Still, climate change is an accelerating process, and it could still be that bad. There are other factors like dwindling aquifers and increasing industrial usage of water involved too, but I think all that might not actually add up to enough to overcome Americans' lack of interest in boring, important things like water rights. I should have reviewed that information first, so I apologize for jumping on that scenario.
25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.
No individual nation benefits from moving to fix this alone. International diplomacy operates at the kindergarten argument level by virtue of no leader wanting to appear as though they're screwing over their populace for people of another nation.
Imagine getting a room full of five year olds with toys to sit quietly for an hour, even if the promise is candy for everyone. That's what climate change negotiations are like.
It's pretty much reddit's fault. Still a blight on the internet.
Yep the only witness is dead. Congrats on that point. Can't deny that.
This is one of those things, isn't it. Where you argue against something I never said. Never implied. Never even suggested. I won't say no one called for pre-judgement, but to imply that was the norm or default comes from a special kind of paranoia that is unique to the American right wing. I can't even respectfully disagree here, as you're inventing a narrative to make someone who shot and killed another human being seem persecuted because he's going to trial for it.
Not if it's digital.