you are insane. "environmental interests were largely responsible"???? BP rushed their work and blew up their rig. period
You mean the rig and the well that wouldn't have needed to exist in the first place if the lower-hanging fruit of shallower-water operations weren't prohibited or regulated into economic and/or compliance unviability?
For that matter, there are plenty of oil & gas deposits right in the continental US & Alaska that remain untapped due to environmental concerns. At least for the next century or more, oil & gas will remain necessary to maintain our standard of living and level of technology & civilization, never mind simply feeding everyone.
There will be accidents. There will be causes from greed and negligence to apathy and stupidity, as well as simply not being able to predict many things. This will never change because humans are not perfect so neither can their creations be.
It boils down to a compromise between deposit size, difficulty/cost, how difficult the site is to both monitor for potential trouble, and what damage a spill could cause versus the ability to quickly correct and clean the site. The regulatory framework has skewed the normal weighting of those factors such that now wells are being drilled at the very limits of our ability to reach undersea with limited ability to do much of anything at those depths when there are much safer places on dry land that sit untapped.
The easy oil is gone, they're having to drill in 5000 feet of water now, so of course there will be a next time.
No, the "easy" oil is there in nice, safe, relatively shallow water where leaks/spills etc would be comparatively trivial to deal with, but environmental interests have forced rigs further and further offshore in an attempt to effectively halt/limit offshore oil drilling by making it too expensive & difficult for the oil companies, while being able to claim they're not trying to stop offshore drilling, just being good stewards of the planet.
So, rather than having a shallow-water rig where any leak or blowout can be swiftly, safely, and effectively dealt with, we have the current situation. I'm sure the wildlife that has and will die, along with the fishing and tourist industries, appreciates the intentions, just maybe not the outcome so much.
Strat
FAIL! Are you seriously trying to pin the blame the results of BPs shortcuts and inherent disregard for the safety of he environment on environmentalists?
Not at all.
I'm "pinning the blame" on the "law of unintended consequences" resulting from poorly thought-out policies. That it so happens that environmental interests were largely responsible for this particular unintended consequence just proves that the law of unintended consequences doesn't play favorites.
The easy oil is gone, they're having to drill in 5000 feet of water now, so of course there will be a next time.
No, the "easy" oil is there in nice, safe, relatively shallow water where leaks/spills etc would be comparatively trivial to deal with, but environmental interests have forced rigs further and further offshore in an attempt to effectively halt/limit offshore oil drilling by making it too expensive & difficult for the oil companies, while being able to claim they're not trying to stop offshore drilling, just being good stewards of the planet.
So, rather than having a shallow-water rig where any leak or blowout can be swiftly, safely, and effectively dealt with, we have the current situation. I'm sure the wildlife that has and will die, along with the fishing and tourist industries, appreciates the intentions, just maybe not the outcome so much.
You're talking about "research and facts", so let's see what you've got to support your position. Otherwise, your troll moderation was wholly deserved.
There's plenty of research and facts that don't jive with the current AGW theories. There are enough that some at the CRU, according to their own emails, made efforts to prevent their publication in peer-reviewed journals by attempts to redefine what qualified as a peer-reviewed journal, as well as using the threat of doing so to dissuade journals. A quick Google search will return plenty of credible scientists and science that disagrees in whole or in part with current AGW theories. If you want it, go get it yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you.
It's funny how any scientists, even those with decades-long track records of solid science, who dare criticize the research in any way are suddenly redefined as "irrelevant", "unqualified", "biased", and their research, even if sound, is ignored at best and suppressed at worst. That's not the way science uses to validate the correctness of a scientific theory. That IS the way, however, that propagandists use to suppress dissent and debate.
There's also the inconvenient fact that even if we did away with cars, coal power, most everything that produces CO2 that we take for granted that sustains our modern society, the total global change in temperature and rate of rise would be insignificant compared to projected increases. Other countries such as India and China won't agree to anything that hurts their continued economic expansion, so the US going to pre-industrial levels still wouldn't result in even a meaningful slowing in global temperature increase.
The more data I see on solar activity correlated with temperature changes & CO2 levels, the more I'm convinced that solar activity owns the lions' share of responsibility for global surface temperature changes, particularly since a timeline shows the CO2 levels rose after the increases in temperature and solar activity, which tended to track together well.
With all the very credible (read: credible under standards accepted for most any other scientific topic of research) contrary data and research out there, calling things "case closed" on AGW EITHER WAY is illogical.
It's not that I refuse to accept that AGW is possible, only that the science hasn't proved it sufficiently to warrant the enormous costs in lost lives, drastic reductions in living standards, wealth, individual freedoms, and continued technological advancement.
I'm sorry, but causing the suffering of untold millions, even billions, worldwide by implementing the carbon-reduction targets proposed domestically and internationally (not to mention the wealth taken from economies by the carbon trading exchange(s), speculators, brokers, trading houses, etc that, by coincidence, have heavy ties to those pushing carbon trading) then you'd better have damn good, easily verifiable proof that it's absolutely vital and not another power and wealth grab based on bad science.
Are you this up in arms when it comes to attempting to use religion as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace?
Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
--Jeremy
Who is "up in arms" here?
I don't think anything should be *forced* on the populace in general against their will, whether the perceived results by those proposing it might be overall good or bad. That is for the populace as a group to decide, both the thing in question and whether the result is "good" or "bad".
I took no sides as to what/which science/scientists or which ideologies or political viewpoints. I simply noted that there exists ideologically & politically driven science and scientists, for which I was speedily modded as "Troll".
Is this no longer true? Has basic human nature been fundamentally & massively changed in the last few days and I didn't get the memo?
I wasn't aware that the simple existence of scientists and scientific theories that are politically/ideologically driven was in debate.
What the hell? Since when does the *Jury* want this to stop?
Since they figured out co-opting the support of an un-pollable but publicly respected group was good propaganda. Woodrow Wilson would be proud. The US is where propaganda in modern times was raised to a near-artform. Heck, Goebbels learned much about creating & using propaganda from the Wilson administration.
Then why in $DEITY's name would you ever think the government would pass cap-and-trade and/or other CO2 reduction legislation that actually addressed any of the root problems, rather than being yet another wealth-and-power grab that leaves the average person with less money and fewer freedoms and choices?
Answer A) I'll believe that when I actually see it. These bills have not been passed, and it's pretty clear that the politicians and lobbyists bought by big oil are out to stop them.
Wait, you said the government and politicians were in the pocket of "Big Oil". Now there are some that are *not* in the pocket of "Big Oil"? News Flash: they *all* take money from "Big Oil". The proposed cap-and-trade schemes can't achieve any meaningful CO2 reductions or affect any climate trends any significant amount even if the whole world implemented the policies, and especially not with a very large part of the world (India, China, etc, etc) not participating. We'd be throwing away lives and wealth all to achieve very, very little except make those already rich & powerful even more so, while selling ourselves into government servitude.
So what's left is an enormous reduction in the standard of living and a huge tax & regulatory drag on Western economies and populations coupled with an enormous transfer of wealth to third-world and some second-world countries. This in turn will result in the US not able to afford superpower-class military and economic power that keeps aggressive countries at bay, that vacuum being quickly filled by China and Russia. But that's OK because living in a world ruled by China and/or Russia would be great.
"Big Government" is mostly controlled by the same people as the "Big Oil" and that is the problem.
Then why in $DEITY's name would you ever think the government would pass cap-and-trade and/or other CO2 reduction legislation that actually addressed any of the root problems, rather than being yet another wealth-and-power grab that leaves the average person with less money and fewer freedoms and choices?
some (many) pro-agw people have been saying for a couple of years that man-made co2 has caused temps to increase but the lack of solar activity has negated the increase so we don't see an increase in measured temps. People who want agw to be true say "yeah, that sounds good". People on the other side say "that's convenient". Fortunately there are scientists on both sides who say "this needs to be explained and tested (empirically as well as with models"
And those scientists are immediately and viciously personally attacked, grants terminated under pro-AGW pressure, their careers destroyed, they and their family harassed, and become shunned by peers afraid of similar repercussions.
There is far, far too much money at stake for those in favor of carbon trading, increased government control, higher energy taxes, etc to let a few scientific facts get in the way of the trillions of dollars in wealth redistribution that will result if they can successfully implement their agendas.
The pro-AGW crowd is quick to try to invalidate opposing arguments and individuals by claiming it/they have been paid for by "Big Oil" and so are biased, but they never seem to be bothered by scientists & research funded by "Big Government" which has an equal (arguably even greater) stake in the outcome, and is run by politicians who, nearly by definition, are lying, corrupt dirtbags that would sell their own mother down the river for wealth & power.
You're talking about "research and facts", so let's see what you've got to support your position. Otherwise, your troll moderation was wholly deserved.
There's plenty of research and facts that don't jive with the current AGW theories. There are enough that some at the CRU, according to their own emails, made efforts to prevent their publication in peer-reviewed journals by attempts to redefine what qualified as a peer-reviewed journal, as well as using the threat of doing so to dissuade journals. A quick Google search will return plenty of credible scientists and science that disagrees in whole or in part with current AGW theories. If you want it, go get it yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you.
It's funny how any scientists, even those with decades-long track records of solid science, who dare criticize the research in any way are suddenly redefined as "irrelevant", "unqualified", "biased", and their research, even if sound, is ignored at best and suppressed at worst. That's not the way science uses to validate the correctness of a scientific theory. That IS the way, however, that propagandists use to suppress dissent and debate.
There's also the inconvenient fact that even if we did away with cars, coal power, most everything that produces CO2 that we take for granted that sustains our modern society, the total global change in temperature and rate of rise would be insignificant compared to projected increases. Other countries such as India and China won't agree to anything that hurts their continued economic expansion, so the US going to pre-industrial levels still wouldn't result in even a meaningful slowing in global temperature increase.
The more data I see on solar activity correlated with temperature changes & CO2 levels, the more I'm convinced that solar activity owns the lions' share of responsibility for global surface temperature changes, particularly since a timeline shows the CO2 levels rose after the increases in temperature and solar activity, which tended to track together well.
With all the very credible (read: credible under standards accepted for most any other scientific topic of research) contrary data and research out there, calling things "case closed" on AGW EITHER WAY is illogical.
It's not that I refuse to accept that AGW is possible, only that the science hasn't proved it sufficiently to warrant the enormous costs in lost lives, drastic reductions in living standards, wealth, individual freedoms, and continued technological advancement.
I'm sorry, but causing the suffering of untold millions, even billions, worldwide by implementing the carbon-reduction targets proposed domestically and internationally (not to mention the wealth taken from economies by the carbon trading exchange(s), speculators, brokers, trading houses, etc that, by coincidence, have heavy ties to those pushing carbon trading) then you'd better have damn good, easily verifiable proof that it's absolutely vital and not another power and wealth grab based on bad science.
...a massively high data cap, such as a quarter of a terabyte per month?
That depends on who is doing the defining of "massively high" and for how long into the future we're talking, doesn't it?
As many have already mentioned in other posts, 250GB/mo isn't that much these days even without p2p, and I sure don't see that trend reversing or even slowing. I wonder how "cloud computing" and bandwidth caps will work out?
Because it's a transparent shot at climate change science, implying that it's all a conspiracy.
A "transparent shot" only if one feels so extremely insecure in their position such that in their paranoia they see a threat or criticism in any mention of human fallibility in regards to scientists or their results.
I feel like the cop that's pulled over someone for a broken tail light, only to have them start screaming that they weren't the one that killed that girl, that the handgun under the seat is for hunting, and that the tarp-wrapped bundle in the trunk is NOT a dead body.
Are you this up in arms when it comes to attempting to use religion as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace?
Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
--Jeremy
Who is "up in arms" here?
I don't think anything should be *forced* on the populace in general against their will, whether the perceived results by those proposing it might be overall good or bad. That is for the populace as a group to decide, both the thing in question and whether the result is "good" or "bad".
I took no sides as to what/which science/scientists or which ideologies or political viewpoints. I simply noted that there exists ideologically & politically driven science and scientists, for which I was speedily modded as "Troll".
Is this no longer true? Has basic human nature been fundamentally & massively changed in the last few days and I didn't get the memo?
I wasn't aware that the simple existence of scientists and scientific theories that are politically/ideologically driven was in debate.
The people who complain loudest about politicization of science usually are in reality complaining that science isn't politicized in the way they'd like it to be.
So, anyone that complains (which I did not...I merely noted the existence) about politicized science or scientists is automatically wrong & biased?
"You disagree with me, so you are automatically wrong and should be silenced, and your opinions, research, & facts ignored!"
I think it's more basic than that. Any ideology followed closely and long enough leads to unthinking behavior and beliefs.
Including... science.
Except science isn't an ideology.
Except that many DO make "science" an ideology, particularly when attempting to use science as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace.
Strat
Why is this modded "Troll"?? I'm genuinely curious.
It's not like this hasn't happened many times in the past, and will most likely continue in the future.
Is it now heresy to suggest that politicians politicize science and so do ideologically-driven scientists?
I think it's more basic than that. Any ideology followed closely and long enough leads to unthinking behavior and beliefs.
Including... science.
Except science isn't an ideology.
Except that many DO make "science" an ideology, particularly when attempting to use science as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace.
What's really needed here is something to take as much political influence out of the process as possible, and to eliminate as far as possible the resulting laws'/regulations' ability to be used to control/silence speech.
Many people feel the internet is another world. I'd agree with this basic concept with the exception that at this point the internet is more like another country and deserves it's own Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to grow, prosper for all, and fulfill the promise the internet holds for every human on the planets' future.
We need something along the lines of an Internet Constitution & Bill of Rights amended to the US Constitution setting out specific duties, powers, & limits to what the government, ISPs, and backbone providers may do along with a set of basic individual rights for the internet.
We don't need to re-classify the internet under telco regulations or pass some massive multi-thousand-page monstrosity of a bill that will be a political payoff and power-grab by *somebody* in the end, with very little to address the actual concerns of most here while almost certainly making things worse in multiple ways for most internet users.
Unfortunately, the only way I can see getting something that isn't a power/wealth grab by one political/corporate interest or another is to have it be a grassroots movement of some sort, as anything coming from politicians of any stripe is nearly guaranteed to be corrupt, or at least end up corrupted by the time it's passed. It would have to be a powerful enough popular demand to overcome fierce resistance from the entire political/governmental structure.
The vile teabaggers are the only ones that care about keeping all those poor, underprivileged workers out of the US where they can be happy and safe.
Everyone else wants either the cheap labor, their faithful votes (as soon as they are citizens) or just want to feel good about helping some underprivileged folks actually earn some money. When the lowest wage they can earn in the US is 10x what they could ever earn in a month in Mexico, it is awfully hard to keep them on their subsistance farms.
The new fact for people is there simply is no border. When 120,000 people a year (at least) are streaming through Arizona alone, you can't really call that a border, now can you?
The vile teabaggers
I stopped reading right there.
Go away, vile troll.
Strat
Now, how is it I'm modded as "Off Topic" when the parent post is not off topic, and I specifically replied to that post?
OP started with a gratuitous and broad ad-hominem. I guess that kind of detestable behavior is now OK for people expressing government-approved viewpoints, and dissenting voices silenced.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Was George Orwell buried in California by any chance? Hopefully so, as they could solve their power problems by just wrapping some wire around the casket containing his spinning corpse.
There is no way the US will ever pay this money back and with the current balance of trade with China, there is no way we can buy our way out.
Going by the actions of the US government and the Federal Reserve & US Treasury Dept, it appears that the plan is to inflate our currency such that it reduces the actual value of the US debt China holds.
The US seems to be following in the footsteps of the failed Weimar Republic economic model.
This *would* reduce the US debt China holds (along with any other entity that holds US debt instruments) to a pile of near-worthless paper. Not so good for the US population in general (think wheelbarrow of $100 bills to buy a loaf of bread) but that's not really high on the list of concerns for those in power. They will protect their own wealth.
Watch some of the video of the unrest in Greece. That will be the US soon, as the debt avalanche rolls across the Western economies from Greece to Italy, France, Germany, the UK, etc to finally roost in the US. The current size & cost of government and the endless entitlements used to buy votes is unsustainable, and when this economic tsunami hits, things will not remain the same regarding quality of life & lifestyles.
I agree 100%.. but I also have to wonder WHY it is up to the site to prevent US users from accessing it. If it is legal in his country, but not in others, how is it HIS responsibility to police its' use in those other countries?
That's an easy one.
Because media/copyright/patent/corporate interests paid politicians enough to do their bidding and ignore any little trifles like sovereignty and individual rights getting in the way of their agenda. The politicians see it as a win-win, as the same mechanisms can be used to suppress political opposition that is savvy enough to locate itself and/or any data outside the home country.
Everybody's a winner!
Well, as long as you define "everyone" as corporations, special interests, & governments/politicians. After all, people are just there to do what they're told, provide cannon fodder when needed, and confiscate wealth from under threat of death/imprisonment.
There's a larger problem with the whole thing, though; he is being investigated, and yet he is issuing a subpoena related, possibly, to that investigation. There's only a few possible motives for him doing such a thing, and not many of them are to help along the investigation of himself. Thus why independent prosecutors exist, and should be used for this sort of thing; the investigation of Clinton is about the closest situation I can think of at the moment--his AG couldn't be in on it because he's a Cabinet member, appointed by and serving at the leisure of the President--thus, easily influenced by him, making him possibly ineffective at the job.
If you then make it a condition that no AG or politician that may be under some kind of investigation can perform essential functions of their office (and for AG, investigations & prosecutions are a major part), then you've effectively shut down nearly all oversight and curbs on corruption. If you're a political player that thinks you may be on the investigative radar, just get the officials behind it embroiled in some meaningless charges. If the investigation gets too close, just scream about "possible conflicts".
Technically, *any* investigation *may* touch upon some other matter or investigation. How does one know unless one investigates? If it could be proven he had some foreknowledge that the investigation he launched had ties to his own investigation...well, there are already-existing policies and laws to handle such things for this exact reason, right?
Normally, if an AG/prosecutor/etc starts an investigation and it comes to light *after* the investigation starts that there may be a conflict he was previously unaware of, he would recuse himself and the case/investigation/prosecution continues. If a state AG cannot investigate anyone from the other party, that would give free rein for that party to be as corrupt and criminal as they want without fear.
Why does it seem like every time a conservative, with no clear and/or credible evidence of any wrongdoing on his part regarding the investigation in question, is in charge of an investigation regarding a Progressive, the cry is "there is nothing to prove he is NOT violating ethical/legal standards and should be attacked/investigated/prosecuted!" and when the shoe is on the other political foot, any suggestion that there may be conflicts of interest/corruption is viciously attacked, even when there is video/audio/blatant evidence that the suspicions are true?
Personally, I feel that those on the Progressive Left that scream the loudest and are most outraged when they are investigated for blatant corruption, etc are that upset & vocal not so much because of what an investigation may reveal, but they are outraged because of their arrogant attitude that THEY are on the ones who investigate OTHERS, and how dare they? THEY are only dumb hicks "clinging to their God and their guns" that should be electing us as rulers for life, like our good Progressive friend Hugo!
The USA was a great nation long before Progressiveism, and if we survive, will be a great nation again without it.
Strat
Wow, the Progressive astroturf/modding operations must be in full panic mode these days trying to silence all the voices asking inconvenient questions and pointing out inconvenient facts.
Nothing that a few weeks in the hospital can't fix, anyway.
Sorry, you must be confusing conservatives with SEIU/AFLCIO thugs.
Those on the Progressive Left are the ones that employ bused-in union thugs to gang-beat peaceful non-violent middle-aged black vendors at opposition rallies while spewing racist epithets, then go on to cry on TV about how dangerous/violent their opposition is, and that they are somehow the ones to blame for violence. How "Progressive" of them, eh?
"Loudly accuse your opponent of all the dirty tricks you yourself use even if they do not" has been a mainstay of Progressive tactics since it's birth, along with silencing opposition by any means necessary.
It's a fact demonstrated again and again throughout history; the larger a government is, and the more a government provides, the less freedom there will be and the more dissent of any kind will be silenced/punished.
What the Tea Party/Town Hall protesters should do is keep a stash of various union T-shirts, buttons, and caps. Then, when the thugs start rolling the buses in, pass out identical shirts, buttons, and caps to Tea Party members with bullhorns with orders to sow mass confusion among the thugs with conflicting commands, etc before they can hurt anyone.
That would make a totally hilarious YouTube video!:D
Strat
I disagree!=Troll.
Looks like the Progressive astroturf mods aren't in any danger of being unemployed, though the Progressive politicians will find themselves suddenly "in the private sector" after this coming November.
Sorry, you must be confusing conservatives with SEIU/AFLCIO thugs.
Those on the Progressive Left are the ones that employ bused-in union thugs to gang-beat peaceful non-violent middle-aged black vendors at opposition rallies while spewing racist epithets,
I don't *have to* make up things about Progressives and their SEIU brownshirt enforcers. The reality is usually far worse than anything I could make up.
I guess it's dangerous for a black man to wander off the Liberal/Progressive "plantation". I can just hear Obama now; "what we have heah....is a failure...to communicate..."
The worst part is that these violent, racist SEIU thugs ended up being charged with...wait for it...disturbing the peace! Not assault OR battery, which this clearly was, nor were hate-crime charges brought which, last I knew, beating someone while screaming racist epithets at them qualifies for. Nor are any unions going to be charged with any RICO or other organized crime charges which AFAICT would be what those laws were designed for.
Oooh, that's right! Silly me! Those laws are for oppressing the proles & little people, not Progressives and their union enforcer-goons. Gotta keep those blacks from getting uppity and wandering off the Liberal/Progressive plantation!
Slashdot Mirror
you are insane. "environmental interests were largely responsible"???? BP rushed their work and blew up their rig. period
You mean the rig and the well that wouldn't have needed to exist in the first place if the lower-hanging fruit of shallower-water operations weren't prohibited or regulated into economic and/or compliance unviability?
For that matter, there are plenty of oil & gas deposits right in the continental US & Alaska that remain untapped due to environmental concerns. At least for the next century or more, oil & gas will remain necessary to maintain our standard of living and level of technology & civilization, never mind simply feeding everyone.
There will be accidents. There will be causes from greed and negligence to apathy and stupidity, as well as simply not being able to predict many things. This will never change because humans are not perfect so neither can their creations be.
It boils down to a compromise between deposit size, difficulty/cost, how difficult the site is to both monitor for potential trouble, and what damage a spill could cause versus the ability to quickly correct and clean the site. The regulatory framework has skewed the normal weighting of those factors such that now wells are being drilled at the very limits of our ability to reach undersea with limited ability to do much of anything at those depths when there are much safer places on dry land that sit untapped.
Strat
The easy oil is gone, they're having to drill in 5000 feet of water now, so of course there will be a next time.
No, the "easy" oil is there in nice, safe, relatively shallow water where leaks/spills etc would be comparatively trivial to deal with, but environmental interests have forced rigs further and further offshore in an attempt to effectively halt/limit offshore oil drilling by making it too expensive & difficult for the oil companies, while being able to claim they're not trying to stop offshore drilling, just being good stewards of the planet.
So, rather than having a shallow-water rig where any leak or blowout can be swiftly, safely, and effectively dealt with, we have the current situation. I'm sure the wildlife that has and will die, along with the fishing and tourist industries, appreciates the intentions, just maybe not the outcome so much.
Strat
FAIL!
Are you seriously trying to pin the blame the results of BPs shortcuts and inherent disregard for the safety of he environment on environmentalists?
Not at all.
I'm "pinning the blame" on the "law of unintended consequences" resulting from poorly thought-out policies. That it so happens that environmental interests were largely responsible for this particular unintended consequence just proves that the law of unintended consequences doesn't play favorites.
Strat
The easy oil is gone, they're having to drill in 5000 feet of water now, so of course there will be a next time.
No, the "easy" oil is there in nice, safe, relatively shallow water where leaks/spills etc would be comparatively trivial to deal with, but environmental interests have forced rigs further and further offshore in an attempt to effectively halt/limit offshore oil drilling by making it too expensive & difficult for the oil companies, while being able to claim they're not trying to stop offshore drilling, just being good stewards of the planet.
So, rather than having a shallow-water rig where any leak or blowout can be swiftly, safely, and effectively dealt with, we have the current situation. I'm sure the wildlife that has and will die, along with the fishing and tourist industries, appreciates the intentions, just maybe not the outcome so much.
Strat
You're talking about "research and facts", so let's see what you've got to support your position. Otherwise, your troll moderation was wholly deserved.
There's plenty of research and facts that don't jive with the current AGW theories. There are enough that some at the CRU, according to their own emails, made efforts to prevent their publication in peer-reviewed journals by attempts to redefine what qualified as a peer-reviewed journal, as well as using the threat of doing so to dissuade journals. A quick Google search will return plenty of credible scientists and science that disagrees in whole or in part with current AGW theories. If you want it, go get it yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you.
It's funny how any scientists, even those with decades-long track records of solid science, who dare criticize the research in any way are suddenly redefined as "irrelevant", "unqualified", "biased", and their research, even if sound, is ignored at best and suppressed at worst. That's not the way science uses to validate the correctness of a scientific theory. That IS the way, however, that propagandists use to suppress dissent and debate.
There's also the inconvenient fact that even if we did away with cars, coal power, most everything that produces CO2 that we take for granted that sustains our modern society, the total global change in temperature and rate of rise would be insignificant compared to projected increases. Other countries such as India and China won't agree to anything that hurts their continued economic expansion, so the US going to pre-industrial levels still wouldn't result in even a meaningful slowing in global temperature increase.
The more data I see on solar activity correlated with temperature changes & CO2 levels, the more I'm convinced that solar activity owns the lions' share of responsibility for global surface temperature changes, particularly since a timeline shows the CO2 levels rose after the increases in temperature and solar activity, which tended to track together well.
With all the very credible (read: credible under standards accepted for most any other scientific topic of research) contrary data and research out there, calling things "case closed" on AGW EITHER WAY is illogical.
It's not that I refuse to accept that AGW is possible, only that the science hasn't proved it sufficiently to warrant the enormous costs in lost lives, drastic reductions in living standards, wealth, individual freedoms, and continued technological advancement.
I'm sorry, but causing the suffering of untold millions, even billions, worldwide by implementing the carbon-reduction targets proposed domestically and internationally (not to mention the wealth taken from economies by the carbon trading exchange(s), speculators, brokers, trading houses, etc that, by coincidence, have heavy ties to those pushing carbon trading) then you'd better have damn good, easily verifiable proof that it's absolutely vital and not another power and wealth grab based on bad science.
We haven't seen that yet.
Strat
"I strongly disagree"!=="Troll"
Are you this up in arms when it comes to attempting to use religion as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace?
Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
--Jeremy
Who is "up in arms" here?
I don't think anything should be *forced* on the populace in general against their will, whether the perceived results by those proposing it might be overall good or bad. That is for the populace as a group to decide, both the thing in question and whether the result is "good" or "bad".
I took no sides as to what/which science/scientists or which ideologies or political viewpoints. I simply noted that there exists ideologically & politically driven science and scientists, for which I was speedily modded as "Troll".
Is this no longer true? Has basic human nature been fundamentally & massively changed in the last few days and I didn't get the memo?
I wasn't aware that the simple existence of scientists and scientific theories that are politically/ideologically driven was in debate.
Strat
"I strongly disagree"!=="Troll"
What the hell? Since when does the *Jury* want this to stop?
Since they figured out co-opting the support of an un-pollable but publicly respected group was good propaganda. Woodrow Wilson would be proud. The US is where propaganda in modern times was raised to a near-artform. Heck, Goebbels learned much about creating & using propaganda from the Wilson administration.
Strat
Then why in $DEITY's name would you ever think the government would pass cap-and-trade and/or other CO2 reduction legislation that actually addressed any of the root problems, rather than being yet another wealth-and-power grab that leaves the average person with less money and fewer freedoms and choices?
Answer A) I'll believe that when I actually see it. These bills have not been passed, and it's pretty clear that the politicians and lobbyists bought by big oil are out to stop them.
Wait, you said the government and politicians were in the pocket of "Big Oil". Now there are some that are *not* in the pocket of "Big Oil"? News Flash: they *all* take money from "Big Oil". The proposed cap-and-trade schemes can't achieve any meaningful CO2 reductions or affect any climate trends any significant amount even if the whole world implemented the policies, and especially not with a very large part of the world (India, China, etc, etc) not participating. We'd be throwing away lives and wealth all to achieve very, very little except make those already rich & powerful even more so, while selling ourselves into government servitude.
So what's left is an enormous reduction in the standard of living and a huge tax & regulatory drag on Western economies and populations coupled with an enormous transfer of wealth to third-world and some second-world countries. This in turn will result in the US not able to afford superpower-class military and economic power that keeps aggressive countries at bay, that vacuum being quickly filled by China and Russia. But that's OK because living in a world ruled by China and/or Russia would be great.
Right?
Strat
"Big Government" is mostly controlled by the same people as the "Big Oil" and that is the problem.
Then why in $DEITY's name would you ever think the government would pass cap-and-trade and/or other CO2 reduction legislation that actually addressed any of the root problems, rather than being yet another wealth-and-power grab that leaves the average person with less money and fewer freedoms and choices?
Oops?
Strat
some (many) pro-agw people have been saying for a couple of years that man-made co2 has caused temps to increase but the lack of solar activity has negated the increase so we don't see an increase in measured temps. People who want agw to be true say "yeah, that sounds good". People on the other side say "that's convenient". Fortunately there are scientists on both sides who say "this needs to be explained and tested (empirically as well as with models"
And those scientists are immediately and viciously personally attacked, grants terminated under pro-AGW pressure, their careers destroyed, they and their family harassed, and become shunned by peers afraid of similar repercussions.
There is far, far too much money at stake for those in favor of carbon trading, increased government control, higher energy taxes, etc to let a few scientific facts get in the way of the trillions of dollars in wealth redistribution that will result if they can successfully implement their agendas.
The pro-AGW crowd is quick to try to invalidate opposing arguments and individuals by claiming it/they have been paid for by "Big Oil" and so are biased, but they never seem to be bothered by scientists & research funded by "Big Government" which has an equal (arguably even greater) stake in the outcome, and is run by politicians who, nearly by definition, are lying, corrupt dirtbags that would sell their own mother down the river for wealth & power.
Strat
You're talking about "research and facts", so let's see what you've got to support your position. Otherwise, your troll moderation was wholly deserved.
There's plenty of research and facts that don't jive with the current AGW theories. There are enough that some at the CRU, according to their own emails, made efforts to prevent their publication in peer-reviewed journals by attempts to redefine what qualified as a peer-reviewed journal, as well as using the threat of doing so to dissuade journals. A quick Google search will return plenty of credible scientists and science that disagrees in whole or in part with current AGW theories. If you want it, go get it yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you.
It's funny how any scientists, even those with decades-long track records of solid science, who dare criticize the research in any way are suddenly redefined as "irrelevant", "unqualified", "biased", and their research, even if sound, is ignored at best and suppressed at worst. That's not the way science uses to validate the correctness of a scientific theory. That IS the way, however, that propagandists use to suppress dissent and debate.
There's also the inconvenient fact that even if we did away with cars, coal power, most everything that produces CO2 that we take for granted that sustains our modern society, the total global change in temperature and rate of rise would be insignificant compared to projected increases. Other countries such as India and China won't agree to anything that hurts their continued economic expansion, so the US going to pre-industrial levels still wouldn't result in even a meaningful slowing in global temperature increase.
The more data I see on solar activity correlated with temperature changes & CO2 levels, the more I'm convinced that solar activity owns the lions' share of responsibility for global surface temperature changes, particularly since a timeline shows the CO2 levels rose after the increases in temperature and solar activity, which tended to track together well.
With all the very credible (read: credible under standards accepted for most any other scientific topic of research) contrary data and research out there, calling things "case closed" on AGW EITHER WAY is illogical.
It's not that I refuse to accept that AGW is possible, only that the science hasn't proved it sufficiently to warrant the enormous costs in lost lives, drastic reductions in living standards, wealth, individual freedoms, and continued technological advancement.
I'm sorry, but causing the suffering of untold millions, even billions, worldwide by implementing the carbon-reduction targets proposed domestically and internationally (not to mention the wealth taken from economies by the carbon trading exchange(s), speculators, brokers, trading houses, etc that, by coincidence, have heavy ties to those pushing carbon trading) then you'd better have damn good, easily verifiable proof that it's absolutely vital and not another power and wealth grab based on bad science.
We haven't seen that yet.
Strat
...a massively high data cap, such as a quarter of a terabyte per month?
That depends on who is doing the defining of "massively high" and for how long into the future we're talking, doesn't it?
As many have already mentioned in other posts, 250GB/mo isn't that much these days even without p2p, and I sure don't see that trend reversing or even slowing. I wonder how "cloud computing" and bandwidth caps will work out?
Strat
Because it's a transparent shot at climate change science, implying that it's all a conspiracy.
A "transparent shot" only if one feels so extremely insecure in their position such that in their paranoia they see a threat or criticism in any mention of human fallibility in regards to scientists or their results.
I feel like the cop that's pulled over someone for a broken tail light, only to have them start screaming that they weren't the one that killed that girl, that the handgun under the seat is for hunting, and that the tarp-wrapped bundle in the trunk is NOT a dead body.
Strat
Are you this up in arms when it comes to attempting to use religion as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace?
Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.
--Jeremy
Who is "up in arms" here?
I don't think anything should be *forced* on the populace in general against their will, whether the perceived results by those proposing it might be overall good or bad. That is for the populace as a group to decide, both the thing in question and whether the result is "good" or "bad".
I took no sides as to what/which science/scientists or which ideologies or political viewpoints. I simply noted that there exists ideologically & politically driven science and scientists, for which I was speedily modded as "Troll".
Is this no longer true? Has basic human nature been fundamentally & massively changed in the last few days and I didn't get the memo?
I wasn't aware that the simple existence of scientists and scientific theories that are politically/ideologically driven was in debate.
Strat
The people who complain loudest about politicization of science usually are in reality complaining that science isn't politicized in the way they'd like it to be.
So, anyone that complains (which I did not...I merely noted the existence) about politicized science or scientists is automatically wrong & biased?
"You disagree with me, so you are automatically wrong and should be silenced, and your opinions, research, & facts ignored!"
Gotta love circular arguments!
Strat
I think it's more basic than that. Any ideology followed closely and long enough leads to unthinking behavior and beliefs.
Including... science.
Except science isn't an ideology.
Except that many DO make "science" an ideology, particularly when attempting to use science as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace.
Strat
Why is this modded "Troll"?? I'm genuinely curious.
It's not like this hasn't happened many times in the past, and will most likely continue in the future.
Is it now heresy to suggest that politicians politicize science and so do ideologically-driven scientists?
Strat
I think it's more basic than that. Any ideology followed closely and long enough leads to unthinking behavior and beliefs.
Including... science.
Except science isn't an ideology.
Except that many DO make "science" an ideology, particularly when attempting to use science as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace.
Strat
Strat
What's really needed here is something to take as much political influence out of the process as possible, and to eliminate as far as possible the resulting laws'/regulations' ability to be used to control/silence speech.
Many people feel the internet is another world. I'd agree with this basic concept with the exception that at this point the internet is more like another country and deserves it's own Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to grow, prosper for all, and fulfill the promise the internet holds for every human on the planets' future.
We need something along the lines of an Internet Constitution & Bill of Rights amended to the US Constitution setting out specific duties, powers, & limits to what the government, ISPs, and backbone providers may do along with a set of basic individual rights for the internet.
We don't need to re-classify the internet under telco regulations or pass some massive multi-thousand-page monstrosity of a bill that will be a political payoff and power-grab by *somebody* in the end, with very little to address the actual concerns of most here while almost certainly making things worse in multiple ways for most internet users.
Unfortunately, the only way I can see getting something that isn't a power/wealth grab by one political/corporate interest or another is to have it be a grassroots movement of some sort, as anything coming from politicians of any stripe is nearly guaranteed to be corrupt, or at least end up corrupted by the time it's passed. It would have to be a powerful enough popular demand to overcome fierce resistance from the entire political/governmental structure.
Well, one can dream.
Strat
The vile teabaggers are the only ones that care about keeping all those poor, underprivileged workers out of the US where they can be happy and safe.
Everyone else wants either the cheap labor, their faithful votes (as soon as they are citizens) or just want to feel good about helping some underprivileged folks actually earn some money. When the lowest wage they can earn in the US is 10x what they could ever earn in a month in Mexico, it is awfully hard to keep them on their subsistance farms.
The new fact for people is there simply is no border. When 120,000 people a year (at least) are streaming through Arizona alone, you can't really call that a border, now can you?
The vile teabaggers
I stopped reading right there.
Go away, vile troll.
Strat
Now, how is it I'm modded as "Off Topic" when the parent post is not off topic, and I specifically replied to that post?
OP started with a gratuitous and broad ad-hominem. I guess that kind of detestable behavior is now OK for people expressing government-approved viewpoints, and dissenting voices silenced.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Was George Orwell buried in California by any chance? Hopefully so, as they could solve their power problems by just wrapping some wire around the casket containing his spinning corpse.
Strat
If they don't mind that I reply with a Heckler and Koch...
I don't think even an H&K has a large enough magazine capacity.
Maybe several banks of General Dynamics miniguns belt-fed from a deuce-and-a-half or six?
Nah.
Take off and nuke the facilities from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Strat
There is no way the US will ever pay this money back and with the current balance of trade with China, there is no way we can buy our way out.
Going by the actions of the US government and the Federal Reserve & US Treasury Dept, it appears that the plan is to inflate our currency such that it reduces the actual value of the US debt China holds.
The US seems to be following in the footsteps of the failed Weimar Republic economic model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
This *would* reduce the US debt China holds (along with any other entity that holds US debt instruments) to a pile of near-worthless paper. Not so good for the US population in general (think wheelbarrow of $100 bills to buy a loaf of bread) but that's not really high on the list of concerns for those in power. They will protect their own wealth.
Watch some of the video of the unrest in Greece. That will be the US soon, as the debt avalanche rolls across the Western economies from Greece to Italy, France, Germany, the UK, etc to finally roost in the US. The current size & cost of government and the endless entitlements used to buy votes is unsustainable, and when this economic tsunami hits, things will not remain the same regarding quality of life & lifestyles.
Strat
The vile teabaggers
I stopped reading right there.
Go away, vile troll.
Strat
I agree 100%.. but I also have to wonder WHY it is up to the site to prevent US users from accessing it. If it is legal in his country, but not in others, how is it HIS responsibility to police its' use in those other countries?
That's an easy one.
Because media/copyright/patent/corporate interests paid politicians enough to do their bidding and ignore any little trifles like sovereignty and individual rights getting in the way of their agenda. The politicians see it as a win-win, as the same mechanisms can be used to suppress political opposition that is savvy enough to locate itself and/or any data outside the home country.
Everybody's a winner!
Well, as long as you define "everyone" as corporations, special interests, & governments/politicians. After all, people are just there to do what they're told, provide cannon fodder when needed, and confiscate wealth from under threat of death/imprisonment.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Strat
There's a larger problem with the whole thing, though; he is being investigated, and yet he is issuing a subpoena related, possibly, to that investigation. There's only a few possible motives for him doing such a thing, and not many of them are to help along the investigation of himself. Thus why independent prosecutors exist, and should be used for this sort of thing; the investigation of Clinton is about the closest situation I can think of at the moment--his AG couldn't be in on it because he's a Cabinet member, appointed by and serving at the leisure of the President--thus, easily influenced by him, making him possibly ineffective at the job.
If you then make it a condition that no AG or politician that may be under some kind of investigation can perform essential functions of their office (and for AG, investigations & prosecutions are a major part), then you've effectively shut down nearly all oversight and curbs on corruption. If you're a political player that thinks you may be on the investigative radar, just get the officials behind it embroiled in some meaningless charges. If the investigation gets too close, just scream about "possible conflicts".
Technically, *any* investigation *may* touch upon some other matter or investigation. How does one know unless one investigates? If it could be proven he had some foreknowledge that the investigation he launched had ties to his own investigation...well, there are already-existing policies and laws to handle such things for this exact reason, right?
Normally, if an AG/prosecutor/etc starts an investigation and it comes to light *after* the investigation starts that there may be a conflict he was previously unaware of, he would recuse himself and the case/investigation/prosecution continues. If a state AG cannot investigate anyone from the other party, that would give free rein for that party to be as corrupt and criminal as they want without fear.
Why does it seem like every time a conservative, with no clear and/or credible evidence of any wrongdoing on his part regarding the investigation in question, is in charge of an investigation regarding a Progressive, the cry is "there is nothing to prove he is NOT violating ethical/legal standards and should be attacked/investigated/prosecuted!" and when the shoe is on the other political foot, any suggestion that there may be conflicts of interest/corruption is viciously attacked, even when there is video/audio/blatant evidence that the suspicions are true?
Personally, I feel that those on the Progressive Left that scream the loudest and are most outraged when they are investigated for blatant corruption, etc are that upset & vocal not so much because of what an investigation may reveal, but they are outraged because of their arrogant attitude that THEY are on the ones who investigate OTHERS, and how dare they? THEY are only dumb hicks "clinging to their God and their guns" that should be electing us as rulers for life, like our good Progressive friend Hugo!
The USA was a great nation long before Progressiveism, and if we survive, will be a great nation again without it.
Strat
Wow, the Progressive astroturf/modding operations must be in full panic mode these days trying to silence all the voices asking inconvenient questions and pointing out inconvenient facts.
Again, I disagree!=Troll.
Strat
nothing will happen to him.
Nothing that a few weeks in the hospital can't fix, anyway.
Sorry, you must be confusing conservatives with SEIU/AFLCIO thugs.
Those on the Progressive Left are the ones that employ bused-in union thugs to gang-beat peaceful non-violent middle-aged black vendors at opposition rallies while spewing racist epithets, then go on to cry on TV about how dangerous/violent their opposition is, and that they are somehow the ones to blame for violence. How "Progressive" of them, eh?
"Loudly accuse your opponent of all the dirty tricks you yourself use even if they do not" has been a mainstay of Progressive tactics since it's birth, along with silencing opposition by any means necessary.
It's a fact demonstrated again and again throughout history; the larger a government is, and the more a government provides, the less freedom there will be and the more dissent of any kind will be silenced/punished.
What the Tea Party/Town Hall protesters should do is keep a stash of various union T-shirts, buttons, and caps. Then, when the thugs start rolling the buses in, pass out identical shirts, buttons, and caps to Tea Party members with bullhorns with orders to sow mass confusion among the thugs with conflicting commands, etc before they can hurt anyone.
That would make a totally hilarious YouTube video! :D
Strat
I disagree!=Troll.
Looks like the Progressive astroturf mods aren't in any danger of being unemployed, though the Progressive politicians will find themselves suddenly "in the private sector" after this coming November.
Strat
Sorry, you must be confusing conservatives with SEIU/AFLCIO thugs.
Those on the Progressive Left are the ones that employ bused-in union thugs to gang-beat peaceful non-violent middle-aged black vendors at opposition rallies while spewing racist epithets,
Interesting the way you just make up facts.
Make up facts? O RLY?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=seiu+beats+black+man&aq=0
I don't *have to* make up things about Progressives and their SEIU brownshirt enforcers. The reality is usually far worse than anything I could make up.
I guess it's dangerous for a black man to wander off the Liberal/Progressive "plantation". I can just hear Obama now; "what we have heah....is a failure...to communicate..."
The worst part is that these violent, racist SEIU thugs ended up being charged with...wait for it...disturbing the peace! Not assault OR battery, which this clearly was, nor were hate-crime charges brought which, last I knew, beating someone while screaming racist epithets at them qualifies for. Nor are any unions going to be charged with any RICO or other organized crime charges which AFAICT would be what those laws were designed for.
Oooh, that's right! Silly me! Those laws are for oppressing the proles & little people, not Progressives and their union enforcer-goons. Gotta keep those blacks from getting uppity and wandering off the Liberal/Progressive plantation!
Some animals are more equal than others.
Strat