"What kind of a society isn't structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm." -- Milton Friedman
Not to mention that *most* of the CO2 hype is largely based on computer models... Models are useful tools, but while most scientists apparently agree that we have global warming, even more agree that you cannot accurately model climate yet. And some even suggest that it will likely never be possible.
Models are especially cool since climate is a 10-15 year deal, by the time you can measure the accuracy of your model, it's long forgotten and you already got your money and 15 minutes of media fame for saying the collective farting power of krill will cause the next ice age.
There is a lot of good climate science being done, don't get me wrong. But given how political the issue has become, there is also a giganormous load of bullshit being peddled as science too. And apparently, all you need is pictures of polar bears to disable most bullshit radars.
There's a bit of a nuance here between law and right...
But hey, rights nowadays are the catch-all for anything privilege the people feel entitled to and unwilling to accept any of the attached strings. It's like the right to healthcare and the right to welfare.
I'm pretty sure the law decides what is legal, and your rights are confined to those legal bounds. At least in a free society where your rights aren't a property of your government and theirs to give or take away.
I guess I could disclaim this with IANAL, though I'd love ANAL to give his/her take on this.
You have peer reviewed evidence that the upper atmosphere is warming faster than the lower atmosphere?
Even the pro-man-made crowd says that the upper atmosphere isn't warming as fast as the surface. As I said before, I'm not saying that one side is more right than the other, but the political half-truths are really getting to me.
Libertarians, true to their principle, save their modpoints instead of borrowing on relying on the social safety net to give them what they want.
On the global warming bit, I'm no expert but here's my take if I follow the *political* information: 1- Humans activity emits is responsible for the *majority* of the increase in atmospheric CO2. (Confirm with experimental data.) 2- CO2 is a greenhouse gass, the earth is warming due to greenhouse effect. (Confirm with experimental data.) 3- Greenouse effect results in an increase, first in the upper atmosphere, then lower atmosphere. (Confirm with experimental data)
I think there's a bit of a drift between the experimental data and the political data. I'd rather be convinced by scientific data that we're all going to die due to the greenhouse result of our CO2 emissions, is this really too much to ask? Or at the very very least, please, use scientifically accurate political reasons, that way I can be mindlessly scared the world is going to end because of the actual truth.
In the meantime, I'll focus on things like deforestation, habitat depletion, etc... You know, things that would incidently restore some of the carbon sink if there is indeed a problem with CO2 at the same time as it solves *real* ecological problems.
The problem comes when you depend on one thing and increase the percentage more and more. For example, the world current depends on Coal, oil and natural gas. It is adding FAR more additional CO2 than all the natural processes such as Volcano's, space, etc. Had we added only 1% new CO2, we would not have issues.
You might want to check the veracity of that statement...
1% of anything is RARELY an issue, and I doubt that it will be here.
You probably also should note that CO2 is 0.0383% of the earth's atmosphere.
After all, it isn't like the greedy bribe takers are gonna say "No, I don't want those buckets full of money. Let's pass a law that makes this bribery the treasonous act that it is!". Never gonna happen, cap'n.
Well, it wouldn't work on someone like Ron Paul, but I get your point... Maybe getting a good government involves the tedious task of finding someone with (and capable of retaining) principles. Supporting that person and especially those principles no matter how futile it seems, fighting the good fight, being vocal about wrongdoings, etc.
Sure this is all idealist speak, but you know what happens from lack idealism? You settle for second best, then third best, then the shit you're enduring today, and finally the even worse stuff waiting for you tomorrow.
I find it ironic that some people think there is such a thing as a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' in politics nowadays. It's all political posturing while grinding away at the exact same agenda. Let's get people divided shall we? That way one side both sides think the politicians are actually fighting for them.
I'm talking about centralization of powers by the state. Be it under the guise of ever increasing socialism or all out communism.
The gradual centralization we see here will lead to something more akin to fascism, not communism.
Then again, maybe the joke hit a bit too close to home, I thought the obvious exaggeration would have been a good enough clue that I wasn't so much making an argument as being humorous.
As a clarification of the 'more seriously' bit of my post though, I wasn't referring to communism, just the state taking over everything it can get its hands on, call it whatever you want it won't make much of a difference what name you give it in the end.
You have a point, but I don't think the problem is so much the 'for profit' bit as the 'country for sale' bit. Government in bed with (selling out to) corporations is textbook fascism. Politicians who love their country would not be selling it out to the highest bidder. Then again, politicians tend to love power not their country.
Bottom line here is that there are great constitutional safeguards against this. The people just forgot that *they* are the government (you know, government of the people bit) so they just let the buffoons on the hill do whatever they want without demanding any accountability.
You should be worried about pinko commies... Nationalizing banking, insurance, healthcare, education, car manufacturing, transportation, your corner store.;) Just face it dude, they won... Oh wait, I have to go get these damn kids off my lawn.
More seriously though, even the russians are shaking their heads at what's going on. Germans who are old enough to remember too.
Slashdot Mirror
For lack of mod point, amen to you both.
Don't sweat it dude, they just want to make sure Ron Paul doesn't win in 2012.
"What kind of a society isn't structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm."
-- Milton Friedman
Not to mention that *most* of the CO2 hype is largely based on computer models... Models are useful tools, but while most scientists apparently agree that we have global warming, even more agree that you cannot accurately model climate yet. And some even suggest that it will likely never be possible.
Models are especially cool since climate is a 10-15 year deal, by the time you can measure the accuracy of your model, it's long forgotten and you already got your money and 15 minutes of media fame for saying the collective farting power of krill will cause the next ice age.
There is a lot of good climate science being done, don't get me wrong. But given how political the issue has become, there is also a giganormous load of bullshit being peddled as science too. And apparently, all you need is pictures of polar bears to disable most bullshit radars.
so the government does not consider the weapon a threat
This statement says so much...
The government doesn't do obvious. Their solution is therefore to make many many many more activities that happen in front of a camera illegal.
There's a bit of a nuance here between law and right...
But hey, rights nowadays are the catch-all for anything privilege the people feel entitled to and unwilling to accept any of the attached strings. It's like the right to healthcare and the right to welfare.
I'm pretty sure the law decides what is legal, and your rights are confined to those legal bounds. At least in a free society where your rights aren't a property of your government and theirs to give or take away.
I guess I could disclaim this with IANAL, though I'd love ANAL to give his/her take on this.
This is the result of Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions trying to delegate more of their work to computer systems.
You have peer reviewed evidence that the upper atmosphere is warming faster than the lower atmosphere?
Even the pro-man-made crowd says that the upper atmosphere isn't warming as fast as the surface. As I said before, I'm not saying that one side is more right than the other, but the political half-truths are really getting to me.
Libertarians, true to their principle, save their modpoints instead of borrowing on relying on the social safety net to give them what they want.
On the global warming bit, I'm no expert but here's my take if I follow the *political* information:
1- Humans activity emits is responsible for the *majority* of the increase in atmospheric CO2. (Confirm with experimental data.)
2- CO2 is a greenhouse gass, the earth is warming due to greenhouse effect. (Confirm with experimental data.)
3- Greenouse effect results in an increase, first in the upper atmosphere, then lower atmosphere. (Confirm with experimental data)
I think there's a bit of a drift between the experimental data and the political data. I'd rather be convinced by scientific data that we're all going to die due to the greenhouse result of our CO2 emissions, is this really too much to ask? Or at the very very least, please, use scientifically accurate political reasons, that way I can be mindlessly scared the world is going to end because of the actual truth.
In the meantime, I'll focus on things like deforestation, habitat depletion, etc... You know, things that would incidently restore some of the carbon sink if there is indeed a problem with CO2 at the same time as it solves *real* ecological problems.
Scan every single world/religious/business/military leader.
It'll just drain his batteries faster...
Interestingly enough, I was eating a nacho when I read that post, but my body fat 7% so I'm probably safe.
I mean, 3GB of RAM ought to be enough for everybody....
The problem comes when you depend on one thing and increase the percentage more and more. For example, the world current depends on Coal, oil and natural gas. It is adding FAR more additional CO2 than all the natural processes such as Volcano's, space, etc. Had we added only 1% new CO2, we would not have issues.
You might want to check the veracity of that statement...
1% of anything is RARELY an issue, and I doubt that it will be here.
You probably also should note that CO2 is 0.0383% of the earth's atmosphere.
I don't like the GPS idea one bit, I'm just saying checking the odometer does not solve the problem.
I think the problem is a government so out of control with spending and managing people's lives that it requires this much tax.
After all, it isn't like the greedy bribe takers are gonna say "No, I don't want those buckets full of money. Let's pass a law that makes this bribery the treasonous act that it is!". Never gonna happen, cap'n.
Well, it wouldn't work on someone like Ron Paul, but I get your point... Maybe getting a good government involves the tedious task of finding someone with (and capable of retaining) principles. Supporting that person and especially those principles no matter how futile it seems, fighting the good fight, being vocal about wrongdoings, etc.
Sure this is all idealist speak, but you know what happens from lack idealism? You settle for second best, then third best, then the shit you're enduring today, and finally the even worse stuff waiting for you tomorrow.
I find it ironic that some people think there is such a thing as a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' in politics nowadays. It's all political posturing while grinding away at the exact same agenda. Let's get people divided shall we? That way one side both sides think the politicians are actually fighting for them.
Actually, no... I'm an ISP.
I'm talking about centralization of powers by the state. Be it under the guise of ever increasing socialism or all out communism.
The gradual centralization we see here will lead to something more akin to fascism, not communism.
Then again, maybe the joke hit a bit too close to home, I thought the obvious exaggeration would have been a good enough clue that I wasn't so much making an argument as being humorous.
As a clarification of the 'more seriously' bit of my post though, I wasn't referring to communism, just the state taking over everything it can get its hands on, call it whatever you want it won't make much of a difference what name you give it in the end.
You have a point, but I don't think the problem is so much the 'for profit' bit as the 'country for sale' bit. Government in bed with (selling out to) corporations is textbook fascism. Politicians who love their country would not be selling it out to the highest bidder. Then again, politicians tend to love power not their country.
Bottom line here is that there are great constitutional safeguards against this. The people just forgot that *they* are the government (you know, government of the people bit) so they just let the buffoons on the hill do whatever they want without demanding any accountability.
You should be worried about pinko commies... Nationalizing banking, insurance, healthcare, education, car manufacturing, transportation, your corner store. ;) Just face it dude, they won... Oh wait, I have to go get these damn kids off my lawn.
More seriously though, even the russians are shaking their heads at what's going on. Germans who are old enough to remember too.
Free World
1776-1963
RIP
Opposite magnetic charge... Hmmmm. The only way this would work implies singularity doesn't it?
This (hey, it's a citation), guy actually pointed out that it's not quite that way.