Seems to me this new investment directly addresses your problem with them. Hiring investigative reporters is the best way to become more fact-based.
That depends on what they choose to investigate and the angle they take. They might take the angle that the Bush twins are party-girl lushes and with a straight face, claim that Biden's daughter "has an addiction problem" with cocaine.
OK, here's a better example: Did the recession start under Bush's watch or did it start when Democrats took over congress? Both are true. How do you report it? Looking at Huff-Po's record of distortion and hatred, I don't have high hopes for honest, non-biased reporting.
Is it left-biased, or reality biased? It seems a lot of people that smear the current American left, have been living in the right wing bubble for the last few decades, and can't fess up to the reality bias that reality has.
Only in American can I consider myself, a centrist progressive. The state of politics here is severely depressing, so anything that pulls us out of the childish, conservative, backward looking rut we've been in, is a plus in my book.
Reality is how you spin it. Sure, MSNBC can interview two documentary producers to appear non-biased, but treat them both very differently. HERE is an example.
Yes, NewsBusters is a "right-wing" site, however, they do post the entire transcript so you can make up your own mind.
Additionally, Hall offered almost no tough questions, instead tossing softballs such as "What is your observation, having been [to Afghanistan] recently, regarding the Obama administration's plans?" Uninterrupted, Greenwald was allowed to later assert, "Well, again, remember that many people there believe that troops are not the answer. Troops contribute to the problem." He also instructed that the U.S. should send 17,000 teachers instead of soldiers. At the close of the interview, he complained, "But, I think we all get trapped in, as one of my friends in Afghanistan said, 'Shoot first. Think later.'"
In contrast, on January 9, when MSNBC host David Shuster interviewed John Ziegler about his movie on the media's treatment of Sarah Palin, the anchor got into a heated argument with the filmmaker, repeatedly challenging the "conservative documentary's" thesis and deriding, "John, you and Sarah Palin can't take any responsibility for the fact that she wasn't prepared to run for vice president."
Is it really a journalists job to state as fact that Sarah Palin wasn't prepared to run for VP? Regardless of your "opinion" of Sarah Palin, it's just that, an OPINION, and JOURNALISTS shouldn't be spouting theirs. It's not their job.
And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.
The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.
Actually, the left does have their investigative journalists. They work for every other outlet other than Fox News (and CNN to a much lesser extent).
In most cases this term is followed by bullshit, your post is no different.
"how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?"
1) The point is it that the "hole" has stopped growing.
2) The ozone "hole" MAY have started to repair itself.
"Because they are trying to save their jobs."
Can we drop this bullshit, it just an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and make stupid noises. IPCC scientists do not get paid for their work on the reports. The IPCC budget is a total of $5-6 million/yr donated by 300+ nations of all political pursations, most of it goes on plane fares for lead chapter authors and confrence rooms.
First, here is where I get that the ozone is rearing itself, source cited earlier:
Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole.
In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.
the IPCC is a UN agency. Here is what you said about the UN in another thread:
Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.
So, which one is it? The UN is good when they say something you like. The UN is bad when they say something you don't like. Please, try to be consistent.
OK, we'll do another source. See, that's why I said you should google it yourself. That way, you could find a source you trust and maybe even educate yourself a little. Either way, here's Wikipedia:
The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[3] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[4] The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[5][6] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[7]
In other words, the IPCC picks and chooses the data that will push the agenda of its supporting members (Kyoto, for example) and backs up the UNFCCC.
"If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisal, it's a freedom-based society."
Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.
I'm sorry. Is the UN good or bad? I ask because in just another thread, you were praising the virtues of the IPCC, another UN body, and here you are claiming that the UN is political body looking out of the well being of the 5 permanent members. So, which is it? Also, you really need to be consistent across threads or else someone might pick up on it and point out your total lack of credibility.
With the U.N., every day seems like April Fool's Day, because the U.N. is nothing but a group of fools.
Now wait just a damn minute... I just got off another thread here where people were telling me that the IPCC was not political and the greatest scientific body since the Manhattan Project.
The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study âoeImpacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabilityâ and âoeMitigation of Climate Changeâ respectivelyâ¦They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 is listed as âproofâ(TM) of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.
In an early March briefing before congressional staff, members of the press, and scientists, Professor Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology assailed the politically driven work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), charging the panel misrepresents the work of its contributing scientists to fit a preconceived agenda.
Better yet, just google IPCC politics and read for yourself.
Basically, it says the ozone took billions of years to form, a few years to destroy (your words, not mine) and even fewer years to rebuild.
Really? Does that make sense to you? What in our atmosphere has caused the ozone to rebuild in less than 20 years that was NOT present before, causing to take billions?
Why don't you just read the website you are citing:
Scientific theory and evidence suggest that, once emitted to the atmosphere, these compounds could significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer that shields the planet from damaging UV-B radiation. Man-made chlorines, primarily chloroflourobcarbons (CFCs), contribute to the thinning of the ozone layer and allow larger quantities of harmful ultraviolet rays to reach the earth.
Because they are trying to save their jobs. Let's take a look at the facts, the REAL facts and use it to analyze what they are saying here:
First, the given FACTS: 1) The Ozone layer took millions, if not BILLIONS of years to form OK, so we just need one.
Now, let's look at what you are saying: 1) CFC's in our AC's and deodorant cans broke the Ozone layer, by 90% in some places. It took less than 100 years for this to happen. 2) We reduced (not stopped) our CFC usage a couple of decades ago and now the Ozone layer has repaired itself.
Now, look at our given FACT and then look at #2 above. If the Ozone layer took millions/billions of years to form naturally, then... and here is the important part... how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?
Because of early warnings, we were able to halt the destruction of the ozone layer.
> We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.
For some people in Australia, this is still true.
> 1970's Smog
People being killed annually by smog are counted by the thousands.
> I wonder why I no longer buy it.
Because you're an idiot?
Bullshit! The ozone "hole" was originally found over the poles because we suddenly had the ability to see it via satellites. Scientists scrambled to understand why and blamed everyone's favorite boogy man, ourselves. After all, we all know that everything that happens is a direct result of our actions, right? Isn't that how the raid dance came to be? Anyway, everyone freaked and banned CFC's. Then, the hole closed and everyone said, "See, it was the CFC's. We banned them and saved the world." just like you did. Then the hole opened again, and scientists wondered why. Finally, they figured out that the hole opened and closed based on a natural cycle.
Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole.
In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.
Sure, you're going to see many scientists claim that it was the ban on CFC's that saved the world. Then again, what are they going to say? "OOOOPSie! My bad! Sorry for the alarm everyone. Please go back to using your deodorant spray's and air conditioners." Of course they won't. They put their credibility on the line and they are not going to give that up now. They have grants to earn.
So, please. Don't call people who you disagree with names like, "idiot". It appears that you didn't have all the facts and just made yourself look like a "sheeple" that believes whatever the networks tell you to believe. Please, learn to think for yourself and don't attempt to insult those that already do.
Please extend this reply to everyone else that said a CFC ban saved the world. Also, expect that when global warming DOES NOT destroy the earth, people will say the same thing, replacing CFC with Carbon.
I remember a report in National Geographic about 5 years ago, and documentaries on TV that said Europe with increased global warming would become cold!
We are having the same kind of weather and explanations for it here in America as well.
It goes like this:
When it's hot, it's because of global warming. When it's cold, it's because of global warming.
Let me tell you something that is 100% FACT! The climate is going to change. It always has, and it always will. No matter what happens, there will be people who ignore the fact that the climate has changed since the Earth began to cool and blame whatever changes they see now on the activities of man. It's the height of arrogance!
Wait we don't trust our gov't but some of us are willing to trust "smart" machines. What if the smart machines decide it is smart to kill us...to save the rest of the planet?
We can program machines. Politicians tend to have a mind of their own and reject their "programming" (will of the electorate) shortly after entering office.
You overestimate us. Consistently, the majority of people generally choose security over freedom.
That's because most of us know that a dead man can never be free. Increased security can be temporary. Death is permanent. Simple logic! If you don't understand that, go protest the "no pedestrians on freeways" laws. I mean, isn't that law security over freedom? So go be free! Play in the freeway.
Like not letting the toddlers have free run of the house? There's a reason why we have playpens and put locks on cabinets.
Wow! Even an even better example of security over freedom.
And so it begins... letting others make your decisions is the essence of slavery.
So, are toddlers slaves? Have you made 100% of the decisions that affect your life? Probably not. So, are you a slave? Again, probably not.
Actually, I think AI can be done right. If you can teach a machine to feel emotion, you could hard wire LoveHumans=1. I would also throw in a few more "laws" like RespectInnocentHumanFreedom=1, ProtectInnocent=1and Humans>Self for example.
I think "Cold" could possibly refer to the not-being-as-hot-as-the-heart-of-our-sun temperature range. Everything's relative, except absolute zero.
OK, but it would have to be hot relative to the surroundings in order to gain any worthwhile energy. I would say it would have to be really really hot. So hot as not NOT be able to do in a basic chemistry lab on a table top in a glass beaker. From what I understand, even the faux experiment didn't succeed in boiling water. If you don't boil water, I'd guess that it's not hot enough. I can only guess that the assumption was that if this experiment was truly a success, that it could be scaled up dramatically.
Although, I do understand what they're trying to achieve on a simple level (fusion at sustainable temperature with a net return of energy, albeit small at first) and wish them the best of luck.
And here's the part I don't understand and maybe someone can help me out here. The whole idea of fusion as a power source is that puts off an extremely large amount of energy for very little fuel. We could take this energy, in the form of heat and use it expand another substance (boil water) to turn turbines.
And there's the rub... if cold fusion is "COLD", then how do we utilize the energy? For that matter, what kind of energy is there? If it's truly cold, it seems to me that it would be worthless unless you are in the helium business. What would be the point? It would be like inventing a flame that burns cold or light bulb that gives off no light.
Well, except for the Katrina part. The problem there was you had a Republican on top who respects (expects) state's rights. GWB was even a former state governor next door to Louisiana and didn't take many federal handouts. In New Orleans Louisiana, you had a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Mayor, both respect (expect) big government help from above. So, what you ended up with was a bunch of "leaders" standing around waiting for the next guy to make a move. Notice that Florida and Texas, both of which were hit with bigger, more damaging hurricanes, didn't suffer from such problems. Both have Republican Governors. Even during Katrina, Texas was more prepared than Louisiana, and the hurricane didn't even hit there!!
Of course, an ideal situation would have been a Republican governor with a Democratic President. Then you'd have the National Guard and other state resources competing with FEMA to see who could get services there first.
You do know that a stream gaging station requires spending on concrete, lumber, and rebar, right? Plus construction labor, and transportation expenses, right? Plus electronics, and solar cells.
Right, but what good does it do for the economy? Steam monitoring stations require a handful of jobs to produce, set up and monitor. That's nothing compared to a school, federal building, museum, algae-to-ethanol research center or whatever that provides LONG TERM economic growth, which makes in an investment that actually has a return! Throwing $140,000,000 worth of $10 bills out an airplane window would do more to stimulate the American economy than a set of steam monitoring stations in the mountains of Alaska, the Philippines, Japan, and wherever else this money is going!
And before you start telling me about the benefit of knowing when volcanoes will erupt, can you tell me the last time a volcano erupted without our previous knowledge? Right! So why the extra $140,000,000 thrown into a "stimulus" package that could do a whole lot more "stimulating" elsewhere?
Since someone downmodded this because they disagreed with the facts, I decided I should post it again.
The AC comment which someone thoughtfully came in and schooled you with is the reason you got downmodded. You are obviously insane. I am adding you to my foes list so that I no longer have to see your comments. Being sure you are right when there is ample evidence to prove you wrong is kiddie shit. Once the evidence is provided, shut the fuck up and go away. Nobody is impressed by your temper tantrum of posting the same comment again - it was wrong the first time.
Are you fucking blind? Let me help you out. You said
Never in the recorded history of the planet which goes through several ice ages (recorded in the ice that didn't melt - it never all goes... so far) have CO2 levels been remotely this high.
Then I provided a link that proved this single point wrong. Since the rest of your argument relies on this single point, I think that proves that you are full of crap. So, please, don't tell me that there is ample evidence of anything until you can provide me with a piece of it, ESPECIALLY when I already provided ample evidence to the contrary.
So, please, since I provided YOU with evidence, please take your own advice and:
$140,000,000/yr will provide 2800 people with $50,000/yr jobs that actually build something, fix something, or make life easier for someone else
Except with that math, how would the raw materials be paid for? Facilities? Tools? You can't just make jobs out of thin air. There needs to be work for them to do.
Um... OK. How about we take the money that was to be spent on steam gauges and what-not and spend it on concrete, lumber and rebar? How about we invest it on green energy, nuclear plants or research into how to turn a volcano into a power station? My point was that there are a million different ways to spend this money that would really qualify as stimulus and do more to benefit the average unemployed auto/construction/technical worker than monitoring volcanoes.
Please, don't hammer Doc. He's brilliant, although as of late, misguided. His posts can be fair, open and extremely insightful when he's not just typing with his heart instead of his head. While emotional responses are usually not a problem, in Doc's case, his heart has been filled with partisan hatred of late. I'm hoping that his head will take back over and clean out all the illogical, off balance hatred that has clouded his otherwise sound judgment.
For example, (and to get back on topic) imagine his outrage if a Republican had spent $140,000,000/yr to monitor volcanoes. He would be screaming in all caps and bold that this was some sort of a payoff to Sarah Palin. He would say that the US has not had a major eruption since Mt. St. Helens in the mid 80's. He would also point out that since this eruption was predicted and prepared for, there is no need to spend MORE money for monitoring since the current system obviously works fine with the current funding.
I look forward to the day when I can read Doc's posts again and think, "Wow! That bastard made sense."
To pay people's wages? That sounds exactly like stimulus.
To buy equipment? That sounds exactly like stimulus too.
Sure less multiplier effects than say building roads and bridges to connect industries to transport hubs/people, but you can't say it "does nothing to STIMULATE the economy", since clearly it does.
Of course stimulating the economy by borrowing/printing money is retarded anyway, but that's beside the point.
Well, if simply paying wages is the goal, then you could pay a LOT more wages for $140,000,000 a year than you could by simply monitoring volcanoes. How much of that money is spent monitoring volcanoes overseas? How many American jobs does it provide? What is the LONG TERM stimulus to the economy when compared to say a school which employs teachers, janitors, administrators for decades, not to mention educating kids?
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against volcano monitoring, but not under guise of "stimulus". $140,000,000/yr will provide 2800 people with $50,000/yr jobs that actually build something, fix something, or make life easier for someone else, all of which would stimulate the economy much more than a few geologists sitting around collecting steam and ash data from a non-active volcano in the Phillipines. Again, I'm not saying it's not important, but it certain is not stimulus.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me this new investment directly addresses your problem with them. Hiring investigative reporters is the best way to become more fact-based.
That depends on what they choose to investigate and the angle they take. They might take the angle that the Bush twins are party-girl lushes and with a straight face, claim that Biden's daughter "has an addiction problem" with cocaine.
OK, here's a better example: Did the recession start under Bush's watch or did it start when Democrats took over congress? Both are true. How do you report it? Looking at Huff-Po's record of distortion and hatred, I don't have high hopes for honest, non-biased reporting.
Is it left-biased, or reality biased? It seems a lot of people that smear the current American left, have been living in the right wing bubble for the last few decades, and can't fess up to the reality bias that reality has.
Only in American can I consider myself, a centrist progressive. The state of politics here is severely depressing, so anything that pulls us out of the childish, conservative, backward looking rut we've been in, is a plus in my book.
Reality is how you spin it. Sure, MSNBC can interview two documentary producers to appear non-biased, but treat them both very differently. HERE is an example.
Yes, NewsBusters is a "right-wing" site, however, they do post the entire transcript so you can make up your own mind.
Additionally, Hall offered almost no tough questions, instead tossing softballs such as "What is your observation, having been [to Afghanistan] recently, regarding the Obama administration's plans?" Uninterrupted, Greenwald was allowed to later assert, "Well, again, remember that many people there believe that troops are not the answer. Troops contribute to the problem." He also instructed that the U.S. should send 17,000 teachers instead of soldiers. At the close of the interview, he complained, "But, I think we all get trapped in, as one of my friends in Afghanistan said, 'Shoot first. Think later.'"
In contrast, on January 9, when MSNBC host David Shuster interviewed John Ziegler about his movie on the media's treatment of Sarah Palin, the anchor got into a heated argument with the filmmaker, repeatedly challenging the "conservative documentary's" thesis and deriding, "John, you and Sarah Palin can't take any responsibility for the fact that she wasn't prepared to run for vice president."
Is it really a journalists job to state as fact that Sarah Palin wasn't prepared to run for VP? Regardless of your "opinion" of Sarah Palin, it's just that, an OPINION, and JOURNALISTS shouldn't be spouting theirs. It's not their job.
And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.
The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.
Actually, the left does have their investigative journalists. They work for every other outlet other than Fox News (and CNN to a much lesser extent).
"the REAL facts"
In most cases this term is followed by bullshit, your post is no different.
"how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?"
1) The point is it that the "hole" has stopped growing.
2) The ozone "hole" MAY have started to repair itself.
"Because they are trying to save their jobs."
Can we drop this bullshit, it just an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and make stupid noises. IPCC scientists do not get paid for their work on the reports. The IPCC budget is a total of $5-6 million/yr donated by 300+ nations of all political pursations, most of it goes on plane fares for lead chapter authors and confrence rooms.
First, here is where I get that the ozone is rearing itself, source cited earlier:
Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole.
In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.
the IPCC is a UN agency. Here is what you said about the UN in another thread:
Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.
So, which one is it? The UN is good when they say something you like. The UN is bad when they say something you don't like. Please, try to be consistent.
OK, we'll do another source. See, that's why I said you should google it yourself. That way, you could find a source you trust and maybe even educate yourself a little. Either way, here's Wikipedia:
The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[3] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[4] The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[5][6] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[7]
In other words, the IPCC picks and chooses the data that will push the agenda of its supporting members (Kyoto, for example) and backs up the UNFCCC.
"If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisal, it's a freedom-based society."
Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.
I'm sorry. Is the UN good or bad? I ask because in just another thread, you were praising the virtues of the IPCC, another UN body, and here you are claiming that the UN is political body looking out of the well being of the 5 permanent members. So, which is it? Also, you really need to be consistent across threads or else someone might pick up on it and point out your total lack of credibility.
With the U.N., every day seems like April Fool's Day, because the U.N. is nothing but a group of fools.
Now wait just a damn minute... I just got off another thread here where people were telling me that the IPCC was not political and the greatest scientific body since the Manhattan Project.
So, which is it?
As long as scientists work for politicians, expect the scientific consensus to be based one politics, not science.
From HERE:
The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study âoeImpacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabilityâ and âoeMitigation of Climate Changeâ respectivelyâ¦They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 is listed as âproofâ(TM) of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.
And from HERE:
In an early March briefing before congressional staff, members of the press, and scientists, Professor Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology assailed the politically driven work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), charging the panel misrepresents the work of its contributing scientists to fit a preconceived agenda.
Better yet, just google IPCC politics and read for yourself.
> The ozone "hole" was originally found over the poles because we suddenly had the ability to see it via satellites.
Bullshit! Ozone has been measured at least since 1928.
> scientists claim that it was the ban on CFC's that saved the world.
It's a fact that CFC's (among other stuff) destroys ozone.
But at least you were modded insightful for your FUD. Always something.
May I refer you to my comment HERE
Basically, it says the ozone took billions of years to form, a few years to destroy (your words, not mine) and even fewer years to rebuild.
Really? Does that make sense to you? What in our atmosphere has caused the ozone to rebuild in less than 20 years that was NOT present before, causing to take billions?
Why don't you just read the website you are citing:
Scientific theory and evidence suggest that, once emitted to the atmosphere, these compounds could significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer that shields the planet from damaging UV-B radiation.
Man-made chlorines, primarily chloroflourobcarbons (CFCs), contribute to the thinning of the ozone layer and allow larger quantities of harmful ultraviolet rays to reach the earth.
Because they are trying to save their jobs. Let's take a look at the facts, the REAL facts and use it to analyze what they are saying here:
First, the given FACTS:
1) The Ozone layer took millions, if not BILLIONS of years to form
OK, so we just need one.
Now, let's look at what you are saying:
1) CFC's in our AC's and deodorant cans broke the Ozone layer, by 90% in some places. It took less than 100 years for this to happen.
2) We reduced (not stopped) our CFC usage a couple of decades ago and now the Ozone layer has repaired itself.
Now, look at our given FACT and then look at #2 above. If the Ozone layer took millions/billions of years to form naturally, then... and here is the important part... how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?
> Don't forget the Ozone layer.
Because of early warnings, we were able to halt the destruction of the ozone layer.
> We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.
For some people in Australia, this is still true.
> 1970's Smog
People being killed annually by smog are counted by the thousands.
> I wonder why I no longer buy it.
Because you're an idiot?
Bullshit! The ozone "hole" was originally found over the poles because we suddenly had the ability to see it via satellites. Scientists scrambled to understand why and blamed everyone's favorite boogy man, ourselves. After all, we all know that everything that happens is a direct result of our actions, right? Isn't that how the raid dance came to be? Anyway, everyone freaked and banned CFC's. Then, the hole closed and everyone said, "See, it was the CFC's. We banned them and saved the world." just like you did. Then the hole opened again, and scientists wondered why. Finally, they figured out that the hole opened and closed based on a natural cycle.
Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole.
In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.
Sure, you're going to see many scientists claim that it was the ban on CFC's that saved the world. Then again, what are they going to say? "OOOOPSie! My bad! Sorry for the alarm everyone. Please go back to using your deodorant spray's and air conditioners." Of course they won't. They put their credibility on the line and they are not going to give that up now. They have grants to earn.
So, please. Don't call people who you disagree with names like, "idiot". It appears that you didn't have all the facts and just made yourself look like a "sheeple" that believes whatever the networks tell you to believe. Please, learn to think for yourself and don't attempt to insult those that already do.
Please extend this reply to everyone else that said a CFC ban saved the world. Also, expect that when global warming DOES NOT destroy the earth, people will say the same thing, replacing CFC with Carbon.
I remember a report in National Geographic about 5 years ago, and documentaries on TV that said Europe with increased global warming would become cold!
We are having the same kind of weather and explanations for it here in America as well.
It goes like this:
When it's hot, it's because of global warming. When it's cold, it's because of global warming.
Let me tell you something that is 100% FACT! The climate is going to change. It always has, and it always will. No matter what happens, there will be people who ignore the fact that the climate has changed since the Earth began to cool and blame whatever changes they see now on the activities of man. It's the height of arrogance!
Did you make the same argument the 20 years before that ?
No. The hysteria was not at profitable levels 10 years ago.
20 years ago was the hysteria over acid rain.
Don't forget the Ozone layer. We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.
Let's see...
1970's Smog
1980's Ozone layer
1990's Acid Rain
2000's Global Warming
Hmmm. I wonder why I no longer buy it.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil and/or an asshole.
It does when they mod you down because of it.
Altering the method might fix it.
Simple! Spike the iron with a good pesticide. Problem solved!
(Yes, this was intended to be a joke.)
Wait we don't trust our gov't but some of us are willing to trust "smart" machines. What if the smart machines decide it is smart to kill us...to save the rest of the planet?
We can program machines. Politicians tend to have a mind of their own and reject their "programming" (will of the electorate) shortly after entering office.
Programming machines can be as simple as:
KillAllHumans=0;
(I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it.)
You overestimate us. Consistently, the majority of people generally choose security over freedom.
That's because most of us know that a dead man can never be free. Increased security can be temporary. Death is permanent. Simple logic! If you don't understand that, go protest the "no pedestrians on freeways" laws. I mean, isn't that law security over freedom? So go be free! Play in the freeway.
Like not letting the toddlers have free run of the house? There's a reason why we have playpens and put locks on cabinets.
Wow! Even an even better example of security over freedom.
And so it begins... letting others make your decisions is the essence of slavery.
So, are toddlers slaves? Have you made 100% of the decisions that affect your life? Probably not. So, are you a slave? Again, probably not.
Actually, I think AI can be done right. If you can teach a machine to feel emotion, you could hard wire LoveHumans=1. I would also throw in a few more "laws" like RespectInnocentHumanFreedom=1, ProtectInnocent=1and Humans>Self for example.
I think "Cold" could possibly refer to the not-being-as-hot-as-the-heart-of-our-sun temperature range. Everything's relative, except absolute zero.
OK, but it would have to be hot relative to the surroundings in order to gain any worthwhile energy. I would say it would have to be really really hot. So hot as not NOT be able to do in a basic chemistry lab on a table top in a glass beaker. From what I understand, even the faux experiment didn't succeed in boiling water. If you don't boil water, I'd guess that it's not hot enough. I can only guess that the assumption was that if this experiment was truly a success, that it could be scaled up dramatically.
Although, I do understand what they're trying to achieve on a simple level (fusion at sustainable temperature with a net return of energy, albeit small at first) and wish them the best of luck.
And here's the part I don't understand and maybe someone can help me out here. The whole idea of fusion as a power source is that puts off an extremely large amount of energy for very little fuel. We could take this energy, in the form of heat and use it expand another substance (boil water) to turn turbines.
And there's the rub... if cold fusion is "COLD", then how do we utilize the energy? For that matter, what kind of energy is there? If it's truly cold, it seems to me that it would be worthless unless you are in the helium business. What would be the point? It would be like inventing a flame that burns cold or light bulb that gives off no light.
Good to have you back Doc!
That post made sense, you bastard!
Well, except for the Katrina part. The problem there was you had a Republican on top who respects (expects) state's rights. GWB was even a former state governor next door to Louisiana and didn't take many federal handouts. In New Orleans Louisiana, you had a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Mayor, both respect (expect) big government help from above. So, what you ended up with was a bunch of "leaders" standing around waiting for the next guy to make a move. Notice that Florida and Texas, both of which were hit with bigger, more damaging hurricanes, didn't suffer from such problems. Both have Republican Governors. Even during Katrina, Texas was more prepared than Louisiana, and the hurricane didn't even hit there!!
Of course, an ideal situation would have been a Republican governor with a Democratic President. Then you'd have the National Guard and other state resources competing with FEMA to see who could get services there first.
You do know that a stream gaging station requires spending on concrete, lumber, and rebar, right?
Plus construction labor, and transportation expenses, right?
Plus electronics, and solar cells.
http://geology.com/articles/gaging-station.shtml
Right, but what good does it do for the economy? Steam monitoring stations require a handful of jobs to produce, set up and monitor. That's nothing compared to a school, federal building, museum, algae-to-ethanol research center or whatever that provides LONG TERM economic growth, which makes in an investment that actually has a return! Throwing $140,000,000 worth of $10 bills out an airplane window would do more to stimulate the American economy than a set of steam monitoring stations in the mountains of Alaska, the Philippines, Japan, and wherever else this money is going!
And before you start telling me about the benefit of knowing when volcanoes will erupt, can you tell me the last time a volcano erupted without our previous knowledge? Right! So why the extra $140,000,000 thrown into a "stimulus" package that could do a whole lot more "stimulating" elsewhere?
Since someone downmodded this because they disagreed with the facts, I decided I should post it again.
The AC comment which someone thoughtfully came in and schooled you with is the reason you got downmodded. You are obviously insane. I am adding you to my foes list so that I no longer have to see your comments. Being sure you are right when there is ample evidence to prove you wrong is kiddie shit. Once the evidence is provided, shut the fuck up and go away. Nobody is impressed by your temper tantrum of posting the same comment again - it was wrong the first time.
Are you fucking blind? Let me help you out. You said
Never in the recorded history of the planet which goes through several ice ages (recorded in the ice that didn't melt - it never all goes... so far) have CO2 levels been remotely this high.
Then I provided a link that proved this single point wrong. Since the rest of your argument relies on this single point, I think that proves that you are full of crap. So, please, don't tell me that there is ample evidence of anything until you can provide me with a piece of it, ESPECIALLY when I already provided ample evidence to the contrary.
So, please, since I provided YOU with evidence, please take your own advice and:
shut the fuck up and go away.
Throw your tantrum elsewhere.
$140,000,000/yr will provide 2800 people with $50,000/yr jobs that actually build something, fix something, or make life easier for someone else
Except with that math, how would the raw materials be paid for? Facilities? Tools? You can't just make jobs out of thin air. There needs to be work for them to do.
Um... OK. How about we take the money that was to be spent on steam gauges and what-not and spend it on concrete, lumber and rebar? How about we invest it on green energy, nuclear plants or research into how to turn a volcano into a power station? My point was that there are a million different ways to spend this money that would really qualify as stimulus and do more to benefit the average unemployed auto/construction/technical worker than monitoring volcanoes.
Please, don't hammer Doc. He's brilliant, although as of late, misguided. His posts can be fair, open and extremely insightful when he's not just typing with his heart instead of his head. While emotional responses are usually not a problem, in Doc's case, his heart has been filled with partisan hatred of late. I'm hoping that his head will take back over and clean out all the illogical, off balance hatred that has clouded his otherwise sound judgment.
For example, (and to get back on topic) imagine his outrage if a Republican had spent $140,000,000/yr to monitor volcanoes. He would be screaming in all caps and bold that this was some sort of a payoff to Sarah Palin. He would say that the US has not had a major eruption since Mt. St. Helens in the mid 80's. He would also point out that since this eruption was predicted and prepared for, there is no need to spend MORE money for monitoring since the current system obviously works fine with the current funding.
I look forward to the day when I can read Doc's posts again and think, "Wow! That bastard made sense."
It's spending money, right?
To pay people's wages? That sounds exactly like stimulus.
To buy equipment? That sounds exactly like stimulus too.
Sure less multiplier effects than say building roads and bridges to connect industries to transport hubs/people, but you can't say it "does nothing to STIMULATE the economy", since clearly it does.
Of course stimulating the economy by borrowing/printing money is retarded anyway, but that's beside the point.
Well, if simply paying wages is the goal, then you could pay a LOT more wages for $140,000,000 a year than you could by simply monitoring volcanoes. How much of that money is spent monitoring volcanoes overseas? How many American jobs does it provide? What is the LONG TERM stimulus to the economy when compared to say a school which employs teachers, janitors, administrators for decades, not to mention educating kids?
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against volcano monitoring, but not under guise of "stimulus". $140,000,000/yr will provide 2800 people with $50,000/yr jobs that actually build something, fix something, or make life easier for someone else, all of which would stimulate the economy much more than a few geologists sitting around collecting steam and ash data from a non-active volcano in the Phillipines. Again, I'm not saying it's not important, but it certain is not stimulus.