There are a lot of sensible things we can do to stop burning fossil fuels (such as the telecommuting idea you propose)
Electricity generation produces more CO2 than telecommuting. A few more nuclear power stations would reduce emissions more than people giving up their SUVs would (I think the "you'll have to drive a really crappy small car!!" argument is also put out by the oil companies to help the people deny...)
But do most denialists deny that climate change is actually happening? Or just question how much man contributes to it and by what measures?
The denialists keep shifting stance in the much same way the the creationists do. One day they'll be convinced of one thing, then the pesky science shoots it down, the next day it's something else that's the real reason. It's obvious they never do any research, they just parrot the reason du jour, claiming it as absolute truth.
To answer the question: Yes. When they ran out of reasons why it wasn't happening, they all shifted to whether it was man made.
Despite the simplicity of the greenhouse effect and the hard numbers about how much greenhouse gas man puts out every year, they have no plausible mechanism for non-anthropogenic warming.
If pressed these days they usually sidestep it and say "but it was warmer before!", as if the Earth can somehow warm itself spontaneously.
Time magazine & researchers were telling us what to do about the upcoming ICE AGE, and how to survive it.
Yes, but that was when they measured temperatures using a few dozen thermometers spread around the country and wrote the data in little log books using pencils. They also hadn't developed any decent methods for gathering historical temperature data.
Now we've got weather satellites providing real time, worldwide temperature data with a resolution of a few meters. We can measure polar ice coverage from the sky, polar ice thickness from underneath, Greenland's glacier flow rates, etc., etc. We also have millions of years of temperature/CO2 data from ice cores in the Antarctic, all cross referenced with other data sets like ancient tree ring data so we can make fairly accurate guesses about past temperatures.
My point here is that just because someone is unemployed for longer than six months does not necessarily make them a parasite.
Of course not...
We need a name for the slashdot effect where somebody posts a single sentence and everybody who reads it thinks that's a full, complete plan with no possible exceptions, extensions or modifications. Relying on the reader's imagination simply doesn't work.
Can you really think of no reasonable way around that...?
eg. The "slave labor" thing only kicks in after six months of claiming unemployment benefit. Six months is long enough for you to find a job, right?
The idea isn't to make life difficult for the people who're actually willing to work, it's to get rid of the parasites.
(Not that I'm under any illusion that the parasites will go out and find proper jobs if you cut their benefits, but at least it saves some taxpayer money...)
in Germany jobless people have to report any application for a job to the agency and they have to apply for a certain amount of jobs per month or they get no welfare. Still people say it is not enough and unemployed people should be a workforce of the government to clean parks etc. -.-
Sounds like common sense to me. I just wish governments had enough backbone to actually do stuff like that.
Whenever you create a system which covers people's basic needs without asking anything in return you'll create a bunch of people who'll take what's offered then dedicate their free time to wheeling and dealing for beer money (usually doing 'easy money' stuff which is detrimental to society...)
Why would anybody try to get a proper job when they can live like that?
Maybe it's just that the people in states with high levels of general crime/gangs/drug culture are the ones demanding the right to own guns...it's not surprising there are more murders in those states.
Is that to give legitimacy to extrajudicial killings, or is it to derive coolness from them?
Nothing new there. The military has always played with language to dehumanize the enemy and sanitize the process of killing other people. Think of all the words you never heard before Iraq/Afghanistan: "Insurgent", "IED", etc. What happened to "rebel" and "bomb"?
It's a cliche, but: If he's not part of the solution then he's part of the problem.
Even if only 0.1% of the population has issues, it should be enough to get rid of the machines - because the issues they have are serious ones. Being disrobed or groped intimately by strangers shouldn't be a requisite for travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Really?
So why is it that the 'believers' are the ones causing their changes in argument (step by painful step) by showing them the evidence?
...plus if people stayed at home they'd all be using individual air-conditioners/heaters/lights rather than the shared ones at the office.
That might offset the benefit of them not driving to work.
There are a lot of sensible things we can do to stop burning fossil fuels (such as the telecommuting idea you propose)
Electricity generation produces more CO2 than telecommuting. A few more nuclear power stations would reduce emissions more than people giving up their SUVs would (I think the "you'll have to drive a really crappy small car!!" argument is also put out by the oil companies to help the people deny...)
See: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
But do most denialists deny that climate change is actually happening? Or just question how much man contributes to it and by what measures?
The denialists keep shifting stance in the much same way the the creationists do. One day they'll be convinced of one thing, then the pesky science shoots it down, the next day it's something else that's the real reason. It's obvious they never do any research, they just parrot the reason du jour, claiming it as absolute truth.
To answer the question: Yes. When they ran out of reasons why it wasn't happening, they all shifted to whether it was man made.
Despite the simplicity of the greenhouse effect and the hard numbers about how much greenhouse gas man puts out every year, they have no plausible mechanism for non-anthropogenic warming.
If pressed these days they usually sidestep it and say "but it was warmer before!", as if the Earth can somehow warm itself spontaneously.
I'm guessing the cheque from the denialists was late this month. This is just a warning shot and normal service will be resumed fairly soon...
Time magazine & researchers were telling us what to do about the upcoming ICE AGE, and how to survive it.
Yes, but that was when they measured temperatures using a few dozen thermometers spread around the country and wrote the data in little log books using pencils. They also hadn't developed any decent methods for gathering historical temperature data.
Now we've got weather satellites providing real time, worldwide temperature data with a resolution of a few meters. We can measure polar ice coverage from the sky, polar ice thickness from underneath, Greenland's glacier flow rates, etc., etc. We also have millions of years of temperature/CO2 data from ice cores in the Antarctic, all cross referenced with other data sets like ancient tree ring data so we can make fairly accurate guesses about past temperatures.
What language is your spell checker set to?
Gee, I hope NASA thought of that! Maybe you should call them, just in case...
My point here is that just because someone is unemployed for longer than six months does not necessarily make them a parasite.
Of course not...
We need a name for the slashdot effect where somebody posts a single sentence and everybody who reads it thinks that's a full, complete plan with no possible exceptions, extensions or modifications. Relying on the reader's imagination simply doesn't work.
We can win if the politicians get a clue and start viewing support for the CK as bad for their free lunch tickets.
You're free to opt out of the system at any time (or not even join at all!)
Can you really think of no reasonable way around that...?
eg. The "slave labor" thing only kicks in after six months of claiming unemployment benefit. Six months is long enough for you to find a job, right?
The idea isn't to make life difficult for the people who're actually willing to work, it's to get rid of the parasites.
(Not that I'm under any illusion that the parasites will go out and find proper jobs if you cut their benefits, but at least it saves some taxpayer money...)
That can be fixed...
Yep. I have a monster IQ but I can write you a long list of basic things I'm useless at, eg. forming coherent sentences
in Germany jobless people have to report any application for a job to the agency and they have to apply for a certain amount of jobs per month or they get no welfare. Still people say it is not enough and unemployed people should be a workforce of the government to clean parks etc. -.-
Sounds like common sense to me. I just wish governments had enough backbone to actually do stuff like that.
Whenever you create a system which covers people's basic needs without asking anything in return you'll create a bunch of people who'll take what's offered then dedicate their free time to wheeling and dealing for beer money (usually doing 'easy money' stuff which is detrimental to society...)
Why would anybody try to get a proper job when they can live like that?
Maybe it's just that the people in states with high levels of general crime/gangs/drug culture are the ones demanding the right to own guns...it's not surprising there are more murders in those states.
correlation != causation
It's a correlation that is hard to get around, but as usual people on that side of the debate ignore the facts.
I suspect your correlation is weak, and correlation is not causation.
you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!
Meanwhile the TSA can scan/grope children to their hearts content because the same government that passed this law passed some other ones too.
The TSA is a dream job for a pedophile.
Yeah, much better to piss your pants.
Yep. It'll really help them manage their anger issues.
Re: "keep the country safe"
The people we most need to keep the country safe from are the ones setting these policies. I hope they have OUR best interests at heart.
Other than the anger at environmentalists, I agree with you. However, to answer TFA, NO.
It's a headline with a question mark at the end... so that's a given.
Is that to give legitimacy to extrajudicial killings, or is it to derive coolness from them?
Nothing new there. The military has always played with language to dehumanize the enemy and sanitize the process of killing other people. Think of all the words you never heard before Iraq/Afghanistan: "Insurgent", "IED", etc. What happened to "rebel" and "bomb"?
It's a cliche, but: If he's not part of the solution then he's part of the problem.
Even if only 0.1% of the population has issues, it should be enough to get rid of the machines - because the issues they have are serious ones. Being disrobed or groped intimately by strangers shouldn't be a requisite for travel.
Yep. Apple didn't even innovate the name...remember the iPaq? A phone/PDA made by Compaq.