Even the wealthy jerkasses know the trouble's coming, and really has already arrived. They know they've got maybe 20 years, but if they can keep the profits rolling in a little longer, well all the more money will be made. By and large, the senior management and largest shareholders in these firms are all very wealthy people, and can insulate themselves from the worst effects anyways.
But really, what is the strategy here? Every time someone declares that oil prices are rebounding and the industry is going to be as big as it was a few years ago, suddenly there's another report showing inventories insanely high. It's my view that what we're seeing now is an industry basically dumping as much of its product into the system, even at depressed prices, because it knows it's in decline. It's a "make the money while you can" situation. Coal is already dead, no matter what Donald Trump has promised, natural gas has killed that, and I think natural gas will probably cling on for a while, but fossil fuels are an energy source with end of life already in sight.
Probably not soon enough to prevent some of the nastier effects of CO2 emissions, but the irony is all those dipshits waving the fossil fuel flag have at best bought the industry a few precious years.
And, with pumped water dams, you get hydro that's basically powered by renewables. You can have your wind farms or solar installations powering pumps that push water back up into a reservoir, and then let the water out to spread it over peak times or when renewable systems aren't producing power. I've even been hearing of variations on the theme; pumped gravel systems, even using something boxcars on rails, just about anything that can be pushed up any kind of incline, and then dropped in a controlled fashion, could work. There's also flywheels, which have been around for a long time.
There's this obsession among the anti-renewable (read oil companies and the idiots that repeat their memes) that energy storage means big fucking battery piles, and maybe that will be the case, but there's no reason you can't use mechanical storage systems.
No, there's no fakery here. And when you're finished digesting just how gullible, then you can ponder the fact that the Arctic has been as high as 30 degress above normal temperatures this winter. While you try to salve your infantile feelings that the universe should behave like you want it to, CO2 still has the properties it has been known to have for over a century;
Yeah totally, so that way the US can be a couple of decades behind, still be pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and end up with a backwards economy.
That's how the US succeeded, by sitting on its fucking ass.
Clearly this evil, and an attack on fine upstanding God-fearing fossil fuel companies who have been so victimized by the evil uber-wealthy climatologists out to make the world into a Stone Age Communist Collective. Won't somebody think of the Kochs?
Yes, there was definitely a Thatcherite anti-bureaucrat edge to Yes Minister/Prime Minister. At the same time Hacker is generally shown as a well-intentioned bungler, so it's not as if the politicians get off lightly. Ultimately the actual straight man in the show is Bernard Woolley, so if anyone gets it easy it's the Principle Private Secretary, whereas the civil service, in the form of Sir Humphrey are shown as shameless schemers and Parliament and Cabinet, in the form of Hacker, are shown as hopelessly outmatched. I'd say as much as it is Thatcherite, it also invokes long-standing caricatures of the Westminster system that date back to the Victorian Era. But there is still insightful commentary on how things work behind closed doors, and Sir Humphrey, even if out of pure self-interest, does on occasion rescue Hacker from catastrophe (like where he convinces Hacker's daughter not to take part in a nude protest). If anything about it is overtly Thatcherite, it's in showing Government has been a bungling, error-prone mess always on the edge of catastrophe.
Mind you, looking at politics in the US and Britain right now, I think maybe the writers had a point. It's hard to see how Trump and Brexit represent government as a sophisticated organ of precise decision making.
I've tried out Cortana a few times on the crappy Win10 tablet I got free with my Dell notebook. It mainly just sends me to Bing, so I've largely deemed it useless. I suppose I could use it for scheduling, but I find speaking commands to software to be slower and more error prone than even tapping it out on a touch keyboard that I largely ignore Cortana.
I'm sorry, anyone who thinks the Mail is somehow in the same league is the NYT or Washington Post doesn't strike me as someone actually interested in reliability. Journalism isn't perfect but the Mail doesn't even try.
There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:
Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.
I think you can look at some sources and where the signal to noise ratio is so low that at the very least you should find some corroboration. The Mail really has few if any real journalistic ambitions.
Oh come on. Have you even looked at the Daily Mail? It's frequently sensationalistic in its coverage to the point where some of its headlines and stories more resemble The National Enquirer than a serious newspaper. Often times I don't think it even takes itself that seriously. The headlines are often extremely hyperbolic.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone taking the Mail that seriously. PApers like the Guardian and Telegraph have their flaws, and their obvious ideological leanings that at times leak on to the front page, but the Daily mail is just one big absurd mess, a sort of TMZ with news stories.
That's just evidence of funding, based upon what is generally agreed as a major threat. If you have some specific evidence of collaboration by scientists to essentially take taxpayer and foundations' money in a scheme of fraud, then provide it. If you cannot, then admit it.
What you didn't provide is evidence. What you have actually written is an evidence-free polemic. And that's the problem, you're lazy. You've assumed a conclusion, and that go about trying to find rationalizations why you have the opinion you have.
If you have actual evidence of profiteering and dishonest dealing by climatologists, then by all means provide it. You're clearly making an accusation, so you must have actual evidence of this vast cabal of grant fraud.
There would still be climatologists whether AGW was real or not. The value of tracking regional and global climate is pretty high. The actual fact is that it has been know for over a century that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would inevitably lead to more energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere. You can make all the claims you want that climatology is some of grant boon, but the fact of the matter is that is how most research works, particularly basic research.
Do you have an actual critique of the science, or is this just yet another "scientists are warped and twisted". You do understand that grants aren't just handed out based on the topic heading. Grant applications actually require researchers to make a strong argument for why the grant should be made. You act as if it is some sort of popularity contest, but I get it, you despise the research in question, hate the results it provides, but can't really debunk it, so it's time to attack the scientists. I fail to understand how defunding climate research will make human-caused climate change go away. When you're racing towards a brick wall, I know of no evidence that closing your eyes means you won't hit it.
Grow up. The universe is what it is, and CO2 has the properties it has, and not studying those properties and there large scale effects won't make those effects go away. Reality cannot be argued away.
Do you have any evidence at all that this is in fact a career path of any researcher? This looks more like one of those "Researchers are lazy, evil and greedy" lines of thought.
For the record, want to make lots of money, in general, don't go into the sciences. Yes, there are a few science careers that can make oodles, but for the most part, science is not a path to fame and fortune.
Exactly, and if you want any efficiency in being able to buy and sell ownership and debt, you have to have some sort of market. As someone who is a part owner in a private corporation, I can tell you that there's a lot of bloody paperwork (read: lawyers and accountants fees) every time there's a share transfer. That works fine because the company is relatively small and the shareholder pool pretty static, but in a large company if every share transaction had to involve that level of work it would cost millions a year just in administering the sale and transfer. If you have a stock market that is empowered to oversee these transactions, those costs are largely mitigated. Stock markets are about efficiency and about maximizing the ability to raise capital. I'm not clear what the problem here is, other than that in some peoples' minds the markets represent some vast evil, but if you believe that, then really, you believe capitalism is a vast evil.
Of course when someone can point me to the Marxist state that didn't either end up with a stagnant or outright collapsing economy, or end up as a kleptocracy (or in the case of Venezuela, both!) then I will reconsider, but for now, it is my firm belief that capitalism, even the muddy form found in most developed nations, is the least worst economic system that has ever been developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Even the wealthy jerkasses know the trouble's coming, and really has already arrived. They know they've got maybe 20 years, but if they can keep the profits rolling in a little longer, well all the more money will be made. By and large, the senior management and largest shareholders in these firms are all very wealthy people, and can insulate themselves from the worst effects anyways.
But really, what is the strategy here? Every time someone declares that oil prices are rebounding and the industry is going to be as big as it was a few years ago, suddenly there's another report showing inventories insanely high. It's my view that what we're seeing now is an industry basically dumping as much of its product into the system, even at depressed prices, because it knows it's in decline. It's a "make the money while you can" situation. Coal is already dead, no matter what Donald Trump has promised, natural gas has killed that, and I think natural gas will probably cling on for a while, but fossil fuels are an energy source with end of life already in sight.
Probably not soon enough to prevent some of the nastier effects of CO2 emissions, but the irony is all those dipshits waving the fossil fuel flag have at best bought the industry a few precious years.
You mean like an AC that doesn't offer any counterargument?
I'm not clear here. Are you saying the sun is going to stop shining, the wind stop blowing and the tides stop surging?
And, with pumped water dams, you get hydro that's basically powered by renewables. You can have your wind farms or solar installations powering pumps that push water back up into a reservoir, and then let the water out to spread it over peak times or when renewable systems aren't producing power. I've even been hearing of variations on the theme; pumped gravel systems, even using something boxcars on rails, just about anything that can be pushed up any kind of incline, and then dropped in a controlled fashion, could work. There's also flywheels, which have been around for a long time.
There's this obsession among the anti-renewable (read oil companies and the idiots that repeat their memes) that energy storage means big fucking battery piles, and maybe that will be the case, but there's no reason you can't use mechanical storage systems.
I don't think the green movement had much to do with Fukishima, but way to go find a scapegoat.
If nothing else, nuclear is insanely expensive, and it isn't renewable either. You still have to dig uranium and other isotopes out of the ground.
Even better, you gullible halfwit:
http://www.thatsfake.com/did-e...
The Snowden story is a fake, you fucking idiot.
What a load of crap!
http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/...
No, there's no fakery here. And when you're finished digesting just how gullible, then you can ponder the fact that the Arctic has been as high as 30 degress above normal temperatures this winter. While you try to salve your infantile feelings that the universe should behave like you want it to, CO2 still has the properties it has been known to have for over a century;
Grow up
Yeah totally, so that way the US can be a couple of decades behind, still be pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and end up with a backwards economy.
That's how the US succeeded, by sitting on its fucking ass.
Because all renewable power generation goes offline at the same time, and there's no way to store electricity.
Clearly this evil, and an attack on fine upstanding God-fearing fossil fuel companies who have been so victimized by the evil uber-wealthy climatologists out to make the world into a Stone Age Communist Collective. Won't somebody think of the Kochs?
Yes, there was definitely a Thatcherite anti-bureaucrat edge to Yes Minister/Prime Minister. At the same time Hacker is generally shown as a well-intentioned bungler, so it's not as if the politicians get off lightly. Ultimately the actual straight man in the show is Bernard Woolley, so if anyone gets it easy it's the Principle Private Secretary, whereas the civil service, in the form of Sir Humphrey are shown as shameless schemers and Parliament and Cabinet, in the form of Hacker, are shown as hopelessly outmatched. I'd say as much as it is Thatcherite, it also invokes long-standing caricatures of the Westminster system that date back to the Victorian Era. But there is still insightful commentary on how things work behind closed doors, and Sir Humphrey, even if out of pure self-interest, does on occasion rescue Hacker from catastrophe (like where he convinces Hacker's daughter not to take part in a nude protest). If anything about it is overtly Thatcherite, it's in showing Government has been a bungling, error-prone mess always on the edge of catastrophe.
Mind you, looking at politics in the US and Britain right now, I think maybe the writers had a point. It's hard to see how Trump and Brexit represent government as a sophisticated organ of precise decision making.
Never had a real personal assistant then :)
I've tried out Cortana a few times on the crappy Win10 tablet I got free with my Dell notebook. It mainly just sends me to Bing, so I've largely deemed it useless. I suppose I could use it for scheduling, but I find speaking commands to software to be slower and more error prone than even tapping it out on a touch keyboard that I largely ignore Cortana.
I'm sorry, anyone who thinks the Mail is somehow in the same league is the NYT or Washington Post doesn't strike me as someone actually interested in reliability. Journalism isn't perfect but the Mail doesn't even try.
There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:
I think you can look at some sources and where the signal to noise ratio is so low that at the very least you should find some corroboration. The Mail really has few if any real journalistic ambitions.
Oh come on. Have you even looked at the Daily Mail? It's frequently sensationalistic in its coverage to the point where some of its headlines and stories more resemble The National Enquirer than a serious newspaper. Often times I don't think it even takes itself that seriously. The headlines are often extremely hyperbolic.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone taking the Mail that seriously. PApers like the Guardian and Telegraph have their flaws, and their obvious ideological leanings that at times leak on to the front page, but the Daily mail is just one big absurd mess, a sort of TMZ with news stories.
That's just evidence of funding, based upon what is generally agreed as a major threat. If you have some specific evidence of collaboration by scientists to essentially take taxpayer and foundations' money in a scheme of fraud, then provide it. If you cannot, then admit it.
What you didn't provide is evidence. What you have actually written is an evidence-free polemic. And that's the problem, you're lazy. You've assumed a conclusion, and that go about trying to find rationalizations why you have the opinion you have.
And when exactly has MS ever innovated?
It looks like Rambus all over again. Proprietary components should not be part of standards, period.
I already sold my soul to Cthulu.
If you have actual evidence of profiteering and dishonest dealing by climatologists, then by all means provide it. You're clearly making an accusation, so you must have actual evidence of this vast cabal of grant fraud.
There would still be climatologists whether AGW was real or not. The value of tracking regional and global climate is pretty high. The actual fact is that it has been know for over a century that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would inevitably lead to more energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere. You can make all the claims you want that climatology is some of grant boon, but the fact of the matter is that is how most research works, particularly basic research.
Do you have an actual critique of the science, or is this just yet another "scientists are warped and twisted". You do understand that grants aren't just handed out based on the topic heading. Grant applications actually require researchers to make a strong argument for why the grant should be made. You act as if it is some sort of popularity contest, but I get it, you despise the research in question, hate the results it provides, but can't really debunk it, so it's time to attack the scientists. I fail to understand how defunding climate research will make human-caused climate change go away. When you're racing towards a brick wall, I know of no evidence that closing your eyes means you won't hit it.
Grow up. The universe is what it is, and CO2 has the properties it has, and not studying those properties and there large scale effects won't make those effects go away. Reality cannot be argued away.
Do you have any evidence at all that this is in fact a career path of any researcher? This looks more like one of those "Researchers are lazy, evil and greedy" lines of thought.
For the record, want to make lots of money, in general, don't go into the sciences. Yes, there are a few science careers that can make oodles, but for the most part, science is not a path to fame and fortune.
Exactly, and if you want any efficiency in being able to buy and sell ownership and debt, you have to have some sort of market. As someone who is a part owner in a private corporation, I can tell you that there's a lot of bloody paperwork (read: lawyers and accountants fees) every time there's a share transfer. That works fine because the company is relatively small and the shareholder pool pretty static, but in a large company if every share transaction had to involve that level of work it would cost millions a year just in administering the sale and transfer. If you have a stock market that is empowered to oversee these transactions, those costs are largely mitigated. Stock markets are about efficiency and about maximizing the ability to raise capital. I'm not clear what the problem here is, other than that in some peoples' minds the markets represent some vast evil, but if you believe that, then really, you believe capitalism is a vast evil.
Of course when someone can point me to the Marxist state that didn't either end up with a stagnant or outright collapsing economy, or end up as a kleptocracy (or in the case of Venezuela, both!) then I will reconsider, but for now, it is my firm belief that capitalism, even the muddy form found in most developed nations, is the least worst economic system that has ever been developed.