My point is the US gets blamed for doing nothing and for doing anything. No one is stopping any of the European nations from stopping the genocide in darfur. No one was stopping anyone from stopping it in Rwanda or intervening in Somalia. I'm saying that more often than not the US is the only nation that does anything to help while other nations do nothing except for sit back on the sideline and criticize.
China's already worried and guarding the border. Things are only getting worse in NKorea, take a read of this Times of London article. Warning though, it's pretty graphic.
The Chinese are worried about a potential influx of North Korean refugees. They are also vexed with counterfeit US currency coming from North Korea and "...vast quantities of fake Viagra from North Korea."
I've also found Strategy Page a good source for intelligence and analysis on NKorea.
What is the mechanism for global warming? Is it, as the orthodoxy suggests, a phenomenon that is mainly attributable to carbon dioxide increases? Or are we overstating the CO2 component, and ignoring other human causes for global warming, as Dr. Roger Pielke, among others, believes? If it's the latter, then would any policy that concentrates on limiting CO2 be effective in stopping or reversing global warming? Are there other policies that might as or more effective than CO2 reductions? If so, would costs and inconveniences of those policies be more or less than CO2 reduction?
How much of the warming is natural, and how much is man-made? Is this round of global warming qualitatively different than past episodes, or has man's activity kick-started a pre-existing, natural phenomenon? Obviously, the earth's climate has been both much hotter and much cooler in the past, so there are natural mechanisms that occur irrespective of the human contribution. How significant is the human contribution to global warming. Is it 20%? 50% 75%?
What if the mechanism is 80% natural, and 20% man-made? Can we reverse the natural component at all? If not, will addressing the human component stop global warming, or merely delay its effects? Again, if the latter, then would our money be better spent on combating global warming itself, or on policies designed to ameliorate the effects?
And while we're talking about other nature, what natural mechanism exist that might combat global warming naturally? Will increased instability in the weather, or an increase in the rate of water evaporation as the poles melt, cause more cloud cover, increasing the earth's albedo, and reflecting heat back into space? Will increases in CO2 spur a massive increase in plant growth, which might retard the effect of CO2 by replacing it with oxygen? What were the natural mechanisms that kicked off the various ice ages? What ended them? Can we expect any of those mechanism to come into play? If so, when and why? If not, why?
When will global warming stop? Will it ever stop (we'd better hope so)? If it will stop, how much warming can we expect? This is where the problems with predictive models come in. If our predictive models aren't reliable, i.e., they don't enable us to predict, with a degree of reliability of, say 80%, how can we answer any of these questions? If the predictive models overstate the extent of the warming, then how do we know we're spending the money to combat it wisely? Presumably, there is a cost difference between moving New York City to Omaha, and building a seawall around Manhattan. Before we make that decision, it might be useful to know if the seawall is a workable solution. It might be helpful to know when the seawall--or the move to Omaha--has to be completed. If global warming can't be stopped, then should we spend trillions in a useless attempt at CO2 abatement, or spend it to build colonies on the Moon and Mars, before the planet is turned into a second Venus?
If we don't know the answers to the questions above, then what policy or policies do we even implement? What, exactly, do we have to do to combat global warming? What, precisely, do we have to do if we choose ameliorative policies? If we don't know the answers to the above questions, we don't really know what policy set to follow. If we don't know the policy sets, then we can't really calculate their costs.
Speaking of which, assuming we can get to a clear understanding of the specific policies required, what is the cost, in lives and treasure, of doing nothing? What is the cost of a full-scale "War on Global Warming"? What is the cost of simply ameliorating the effects?
The Global Warming Orthodoxy makes it sound so simple. It's all that nasty CO2, and if we just stop producing it, everything will be fine. Let's say that's true. How much will it cost to follow that policy? How many people will die because of the restrictions of technology and industrialization that such a solution implies? How many people can expect
So why aren't they getting fed? The problem is within capitalism and the distribution system.
Thats odd, because capitalistic countries seem to provide a lot more food to their people than communist ones. The problem with people not having enough to eat in poor countries has more to do with oppressive dictatorships, rife corruption, and first world countries protectionist trade policies.
Think we know the facts about 9/11? [scholarsfor911truth.org]
Wow, not sure how a 911 conspiracy theorist got modded "insightful"
Yeah, why take it? Just have your assistant send you an internet. It make take a while for it to get through the tubes, but it is safer than giving up your laptop.
Has anyone been following the weird events surround Robert Bussard? Specifically the last paragraph of that wiki entry:
On March 29, 2006, Bussard claimed on the fusor.net forum that EMC2 had developed an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion process that was 100,000 times more efficient than previous designs. However, the company's funding ran out, and Bussard is looking for additional funding to develop a full-scale fusion power plant. On June 23, 2006 Bussard provided more details of the breakthrough and the circumstances of the shutdown of this work by the government.
I'd like to believe, but I just haven't seen this anywhere else, much less the somewhat fishy timing of the announcement.
Monitoring chat rooms is a "new police state power"? Does this mean I'm Big Brother when I idle on irc now? Sure Mussolini could make the trains run on time, but I can monitor chatrooms!
I wouldn't prefer a world that was fair. Then all the bad stuff that happens to me would be for a reason.
But other than that, yeah I agree and like how you labeled it heuristic. Always helps to think of this stuff in relation to something you're familiar with.
First, So what? They donate to a lot of people apparently. And his point wasnt that they donate to republicans, that was merely information he was using to suggest that the media is conservatively biased, which is a silly notion I think. If you want to talk about journalists being incompetent and lazy, hey I'll be right there with you, but saying that some huge corporation donated to republicans (while conviently leaving out the fact that they donate to democrats too) is pointless.
Secondly, and what is evidence of the military censoring liberal sites and not conservative ones? Some anonymous guy writing into Wonkette? You'll excuse me that I dont start comparing the US to a religious monarchy based on one anonymous report on the internet like the submitter did.
Oh so you're saying CNN, TBS, Comedy Central, Cinemax are all conservatively biased? (besides the fact that Ted Turner is a democrat? Maybe for those of you so far to the left, it might be more to the right of you, but not for most people.
Why should walmart have to provide health care to low wage part time workers? Especially when the govt is offering it for free. Heathcare shouldnt be linked to jobs, it should be in the private sector, with more healthcare spending accounts. Companies dont have to provide it, and the govt is incapable of providing it.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is the US gets blamed for doing nothing and for doing anything. No one is stopping any of the European nations from stopping the genocide in darfur. No one was stopping anyone from stopping it in Rwanda or intervening in Somalia. I'm saying that more often than not the US is the only nation that does anything to help while other nations do nothing except for sit back on the sideline and criticize.
And CBS did the same thing for Rep. Jefferson in May. It's called a mistake.
And everyone else did what to help? Regardless of reason, something > nothing
Knowing SAP, it won't actually work until Service Pack 7.
Make him stay outside in the sun and force him to work for EA.
Don't worry, *flips hand* these arent the droids you're looking for sailor.
China's already worried and guarding the border. Things are only getting worse in NKorea, take a read of this Times of London article. Warning though, it's pretty graphic.
The Chinese are worried about a potential influx of North Korean refugees. They are also vexed with counterfeit US currency coming from North Korea and "...vast quantities of fake Viagra from North Korea."
I've also found Strategy Page a good source for intelligence and analysis on NKorea.
What is the mechanism for global warming? Is it, as the orthodoxy suggests, a phenomenon that is mainly attributable to carbon dioxide increases? Or are we overstating the CO2 component, and ignoring other human causes for global warming, as Dr. Roger Pielke, among others, believes? If it's the latter, then would any policy that concentrates on limiting CO2 be effective in stopping or reversing global warming? Are there other policies that might as or more effective than CO2 reductions? If so, would costs and inconveniences of those policies be more or less than CO2 reduction?
How much of the warming is natural, and how much is man-made? Is this round of global warming qualitatively different than past episodes, or has man's activity kick-started a pre-existing, natural phenomenon? Obviously, the earth's climate has been both much hotter and much cooler in the past, so there are natural mechanisms that occur irrespective of the human contribution. How significant is the human contribution to global warming. Is it 20%? 50% 75%?
What if the mechanism is 80% natural, and 20% man-made? Can we reverse the natural component at all? If not, will addressing the human component stop global warming, or merely delay its effects? Again, if the latter, then would our money be better spent on combating global warming itself, or on policies designed to ameliorate the effects?
And while we're talking about other nature, what natural mechanism exist that might combat global warming naturally? Will increased instability in the weather, or an increase in the rate of water evaporation as the poles melt, cause more cloud cover, increasing the earth's albedo, and reflecting heat back into space? Will increases in CO2 spur a massive increase in plant growth, which might retard the effect of CO2 by replacing it with oxygen? What were the natural mechanisms that kicked off the various ice ages? What ended them? Can we expect any of those mechanism to come into play? If so, when and why? If not, why?
When will global warming stop? Will it ever stop (we'd better hope so)? If it will stop, how much warming can we expect? This is where the problems with predictive models come in. If our predictive models aren't reliable, i.e., they don't enable us to predict, with a degree of reliability of, say 80%, how can we answer any of these questions? If the predictive models overstate the extent of the warming, then how do we know we're spending the money to combat it wisely? Presumably, there is a cost difference between moving New York City to Omaha, and building a seawall around Manhattan. Before we make that decision, it might be useful to know if the seawall is a workable solution. It might be helpful to know when the seawall--or the move to Omaha--has to be completed. If global warming can't be stopped, then should we spend trillions in a useless attempt at CO2 abatement, or spend it to build colonies on the Moon and Mars, before the planet is turned into a second Venus?
If we don't know the answers to the questions above, then what policy or policies do we even implement? What, exactly, do we have to do to combat global warming? What, precisely, do we have to do if we choose ameliorative policies? If we don't know the answers to the above questions, we don't really know what policy set to follow. If we don't know the policy sets, then we can't really calculate their costs.
Speaking of which, assuming we can get to a clear understanding of the specific policies required, what is the cost, in lives and treasure, of doing nothing? What is the cost of a full-scale "War on Global Warming"? What is the cost of simply ameliorating the effects?
The Global Warming Orthodoxy makes it sound so simple. It's all that nasty CO2, and if we just stop producing it, everything will be fine. Let's say that's true. How much will it cost to follow that policy? How many people will die because of the restrictions of technology and industrialization that such a solution implies? How many people can expect
Yeah, why take it? Just have your assistant send you an internet. It make take a while for it to get through the tubes, but it is safer than giving up your laptop.
I'd like to believe, but I just haven't seen this anywhere else, much less the somewhat fishy timing of the announcement.
Just wait till one goes to law school
Monitoring chat rooms is a "new police state power"? Does this mean I'm Big Brother when I idle on irc now? Sure Mussolini could make the trains run on time, but I can monitor chatrooms!
I wouldn't prefer a world that was fair. Then all the bad stuff that happens to me would be for a reason.
But other than that, yeah I agree and like how you labeled it heuristic. Always helps to think of this stuff in relation to something you're familiar with.
I'm guessing the BBC doesnt have all the techincal details, or at least thought details like that weren't integral to the story.
Isn't "Who controls the internet" one of the later verses from the Stoncutters
Who controls the Internet
Who keeps CmdrTaco in check?
We do! we do!
Hard to top Sam "Sun Crusher" Carter. She's her very own deus ex machina.
One of those things can solve the other two
I've always wondered though, if Microsoft didnt include IE with Windows, then how would I be able to download Firefox?
Yet, the Govt is behind this.
When does Samsung roll out a gaming console?
Didnt samsung make a version of the Gamecube that would play DVDs?
modded troll for that long and thoughtful reply? You people slashdot sicken me. This is why I dont comment here anymore.
First, So what? They donate to a lot of people apparently. And his point wasnt that they donate to republicans, that was merely information he was using to suggest that the media is conservatively biased, which is a silly notion I think. If you want to talk about journalists being incompetent and lazy, hey I'll be right there with you, but saying that some huge corporation donated to republicans (while conviently leaving out the fact that they donate to democrats too) is pointless.
Secondly, and what is evidence of the military censoring liberal sites and not conservative ones? Some anonymous guy writing into Wonkette? You'll excuse me that I dont start comparing the US to a religious monarchy based on one anonymous report on the internet like the submitter did.
Oh so you're saying CNN, TBS, Comedy Central, Cinemax are all conservatively biased? (besides the fact that Ted Turner is a democrat? Maybe for those of you so far to the left, it might be more to the right of you, but not for most people.
Why should walmart have to provide health care to low wage part time workers? Especially when the govt is offering it for free. Heathcare shouldnt be linked to jobs, it should be in the private sector, with more healthcare spending accounts. Companies dont have to provide it, and the govt is incapable of providing it.