...It's largely the same groups touting global warming now, that touted global cooling back in the 70s Actually you might be interested to know that global cooling was largely hyped by the media, whereas climate change today enjoys the nearly unprecedented status of a roughly 90% scientific consensus.
Now the rant:
I'm getting a bit tired of the comparisons people are making between climate change today and global cooling in the '70s. Far too many people seem to know nothing about the science behind global cooling, yet feel confident enough to insinuate that 'cooling is the opposite of warming, therefore climate change doesn't exist.' Now, for those of you who genuinely haven't yet heard of the global cooling fears in the 70s you can read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
For those of you who know better but still insist of spreading your FUD: Shame on you.
Global cooling was largely driven by the fears of all the particulate we were pumping into the atmosphere at the time (smog, sulfates, aerosols etc.) were blocking solar radiation; (less energy into reaching the ground, the cooler things get.) When governments took action against air pollution, reducing the amount of particulate in the atmosphere, the likelihood of global cooling dropped.
My understanding was that Tazers utilize massive dosages of electricity to cause the muscles to contract, thereby hampering your ability to move. This electricity is introduced, via pronged darts, directly into the muscles where it is of such magnitude that it overrides input from your nerves, whatever form that nerve input may take.
I must disagree with you. If you examine the tagline "Slashdot - news for nerds. Stuff that matters" you will see that this story is exactly the thing that is most relevant to the target audience.
You pick your target on the basis of what you are trying to accomplish. If you wish to engage in economic warfare you target the infrastructure that supports the economy (energy installations, major trade routes, stock exchanges etc. maybe even try to overwhelm the local economy with counterfeit money). If you wish to engage in a culture war then you might target seemingly random, unexpected, unimportant (even neutral, friendly or your own people!) locations in order to generate maximum public shock. With any luck, a relatively small 'strike' can generate culture wide ripples leading to knee-jerk, run-away, self-defensive (and self-serving I would argue) reactions on the part of the state which eventually cause more internal damage than what a handful of extreme individual could ever hope to achieve on their own.
I've seen comments like this in the past (personally I can't tell the difference, but I'm not the most sensitive guy in the world) and it always got me wondering why we always see this as an either/or proposition, we either go with CFL's or traditional incandecents. For energy saving reasons, one could put CFS's in low traffic areas (attics, garages) and everywhere else replace 1/2 with CFL's. While it's true that you won't save as much electricity by only replacing half your bulbs in a given room with CFL's, you'll still save some, and the remaining incandecents will provide whatever it is that some people crave from their lighting. As for radio interfearance, I can't comment since I've never run across that problem.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the global O2 output from the plants on land was only about half of the total generated. The other half of the O2 generation on this planet is from phytoplankton found in the oceans. Since this stuff is also food for the oceans, maybe we should be looking to the oceans to help solve our current problems. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/06 07_040607_phytoplankton.html
the amount of bad gasses put out by a volcano is several orders of magnitude greater than what we do. Any numbers to back that up, or are you on crack? If you bothered to do any research you would have discoved that the yearly volume of CO2 volcanoes emit is between 130-230 million tonnes (this also includes undersea volcanoes). Humans emit 22 BILLION tonnes per year. As you seem to have trouble with math, I'll do the calculation for you. WE EMIT 150 TIMES THE CO2 THAT VOLCANOES DO!http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html
it's like pissing into the ocean. Ya, we do that too, and look how fu*ked up they've become.
If the third world countries knew what had to be done, they wouldn't be third world countries anymore. Africa is a perfect example- they get millions, even billions in "aid" and the government officials just end up buying nice cars and planes with the money. Sorry to burst your bubble, but knowing what needs to be done and doing it are two very different things. It's one thing to say that then need education and investment and an economy, but you fail to take into account, that right now Africa is a seething cauldron of political instability fueled by political, religious and ethnic divisions and now to top it off family units devastated by disease (notably AIDS). This strife was created deliberately; first to enable the colonial powers to maintain dominion over such a large and resource rich content, and was subsequently adopted by the current crop of leaders for essentially the same ends. Keep this in mind when you talk about 'aid'. The western governments and banks new exactly what they were doing when they loaned billions to the warlords of Africa. By-and-large, they didn't care that those in power were all about personal enrichment, they knew that the people of the country would be stuck with the debt, regardless of any benefit they may (or likely not) have received from that money.
Your comments, and other like it, tread dangerously close to 'blaming the victim' in a rape case.
What is clearly needed is a rational study by qualified scientists, and discussion and even attacks on the conclusions drawn by other groups of equally qualified scientists. This is essentially the kind of thing that is done to keep scholarly journals on track. Articles are refereed by people with knowledge and experience in the field.
Of course! And in 20 years when the earth is not a fireball, you'll say the same thing. Well sure, if in 20 years we've taken action on green house gases, like we did with CFCs and acid rain.
One must also take issue with your use of the word 'fireball'. Let's be clear that we are talking about a temperature increase somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-6 degrees global average. This will hardly turn the earth into a 'fireball'. However, just because the earth won't spontaneously combust doesn't mean that this won't have serious consequences.
Here's a non-exhaustive list of some effects:
1. Stronger tropical storms.
2. Higher sea levels (wiping out some of the most productive land and flooding massive areas of human habitation).
3. Changes in local precipitation levels.
4. Changes to the ocean's chemical makeup.
5. Changes to ocean currents (which may, paradoxically, lead to some localized areas of the globe actually cooling down!)
6. Spread of invasive diseases and pests into non-traditional territory.
Someone posted the difference between legitimate and illegitimate scientific funding yesterday in the comments on Slashdot. Legitimate funding is when you pay someone to do research in a specific area (eg. climate change). Illegitimate funding is when you pay someone to research a specific conclusion (eg. climate change is right/wrong), because then you're assuming the conclusion.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
So lets see: Exxon Mobile doesn't like it when their scientifically baseless critisim falls on deaf ears so they offer a bounty to try and find someone with a shread of credibility who can generate something they can run with. Anybody else find this a little backassward?
The problem is that when you "run the numbers" you aren't taking into account that the "numbers" are provided by eco-communists and are deliberately cooked to always make them look good. It's a rigged game and the only way to win is not to play. The U.S. chooses not to play.
Hey good for you; I'll make my money selling technology and green energy back to you because you missed the boat.
"First, protecting the environment isn't about making your money back. It's about having a habitable planet for our kids."
Fine, but somebody has to pay for it. Should I assume that's something "the Rich" should have to pony up for? And the cost of doing nothing is what? Economic arguments agaist investing in environmental protection are stupid because they ignore that fact that doing nothing is far more expensive in the long run.
Ignoring progress is bad. Assuming it is bad too. I've been told for years that viable, affordable solar energy was just a decade away. I'm still waiting. Once it's there, sign me up. Until then, most people don't have the $$$ to piss away on immature technology. But apparently governments have the $$$ to piss away on oil subsidies. On the other hand, being a capitalist, I hope that the USA doesn't invest in green energy so the rest of the world can get rich selling it to them.
Oh, I see:
So the 'Friends of Science' paid the audio-visual departement at the UofC to string together a series of clips into a pseudo-documentary, complete with a voiceover rehashing the various editorials released by the 'Friends of Science' over the years; Then they release it on youtube. Now is that to further the science or to spread yet more FUD in the public domain?
If you've been paying attention to this debate for the last decade or so you would know that the 'facts' this troll posted have been examined and dealt with numerous times, both by knowlegable people on this site and overall by the scientific community. Now if you go look up the definition of 'Troll' on Slashdot:
Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time. (Bolding mine) you will see that the original post fit the description pretty well. I doubt I would have been so generous and would have modded it flamebait, but this mod is obviously more polite than me.
Ummmm, right... That's a good plan. Economically present yourself to the international community for castration. So it costs money to do something? Now run the numbers on the cost of doing nothing. The fact is that the US is in the position to lead by example. The US is also in the position to be left behind, in terms of green technology, if they continue along their current course of action.
Now I doubt this is going to go over will on/. but when I was in university we noted a - completely non-scientific - pattern that I'll try to sum up as succinctly as possible:
'Those who want to work for someone else go into engineering/IT; those who want others to work for them go into the arts.'
Yes, but the author is claiming that this is a hybrid; a Ponzi scheme cloaked by a legitimate virtual world. Most all the in-game transactions are legitimate (albeit often risky) but only the top few can extract any real world profits in a large scale, reliable way. For the rest, no matter your in-game success, the in-game markets react and wipe out your value before you can extract any meaningful sum of real world dollars from the game. As for the people understanding: this article was written by a financial analyst and he was fooled; he had lots of in-game success then tried all sorts of things to get his money back out and finally discovered that he couldn't do it. If someone who makes their living from the financial sector is deceived, what chance do the rest of us have?
..."any other thing that may give money to the lucky" is legal, because it is sustainable due to losses other people make, and are fully aware of. Can't be true; even in a pyramid scheme everybody goes into it knowing that if they can't get anyone to follow they stand to lose their 'investment'. It's not enough to know that you may lose your shirt; if you win, you have to be able to collect everyone elses' shirts.
Slashdot Mirror
Before you copy/paste your template letter here here you might want to make sure all your links work otherwise you just look like an idiot.
At what point do reasonable people stop listening to skeptics who bring nothing new to the table?
...It's largely the same groups touting global warming now, that touted global cooling back in the 70s Actually you might be interested to know that global cooling was largely hyped by the media, whereas climate change today enjoys the nearly unprecedented status of a roughly 90% scientific consensus.Now the rant:
I'm getting a bit tired of the comparisons people are making between climate change today and global cooling in the '70s. Far too many people seem to know nothing about the science behind global cooling, yet feel confident enough to insinuate that 'cooling is the opposite of warming, therefore climate change doesn't exist.' Now, for those of you who genuinely haven't yet heard of the global cooling fears in the 70s you can read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
For those of you who know better but still insist of spreading your FUD: Shame on you.
Global cooling was largely driven by the fears of all the particulate we were pumping into the atmosphere at the time (smog, sulfates, aerosols etc.) were blocking solar radiation; (less energy into reaching the ground, the cooler things get.) When governments took action against air pollution, reducing the amount of particulate in the atmosphere, the likelihood of global cooling dropped.
My understanding was that Tazers utilize massive dosages of electricity to cause the muscles to contract, thereby hampering your ability to move. This electricity is introduced, via pronged darts, directly into the muscles where it is of such magnitude that it overrides input from your nerves, whatever form that nerve input may take.
I must disagree with you. If you examine the tagline "Slashdot - news for nerds. Stuff that matters" you will see that this story is exactly the thing that is most relevant to the target audience.
Well,
You pick your target on the basis of what you are trying to accomplish. If you wish to engage in economic warfare you target the infrastructure that supports the economy (energy installations, major trade routes, stock exchanges etc. maybe even try to overwhelm the local economy with counterfeit money). If you wish to engage in a culture war then you might target seemingly random, unexpected, unimportant (even neutral, friendly or your own people!) locations in order to generate maximum public shock. With any luck, a relatively small 'strike' can generate culture wide ripples leading to knee-jerk, run-away, self-defensive (and self-serving I would argue) reactions on the part of the state which eventually cause more internal damage than what a handful of extreme individual could ever hope to achieve on their own.
S.
Then you need to go buy it and tell your friends to do so as well.
I've seen comments like this in the past (personally I can't tell the difference, but I'm not the most sensitive guy in the world) and it always got me wondering why we always see this as an either/or proposition, we either go with CFL's or traditional incandecents. For energy saving reasons, one could put CFS's in low traffic areas (attics, garages) and everywhere else replace 1/2 with CFL's. While it's true that you won't save as much electricity by only replacing half your bulbs in a given room with CFL's, you'll still save some, and the remaining incandecents will provide whatever it is that some people crave from their lighting. As for radio interfearance, I can't comment since I've never run across that problem.
Forget about roofs; lets make our highways white.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the global O2 output from the plants on land was only about half of the total generated. The other half of the O2 generation on this planet is from phytoplankton found in the oceans. Since this stuff is also food for the oceans, maybe we should be looking to the oceans to help solve our current problems. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/06 07_040607_phytoplankton.html
it's like pissing into the ocean. Ya, we do that too, and look how fu*ked up they've become.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Your comments, and other like it, tread dangerously close to 'blaming the victim' in a rape case.
Really? How about all the 'sh*t' all the volcanoes on earth dump out COMBINED with all the 'sh*t' that people dump out.
Hey Wmeyer: the '90s called, where were you?
One must also take issue with your use of the word 'fireball'. Let's be clear that we are talking about a temperature increase somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-6 degrees global average. This will hardly turn the earth into a 'fireball'. However, just because the earth won't spontaneously combust doesn't mean that this won't have serious consequences.
Here's a non-exhaustive list of some effects:
1. Stronger tropical storms.
2. Higher sea levels (wiping out some of the most productive land and flooding massive areas of human habitation).
3. Changes in local precipitation levels.
4. Changes to the ocean's chemical makeup.
5. Changes to ocean currents (which may, paradoxically, lead to some localized areas of the globe actually cooling down!)
6. Spread of invasive diseases and pests into non-traditional territory.
Someone posted the difference between legitimate and illegitimate scientific funding yesterday in the comments on Slashdot. Legitimate funding is when you pay someone to do research in a specific area (eg. climate change). Illegitimate funding is when you pay someone to research a specific conclusion (eg. climate change is right/wrong), because then you're assuming the conclusion.
So lets see: Exxon Mobile doesn't like it when their scientifically baseless critisim falls on deaf ears so they offer a bounty to try and find someone with a shread of credibility who can generate something they can run with. Anybody else find this a little backassward?
Hey good for you; I'll make my money selling technology and green energy back to you because you missed the boat.
Fine, but somebody has to pay for it. Should I assume that's something "the Rich" should have to pony up for? And the cost of doing nothing is what? Economic arguments agaist investing in environmental protection are stupid because they ignore that fact that doing nothing is far more expensive in the long run.
Ignoring progress is bad. Assuming it is bad too. I've been told for years that viable, affordable solar energy was just a decade away. I'm still waiting. Once it's there, sign me up. Until then, most people don't have the $$$ to piss away on immature technology. But apparently governments have the $$$ to piss away on oil subsidies. On the other hand, being a capitalist, I hope that the USA doesn't invest in green energy so the rest of the world can get rich selling it to them.
Oh, I see: So the 'Friends of Science' paid the audio-visual departement at the UofC to string together a series of clips into a pseudo-documentary, complete with a voiceover rehashing the various editorials released by the 'Friends of Science' over the years; Then they release it on youtube. Now is that to further the science or to spread yet more FUD in the public domain?
Now I doubt this is going to go over will on /. but when I was in university we noted a - completely non-scientific - pattern that I'll try to sum up as succinctly as possible:
e land.html
'Those who want to work for someone else go into engineering/IT; those who want others to work for them go into the arts.'
If you don't believe me go check out the Forbes 500 richest people list and see how many of them either dropped out or have liberal arts degrees. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2003/02/26/billionair
Now excuse my while I go round up some flame-retardant clothing.
S.
..."any other thing that may give money to the lucky" is legal, because it is sustainable due to losses other people make, and are fully aware of. Can't be true; even in a pyramid scheme everybody goes into it knowing that if they can't get anyone to follow they stand to lose their 'investment'. It's not enough to know that you may lose your shirt; if you win, you have to be able to collect everyone elses' shirts.