The Arab Spring was started by food riots. Do you think Mubarak increased food prices voluntarily? Or could it *possibly* have anything to do with the fact that Egypt turned from an oil exporting country to an importer just a few years earlier?
The only thing that Malthus didn't foresee was the fossil fuel bonanza. In the industrialized countries today fields are tools to turn fossil fuel into food. And fossil fuel is going where? The Earth's carrying capacity without fossil fuel is generally estimated around 1 or 2 billion. Making hydrocarbons out of electric power (plus water and CO2) is possible but just as inefficient as plants. So solar or wind or nukes will not help.
Yup. My dad always used to say "You don't know what hunger is!" when I said "I'm hungry." During and right after WWII they were sent by their parents to glean potatoes and grains from the fields after harvest. Not before - they'd be arrested or shot. The older kids climbed on moving trains and threw coal down for the younger kids to collect.
So you want to punish people for a thought crime? Remember, molestation and rape are different from pedophilia. I reached my current standpoint after running into and lurking on an anonymous pedo discussion board while exploring TOR. The self confessed pedophiles hated child molesters and rapists with a passion.
Yeah, and 97% of climatologists disagree with you. Fine. There's also plenty of people who don't believe in evolution. Or an expanding universe. Or the moon landing. You're in good company there but you're outside of science. Or reality. Or facts. Yeah I know those are obsolete in today's discourse.
AGW was quantitatively predicted by Hansen (1982) and the prediction came true, pretty close to the forecasted numbers. That's why it's verified science. If you don't like it, you'd better find a different universe.
The study appeared in a peer-reviewed psychology journal and only climate change deniers harp on it. I think it makes total sense given how belief in HAARP weather modification, chemtrails and similar nonsense are widespread in the climate change denier echo chamber.
I just did a bit of googling: From wikipedia: The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[3][61] but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%.[3][64]
That's an order of magnitude higher than I thought, higher than homosexuality.
If you want portable, I'd say get a netbook. Even though they get fewer and fewer, there are still some around. You'll have to find one on sale if you want to break $300 though. I'd also recommend installing Linux if you don't want it infested with all sorts of nasty stuff within weeks.
If it doesn't have to be portable, build one. Easily done for <$300 and your kid will learn a lot. And if he built it he'll treat it with more respect. It's trivial (there are many instruction videos on YouTube) and for parts lists you can start at http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/04/ars-bargain-box/.
Just the other day, when I ran on the beach, there were a few families with their small children playing naked in the sand. Must have been European tourists, of course no God-fearing Americans would ever do that, LOL. But if I'd worn Google glasses, would I be a criminal now?
A pedophile is someone sexually attracted to prepubescent children. The incidence of pedophilia is estimated to be around 1%, only slightly lower than homosexuality. Don't muddle pedophile/molester/rapist. Someone who molests a child is a child molester, not a pedophile.
This is fundamentally stupid because there is no correlation to an increase in speed by X% matches the increased rate of fuel consumption.
Huh? Increasing your speed by a factor of X increases the power to overcome air resistance by X^2 (assuming you aren't driving in a vacuum.) Unless you are at extremely low speeds (that a car isn't made for, like walking speed) an increase in engine power output will increase your gas consumption, all else being equal. At higher speeds the increase in gas consumption is higher than the increase in power output because a gas engine is most efficient around 1/3rd to 1/2 of max rpm.
So, bottom line, at realistic speeds they were even underestimating the increase in gas consumption.
Did these test subjects come to these conclusions under their own accord, or were they influenced by right leaning media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.).
What's the difference? We all come to our conclusions about the world based on all input we receive.
Provide only one view of the world to a person and you can program them perfectly. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot understood that perfectly.
Slashdot Mirror
The Arab Spring was started by food riots. Do you think Mubarak increased food prices voluntarily?
Or could it *possibly* have anything to do with the fact that Egypt turned from an oil exporting country to an importer just a few years earlier?
The only thing that Malthus didn't foresee was the fossil fuel bonanza. In the industrialized countries today fields are tools to turn fossil fuel into food.
And fossil fuel is going where?
The Earth's carrying capacity without fossil fuel is generally estimated around 1 or 2 billion.
Making hydrocarbons out of electric power (plus water and CO2) is possible but just as inefficient as plants. So solar or wind or nukes will not help.
Yup.
My dad always used to say "You don't know what hunger is!" when I said "I'm hungry."
During and right after WWII they were sent by their parents to glean potatoes and grains from the fields after harvest. Not before - they'd be arrested or shot.
The older kids climbed on moving trains and threw coal down for the younger kids to collect.
Except once knowledge of the accurate model is wide spread it will change the outcome events, in sort of a societal uncertainty principle.
Only if you can do anything about it.
What can you do about global warming and peak oil, at least in the short term?
This is getting tiresome.
You win - you've worn out my patience.
So you want to punish people for a thought crime?
Remember, molestation and rape are different from pedophilia.
I reached my current standpoint after running into and lurking on an anonymous pedo discussion board while exploring TOR.
The self confessed pedophiles hated child molesters and rapists with a passion.
It says that pedophilia is just as normal as homosexuality.
Child molestation or rape, OTOH, isn't. You have to be a sociopath to do that.
Yeah, and 97% of climatologists disagree with you. Fine. There's also plenty of people who don't believe in evolution. Or an expanding universe. Or the moon landing. You're in good company there but you're outside of science. Or reality. Or facts. Yeah I know those are obsolete in today's discourse.
AGW was quantitatively predicted by Hansen (1982) and the prediction came true, pretty close to the forecasted numbers. That's why it's verified science.
If you don't like it, you'd better find a different universe.
The study appeared in a peer-reviewed psychology journal and only climate change deniers harp on it.
I think it makes total sense given how belief in HAARP weather modification, chemtrails and similar nonsense are widespread in the climate change denier echo chamber.
OK, I'll rephrase that for you:
The problem is having only two legal statuses, child and adult, with no gradation in between.
I just did a bit of googling:
From wikipedia:
The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[3][61] but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%.[3][64]
That's an order of magnitude higher than I thought, higher than homosexuality.
Only slightly better. McIntyre lost a lot of karma in "Climategate" and is associated with Heartland. Not good.
He also isn't a climatologist.
If you want portable, I'd say get a netbook. Even though they get fewer and fewer, there are still some around. You'll have to find one on sale if you want to break $300 though. I'd also recommend installing Linux if you don't want it infested with all sorts of nasty stuff within weeks.
If it doesn't have to be portable, build one. Easily done for <$300 and your kid will learn a lot. And if he built it he'll treat it with more respect.
It's trivial (there are many instruction videos on YouTube) and for parts lists you can start at http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/04/ars-bargain-box/.
And that is BS. Libertarian Kool-Aid.
Citation needed.
Just the other day, when I ran on the beach, there were a few families with their small children playing naked in the sand.
Must have been European tourists, of course no God-fearing Americans would ever do that, LOL.
But if I'd worn Google glasses, would I be a criminal now?
It is related because in order to create child pornography a child must be molested.
Wrong. Two 17 year olds filming or photographing themselves naked or (God forbid!) having sex is child pornography per the law.
The problem is calling 17 year olds "children."
A pedophile is someone sexually attracted to prepubescent children.
The incidence of pedophilia is estimated to be around 1%, only slightly lower than homosexuality.
Don't muddle pedophile/molester/rapist. Someone who molests a child is a child molester, not a pedophile.
Spending time on WUWT is a waste of time with all the anti-scientific BS. I prefer science sites.
Sorry, if it's legit it will be picked up by other outlets too. It it's only on WUWT it's not worth reading.
Why is that infected dog shitting all over the beach?
Or rather, why do assholes bring their dogs to the beach after the lifeguards have gone?
-1, WUWT reference.
This is fundamentally stupid because there is no correlation to an increase in speed by X% matches the increased rate of fuel consumption.
Huh? Increasing your speed by a factor of X increases the power to overcome air resistance by X^2 (assuming you aren't driving in a vacuum.) Unless you are at extremely low speeds (that a car isn't made for, like walking speed) an increase in engine power output will increase your gas consumption, all else being equal. At higher speeds the increase in gas consumption is higher than the increase in power output because a gas engine is most efficient around 1/3rd to 1/2 of max rpm.
So, bottom line, at realistic speeds they were even underestimating the increase in gas consumption.
Did these test subjects come to these conclusions under their own accord, or were they influenced by right leaning media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.).
What's the difference? We all come to our conclusions about the world based on all input we receive.
Provide only one view of the world to a person and you can program them perfectly. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot understood that perfectly.