Diplomacy only works when you have something to offer, or something to threaten with. What do you propose offering to India and China in order to make them play ball? Keep in mind that while the technology you're talking about may not be "hard to do", you're looking at it from a modern perspective. For a lot of these places it's going to come down to cost issues and availability of technology. You're asking them to make things a hell of a lot harder (and more expensive) with no real benefit to them. At this point you need either the carrot or the stick. What's your carrot? Do we subsidize their economies? How much? For how long? In which way? And what do we do if they take our "assistance" and fail to comply with their end of the bargain? You seem to think the whole world is a very reasonable and honest place. I'm sorry to break it to you, but that just isn't so.
As for the US being "a teensy bit behind the rest of the developed world on this issue", I seem to recall that Canada and Australia are nearly as bad, and their emissions have been rising at a greater rate than those of the US. In fact, toxic emissions in the US (not-CO2) have fallen in recent times, while those in Canada have risen. This despite the fact that Canada is a Kyoto signatory.
Anyway, cast the US as the bad guy (again) if you want, it doesn't make a difference. The point is, for it to be effective, control of CO2 emissions has to be global, and that's not likely to happen without warfare. We can't even agree globally on simple things like human rights; do you really expect the whole world to agree on emission control?
"Well, these mushrooms are the only available food source...and there's a chance they may be poisonous. So, in order to avoid getting poisoned, I'm going to starve to death, just in case."
I don't know chief, that logic doesn't make much sense to me. If the global warming hysteria is right, we're screwed no matter what we do. Reducing emissions just puts off the inevitable, so bust out the sunscreen, grab yourself an ice-cream cone, and come enjoy the Last Days before Armageddon with me.
Good point. Frankly, I don't know. I picked those two because they're the two I'm aware of. I don't specialize in the study of planets though, so I don't know what the rest of the solar system is doing.
Well, we seem to agree on some things, so I'll just address the bits I take issue with:
1) If you think middle east oil is causing political instability, what do you suppose a war against a nation with 1 billion people would be? Especially when the only reason for the war is carbon dioxide, of all things?
2) If you don't think war would be necessary, what do you suppose India's reaction would be if we said "hey, listen guys, we know your economy has finally just started to make some progress....but we need you to stop using all that nasty oil and coal stuff".
They'd tell us to f*** right off, that's what. Probably assume it's just a CIA plot to keep the western world ahead of them. And I really couldn't blame them. So, how do YOU plan to stop them?
Even if the evidence for CO2 causing global warming were 100% bulletproof, it's useless unless we can convince ALL countries to do something about it. I don't see any way of achieving that short of war. And before you start talking about economic incentives, consider the size of the populations you'd need to bribe, AND consider how little effect economic incentives have had in nations like North Korea.
Well, unfortunately these questions won't be answered any time soon with any degree of reliability, but rest assured that if they are I'll be coming around to collect that house, bike, car, etc:) You can keep the wife and kids though, I'm not in a hurry to acquire any of those.
Anyway, the way I see it, as long as we can't determine how much effect CO2 has on the earth, we can't effectively combat it. I mean, realistically, if we believed the global warming studies, we should be switching entirely to nuclear power within the next decade, and then bombing the shit out of any country that refuses to do the same. If the global warming proponents are right, the growing economies of India and China are a massive threat to the survival of our whole species. We either get them to stop polluting within the next 10 years, or we have to kill them off in order to preserve as much of our species as possible.
On the other hand, I'd rather not be an alarmist. I'd rather not ruin our economies, turn global politics upside down, and start multiple wars on the idea that maybe, just maybe, CO2 might cause the world to overheat. We can't be certain just how much CO2 affects global temperatures....but we CAN be certain that the Kyoto protocol is useless at combating it...and we CAN be certain that the only truly effective ways to combat CO2 pollution would also cause massive global economic disruption, as well as requiring force to implement. So let's do a little more research first, huh?
As Arrhenius predicted, both carbon dioxide levels and temperatures increased from 1900-1999. However, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased much more quickly than he expected, but the Earth hasn't warmed as much as he thought it would. (Graphs by Robert Simmon, based on data from NOAA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that carbon emissions have no effect at all on the global temperature. What's in debate is just how much effect they have. Will a tripling in global carbon emissions cause a 5 degree rise, or only a.005 degree rise? If the latter, do we really need to be worried about it?
That's the kind of questions which lead to questioning of the overall global warming theory, because they've never been successfully answered. And that's why questions about climate change on Mars and Venus become relevant - because if the temperature is changing on those planets then it's quite possible that carbon dioxide is an almost insignificant factor in the temperature rise which OUR planet is experiencing, and that the major cause is the sun.
Hell, for all we know, the rise in CO2 might be the symptom instead of the cause of global warming. Granted, it's unlikely, but how do we know for sure? Has anyone measured CO2 levels on mars and venus? So far the only proof we have that co2 is linked to global warming is that any time in the past when temperatures have gone up, so has CO2. How can we prove which one is the cause, and which one a symptom? And if we can't even prove that, how in the world can we possibly expect to determine exactly how much effect CO2 has on temperature?
You know....I was looking to mod your post...but I couldn't figure out whether to go with "insightful" or "flame-bait". I certainly agree with most of your post, and I couldn't have phrased it better myself.....but the "republican propaganda" bit at the front of it totally ruins the effect. I don't know what kind of propaganda that was, but it certainly wasn't republican.
Re:today's maps will be historical
on
Google Earth In 4D
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You see, that's my point. When Rome fell things got worse for a while, but their technology, their teachings, their culture, even their political system, all of it either continued to be used or was preserved and reused later. In modern times, there wouldn't even be any dark ages because it would require the destruction of not just the US, but also Canada, Australia, all of Europe, and much of Asia. No matter what, human-kind will continue marching upwards. There's only a few things that could really affect us as a race, and that's either global nuclear warfare, massive change in solar activity, or getting hammered by a really big asteroid.
Re:today's maps will be historical
on
Google Earth In 4D
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Won't happen. While there have been numerous hiccups on our way through history, human progression hasn't ever seen any massive reversion. Even if the US and most of the western world gets wiped out by Islamic savagery, their society would become more liberal eventualy, and in the meantime you'd have countries like China to pick up the slack. I know it's not much comfort to you, but even if our society dies out, many of our ideals and most of our technological accomplishments will live on in other nations.
Listen assclown, nobody's interested in taking away money from the dirt poor, because if they don't have money, they can't buy our products. In fact, if you had been paying attention at all, you would have noticed that whenever the gap between the rich and the poor increases, the "poor" end up being better off than they ever were before. Jealousy is an ugly, ugly thing.
The fact that most people in recent Republican administrations are intimately linked with oil companies should tell you all what you need to know about which side has the resources to spin their truth.
Yes, it tells me that they're good at making money. What did you expect? Who SHOULD they be "linked" with? The Salvation Army? Take it easy on the conspiracy theories, if you take 'em too seriously they tend to drive you insane.
Ah. So it's the "there's nothing you can do, so you may as well go nuts" theory. Gotcha.
Thing is, "duck and cover" was never meant to save lives at ground zero. You're absolutely right, anyone within 5 miles of a decent sized nuke will more than likely be vaporized or flattened by the concussion. However, anyone THAT close also won't have much of a chance to "avoid looking at the flash", let alone try to find a place to hide, since the blast will hit them before they even have a chance to think "oh shit".
All of this advice is meant for individuals far enough away from ground zero to have a chance of surviving. We're talking 10, 15, 20 miles away. At that distance you're only going to see between a 10 and 40 percent fatality rate, depending on the size of the nuke. The majority of those won't be from blast damage, they'll be from getting struck by flying debris or having structures collapse on them. So the advice is actually quite relevant and useful. Unfortunately people hear a dumb joke, and disregard the entire concept.
Depends on the part of Canada. Toronto tends to stay warm because of the lake. On the other hand, I was working about 2 hours north a few weeks back and the weather was alternating between rain and snow. I think I saw maybe 5 minutes of sunshine the whole time I was there.
Why not just say that we should all increase our research budgets for these things rather than trying to get Kofi Annan to manage a gigantic research effort?
Well, while I'm a big fan of the competition that free markets encourage, it might be more productive in this case to have one giant project instead of hundreds of tiny ones. I have no statistics to back this up, it's just an idea. I'd be just as happy about increased funding to existing projects.
I couldn't agree more. I just thought it was funny that you said "the more productive version of the Manhattan project", when really we're building on top of one of the best research projects in history.
Ah, I see. The reason I said that is because the Manhattan project was meant to develop a weapon, not a power source. Therefore, a project geared specifically towards producing alternate fuel sources would definitely be more productive by design. The Manhattan project ended up being very productive, but it's initial goal was purely destructive.
Protecting children from what? As far as I can tell, the hosted sites were "support groups", not pornography exchange forums. Isn't that rather like protecting your children from drugs by shutting down the local rehab clinic?
That's without even getting into the "how do you define 'children'" argument.
Please stop repeating this idea nonsense that Climate Scientists' sole reason to support Global Warming is that they need it to keep their jobs. It's not only insulting to them, it casts you in a bad light as well.
Actually I was saying exactly that to those who insist that anyone disagreeing with the mainstream view must be paid off by oil corporations. As you said, it's insulting to them, and it casts you in a bad light as well. Guess you misunderstood the point of my post.
Well I live in Canada, and I'm SERIOUSLY pissed off because these assholes have been promising me Global Warming for at least 6 years now, yet I spend 6 months out of every year freezing my friggin' balls off. Makes me want to buy an SUV and help the process along.
I see you've never looked at the budgets for groups like Greenpeace, etc. Research that backs up the idea that Global Warming is man made actually has more potential to generate funding than the opposite. Why? Because it can be used to guilt-trip citizens and government into throwing fistfuls of money both at the problem and (thanks to Kyoto) at the third world. As such, it's not only lucrative for certain organizations, but also achieves the aims of the "wealth-redistribution" crowd. If you don't think that BOTH sides of the Global Warming debate are heavily politicized and biased, you're sadly mistaken. By your logic, you shouldn't trust the research of either side.
Don't get me wrong, I have very little love for the UN, but who else would you put in charge of billions in funding from dozens of modern nations? And don't say "the US" because, while we may not trust the UN, much of the world doesn't trust the US.
And yes I agree that as of now Nuclear is the way to go. However, what we're still lacking is an efficient storage medium for using that energy in vehicles. So we need to invest more in hydrogen research, or better yet on developing better batteries, in order to switch to electric motors instead of internal combustion. Also, more efficient solar panels would be helpful for such vehicles because they could extend the range by recharging batteries any time they're exposed to sunlight. Finally, if we can ever get fusion working, we'll have an energy source that's safer than nuclear, and doesn't incur such hefty waste disposal fees. So all these avenues of research are quite worthwhile.
You can't be serious!Kyoto may be "placing a price on a resource", but it's an artificial price on an uncontrollable resource. It's the equivalent of saying "we're going to charge you $1 for every liter of water you drink, but your neighbor didn't sign this agreement, so he gets it for free. oh and by the way, the money we take from you will be given to that homeless guy across town who keeps kicking your car every time you drive by".
Slashdot Mirror
You know, Hannibal Lecter had a very "agile and developed" mind, and I'm pretty sure he defended his dietary habits in much the same fashion.
Those who differ from the norm always consider themselves superior rather than inferior.
Diplomacy only works when you have something to offer, or something to threaten with. What do you propose offering to India and China in order to make them play ball? Keep in mind that while the technology you're talking about may not be "hard to do", you're looking at it from a modern perspective. For a lot of these places it's going to come down to cost issues and availability of technology. You're asking them to make things a hell of a lot harder (and more expensive) with no real benefit to them. At this point you need either the carrot or the stick. What's your carrot? Do we subsidize their economies? How much? For how long? In which way? And what do we do if they take our "assistance" and fail to comply with their end of the bargain? You seem to think the whole world is a very reasonable and honest place. I'm sorry to break it to you, but that just isn't so.
As for the US being "a teensy bit behind the rest of the developed world on this issue", I seem to recall that Canada and Australia are nearly as bad, and their emissions have been rising at a greater rate than those of the US. In fact, toxic emissions in the US (not-CO2) have fallen in recent times, while those in Canada have risen. This despite the fact that Canada is a Kyoto signatory.
Anyway, cast the US as the bad guy (again) if you want, it doesn't make a difference. The point is, for it to be effective, control of CO2 emissions has to be global, and that's not likely to happen without warfare. We can't even agree globally on simple things like human rights; do you really expect the whole world to agree on emission control?
"Well, these mushrooms are the only available food source...and there's a chance they may be poisonous. So, in order to avoid getting poisoned, I'm going to starve to death, just in case."
I don't know chief, that logic doesn't make much sense to me. If the global warming hysteria is right, we're screwed no matter what we do. Reducing emissions just puts off the inevitable, so bust out the sunscreen, grab yourself an ice-cream cone, and come enjoy the Last Days before Armageddon with me.
Good point. Frankly, I don't know. I picked those two because they're the two I'm aware of. I don't specialize in the study of planets though, so I don't know what the rest of the solar system is doing.
Well, we seem to agree on some things, so I'll just address the bits I take issue with:
1) If you think middle east oil is causing political instability, what do you suppose a war against a nation with 1 billion people would be? Especially when the only reason for the war is carbon dioxide, of all things?
2) If you don't think war would be necessary, what do you suppose India's reaction would be if we said "hey, listen guys, we know your economy has finally just started to make some progress....but we need you to stop using all that nasty oil and coal stuff".
They'd tell us to f*** right off, that's what. Probably assume it's just a CIA plot to keep the western world ahead of them. And I really couldn't blame them. So, how do YOU plan to stop them?
Even if the evidence for CO2 causing global warming were 100% bulletproof, it's useless unless we can convince ALL countries to do something about it. I don't see any way of achieving that short of war. And before you start talking about economic incentives, consider the size of the populations you'd need to bribe, AND consider how little effect economic incentives have had in nations like North Korea.
Well, unfortunately these questions won't be answered any time soon with any degree of reliability, but rest assured that if they are I'll be coming around to collect that house, bike, car, etc :) You can keep the wife and kids though, I'm not in a hurry to acquire any of those.
Anyway, the way I see it, as long as we can't determine how much effect CO2 has on the earth, we can't effectively combat it. I mean, realistically, if we believed the global warming studies, we should be switching entirely to nuclear power within the next decade, and then bombing the shit out of any country that refuses to do the same. If the global warming proponents are right, the growing economies of India and China are a massive threat to the survival of our whole species. We either get them to stop polluting within the next 10 years, or we have to kill them off in order to preserve as much of our species as possible.
On the other hand, I'd rather not be an alarmist. I'd rather not ruin our economies, turn global politics upside down, and start multiple wars on the idea that maybe, just maybe, CO2 might cause the world to overheat. We can't be certain just how much CO2 affects global temperatures....but we CAN be certain that the Kyoto protocol is useless at combating it...and we CAN be certain that the only truly effective ways to combat CO2 pollution would also cause massive global economic disruption, as well as requiring force to implement. So let's do a little more research first, huh?
semper ubi sub ubi
Show me where I said "it must be true", and we'll talk. In the meantime, stop trolling.
From the Arrhenius link which you provided:
.005 degree rise? If the latter, do we really need to be worried about it?
As Arrhenius predicted, both carbon dioxide levels and temperatures increased from 1900-1999. However, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased much more quickly than he expected, but the Earth hasn't warmed as much as he thought it would. (Graphs by Robert Simmon, based on data from NOAA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that carbon emissions have no effect at all on the global temperature. What's in debate is just how much effect they have. Will a tripling in global carbon emissions cause a 5 degree rise, or only a
That's the kind of questions which lead to questioning of the overall global warming theory, because they've never been successfully answered. And that's why questions about climate change on Mars and Venus become relevant - because if the temperature is changing on those planets then it's quite possible that carbon dioxide is an almost insignificant factor in the temperature rise which OUR planet is experiencing, and that the major cause is the sun.
Hell, for all we know, the rise in CO2 might be the symptom instead of the cause of global warming. Granted, it's unlikely, but how do we know for sure? Has anyone measured CO2 levels on mars and venus? So far the only proof we have that co2 is linked to global warming is that any time in the past when temperatures have gone up, so has CO2. How can we prove which one is the cause, and which one a symptom? And if we can't even prove that, how in the world can we possibly expect to determine exactly how much effect CO2 has on temperature?
You know....I was looking to mod your post...but I couldn't figure out whether to go with "insightful" or "flame-bait". I certainly agree with most of your post, and I couldn't have phrased it better myself.....but the "republican propaganda" bit at the front of it totally ruins the effect. I don't know what kind of propaganda that was, but it certainly wasn't republican.
You see, that's my point. When Rome fell things got worse for a while, but their technology, their teachings, their culture, even their political system, all of it either continued to be used or was preserved and reused later. In modern times, there wouldn't even be any dark ages because it would require the destruction of not just the US, but also Canada, Australia, all of Europe, and much of Asia. No matter what, human-kind will continue marching upwards. There's only a few things that could really affect us as a race, and that's either global nuclear warfare, massive change in solar activity, or getting hammered by a really big asteroid.
Won't happen. While there have been numerous hiccups on our way through history, human progression hasn't ever seen any massive reversion. Even if the US and most of the western world gets wiped out by Islamic savagery, their society would become more liberal eventualy, and in the meantime you'd have countries like China to pick up the slack. I know it's not much comfort to you, but even if our society dies out, many of our ideals and most of our technological accomplishments will live on in other nations.
Someone needs remedial economics lessons....
Listen assclown, nobody's interested in taking away money from the dirt poor, because if they don't have money, they can't buy our products. In fact, if you had been paying attention at all, you would have noticed that whenever the gap between the rich and the poor increases, the "poor" end up being better off than they ever were before. Jealousy is an ugly, ugly thing.
The fact that most people in recent Republican administrations are intimately linked with oil companies should tell you all what you need to know about which side has the resources to spin their truth.
Yes, it tells me that they're good at making money. What did you expect? Who SHOULD they be "linked" with? The Salvation Army? Take it easy on the conspiracy theories, if you take 'em too seriously they tend to drive you insane.
Ah. So it's the "there's nothing you can do, so you may as well go nuts" theory. Gotcha.
Thing is, "duck and cover" was never meant to save lives at ground zero. You're absolutely right, anyone within 5 miles of a decent sized nuke will more than likely be vaporized or flattened by the concussion. However, anyone THAT close also won't have much of a chance to "avoid looking at the flash", let alone try to find a place to hide, since the blast will hit them before they even have a chance to think "oh shit".
All of this advice is meant for individuals far enough away from ground zero to have a chance of surviving. We're talking 10, 15, 20 miles away. At that distance you're only going to see between a 10 and 40 percent fatality rate, depending on the size of the nuke. The majority of those won't be from blast damage, they'll be from getting struck by flying debris or having structures collapse on them. So the advice is actually quite relevant and useful. Unfortunately people hear a dumb joke, and disregard the entire concept.
You know, I never understood why people find the "duck and cover" thing so amusing.
Congratulations! You've just won the "Most Blatant Troll In History" award. Tell me, how does it feel to be a "winner"?
Depends on the part of Canada. Toronto tends to stay warm because of the lake. On the other hand, I was working about 2 hours north a few weeks back and the weather was alternating between rain and snow. I think I saw maybe 5 minutes of sunshine the whole time I was there.
Why not just say that we should all increase our research budgets for these things rather than trying to get Kofi Annan to manage a gigantic research effort?
Well, while I'm a big fan of the competition that free markets encourage, it might be more productive in this case to have one giant project instead of hundreds of tiny ones. I have no statistics to back this up, it's just an idea. I'd be just as happy about increased funding to existing projects.
I couldn't agree more. I just thought it was funny that you said "the more productive version of the Manhattan project", when really we're building on top of one of the best research projects in history.
Ah, I see. The reason I said that is because the Manhattan project was meant to develop a weapon, not a power source. Therefore, a project geared specifically towards producing alternate fuel sources would definitely be more productive by design. The Manhattan project ended up being very productive, but it's initial goal was purely destructive.
I don't think we're speaking the same language here....
Protecting children from what? As far as I can tell, the hosted sites were "support groups", not pornography exchange forums. Isn't that rather like protecting your children from drugs by shutting down the local rehab clinic?
That's without even getting into the "how do you define 'children'" argument.
Please stop repeating this idea nonsense that Climate Scientists' sole reason to support Global Warming is that they need it to keep their jobs. It's not only insulting to them, it casts you in a bad light as well.
Actually I was saying exactly that to those who insist that anyone disagreeing with the mainstream view must be paid off by oil corporations. As you said, it's insulting to them, and it casts you in a bad light as well. Guess you misunderstood the point of my post.
Well I live in Canada, and I'm SERIOUSLY pissed off because these assholes have been promising me Global Warming for at least 6 years now, yet I spend 6 months out of every year freezing my friggin' balls off. Makes me want to buy an SUV and help the process along.
I see you've never looked at the budgets for groups like Greenpeace, etc. Research that backs up the idea that Global Warming is man made actually has more potential to generate funding than the opposite. Why? Because it can be used to guilt-trip citizens and government into throwing fistfuls of money both at the problem and (thanks to Kyoto) at the third world. As such, it's not only lucrative for certain organizations, but also achieves the aims of the "wealth-redistribution" crowd. If you don't think that BOTH sides of the Global Warming debate are heavily politicized and biased, you're sadly mistaken. By your logic, you shouldn't trust the research of either side.
Don't get me wrong, I have very little love for the UN, but who else would you put in charge of billions in funding from dozens of modern nations? And don't say "the US" because, while we may not trust the UN, much of the world doesn't trust the US.
And yes I agree that as of now Nuclear is the way to go. However, what we're still lacking is an efficient storage medium for using that energy in vehicles. So we need to invest more in hydrogen research, or better yet on developing better batteries, in order to switch to electric motors instead of internal combustion. Also, more efficient solar panels would be helpful for such vehicles because they could extend the range by recharging batteries any time they're exposed to sunlight. Finally, if we can ever get fusion working, we'll have an energy source that's safer than nuclear, and doesn't incur such hefty waste disposal fees. So all these avenues of research are quite worthwhile.
You can't be serious!Kyoto may be "placing a price on a resource", but it's an artificial price on an uncontrollable resource. It's the equivalent of saying "we're going to charge you $1 for every liter of water you drink, but your neighbor didn't sign this agreement, so he gets it for free. oh and by the way, the money we take from you will be given to that homeless guy across town who keeps kicking your car every time you drive by".