It is interesting how Ruppert Murdoch has managed so effectively to squeeze Christianity completely out of the modern republican party and transform it into a captured market. Business and theology students will be studying this in coming centuries.
No, instead he gave us two wars, neither of which were funded on budget. Whatever transgression "Fast and Furious", originally a Bush program, may have amounted to, it pales in comparison to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of the cost and sacrifice to the country.
The notion that both parties are the same is so false and bogus as to be absurd. To say that Obama is indistinguishable with GWB is even more ridiculous, whatever your politics.
To cite but one example: Every republican candidates with the exception of one has essentially promised to go to war with Iran (a few promise to start a few additional wars ie China, Mexico, etc.). It seems Obama is trying hard to end the second of two wars (has already ended one) and doing what he can to avoid going to war with Iran.
Given that Iran is a major supplier of oil to the Chinese and a major importer of Russian goods and services, a war with Iran would not be "cakewalk" or "pay for itself" as did the Iraq war. It would close the Strait of Hormuz for a considerable period of time and dramatically affect all economies of the world for the worse. It could easily take out Saudi Oil production facilities and much of the world's supertanker fleet.
Its hard to fathom the purpose of such a spin on the truth, but it just too absurd to be taken seriously.
"One side things the government should provide for everyone, the other that people should provide for themselves."
All the while both camps fail to recognize that doing either in any absolute way is essentially impossible and doomed to failure, which as more and more multinational corporations become increasingly foreign owned will make either choice irrelevant.
"I distrust both government and private industry."
Which I guess means running the planet as a non-profit organization. Perhaps not such a bad idea, if we could come to some reasonable mechanism for establishing membership fees and and worthy recipients of the activity. However, when you begin to think about it, such an entity would pretty much have to function as a government, so that one really does have to make a choice between the two in the larger sense.
Yes, the problem here is that there are many who are not paying their fair share relative to what they are extracting from society and the planet.
The vast majority within the 1% come to mind as their total income is taxed at a rate of on average only 12-14%, whereas that of the 99% is taxed at about 30%.
Therein lies the critical issue. Voters need to cast their vote carefully for those who have actually demonstrated accomplishment, rather than a merely presenting a long list of promises. It is up to voters to decide what accomplishments they value most. However, at least we will be selecting among candidates, who at least have a track record of actually accomplishing something other than making speeches and promises.
Until this is done, forget the entire concept of democracy actually working in a way sufficiently efficiently and practically to overcome the challenges presented by societies that are not so encumbered by citizens making choices.
A reasonable summary. However, the mistake that most make is waiting until a presidential election to get serious about alternative parties or party "wings". Likewise, alternative parties or "internal wings", would do well by first working at the local level and targeting local and regional offices that reflect the character of their constituencies.
Corporate and money interests have an easy time playing every one off against themselves when they only have to two parties to deal with. If at a local level there were the Tea-Partys, Greens, Libertarians, Socialist Workers Party, Nazis, Communists, Theocratic Christian Party, The Muslim Brotherhood, etc. in addition to the Democrats and Republicans democracy would work a lot better as all would have to appeal to the center to expect a chance at election.
Its not as if people don't hold the views they do. The only way to force "reasonable" choices to be made is for there to be more of a competition of ideas rather than dollars. It is this aspect of our electoral process that has our system largely broken. Yes, it could be scary and many may prefer to move, but ultimately workable solutions would emerge. Those who vote for the wrong leaders will simply suffer the consequences, but at least the entire system of a set of United States would work as intended than grind to a dysfunctional halt as a few well financed competitors divide the spoils and keep everyone else hostage.
The way around that is to start third and fourth and fifth parties for local elections and then work up from there. Everyone then gets to vote for their choice, democracy works since only one party can be elected at any one time, and there is no adverse problems associated with having to "vote for the lesser of two evils".
That's largely irrelevant. The real question is how will the various disagreeing parties begin to adapt to the ever more uncomfortably warm temperatures and more extreme weather events. No doubt some will remain oblivious until reality sets in. Others may try to act and resent those who don't carry their weight. Others will hopefully find solutions. Time will tell, but it seems progressively more clear with each new climatic milestone that is reached that the time to see what will happen is closer at hand than many currently think.
Not really. Climate scientists don't have any special ability to observe with more accuracy or make prudent inferences. The data are there for any to reach their own conclusions, recognizing of course that there are lots of complicated issues to address.
However, generally speaking unless one has primary or original evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to take their findings seriously. Its not as if these people are CEO's or lawyers of fossil fuel companies and making a fortune keeping people ignorant as to the underlying accuracy of current science and hence have really anything to gain more valuable than their scientific reputations.
You might want to tell that the families of the tens of thousands of people who lost their lives this year from flooding worldwide. Even if only 2% of them were the result of global warming, that is still a very large number of lives.
"Go ahead, show us how smart you are and that you have "corrected" for all variables."
Curious as to why you think a priori that the variables require correction in the first place? They are simply random variables and can be modeled as such.
Generally speaking temperatures are graded relative to the equator and poles and change seasonally depending on the Hemisphere. What Sahvano fails to mention is that given the Coriolis force giving rise to the Gulf Current. France and Boston are not as equivalent as might be expected since they are on different sides of the North Atlantic gyre.
As a biologist, I would have to disagree. This phenomenon is not restricted to Americans or even to humans. All evidence suggests that mammals have been trying to out shout one another for millions of years. Prior to science, those that shouted the loudest usually won the argument. Unfortunately, many now simply don't recognize that making more noise than the other guy doesn't exactly advance an objectively based argument.
It really doesn't do much to cloud the discussion with inappropriate and meaningless analogies. If one is going to disagree with climatologists and claim that the earth is not experiencing a profound, rapid warming forced by carbon dioxide, then one is going to actually have to provide some actual evidence to the contrary to remain credible.
Actually, paleoclimatology is a rather old scientific discipline that originally arose in investigating the distribution of fossil microorganisms. Ironically, in many cases as the result of studies focused on finding better ways to discover new sources of fossil fuels.
Don't feel bad though. Even Einstein, Gauss, and Newton didn't know much when they first got started. It appears, however, that unlike the aforementioned gentlemen, they seemed not to have been trapped by their ideology as you seem to be and consequently could muster the clarity of mind to calmly and carefully observe for themselves and make rational inferences from those observations.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, but climatology like most other sciences are now multidisciplinary in nature. This is what makes the case for AWG so compelling. The sources of the data are quite independent but all point to the same overall conclusion. The earth is warming dramatically relative to the rates that took place in the past and the only credible explanation so far put forward to explain it is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an increase which happens to coincide almost precisely with the observed warming and the expected warming given known physical characteristics of carbon dioxide as it interacts with electromagnetic radiation.
Thank you for making this point. I never cease to be amazed by how those who deny AGW have so little idea of the time scales involved or the rates at which the warming is taking place relative to the historical baseline of previous climatic change.
This is patently false. Although there are cyclical events, except for a brief period in the Pleistocene, there is no evidence that warming and cooling of the climate are cyclical in nature. Beside, the rate of change during the Pleistocene was about 100 times slower than what is occurring now, so even if it were "cyclical" the nature of the cycle and consequently the cause must be entirely different.
One could make a much stronger case that the fossil fuels industry is getting filthy rich by spreading ignorance. Compared to their profits, poor Al Gore wouldn't couldn't even be regarded as a welfare recipient.
Why is it that you think that by releasing 300,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, humans are not altering the climate?
Keep in mind that not only is global warming happening but for the first time in earth history its happening at a rate of about 100 times that it ever has in the past. I'm curious as to why you don't think that requires an urgent explanation or response?
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting how Ruppert Murdoch has managed so effectively to squeeze Christianity completely out of the modern republican party and transform it into a captured market. Business and theology students will be studying this in coming centuries.
No, instead he gave us two wars, neither of which were funded on budget. Whatever transgression "Fast and Furious", originally a Bush program, may have amounted to, it pales in comparison to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of the cost and sacrifice to the country.
The notion that both parties are the same is so false and bogus as to be absurd. To say that Obama is indistinguishable with GWB is even more ridiculous, whatever your politics.
To cite but one example: Every republican candidates with the exception of one has essentially promised to go to war with Iran (a few promise to start a few additional wars ie China, Mexico, etc.). It seems Obama is trying hard to end the second of two wars (has already ended one) and doing what he can to avoid going to war with Iran.
Given that Iran is a major supplier of oil to the Chinese and a major importer of Russian goods and services, a war with Iran would not be "cakewalk" or "pay for itself" as did the Iraq war. It would close the Strait of Hormuz for a considerable period of time and dramatically affect all economies of the world for the worse. It could easily take out Saudi Oil production facilities and much of the world's supertanker fleet.
Its hard to fathom the purpose of such a spin on the truth, but it just too absurd to be taken seriously.
"One side things the government should provide for everyone, the other that people should provide for themselves."
All the while both camps fail to recognize that doing either in any absolute way is essentially impossible and doomed to failure, which as more and more multinational corporations become increasingly foreign owned will make either choice irrelevant.
"I distrust both government and private industry."
Which I guess means running the planet as a non-profit organization. Perhaps not such a bad idea, if we could come to some reasonable mechanism for establishing membership fees and and worthy recipients of the activity. However, when you begin to think about it, such an entity would pretty much have to function as a government, so that one really does have to make a choice between the two in the larger sense.
Yes, the problem here is that there are many who are not paying their fair share relative to what they are extracting from society and the planet.
The vast majority within the 1% come to mind as their total income is taxed at a rate of on average only 12-14%, whereas that of the 99% is taxed at about 30%.
Therein lies the critical issue. Voters need to cast their vote carefully for those who have actually demonstrated accomplishment, rather than a merely presenting a long list of promises. It is up to voters to decide what accomplishments they value most. However, at least we will be selecting among candidates, who at least have a track record of actually accomplishing something other than making speeches and promises.
Until this is done, forget the entire concept of democracy actually working in a way sufficiently efficiently and practically to overcome the challenges presented by societies that are not so encumbered by citizens making choices.
A reasonable summary. However, the mistake that most make is waiting until a presidential election to get serious about alternative parties or party "wings". Likewise, alternative parties or "internal wings", would do well by first working at the local level and targeting local and regional offices that reflect the character of their constituencies.
Corporate and money interests have an easy time playing every one off against themselves when they only have to two parties to deal with. If at a local level there were the Tea-Partys, Greens, Libertarians, Socialist Workers Party, Nazis, Communists, Theocratic Christian Party, The Muslim Brotherhood, etc. in addition to the Democrats and Republicans democracy would work a lot better as all would have to appeal to the center to expect a chance at election.
Its not as if people don't hold the views they do. The only way to force "reasonable" choices to be made is for there to be more of a competition of ideas rather than dollars. It is this aspect of our electoral process that has our system largely broken. Yes, it could be scary and many may prefer to move, but ultimately workable solutions would emerge. Those who vote for the wrong leaders will simply suffer the consequences, but at least the entire system of a set of United States would work as intended than grind to a dysfunctional halt as a few well financed competitors divide the spoils and keep everyone else hostage.
The way around that is to start third and fourth and fifth parties for local elections and then work up from there. Everyone then gets to vote for their choice, democracy works since only one party can be elected at any one time, and there is no adverse problems associated with having to "vote for the lesser of two evils".
It needs to be a ground up exercise.
Ironically, if you fear being indefinitely detained then haven't you just indefinitely detained yourself?
"Get all your friends involved, and get them to get their friends involved, and just maybe you can effect real change(tm)."
Yes, but the problem with pursing the truth wherever it will take you leaves one with no friends. The Scientist's Dilemma.
This can be expected to solve problems as follows:
One side adamantly claims that 2+2 = 4.
The other side, claims this is purely elitist and merely support for the status quo, and that really 2+2= 6.
An online poll party achieves consensus and declares 2+2=5.
That's largely irrelevant. The real question is how will the various disagreeing parties begin to adapt to the ever more uncomfortably warm temperatures and more extreme weather events. No doubt some will remain oblivious until reality sets in. Others may try to act and resent those who don't carry their weight. Others will hopefully find solutions. Time will tell, but it seems progressively more clear with each new climatic milestone that is reached that the time to see what will happen is closer at hand than many currently think.
Not really. Climate scientists don't have any special ability to observe with more accuracy or make prudent inferences. The data are there for any to reach their own conclusions, recognizing of course that there are lots of complicated issues to address.
However, generally speaking unless one has primary or original evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to take their findings seriously. Its not as if these people are CEO's or lawyers of fossil fuel companies and making a fortune keeping people ignorant as to the underlying accuracy of current science and hence have really anything to gain more valuable than their scientific reputations.
which is why sea levels will be higher in other places because of the displacement resulting from the rebound.
You might want to tell that the families of the tens of thousands of people who lost their lives this year from flooding worldwide. Even if only 2% of them were the result of global warming, that is still a very large number of lives.
"Go ahead, show us how smart you are and that you have "corrected" for all variables."
Curious as to why you think a priori that the variables require correction in the first place? They are simply random variables and can be modeled as such.
Generally speaking temperatures are graded relative to the equator and poles and change seasonally depending on the Hemisphere. What Sahvano fails to mention is that given the Coriolis force giving rise to the Gulf Current. France and Boston are not as equivalent as might be expected since they are on different sides of the North Atlantic gyre.
As a biologist, I would have to disagree. This phenomenon is not restricted to Americans or even to humans. All evidence suggests that mammals have been trying to out shout one another for millions of years. Prior to science, those that shouted the loudest usually won the argument. Unfortunately, many now simply don't recognize that making more noise than the other guy doesn't exactly advance an objectively based argument.
It really doesn't do much to cloud the discussion with inappropriate and meaningless analogies. If one is going to disagree with climatologists and claim that the earth is not experiencing a profound, rapid warming forced by carbon dioxide, then one is going to actually have to provide some actual evidence to the contrary to remain credible.
Actually, paleoclimatology is a rather old scientific discipline that originally arose in investigating the distribution of fossil microorganisms. Ironically, in many cases as the result of studies focused on finding better ways to discover new sources of fossil fuels.
Don't feel bad though. Even Einstein, Gauss, and Newton didn't know much when they first got started. It appears, however, that unlike the aforementioned gentlemen, they seemed not to have been trapped by their ideology as you seem to be and consequently could muster the clarity of mind to calmly and carefully observe for themselves and make rational inferences from those observations.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, but climatology like most other sciences are now multidisciplinary in nature. This is what makes the case for AWG so compelling. The sources of the data are quite independent but all point to the same overall conclusion. The earth is warming dramatically relative to the rates that took place in the past and the only credible explanation so far put forward to explain it is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an increase which happens to coincide almost precisely with the observed warming and the expected warming given known physical characteristics of carbon dioxide as it interacts with electromagnetic radiation.
Thank you for making this point. I never cease to be amazed by how those who deny AGW have so little idea of the time scales involved or the rates at which the warming is taking place relative to the historical baseline of previous climatic change.
"It's just doing what it's always done."
This is patently false. Although there are cyclical events, except for a brief period in the Pleistocene, there is no evidence that warming and cooling of the climate are cyclical in nature. Beside, the rate of change during the Pleistocene was about 100 times slower than what is occurring now, so even if it were "cyclical" the nature of the cycle and consequently the cause must be entirely different.
One could make a much stronger case that the fossil fuels industry is getting filthy rich by spreading ignorance. Compared to their profits, poor Al Gore wouldn't couldn't even be regarded as a welfare recipient.
Why is it that you think that by releasing 300,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, humans are not altering the climate?
Keep in mind that not only is global warming happening but for the first time in earth history its happening at a rate of about 100 times that it ever has in the past. I'm curious as to why you don't think that requires an urgent explanation or response?