If that were the case, the oceans would have boiled off by now.
That level of CO2 is WAY under the noise level of regular CO2 variance due to geological activity. This is like claiming that plate tectonics is due to the thrust people exert on the ground by walking around.
I can't fit into a thimble, and I'm a scientist who is skeptical about global warming.
In fact, ALL scientists should be skeptical of global warming, and every other theory they come across. Blind acceptance of ANY theory is the ticket to scientific stagnation, and eventually dogmatic quasi-religions.
Ever see "The Invention of Lying"? "The world is going to end unless we have sex right now!"
Without releasing the data, asking for action on climate change is exactly the same. Reducing carbon emissions will lead directly to mass starvation in developing countries, and increased poverty throughout the world. You are essentially putting caps on industrial production, which means that everything you buy, including food and medicine, will become more expensive as a result. You'd better be DAMN sure that you're right before making that claim. Anything less, and you're reading golden tablets out of a hat. That is, you are asking people to accept things on faith, unreasonable faith. If they know the data, and how it was collected, it can be reproduced. This is science. You and other alarmists are peddling religion.
I don't think they would be able to give them away for free, though. As someone else mentioned, people would take advantage of that, and wallpaper their rooms with monitors and such. What I would do is charge the person who wanted one COST or something less than cost, and let your profits come from the advertising as mentioned. If the cost to make one of these things is ten or twenty dollars, as speculated in the article, it would probably work quite well. I'd pay ten or twenty bucks for a Google netbook. Hell, if it provided free internet access, I'd pay a few hundred, a la Kindle. I think most people in the developed world would do the same. That is, assuming it remained open and unhobbled.
Yeah, just cherry picking the emails that delineate the massive fraud that has been going on in AGW. Sure, no journalist ever did that. When watergate happened, they printed ALL of the papers they found, including the irrelevant ones.
ITT biased people calling reporters who report things they don't like biased.
You bring up valid points. For a workable solution, we should look to the private schools, which seem to attract many of the best teachers despite lower pay on average.
Hmm, so does that mean your employer owns any contributions you have made to any free software project?
An employment contract is not a slavery contract, as many people around here seem to think. You own what you do in your spare time. Generally, you can't COMPETE with your employer in your spare time, but there is no competition in education, with each school district owning a monopoly on the local area public education. Since there is no competition, it's anything goes.
With more competition from individual teachers driving down prices, you'll see less "economic-based difference" between rich and poor schools. Education SHOULD be cheap, and SHOULD NOT require a bunch of bloody administrators. You need teachers and teaching materials and a room, preferably air conditioned. That shouldn't cost $25,000 per year per student, as we currently spend. That's as much as the most exclusive private academy! That money is being leeched off by the Department of Education (what good have they EVER done?), and state education administration, so that the schools themselves only get on average $8500/student. Again, most of that is wasted on administration, this time at the local level.
Exactly. This is why the Slashdot socialist brigade would rather take your lesson plans at gunpoint and distribute them to the other teachers who were too lazy to come up with their own. Punish work and innovation, reward laziness and status-quo preservers. Now that's the way to improve our educational system!
If you make work done in private, on one's own time, public property, then you will immediately shut down all such activity. That is, unless you start paying teachers overtime for work at home. That is a line of thought that NO school administrator wants to go down.
Oh boy, just what we need, more theft! You think more people wouldn't just pick the oldest teacher? You must have a PhD in creating perverse incentives, as those who are successful, or hare scraping by on marginal incomes, would now have an incentive to kill the best teachers!
A better solution: we could pay teachers based on performance, just like everyone else in the damn world. If you want to track student performance in the future an tie the teacher's wages to that, fine, but don't create a system with more theft than we already have.
Most school districts have separate administration buildings. In general, those working there are worthless people in fully politicized positions. The 20% that would be kept are the people you were talking about, and perhaps a treasurer for the school district.
Yes, that will be a great way to stop the spread of creative and innovative teaching methods, allowing the US to fall even further behind the rest of the world in terms of education.
Dog breeds can't be inherently dangerous, unless they are more than 1/4th wolf. Only individual dogs who have been raised improperly are dangerous. People have a right to property. If something goes wrong with their property and it harms you or a family member, then SUE THEM. Don't try to use government guns to deprive people of property just because you don't like it, or because you have an irrational fear of it.
Well, I was talking about the programs (such as Medicare and Social Security), and the taxes (such as the income tax, which started out as a 1% tax on the ultra-rich that is now a 20% tax on everyone), but yes, one could say that is true of all governments, because governments rely on guns to enforce their will, which inherently leads to unfairness. And then, the speed with which they fail is proportional to what extreme they take the measure, with the Khmer Rouge being an extreme example of application of force leading to the end of their government, while Western government have tended to do better as they hide their guns so effectively that most peole don't even think about what would happen if they don't follow the government's arbitrary mandates, they just do. Some programs might be sustainable over multiple generations, but waste and corruption inevitably bloat these programs and any taxes that are imposed, speeding the demise of either the program, or the government. The example you cited has showed short term success, but it will be corrupted eventually unless they end it now. Similar effects could have been had through consumer advocacy groups and protests, which were effective in stopping the practice of killing dolphins caught in tuna nets, among numerous other successes.
All government programs and taxes eventually collapse in on themselves. If you don't believe me, watch the western world over the next five years. If you want an example where this has already happened, look at Argentina in 2000 (previously a 1st world country, now a marginal "2nd world" nation).
The government that governs least governs best. This country went from being a backwater to being the greatest industrial power the world has ever known in only a hundred years due to such policies. It took slightly under a hundred years to drive out our industrial base and hovel ourselves for at least a generation with taxes and regulations. The successes of the western nations have been dependent on the power of their economy, which had been built up by 100+ years of free market capitalism. Socialist policies now in place have been draining those countries of their wealth, just like the spoiled heir who appears rich but in reality has frittered away every last dime and has more debt than assets by a high multiple. Soon he'll be out on the street, with the rest of us. People look at places like Scandinavia and claim that socialism works there, but the reality is that the Scandinavian nations are currently living off of the wealth they accumulated over the course of five hundred years of free market operations (really more like twelve hundred, but the theft of other countries' wealth doesn't really count, even though they had free markets with minimal use of aggression within their own borders).
Except that the policies that he has lobbied in favor of are socialist in nature. They argue for a top-down dictated approach toward forcing money into "green jobs" and out of "jobs" in general.
The problem is, what if something is considered to be bad, but actually isn't, or is in fact good? Your "price signals" wind up distorting the market, creating black markets, increasing crime (even crime unrelated to the thing that is being taxed). Attempts to prohibit something though taxes are just as oppressive as attempting to prohibit them by force, because at the end of the day, it's the same thing. EIther way, you have turned your government into the mafia.
No good can or will ever come out of any carbon tax scheme, unless the proceeds are used to mitigate the "problem", and ONLY for that purpose, and in a way that applies proportionally to EVERYONE producing said product. If you tax carbon, you have to tax every living person on the planet, as we all produce carbon through respiration.
You may think that is crazy, but a system can only be tested for its fairness by taking it to its extreme. Government programs and taxes always fail such tests, and in the end, they fail in real life as well, because they push it too far, in pursuit or personal power. It's a nasty business, and it does nothing but invite corruption.
So you don't think that communists will lie when it suits them? Perhaps Van Jones doesn't understand that his policies amount to central economic planning. Shutting down industries that compete with your chosen model, whether it is with guns or with regulations (same thing really, when you consider how regulations are eventually enforced) is NOT capitalism. It's authoritarianism.
One needs to understand that people can say one thing and do another. Van Jones talks like a slick politician when addressing people who hate communism (entrepreneurs), while practicing communism by implementing centralized economic planning.
Honestly, one would think that people would understand by now that politicians will lie and/or say anything they need to to achieve their ends, no matter what the cost.
Just because a communist can call upon the business community to act out of one side of his mouth while forcing them to do so out of the other through socialist and fascist means such as direct subsidy and increased taxes and regulation on competing industries doesn't mean that he's not a communist. It's called doublespeak, and politicians use it all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
If that were the case, the oceans would have boiled off by now.
That level of CO2 is WAY under the noise level of regular CO2 variance due to geological activity. This is like claiming that plate tectonics is due to the thrust people exert on the ground by walking around.
I can't fit into a thimble, and I'm a scientist who is skeptical about global warming.
In fact, ALL scientists should be skeptical of global warming, and every other theory they come across. Blind acceptance of ANY theory is the ticket to scientific stagnation, and eventually dogmatic quasi-religions.
Ever see "The Invention of Lying"? "The world is going to end unless we have sex right now!"
Without releasing the data, asking for action on climate change is exactly the same. Reducing carbon emissions will lead directly to mass starvation in developing countries, and increased poverty throughout the world. You are essentially putting caps on industrial production, which means that everything you buy, including food and medicine, will become more expensive as a result. You'd better be DAMN sure that you're right before making that claim. Anything less, and you're reading golden tablets out of a hat. That is, you are asking people to accept things on faith, unreasonable faith. If they know the data, and how it was collected, it can be reproduced. This is science. You and other alarmists are peddling religion.
Or just one can of cat food. Better get the good stuff, though, she's a bit finicky.
I don't think they would be able to give them away for free, though. As someone else mentioned, people would take advantage of that, and wallpaper their rooms with monitors and such. What I would do is charge the person who wanted one COST or something less than cost, and let your profits come from the advertising as mentioned. If the cost to make one of these things is ten or twenty dollars, as speculated in the article, it would probably work quite well. I'd pay ten or twenty bucks for a Google netbook. Hell, if it provided free internet access, I'd pay a few hundred, a la Kindle. I think most people in the developed world would do the same. That is, assuming it remained open and unhobbled.
Classic Slashdot. Anonymous cowards don't read the freaking article and belittle anyone they don't agree with.
Yeah, just cherry picking the emails that delineate the massive fraud that has been going on in AGW. Sure, no journalist ever did that. When watergate happened, they printed ALL of the papers they found, including the irrelevant ones.
ITT biased people calling reporters who report things they don't like biased.
You bring up valid points. For a workable solution, we should look to the private schools, which seem to attract many of the best teachers despite lower pay on average.
Hmm, so does that mean your employer owns any contributions you have made to any free software project?
An employment contract is not a slavery contract, as many people around here seem to think. You own what you do in your spare time. Generally, you can't COMPETE with your employer in your spare time, but there is no competition in education, with each school district owning a monopoly on the local area public education. Since there is no competition, it's anything goes.
With more competition from individual teachers driving down prices, you'll see less "economic-based difference" between rich and poor schools. Education SHOULD be cheap, and SHOULD NOT require a bunch of bloody administrators. You need teachers and teaching materials and a room, preferably air conditioned. That shouldn't cost $25,000 per year per student, as we currently spend. That's as much as the most exclusive private academy! That money is being leeched off by the Department of Education (what good have they EVER done?), and state education administration, so that the schools themselves only get on average $8500/student. Again, most of that is wasted on administration, this time at the local level.
Exactly. This is why the Slashdot socialist brigade would rather take your lesson plans at gunpoint and distribute them to the other teachers who were too lazy to come up with their own. Punish work and innovation, reward laziness and status-quo preservers. Now that's the way to improve our educational system!
If you make work done in private, on one's own time, public property, then you will immediately shut down all such activity. That is, unless you start paying teachers overtime for work at home. That is a line of thought that NO school administrator wants to go down.
Oh boy, just what we need, more theft! You think more people wouldn't just pick the oldest teacher? You must have a PhD in creating perverse incentives, as those who are successful, or hare scraping by on marginal incomes, would now have an incentive to kill the best teachers!
A better solution: we could pay teachers based on performance, just like everyone else in the damn world. If you want to track student performance in the future an tie the teacher's wages to that, fine, but don't create a system with more theft than we already have.
Most school districts have separate administration buildings. In general, those working there are worthless people in fully politicized positions. The 20% that would be kept are the people you were talking about, and perhaps a treasurer for the school district.
Yes, that will be a great way to stop the spread of creative and innovative teaching methods, allowing the US to fall even further behind the rest of the world in terms of education.
Or was that what you were going for?
I'm not convinced that these chemicals are IMPREGNATING 10 year old girls.
Dog breeds can't be inherently dangerous, unless they are more than 1/4th wolf. Only individual dogs who have been raised improperly are dangerous. People have a right to property. If something goes wrong with their property and it harms you or a family member, then SUE THEM. Don't try to use government guns to deprive people of property just because you don't like it, or because you have an irrational fear of it.
Only if it's to Jay and Silent Bob.
Well, I was talking about the programs (such as Medicare and Social Security), and the taxes (such as the income tax, which started out as a 1% tax on the ultra-rich that is now a 20% tax on everyone), but yes, one could say that is true of all governments, because governments rely on guns to enforce their will, which inherently leads to unfairness. And then, the speed with which they fail is proportional to what extreme they take the measure, with the Khmer Rouge being an extreme example of application of force leading to the end of their government, while Western government have tended to do better as they hide their guns so effectively that most peole don't even think about what would happen if they don't follow the government's arbitrary mandates, they just do. Some programs might be sustainable over multiple generations, but waste and corruption inevitably bloat these programs and any taxes that are imposed, speeding the demise of either the program, or the government. The example you cited has showed short term success, but it will be corrupted eventually unless they end it now. Similar effects could have been had through consumer advocacy groups and protests, which were effective in stopping the practice of killing dolphins caught in tuna nets, among numerous other successes.
All government programs and taxes eventually collapse in on themselves. If you don't believe me, watch the western world over the next five years. If you want an example where this has already happened, look at Argentina in 2000 (previously a 1st world country, now a marginal "2nd world" nation).
The government that governs least governs best. This country went from being a backwater to being the greatest industrial power the world has ever known in only a hundred years due to such policies. It took slightly under a hundred years to drive out our industrial base and hovel ourselves for at least a generation with taxes and regulations. The successes of the western nations have been dependent on the power of their economy, which had been built up by 100+ years of free market capitalism. Socialist policies now in place have been draining those countries of their wealth, just like the spoiled heir who appears rich but in reality has frittered away every last dime and has more debt than assets by a high multiple. Soon he'll be out on the street, with the rest of us. People look at places like Scandinavia and claim that socialism works there, but the reality is that the Scandinavian nations are currently living off of the wealth they accumulated over the course of five hundred years of free market operations (really more like twelve hundred, but the theft of other countries' wealth doesn't really count, even though they had free markets with minimal use of aggression within their own borders).
Except that the policies that he has lobbied in favor of are socialist in nature. They argue for a top-down dictated approach toward forcing money into "green jobs" and out of "jobs" in general.
The problem is, what if something is considered to be bad, but actually isn't, or is in fact good? Your "price signals" wind up distorting the market, creating black markets, increasing crime (even crime unrelated to the thing that is being taxed). Attempts to prohibit something though taxes are just as oppressive as attempting to prohibit them by force, because at the end of the day, it's the same thing. EIther way, you have turned your government into the mafia.
No good can or will ever come out of any carbon tax scheme, unless the proceeds are used to mitigate the "problem", and ONLY for that purpose, and in a way that applies proportionally to EVERYONE producing said product. If you tax carbon, you have to tax every living person on the planet, as we all produce carbon through respiration.
You may think that is crazy, but a system can only be tested for its fairness by taking it to its extreme. Government programs and taxes always fail such tests, and in the end, they fail in real life as well, because they push it too far, in pursuit or personal power. It's a nasty business, and it does nothing but invite corruption.
So you don't think that communists will lie when it suits them? Perhaps Van Jones doesn't understand that his policies amount to central economic planning. Shutting down industries that compete with your chosen model, whether it is with guns or with regulations (same thing really, when you consider how regulations are eventually enforced) is NOT capitalism. It's authoritarianism.
One needs to understand that people can say one thing and do another. Van Jones talks like a slick politician when addressing people who hate communism (entrepreneurs), while practicing communism by implementing centralized economic planning.
Honestly, one would think that people would understand by now that politicians will lie and/or say anything they need to to achieve their ends, no matter what the cost.
Just because a communist can call upon the business community to act out of one side of his mouth while forcing them to do so out of the other through socialist and fascist means such as direct subsidy and increased taxes and regulation on competing industries doesn't mean that he's not a communist. It's called doublespeak, and politicians use it all the time.
There is no doubt that more taxes are coming. What we're getting isn't so much FUD as it is FU.