So will you take the bet, myrkul?
No, it's highly likely that we will have the capability of destroying at least ecosystems before we run into another sentience. The point is, that even assuming we have Nova-bombs, capable of destroying entire solar systems, MAD does not work unless we know, ahead of time, who will be attacking, and have that nova bomb aimed at their home system, and that bomb, once fired, is unstoppable. Threatening any force that comes calling with mutually assured destruction only works if you can actually pull it off. Here's a hypothetical: First race we come into contact with is isolationist. Following Nimda's strategy of knock once, then kick the door down, we force them to trade with us. Second race we run into is not isolationist, and, perhaps, has run into the first one. Their delegates ask us how we convinced them to trade. We reply, "Oh, orbital bombardment can be quite persuasive." After a brief discussion, verifying that, yes, we did just say what they thought we said, they call home, and get together 5 or 6 races that we have never even met before, and send their fleets to Earth. When the fleets arrive, we broadcast to them, "Greetings, don't fuck with us, or we'll blow up these two systems!" They send back "That would be unfortunate, but in the end, we would simply add that to the list of your crimes. We are not from those systems." They then proceed to turn Earth back into a molten ball of rock. To be honest, this situation isn't very practical. Considering we're the ones doing the discovering (not the group of 5 or 6 races), we could probably take all of them down easily. I'm pretty sure mankind is the most advanced civilization in the local arm at least, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy. I'd be willing to bet that: mankind will not discover a more advanced civilization for the shorter of your remaining lifetime and my remaining lifetime. |
|
|
|
So will you take the bet, myrkul?
No, it's highly likely that we will have the capability of destroying at least ecosystems before we run into another sentience. The point is, that even assuming we have Nova-bombs, capable of destroying entire solar systems, MAD does not work unless we know, ahead of time, who will be attacking, and have that nova bomb aimed at their home system, and that bomb, once fired, is unstoppable. Threatening any force that comes calling with mutually assured destruction only works if you can actually pull it off. Here's a hypothetical: First race we come into contact with is isolationist. Following Nimda's strategy of knock once, then kick the door down, we force them to trade with us. Second race we run into is not isolationist, and, perhaps, has run into the first one. Their delegates ask us how we convinced them to trade. We reply, "Oh, orbital bombardment can be quite persuasive." After a brief discussion, verifying that, yes, we did just say what they thought we said, they call home, and get together 5 or 6 races that we have never even met before, and send their fleets to Earth. When the fleets arrive, we broadcast to them, "Greetings, don't fuck with us, or we'll blow up these two systems!" They send back "That would be unfortunate, but in the end, we would simply add that to the list of your crimes. We are not from those systems." They then proceed to turn Earth back into a molten ball of rock. Wouldn't it be better to just leave the isolationists alone, and trade with someone else? Here's an interesting thought experiment. What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)? |
|
|
|
Saluton, ĉiuj. Ĉu estas vorto ĝenerale akceptita por "Bitcoin"? Mi scivolas. Ĉu "Bitkono" estas bona elekto? Kono (scio), en bitoj? Povas estas de tiuj? Aŭ, ĉu vorto estis estiĝita? Gxi estas malfacila frago. Mi ne estas spertulo, sed jen mia opinio: la angla vorto "coin" tradukigxas per la esperanta vorto "monero", do mi kredas "bitcoin" tradukigxus "bitmonero". Jes, 'bitmonero' estas alia elekto. Ankoraŭ, mi preferas 'bitkono' ĉar ĝi ankaŭ signifas la scion ke "Bitcoin" provizintas. |
|
|
|
FA isn't the only one that values the species at more than the wood. Many people would agree. The market agrees. If one supports ancap, it only makes sense that they would rationally decide to preserve the forest rather than burn it down so some greedy company can produce value from it.
This simply is not true. People only value their property to the extent that they can fulfill their vision for it and within the limits of their own knowledge as to its potential. Right, and the forest is not property of someone who isn't capable of understanding its value. Whoever creates the most value out of it, which are the people who understand the value, owns the forest. Not the forestry cabal in a fair anarcho-capitalist society. |
|
|
|
asdf,
A classic example was the harvesting of the Blue Whale in the mid 20th century. Near term gain won out over long term valuation of Blue Whales. It was enforced regulations that saved the Blue Whale.
Before you cite the Commons and property ownership as a rebuttal, let me just head off that silliness right now. If a Japanese whaler is able to catch a whale, then clearly they have proclaimed themselves the owner of the whale, whether one considers that legitimate or not. But even so, they obviously only valued the whale as a source of blubber and other various derivative products. Therefore, what we witnessed was a free market valuing the whales at a certain price (for their food and oil products). Is that the correct price?
In the absence of regulation, what would have been the ultimate outcome? Perhaps extinction, especially if the free market worked as you believe it should, that is to say, the price of blue whales rose significantly as their numbers were reduced, for that would've only invited greater effort to hunt the last of the blue whales.
Whaling is not allowed in AnCap because the market will prohibit you from using the land. How many people support blue whales? How many people want to kill them? I think you'll find the number is in favor of supporting the whales. The ocean is not a "free-for-all" zone: it can only be used if you own it. Whalers don't. Are we discussing AnCap? Let's not, as it's flawed. Are you suggesting ownership of the oceans? Let's not, as it's flawed. AnCap is not flawed, it's just not perfect. Personally, I find some other governments better: An (without the Cap), AnCom (without possession), or a small centrist government. I don't support ownership of the oceans (then again, I don't support ownership of any land), but it is a necessary evil to prevent the chaos in the first place. An owned ocean is much less vulnerable to whaling than an unowned one. |
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all the fish
|
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all...
(note: corrected -- to —)
|
|
|
|
asdf,
A classic example was the harvesting of the Blue Whale in the mid 20th century. Near term gain won out over long term valuation of Blue Whales. It was enforced regulations that saved the Blue Whale.
Before you cite the Commons and property ownership as a rebuttal, let me just head off that silliness right now. If a Japanese whaler is able to catch a whale, then clearly they have proclaimed themselves the owner of the whale, whether one considers that legitimate or not. But even so, they obviously only valued the whale as a source of blubber and other various derivative products. Therefore, what we witnessed was a free market valuing the whales at a certain price (for their food and oil products). Is that the correct price?
In the absence of regulation, what would have been the ultimate outcome? Perhaps extinction, especially if the free market worked as you believe it should, that is to say, the price of blue whales rose significantly as their numbers were reduced, for that would've only invited greater effort to hunt the last of the blue whales.
Whaling is not allowed in AnCap because the market will prohibit you from using the land. How many people support blue whales? How many people want to kill them? I think you'll find the number is in favor of supporting the whales. The ocean is not a "free-for-all" zone: it can only be used if you own it. Whalers don't. |
|
|
|
who sells the rainforest? Who gets to use it?
Easy. The previous owner sells and the owner uses. That is, once we remove the violation of property rights institutionalised by the government. It's really simple guys. If the value of the forest to society is higher in it's natural state than it is in it's harvested state, the forest will be saved. It depends on the aggregate of the subjective values of all individuals. All the edge effects and biodiversity are factored in by the market. Now if there is $1000000 dollars worth of wood in a forest and $1000 worth of endangered species would be destroyed in harvesting that wood, then the species die. But FA values the species at $infinity and is willing to use violence to subjugate others to his value system. This is why he can't accept ancap, because he needs the state to proxy his application of violence. This attitude is everything that is wrong with our society today. Yeah, and the previous owner was only instilled there because the government did it. The market clearly values endangered species more than wood: most of the logging there is for the purpose of clearing land, and the wood is simply burned. FA isn't the only one that values the species at more than the wood. Many people would agree. The market agrees. If one supports ancap, it only makes sense that they would rationally decide to preserve the forest rather than burn it down so some greedy company can produce value from it. If I destroy the Pyramids so I can grow crops, and cite that "nobody owned it", than clearly I haven't produced more value according to the market. Same deal here: the forest stays in a perfect ancap society. |
|
|
|
2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false. Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also. Did we do that too? Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change. Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system. Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus). 3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "
Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy. It's simply not their field. So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all. Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result. Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada. Lets not make such conjectures, okay? If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea. 4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming. That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause. Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false. This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age. http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.htmlCrackpot isn't the right word; "heretic" is. Many famous scientists of yesteryear were heretics, as your list gives. However, unless one is a scientist oneself, it's probably better to listen to consensus than to isolated heretics. As your article states itself, "99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem". Do you believe this alters my point? I agree with this part of your point: Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus always represents reality is false.
But not with this part of your point: Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.
Historically, most heretics were wrong. 5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming. It isn't an argument for human-caused global warming, true. But, it does indicate that some kind of global warming is occurring. I never claimed that it wasn't. Good. 6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades. This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough I'm not contesting this point, partly because I believe in the Bitcoin motto: "past results do not imply future performances". Models or not, however, the past 10-20 years are already a cause for alarm. In true bitcoin fashion, it's also a cause for exploring Canadian REIT's Go ahead and invest in Canada. If anything, this is a feedback loop: maybe everyone will move to a country where per-capita emissions are exceptionally high. 8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
Says who? Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration? And so what if they can't? More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused. Some animals cannot migrate. Polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are examples. Three examples of species that won't need to migrate, for they can all live in much warmer climates than they currently do. Sure. Tell that to them when rabbits arrive in Antarctica. I know it isn't that bad, but it'd be naïve to say penguins wouldn't need to move.11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age. Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat. And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.
12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean. The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.  And this alters my point, how exactly? I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now. 13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
And contradicted by many others. Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high. And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too. Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative. Unnecessary change is probably not good. 14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame. Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame. Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking. I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land. Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost. Cities are just collections of people. Move. Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter. If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist. "Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert. 16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
But not over the past 10,000 years. Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost. Most technological advances occurred in the last 3000 years. The rest of the 7000 years in your timeline probably have nothing to do with human activity. Thank you for making my point. Then I guess we agree on this. 17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
Some scientists, others have lost their jobs. I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides. Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies. If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't? 20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
According to whom? The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education. Al Gore is not a magical leader. His economic policies and personal self-righteousness are despicable, in my humble opinion. The person's shortcomings does not impact the theory's validity. Besides, most contrarian movies are also not allowed to be shown to public school students because they are just as inaccurate. Still doesn't alter the point. I don't intend to alter the point. What I fail to understand is why people like me shouldn't exist. I am a libertarian, and believe in anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, I believe that a smaller state is the best way to solve it: after all, twice as much subsidy money is going towards oil companies as that going towards renewable energy. |
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized...
note: "a" corrected to "an".
|
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking a...
|
|
|
|
While I do like having a "clean" lenders forum, I fear that there might be discontent among users on which lenders are "clean" and which ones are not. Treating new users as second class users and grouping them with potential scammers is not a nice way to treat users new to bitcoin.
While this is certainly true, I've always found that if it looks like a scammer and quacks like a scammer, chances are it's a scammer. Maybe we can have a system as follows: Lending
* Providers
* Discussion
* Requests
* High-risk Loans
* Low-risk Loans
* Emergency Loans (Junk loans)
In order, the boards represent: Lending: General discussion about lending. Open to everyone. Providers: Providers of lending and their rules - Mods can create topics or move topics here
- All users can post, but OP can lock the thread.
- Before moving a topic, mods discuss the provider in the Discussion board. If x% of mods in the first y days of discussion agree, the topic is moved to Providers and renamed accordingly.
Discussion: Only mods can post topics and posts. Used for mod voting on entry of loans to the appropriate category or providers to the Providers section. Requests: - All users can post topics, with [PROVIDER] or [LOAN] in the title.
- No users can post replies in this section; they need to be moved first.
- Mods decide whether to accept the provider or loan in the Discussion board.
High-risk loans, Low-risk loans- Only mods can create or move topics here.
- All members can post (similar to the current lending section for etiquette.)
- Before moving a topic, mods discuss the loan in the Discussion board. If z% of mods in the first w days agree that it is low-risk, it is moved to Low-risk loans. After w days, if less than z% of mods agree, it is moved to High-risk loans.
Emergency loans, governed like current Lending section. Obviously, many more mods need to be appointed for the Lending section. I suggest trusted people without an interest (so as to be neutral) to be considered. |
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend
|
|
|
|
TheBitcoinChemist,
Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.
If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.
It's easier to refer them to this. If they don't bother reading it, don't bother arguing. People oblivious to science will remain in their religious bubble no matter how much persuasion attacks them. This entire site is well written bunk. Let me just address the first 20... I've got some extra time. Here are my responses. "Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
Based upon what assumptions? Their links don't really say, the larger link is just more conjecture. Climate has changed before, which the argument does not deny. There is, however, an undeniable correlation between temperatures and the industrial revolution. 2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false. Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also. Did we do that too? Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change. 3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "
Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy. It's simply not their field. So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all. Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result. 4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming. That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause. Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false. This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age. http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.htmlCrackpot isn't the right word; "heretic" is. Many famous scientists of yesteryear were heretics, as your list gives. However, unless one is a scientist oneself, it's probably better to listen to consensus than to isolated heretics. As your article states itself, "99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem". 5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming. It isn't an argument for human-caused global warming, true. But, it does indicate that some kind of global warming is occurring. 6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades. This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough I'm not contesting this point, partly because I believe in the Bitcoin motto: "past results do not imply future performances". Models or not, however, the past 10-20 years are already a cause for alarm.
7 "Temp record is unreliable" The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
Yes, and they don't agree with each other. Traditionally, the surface measurements are used in the computer models because there is simply more data than sats, but the surface monitors can be screwed with by changes in the immediate environment they reside, which is why they are the unreliable set to use. Sat data does not, and has not, reported the same degree of warming, although they have reported some warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/Surface monitors can be screwed in both directions equally. Satellites are now reporting the same degree of warming, because corrections to bias due to shifting orbit times were made. This quote, from this report, is significant: Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near
the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the
reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming.
Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while
early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming
above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors
in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New
data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
Says who? Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration? And so what if they can't? More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused. Some animals cannot migrate. Polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are examples. Species are going extinct because we are in a period of mass extinction, the Holocene mass extinction, that began due to the end of an ice age. If temperatures continue to increase, it is assumed that this mass extinction event will be continued. These extinction events tend to cause severe upsets in the balance of nature. The past three events have usurped insects (to the advantage of amphibians), amphibians (to the advantage of reptiles), and finally reptiles (to the advantage of warm-blooded birds/mammals). After many mammals have already gone extinct due to the end of the ice age, mammals and birds like the polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are in jeopardy: they may likely end up similar to the woolly mammoth. 9 "It hasn't warmed since 1998" For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
No contest here. Okay. 10 "Antarctica is gaining ice" Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
Sure, does not mean that climate change is human caused. Okay. 11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age. Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.
12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean. The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect. 13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
And contradicted by many others. Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high. 14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame. Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame. Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking. 15 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.
Sure, and so did Acid Rain when I was a younger man. Didn't really pan out, did it? I'll give you this. 16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
But not over the past 10,000 years. Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost. Most technological advances occurred in the last 3000 years. The rest of the 7000 years in your timeline probably have nothing to do with human activity. 17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
Some scientists, others have lost their jobs. I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides. 18 "Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming" There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.
No contest here. Okay. 19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
Most being the oparative word. There's a direct causality between a warming planet and most glaciers retreating. Some glaciers grow due to local variations. 20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
According to whom? The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education. Al Gore is not a magical leader. His economic policies and personal self-righteousness are despicable, in my humble opinion. The person's shortcomings does not impact the theory's validity. Besides, most contrarian movies are also not allowed to be shown to public school students because they are just as inaccurate. |
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced...
|
|
|
|
newbie loans popping up elsewhere is fine, it keeps this place clear of the clutter and we can lend to the community itself rather than to questionable outsiders, I agree with this proposal as well, where's theymos when you need him?
This is like living in a landfill and demanding the garbage be shipped to the nearby residential area. |
|
|
|
 By the way, I noticed that 21000000 is surprisingly composite. It has many factors: 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
15
16
20
21
24
25
28
30
32
35
40
42
48
50
56
60
64
70
75
80
84
96
100
105
112
120
125
140
150
160
168
175
192
200
210
224
240
250
280
300
320
336
350
375
400
420
448
480
500
525
560
600
625
672
700
750
800
840
875
960
1000
1050
1120
1200
1250
1344
1400
1500
1600
1680
1750
1875
2000
2100
2240
2400
2500
2625
2800
3000
3125
3360
3500
3750
4000
4200
4375
4800
5000
5250
5600
6000
6250
6720
7000
7500
8000
8400
8750
9375
10000
10500
11200
12000
12500
13125
14000
15000
15625
16800
17500
18750
20000
21000
21875
24000
25000
26250
28000
30000
31250
33600
35000
37500
40000
42000
43750
46875
50000
52500
56000
60000
62500
65625
70000
75000
84000
87500
93750
100000
105000
109375
120000
125000
131250
140000
150000
168000
175000
187500
200000
210000
218750
250000
262500
280000
300000
328125
350000
375000
420000
437500
500000
525000
600000
656250
700000
750000
840000
875000
1000000
1050000
1312500
1400000
1500000
1750000
2100000
2625000
3000000
3500000
4200000
5250000
7000000
10500000
21000000
|
|
|
|
A new master is not the way out of slavery. Empty whtiehouse 2016 ftw!
Is it legal to elect a monkey to president? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
