50 posts • joined Wednesday 25th April 2012 19:30 GMT
Do some good
Just a suggestion if it hasn't already been made:
The state of Texas also had a problem with a deer population that got out of hand. The state gave out the normal hunting permits - you could hunt enough deer to feed your family for the year - then they issued special permits to hunt more, but with one requirement: the deer meat had to be handed over to the state. It was then used to supplement the free food available for those who lived below the poverty level. Everyone was happy, and the save-the-deer nuts were hard pressed to say the poor shouldn't have meat.
Then too, handled correctly you could likely spare the lives of a lot of horses......
Why these studies are to be ignored
"The upshot of all this is that '3.3 per cent of deaths could be prevented if all participants had a processed meat consumption of less than 20g per day.'"
No, deaths are not prevented. At best they are merely postponed, unless they are claiming this is the way to immortality. So before we can make a rational decision about our lifestyle, we need to know just HOW LONG giving up such pleasures as eating red meat, bacon, etc. will extend our lives. I for one don't want to give up everything that makes life enjoyable to avoid a heart attack only to die from liver failure an hour later.
So, researchers, since I don't smoke, am not overweight, don't drink more that two drinks a day, take no drugs (legal or otherwise), have low blood pressure, and am in excellent health at age 63 (despite having enjoyed red and processed meats in my diet), just how much longer would I live if I gave up meat? I bet the answer is in terms of hours, not even days or weeks.
One more question for the researchers: have THEY given up red meat and processed meat? Didn't think so. So stop trying to drum up more research money by worrying all of us. Get a real job.
Re: I see some potential in this...
My thoughts, too. Since governments are much more interested in revenue than anything else (like public service or safety), I can see the day when you'll receive a ticket in the mail for every instance you exceed a speed limit, courtesy of your car 'reporting' you via interconnectivity with the infrastructure.
Re: They are taken seriously because they are organised
The membership is around 40,000. You didn't think a group like this could count, did you?
Re: Yes but
I don't know where you live, but in my part of the US it is not uncommon to have an hour commute to work each way, assuming you don't make any stops along the way. I'm not worried about the miles you can drive, but the time element. How long can you be stuck in an interstate traffic jam, at night, in the rain, with temps just above freezing? You may need lights, wipers, and heater for a couple of hours in addition to driving a hundred miles.
Re: I see what you did there...
If you believe the twiddle you wrote, then you are advocating that some of the world's population should either die or be forbidden to reproduce. Unless you include yourself and your family in that, then all you are advocating is that others should die or not be born so that you and yours can have all that you want. That would be so breathtakingly selfish, that I'm sure it's not what you intend. So who in your family and your potential descendants are you willing to sacrifice for the good of all?
Re: No, that's NOT what this means.
Sure, just forget about the pollution caused in the mining of the rare earths and metal required for those 'green' technologies, and the environmental impacts of deploying them. Both solar and wind farms have huge geographical footprints. Wind farms kill birds. Solar farms destroys habitats. And if you want reliable 24x7 energy, you must use a lot of storage batteries. Take your pick, lead or lithium. Besides the destruction done in the mining of them, they are both dangerous to our environment should they be scattered by storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, terrorism, etc.
Yes, yes, yes. Extrapolations can lead us to fascinating conclusions.
The Mississippi River is convoluted with twists, turns, and backtracks. Erosion, earthquakes, and other natural events tend to straighten out the river over time. Mark Twain engaged in a little 'scientific' interpolation of these events (note, he refers to the city of Cairo that's in Missouri, not Egypt). In his words, " In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Anyone who foolishly takes a brief period of natural history and extrapolates the future (or the past) and believes they have reached a realistic conclusion, is simply divorced from reality.
Man does not need fear a warmer climate, but the likelihood of a future ice age should give him pause for concern.
Time to stop this sort of thing
I haven't had a problem with this Trojan, but like most other Internet users, I have had to clean up a few viruses and Trojans, as well as fend off deceptive phishing emails.
It is vexing, irritating, and can be very time consuming to rid a computer of an infection. So if any of you are in a position to influence the criminal laws on this, please consider this as 'fair':
Anyone convicted of writing or deliberately distributing a virus or Trojan that infected machines must pay any and all costs or losses attributable to the virus or Trojan, AND a jail sentence (no parole) equal to the total number of man-hours spent to remove of said virus or Trojan from those machines. So if one million machines were infected, and it took an estimated one-hour to clean the machine, the perpetrators would receive a jail sentence of one million hours. That would be a sentence of a little over 114 years. Then maybe these creeps would have some idea of the magnitude of the problems they create.
Re: What a moron
First of all, climate is an average of what weather you HAD, not what weather you GET. There is a distinct difference. You can not claim the climate has changed until after the fact.
You seem not to understand the significance of the climate not continuing to grow warmer over the last 14 years. The popular theory says increasing atmospheric CO2 will, through a variety of somewhat arbitrary feedback mechanisms, result in a dramatic rise in global temperatures, and that is why the temps rose during the '80s and '90s. We have continued to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere every year for the last 14 years, without a corresponding increase in global temperatures. They are warmer than last decade, yes, but it has not been getting warmer even though the CO2 content is rising. If rising CO2 is not causing rising temps now, how can you have much faith in a theory that claimed CO2 was responsible for rising temps in previous decades? Read that last sentence again and see if you can come up with a solid reason to have continued faith in the global warming theory.
The primary importance of the lack of warming temps is that it is suggesting, more strongly each year the temps are flat, that the theories are WRONG. There is something more going on that we do not understand, and it would be foolish to take drastic action with such a lack of understanding.
After a great amount of research, and reading reams of technical studies, I am prepared to declare both sides of the argument right...and wrong. The short version is this:
Earth has been warming through natural causes since the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-1800s. There are too many theories as to why earth goes through warming and cooling cycles to list. By the 1940s, Man was impacting the climate. Pollutants and aerosols being pumped into the air blocked enough solar radiation to result in a distinct cooling of the earth's climate by the 1970s. That's when some popular stories were written about an impending ice age. But we cleaned up our act, and greatly reduced the amount of particulates being dumped in the atmosphere. The result was the earth's temperature to rapidly catch up to where it would have been without Man's interference. As with most systems, and with the help of an El Nino in 1997, it slightly overshot, and is now in abatement until it's back on its original track.
So, does Man impact the climate? Yes, primarily through particulate air pollution, and urban warming. Does CO2 impact the climate? Negligibly. Are we on a disastrous global warming course? Maybe, but the warming will be virtually all natural. Spending trillions of dollars to reduce carbon dioxide would be a complete waste of money. I also question whether global warming, produced by any mechanism, is a 'disaster' in and of itself. I see a lot of benefit to Man having a warmer environment.
You can have your theories, but that's mine, and it fits all the known events. It is disprovable, of course. If we start warming again at a FASTER rate than, say from 1850-1940, then there is likely more to the story.
Re: One of these is false
Aw, man, you cherry-picked a year 11,286 years ago to make your point.
Re: @ Dr Ian Holdsworth I for one
The US Congress will focus on it like a laser - In March of 2036.
The State of California is taking this very seriously. The state legislature is already working on a way to tax it.
Re: How do we know that it came from Mars?
My thoughts, exactly, and I am somewhat of boffin (masters in physics and astronomy). "It's similar to but different from others...," usually is a clue that you have found something entirely different from that which you are comparing it to.
After roaming through the galaxy for billions of years, I would not be surprised if earth has not gathered a few intra-galaxy 'rocks' from other star systems - debris ejected from dying stars or black holes devouring other solar systems, etc. They would be rare, indeed, but what would you think happen to a planet orbiting a sun that went supernova? Pieces would be strewn all over space.
Moderate and balanced? They just recently aired a show sympathetic toward Osama bin Laden. Try explaining to all the survivors and families of victims how moderate that is. If that's your idea of moderation, then I understand some of the recent problems in the UK.
Windows IE users give less because their machines lock up and crash before completing their online donations.
I doubt if many support 'vigilante mobs'. I thought this article was about the posting of public information that some members of society might like to know for the safety of their children. Keeping a child away from a convicted child molester, even if he has done his time, is not an unreasonable thing to do if you give a fig about your child.
But it seems you and a lot of others don't quite understand the difference between what is done under the law by the government and what rights the community have. If it is against the law to post the information (I don't know British law, but in the US, who is convicted of what crimes is public information, and the publishing of any truthful and public information is in no way forbidden) then of course the site must come down.
But if it is not against the law, society has every right to shun those who are considered anti-social and a potential danger. Shunning, or ostracizing, is age-old. It is (or at least, was) an effective way to ensure members of society lived in ways that most benefited the rest of society.
New Equipment wrong approach
I object any solution that costs money eventually passed on to the consumer, with the perpetrators suffering nothing.
First, levy a huge fine and prison sentence on those engaging in robocalls, and enforce the law. While they're at it, pass a law that says all businesses must verify who they are, where they are located, and provide a valid call-back number. Make the penalty for failure to do this very severe, and consecutively attaches to each violation (i.e., if it's a fine of $100 and 10 days in jail per violation, making 1000 such calls results in a $100,000 fine and 10,000 days in jail).
Next, regulate the sales of automated call dialers (ACDs), the telemarketing equipment used to make robocalls, and register those currently in use. Periodically verify that the equipment is being used legally. Telephone companies monitor call volumes. They can determine which companies are making large numbers of outbound calls, and add them to the verification lists. If a company doesn't cooperate, disconnect their phone lines.
Finally, allow the public to enter a # code after receiving a robocall that would result in all future calls from that number being call-forwarded to a government agency who would collect the info, prioritize the worst offenders, and go after them.
I think very few companies are responsible for the vast majority of calls, and all these actions would be needed only for a short time. Just passing these laws and regs could scare many of them out of business.
Considering the number of calls I get, I am amazed that the government seems powerless to shut down "Rachael, from Credit Card Services" (and ironically, I never carry over a credit card balance).
What are the temps oceans now, and what is the range of temperature on land? Our oceans average about 17 degrees C, with a great variation. The range is from -2 degrees C to 26 degrees, with variation depending on depth as well as latitude. Even if some parts of the ocean reached high temps, it does not follow that all, or even large parts of it would, just as oceans today vary considerably from the average ocean temp. It is not reasonable to believe that polar ocean temps would be too high to support life. Equatorial temps would be hitting the boiling point.
But just consider this obvious observation: Let's say oceans and the land at sea level were too high to support life. Land temps depend on a great many factors, not just ocean temps, that create an area's regional climate.What about higher elevations? There would be a great many places where the temps were tropical temps (or colder!), and with the added rainfall, life would abound. How much colder is the top of Mt. Everest than Death Valley? How about Antarctica? You just can't make the jump from South China being hot to the entire world being too hot to support life. The heat could just as easily been limited to a China Sea.
Give these guys an F for not considering the diversity of earth's climes, and making grandiose, sweeping conclusions not supported by their evidence.
Can you say BIASED? I knew you could!
""Americans' belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 percent in January 2010 to 70 percent in September 2012," report the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication in a survey published this week."
LOL! Take a look at the dates of the polls! The last one is the ONLY POLL TAKEN AT THE END OF SUMMER. Try taking one in February, and you will get a completely different result. They compare a January poll to a September poll. What the heck do you think people will say after sweating the whole summer versus freezing their keisters off in winter?
Wake me up when they can compare polls taken in May or November when people no longer have frostbite or heatstroke on their minds. Until then, this is only garbage designed to push an agenda.
Oh, man. More garbage. Do you know how they do these studies? They start with a mega-study that in reality is just a survey. They ask hundreds of questions, like how many cups of coffee a day do you drink, how many times to you go to the toilet, what health problems do you have, do you eat wheat, and on and on. The 'subjects' self-report - their answers usually only approximate the reality (quick, now, how many cups of coffee a day did you have last week?). Then they do correlations: Look here, Joe, of the people who did x suffered y 10% more often than those who didn't do x. When you have a large questionnaire you can find many things that seem to correlate.
The problem with that is in any random sampling you have NOISE. Just statistical quirks that mean nothing. Chances are far greater that some 'x' will either be better or worse than 'not x' than 'x' and 'not x' being exactly the same. And every time you find such a variation, you are guaranteed a publishable paper and perhaps make the news.
Just please don't call it science.
The science comes after this first phase, when you look at specific anomalies to find out if there's anything really going on, and if so, why and how.
Not capitalism - GREED
This problem wouldn't exist if research and educational institutions didn't tolerate such fraud. The penalty should be expulsion from the research community, not a slap on the risk and extracting a promise to do better in the future (oh, and you can keep the research grant).
And this isn't an outcome of capitalism; it's greed. Greed for money, fame, admiration, or respect., just like teachers who cheat on class test scores. It is well known that many USSR climate studies were (are?) compromised by researchers deliberately misreporting temperatures. How much coal/heating fuel they got from the government was dependent upon how cold it was, so they reported falsely lower temperatures. (Now that actual temps are being reported, the USSR/Russia 'warm-up' is part of climate change!).
Returning to this problem: the penalty for deliberate falsification of research should be to rescind that person's credentials, and ban him/her from research in that field.
Give the money back
Egads, don't these boffins bother to look at the very long-term trend of earth's temps? It is steadily going down (in a noisy fashion, with some dips being ice ages, and some spikes giving us today's temps). We do great during the spikes, suffer during the dips. And these fools what to reduce the spikes and worsen the dips.
Whoever funded this research should get a refund.
Re: Goat Jam
Yeah, I haven't been able to decide which is the case:
Civilization has peaked and we are rapidly headed downhill.
Some people successfully resisted becoming civilized.
This is the way things have always been, and I'm just an uptight p*ick.
Maybe a combination of all of the above.
Regardless, the more of these 'artists' I hear, the more I appreciate classical music.
Actually, this world is just a recurring dream I have. When I am awake, you don't exist (you think you're sleeping). When I sleep, the dream - and this world - resumes.
This world will end when I die. Absurd? Are......you.....s u r e?
It's idiotic 'studies' like this that gives scientists - real ones - a bad image.
Try this mental exercise and come to your own conclusion:
You are a cold-water fish. Your water is getting warmer (not by much, but we'll let that slide for now), and you need more oxygen to grow and function properly. What do you do? Stay where you are and suffer, or swim to cooler waters (which lie just north of where you are)? The fish aren't where they are because it's their 'homeland' and they're just lucky that the environment is perfect for them. They are where they are because of the environment, and when it changes, they will move accordingly. At least that's what all forms of life have been doing for eons.
Enjoy your fish and chips. Don't forget the malt vinegar, and remember to eat your peas.
Re: Is this why dogs are having so many cancerous tumors these days?
Give them a diet composed of mainly one ingredient, and they'll likely have health problems regardless of what that ingredient is. Do you think the advice to eat a 'balance diet' only applies to humans?
Um, GM wrt crops means, Genetically Modified, not General Motors. Monsanto likely is the largest producer of GM seed, but not the only one. And while Monsanto (and General Motors) have lawyers, Genetically Modified crops don't. For those of you who did not realize this, please read up on a subject before posting. There's enough misinformation on the web.
A bogus study a half-century ago involving rats and cancer almost destroyed the saccharine industry. Fortunately for diabetics, other sugar substitutes were found.
If such a study devastates the production of GM crops, though, people will starve. But then people dying because of bogus studies, such as those that resulted in the ban of DDT, has never bothered some environmental groups. They want fewer people on earth to begin with.
How many of you realize that the US gov. is paying a group of people six-figure salaries to sit around and shoot the shiest like you blokes are doing? My tax dollars at work, sigh.
All I want to know is, if someone used this "plausible" drive to go a little more than 50 light-years away, and the optics were available, could we look at earth as it was fifty years in the past and finally determine if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone Kennedy assassin?
Your opening paragraph is total and utter nonsense. Why do people believe a warmer world would be a worse world, when the history of the world shows that life thrives more in a warmer world? We are still exiting the last Ice Age (otherwise, there would be no ice caps at all, as many times in long ago past).
Consider this: there is NO place on earth too hot to grow crops. Too cold, yes. Too dry, yes. Too hot, no. A warmer world would increase the land that could be used to cultivate crops. They may have to change want crops grow where, and they may need to increase irrigation in places, but increased warmth, particularly with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, mean REATER crop production - and yes, there is peer-reviewed literation coming to this conclusion (it's just not pc or sexy to publish in the MSM).
Speaking of atmospheric carbon dioxide, as long as termites are generating more than Man (which they are), then Man doesn't have anything to apologize for. We are part of nature, too.
Re: weird weather == expensive food
Those who espouse that we are experiencing "weird weather" are just exposing their own ignorance of history. There is agreement among scientists that the earth has been natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, the middle of the 1800s. Man's contribution to that warming is greatly debated. If you think otherwise, then peruse these 1100+ peer-reviewed papers casting doubts on various aspects of the man-made catastrophic global warming meme. Then we can discuss it.
Re: How many commentators have paid their $20
Interesting. But of course if you plowed in English, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and a few other languages into that program, it would spit out the United States as the origin, since the US language is such a polyglot of all the other languages. It seems to me that would be true in the past of any locale that was at a cross-roads of trade, which is exactly what Turkey was (the Silk Route, where Europe and Asian trade routes met). All that would be required would be the advent of widespread trade at an earlier time than presently documented. If those who lived in the area adopted words from various languages, it could appear that they were the source, and the language spread from their.
Re: Fast charging
Re the 1905 comment. An electric car make as much sense as a gasoline-powered horse. If people could only duplicate what could be done with a single horse, we would still be riding on real horses. There would be no new infrastructure simply to replace a horse. Now if the innovation could replace a great many horses with one 'contraption', then you have something. If it can go faster, further, and carry more than horses, you have something. What can an electric vehicle do that a gas/diesel vehicle can not?
Re: Fast charging
You are completely missing the rest of the transmission network. Your tranformer is tapped into the same transmission lines as many other transformers. You are all sharing the same power carried on the transmission lines from the power plant. Simply take the total number of users/houses/businesses/schools/etc. being served and divide it by the total amount of power being generated, and you will get the small numbers being reported. As long as we don't all try to use a great deal of power at once, it works. If many people tried to quick-charge their car at the same time, it won't work. In many places, if more that 40% of the people turn on their air conditioners, the grid fails. We are all on a 'shared network'.
Re: Fast charging
There are already proposals to make it mandatory to have 'black boxes' on cars that will report how many miles you drive. The info will then be used to send you a tax bill based on the number of miles you drove. Everyone will pay that tax. Gas/diesel vehicles will still pay fuel taxes. Those with electric vehicles will still have the regular electricity usage tax on their electric bills.The governments consider us nothing but slaves. We should send them all of our incomes and they will decide what we are allowed to do or to have
Re: Fast charging
You're ignoring the need of a vast, new transmission infrastructure to distribute that amount of power to "charging points", plus the need for power plant ungrades to handle the increased loads. Sure, it can be done, but at what cost? Theoretically, electric vehicles would reduce pollution, but the truth is it mainly shifts where the pollution is created, from individual cars to power plants. When you factor in the pollution created in building the new transmission lines and power plant upgrades, you don't really see a net improvement in the environment for centuries. By that time we may have evolved wings and be flying.
"A tweet containing a false statement that induces another person to act on it may offend laws against deceit and the making of misrepresentations. "
If you've ever seen a US political ad, you know that a great many hacks in both Parties lie and distort the other's positions in order to induce you to vote for their candidate. If we could borrow this rule for just one election cycle we could put all the politicians and their sycophants in jail.
Re: Problem, Reaction, Solution ... Conditioning behavior.
Fox news is no different, and likely better, than CBS, NBC, ABC, and especially MSNBC. But you're welcome to maintain your ignorance by only watching news that agrees with your distorted viewpoint.
Re: But on the other hand...
"Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by federal law enforcement agencies and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000."
If you are in the USA, you should be awake by now.
I was obtaining a post-degree in astro-physics during that time, and we most definitely did discuss the global "cool-down". If you were not in an "astro-related" field, most university physicists were engaged in nuclear reasearch or laser theory ( and other quantum electro-dynamics) and did not pay much attention to other areas of science.
First the obvious question: how the &**# could "two preceding hot summers" be the cause of a cold winter?
Secondly, no one is arguing that carbon dioxide is not a 'greenhouse gas'. The SCIENCE says what we have added to the atmosphere would warm it a FRACTION of a degree. The NON-SCIENCE of assumptions and models used by some climatologists theorize a positive feedback mechanism that turns that fraction of a degree into several degrees. That is what we - and ALL the actual atmospheric data for the last 15 years - disagree with.
Thirdly, it takes only a little bit of research (one that a true scientist would undertake) to find 1970's articles of scientists predicting global cooling and imminent ice age.
Re: I wish my thermometer were this accurate
The interaction between the sun's and the earth's magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and the rays' interaction with cloud formation is poorly understood, and could well produce the ocean temp results. Broadly speaking, when the sun is active, as it was during the 1990s, it's magnetic field expands and interacts with earth's. The resultant merging of fields block cosmic rays from entering the atmosphere. It seems as though those rays provide the seeding that produces clouds. Without them, clouds don't form, and solar radiation (which may not be any greater than at other times) warms the oceans without the filtering and reflective interference of clouds.
The universe is not as simplistic as some would have you believe.
The last peer-reviewed paper I read, released this May in the Journal of Climate, was "Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium."
It was removed and placed on hold after being posted on-line for only three days because of some fatal flaws in it that were pointed out by "non-experts".
A successfully peer-reviewed paper is not a stamp of approval by others that the work was done properly, only an indication that they don't see anything obviously wrong with the paper. In the case of "man-made" climate change, there are very few "experts" qualified to review the work, and most all of them have a vested interest in Man being blamed. They are NOT unbiased. This same problem was encountered in the field of US history when Michael Bellesiles published his piece of (fictional) history concerning guns in America that was given the seal of approval by historians, much to their later embarrassment.
I'm rather amazed at the number of people saying continued GP growth is impossible.
Is the population not growing? More people means more houses, more furniture, more cars, more TVs....Great Britain is on target to grow 3 million people by 2020. A zero GDP growth translates to zero job growth. More are graduating schools and entering the workforce than are retiring. The surplus will find no jobs. For every immigrant getting a job, a citizen will lose one. People will need more housing, but can't afford them - there are no jobs.
If you have a growing population and no GDP growth, your standard of living will start falling and your taxes - to pay for more welfare and other aid - will go up.
GB and most of the rest of the world are in a heap of trouble because of the debts governments have created. Good luck to all in the coming depression.
I think you are looking more at a scaling issue than any real anomaly. Change the scale so that the blue line is directly on top of, the other line, and they are pretty much in lock-step. Any apparent rise in diversity before the rise in supernovae rate disappears if you include the error bars (i.e., you can shift the genera line to where the peaks follow the peaks in the line for the supernovae rate and still stay within the parameters set by the error bars). You have to allow for some 'static' when you consider that both the genera and supernovae counts are +/- some number and dating the YEAR of those rates is +/- some number. That's why the error bars are as large as they are. This graph shows an astounding degree of conformance between the two rates. Considering the unlikelyhood that genera rates on earth influencing the creation of supernovae, we can pretty well determine in what direction any statistical errors may lie!