Funny.... Perhaps Microsoft should use this Defender ATP with Office 365.... Maybe it would have helped stop hackers from their 50 day spree, hijacking 25% of accounts abusing 2FA on IMAP accounts?
56 posts • joined 9 Apr 2013
Re: Well no worries then . . .
Apparently you do not know the regulatory process set forth by law in the USA. And it is self-evident you have never been a participant in the process, either.
There are not different rules for different regulatory bodies, the rules are the same. The only differences would be length of public comment period and whether or not a draft proposal gets released to the public, or to specifically impacted groups first. However, once the regulations are out of draft, formalized to be the final product, these must be ublished in the Federal Resistrar, public notice must be printed in the newspapers or record, a public comment period of at least 30 days then commences, and at least one public hearing must also be held, prior to the close of the comment period. The process is the same for all agencies/ bureaucracies.
Its called the lawful process of regulations becoming codifed. If you wish to make something else up, try selling it to someone who is not involved in these processes.
Re: My hope is that...
If you haven't read the regulations, you are speculating and hoping what you say is true. At the very least a step in the right direction?
WHat a pant load! You have no idea what steps have been taken - as none of us do, as the regulations have not been released.
Very irresponsible statement.
Re: We Internet pioneers breathe a sigh of relief
And yet you have not read the regulations because they have not been released.
Further the legislative process is far different than the regulatory process - guess you do not know the difference between laws and regulations and the process for each? Not debating the merits or lack thereof of the Patriot Act, but under the due process framework of how a bill becomes law, representatives are to debate the bill in each house, both in their respective committees and then on the general floor of each house, then representatives vote on said legislation, their vote is recorded and we can see whether the reps are actually representing you or not. They are held accountable on election day. Regulations, on the other hand, are rules made up by appointed bureaucrats, unaccountable to the people. Theymake up rules based on the law that authorizes a given department or commission authority to regulate under the scope of the enabling law. They draft a proposed regulation and submit for public comment. Once the draft ppsl comment period closes, the regulators/ bureaucrats publish a final proposed regulation, this gets published in the Federal Registrar, followed by another public comment period of at least 30 days, which can be extended depending on comment numbers, and whether more time is needed for the public to comment. Usually at least one public hearing is also held. After the comment period, depending on the comments, the draft proposal is either codified or pulled, but usually codified. Typically the regulations will not be "tweaked" after this formalizeed process (meaning proposed regs published). The tweaking usually happens during the draft proposal period.
SInce we have not seen the regulations before the commission voted to adopt, which BTW is illegal, we really do not know what the regulations state, its impacts, etc. STatements concerning what has been done are more speculation based on beliefs of what this term net neutrality means, not what the regulations to get there actually state.
Devoid of actual regulations published, read commissioner's statements
In the absence of the actual text of the regulations, which from what I understand encompass something like 330 pages, one could get a good sense of what is to come by reading the statements of the FCC Commissioners. You can get them here
Read each statement, all 5. I hope we have those in here who have open minds, and critical thinking skills.
Again, the question still remains - what are the regulations, and why isn't the FCC releasing them?
I see some in here claiming they "thought about it and tweaked it". Tweaked what? We have not seen the draft proposals, nor have we seen what was "tweaked".
Your claims hold no water, you all are playing make believe, which is dangerous and STUPID.
Congratulations, dumb asses. This is exactly how stupid stuff gets enacted or codified. You make believe, they do something else, and the next thing will be outrage, and you all will blame everyone but yourselves and the folks that did the dictating.
Get ready for the biggest disappointment (worse than that) of your pitiful little make believe lives.
Since that is already going on now, why the need for government meddling? Also, have you actually read Title II, or are you just regurgitating what is in media articles?
Currently NO ISP is charging content providers off their networks with interconnect fees. Market forces are stopping that. If the market already stops that, why does the government have to step in to "stop" something not happening?
Follow the money trail government will set up for itself, and the control they will realize as a result. Why do you think the proposed regulation were not released?
Think man, stop feeling.
Title II was passed in 1934, and dealt with POTS lines and switching between providers.
How on God's Green Earth is any of that provision in law applicable to broadband internet service?
Short answer - none of it applies.
Seems like the only arsehats in this matter are those making up what they feel net neutrality means to them. SInce the regulations were not made public, ergo, no one has read them, all anyone is doing is emotionally making up what they believe this means, devoid of any substance whatsoever. And in the process, the emotional make-believe is also allowing those to completely ignore what this current government is all about, and it ain't about making things better for the people, the consumers, or any f that rot.
"Like your Doctor, Keep your Doctor. Like your HC Plan, Keep your HC Plan, Average family will save $2500/ yr."
Hello McFly! Is anyone capable of thinking? Or is it just feel your way and allow the brain to go on hibernate?
Re: Wouldn't be necessary if....
Funny, considering the USA does have anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies. Wonder how that is working out? Government is not doing its job with that. And the answer is, MORE GOVENMENT?
When the FCC will not release the proposed regulations in advance of a voet to implement said regulations, which is legslation by fiat, by unaccountable bureaucrats, a thinking person has to question the tall tales being sold to us all.
In terms of competition, see my previous statement concerning the lack of enforcing the anti-trust laws already on the books.
The fear was if watered down regs were imposed, ISPs would be able to charge off-network interconnect fees to get content on hosted by them to their routers. This was NOT happening anyhow, due to the market itself. Now you can bet your bottom dollar that government will step in and impose such charges under the guise of utility "licensing", and everyone will pay far more, and get far less.
Amazing how the small minds simply cannot think, and rather than ask what the fish are the details contained in the regulations, you blather about whatever YOU believe may be contained in documents not released.
This is certainly funny, especially on the heels of the Memorial Day "quiz" conducted by someone from Fox News, and played on the O'Reilly Factor, where this person is asking random college kids some basic questions, like, oh, "who was involved in fighting the Revolutionary War"... Most of those asked said France?
Asked about George Washington, who was he, "Did he have something to do with horses?"
Not surprising - reach out to the ill-informed and ask leading questions, get the answer you expect.
Then trumpet this as something it isn't....
I know how this garbage works....
Re: give me a break
Well, we do have a UN Climate Science organization, with scientists all over the world contributing, building "consensus", using cherry-picked data, proven, which also shows some international cahoots, does it not?
And your analogy is invalid, as indeed "no fossil counts as evolutionary evidence". The fossil counts as proof that life form once existed on Earth, and perhaps a living relative still exists on the planet, but that fossil itself is not evidence at all of evolution.
Evidence of the species living, and dying, and even perhaps becoming extinct, by virtue of no more speices like it exists. That is all the evidence a fossil provides. And its location in the sediment gives us evidence of its age/ period when it succombed. Surrounding sediment gives evidence of geological conditions.
Consensus is not science. Consensus is agreement about statements, not confirmation of experiments and scientific hypothesis. Back to the Earth is flat thing, the "science of the day" was agreed to that the Earth was flat. I also seem to recall learning the science of the day also stated the sun revolved around the earth.
Science demands skepticism to grow and improve. This is something teh climate crowd and man is almighty crowd cannot stand - being questioned, so, voila, a study designed to marginalize the dissenters, and measure how effective indoctrination efforts have been.
Re: @ doctariAFC2 -- Human nature being what it is, a Dark Age is never far away.
I agree.... Our approach to problem solving, and even our approach to the logic process, has most definitely changed for the worse. Gives science a very bad name....
Starting point is today many believe science answers WHY something happens, which is balderdash, it answers HOW something works.
Re: The takeaway . . .
4 out of 5 dentists (scientists) recommend Trident sugarless Gum for their patients who chew gum.....
Which of course means that Trident, since it is agreed to by the scientists is good for your teeth?
Just because scientists line up in consensus does not mean the science is settled or even accurate. I am 100% certain any of us can draw a myriad of examples of "science" that was "solid" only to be completely contradicts when more was learned later.
And therein lies the issue with the climate crowd. No one, I believe, will challenge the climate does change. The planet is dynamic, ever-changing. The continents haven't been in the same place and in the same shape since the rock began spinning. We have had ice ages, we have had tropical periods, this is the nature of nature.
We are part of nature, and bound by the "whims of nature". It is both foolhardy and dangerous to believe anything else, yet the scientists and their followers state otherwise, with a gigantic pot of gold and a whole lot of control over the masses at the end of this rainbow. To actually believe we are changing the Earth's climate, through carbon emissions, a substance which all of life is comprised of, is really an attack upon life itself, or certain lives not toeing the indoctrination line. And the coup de tat comes in the form of the alarmism, which is now taking the target of action now or else doom in 20 years to action now or doom in 100 years. That's convenient. And it could work too, considering the grasp of history among people today is pure crap. However, if we have a grasp of climate "science" history, we know this tripe has been spouted since at least the early 1930's, and not a single statement of we must do things this way or else we're all dead has ever come to pass.
That is a pretty darned accurate translation to the above nonsense. Nice try, doesn't fly.
Full disclosure: I hold degrees in Marine SCIENCE and BIOLOGY, and work as a Database Administrator for an energy management, facilities controls integration company, while spending my volunteer time working with Fish and Wildlife biologists and managers to restore and perpetuate the wild treasures we have in the USA and in NYS. And I have many peer awards for my work, and have set many initiatives based on my observations - which have been proven accurate through science by the biologists and managers, much to their surprise.
Re: Human nature being what it is, a Dark Age is never far away.
Which is exactly the purpose of this "survey"....
Or, in other words, how are we doing indoctrinating people, and removing their free will, as well as their freedom for self-determination.
As we can see from the posts/ comments, those successfully indoctrinated come up with all sorts of ways to demonize and attack, while conveniently avoiding any questioning of the survey itself. As some have pointed out, the questions appear to be leading at best, invalid at worst. Those answering as the survey crafters desired are somehow uplifted, while those answering contrary to the goals of the survey are demonized....
This thing is a charade, like man made global warming, cooling, climate change - or whatever term du jour is used to fool the masses. The questions concerning religion is a disguised measurement to see how many people have been "enlightened" to lay all their trust (aka faith) in man and government, and how many place their faith in something out of man's reach, control, realm.
Once we believe that man is almighty, we look to other people for our answers, our comfort, our direction, which means we are more easily dictated to by someone claiming to be smarter, wiser, more special than ourselves, forgetting the simple fact that every person puts their pants on one leg at a time.
Having faith in a higher power, whatever that religion may define as such, puts your faith above the frailties and imperfections of man, limiting said control one man will have over another.
This is all hogwash, and is aimed at gauging success and progress to indoctrination. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: Breaking News!!
The very things ignored by the "Scientists", because no amount of control or money can change these things, so it doesn't fit the agenda of "we have the answer, now let's find the questions - and your money".
Things ignored = Solar Activity - 90% of our climate on this planet is rooted in solar activity, yet, because scientists compare solar activity against the sun's own benchmark, it appears trivial in variation. I have yet to see any comprehensive and purely scientific studies on the minor variations of the sun and its energy output variations' actual impact on the Earth. Also ignored is geological/ gravitational factors, which the bulk of the balance of our climate. Winds, temperature mixation in water currents, etc, all driven by gravity. Large seismic events, such as the Indian Ocean earthquake and the pacific Rim of Fire Earthquake changed the shape of the lanet and its wobble on the axis. Again, very minor in terms of the shape iof the Earth, degrees of wobble, as compared to the planet itself, hence let's ignore it. However, change the shape of the spinning rock, even a couple centimeters, and you alter orbital consistency, much like a very minor flinch of less than 1/4 of a centimeter will impact a rifle shot's accuracy downrange. The further the downrange travel, the larger variation of accuracy results. Angle/ wobble of the planet certainly alters how solar energy strikes the planet, and where. Gravitational changes due to centrifical force changes alters tidal currents, jet stremas etc.
None of this is factored in, yet is the bulk of where our climate comes from. Since no amount of taxing and spending can credibly be claimed will "fix this problem", these very large factors are ignored. But atmospheric, which is the least impactful on the climate factors? Well, we can make up anything we want, construct a computer model to "prove our answer is right" - aka, create the question, and voila, you have your playbook for mass deception. Stupid people will swallow all of this tripe when sweetened with a healthy dose of guilt trip.
Further, stupid/ ignorant people abound, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. I can say this, however. Religious people seem to exhibit more humility and a lot less arrogance than non-religious. And it is our arrogance that is troublesome. We cannot control everything, we do not impact many factors we claim we do, and, like the scientists claimed back in the 1920's when the US Army Corps of Engineers were dumping hundreds of thousands of metric tons of contaminated sludge into the Great Lakes, stating that science tells them the waters are so vast that the pollutants would dilute and not impact anything, coupled with the sludge would just remain where dumped, so no problems, was the scientific definitive statements of the day, which resulted in our waters of life becoming seas of neverending poison, including Lake Erie being declared dead in 1971, and you seek to question why some are skeptical of the white labcoat wearing cadre?
Let teh bashing from you arrogant pukes begin. I tell the truth, and I have ALWAYS been validated, thus far. And I do work closely with Natural Resources, policies, conservation, etc., and I ain't been wrong yet, even when told I am wrong, a few years later, when work is actually done to disprove what I say - they wind up confirming in spades what I state all along. That isn't ever going to change.
Re: Another interesting hypothesis
I seem to be reading several past hypotheses about such an occurence and the possibility, despite being very remote, the possibility exists nonetheless. More likely the plane would be hit when on the ground, due to time plane is on the ground vs. airborne.
However, some of the literature I have read states it would take a meteorite the size of a BASEBALL to take down an airliner. If it struck the fuel tanks, no plane, completely obliterated.
I am not saying this is what I believe. I really have no clue. However, it is an interesting hypothesis, and would be nigh on impossible to prove.
Re: Another interesting hypothesis
Not really. And space debris hits the atmosphere with frequency, and these rocks and other debris travel so fast it is difficult to detect with RADAR. A space rock of small size could decimate - meaning nothing of size is left - an aircraft, even one as large as the 777, and we may never find enough debris to confirm what happened.
We have other "mysterious" aircraft disappearances, well reported, think "Bermuda Triangle". Although it is difficult to fathom, the possibility does exist, no matter how remote.
It is interesting to ponder, if not unsettling to air travelers.
Another interesting hypothesis
Speaking with some friends, one item came up, beyond aliens, and that is a meteor strike. The acvtions of turning off the transponder(s) could indeed have been necessary to silence an electrical alarm related to that device. The ping could have been continuing from damaged equipment and its location, when falling from roughly 6 miles up, would indeed change.
However, at 6 miles up, at the speed and pressurization the craft was at, all it would really take would be an object roughly the size of a cantalope, travelling wicked fast and hot, impacting the plane and this would completely decimate the craft and everyone inside rather quickly. Debris would be near impossible to find and spread out across a very wide area, and unless some serial numbers or other tell-tale markings are found on some debirs, any parts found could be thought of as trash/ litter, rather than part of the craft itself.
And this angle would not be reported, as what would this "new" possibility do to airline business? The odds of something like this potentially happening are probably as remote as being hit by 5 consecutive lightning strikes, but the possibility nevertheless exists.
This seems like the most plausible hypothesis I have heard, considering the facts known about this at the present.
Waiting for certainty will fail as a strategy.....
Translation - if we wait until we know much more about all this rot, then our funding will be jeopardized and we will all lose out gubmint cheese and gubmint supported jobs, not to mention a crippling of our agenda....
THAT is the FAIL these climate "scientists" speak of.
Ok, I will agree that the term Cyber War is nonsense. But the correct term is cyber warFARE, and can do a heck of a lot more than what is let on.
First step in any war, especially modern war, is to engage is degrading the command and control communications necessary to confuse and cut off the enemy's capabilities to communicate sith troops on the ground, coordination of artillery strikes, air strikes, naval strikes, missile strikes, etc. Do we use the telegraph today? Tin cans and string? Or are the modern armies of the world using something more sophisticated?
Next degrade the capabilities to resupply. Certainly causing havoc via hacking or malware in the enemy's electrical grid, oil production, even factory assembly line processes would foot the bill for that, right?
How about satellite signal disruption? GPS trickery? Intercepting sensitive communications via malware?
This is not Cyber War, as no such thing exists. However, as a part of war, cyber warfare is becoming an increasingly important element of a military arsenal. Why drop bombs on RADAR installations when you can screw ball the RADAR network and field communications for a fraction of the cost, and at immense speed?
Yes, costs are involved in attempting to secure critical networks to assure a military can effectively communicate and track enemy movements, while the civilian factories can produce replacement weaponry, et al. As we evolve technically, costs will be incurred there too.
Re: I do hope .....
Amen. If a power source delivers then have at it. Wind farms do not deliver, not even close, yet require HUGE tracts of land, and gigantic encroachment onto the countryside - to get nothing but very high cost power available only when the wind blows properly. Imagine your dismay of you flicked the light switch on 5 times and the lights only came on once. It is the ideology that is forcing such schemes upon us all, despite the very real problems with cost and more importantly consistent, reliable, predictable and dependable power.
As for the dismay over the draft being made public, I do not believe it has to do with the fear of finding errors in calculations and all that rot. I believe the real reason is so the public will not see how this "science" is being conducted.... ERGO - we have the answer that we want to confirm already, now how do we go about asking the question?
Re: More Fantasy
Sandra, you may want to do a litttle bit of research on that polar bear thing.... What you have regurgitated is direct from Al Gore's Inconvenient lies. Truth is entirely different. I can point you towards some factual information if you would like. And yes, I would know.
Also, I would further suggest you do a little historical research into NYC flooding. This by no means was the "first time" NYC was undeerwater, in fact this has happened a few times in the past, starting with the first truly documented case of a hurricane whacking NYS in Sept 1821, when a tidal surge of 13 feet in an hour put most of Manhattan underwater. Few deaths reported because population was not where it is today. 1893 - Cat 1 hurricance deatroyed Hog Island. 1960 - 11 foot storm surge from hurricane Donna forced the evacuation of some 300 families from Long Island. 1999 and 2004 also saw some significant flooding events as well. Sandy was a big storm that tracked right, and is rare, but not something totally unprecedented.
Droughts and floods, that has never happened before either, right? Ever hear of an event called "The Dust Bowl"? I can cite many, many events that have happened in the past, and these events detonated your panicked rubbish.
Spring coming earlier..... This all depends on weather patterns, and each year we see variances, yet many of these things happening are driven by photo-period, unconnected with "warming", although blossoms (like we expereinced here last year, during a very warm March) will begin when warmer temps trigger sap runs, then the following month we had hard freezes, hammering fruit crops across NYS.
Sorry, but I just have to say, welcome to Earth third rock from the Sun. Seems like you are probably one of those folks that, when we all say Happy New Year, you are more like Frosty the Snowman in that children's cartoon when the hat hits his head.... And you say, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, as if you have forgotten everything that has happened in the past, or that you simply discount everything due to short or mid-term memory loss? Tell me, are you one of those blokes that has to relearn how to winter drive every single first snowfall of the year?
Re: Unprotected men
Now that right there is funny!
Of course, if the man learns how to fish, and fillet said fish, or learns to hunt, and can dress and skin and chop up (process) the harvested game, then he would have a world of "prostitutes" beating down his door, right? And if knowledge of knife-work extends to knowing how to use said knife to hew down branches and vines and such, said man would also be able to build a pretty fine shelter to boot....
Can anyone (else) in here build a fire without matches or lighters? How about knowing how to find water, or knowing where in a stream to collect water which is least likely to contain harmful wee nasties (in the event you cannot start a fire without matches or lighers, let alone absence of a pot or cauldron to boil said water in)?
Its good to be a database administrator, but its better to be a sportsman.....
Its all 100% pure bovine excrement. If you buy one iota of this garbage, I guess I found a buyer for the new Peace Bridge we built here in Buffalo....
And what is this rot about developing countries and women assuming the responsibilities to work at feeding their families and collecting water? What, is that somehow unfair to have to work harder for your own survival? Really??? Someone needs to get out the illusions of man more often, and see what it takes to survive for a while. The term "fair" has no place in the conversation of survival.
This is not about "equality" or "women's rights", rather an offensive slander to somehow connect AGW and women's rights as one issue, which is pure balderdash - any living person with aeven the smallest shred of intellectual accumen can see this.
Cannot disagree with a Anonymous Coward....
BTW, Nevada does a fine job with prostitution as a legal profession.
And you are correct, women do have that "commodity to trade", hence the oldest profession, and the "packaging" doesn't need to be all that "market-able", either. Just trot into the Mustang Ranch on any given night, and then tell me whether you were surprised by the, ummmm, "menu selection"....
Men can do it too, but for whatever reason theat career path just isn't as attractive when you examine what the customer base would actually be....
As for the politicians, I think it is time we round them up and lock them away in a deep dark hole. All that hot air, predominantly CO2, needs to be trapped and contained to slow the global warming, clearly caused by such wind bags of idiocy.
Ok, a couple of things on this nonsense.
First, this is NOT legislation, rather a resolution, or expression of intent and position. Big difference (hence all the whereas sentences).
2nd, considering the FACT that prostitution is considered the world's "oldest profession" (note that term profession), it begs the question - who is forcing anyone into any profession in the USA?
3rd - not a snowball's chance in Hades this has any relationship whatsoever with "climate change". The Democrat reps that put this together should lay off the weed and crack for a few days.... This is about economics, and the lousy job our gubmint interveners have truly done. Less jobs, less opportunity for a trade or creating a "societally contributable" job or business, yet survival is always something people will gravitate towards, inately, part of our instincts as living beings, to find a way to survive, or adapt (may be better put), the oldest profession is a winner....
But, my no means is this the "fault of global warming", in no way illusrates any inequalities at all (what a frickin joke) - after all, we are all impacted when teh climate changes, equally, as last I checked the climate doesn't discriminate, nor recognizes genders. If men are "better equipped" to adapt, that isn't an equality thing, that is a nature thing. But I find even that laughable, as women are the reproductive part of our species, and no way on God's Green Earth would the reproductive part of any species be somehow less able, due to gender, to adapt to environmental changes and survive.
But this is a classic illustration as to exactly how stupid some people are, and the fact that elected politicians exhibit the most breath-taking examples of utter stupidity, it would seem perhaps a better use of our energy to resolve to implement basic common sense standards any elected official should be able to rise to, which would be the common sense of a potato, or a 5th grader. Seems when you get into office, the brain evaporates completely.
How does this rep cross the street successfully, is what I would like to know.
When they follow the cult, and the "methodology" is science by consensus, well.....
As for Lovelock, just a refresher from 4/23/2102
The exact quote: “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
I can understand why you do not want to debate.....
Any other Q's? Just ask.....
Your friendly-neighborhood award-winning Conservationist...... ;)
Re: Plants and a Warming Planet
I shall throw the BS flag on this one, as deforestation in the Amazon over the past 50 years is eerily similar to the deforestation of the NE United States back in the 19th Century (1800s).
Did you know that when the Mayflower landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, much of the NE USA was forested, and by the mid-1800's through the turn of the 20th Century, many of the forests were hewn down for construction materials for the expansion west?
To get specific, NYS, it is speculated, was @ 60% forested at the time of European settlement. Over the course of 200+ years, NYS Forest declines to under 10% of NYS being forested (areas that have maintaind forests were Northern Zone, or Adirondack Park region, the Catskills along the SE NY/ NW NJ/ NE PA Border, and in Allegany State Park SW NY/ NW PA border). The rest of NYS was a few woodlots, expansive grasslands and farms, etc., with the timber predominantly used for construction materials and fuel. Looks like this trend bottomed out @ 1920, and reforestation efforts started to develop. Now, nearly 100 years later, NYS is 63% forested in total, but I have heard this number may be even higher from the professionals I work with at the NYS DEC.
How can this be? The entire state, and indeed the NE USA was just about completely deforested - by 1920, yet we had no "global warming" crises being bandied about back then? Certainly today with 63%+ of NYS being once again forested, much of this occurring naturally (natural succession), while some as well from re-planting efforts from paper mills, NYS Government and volunteers/ land owners planting saplings and such.
In terms of plantlife, terrestrial plantlife, ebbs and flows always happen, regardless of our overall practices (yes we do have an impact in this area), but the planet and nature takes care of this over time. After all meadows want to turn into forests, then a big old fire wipes out said mature forest, and the process starts all over again.
So, while we see damage done in the Amazon, other regions of the world see forests coming back. I think if we are speaking about GLOBAL climate, then it may be best to look at GLOBAL canopy/ forest cover, as in one area we may see forests disappearing, while in other areas forests regenerating.
Also, in terms of oceans holding temperatures, sure water holds temperature better than air, yet we have not really devled into sub-marine volcanic activity, or the like with temperatures down in the deep.
Again, no magic bullets in this magazine....
Translation, you do realize that the dynamics of our climate and all the potential variables that could come into play are still not fully known, let alone understood, yet we still have a cadre of kooks setting policy against what the charlatains claim to know, yet in truth know squat.
Kinda like Lovelock's great admission - we thought we knew exactly what the climate was doing and why 20 years ago. Today we know that is not the case.
Yet, we still have the brain damaged followers of the cult of AGW looking for any turd in the toilet left floating to latch onto? As if there does exist a way to pick up said turd by the "clean end"? The great charade is over. Time for the adults to take control back of this mess, and let the children who have royally screwed up policy and landscape alike (see the useless aned expensive eyesores known as wind farms and solar arrays), driving everyone into the poor house for lighting up their homes and charging their "smart phones", tax schemes that amount to punishment for breathing, and stick these brats where they belong... In a dark corner with a dunce cap on and a sign the states, "I finally learned science is not consensus after all", or perhaps "Kick me, I made your energy bills skyrocket for nothing"?
Another I told you so.
This kind of remind me of medical science and the continued back and forths had over the benefits/ dangers of coffee. Coffee is bad for you, don't drink it.... Oh, wait, coffee is good for you drink lots of it.... Wait, I take that back, its bad, drink little, and switch to decaf,. Ooops my bad, decaf is bad and regular is good, drink up....
And on and on.
Bottom line is simple - we don't no chit from shinola, and the more we learn, the dumber we confirm we are when it comes to climate.
Fear not, for we shall do what all otyher creatures do - adapt or perish. We can certainly adapt. But nothing we are doing is going to change any of this, as the planet will do what the planet has been doing long before mankind began haunting this little rock in the universe.
But the charlatains want your money - and power over your lives, so the doom and gloom will be adjusted to "account" for the "new discoveries", while coming up with the next batch of whoppers to keep their little party rolling.
Re: NomNomNom -- Seriously?
Well said BT..... For the record I do have a science background.... Marine Science/ Biology.
The trouble with this "debate" is that labcoated flim-flam artists have worked very hard to co-opt the disciplines of science to now include scientific 'fact' being 'settled' via consensus, rather than the sceintific method itself. We all know that involves reproducable lab results, peer review, and using as much data and variables as possible, not cherry-picked information that fits into a model that answers the question they set out to confirm from the beginning of stating man is the problem, now let's get the right data to confirm this.
Being a conservationist that spend many countless hours in the great outdoors, for a great number of years, and earning recognition awards from both my peers and US Congress for my hard work at fostering love of our natural resources and wild treasures in future generations of sportsmen and women in NYS, I can assert with some authority that the changes being blamed on manmade global warming, or climate change, or whatever label the flim flam man decides best hides their baloney, just isn't so.
But we do know that history tells us these tricks and lies from the usual suspects have been going on for a long time. Every 20-30 years the tune changes after epic embarrassment on predictions made based on the "science of the day" being completely and utterly false, which at some point has to call into question the validity of the statements made to begin with, and the "science" used to underpin the embarrassingly wrong predictions themselves.
The planet is constantly changing, shifting, aging, renewing, etc., and life on Earth continually adapts to new conditions, changes, etc. If this weren't the case, life on Earth never, ever would have survived in ANY form.
But, money and power are wicked temptations, and greed of those hungry for money and power set the conditions for the ever-present plays on the ignorant, fueled by emotion (which helps shut down thought)
and catchy slogans, exaggerations and only a kernel of truth exists. Yet the stupid will lap up anyting that they FEEL is right. In this case, the flim flam man uses the very components of science itself as a smokescreen, miring the debate in banality of complex equations, new principles discovered, cleverly pitched observed dynamics, a plethora of minutia which masks the big picture and big question - if the science bandied about is accurate and reliable, then why so wrong on every single prediction made based on this self-proclaimed "accepted by general agreement" science of the day?
Hogwash, rubbish, balderdash, whatever you wish to call this heaping pile of bovine excrement...... The neds are more of your money out of your pocket to someone else who wants it, less freedom to use energy and prosper, more reliance upon a government made up of criminals and liars bent on controlling your every movement, from womb to tomb.
It is time we jettison these global warming nut cases, and get on with life, demand true science, and eliminate the temptation of easy gubmint money to pursue Don Quixote's giants to impress Dulcenea...
And this article speaks great volumes to this. A new emerging (and once someone can determine the manmade contributions of Creigees) threat to our planet will be the ongoing Texas Two Step employed by these zealots who care not one wit about th eplanet or the life thriving on this rock called Earth. Only interest is self-enrichment, and consolidation of more power over the people.
All I can say is I told you so.....
And now we can also, while hoping for a real scientific approach to climate science itself, rather than the dogmatic, agenda-driven I have an answer, let's make up the questions methodolgy will decline, I prefer to take a more cynical approach, as lots of money and power are at stake here. This gives us a heads up as to the next demon in teh climate rubbish...... Creigees!
Remember, first it was CO2, then it was Nitrogen, then it went back to CO2, and now we are seeing a potential setup for another gas to be demonized - just as soon as they can identify a fossil-fuel based energy source to blame.....
And, of course, what is truly hysterical, is that teh scientific balderdash being bandied about, not only from the labcoats, but also thrown out in here, is actually the freaking smokescreen to confuse and dilute actual meaningful questions and debate about what the rubbish being bandied about truly means......
We have been forewarned..... Here's to enough of us being savvy enough to remember.....
Look at it from another angle, Nom..... These same dip sticks that have been claiming global calamity in 10 years or 20 years if we do not act now, act in concert with the other anti-oil, anti-fossil fuels, anti-energy kabals that have been spewing for years we have 10 years of oil left in the world and then we're doomed.
This kind of thing has been said for longer than the climate goofs have been flip-flopping between impending ice age and infernos from hades, I believe.
Both schools of "thought" have been wrong continually and continue to be wrong to this day.
According to all the ilk that is responsible for the "studies" reported on in this story, we should all be either dead from drowning, starvation, no hope, all doom, all gloom, and this should have happened 10 times over throughout the past 100 years. And we should also be out of oil, too.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...... Again I ask you, do you think its a puppy? Done.
Re: Doomsters can go home now
Nom, please..... Its like watching a bunch of kids play pin the tail on the donkey, except there is no donkey to pin the tail to.
These climate scientists are as clueless today as they were 100 years ago. In today's context, the reason they are so clueless is their tunnel vision on carbon dioxide as the demon that they cannot widen their gaze to find other factors and to get the big picture. This is due to political agendas and money-grab schemes. It is understandable (the continual nonsense followed by more nonsense) as no one wants to see their pay evaporate, but as has been demonstrated in the past (its carbon, no its nitrogen, no its soot, no its carbon, no its nitrogen......) the focus of the "science" truly has little to do with the climate and everything to do with a BS agenda and coming up with "proof" to buttress said agenda.
Its a disgrace to the disciplines of science.
Re: Doomsters can go home now
yeah, I read it. The confidence in what these charlatains have stated before was of similar "impressiveness", so much so that governmental policy was being pushed, agendas being furthered, to head off all the calamity that we all understand now as pure bovine excrement.
Bovine excrement, now co-mingled with equine excrement after such claims have been made yet again.
Ever hear of the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? These charlatains need to stop trying to find an answer before writing the questions. In effect, what they are doing is assuming carbon dioxide is the culprit (because it just HAS to be burning oil/ fossil fuels, which has been the nonsensical claim since the late 1800's) and then modelling to "prove" the claims are correct. Perhaps through dropping this tired assumption and trying to prove this assumption is true, despite well over 100 years of imperical proof it is not, that they completely catalog all dynamics of our climate and measure the significance of each facet of this very complex diamond. Of course, once the truth is discovered that much of our climate's drivers are completely out of our control (thereby negating any justification to tax and spend and curtail the people) then the money train will dry up...
Can't have that....
Re: Doomsters can go home now
Agreed. Wonder if we are well instrumenting the scientists themselves as well. Seems like the more money is flaunted in front of them, with promising potentials for far more, the further asway from science the scientists move.
Now all we have to do is get the understanding that CO2 is not a pollutant, is not causing warming, cooling or anything like that, and get with the complete picture of what creates our climate, which is the Sun, gravity, planet shape and tilt on axis, etc, etc. Got nothing to do with gases, especially a trace gas to boot.
Well said, and lots of truth in this post. But, as history has shown, when that 50 years goes by and nothing happens, another made up reason cloaked in science will be thrust upon us yet again. Which is why in a previous article I provided some historical references, which illustrate your point, and mine, to a tee.
The Earth has been doing what it is does for a long, long time. Independent of us, as we are but an insignificant pimple on the arse of planetary "progress" (evolution). Of course, understanding the realities isn't very good for receiving cash from taxpayers, in the form of grants to continue the baloney these pukes went to "school" for.
But you can see the religious zealots hard at work. Stunning that many of these doom and gloomers will deny any existence of God, gods, etc., yet adhere to this nonsense like the most fervent Jim Jones follower ever could.
Bear in mind that besides being a database developer and administrator, I am also a Conservationist, and very active in natural resource, wildlife and fisherie conservation, spending a LOT of time afield, across a wide array of differing habitat units. I interact with nature on a far closer basis than many. I am listened to very closely by the State Conservation officials in my State, oftentimes (like always) being vindicated in my observations and concerns after a couple years of study by the biologists and ecologists. And my work has earned may peer recognition awards and US Congressional Recognition to boot.
I think we all should realize that the planet itself cares on a whit about what we tax, what we use, and what we spend. No one has been able to successfully explain how taxing and spending will make any difference at all with planetary dynamics that drive climate. And let's not forget about the Sun in all of this as well, as this is what is truly responsible for temperatures on the planet (every planet in the solar system, in fact).
But I do find it humorous to read the posts of both sides. Yours, however, has made the most sense, and I salute you.
Re: Does this sound familiar? Flip Cooling with Warming
Sure did represent the science at the time. Just like the nonsense of today represents the science of today's time. Charlatains are charlatains. And history does repeat itself.
And the most striking similarities, besides the doom and gloom of every snake oil salesman being peddled, is that every single prediction made based on the "science of the day" was so wrong, even to this day, that it is an embarrassment to the discipline of science itself. On epic proportions.
Face facts, Nom..... This is the same old, same old, nothing but nonsense for an agenda of grabbing cash while weilding ultimate control over everyday life of every individual, in the false name of whatever the crisis du jour being "endured" by the planet is claimed.
And if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what is it to you? A puppy???? You're done.
Does this sound familiar? Flip Cooling with Warming
Another more of the same con artist tricks from 1970, I particularly love this one.....
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist