Global warming denial is irrational.
Offline Yeah, I'm new here and I thought everyone here was smart as can be (though I won't ask about economics), but after reading the forum on global warming and seeing how irrational you're answers were on the global warming topic. I thought this was "Rational Response Squad". With you're denialist answers on global warming, you'd impress the family research council. Also, I know why you "Global warming skeptics" don't except the evidence for climate change like you would evolution is because you're libertarian politics get in the way, nothing scientific, just willful ignorance. Until this forum can prove to me the pseudoskeptics are outnumbered by skeptics, I can't call this website completely rational.
*MOVED FROM TROLLVILLE BECAUSE KILLER CROC RETURNED WITH HUMILITY*
Topic title changed from "The irrationality of RRS" to "Global warming denial is irrational" - MOD
- Login to post comments
Don't think I have taken the time to post anything about "global warming" but I guess what you are saying means the website is dedicated to the topic.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Global warming is the work of the devil, and therefore a irrational and delusional thought.
Not sure how some varying opinions on global warming is an indictment of the whole website as irrational ? Rational people have a tendency to be independent thinkers and not dogmatic ones. No two Atheists share the same thought on anything.Be it politics, global warming, economics or baseball. Exactly what specific points are you referring too ? Perhaps a link to the topic that you are addressing would be helpful.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I don't think anyone is denying that some change is occurring to our environment. I just don't think anyone can know for a fact to what degree we can realistically influence this change with the contemporary political and social topology. If all of our resources were 100% dedicated to fighting global warming, we may still be unable to make a dent in this poorly understood phenomena, and then again, if that were the case, it is possible we may make a dent, but we'll never know
Realistically, unless something catastrophic happens, think 'The Day After Tomorrow', the change in seriousness will be gradual and most likely on par with 'too little too late'. I'm not sure what thread you're referring to, but if you want to judge everyone here based on that thread, I don't think you belong on this forum. At least not on the rational side.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
rationality is a nebulous sort of benchmark and some do it better than others. There are global warming skeptics here - these people are mostly conservative types - in Australia they would be liberal voters, in the US they'd be republican. There's definitely a connection between conservatism and disbelief in global warming.
A friend of good mind does not believe in warming but instead believes there's a conspiracy among climate scientists to keep their jobs. This same guy is dead against gays, gay marriage, lesbians having babies, the greens and whatever other typical conso things you could add. Although not a christian, he believes there's a god because there's morality. I'd not be surprised to find it's the conservative atheists that are skeptics.
Anyway, it's not like the name of the site means everyone meets your version or any version of what might be argued to be rational. People here insist there is no proof of god and diverge delightfully from that point on. If such were not the case most of us would left the premises long ago.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Guy registers to make one post on what he thinks about the response to GW on this site. There's a punchline in here, right?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I'm fucking crushed...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
First off a better term is "climate change" not "global warming". Whether the planet's climate is being influenced by humans(which it is and IS NOT a debate) still misses two more important points.
1. The planet's climate has always changed. At one point in it's history it was a giant volcanic ball. Later it was a giant pool of water, and at one point it was a giant ice ball. These are indisputable facts.
2. But ever more important, even if our ice caps were not melting, which they are, polluting the planet cannot continue, even if the climate was not changing.
If you have a house in Alaska and the toilet is clogged and you have nowhere to flush it, your bathroom gets flooded with feces and urine. You wouldn't eat yellow snow either.
It should not matter which way our "climate" was going, we should still care about pollution. But WE ARE influencing climate change through the burning of fossil fuel.
EVEN if we were not affecting the climate, we are still polluting the planet and our home is becoming one giant toilet. I see no difference between a warm toilet or cold toilet, if you cannot flush it, you will end up swimming in it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I wasn't aware there were a bunch of global warming skeptics here. I thought I was the only one. Not that I deny the climate is changing, but I am extremely skeptical of all the doomsday claims that makes up the modern environmental movement. I believe 99.9% of the "environmentalist" movement ridiculously overstates the dangers. And the majority of the "solutions" that are recommended have far more to do with their left wing/socialist economic views than an actual solution. The fact is that even if the world warms a few degrees or cools a few degrees, it isn't going to end and there is no reason to believe that the current climate of the world is better than whatever it will be in 100 years.
We have far more immediate environmental problems to worry about such as invasive species, water pollution, over fishing and throughout the less developed world, air pollution is a huge problem. These are problems that we can fix.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Your problem is that you think that consuming for the purpose of profits and no limits is ok. We can argue all we want about "no rules no rules" and "less government" all we want.
You ignore a huge problem that IS being caused by humans. Our species wont go extinct barring a super disease or meteor or nuclear war. So in that sense, I am not a doomsdayer either.
But as I said again, it should not matter which way the climate is going, The more we produce, that is more waste we have to put somewhere. Our species is producing more waste and most of the time dumping it in a completely irresponsible way.
Again, you need to tell me what the difference between a pile of shit in the snow you wouldn't eat and a pile of shit at the equator you wouldn't eat.
We collectively as a species ARE NOT managing our waste properly. Our species won't go extinct, but that does not mean we should keep going down the road of living in one giant toilet and living on a third world planet.
I DO personally remember winters growing up being longer and the ocean being much more clear. But even if the climate was not changing, you still would not eat yellow snow. If I shit in ice cream, does the coldness of it make it sanitary?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'll take it more seriously when the big advocates for "green" actually go "green". For now it seems like a money making joke like a religion, and you can get tax breaks off it
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
WHAT!!!!! You don't take someone seriously when they fly around the world in private jets, from one of their half dozen mansions and tell you the world is going to end if you don't stop driving your car?? Or hand them all your money?? I can't imagine why. DENIER!! You obviously want to roll around in a toilet and eat yellow snow!
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I'm still waiting for a "you have been trolled, fuckface" comeback from the OP...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
First he thought we was all smart, then he went and called us stoopid, he just set us up to fail... playing with our feelings that boy is... that just ain't neighborly.
ceeling cat is not all purrz.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Well, you are not the only one in here. For my perspective, I think that it is important to keep the politics out of the science. On the one side, that brings us the “chicken little” crowd who run around telling us that disaster lurks in our future if we do not divert billions of dollars right now (mostly to putting third world countries on a form of global welfare, locking them into dependence and preventing them from developing). On the other side, we have the hard core deniers who seem to think that we can just keep doing whatever we want to and everything will work out some how.
I tend to think that neither position is going to help anyone at all.
As far as the science goes, remember the climategate emails? That was pretty much the caught with pants around the ankles moment for the scientists doing the work. Given the potential of billions of dollars up for grabs, would not the huge energy corporations have had people who know what to look for go over those documents with a fine toothed comb? And wow, they didn't even find enough too stir the pot, let alone the smoking gun that the whole thing might just be a lie.
Granted, someone dug up a couple of hints that a graph or two might have been manipulated but did we not already know that (the hockey stick graph comes to mind)? I find it kind of hard to think that climate change is not a real thing when:
First, climate has always changed and long before we were around to mess with it.
Second, a large privacy breach happens and there is nothing major that emerges.
Third, one learns to ignore the idiots who are pushing untenable political solutions.
This much being said, we are looking at more problems in this world than just climate change. To focus on the singular issue at the expense of all the others seems like a way to make sure that we end up dealing with several huge problems that were not worked on when they were small enough to deal with in some manner.
=
ROFLMAO ! My sentiments exactly Beyond.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I wasn't aware that we had more than an occasional thread on this topic, usually started by a 'denier'.
I did respond to one to point out that one of his own posted charts contradicted his position that any warming was due tho changes in the Sun's output, at least in the most recent half of the plot, where the Sun's output stopped increasing, while the global mean temperature continue to rise, at least as strongly, or more so, than in the first part of the chart. I don't remember a response to that... Typical of someone cherry-picking the web for some thing to support their fixation.
Pointing out inconsistencies between someone's personal habits and life-style and their position on this or any other topic is an almost an admission that you have little real argument against their position.
This site is about allowing debate, as long as it doesn't become abusive or overly 'preachy' or proselytising - we don't kick people off purely for being irrational, we need such people to come here and present their side of an issue so that we can Rationally Respond.
I mean, we even allow people like Beyond Saving, AKA BS, to stay, not to mention Jean Chauvin...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
That's all the rebuttal you've got?
Well, on my side of the Pacific, there's an innate desire to have an idea's proponent 'lead by example'. It doesn't help publicity if one campaigns and campaigns against child pornography, then get caught having sexual relations with 16 yrolds, or go against animal abuse and later cops find several skeletons of former pets -with several dozen bones broken. How about activism for a cleaner, less-vested-interest plagued EPA, when later it is revealed that you're on the payroll of some industrial companies in competition with the companies who already have their hands elbow-deep in the EPA.
You can't ask me to change my ways when your waist-deep in bad behavior running contrary to your stand on a specific issue. Maybe it isn't rational, but that is how the masses tend to respond towards situations like these.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
+1
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
seems good and is generally accepted by the scientific community. We could argue about the causes - whether solar or man-made. In any case, as noted upthread, there are plenty of other threats to the planet from habitat destruction, pollution, stripping of food chains, invasives, and just the weight of a rapidly growing human population.
Personally, I think we are screwed unless we alter key parts of the way we live but the likelihood of humans changing tack before they face imminent danger is zero. We won't act until humans start dying in large numbers. Consider we are in the early stages of a vast extinction event that's moving 1000 times and possibly 10,000 times faster than the baseline, yet no one gives a solitary fuck.
Given the track record of human subjectivity it's obvious our vision is so narrow as to preclude an appreciation of the combined impact of our personal actions.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Welcome to the forum.
Sad panda.
At this point, if I was forced to bet on whether or not man-made global warming was happening, I would bet that it was. That's only because I trust the scientists, to a limited extent. I don't think I'm informed enough on the subject to really make my own conclusion.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I hear enough support for the general IPCC line from top scientists not specifically connected with the organization, and see so many clear scientific 'howlers' in the 'arguments' of the deniers, that I will run with the IPCC.
From what I see currently, their errors seem more likely to be on the conservative side, ie some things are happening way faster than they predicted, such as Arctic warming. That conservative bent, at least in their official summaries, seems to have been due to the need to get a consensus among the various government agencies involved, which include oil-producing nations who don't want to see anything which might influence people to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I just thought you should know that I think a global warming is occurring and we are capable as a society have an impact on that.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Agreed!
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Croc, some people on this forum are deniers to one extent or another. That's unfortunate. But you are seriously acting irrationally to look at a couple of posts about a minor topic on a board which is about fighting irrationality in all forms, and then conclude--from a very small sample of the members who happen to post on that topic--that the entire board is dedicated to AGW denialism. It isn't.
It just so happens that most of us see a much bigger fish to fry, which is faith-based dogma in general (mainly religion), which not only contributes its own unique problems to the world, but is also a huge source of AGW denialism on its own. By fighting theism, I for one feel I'm playing my own small part in helping to fight climate denialism as well.
The RRS forums consist of a wide variety of different people, each with their own interest foucs. There is just too much shit going on in the world, and if we as individuals don't pick our fights and focus on what we're good at fighting, then we will end up spreading ourselves too thin to be effective at all.
On this forum, AGW-denialism is a minor topic at this time, because religion is such a huge problem on its own.
If you think defending global warming science is important, then the rational response is not to do a hit-and-run post, but instead to stand up and defend it! If you're serious about this, fight for it! Personally, I would love to have the focus and energy to fight every kind of irrationality including AGW-denialists. But I simply don't have that time and energy. I am better at fighting theism and defending critical thinking and promoting evidence-based reasoning over faith-based dogma. That's what I'm good at, so that's the fight I picked.
I know there are people out there who focus on climate. That's great. More power to them. If need be, I can provide links to blogs and sites dedicated to that topic. But that's not my specialty.
If you're one of those people who wants to fight denialism, don't just complain and run away. Let's join forces. I'll take the theists, you take the deniers. I'll provide support when I can.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I just didn't know anyone responded since I didn't check back and I sure missed a lot. Also I never did this in being a troll.
Yes, I know we have to choose are fights wisely since we have a lot focus on, but it's just in this topic, it effects all. Now I know there are those who deny it and those who except it. I mainly saw the deniers.
Sorry if I didn't reply to your whole message.
If I don't respond the next time, It's not because I abandoned y'all
Global warming is a real phenomenon, but it's been overhyped by politicians to scare people out of their tax dollars. Look at Al Gore - the dude owns a house that generates a bigger carbon footprint in a month than most Americans' homes do in a year. Or all the guys who travel to those GW conferences in huge limos that get less than 10 miles a gallon.
If anyone here is denying the science behind global warming, then that's absurd. But just because "man made global warming is a real phenomenon" doesn't mean that we need to tax cow farts in order to "save the planet" from tidal waves either.
Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical
In reality it's a science issue. Politics just comes into play since they make the change. If it's true to what you say about Al Gore, he's just being hypocritical. I never been to a conference so I don't really know about that. I think they should switch to hybrids.
At least we can agree on something. I don't know how this came in all the sudden, but actually we can take care of the cow problem by feeding them garlic or lowering the demand for meat by not eating it like it's the main food staple (personally, I think that's impossible to do for some). Tidal waves destroy cities, not planets.
Politics come into play because there's always a shitload of money to be made on the gullible. Politics tends to follow money, these days. Yes, however accurate and decisive the science may be regarding... climate, or anything really, there will always be laymen and other simple minds who will support it yet can't quite keep up with all of the claims made by actual scientists. There's also the paranoid/conspiracy stuff crowd. All of these people will gather like flies to eccentric public speakers like Gore.
Most people whom I consider reliable with regards to science want to keep the politics and science separate on this issue, and rightly so, because as best as I can understand the politics does little except thicken a few paper-pusher's wallets at an incredible expense to CC's credibility.
The only time I commented on CC was to remark that I didn't believe it was a threat to my existence, aside from making certain commodities a great deal more expensive. One person that responded (highly resourceful and intelligent) grasped at straws the entire time with highly fantastical claims of disease (I don't live near any plague vectors.) The fact that no doctors or medical journals reciprocate his claims regarding pathology was merely icing on the cake. The other responder said my philosophy was one doomed to failure in modern medicine because I don't keep my mind open to possible future threats -but hey, it's not like he has an agenda to push, taking a look at his nonstop apologetic regarding everything from the science behind CC, to hypocritical proponents like Gore.
[/sarcasm]
His position would have been better off if he merely stated 'all that matters is the science'. Because in truth, all that should matter is the science done by actual scientists.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I've stopped arguing it with deniers because there's nothing left to argue. I'm just happy I live in a country where it can't affect me overmuch. Gets too hot I'll just move North.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You already live in the North. Where are you going to go now, Edmonton?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Considering that's where I grew up, it wouldn't be a bad thing. Until it also got too hot. It's not nearly as cold there as it was when I lived there. I'm more thinking the Rockies. Effects are weaker at that elevation. And the water is nice and clean. I'll be dead before there's year round above 0 temperatures through all of Canada. Especially if climate change wipes out a third of the people contributing to it. > >
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
One important factor to consider is the amount of online gaming one can accomplish from the Rockies. I would estimate it somewhere in the vicinity of null. Just highlighting the severity of the situation. Climate change is ruthless...
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I personally wished people didn't misrepresent climate change because well, it impacts a lot. For example, tropical diseases could travel from South America to the US, Amphibian species become extinct, coral bleaching is troublesome, and other factors. While climate change won't destroy the world, it will destroy the world you once knew.
Oh, and one thing must be clear, our job is to slow down the change that way we and other species can adapt. However, the rate we are at right now is too fast.
There is also the threat to corals way beyond bleaching, namely ocean acidification due to increasing levels of dissolved CO2. This also threatens all organisms that produce calcium carbonate shells, and is not due to the rising temperature. In fact CO2 will dissolve more readily at lower temperatures.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
With coral bleaching, it's the zooxs(the short name for the algae that live in the coral) that are mainly effected as they are vulnerable to the surface temp. change and then they retreat from the coral. After they retreat, the coral is white which henses the name bleaching since the zooxs also provide color otherwise it's like nudity for coral. I was aware of ocean acidification. Yeah, works for soda too.
This may be another problem; at what point does environmentalism transition from 'healthy self-preservation' to 'maintaining biodiversity'? Because the way I understand it, a significant portion of the public isn't going to care about biodiversity any time soon, and may conflate 'all CC-related environmentalism' with just that one component, lose interest, and decline any activism later on.
To put it as bluntly as possible, who cares if a few nonvital species go extinct from CC? I'm thinking maybe we should keep a 'Biodiversity crusade' and any CC-related activities separated from each other.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Unless I somehow missed an important physics lesson or three, online gaming should be better in the mountains. It's not like there's a lack of ISPs, and you're not only a couple thousand kilometres closer to the satelites, but there's less obstructions between you and satelites. There's also a better line-of-sight at elevation than at sea level.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I would say because they want to protect the environment, obviously, if that answers your question. Well if that's true, the public is just being ignorant because if it can effect the biodiversity, then it can effect you.
Define a vital species for me. Also, didn't you read anything I said on tropical diseases? And how will you do that? One effects the other.
OK, unless I missed an important geography lesson somewhere, the rocky mountains are not a couple of thousand km tall. That and the satellites are over the equator, so your latitude is kind of important for that connection. The farther north you move, the worse your lag will be. In any case, if you want to use satellite networking, it is basically physically impossible to get your pings below about 300ms.
=
It's also known that the Rockies are decaying.
So, a few assertions and some filibustering. You said a few sentences on tropical disease. What are these diseases and how does CC accelerate them?
Biodiversity has been sinking for a longass time now. Humans are the biggest extinction event since the Chicxulub Meteor some 65 million years ago. Mostly within the Industrial Revolution, 20th Century, and present day. (150+ years) Nothing terrible has come about it. How am I being ignorant?
Sorry, I will not "save the spotted owl".
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Also, Vastet... have you ever tried Satellite Internet? As AIGS hinted to, it pretty much sucks. Meaning... like pre56k, only a little worse.
Sat internet makes this guy proud of himself...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You mean they aren't still shoveling or driving over slush this time of year?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
@ AIG:
So I put the wrong measurement in, apologies. Obviously the Rockies don't stretch into space, I meant metres. I hadn't had my coffee yet. > >
Line of sight would still be superior than anywhere else at the same latitude.
Regardless, they have cable in the mountains, so it really doesn't matter anyway.
@ Croc:
The Rockies are still growing. It's the Apalachians(sp) and the Everest range that's decaying. The Rockies will continue to grow for millenia, as the Pacific and North American plates are colliding as we speak.
@ Kapkao:
I don't know if I've tried it or not. Probably not.
As for slush, most people don't live on the peaks. The range of weather is similar to the rest of Southern Canada. Spring starts somewhere between March and May, but the snow's always gone by now. It might be a few degrees cooler on average, but not so much different that the winter season is longer. I had much more severe winters in Edmonton than I ever had in the Rockies.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh. The paper I read must have exaggerated a good bit.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Well it's not impossible that there's currently slush and snow somewhere in the Rockies where there are towns and cities, it's just not particularly common. I remember a blizzard in August when I lived in Edmonton. It took two days for it all to melt, even though it rose above 20C after the snow stopped falling.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No worries Vastet. Since that was just too big of a mistake to make, I figured it was something like that. Even so, every once in a while, I just have to go for the correction.
Also, don't let Kap fool you on the speed of satellite. Sure, it is not the king of speed but it is not really as slow as he would have you believe. Not that it would matter if you can get cable where you would head but even so, that was just wrong information.
Sure, if your goal is to download high volumes of, let's just say linux distributions, then satellite is pretty sucky. However, for games, what matters is the moment to moment connection to the server you are playing on.
If a game is programmed to require a very high total speed, then it will suck to be on any connection that just can't deliver. Since online gaming pretty much requires getting as many people playing as possible (never mind MMOs, even an 8v8 game would suck if there are no matches to get into), few games are thus programmed. Sure, some are but that just encourages people to run hitbox mods.
What really sucks with satellite gaming is the momentary transfers. Let's say just for shits and giggles, that you are playing on a server that is a thousand kilometers away but you have cable/DSL. In all honesty, the various network delays are going to be a much larger problem than the physical distance. However, if your next door neighbor tries to connect to the same server on a satellite connection, then the fun really stops.
The issue which is really at hand is that the satellites are at best going to be about 35,000km away. Double that because the signals have to up and back down before getting back into the regular communications grid. So 70,000km at the speed of light added to the thousand km trip through earthbound wires. So you can see how the guy next door has an extra quarter second of lag added on top of whatever you are getting. It would really suck to be him.
=