"Not true, the planet has warmed and cooled over the ages, our future will be no different."
Yes, indeed. The question is that, now that it's happening much more quickly and at greater levels than it has in the past, what will be the effect on the organisms who inhabit it? Again, the planet will be fine, but it may not resemble the one we know once you've finished destroying what's on it.
"Yes, we have to adapt, yes, we have to change."
You just don't want to help do that. I'll bet you're happy to pay for the things that are polluting it, though.
"You want to have surgery today for something that may (or may not happen to the extent that you believe in) in the future."
Yes, damn right I do if it's deemed medically necessary. I don't wait for a cyst or tumor to become malignant before I do something about it. More to the point, I don't wait until I actually have to have a foot amputated from diabetes before I change my diet.
People who do wait for the worst to happen tend to be the ones who have much bigger problems in the future, and pay heavily for it.
"And what part of me wanting affordable, clean energy didn't you understand?"
The fact that you didn't want to help pay for it, nor clean up the mess you already made is quite clear. I know you're happy for others to provide it for you.
"Oh, and when did C02 become air pollution?"
Since its chemical properties became known and we studied the effects of what it actually does at higher levels in the atmosphere?
"I am all for clean energy, but not at the cost of hurting our economy currently"
Yes, most people are happy to get stuff for free. Here's the problem - your economy will have problems one way or the other. Be it problems growing crops, imports, destruction of your own coastline, the resulting refugees and inevitable conflicts. You'll have to pay for it, whether you create a cleaner planet now or deal with the fallout later. The amounts and methods are under question, but the fact is you will have to pay something, and it's always cheaper to prevent a problem than it is to clear up the damage afterwards.
Again, it's a global problem, your isolationism won't magically protect you from the effects. The question is whether you want to mitigate the worst of it. Do you want to stop the oil tanker from capsizing off your best beach areas, or would you rather just pay for the cleanup of the spills and deal with the economic impact once it happens because you didn't want to pay for the safeguards?
"the changing weather"
Ah, so you don't know anything about the actual problem. Good to know. First hint - there's huge difference between weather and climate. The fact that there's been natural variations in local climate in the past also doesn't dispute the most problematic fact right now - the current changes are happening much more rapidly and at greater variations than happened last time.
"How come no one has a problem terra forming mars, but us raising the temp on earth is out of the question?"
Because Mars, as far as we know, is uninhabited, or at least not containing life that we depend on. Plus, it's not something that's actually happening right now at this moment.
There's plenty of life on Earth, and a lot of it has only evolved to be able to cope with a narrow range of temperature. The current change is outpacing the ability of life to change to cope with it, thus life on Earth is in jeopardy.
The planet will be fine. Its inhabitants are in some real danger, though. This includes you, or at least your descendants. That's the real problem here - some people are too narrow-minded to want to deal with a problem that won't hit hardest until after they're dead. They'll happily doom their great grandchildren for something they could deal with now, though, you're too cheap and lazy to do anything right now.
"That is a quote from a farmer growing the red rice that has had multiple children with weird forms of cancer."
Yes, so it's even more imperative that China put as many resources into clean energy, at a rate much higher than anyone else. If their rivers and food supply are being destroyed, they will reduce as much as they need to stop that before it affects the whole country, it's just common sense. They will then sell the resulting technological advances on to others, while you operate on dated polluting technology, because you didn't want to pay for it.
"America led the world in emissions because we were at the forefront of the industrial revolution"
So, you admit that the riches of your country are based at least partly on the pollution you caused? Why, then, is it wrong to ask you to help clean up your mess?
"Sure, we fucked things up, but do you think the 3rd world won't do the same in their advancement?"
That depends, will the advances made by China and others make the cleaner technology more affordable? if so, why would they choose the pollutants?
"If not, should we pay it?"
We broke a lot of shit, but other people are going to break things too so we won't pay for the damage we already caused. Also, we won't make any effort to ensure that the other stuff doesn't get broken to begin with, we'll just sit back and hope everyone else sorts it out before we suffer ourselves.
Re: Re: I have only one thing to say about Google...
"That Google is the most popular engine is due to people being lazy, thinking of Google as "the internet,""
That's part of its momentum, sure, but it's worth remembering that a lot of the reason for their popularity was that when they came along, they truly were the best at returning what people wanted. Those of us who remember AltaVista, Lycos, etc. remember how much of a breath of fresh air Google was at that time.
That may no longer be true in all cases, but so long as it still works for people the majority of the time, people still choose it. That includes people who use other browsers, which default to different search engines (Microsoft's to Bing, Firefox to Yahoo), so if it was just people being lazy you'd maybe expect a higher marketshare for those 2 in the search space.
Forget climate change, the air quality in Chinese cities is bad enough that this must be something they want to push if only for their own health. They mainly used other technologies because they were cheap, now that renewable sources are becoming equally viable on large scales, they will of course want to reap the benefits.
"Let them pay for it."
Yeah, the US caused a huge proportion of the problem, but because you might not be *personally* affected by the aftermath, fuck everyone else. No sense of responsibility, no clue of the wider cost and the effects they will have on you and your country in the long term, just sit back and watch them suffer until it's too late to respond before your turn arrives.
"You do realise that the various catastrophic scenarios being postulated by these same expert climate scientists can be fact checked"
Yes, and the majority of what I've seen is in line with their predictions over the last couple of decades. Often on the lower end of the predicted range, but the temperature rises we've seen are in line with predictions.
Not the catastrophic things being predicted by mainstream press, of course. I'm talking about the actual studies.
"If you have a look around, you can even get the raw data before it is manipulated"
Ah, so you're only allowed to use data with no context before errors have been removed nor to allow for known problems so that you can see what you assert? That's interesting.
"Water (in its various phases) is a very interesting material"
Indeed. It's a greenhouse gas that exacerbates the problems because more is released into the atmosphere as temperature rises, causing a feedback effect and also leading to increases in certain kinds of extreme weather activity. Also, the warming and acidification of the oceans is one of the more interesting and more immediate effects we can see, while the more dishonest deniers focus purely on air temperatures.
"Climate change occurs but I have serious doubts about the veracity of any models in current use by climate scientists."
So, do nothing because some of the models may be wrong? You don't seem to be giving me any substance here, other than vague assertions that climate scientist are wrong about the very nature of what they're studying and problems with the models used. Do you have any specifics?
"The comments are hidden and not searchable in the browser"
You can view page source and search there if you wish, I believe, but then why would you be searching for the comment rather than reading the thread?
"Your Google search will return the page but visiting the page from a non mobile device will make it impossible to actually find the comment"
Bullshit. I'm using a desktop browser and I found the comment above with no problem.
"Only someone knowing to open each and evety censored comment manually might find it"
Funny, I read the shit you people spew over the site all the time without any problem. Are you that incapable of using the site, or have you just gone to so many lengths to try and avoid being held accountable for your own works that it's tripping you up when you try to backtrack?
They sometimes stick to "facts", they just cherry pick which ones apply and refuse to change their minds in the face of increasing evidence that they're wrong.
There's a gif I've seen recently mocking the anti-vaxxer community. Basically, a guy's sat at a desk explaining to a woman "I have 1 million studies that say vaccines do not cause autism and one that says they do". "Aha!" exclaims the woman, grabbing the single study from the guy's hand, "I knew it!".
That's pretty much what we're dealing with here. If they're not trying to dismiss the whole thing as a money grab by scientists (itself ridiculous in the face of the massive amount of money made by those who profit from it being denied), they have no problem attaching themselves to studies that have been disputed many times, because they say what they want to hear.
Of course, the survey was of published papers, not individuals, and only covered people working in the field. That's fine - if I'm looking for consensus on what's causing my heart condition, I ask cardiologists, not chiropodists and I'd place more weight on the professionals who have worked long enough to build a decent reputation.
"And Bill Nye, the science guy, a big climate change cheerleader, is a mechanical engineer."
...as are a *lot* of the people denying climate change, some of them under the direct employment of oil companies and others who benefit from the current status quo. But, you just use that fact to reject the one side, right?
"It is going to happen no matter what, so do what we need to do to protect America."
You do realise that it's a GLOBAL thing, and isolating yourself won't protect you? That's fine,. other countries are seriously trying to reduce their impact on the environment, do hopefully we can counteract the negative impact from those ignorant enough to ignore reality.
I've not been in the scene for a long time, but I remember there being a lot of issues surrounding the Atari ST game library. IIRC, the games tended to use different disk formats and other tricks to try and prevent piracy. This, of course, failed. The pirates were so good that not only did they crack the disks, they managed to compress several games that spanned multiple disks on to a single disk with additional content (animated menus with original music, tech demos, etc).
When I started looking at emulating some of my game library (I have a habit for hoarding most of my old games, with titles going back to the ZX Spectrum), I found that the original disks were not usable in an emulator due to the disk formats. There were, however, complete collections from each of the original piracy crews available to download. Thus, without access to an original machine, any game not pirated was consigned to history, whereas I could play any game that had originally been pirated, albeit in a modified format.
This will only get more prominent as disks die and original machines are harder to come by - the pirated / emulated games are here to stay, those not will disappear.
Re: Re: Re: So Facebook "blocks people arbitrarily", just like Techdirt!
The best thing is that what these people usually whine about isn't blocking, it's just a spam filter that needs to be dealt with manually. Rather than realising that their constant whining and spamming is causing their posts to end up in the filter, they keep submitting posts that get filtered. Then look even more like idiots when the majority of their posts are eventually approved.
I've never noticed if I've had a post of mine hidden, but then generally speaking I don't return to a thread unless I get a notification email containing a reply to me so I may not notice if they are.
I *have* had posts flagged as spam (usually if I've forgotten to log in or I've made a few comments containing links in rapid succession), but I recognise that as my own fault.
That's the real problem here. These people are either trolling or simply unable to have an intelligent conversation without flying off the handle, then lose it when they're called out on it. The fact that there's a degree of separation between the people reporting and the site reacting seems to cause them to leap straight to "conspiracy!" rather than examining the behaviour that got so many people to flag them. Simply disagreeing with someone usually isn't enough on its own.
"Nor do I get into flame wars with the other posters even when we disagree."
I poke the trolls when I'm bored, but in a general sense I do like having a civil conversation with people with opposing viewpoints, so long as they're as open to adult factual conversation as I am.
"Did you see the reply in court from the Inventor of Email"
When I tried searching that in Google, not only does it come up linking to that same comment, the comment in question is the ONLY result for that phrase in quotes. (Obviously, that will soon change after this comment is crawled by Google's bots).
You can also explain how an article describing the measures that Google are implementing ways to manipulate searches means they're "full of it". Because without that, as far as I can see it you're just another reactionary idiot not understanding what they read before launching into a knee jerk tirade.
There's so many fundamental differences beyond the ability to accept user input, that I guess the AC is the guy who's recently been whining because his trolling has been flagged by the community yet again.
If not, a brief description - Techdirt is a community driven site, and they provide the ability to flag posts that are not acceptable to the community for whatever reason. If a certain threshold is passed, the comments are hidden (but, perfectly visible to anyone who wishes to see them). These results do not carry on to other threads, unless the same IP is repeatedly reported (and thus passed into a spam queue to be manually accepted).
Google's search engine, however, is not a community, it's a tool used to find other sites. According to the description above, reporting does not affect the current search result, but will be used to affect future searches - at which time, the user will likely never know that the prior voting has altered what they see nor what they're missing.
There's almost no similarity beyond the ability for users to mark their opinion.
Re: So Facebook "blocks people arbitrarily", just like Techdirt!
"Any mulltiple posts show the blocking in action"
No, they show a tired troll unable to understand why his whining keeps getting flagged as spam and held for moderation. Any multiple posts show the actions of an obsessed loser who can't stand that the community he keeps annoying won't let him through the front door as easily as they used to.
"sites MUST allow criticism, even on site"
The increasing number of sites removing comments - especially anonymous ones - prove you wrong.
"So, they theorized the suspect must have searched Google for the victim’s name while making the fake passport"
Or, alternatively, they could have used whichever site the image originated upon without using Google at all. A site which seems suspiciously absent from any mention here at all. If the victim was known to be a user of, say, LinkedIn or the perpetrator otherwise knew the victim's browsing habits, then no Google required. Just because the police couldn't find the photo in another search engine, that doesn't mean the fraudster used a search engine.
Also, if they're depending on a fax for the transfer, what are the results of the phone company's investigation into the phone number used and the warrant issued to them? What about the result of the investigation into the destination account? Surely, they didn't just go straight to Google?
"Supposedly, the warrant [PDF] limits Google's search for searches to the Edina area, but that puts Google in the position of determining who was located where when these searches were made."
...or places the blame on Google when they later find that the guy used a VPN or other method of obscuring his location. Sometimes criminals like this are dumb enough to leave an obvious trail, but if this one wasn't then they have a dead end, but lots of innocent people to try trawling.
"asking the Court to authorize a search warrant for names, email addresses, account information, and IP addresses of anyone who searched variations of the victim’s name over a five-week period of time."
...and the chances of Google having any of this information directly to hand apart from perhaps the IP address (assuming that wasn't spoofed or otherwise obfuscated)?
There may well be more to this story, but on the face of it, this is either lazy policing - a case of "we think X happened so we won't bother investigating alternative possibilities" - or an admission they have no other leads than Google happening to have a better image crawler than their competitors.