StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:15 AM) you don't think all the clapping/cheering was similar to that kind of setting? Wasn't it kind of a "rah rah go country we can recover!" pep rally? edit: I'm just asking, I didn't watch.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) Same here, but from an outsiders perspective, all I hear from Balta and the like is "we know with near certainty how every mechanism of Earth works, and from that starting point we can deduce that humans are the cause of 100% or close to 100% of the problem." No one claims that. Science is inductive, not deductive, anyway. Asimov -- The Relativity of Wrong All scientific knowledge and truths are provisional. There may have been some more bombastic statements in the late 19th century, but the scientific community as a whole has recognized the universe is a whole lot weirder than we ever expected since then. Tempering scientific hypotheses and conclusions based on research and data because of public ignorance sounds like a pretty terrible idea. It sounds like a call for better science education.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) Well this is different. First of all, I think the answer definitely HAS to lie larger than 0%, and smaller than 100%. Well, sure, it all depends on how you're phrasing "the system" in question. Obviously, there's a lot of non-human inputs. The relevant question is "what portion of atypical warming are humans causing," and there's no reason it has to be smaller than 100%. So? It's still an appeal to moderation to say "well, we're doing some damage, more than Group Denial is saying, but we just can't be doing as much as Group Professional Scientists says."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) Which gives me confidence that, probably, we have looked at most of the things that have at least some effect. That's all I'm saying - we can't know all, we can't know 100%, and I am highly skeptical of anyone who says we can. To be clear, I'm generally on your side here - we are causing some bulk of the problem, and we can absolutely do many things to make it better. I don't think you'll find any competent scientist making claims of absolute truth. It's always about confidence intervals, p-values and the null.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) I'm not smart enough to really contribute much to this debate, but I do believe that there were enormous climactic changes before humans, and there will be again after humans. And there clearly are some while humans are here. What we can do to change this is beyond the scope of my knowledge. Rate of change. Things are changing much quicker than in the past. Usually these changes take millenia, not a century.

NSS, this is that appeal to moderation I was referring to. The correct answer doesn't necessarily lay between "100% human or 0% human". We have every reason to believe, within the confidence intervals, that it really is 100% human or damn close to it.

If someone wants to kill a Congressman, the Congressman being armed isn't going to make much of a difference. They can just walk up and shoot them.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) I called their bluff. They are trying to approve more $ Nicely done.

Right, that free money makes it very hard to beat. Check into vesting, though, if you don't plan on staying at that job for a while. Some companies put the money into your account and you invest as you see fit, but it's not really yours until x amount of time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 03:36 PM) Let's be a little more specific though...the general problem was "Not predicting the largest financial crisis since the 1930's". Yeah, there was underfunding beforehand and unreasonable expectations of growth, but it's the financial shock that really made it hit. Weren't significant structural problems known before 2007-2008?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 03:03 PM) Note I said pretty well, not great or perfect. Corruption was still there as in other states, and the pension problem was simmering but not quite boiling... yet, Illinois in those timeframes was still seen as a relatively effective state government. Progressive even. Yeah but you could say (rightfully, I think) that the pensions needed to be addressed then to avoid such a massive problem now. Just a minor quibble.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) I've said before, when IL had a long stretch of Dem legislature combined with GOP governor, and both were relatively moderate, things worked pretty well in Illinois. Except all that corruption. Not that Dem. Gov's have been better, but let's not sweep the problems under the rug.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 02:29 PM) You could say that about any website that has user comments. Yeah, news article comments are where brains go to die. I tell myself a solid minority of them are just trolls, though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 05:50 PM) Wow, this is just...ugh. What are power balance bands?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 05:00 PM) Wikileaks has probably set back openness and democracy in Zimbabwe. Wikileaks probably hasn't done that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) Your link goes to your own post Meta, man. Meta. (link fixed)

Salon vs. Salon: Violence and the Political Climate.

Brilliant timing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) Well obviously her precise choice of words is stupid, as she tends to do. But her overall point is both valid and self-deprecating (though she doesn't seem to realize the last part). Her overall point is to paint herself as a victim, hence the use of comparing what's happening to her to centuries of Jewish persecution/murder. It's absurd.

Blood libel? Seriously?

Palin's labeled the media's response as "blood libel." f*** the heck? Also, irony: hmmm

I think this might explain a little about Rush Limbaugh.... No love for outsiders – oxytocin boosts favouritism towards our own ethnic or cultural group

Can the existing power transmission infrastructure handle that? Or are we talking multi-billions/trillions for revamping the whole damn thing?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 03:30 PM) Yeah, maybe so. But it also helps that they are building resources for the first time for a large part for their growing population. They are also building coal plants left and right. For us, you're talking about replacing cheap energy at all with energy that is 5 to 10 times more expensive, and those units you are replacing are in many cases fairly new. In China, they are building needed resources for the first time. It's a little different. The problem being that the "cheap" energy has a bunch of externalities that we get to pay for down the road, and that's something taxing carbon would capture.

Any idea of what sort of technologies are being pursued to turn wind/solar into baseload power?