Comment See, I told you (Score 4, Funny) 264
We told you that forcing people to return to the office was a bad idea! But did you listen? No.
We told you that forcing people to return to the office was a bad idea! But did you listen? No.
Ok, all you climate sleuths, here's your assignment:
1. Find out which scenario this study is based upon.
2. Find out how likely that scenario is
Without looking, I'm guessing it's RCP 8.5.
How I wish it was hard to "prove government doesn't work", but, man, this thing just proves itself, it needs no help from us.
Name me a government-run anything that is being done better than the private sector could have done it -- to say nothing of how much it costs, which would be in the territory of a joke by way of comparison.
We don't have a government because it works better, we have a government because we want it to have monopoly power over certain things such as police, military, infrastructure, etc. We put up with government.
I challenge you to look again at the original summary statement, and tell me you think it is an accurate, defensible description of the problem.
I say it is not. I say it is marketing-speak that really has no place whatsoever in a discussion forum targeted towards engineers. I say it is yet another low-quality statement that relies on hand-waving and alarmism.
Since I am an old fart and have been on this site for decades now, I am willing to put my name to my objections. I know in advance that I will be moderated down; moderation on
For example, I would like to know what caused the detected reduction. I suspect the study authors have some ideas, where are they? I would like to know where the measurements were taken. Were they in a field? In a city? Next to a factory? Next to a factory that recently shut down? I would like to have some intelligent discussion on how these results might be extrapolated to the world at large.
But we get none of this. We get more alarmist claptrap. I'm done with giving that a pass. I want some minimally competent science in these discussions. There are other forums where the PR types can ply their craft.
Researchers from UC Berkeley set up dozens of sensors across the Bay Area to monitor planet-warming carbon dioxide, the super-abundant greenhouse gas produced when fossil fuels are burned.
I'm not sure I understand the critique. Reconciliation is already a fast-track process. Allowing open amendments seems like an entirely reasonable rule, given the fact that the process short-cuts all kinds of opportunities to change the bill. Some absolutely massive bills have been pushed through with the reconciliation process, such as ObamaCare. Naturally there are going to be a lot of amendments!
This bill in Canada would completely rewrite the government's approach to energy regulation. Sure, 20,000 amendments is ridiculous, but 200 certainly is not.
Personally, I am NOT a fan of reconciliation, because damnit I want my Congress critters to be halted in their tracks if there isn't adequate consensus. We don't need a fast track process to pass legislation easier.
Reconciliation isn't something from the "MAGA playbook", that's ridiculous. It's a standard Congressional procedure.
The summary is confusing, because it is conflating two different events that are separated by an entire year. The first event was the bill in its committee, and that is where the "20,000 amendments" figure comes from. Of those, only 200 actually made it out of committee. What is now happening a year later are the votes to consider the 200 amendments. As each vote takes tens of minutes to conduct, that is where the "15 hours of voting" figure comes from.
The bill itself is highly controversial. It requires five-year action plans, regular reporting and the inclusion of labour and Indigenous leaders in discussions, to create what the Liberal party calls "just" energy transition. Conservative critics consider this a blueprint for economic restructuring that they say will put thousands of oil and gas workers out of work.
I would love to read the rejected 19,800 amendments if I could find them anywhere. Using AI to do a DOS attack on a process is a very interesting idea, even though of course it would be done in bad faith.
The defendant in this case isn't a social media company that makes money by placing advertisements on content written by its subscribers. Cox is a national ISP that provides connectivity. [Disclaimer: I am a long-time Cox customer]. Several major record labels sued Cox because it didn't take strong enough measures to remove copyright repeat offenders, in their opinion. Cox lost that case in a jury trial, but the damage award of $1 billion (!) was later overturned on appeal. Cox remains on the hook for "contributory" copyright infringement, because they arguably knew some accounts were pirating, and didn't take steps to stop them.
I think even contributory copyright infringement is too much. Are we going to charge cloud storage providers with contributory copyright infringement? Hard drive manufacturers? Heck, the entire IT ecosystem could be said to be "contributory".
No, if there was no intent of the ISP to hide anything, they didn't profit from it, but they didn't respond as quickly as the record labels wanted, then they can just get in line like everybody else and ask politely.
There are three problems with your small-words explanation. First, CO2 formation most definitely follows temperature rise in core samples, it doesn't precede it. Second, a rise in temperature induces cloud formation because water is the main component of our atmosphere, and clouds reduce temperature, they don't increase it. And third, a rise in CO2 induces a greening of the planet, because plants are made of CO2.
Because of these issues, I personally don't think it is ever correct to apply a simplistic model to something as dynamic and adaptive as the climate of a water world.
See, this is the problem. You have been led to believe that global warming is so absolute, so immediate, and so rapid, that you'll literally be able to observe its changes from farm land to crusted desert. That is just not so. Were you aware, for example, that what is now the Sahara Desert was once filled with lakes, rivers, and rich vegetation? The reason you aren't aware is because there is a cycle of dry/wet in that part of the world that has a period length of 15,000 years. You can drill core samples from the Atlantic Ocean and see direct evidence. But you won't see them with your own eyes. Human civilization has only even been a thing for just a fraction of that period length.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman