Broken Window Fallacy
Broken Window Fallacy
It's not so much the current temp that's a concern, but the driver that caused it. And most importantly where that driver is taking us.
First, I'll say I'm not versed in this issue. I just don't follow the logic in your argument.
The US can't export oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is Canadian Oil. You say it is reducing costs for the US. Why would US have any cost to begin with? Why can't Canada just export the oil from Canada instead of shipping it down to my neighborhood (Deep South). The refinery argument makes perfect sense to explain this. What is the scenario in which this is good for the US, if in fact this oil is just to be exported?
It's already been 4 months. It's old news in a sense; I had forgotten about it. His company was supposed to tank already. At least, according to Limbaugh.
If we're talking about how to build out the grid, you could run the figures with nuclear and/or grid storage for a 100% renewable grid.
I expected your comment to be modded funny. Smoke a joint to save the environment. I consider myself environmentally conscious, but (if you weren't actually trying to get a laugh) that argument is ridiculous. I'm sure nobody runs just for the high. They run for their health. Telling people they shouldn't run because it's bad for the environment is wack. Probably modded up by obese people because it justifies not exercising.
So if you don't use early injection, how do you clean the DPF when it gets clogged? Or do the higher combustion temperatures (that produce more NOx) also prevent ash from clogging the DPF?
Send supplies ahead of the crew in several stages. Continue sending supplies after the crew has landed, giving them both the tools they need to build a colony as well as backup supplies should their plans fail.
Because whatever takes out the earth (asteroid) will probably take out the moon too, or at least set it on a bad trajectory.
Anna. Yes, there is a difference. Scientists (alone or in groups) publishing science that conflicts with mainstream is encouraged. But that's not the case here. This is about very large corporations (oil, gas, and coal) being accused of deliberately misleading the public for their own gain. That is, these companies are very well aware of the actual science, which poses a threat to their business. So they fund campaigns to cast doubt on solid scientific evidence.
This has happened before, repeatedly. Most notably with cigarettes, where the companies' own internal documents, from their own scientists proved cigarettes caused cancer in the 50's. Yet, for over 30 years they publicly denied any health issues and actively spread doubt on the growing evidence against cigarettes. "Merchants of Doubt" is an outstanding account of the history and methods industry has used and is using today to spread doubt on otherwise sound science.
I don't know that I'm for RICO. I am attempting to thwart attempts to misrepresent the argument, as was the case here.
So we know we're changing the climate, but don't know how it's going to work out. Might be bad. Possibly not. Conclusion
Found some tasty berries in the woods and started eating them. Might be good for me. Might kill me. Could possibly make me immune to snake bites. Tastes good - I'll keep eating them.
If you had read the linked article, you would know that this is a RICO "investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change", not scientists submitting unorthodox views, as you are attempting to frame it.
What's up with the mods? How is this obviously weak argument a 5? The data was solid for cigarettes and it is solid (and has been) for AGW.
This isn't about censorship. It's about massive and deliberate deception that causes harm. Cigarettes killed people for 40+ years AFTER the evidence was clear. Clear data showing cigarettes caused disease and death wasn't enough because the cigarette companies launched a massive campaign to cast doubt among people. The same thing is happening now, scarily often from the same groups and people (Heritage Foundation, Fred Singer). "Merchants of Doubt" contains impressive research on the subject, for those who want details.
Do know a single person who wants to "slam the brakes on business"? A global conspiracy among client scientists to slow down the economy - how does anybody take that seriously? The same people who say the government is hopelessly inefficient and incompetent claim the same government has coordinated a global effort to deceive the public, recruiting the entire population of publishing climate scientists for 20+ years. To what end? "to slam the brakes on business". (Brain explodes)
Or maybe it's this simple. Those that stand to lose money (coal, oil, and gas) launch a campaign to cast doubt on the science that would hurt their core business.
This has happened before with cigarettes. History is a great teacher.
And before you throw labels at me, I value liberty above "safety". I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the previous two elections. Ultimately I look for the truth, and it is as clear as clear gets for AGW.
Are we supposed to read their minds? What measure would you suggest?
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.