You want ties to industry? How about cap and trade being written by the same geniuses that gave us credit default swaps [nakedcapitalism.com]? At the end of the day you can wave whatever flag you want because the only "solutions" being pushed are nothing but a reverse robin hood scam [youtube.com] where the actual polluters get carbon "indulgences" while those that can't afford to offshore their wealth get royally fucked in the ass to benefit the 1%...surprise surprise, the rich getting richer by stealing what few cents out of each dollar they don't already hoard.
You're American. Everything your country does is part of "a reverse robin hood scam".
It has never been as hot in the world as 1936.
Yes, it has. Globally every year since 1990 has been warmer than 1936.
Its been a long time since Canadian border states had temps at 121 degrees Fahrenheit.
Actually, that would be Steele city in North Dakota on July 6th, 1936. No other Canadian border state has ever recorded a temperature of 121 F. Also note that North Dakota and south Dakota both recorded record lows of -60 F and -58 F in 1936. However, as previously pointed out, North America is about 4.8% of the world's surface and around 16.5% of the land area A record-shattering warm year in the U.S. might be barely noticable in the global record. On average, the 2000-2010 decade was 0.5 C warmer than the 1930-1940 decade. Which means for 1936 to lift the global average, the average temperature in North America would have be 10 C above average for the entire year, if the rest of the world was experiencing merely average temperatures for the decade.
It would also be nice if there were no more snow exactly like the Hadley Climate Research Center said in the year 2000: "We have in all likelihood seen our last snowfall. Snow would become a rare and exciting event. Children would grow up not knowing what snow looked like." Who says all that tax money given to them was a waste?
That's not an accurate quote. Even the quote you gave contradicts itself. It's also important to note that he was talking about 20 years from when he said that, and if you check your calendar you might note that it's not 2020 yet. Additionally, I'd bet he actually said "if the current trends continue" but it was dropped from the quote in the article because it wasn't pithy enough with the qualifier. Of course, we have seen a reduction in the rate of warming in surface air temperatures since 2000 so it may take longer to get there than he predicted, but the world has continued to warm, so it may still come to pass that England sees very little snow.
Organized effort is not part of the definition. Irrelevant objection. Is there a concept of "Social Justice"? Yes/No. Are there people who fight for that concept of Social Justice? Yes/No. An individual fighting for Social Justice is a Social Justice Warrior. He doesn't have to be part of a group to be an SJW. Whether all SJWs are perfectly agreed on every ideological point is also irrelevant. There's a general trend that can be described.
You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW). This is different from the definition you previously gave me, which is exactly my point: SJW is a label applied to people with a different political alignment than you and you project whatever flaws are convenient to make you right and them wrong onto them. It's too bad you aren't self-aware enough to see that you're doing it while you protest that you are not.
But if I label the group of people who steal property, "thieves", is this mere projection? Have the actions not fulfilled the very definition of "thief"?
Is "thief" an identity? I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist". I also suspect that more often than not the person has been called on their attitude multiple times and believes that since it's happened so often, the person choose to believe that there must be a conspiracy to silence them, rather than accepting that their beliefs or attitude is genuinely disliked for valid reasons by the people around them.
Are there or are there not a group of people who go around using "misogyny", "sexist", "racist", and other charged adjectives to police public behavior?
As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.
Labeling the people who fight for "Social Justice", Social Justice Warriors, seems quite apt. Change the name to anything else, people will still hate the group, because they hate the actions of the group, not the label of the group.
I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.
No projection is needed. SJWs are defined by their actions, not their identities.
You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.
Casually and inaccurately use "misogynist" and "racist" to browbeat people while pushing an agenda? SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.
Actually I'm pretty sure that SJW's are puritans in disguise at this point.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.
Every time something comes along, the first thing they start screaming about is "sexism" or "muhsoggyknees." Strange that it just keeps happening over and over again, you know like with Matt Taylors shirt(who was made by a women).
Most of us are made by a woman, but I'll assume you mean the shirt. The people who are upset about this, and it doesn't seem like there's that many of them (your mention of this was the first time, I'd heard of it), are more upset that he wore it to a major press event and that no one thought to say, "Hey, before going on international television, maybe you'd like to change into something more appropriate?" To them, at least, this is indicative of a casual sexism endemic to the sciences and science reporting, where female scientists are judged by the appearance and male scientists by their accomplishments. The fact the shirt was made by a woman wouldn't actually matter to them and would appear to be disingenuous deflection because it's not the shirt, it's the where and the why it was worn that matters to the critics.
I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.
I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.
Additionally, when I spent some time looking over the posts on the Gamergate hash tag, I noticed several references to culture war against the left, and in particular how offline conservatives should follow Gamergate's tactics (against Gawker and Kotaku) to deny left leaning publications advertisers, which is certainly not what I would expect from a mostly left leaning group that advocates against corruption in journalism. For that matter, why do some of these supposed libertarians think that censorship of views they dislike is a valid solution to "corruption"?
Beyond that, I wasn't actually talking about Gamergate itself, which is a somewhat random assortment of people who all happen to be outraged about vaguely similar things and have twitter accounts, but more specifically about the people who use SJW as a pejorative epithet (which may or may not significantly overlap the people in Gamergate). Of course, on the other hand, I'd never heard of the SJWs until a bunch raging Gamergaters start spewing it all over Slashdot, so there is that.
You must be new here, "SJW" is the new "liberal". As a straight white conservative male, everyone you hate is a obviously an "SJW", because it's just another synonym for evil, like liberal, progessive, gay or female.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Nothing, but I found it interesting to look at the price competitiveness of coal for new builds, which actually isn't very good and getting worse.
We ALREADY have the coal plants, they work, and shutting them down means having to replace them. Hint: Don't shut 'em down 'til they wear out. Then try to find something cheaper than wind to replace 'em with.
Natural gas appears to be the clear winner right now on pure price, even with a CCS system, they cost 2/3rds ($2.095 per KW to build) of what the cheapest coal plant without a CCS costs with comparable operating costs. Without a CCS system, they can get as low as 1/5th ($676 per KW to build) of what a new coal plant would cost with dramatically lower operating costs too.
Position the wind machines where there's wind? Didn't we just calculate that there are going to ber 1,211,000 wind machines?
Well there's a California wind power farm that covers 36 square kilometers and currently contains 490 turbines and generates 1,320 MW, with a planned capacity of 3,000 MW. So it looks like you can squeeze about 100 MW into a square kilometer (rounding up) than can be used for other purposes (such as agriculture or pasturage), so you'd have to dedicate 32,300 square km of land to meet the minimum power demand in ideal circumstances and 96,900 even we divide that by three. With 9,629,091 square km of land, you'd need to dedicate about 1% of the continental U.S. to meet that demand entirely using wind.
As a side note, it seems like the U.S. used 4.6 TW of power in 2013 (according to Wikipedia) so you've underestimated the amount of power the U.S. uses a bit. Also according to the Wikipedia, that's about 1/4 of the world's total electricity usage, used by less than 1/20th of the world's population. Apparently the average EU citizen uses electricity at about one half the per-capita rate of the average American. Anyway, using those higher figures, that would be about 1.5% of all of the contiguous United States land assuming you followed a wind-power only approach.
How much would it cost to replace America's current infrastructure with the exact same stuff?
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal plant costs between $2,934 and $6,599 per KW to build, while onshore wind costs $2,213 per kW to build. Even if you had to build three of them for each coal plant, the wind turbines are getting very close to the capital cost of coal plants that come with any carbon capture and storage system (CCS). Additionally, coal plant costs increasing and wind power costs decreased over the last 4 years.
Now if you can position the wind turbine in a location where it generates more than a third of the nominal capacity, the wind turbines start winning. If they were generating at 100% of the rated capacity they'd beat even the cheapest coal plant before you account for operations and maintenance and fuel costs.
Note that the fourth link indicates there's basically no consensus at all among scientists about how to respond to AGW. Should we adapt? Should we mitigate? No consensus at all there.
The link you provided indicates that there's consensus on everything rsilvergun said there was consensus on. Furthermore looking at the particular graph you cited, the question was "what is the best course of action?" with 1 and 7 representing mitigation only and adaption only respectively. It seems like there's a consensus that we should take a mixed approach with a little over 88% of the respondents taking one of the 2-6 options and the modal option being 4, right in the middle.
"Results" based politics brought us Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouges, witch hunts, Hiroshima, 9/11, every form of religious persecution ever, and in fact pretty much every atrocity in human history.
Really? It seems like the Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Maos' Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, and 9/11 were all "Values" based to me. The rise of Communism was a revolt against capitalist values, it was not a fact-based decision where communism was experimented with and found to be more efficient than capitalism and thus the conversion was rapidly and peaceably carried out. The Holocaust was a values-based decisions that Jews, gays, intellectuals, political opponents, and the Roma were evil and should be exterminated. The Great Leap Forward was ideologically based on the idea that collective farming must be better than individual farming, and the Cultural Revolution was ideological purge. The Khmer Rouge massacres were likewise based on the values of the leaders of the Khmer Rouge, not on any factual basis. Ditto with 9/11 the hijackers believed that the U.S.A was evil and were willing to sacrifice their lives to humble America.
I left the witch hunts and Hiroshima out, because they actually are different from the others. From what I've heard the witch hunts were a sham and most people knew it at the time, but they were a convenient excuse to get rid of inconvenient women. I'm not sure whether that falls into either category, it was more bad policy that allowed petty revenges. Hiroshima (and Nagasaki), on the other hand, were political decisions where for right or wrong, the U.S. president (under advisement from the U.S military) decided that the value of the bomb to force an unconditional surrender from the Japanese and to scare the Soviet Union out of turning on the rest of the Allies was worth the cost in (then-enemy) lives. So you may have one on your list that isn't values based.
Generally speaking religious persecution is always values based, as are most atrocities. Although, I suppose it has been argued that Muhammad's slaying of the Jewish Qurayza tribe in Medina was results-based. They had no sponsers or allies, were outnumbered and surrounded, and Muhammad had just lost a major battle. He had the men and boys who had reached puberty slaughtered because he could do so, because it would be a display of power that would cement his own grip on power, and he would take their wealth and enslave their women and children with which he could reward his army with after they were defeated by a superior force. So I guess there's another one you can chalk up to result-based policy.
Personally, I think probably need fact-based policy guided by a set of good values rather than one or the other in isolation. Values without facts can lead to ineffectual and dangerous policies like the Great Leap Forward, Lysenkoism and abstinence-only education. Facts and results without values leads to rational actions that can be horrible, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and forced sterilization of undesirables.
I looked through your examples and they're seriously underwhelming.
Have you got any real examples?
The Bush military doctrine and incompetence is indeed partially to blame from the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq. Combining the weakened and divided Iraq that that doctrine produced with the dogged Russian support for Syria's Assad regime created a power vaccum where ISIS could propser. In this case I wouldn't specifically blame Christians for the Islamic State because those decisions are more accurately attributed to the neo-conservative movement in the United States which mostly pays lip-service to being Christian.