Sounds like a fair enough ideas.

"You argued that the letter's claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is false. But your argument depends entirely on YOU shifting the context away from the one that was obviously being used in the original letter. " Wow! I don't think I would have gotten that from your arguments until that explicit definition. Would you please use your quotes in context and explain how I was supposed to get that?

Are you the author of that letter? I ask only because they write with the same twisted analogies you use. For example, one might say that where the letter explicitly says, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant," appears to imply the exact opposite of your explanation, "[I] argued that the letter's claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is false." This is made more confusing by the simple fact that, after a THIRD time, you have yet to show the explicitly in context examples for pollutants by the original definition I used that you are basing the ENTIRETY of this exchange on.

I DIDN'T change the context. Not at all. Here's the logical breakdown:

1) The letter explicitly says, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant."
2) It's legal status states it is a pollutant, period.
3) I said, "A relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment." Something I most recently referred to as the, "press-release," definition.

There is NO CHANGE in context. None. I can't see the change, and since I'm the one with the literary impairment, as made clear by the many misspellings, grammatical errors and word choices, you will have to explain the inferred change of context, as you're not explaining it enough for me.

The whole of the argument begins when you said, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water," which was some undefined analogy about poisons that I lack the ability to infer from your terse comment. In another follow up, you went on to say, "In that context, things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants," which I, apparently mistakenly, believed meant you could, in fact, supply examples. You'll note, I had been asking for them since before you explicitly maintained a context of pollutants (you can see why someone with limitations may have inferred that; heck, I'm still asking for it for the fourth time).

So, since you can't supply examples, as, apparently, I massively misunderstood your side of the conversation, I refer to my original point, "Would you please use your quotes in context and explain how I was supposed to get that?" However, do so to explain your whole-side of this conversation. I'm sure it wouldn't take you too long, just copy and paste your quotes like a normal discussion, following each point with an explanation, like Eric Raymond does with The Halloween Documents.

You know, if you'd like, I'd be happy to explain how I've been interpreting this conversation thus far. I'm guessing, given your rich skill set in literary and rhetorical comprehension, you might have guessed it. Which is amazing that you haven't been able to explain things in such a way that I could understand it, but I'm sure if you cover how a more apt individual, such as yourself, would have been able to correlate your communiqués thus far with what you had intended to explain, I might be capable of following it in future conversations. Afterall, slashdot has something good almost every day, and therefore, it's not unrealistic that we will both end up the same thread, perhaps even by way of control+F from time to time. If I can understand how it is you intend to be interpreted, I'm sure we can avoid all sorts of strange and bizarre back and forths such as this.

I appreciate how patient you have been with such an intellectually inhibited individual, such as myself. It's just that, from my limited ability, it just seems like your logic is doing a lot of jumping that I have been so unable to follow thus far. I'd hate to bring it up, but if I did interpret that line about you being able to make anything you wanted a pollutant using my definition, I mean, I know you said that wasn't the point, but it would be so disappointing not to get a few if, at least at that moment, that was the intent. Again, I might not follow your intent too well, but if you explain what you have been attempting to convey more clearly, I may be able to follow your logic in the future, from thread to thread.

You didn't make an analogy, and you haven't presented pollutants. An analogy involves comparing two things to demonstrate their similarities. Not only did you include nothing to identify some form of pollutants vs poisons analogy in your original comment, as you neither mentioned toxicity effects or any condition that would suggest you were describing oxygen or water as something other than a pollutant, but you didn't give any other relative context for the phrase, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water."

My definition of a pollutant is relatively scientific within an ecological context, even though it wouldn't be used beyond a press release; however, if I were to place it in a white paper, it would read something far closer to, "A substance or condition in the form of a deposit, absorption, or adsorption of radioactive material, or of biological or chemical agents on or by structures, areas, personnel, or objects so acting upon, within, around or throughout the air, water, soil, flora or fauna that occur in concentrations which are disruptive, damaging, deteriorating or destructive within the collective factors of the biotic and abiotic vectors that act on part or in total on the collective value of organisms, populations or total ecological communities which, otherwise, sustain a definable and identifiable shared relationship of development within a consistent state of cycles over time."

I had actually spent some time breaking things down, so as not to seem unfairly exclusive. Truth be told, I'm not as happy with it, and normally, such a thing would be passed around for review among peers, but I'm going to consider this sufficiently definitive for our purposes.

I would like to add, if you don't want to talk about yourself, don't. I don't care about how much you don't want to talk about yourself, I just want you to clearly state your argument. I felt I had sufficiently implied that from the beginning, but as you keep inferring a personal attack, I'm telling you now, just don't even feel the need to mention you any further. This logic isn't about the individuals, which you seem to agree with. As for your inferring that you somehow represent anything other than your arguments, I have not intentionally implied it in the slightest. You ARE the collection of your arguments.

So, if I'm incapable of understanding, let me just check, since I must be incompetent of interpreting your literary and rhetorical depth, does, "In that context, things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants," mean you have actual examples as pollutants that in either my original, collective or most recently sufficiently defined example (any or all, in the sense of posts not components as you had done in that paragraph) would prove your point, you know, in that context, under those definitions? After all, I apparently lack the ability to follow your metaphors, so, please, indulge me with your explicit and literal examples.

This is now the THIRD time I've asked you explicitly to support your claim. No metaphors, analogy, time wasted on you, just support your claim. I've made that as clear as I can. I have not used any detracting literary devices in this post; so, surely, you must understand that I am clearly stating that you list, "Things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants.[...] Using the very context you used, I can define pretty much anything I want to be a pollutant." I honestly feel I've been very clear what constitutes a pollutant, even though, in that quote, you had chosen to include only a small fraction of the definition at that point, but I'm sure if your point is so valid and my whole point/definition was so weak, you must possess the capacity to clearly and explicitly state your pollutants.

Finally, I will append the definitions I have used to save you time scrolling up and down to pick one:

"Quick to Assume Invalidation"
A relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment.
(expansion and examples)
Recent studies that plant [sic] have been decreasing their stomataphors [sic, stomata] in count and opening period in areas of higher COv2 concentrations, thus indicating and upper-bound limit to COv2's usefulness to plants.
Breaking 330ppm without any attempt by the international community to stop contributing to the future problem.

"You [sic] Logic is Fallaciously Absurd"
(just expansion, no definition)
The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake. Carbon dioxide forms acids with constituent components of the atmosphere, soil and water.

"Where is Your Research?"
(just expansion of example)
Carbon dioxide is rightfully singled out as a pollutant of significant risk. Other pollutants can hold more heat and/or change the chemistry of an environ more radically, but proportional to the actual output and chemical half-life, COv2 is the most dangerous among these pollutants.

"Stay Off the Metaphorical Path" (that's the thing you're reading now)
A substance or condition in the form of a deposit, absorption, or adsorption of radioactive material, or of biological or chemical agents on or by structures, areas, personnel, or objects so acting upon, within, around or throughout the air, water, soil, flora or fauna that occur in concentrations which are disruptive, damaging, deteriorating or destructive within the collective factors of the biotic and abiotic vectors that act on part or in total on the collective value of organisms, populations or total ecological communities which, otherwise, sustain a definable and identifiable shared relationship of development within a consistent state of cycles over time.

In total, that's two explicit definitions and four expansions with two examples. As your argument is about the first, or "press release" definition, you are welcome to include your examples based on that; however, you have repeated the claim all the way through to the last expansion of the example, which is suggestive that you might still feel confident about your examples. If you feel so confident on your examples, perhaps you could get them to fit within the "proto-white paper" definition.

Again, as I have to imply this in the previous two replies, please, explicitly, state your literal examples of pollutants within the range of definitions. I am assuming I understood correctly that you are explicitly claiming that you can and will create examples of explicit pollutants within the literal pollutant context of this discussion.

If, however, you aren't saying you could state such examples, I would ask that you clarify your posts in chronological order with clear and concise language, free of all literary devices, as to what you intended to communicate.

See what you're doing there? You just quoted me saying, "The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake," and skimmed over the point that started it, "Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."

You didn't say that at all; in fact, your changing the context of the claim. What you said was, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water." You didn't say anything about poisons here. That was a claim another person under this article has discussed, but you didn't say that; it hasn't been a part of this thread, and it's not relevant to the what qualifies as a pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is rightfully singled out as a pollutant of significant risk. Other pollutants can hold more heat and/or change the chemistry of an environ more radically, but proportional to the actual output and chemical half-life, COv2 is the most dangerous among these pollutants.

It doesn't matter who you are. I see you as another string of characters on website, an avatar for the logic you present. As I've said recently regarding ad hominem attack on Richard Stallman sometime in the past couple of months on slashdot, it doesn't matter who the person is. That's point of an idea in its purest: Regardless of the philosophy, intelligence, social awareness or persona, an idea is independent. It can be looked at, reviewed, tested and expounded upon.

You did nothing to actually contribute to the conversation. You haven't shown a weakness of logic on my part that didn't require altering the context, and even becoming more blatant about it in your follow up. Whether feeding trolls for entertainment or getting into a real debate (oddly, this seems to be a strange combination of both), I will include references if someone has implied the need for further information. Adding an unrelated context to weak counter-argument (which, as I pointed out, still ignored the point that started this) doesn't really add to a debate, it detracts. When you failed to put any further logic on your claim, you can't expect me to believe you had ANY intent of supporting point.

It was your latest closing statements that makes it clear which of us was in the mindset of a genuine debate. If you felt my response to your apparent incredulity was bragging, you may as well become a seventeenth concerned scientist, and avoid ongoing dialogues.

Have you ever listened to "Science Fridays" on NPR? Often, when a caller wants to throw some anti-established science talking point at a guest (or often, the host), Ira often asks a question along the lines of, "Is there any amount of research or explanation of physics that would allow you to reconsider your opinion?" The responses range from turning the question around (ignoring that the majority of researchers decide their next project based on testing shifts in data, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 ), changing the context (the I-think-that's-more-of-a-[political, philosophical, religious, moral]-question callers), or they often suggest that the information would have to be so over-whelming, it would be the equivalent of making their preferred reality a mere mist drop settling into an ocean.

As you've backed away from the context of the original debate, I guess you think your argument is more of a troll question?

The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake. Carbon dioxide forms acids with constituent components of the atmosphere, soil and water. Water is chemically neutral and oxygen readily balances out to the available reactions, contributing nothing to net chemical cycles on the Earth outside of return carbon that has been out of the cycles for thousands and millions of years (see Cretaceous Period vs the logic of biofuels and green chemistry).

However, I could be fair and ignore science and the world we currently live in, on the off chance your logic needs to be looked at for those circumstances. Actually, we don't have to, as if either of those were a current issue with similar consequences (and some of the conversation regarding the hydrogen economy suggests water could become some class of risk), we actually WOULD be having that conversation. That ISN'T our actual problem right now. Anything that had a similar long term consequence would cause the scientific community the SAME CONCERN.

Unlike you, however, I've actually thrown in some genuine, peer reviewed research. Feel free to add and any ACTUAL research you might have. None of that meta-research by people with readily confirmed biases. After all, my research sources come from a variety of institutions and have been around long enough to go past peer review and enter into the realm of confirmability.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00164.x/full
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985cca..proc..546B
http://wwwzb.fz-juelich.de/contentenrichment/inhaltsverzeichnisse/bis2009/ISBN-0-471-72017-8.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GB001278.shtml
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00864.x/full
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/03-5055
ftp://ftp.imarpe.pe/Curso_Modelos/Biblio%20Arnaud%202/MEPS2008-Acidification.pdf%23page=5
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.short

I think a number of people forgot LastFM, YouTube, AccuRadio, MySpace, ViMeo are all streaming online. It's slashdot; so, in theory, they shouldn't have forgotten that...oh, you know what, it's slashdot, downloading from a peer network and overseas servers isn't technically streaming...yeah, nevermind; I got it now.

But I will accept useful supplements, such as this...for now...muah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

I give all folks the right to quote, in part or in full, as well as deep link to my grammatically awful but informative post in all social and real world media with no costs so required. If they choose to fix up some spelling and grammar and knock off the slashdot meta-references, I'm cool with that too, so long as the useful information remains.

That's the best I can do to avoid obscurity.

F~3 those scientists.

Didn't I just say that?

In reality, the arguments actually are all valid on their face. Everything there is factual, except the laissez-faire attitude. The problem comes from the writer(s) choosing to strip the context of each point.

I'm literally going to read it now (I chose not to when it popped up on a science blog recently), just to see how quick it is to correct (being written after the fact, it was about an hour):

It starts with Ivar Giaever, who, despite expert work in Quantum Physics and a solid background on Biophysics and coming from the country bordering the one where the discovery of global warming happend...a century ago, has chosen to ignore recorded, glacial, oceanic and tree records to declare, not that global warming is fictional, but his distrust of anthropogenic climate, due to the apparent popularity among physical, atmospheric, oceanic and glacial climatological scientists. Skepticism based on popularity is not uncommon, and you could likely pull up a couple more nominated Nobel Prize winners. His attack on the APS seems to ignore the difference between theoretical physics and real world macroscale examination. I believe it was Planck who said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."

Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution.

The now over-used 10 year decrease/steady state analysis ignores the natural wave of environmental change. If you look at the larger source, search for "Global Temperature Anomaly 1880-2010," you would find that there is always a downward period, but taking the total effect of cycles, it average has always increased. Claiming the effect is related to changes in evaporation truly ignores that heating that much ocean to increase the level of evaporation is and incredible amount of energy...we use steam power for electricity...imagine how much electricity it would take to move the increased precipitation as just water from one side of a continent to the other.

To hit on "ClimateGate" is quite humorous within itsown context. As those who know what the supposed terrifying things said were, it's great to poke fun at those attacking it. First, it's a group of people who were amazed that faulty meta-research was actually included in the IPCC assessment; then, the, "mathematical trick," that they used was not only a justifiable, "We know the energy is there since no satellites have shown it disappearing," logic, but that mathematical trick CAME FROM THE PERSON WHO SUBMITTED THE FAULTY META-RESEARCH. It's one of those moments that only look bad out of context, and that's how denialists want the public to see it.

Also, recently explicitly justified: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-029

The IPCC's own projections were, in part, based on the larger than average spike during the 80's, possibly assuming the aforementioned wave-effect might have become reduced. Calling the first set of projections embarrassing is, to say the least, childish, and suggesting it was alarmest ignores how frightening the 80's spike was then perceived. To dismiss extreme weather's effect as a mitigator ignores the point of the previous paragraph.

While I've already covered carbon dioxide as a definition of pollution, the unique mention of a benefit to plants have ignored recent studies that plant have been decreasing their stomataphors in count and opening period in areas of higher COv2 concentrations, thus indicating and upper-bound limit to COv2's usefulness to plants.

Next, skimming past the unidentified fields of study, unidentified quantity, unconfirmable scientists, we have Dr. de Freitas, who is another well recognised name to those aware of the field. He's had some interesting logic. One: Human beings didn't use significant amounts of fossil fuels until after WWII (again, I mention, that global warming, even anthropogenic at that, is about one century old, which well predates the logic of this point); Two: That all alternative causes of warming that have mostly likely affect change in the past millenium (primarily sun-spots and the Earth's orbit) have already been shown that the Earth should be cooling (ironically recently covered, though indirectly, on /.)

Yup, call that my period if you're a grammar nazi; if you're not, this line isn't for you.

Then there's the appeal to claiming Global Warming is akin to the Lysenko Affair. Anyone familiar would point out that Lysenko's alternative to scientific reality was only made possible when the government murderously enforced it. This is a well established field of evidence and study, ignoring the points of the context I've added by way of this post is to be more like the Soviets than...I'm not really sure what the opposite is being implied. Seriously, the US /was/ pro-science back then; allowing actual science to guide politics rather than the other way around.

The fact that this post won't be read by people who have doubts re-enforced by the WSJ article is exactly why such inane resistance has resulted in near aneurysms for those who are genuinely frightened for the future. It has actually caused depression in those who feared breaking 330ppm without any attempt by the international community to stop contributing to the future problem.

The logic now breaks down to the reason this article was published. The truth comes out! What we're reading the standard George C. Marshall Institute quackery. Instead of the logic of good science being recognised by the community as such and aided by government funding and guiding government agencies and building mutually beneficial international agreements, it's the, "Any interference by the government will eventually turn us all into god-hating commies!" Here's the clue, marshall.org has a link right in the top middle of the page to the article. That paragraph was so thinly veiled, it wasn't until I hit that I finally knew how this BS got published in the first place If you want to know the history of the GCMI and it's anti-science, anti-government logic, search for a presentation (the longer the better) by Journalism Historian Naomi Oreskes.

What's really hilarious about the time of not "decarbonizing the world's economy" (or some such). Not only does ignore all of these points, it flies in the face of the growing economic problem. What you say? Link two, I say: http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/commentary-in-nature-can-economy-bear-what-oil-prices-have-in-store

Now, I don't know if they should have brought William Nordhaus into this argument, as the math makes a number of assumptions that ignore the increasing low costs of green energy, and the fact that his numbers for petroleum are based on the unrealistic US costs (between tax breaks, subsidies and the Oil Cap itself, these numbers are foolish for anyone to really use in general. But, what may have been most damaging is what comes up with a cursory search for his view on Climate Change, "Mankind is playing dice with the natural environment through a multitude of interventions-injecting into the atmosphere trace gases like the greenhouse gases or ozone-depleting chemicals, engineering massive land-use changes such as deforestation, depleting multitudes of species in their natural habitats even while creating transgenic ones in the laboratory, and accumulating sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy human civilizations."

He has a history, however, of fearing it would cost to much to rapidly implement a sudden change economic and energy structure, believing it would be too costly to move too quickly, but if a major country was starting to submerge, as number of low-lying areas have, I'm sure he might correct some of his math and create a more effective model.

Ironically, it ends as a mix of his and GCMI's overall logic, while stating we should keep the planet in a state of, "Wait and See," (for which an explicit term exists but has escaped me). As you know, when you suddenly start losing wait and maintain a fever for a long time, most doctors would probably just say, "Come back in six months, and we'll see what happens." The irony comes from talking about just supporting those with the best instruments and data sets (probably wanting to skim over the ability to correct for the many improperly placed weather stations, something people with similar preferences to reality significantly helped with), perhaps the /preferable/ data sets and interpretations.

Now behold, as slashdot first, and then the world, forgets that some random geek floating around on the InterwebTubes quickly and poignantly trashed the combined work of s"Sixteen Concerned Scientists."

A solar mass is over 300,000 Earths, and Polaris is atleast 7 solar masses, adjusting for the most conservative of all estimates. It's apparent magnitude is about 1.9, while the magnitude of drop off (nolonger visible to the human eye) is defined at 7 (with 6 being relatively hard except under good conditions).

Setting aside the nuclear chemistry that will occur in the meantime (which tends to increase brightness), that Polaris is, in fact, multiple stars and the overall reduction of radiative and mass pressure that will be reducing the production/consumption rate*, I would posit even losing half of its mass, it would likely still be visible in 2000 years, which means the Northern Star will have since switched to Gamma Cephei.

So, no big loss here. Personally, I, for one, welcome our new Alrainian OverStar.

****
*You know what, I'm actually going to do these in the coming weeks. This is sound like a fun problem, even though I do a lot more in theoretical particle physics than cosmology.

What the hell? How can that be overrated? I mean, this is offtopic and can be zero'd to death, but really? I made a functional analogy in a well thought out correction, and it's overrated at 1? ONE! How the F~3 does this happen? When did we get that class of moderation?

Was some moderator freezing in DC when scrolling slashdot and did the missed-the-point moderation-of-bias? How do you justify 1 as overrated? Was it the weed? Were you upset that Apple has more lobbying money than your stoned ass?

Meh, -1 offtopic. Still, the above post is just so unfairly underrated. There's a whiny, anoncow grammar-nazi a few posts down with a score of two, and that's offtopic by default! What the F~3?

Irregard is a state outside of consideration, -ing creates a verb transition to present perfect, and a lack of -less makes it non-self-contradictory. I could have used irrespective, but the term brain dumped at the second, "r," and I continued, regardless.

How you got a score of two for an offtopic comment, that's something we could be discussing, but I'm about to get 0, so, I couldn't really care. Karma to burn for trolls and 'tards.

HTTP's inception predates the scale at which the Internet is used today, and like IPv4, the failure to anticipate the shifts in use and data access within the Internet make it far less efficient than it could otherwise be. SPDY, along with many of the streaming protocols, identify more with the modern Internet practices than, "Get this page now," technique of HTTP.

I'm on the second tier of my ISP's access rate, and even though many pages should load in the theoretical second, they don't due to modern styling and plugin/include/addon calls. I honestly would have thought that what SPDY does would already have been more commonly implemented, and that data access in general would be moving to a peer/metapeer networking solution to save on demand of resources in general. Some of the assumptions of its design come out of the late-eighties and early-nineties anticipation of the large-first to small-second distribution common among universities, government installations and large commercial systems of the time, where maintaining a large lan with few nodes possessing Internet access in both directions.

HTTP1.1 is as not broken compared to HTTP2.0 as a protocol as XFree86 4.x isn't anymore broken than any of its successors (irregarding explicit bug fixes, as that's not applicable relative to a protocol...usually), but regardless of where you came down on the forks and licensing, you probably aren't running it on any *Nix under 5 years old.

We haven't done that yet? Wasn't that a late nineties thing? We're still on a 10 and 20 year old protocol!? Why isn't slashdot using html 1.1? Tables not good enough? As someone who still catches up on the IEEE from time to time, this is actually surprising. No wonder lynx hasn't needed much upgrading for connections beyond bug fixes.

That means all advantages have been the physical pathways (that includes wireless) and TCP! Wow! Based on the fact psychics made it to the front page of slashdot without James Randi popping up, I can only presume most of slashdot has no idea how bizarre that is.