Global warming and the elimination of global poverty are mutually exclusive.
That has yet to be shown.
But what can be shown is the remarkable counterproductive nature of current mitigation efforts. Germany and Denmark have greatly increased the price of their electricity without significantly changing their CO2 emissions. We continue to have poorly designed carbon credit markets. We continue to have a variety of white elephant projects to product relatively expensive renewable energy using a variety of dead-end technologies.
There has been a great deal of effort put forth into propaganda such as the research of this story that there is only one course of action, extreme, urgent climate mitigation right now. The problem remains as I noted at the beginning that there's no evidence to support these claims. Exaggerated projections based on exaggerated models is not evidence.
The problem with your plan is that you COULD be alive when the first effects will be felt.
So what? You have yet to show that the "first effects" are going to be serious. In the meantime, status quo means I'll probably live to see half the world achieve developed world status. Elimination of global poverty still looks to me to be a more worthy goal than mitigating climate change and I do believe there is a large trade off between the two.
What's worse is the Fascist media that keeps recording lower temperatures than actually occur.
LOL. There's a reason I go with evidence and not feelings.
S Australian pools don't have sticky prices. Once they got fuel, the market clearing price returned to normal range (a hour later), right?
It's been a long time sense I worked on Australian data. S Australia was gas pipeline constrained back then. You have to schedule gas delivery days ahead, like Florida in the USA.
In Florida they use oil in the CTs and combined cycles when the weather forecaster gets things really wrong, leading to short gas deliveries. Can't really store useful quantities of gas.
In 1970 it wasn't even a syndrome yet. One statistic (I suspect outdated) claims 32 people died of AIDS in the USA before the end of 1980.
You're asking a lot. Do you realize how many people die young of not obvious causes every year.
Individual doctors had patients immune systems fail. What would you have them do?
There is overwhelming evidence that Climate Change is real. The problem isn't the evidence, but your refusal (for whatever reason) to accept it. It's the exact same attitude as anti-vaxxers or anti-evolution people. The evidence is overwhelming, yet instead of accepting that the evidence exists and adjusting their opinions accordingly, they double-down on their pre-conceived notions because of some kind of emotional investment in what they believe.
Given that the GP stated that he accepts that climate change is real, do you have any relevant to say?
However, I agree with your main point. People need to stop fucking like rabbits. I see religion as being a serious factor in this, because most religions *insist* that people fuck like rabbits for "the greater glory of god" or some bullshit. The Catholic Church, for example, consider contraceptives to be Bad(tm).
Religion bashing. Ok.
We're eating this planet alive with our collective greed and self-obsession, and nobody seems to care. I hate to say it, but we *need* another world war to thin down the numbers.
And a pointless diatribe about the imaginary loose morals of humanity which are again irrelevant. A lot of people care, but they also care about other things which are in conflict with reversing climate change, such as doing good by the people alive now.
The real problem with climate change is that it is not the only problem we have. So obsessively focusing on it at the expense of everything else will result not just in making those other problems worse, but also not actually fixing climate change in a positive direction either.
For example, human fertility gets higher when people get poorer. So the many mitigation strategies out there that make people poorer will make future population higher. It's not going to be a win against climate change since you're making the overpopulation problem, which is the basic driver behind climate change, worse.
Blaming this on religion is silly. Most people aren't significantly religious. It's not the driving factor here though in some cases, it can contribute to the problem and sometimes it can help.
My view is to get rid of overpopulation, we need two things in particular: wealthy people and women who have equal rights to men. A lot of other stuff, such as democracy, rule of law, caring about environmental matters, and developed world infrastructure can follow from that.
The exact same sentence on say, Ars, would have been massively upvoted.
No one has been banned from Slashdot because they had the wrong opinion on climate change. I have on Ars Technica. Ars Technica is the real echo chamber.
Further, I guess I'm not alone in getting tired of idiots using the same irrelevant cliched statements. Sure, there are people who still don't believe in climate change, but why always assume the other party such? Give consideration to others and maybe you'll get some in turn.
Not requiring something by law is not the same as not having it.
There are worker populations that can have informal sick leave, and there are populations that would abuse the fuck out of it.
Many nations also require a doctor's note for any sick leave longer than one day.
Sociopaths gonna sociopath.
The problem with nonsense like this is that you completely ignore social dynamics. If I'm going to rob someone, would I rather rob someone who doesn't have a penny to their name or a rich person? If I'm going to scam someone, who's it going to be? You have time, think about it.
Rich people are targets for a fair portion of the general population while poor people aren't. Disengagement is a defensive mechanism against the sociopaths of society, not because somehow being rich is sociopathic.
To not forecast the profit very accurately, is a sign that the business is not in control.
What makes you think they didn't forecast the profit accurately? Public guidance is not forecasting and it is traditional to guide low.
Even when the US was in Iraq (before they got kicked out, before they were subsequently begged to come back when Iraq was being overrun by Daesh...),
I don't buy that the US was kicked out. That was political cover for Obama who apparently felt it was more important to be able to claim zero presence in Iraq in 2012 than to have a stable situation in Iraq in 2014. Even a token US presence would have acted as deterrent, stabilizing influence (the US is a fairly neutral party in the three way political split, for example), and training cadre.
Wind may appear renewable
Renewable doesn't mean that you can pull an infinite amount of wind power from Kansas. It means that you can keep using the resource without using it up. For example, wind is renewable because there's no danger that we can use up all the wind for good. As long as the Sun shines and the Earth has an atmosphere, there will be wind.
I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky