|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 22 2014 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 08:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 08:25 Roswell wrote:On May 22 2014 08:12 Nyxisto wrote:On May 22 2014 08:04 Roswell wrote:
The general consensus? Is that what this comes down to? Science should always have debates, for without them we would still believe the earth is flat. Not 15 years ago the general consensus would be that the earths global temperature would exponentially increase, and yet here we are, the temperature has plateaued. Do you even know what exponentially means?(the only thing that was supposed to exponentially increase is our co2 output, not the earths temperature) And regarding the flatness of the earth. I'm not entirely sold that this isn't the case, maybe we should also start discussing that? Most predictions from the 90s argued that by 2010 the global temp would rise by 2 degrees. The link shows why "probably" the methods were wrong LinkBut now we are supposed to know for real this time, and anyone who says otherwise will be labeled a "flat earther" seems legitimate. Edit: no but really when you start blaming the next hurricane on CC then gg What do scientists/ 'The Left' have to say/do in order for conservatives to realize 1. man--made climate change is real. 2.It needs immediate and significant (not drastic) action. 3.'Self interests'/market magic alone won't solve this problem without government action ???? Like really what do they need to say/do? Assuming '1' is correct... US production of CO2 has been falling in recent years. Forests have been expanding for decades. Air pollution has been falling. Fossil fuels have gone up in price, and the opposite has been true for renewables. Energy in general is more dear and consequently consumers and businesses have shown greater interest in efficiency. ... what makes '2' correct?
1. Is true, at least as true as our assumption that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer.
2. Well a couple/few climate legislation opponents were suggesting they wanted to listen to the scientists. That's what the advice of the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists says/ the data supports.
increasing efficiency is action...? So lets do more. It makes us more competitive globally. No one wants quality of life to go down, if we want to avoid that, not only are we going to have to do more STEM work, we need to do everything more efficiently.
Government pressure/action in a variety of places has pushed those solutions into the market much faster than they would of been by the free market alone (despite constant conservative/big O&G opposition).
|
Abolish the patent system. It's just another asset that the growing rentier class is collecting and which encourages further rent-seeking behavior. Information wants to be free, and if you got rid of it that would be one less avenue through which the rentier class could extract resources from producers, and hence, from employees of producers.
|
On May 22 2014 09:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 22 2014 08:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 08:25 Roswell wrote:On May 22 2014 08:12 Nyxisto wrote:On May 22 2014 08:04 Roswell wrote:
The general consensus? Is that what this comes down to? Science should always have debates, for without them we would still believe the earth is flat. Not 15 years ago the general consensus would be that the earths global temperature would exponentially increase, and yet here we are, the temperature has plateaued. Do you even know what exponentially means?(the only thing that was supposed to exponentially increase is our co2 output, not the earths temperature) And regarding the flatness of the earth. I'm not entirely sold that this isn't the case, maybe we should also start discussing that? Most predictions from the 90s argued that by 2010 the global temp would rise by 2 degrees. The link shows why "probably" the methods were wrong LinkBut now we are supposed to know for real this time, and anyone who says otherwise will be labeled a "flat earther" seems legitimate. Edit: no but really when you start blaming the next hurricane on CC then gg What do scientists/ 'The Left' have to say/do in order for conservatives to realize 1. man--made climate change is real. 2.It needs immediate and significant (not drastic) action. 3.'Self interests'/market magic alone won't solve this problem without government action ???? Like really what do they need to say/do? Assuming '1' is correct... US production of CO2 has been falling in recent years. Forests have been expanding for decades. Air pollution has been falling. Fossil fuels have gone up in price, and the opposite has been true for renewables. Energy in general is more dear and consequently consumers and businesses have shown greater interest in efficiency. ... what makes '2' correct? 1. Is true, at least as true as our assumption that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer. 2. Well a couple/few climate legislation opponents were suggesting they wanted to listen to the scientists. That's what the advice of the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists says/ the data supports. increasing efficiency is action...? So lets do more. It makes us more competitive globally. No one wants quality of life to go down, if we want to avoid that, not only are we going to have to do more STEM work, we need to do everything more efficiently. Government pressure/action in a variety of places has pushed those solutions into the market much faster than they would of been by the free market alone (despite constant conservative/big O&G opposition).
Increasing energy efficiency isn't necessarily increasing efficiency, it could very well be the opposite. Same goes with getting solutions to the market faster - faster isn't always better.
Still, what makes '2' correct? Is it what the US is doing or what the rest of the world is doing? If it's mainly the rest of the world, how much can we / should we make up for that?
|
On May 22 2014 09:20 IgnE wrote:
Abolish the patent system. It's just another asset that the growing rentier class is collecting and which encourages further rent-seeking behavior. Information wants to be free, and if you got rid of it that would be one less avenue through which the rentier class could extract resources from producers, and hence, from employees of producers.
Wouldn't that eradicate a lot of R&D? Seems overly extreme...
|
On May 22 2014 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
... what makes '2' correct?
The consensus is that a temperature increase of 2°C in comparison to pre-industrial times would be the maximum to avoid the more severe outcomes. To achieve that the estimated amount of co2 in our atmosphere shouldn't increase above 450 ppm(401 now). By 2050 that would mean that global co2 production would need to be reduced by 60% or 80% in developed nations respectively.
|
On May 22 2014 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 09:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 22 2014 08:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 08:25 Roswell wrote:On May 22 2014 08:12 Nyxisto wrote:On May 22 2014 08:04 Roswell wrote:
The general consensus? Is that what this comes down to? Science should always have debates, for without them we would still believe the earth is flat. Not 15 years ago the general consensus would be that the earths global temperature would exponentially increase, and yet here we are, the temperature has plateaued. Do you even know what exponentially means?(the only thing that was supposed to exponentially increase is our co2 output, not the earths temperature) And regarding the flatness of the earth. I'm not entirely sold that this isn't the case, maybe we should also start discussing that? Most predictions from the 90s argued that by 2010 the global temp would rise by 2 degrees. The link shows why "probably" the methods were wrong LinkBut now we are supposed to know for real this time, and anyone who says otherwise will be labeled a "flat earther" seems legitimate. Edit: no but really when you start blaming the next hurricane on CC then gg What do scientists/ 'The Left' have to say/do in order for conservatives to realize 1. man--made climate change is real. 2.It needs immediate and significant (not drastic) action. 3.'Self interests'/market magic alone won't solve this problem without government action ???? Like really what do they need to say/do? Assuming '1' is correct... US production of CO2 has been falling in recent years. Forests have been expanding for decades. Air pollution has been falling. Fossil fuels have gone up in price, and the opposite has been true for renewables. Energy in general is more dear and consequently consumers and businesses have shown greater interest in efficiency. ... what makes '2' correct? 1. Is true, at least as true as our assumption that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer. 2. Well a couple/few climate legislation opponents were suggesting they wanted to listen to the scientists. That's what the advice of the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists says/ the data supports. increasing efficiency is action...? So lets do more. It makes us more competitive globally. No one wants quality of life to go down, if we want to avoid that, not only are we going to have to do more STEM work, we need to do everything more efficiently. Government pressure/action in a variety of places has pushed those solutions into the market much faster than they would of been by the free market alone (despite constant conservative/big O&G opposition). Increasing energy efficiency isn't necessarily increasing efficiency, it could very well be the opposite. Same goes with getting solutions to the market faster - faster isn't always better. Still, what makes '2' correct? Is it what the US is doing or what the rest of the world is doing? If it's mainly the rest of the world, how much can we / should we make up for that?
In many cases it is but we could focus on the ones that best fit both. Yeah we do our best to avoid rushing into solutions (it would help if the opposition was focused on stuff like this instead of denying basic facts).
2. Both. I would be thrilled if the discussion from the opposition was focused on what types of policies would have the greatest global impact as well as help improve our local health, and day to day environmental impacts (spills, leaks, contamination, flaming water, poison lakes).
In that light do you have some ideas on how/what we can/should do?
|
On May 22 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 09:20 IgnE wrote:
Abolish the patent system. It's just another asset that the growing rentier class is collecting and which encourages further rent-seeking behavior. Information wants to be free, and if you got rid of it that would be one less avenue through which the rentier class could extract resources from producers, and hence, from employees of producers. Wouldn't that eradicate a lot of R&D? Seems overly extreme...
Yeah removing the Patent system will kill any R&D anywhere.
Developing new stuff is very expensive. The reward for this is sole use for X years to recupe costs.
By removing the patent systems you spend a lot of money to develop something, your competitor comes in when your done, copies it and gets the money without the up front costs.
What would be better would be limiting the ability to patent a concept that is not actually used at the time.
|
On May 22 2014 09:32 Nyxisto wrote:The consensus is that a temperature increase of 2°C in comparison to pre-industrial times would be the maximum to avoid the more severe outcomes. To achieve that the estimated amount of co2 in our atmosphere shouldn't increase above 450 ppm(401 now). By 2050 that would mean that global co2 production would need to be reduced by 60% or 80% in developed nations respectively.
I get that but it doesn't really answer my question. However, we aren't currently doing nothing to protect the environment. So why do we need to do more and why do we need to do it sooner rather than later? Particularly since doing things later sounds cheaper.
|
On May 22 2014 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 22 2014 09:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 22 2014 08:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 08:25 Roswell wrote:On May 22 2014 08:12 Nyxisto wrote:On May 22 2014 08:04 Roswell wrote:
The general consensus? Is that what this comes down to? Science should always have debates, for without them we would still believe the earth is flat. Not 15 years ago the general consensus would be that the earths global temperature would exponentially increase, and yet here we are, the temperature has plateaued. Do you even know what exponentially means?(the only thing that was supposed to exponentially increase is our co2 output, not the earths temperature) And regarding the flatness of the earth. I'm not entirely sold that this isn't the case, maybe we should also start discussing that? Most predictions from the 90s argued that by 2010 the global temp would rise by 2 degrees. The link shows why "probably" the methods were wrong LinkBut now we are supposed to know for real this time, and anyone who says otherwise will be labeled a "flat earther" seems legitimate. Edit: no but really when you start blaming the next hurricane on CC then gg What do scientists/ 'The Left' have to say/do in order for conservatives to realize 1. man--made climate change is real. 2.It needs immediate and significant (not drastic) action. 3.'Self interests'/market magic alone won't solve this problem without government action ???? Like really what do they need to say/do? Assuming '1' is correct... US production of CO2 has been falling in recent years. Forests have been expanding for decades. Air pollution has been falling. Fossil fuels have gone up in price, and the opposite has been true for renewables. Energy in general is more dear and consequently consumers and businesses have shown greater interest in efficiency. ... what makes '2' correct? 1. Is true, at least as true as our assumption that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer. 2. Well a couple/few climate legislation opponents were suggesting they wanted to listen to the scientists. That's what the advice of the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists says/ the data supports. increasing efficiency is action...? So lets do more. It makes us more competitive globally. No one wants quality of life to go down, if we want to avoid that, not only are we going to have to do more STEM work, we need to do everything more efficiently. Government pressure/action in a variety of places has pushed those solutions into the market much faster than they would of been by the free market alone (despite constant conservative/big O&G opposition). Increasing energy efficiency isn't necessarily increasing efficiency, it could very well be the opposite. Same goes with getting solutions to the market faster - faster isn't always better. Still, what makes '2' correct? Is it what the US is doing or what the rest of the world is doing? If it's mainly the rest of the world, how much can we / should we make up for that? In many cases it is but we could focus on the ones that best fit both. Yeah we do our best to avoid rushing into solutions (it would help if the opposition was focused on stuff like this instead of denying basic facts). 2. Both. I would be thrilled if the discussion from the opposition was focused on what types of policies would have the greatest global impact as well as help improve our local health, and day to day environmental impacts (spills, leaks, contamination, flaming water, poison lakes). In that light do you have some ideas on how/what we can/should do?
Things the left could do: Maintain subsidies that encourage investment in green technology.
Keep the awareness campaign about our earth strong (reduce, recycle, reuse )
Invest in clean infrastructure (transit, power lines, roads)
Things the right could do: Lobby more effectively for "necessary lesser evil" approvals (nuke plants, nat. gas plants, pipelines)
Be less obstructionist and more bipartisan regarding regulation/enforcement of "day to day environmental impacts"
|
On May 22 2014 09:55 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 22 2014 09:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 22 2014 08:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2014 08:25 Roswell wrote:On May 22 2014 08:12 Nyxisto wrote:On May 22 2014 08:04 Roswell wrote:
The general consensus? Is that what this comes down to? Science should always have debates, for without them we would still believe the earth is flat. Not 15 years ago the general consensus would be that the earths global temperature would exponentially increase, and yet here we are, the temperature has plateaued. Do you even know what exponentially means?(the only thing that was supposed to exponentially increase is our co2 output, not the earths temperature) And regarding the flatness of the earth. I'm not entirely sold that this isn't the case, maybe we should also start discussing that? Most predictions from the 90s argued that by 2010 the global temp would rise by 2 degrees. The link shows why "probably" the methods were wrong LinkBut now we are supposed to know for real this time, and anyone who says otherwise will be labeled a "flat earther" seems legitimate. Edit: no but really when you start blaming the next hurricane on CC then gg What do scientists/ 'The Left' have to say/do in order for conservatives to realize 1. man--made climate change is real. 2.It needs immediate and significant (not drastic) action. 3.'Self interests'/market magic alone won't solve this problem without government action ???? Like really what do they need to say/do? Assuming '1' is correct... US production of CO2 has been falling in recent years. Forests have been expanding for decades. Air pollution has been falling. Fossil fuels have gone up in price, and the opposite has been true for renewables. Energy in general is more dear and consequently consumers and businesses have shown greater interest in efficiency. ... what makes '2' correct? 1. Is true, at least as true as our assumption that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer. 2. Well a couple/few climate legislation opponents were suggesting they wanted to listen to the scientists. That's what the advice of the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists says/ the data supports. increasing efficiency is action...? So lets do more. It makes us more competitive globally. No one wants quality of life to go down, if we want to avoid that, not only are we going to have to do more STEM work, we need to do everything more efficiently. Government pressure/action in a variety of places has pushed those solutions into the market much faster than they would of been by the free market alone (despite constant conservative/big O&G opposition). Increasing energy efficiency isn't necessarily increasing efficiency, it could very well be the opposite. Same goes with getting solutions to the market faster - faster isn't always better. Still, what makes '2' correct? Is it what the US is doing or what the rest of the world is doing? If it's mainly the rest of the world, how much can we / should we make up for that? In many cases it is but we could focus on the ones that best fit both. Yeah we do our best to avoid rushing into solutions (it would help if the opposition was focused on stuff like this instead of denying basic facts). 2. Both. I would be thrilled if the discussion from the opposition was focused on what types of policies would have the greatest global impact as well as help improve our local health, and day to day environmental impacts (spills, leaks, contamination, flaming water, poison lakes). In that light do you have some ideas on how/what we can/should do? Things the left could do: Maintain subsidies that encourage investment in green technology. Keep the awareness campaign about our earth strong (reduce, recycle, reuse ) Invest in clean infrastructure (transit, power lines, roads) Things the right could do: Lobby more effectively for "necessary lesser evil" approvals (nuke plants, nat. gas plants, pipelines) Be less obstructionist and more bipartisan regarding regulation/enforcement of "day to day environmental impacts"
Not my ideal but it sure as hell would be a giant step forward.
|
Read through the Time article on executions and that guy who didnt' die right from lethal injection. I never get how people could be so terribly sloppy about the death penalty. Its' the DEATH penalty! you're not supposed to make mistakes in it.
Death penalty has to be removed since government has repeatedly proven it can't administer it competently.
|
On May 22 2014 10:07 zlefin wrote:
Read through the Time article on executions and that guy who didnt' die right from lethal injection. I never get how people could be so terribly sloppy about the death penalty. Its' the DEATH penalty! you're not supposed to make mistakes in it.
Death penalty has to be removed since government has repeatedly proven it can't administer it competently.
I've never been a big fan of the death penalty. I get why people want it, just knowing sometime you kill innocent people and it's kind of cruel as it's been practiced it seemed against our nations values.
|
Bring back the guillotine, none of this "but wait, he has a physiological defect that will make it more painful compared to other people" nonsense
|
The guillotine would be cruel imho; it doesn't have near enough force to reliably and cleanly behead. Something with a lot more force though could do the job.
In general people tend to look more at whether the method of execution disgusts them to look at, rather than whether it's needlessly painful for the executed. It reminds me of the Spanish inquisition: lots of torture while avoiding drawing blood.
|
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. regulators are investigating Charles Schwab Corp and Bank of America Corp's Merrill Lynch brokerage over whether they are doing enough to police their clients' identities, sources said, the latest sign a crackdown on money laundering is expanding.
Specifically, the regulator is looking into whether the brokerages missed red flags that could indicate attempts to move money illicitly or to feed proceeds from illegal activities into the financial system, the sources said.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is probing Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch for violations of anti-money laundering rules that require the brokerages to know their customers, the sources said.
Schwab is conducting an internal investigation, one of the sources said.
A spokesman for the SEC declined to comment. Representatives of Schwab and Merrill did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
It was not clear what penalties the SEC would seek or whether it planned to also charge individuals or any other financial institutions for any violations. The investigation is not yet complete and the timing of any cases against the companies could not be learned.
Source
|
On May 22 2014 10:54 zlefin wrote:
The guillotine would be cruel imho; it doesn't have near enough force to reliably and cleanly behead. Something with a lot more force though could do the job.
In general people tend to look more at whether the method of execution disgusts them to look at, rather than whether it's needlessly painful for the executed. It reminds me of the Spanish inquisition: lots of torture while avoiding drawing blood.
The concept of beheading is sound, we could use 21st century technology like carbon-steel blades and some sort of acceleration system for a better cut.
But the current system of lethal injection is pretty bad. There are many drug cocktails that are more effective, I'm sure many chemists and doctors could whip something up.
|
Even 19th century technology could make something better than the guillotine; mostly you just don't want to rely solely on gravity for the force. At high force levels blades don't need to be that sharp. A high powered torsion spring could do the job easily. There's plenty of dangerous farm equipment which could easily do the job if you took off some safeties.
Using bad drug cocktails is monumentally stupid. It's not like it's hard to find better drug cocktails: use the drugs approved for euthanasia in states/countries that have euthanasia, they're clearly designed to not be cruel.
|
On May 22 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 09:20 IgnE wrote:
Abolish the patent system. It's just another asset that the growing rentier class is collecting and which encourages further rent-seeking behavior. Information wants to be free, and if you got rid of it that would be one less avenue through which the rentier class could extract resources from producers, and hence, from employees of producers. Wouldn't that eradicate a lot of R&D? Seems overly extreme...
Fund more R&D by increasing federal grant money.
|
On May 22 2014 11:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 10:54 zlefin wrote:
The guillotine would be cruel imho; it doesn't have near enough force to reliably and cleanly behead. Something with a lot more force though could do the job.
In general people tend to look more at whether the method of execution disgusts them to look at, rather than whether it's needlessly painful for the executed. It reminds me of the Spanish inquisition: lots of torture while avoiding drawing blood. The concept of beheading is sound, we could use 21st century technology like carbon-steel blades and some sort of acceleration system for a better cut. But the current system of lethal injection is pretty bad. There are many drug cocktails that are more effective, I'm sure many chemists and doctors could whip something up.
Why not give them heroin with something more deadly? Not that I think the state should be killing people.
|
capital punishment is a form of retribution, nothing else. And civilized societies should not make retribution the ground of their moral or their legal belief system. I think discussing what's the best way for a government to kill their citizens in the 21st century is a little ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
