Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
16 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

16. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 28, 2014, 09:55 Axis
 
Greater minds than us have debated it, and it's pretty clear where the truth lies if you're honest with yourself.

The vast majority of that truth is on the side that natural occurrence of CO2 far outweighs any human, a few percent based on the last time I actually cared to look at statistics. And the natural workings of our universe trump all.

I don't know anyone who doesn't prefer cleaner burns, less litter, fresher water, by all means keep working on those technologies. But demonizing our energy use without dictating the energy use of the rest of the world is naive and self-defeating at best, and statistically wouldn't make an iota of difference.

 
Avatar 57462
 
Yours truly,

Axis
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 28, 2014, 03:17 jdreyer
 
Axis wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 20:18:
This "Human energy use is the enemy to cooler conditions" bullshit has had it's silly run ended.

But no one denies our climate changes, do they? You'd be amazed what the sun, gravity, and time can do! But ya, lightbulbs...

It's not really energy use. If the majority of our energy over the past 30 years had been produced by solar and wind and nuclear, we'd not be having this conversation. It's the fossil fuels. The science is clear: CO2 (among other gasses) are insulators. Put more of them in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere retains more heat. And we've been dumping millions of tons CO2, methane, and N2O for decades. The climate is a massively complex interconnected system, and increasing the temperature increases entropy which can have all sorts of effects, most of them negative: desertification, more severe weather events, prolonged droughts, sea level increases, etc. etc. Given how drastically we've polluted the atmosphere, I'm surprised the effect so far hasn't been greater. I'm asking honestly: why do you think we can make such massive changes to our atmospheric composition and assume it will have no effect?

But no one denies our climate changes, do they?

Don't be glib. It makes you sound stupid. And you're not.

But ya, lightbulbs...

Well, luckily, it's not a choice we have to make. LEDs are dropping in price so rapidly, and last so long, that they've become the default. It was kind of unnecessary to ban incandescents (I assume that's what you're alluding to) since the market took care of it.

Conservation is only part of it. Energy mix is more important. Ramping up renewables and ceasing to burn coal (especially) is critical. Luckily, the cost of solar and wind is dropping quickly, and it's almost on par with most fossil fuels. And battery tech is steadily evolving so the ICE can be slowly replaced.

We're pretty much already too late. There will be some drastic effects, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to minimize them. We fck with our planet at our peril.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 20:18 Axis
 
This "Human energy use is the enemy to cooler conditions" bullshit has had it's silly run ended.

But no one denies our climate changes, do they? You'd be amazed what the sun, gravity, and time can do! But ya, lightbulbs...
 
Avatar 57462
 
Yours truly,

Axis
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 19:55 jimnms
 
Cutter wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 16:44:
This is good because it'll help put a stop to all the climate denying idiots and industries that support them.
You're giving idiots too much credit.
 
Avatar 17277
 
Steam Profile
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 19:54 Beamer
 
Sencho wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 19:39:
Cutter wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 16:44:
This is good because it'll help put a stop to all the climate denying idiots and industries that support them.

Who is denying the earth has climate? I've not met anyone of that ilk, and I imagine they'd be fascinating talk too - probably think milk comes from supermarkets.

As for the merits of the case, Mann has been an exposed fraud for decades within science. His famed "Hockey Stick" graph was debunked back in the early 90s. He's still made a fortune off it, which was his likely goal all along.

Now if you factor in the starvation and damage Mann and his followers have inflicted on the people of Earth, then honestly comparing him to Sandusky is unfair. To Sandusky.

So, something he created in 1999 was debunked in the early 90s?

And it wasn't debunked. It was disputed. But over two dozen other studies have shown the same findings. At this point no one really denies the hockey stick graph as a general truth, other than idiots. What people deny is whether man had anything to do with it.

Here's the most recent graph, published less than a year ago.
The hockey stick is tilted, but it still shows an enormous jump in a minor amount or time, unlike anything previously seen.

But sure, keep calling it "debunked" even though it isn't even remotely debunked. Someone that claims that a 1999 concept, that was then disputed, that has then been reinforced by two dozen additional studies, was "debunked" 5 or 6 years before it came into existence clearly doesn't give a shit about facts.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 19:39 Sencho
 
Cutter wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 16:44:
This is good because it'll help put a stop to all the climate denying idiots and industries that support them.

Who is denying the earth has climate? I've not met anyone of that ilk, and I imagine they'd be fascinating talk too - probably think milk comes from supermarkets.

As for the merits of the case, Mann has been an exposed fraud for decades within science. His famed "Hockey Stick" graph was debunked back in the early 90s. He's still made a fortune off it, which was his likely goal all along.

Now if you factor in the starvation and damage Mann and his followers have inflicted on the people of Earth, then honestly comparing him to Sandusky is unfair. To Sandusky.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 18:51 Julio
 
Cutter wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 16:44:
This is good because it'll help put a stop to all the climate denying idiots and industries that support them.

It doesn't mean that the climate scientist is right, just that if he wins he's not faking his results. He still could be totally wrong about climate change.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 16:44 Cutter
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 13:28:
Climate scientistís defamation suit allowed to go forward.

Interesting case, I'll be watching what happens. The mistake the National Review made was attacking a climate scientist who works in the past. All that is measurable, so disproving fraud is much easier than it is against a scientist who makes future projections. And if you're claiming fraud where this none, well, that's defamation.

This is good because it'll help put a stop to all the climate denying idiots and industries that support them.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 15:33 PHJF
 
I think you need to create an account and log in to see porn on that site.

No, you don't...

... not that I would know, of course...
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 13:28 jdreyer
 
King removes game but denies 'cloning' accusations.

At least they had the decency to remove the game. They're better than Zynga in that regard.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 13:28 jdreyer
 
Climate scientistís defamation suit allowed to go forward.

Interesting case, I'll be watching what happens. The mistake the National Review made was attacking a climate scientist who works in the past. All that is measurable, so disproving fraud is much easier than it is against a scientist who makes future projections. And if you're claiming fraud where this none, well, that's defamation.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 12:26 Orogogus
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 11:17:
Creston wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 11:08:
Only 35% is porn? Damn, that many people pirate Game of Thrones???

I think you need to create an account and log in to see porn on that site. With it being a high profile target, and with so many other sites being entirely free, it doesn't surprise me that they have a much lower percentage.

Incidentally, it looks like this is based on number of different files uploaded. So Game of Thrones would just be x number of episodes times a handful of multiple formats or whatever, not total seeds or anything like that.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 12:18 HorrorScope
 
Creston wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 11:08:
Only 35% is porn? Damn, that many people pirate Game of Thrones???

Gross, gratuitous sex. The franchise would be better off not using such shameless tactics. Ohhh, we are talking Thief right?
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 11:17 Beamer
 
Creston wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 11:08:
Only 35% is porn? Damn, that many people pirate Game of Thrones???

I think you need to create an account and log in to see porn on that site. With it being a high profile target, and with so many other sites being entirely free, it doesn't surprise me that they have a much lower percentage.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 11:10 MoreLuckThanSkill
 
Creston wrote on Jan 27, 2014, 11:08:
Only 35% is porn? Damn, that many people pirate Game of Thrones???

Haha, I was just about to post something similar. 35% seems insanely low.
 
Avatar 54863
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 27, 2014, 11:08 Creston
 
Only 35% is porn? Damn, that many people pirate Game of Thrones???
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo