×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot's three-dollar-bill

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about 3 months ago

User Journal 7

While some people delete their journal entries, I do not. Go back to a classic of mine to see the original argument. You can't comment on it any more - on account of it being more than 4 years old - but feel free to comment here if you'd like.While some people delete their journal entries, I do not. Go back to a classic of mine to see the original argument. You can't comment on it any more - on account of it being more than 4 years old - but feel free to comment here if you'd like.

7 comments

'Climate change' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46030721)

For the record, no one, EVER, has argued constant climate. The discussion is not 'does climate vary', or even 'is there evidence that climate alters over time'.
The conversation is about how much additional power to grant a government that can't even roll out a website cleanly.
Also, theories that don't incorporate solar activity and vulcanism are kind of like Rush without Alex and Geddy; sure Neil is a drummer for the ages, but something seems kinda missing.
Tell your climate buddies to walk back the hysteria, get the EPA out of everyone's backside, and work on building some credibility.

Re:'Climate change' (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46031827)

For the record, no one, EVER, has argued constant climate. The discussion is not 'does climate vary', or even 'is there evidence that climate alters over time'.

First of all, I think that statement is far to grand to be able to support it. Considering how many people honestly say stupid things like "it's cold in Texas, so global warming can't be real", I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever argued that climate is not changing.

That said, the JE in question has been deleted so it is my word against yours on what he said as - so far as I know - there is no way to retrieve the deleted JE and see what he said. From my recollection though he was indeed trying to argue that there was no change happening at all.

The conversation is about how much additional power to grant a government that can't even roll out a website cleanly.

My JE was dated to July 2009. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act wasn't passed until 2010, so it was pretty well impossible to know at that point whether or not the government could roll out a website correctly for a bill that in July 2009 hadn't been written.

Tell your climate buddies to walk back the hysteria

The majority of the hysteria is manufactured by people with various agendas, including those whose agendas involve preventing any kind of climate change action from happening.

get the EPA out of everyone's backside

"everyone's backside"? Really? Do you know anyone personally who has had their daily existence altered directly by anything that the EPA has done differently in the past 10 years?

and work on building some credibility

Credibility? How would thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles do for you in terms of credibility?

Re:'Climate change' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46032333)

For the record, no one, EVER, has argued constant climate. The discussion is not 'does climate vary', or even 'is there evidence that climate alters over time'.

First of all, I think that statement is far too grand to be able to support it. Considering how many people honestly say stupid things like "it's cold in Texas, so global warming can't be real", I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever argued that climate is not changing.
That said, the JE in question has been deleted so it is my word against yours on what he said as - so far as I know - there is no way to retrieve the deleted JE and see what he said. From my recollection though he was indeed trying to argue that there was no change happening at all.

For a quick Google, you can find links on "constant climate chambers", and "climate change being constant", but the notion that global climate, itself, is constant is the über-strawman.

The conversation is about how much additional power to grant a government that can't even roll out a website cleanly.

My JE was dated to July 2009. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act wasn't passed until 2010, so it was pretty well impossible to know at that point whether or not the government could roll out a website correctly for a bill that in July 2009 hadn't been written.

Healthcare.gov is a disaster in keeping with every other aspect of ObamaCare, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation. Your chronological point, while factual, is but a clean square of toilet paper in the middle of a settling pond: SO, WHAT?

Tell your climate buddies to walk back the hysteria

The majority of the hysteria is manufactured by people with various agendas, including those whose agendas involve preventing any kind of climate change action from happening.

In the context of a government that cannot budget properly, and regularly passes unread, multi-ream legislation, your seeming surprise and the non-confidence on display is, itself, surprising.

get the EPA out of everyone's backside

"everyone's backside"? Really? Do you know anyone personally who has had their daily existence altered directly by anything that the EPA has done differently in the past 10 years?

So your definition of standing is that I have to know personally, as opposed to merely being a Virginia resident [csmonitor.com], for any opinion about EPA over-reach to matter?

and work on building some credibility

Credibility? How would thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles do for you in terms of credibility?

When I want to remind myself about peer-reviewed articles, I pull out some back issues of MISQ [misq.org]. The challenge, after ManBearPig and Captain Hockey Stick, is to find some better venues for getting the word out. For example, a series about a business owner who is conservative, and values conservation of both nature and culture. The hero fights nasty bureaucrats who are more interested in regulating her out of existence, and making dependent little clients of the local people with their little velvet entitlement handcuffs than actually preserving nature. Pit an actual American against the Common Core and Agenda 21 Commies.
Bring in some of the Robertson clan from Duck Dynasty, and sell the notion with some humor.
But of course that won't happen, because the climate conversation is dominated more by control issues than actual concern for nature.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's some crow I'd eat with relish.

Re:'Climate change' (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46036589)

For a quick Google, you can find links on "constant climate chambers", and "climate change being constant", but the notion that global climate, itself, is constant is the über-strawman.

Then if my recollection is correct, he was indeed reaching for that "uber-strawman". He was attempting to deny that any climate change was occurring. This would, it seems, support my argument that indeed he is a fake conservative, who comes here posting extreme arguments that he does not actually believe in, to make the conservative message look bad.

My JE was dated to July 2009. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act wasn't passed until 2010, so it was pretty well impossible to know at that point whether or not the government could roll out a website correctly for a bill that in July 2009 hadn't been written.

Healthcare.gov is a disaster in keeping with every other aspect of ObamaCare, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation. Your chronological point, while factual, is but a clean square of toilet paper in the middle of a settling pond: SO, WHAT?

Well, being as the administration itself was barely 6 months old at that time, it is quite difficult to rationally make an argument for them to be epically terrible at that point in time. If, on the other hand, one is interested in just making those who would so quickly try to such an aim look silly, that is more than enough time.

The majority of the hysteria is manufactured by people with various agendas, including those whose agendas involve preventing any kind of climate change action from happening.

In the context of a government that cannot budget properly, and regularly passes unread, multi-ream legislation, your seeming surprise and the non-confidence on display is, itself, surprising.

I can't tell if this means you have started to actually read what I write again (which would be a nice step in the right direction) or what you might be trying to indicate here. I have never held confidence in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. I have consistently argued that it is the wrong way to address the problem.

"everyone's backside"? Really? Do you know anyone personally who has had their daily existence altered directly by anything that the EPA has done differently in the past 10 years?

So your definition of standing is that I have to know personally, as opposed to merely being a Virginia resident, for any opinion about EPA over-reach to matter?

No. My point is first that EPA policies have hardly changed at all in the past decade, and the overwhelming vast majority of all EPA policy changes that have occurred in that time have been for less regulation rather than more. Second, while a lot of people point at the EPA as some horrible boogeyman, very few people actually are effected in a negative way personally by anything the EPA does. Hence I say your statement of them being on "everyone's backside" is dubious.

Credibility? How would thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles do for you in terms of credibility?

When I want to remind myself about peer-reviewed articles, I pull out some back issues of MISQ.

I'm not sure exactly what you're after with that statement and link. Care to elaborate?

The challenge, after ManBearPig and Captain Hockey Stick,

... and back to silly name calling. You don't really help to make your side of the argument look serious when you keep throwing those around.

is to find some better venues for getting the word out.

Which venues should they be? Any time the peer reviewed material is covered in the main stream media the conservatives attack the media itself as being "partisan". Do you want the scientists to leave the bench and go stand on a soapbox somewhere?

For example, a series about a business owner who is conservative, and values conservation of both nature and culture. The hero fights nasty bureaucrats who are more interested in regulating her out of existence, and making dependent little clients of the local people with their little velvet entitlement handcuffs than actually preserving nature.

Sounds like a good bit of fiction there. Maybe you could write it into a book and get it published by the same people who published Glenn Beck's magnus opus...

But of course that won't happen, because the climate conversation is dominated more by control issues than actual concern for nature.

That is a truly sweeping generalization, there. Just because you fear the idea that maybe some parts of your lifestyle could be bad for the long term health of our planet, you go and try to describe all the people who have contributed to the science of climate change as being personally involved in taking away your favorite pastime. I suspect that if a politician instead took to a podium and asked the car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars to make life less expensive for the consumer you would be thanking them.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's some crow I'd eat with relish.

While it is rather hard to prove you wrong, it is even more difficult for you to prove yourself right. There are a lot of people who are concerned with climate change and are involved in studying its causes and effects. Very few of them are ever on the news. I suggest your fear and demonization of all of them is terribly misplaced.

Re:'Climate change' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46041997)

Then if my recollection is correct, he was indeed reaching for that "uber-strawman". He was attempting to deny that any climate change was occurring. This would, it seems, support my argument that indeed he is a fake conservative, who comes here posting extreme arguments that he does not actually believe in, to make the conservative message look bad.

That moves the discussion to the size of the delta.

My JE was dated to July 2009. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act wasn't passed until 2010, so it was pretty well impossible to know at that point whether or not the government could roll out a website correctly for a bill that in July 2009 hadn't been written.

Healthcare.gov is a disaster in keeping with every other aspect of ObamaCare, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation. Your chronological point, while factual, is but a clean square of toilet paper in the middle of a settling pond: SO, WHAT?

Well, being as the administration itself was barely 6 months old at that time, it is quite difficult to rationally make an argument for them to be epically terrible at that point in time. If, on the other hand, one is interested in just making those who would so quickly try to such an aim look silly, that is more than enough time.

Hey, if you want to isolate every decision to a point call, blowing away the full context of the subject under discussion, you can rationalize anything. This is, ironically, akin to arguing that 8" of snow in my neighborhood yesterday refutes the notion that the planet is warming. Go ahead; argue that way.

The majority of the hysteria is manufactured by people with various agendas, including those whose agendas involve preventing any kind of climate change action from happening.

In the context of a government that cannot budget properly, and regularly passes unread, multi-ream legislation, your seeming surprise and the non-confidence on display is, itself, surprising.

I can't tell if this means you have started to actually read what I write again (which would be a nice step in the right direction) or what you might be trying to indicate here. I have never held confidence in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. I have consistently argued that it is the wrong way to address the problem.

It would be irresponsible to give even more power to a proven pack of incompetents.

"everyone's backside"? Really? Do you know anyone personally who has had their daily existence altered directly by anything that the EPA has done differently in the past 10 years?

So your definition of standing is that I have to know personally, as opposed to merely being a Virginia resident, for any opinion about EPA over-reach to matter?

No. My point is first that EPA policies have hardly changed at all in the past decade, and the overwhelming vast majority of all EPA policy changes that have occurred in that time have been for less regulation rather than more. Second, while a lot of people point at the EPA as some horrible boogeyman, very few people actually are effected in a negative way personally by anything the EPA does. Hence I say your statement of them being on "everyone's backside" is dubious.

I think you're doing a fine job of ignoring what's afoot [burntorangereport.com]. If there wasn't significant reason to think that this has more to do with punishing enemies (e.g. the whole BP imbroglio down in Louisiana) then maybe the EPA wouldn't look a PEA-brained APE. Alas, and you can blame the Bush administration for really getting this going, if you like, we just can't trust our government anymore.

Credibility? How would thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles do for you in terms of credibility?

When I want to remind myself about peer-reviewed articles, I pull out some back issues of MISQ.

I'm not sure exactly what you're after with that statement and link. Care to elaborate?

I'm saying the publish-or-perish mentality has not helped the signal-to-noise ratio.

is to find some better venues for getting the word out.

Which venues should they be? Any time the peer reviewed material is covered in the main stream media the conservatives attack the media itself as being "partisan". Do you want the scientists to leave the bench and go stand on a soapbox somewhere?

I don't think scientists are on any bench.

For example, a series about a business owner who is conservative, and values conservation of both nature and culture. The hero fights nasty bureaucrats who are more interested in regulating her out of existence, and making dependent little clients of the local people with their little velvet entitlement handcuffs than actually preserving nature.

Sounds like a good bit of fiction there. Maybe you could write it into a book and get it published by the same people who published Glenn Beck's magnus opus...

Still working on the re-write of my Afghanistan novel.

But of course that won't happen, because the climate conversation is dominated more by control issues than actual concern for nature.

That is a truly sweeping generalization, there. Just because you fear the idea that maybe some parts of your lifestyle could be bad for the long term health of our planet, you go and try to describe all the people who have contributed to the science of climate change as being personally involved in taking away your favorite pastime. I suspect that if a politician instead took to a podium and asked the car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars to make life less expensive for the consumer you would be thanking them.

Why aren't more fuel-efficient cars driven by market demand?

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's some crow I'd eat with relish.

While it is rather hard to prove you wrong, it is even more difficult for you to prove yourself right. There are a lot of people who are concerned with climate change and are involved in studying its causes and effects. Very few of them are ever on the news. I suggest your fear and demonization of all of them is terribly misplaced.

I'm not the one asking others to commit economic suicide over a theory.

Re:'Climate change' (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46042015)

I will also point out that you seem to be trying to typecast everyone who believes there to be a manmade component in global warming as being driven primarily driven by an innate desire to see legislation come about that restricts your freedom. That notion makes about as much sense as saying that Ron Paul went into obstetrics because he wanted to perform abortions.

Re:'Climate change' (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46044699)

I do not dispute that humanity (a part of nature) interacts with nature. There HAS to be some level of interaction, as I'm about to step out of the house and light off the car.
Living in Virginia, I'm personally acquainted with Mary Boneta [fauquier.com] and the avaricious rich who use banners like "Climate Change", "Agenda 21", and "Common Core" in their efforts to unwind the Enlightenment and make serfs of us all.
I'm falling short of claiming an explicit conspiracy here, merely pointing out that the tendency to boss people around "for their own good" is as old as aristocracy.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...