AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 20:00:41 GMT -5
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 24, 2015 20:00:41 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 24, 2015 20:03:20 GMT -5
I get that man-made global warming is the apocalyptic eschatology of the liberal cult. It doesn't matter what they think- it matters what they can prove. Look, the truly wise people like myself can see through the rouse to use the threat of extinction as a pretext for depriving people of their individual rights, taking their property, ordering them around, and putting them to forced labor-- all for the greater good-- to "save the planet". I think your term "liberal cult" is part of your scatology.
and truly wise people can see past the denialism of the possibility of AGW, and your pretend new world order prison camps, as well.
Ah, it is nice to see that you have graduated to admitting the "possibility" of AGW. I admit to the possibility of AGW- always have. In fact, I've gone so far as to admit that it is a compelling theory, and we should probably get started testing the hypothesis. My problem is with people that think we have. We haven't. We haven't even begun to credibly test the theory.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Climate
Jan 25, 2015 1:03:57 GMT -5
Post by EVT1 on Jan 25, 2015 1:03:57 GMT -5
And what was that you posted on the other thread? Nope- nutball.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Climate
Jan 25, 2015 8:45:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by zibazinski on Jan 25, 2015 8:45:52 GMT -5
Wish some of that global warming would come to the Midwest.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 25, 2015 12:41:09 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2015 12:41:09 GMT -5
Wish some of that global warming would come to the Midwest. give it time. it will.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Climate
Jan 25, 2015 14:09:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by zibazinski on Jan 25, 2015 14:09:43 GMT -5
While I'm still stuck here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 9:34:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Jan 29, 2015 14:56:46 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 14:56:46 GMT -5
Wish some of that global warming would come to the Midwest. give it time. it will. And there is no way economically feasible to stop it. Large, very large, controllable reflectors in orbit would work.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Climate
Jan 29, 2015 23:48:40 GMT -5
Post by b2r on Jan 29, 2015 23:48:40 GMT -5
It may be too late! Things are heating up around Phoenix!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 0:43:42 GMT -5
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 0:43:42 GMT -5
And there is no way economically feasible to stop it. Large, very large, controllable reflectors in orbit would work. Imagine we wanted to reflect a hundredth of 1% of the incident solar radiation on Earth. At any given time, 2.6 ×10 8 km 2 of the Earth's surface is being irradiated, hence assuming our reflectors were totally opaque, we'd need 2.6 ×10 4 km 2 worth of reflective material in total (hurtling around above us at several thousand kilometers per hour so to remain perpetually between Earth and the Sun). Let's assume we could get away with a reflective membrane 500 micrometers thick, which is ridiculously optimistic given the stresses such membrane would be under, but we'll suppose that some kind of super alloy or super polymer is discovered in the near future to make things work. Simple geometry then tells us that a minimum of 13 million cubic meters of material would need to go up per generation of reflector. If we suppose this material had the density of a light metal (say, aluminum), at 2,700 kg/m 3, we're therefore looking to port 35.1 billion kilograms worth of material into the stratosphere. For reference, the heaviest payload ever ported into outer space by shuttle was roughly 25,000 kg. Or in other words, barring the existence of a space elevator (which i) is still in the early stages of pipe dreamery, ii) could probably only support payloads of a few hundred kilos, and iii) wouldn't solve the problem of how to accelerate the material to a relative velocity of 2,000 km/h once in outer space), getting the first generation of solar reflector material into outer space would require a minimum of 1.4 million shuttle launches, or roughly 11,000 times as many Shuttle launches as NASA has conducted since 1969. The density of carbon, silicon, etc. is only slightly less than aluminum, hence switching materials really doesn't help us. If we decide not to be so optimistic, we must assume that some sub-100 percentage of material actually makes it into space, deploys properly, lasts to its full expected lifetime, etc., etc., and the numbers multiply accordingly. The prospect of controllable reflectors with moving components, scaffolding, and electronic equipment would easily double the total weight and half the expected lifetime of any reflector array. To top it all off, I don't know that blocking 0.01% of the incident solar radiation on Earth would have any meaningful, positive impact on climate. Especially if we have to launch 1.4 million space shuttles every few years to make it happen. Hence in that regard: no, no very large, controllable reflectors in orbit would not work. But damned if some politician on the take from the rocket scientists' union won't propose it before 2020.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 9:34:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 12:23:49 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 12:23:49 GMT -5
And there is no way economically feasible to stop it. Large, very large, controllable reflectors in orbit would work. Imagine we wanted to reflect a hundredth of 1% of the incident solar radiation on Earth. At any given time, 2.6 ×10 8 km 2 of the Earth's surface is being irradiated, hence assuming our reflectors were totally opaque, we'd need 2.6 ×10 4 km 2 worth of reflective material in total (hurtling around above us at several thousand kilometers per hour so to remain perpetually between Earth and the Sun). Let's assume we could get away with a reflective membrane 500 micrometers thick, which is ridiculously optimistic given the stresses such membrane would be under, but we'll suppose that some kind of super alloy or super polymer is discovered in the near future to make things work. Simple geometry then tells us that a minimum of 13 million cubic meters of material would need to go up per generation of reflector. If we suppose this material had the density of a light metal (say, aluminum), at 2,700 kg/m 3, we're therefore looking to port 35.1 billion kilograms worth of material into the stratosphere. For reference, the heaviest payload ever ported into outer space by shuttle was roughly 25,000 kg. Or in other words, barring the existence of a space elevator (which i) is still in the early stages of pipe dreamery, ii) could probably only support payloads of a few hundred kilos, and iii) wouldn't solve the problem of how to accelerate the material to a relative velocity of 2,000 km/h once in outer space), getting the first generation of solar reflector material into outer space would require a minimum of 1.4 million shuttle launches, or roughly 11,000 times as many Shuttle launches as NASA has conducted since 1969. The density of carbon, silicon, etc. is only slightly less than aluminum, hence switching materials really doesn't help us. If we decide not to be so optimistic, we must assume that some sub-100 percentage of material actually makes it into space, deploys properly, lasts to its full expected lifetime, etc., etc., and the numbers multiply accordingly. The prospect of controllable reflectors with moving components, scaffolding, and electronic equipment would easily double the total weight and half the expected lifetime of any reflector array. To top it all off, I don't know that blocking 0.01% of the incident solar radiation on Earth would have any meaningful, positive impact on climate. Especially if we have to launch 1.4 million space shuttles every few years to make it happen. Hence in that regard: no, no very large, controllable reflectors in orbit would not work. But damned if some politician on the take from the rocket scientists' union won't propose it before 2020. Out of all the posters that are members, you were one of the last ones expected to bite on that "foray into the ridiculous" statement. What I need is someone to exlain how the temperature rise predicted by global warming proponents/scientists is possible by carbon emission causation. If one draws a sphere around the earth and its atmosphere , Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff specifies the mean temperature over that sphere as a function of the five millionths of the sky subtended by the sun at around 6000k and the all the rest at near 0 . It works out that objects in our orbit are constrained to be about 1%21 the temperature of the sun . It is a mistaken notion that average Absorptivity=Emissivity ( gray value ) will affect that ratio . A couple of major points : Lumped earth/atmosphere temperature is linear with sun temperature . Any nonlinearities within this envelope must cancel by this boundary . We are about 8c warmer than a uniform gray body in our orbit . Any discussion of “runaways” and “feedbacks” macht nichts . The SB/K equation has held up to at most a few percent of earth/sun temperature ratio . The idea that we are at some particular ratio where some nonlinearity occurs is non-sensical . It’s useful to keep in mind that the total change in temperature we’ve seen a century is only about 1%300 = 0.33% . I’m delighted that the sun is that constant . cosy.com/views/warm.htm
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 14:49:38 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 30, 2015 14:49:38 GMT -5
your lack of imagination is impressive.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 14:58:18 GMT -5
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:58:18 GMT -5
Imagine we wanted to reflect a hundredth of 1% of the incident solar radiation on Earth. At any given time, 2.6 ×10 8 km 2 of the Earth's surface is being irradiated, hence assuming our reflectors were totally opaque, we'd need 2.6 ×10 4 km 2 worth of reflective material in total (hurtling around above us at several thousand kilometers per hour so to remain perpetually between Earth and the Sun). Let's assume we could get away with a reflective membrane 500 micrometers thick, which is ridiculously optimistic given the stresses such membrane would be under, but we'll suppose that some kind of super alloy or super polymer is discovered in the near future to make things work. Simple geometry then tells us that a minimum of 13 million cubic meters of material would need to go up per generation of reflector. If we suppose this material had the density of a light metal (say, aluminum), at 2,700 kg/m 3, we're therefore looking to port 35.1 billion kilograms worth of material into the stratosphere. For reference, the heaviest payload ever ported into outer space by shuttle was roughly 25,000 kg. Or in other words, barring the existence of a space elevator (which i) is still in the early stages of pipe dreamery, ii) could probably only support payloads of a few hundred kilos, and iii) wouldn't solve the problem of how to accelerate the material to a relative velocity of 2,000 km/h once in outer space), getting the first generation of solar reflector material into outer space would require a minimum of 1.4 million shuttle launches, or roughly 11,000 times as many Shuttle launches as NASA has conducted since 1969. The density of carbon, silicon, etc. is only slightly less than aluminum, hence switching materials really doesn't help us. If we decide not to be so optimistic, we must assume that some sub-100 percentage of material actually makes it into space, deploys properly, lasts to its full expected lifetime, etc., etc., and the numbers multiply accordingly. The prospect of controllable reflectors with moving components, scaffolding, and electronic equipment would easily double the total weight and half the expected lifetime of any reflector array. To top it all off, I don't know that blocking 0.01% of the incident solar radiation on Earth would have any meaningful, positive impact on climate. Especially if we have to launch 1.4 million space shuttles every few years to make it happen. Hence in that regard: no, no very large, controllable reflectors in orbit would not work. But damned if some politician on the take from the rocket scientists' union won't propose it before 2020. Out of all the posters that are members, you were one of the last ones expected to bite on that "foray into the ridiculous" statement. What I need is someone to exlain how the temperature rise predicted by global warming proponents/scientists is possible by carbon emission causation. If one draws a sphere around the earth and its atmosphere , Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff specifies the mean temperature over that sphere as a function of the five millionths of the sky subtended by the sun at around 6000k and the all the rest at near 0 . It works out that objects in our orbit are constrained to be about 1%21 the temperature of the sun . It is a mistaken notion that average Absorptivity=Emissivity ( gray value ) will affect that ratio . A couple of major points : Lumped earth/atmosphere temperature is linear with sun temperature . Any nonlinearities within this envelope must cancel by this boundary . We are about 8c warmer than a uniform gray body in our orbit . Any discussion of “runaways” and “feedbacks” macht nichts . The SB/K equation has held up to at most a few percent of earth/sun temperature ratio . The idea that we are at some particular ratio where some nonlinearity occurs is non-sensical . It’s useful to keep in mind that the total change in temperature we’ve seen a century is only about 1%300 = 0.33% . I’m delighted that the sun is that constant . cosy.com/views/warm.htmI thought you were being serious. Sorry. I'll have to read the article when I have time, @jma23. My understanding of AGW theory is that carbon dioxide absorbs the infrared wavelengths of light predominantly scattered from the ground and doesn't typically re-radiate them, causing an increase in temperature. Water vapour does the same thing, but the atmospheric concentration of water is so great that it apparently isn't susceptible to long-term trends.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 14:59:23 GMT -5
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:59:23 GMT -5
your lack of imagination is impressive. Well I was thinking about genetically engineering dragons that could burn carbon dioxide out of the sky, and we could all fly around on them and...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 9:34:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 14:59:46 GMT -5
It took them only 1 day to back peddle. Blindly believing announcements without question is coming to an end as the public in general becomes more educated on the subject. The hysteria continues to be eliminated as the climate discussion continues into the realm of hard science. I've noticed most discussions on this subject are now only taking place in meteorological/physics sites. As I've said for years now. The physics of energy transfer will answer all questions on the theory of global warming.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 9:34:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 15:25:27 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 15:25:27 GMT -5
Out of all the posters that are members, you were one of the last ones expected to bite on that "foray into the ridiculous" statement. What I need is someone to exlain how the temperature rise predicted by global warming proponents/scientists is possible by carbon emission causation. If one draws a sphere around the earth and its atmosphere , Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff specifies the mean temperature over that sphere as a function of the five millionths of the sky subtended by the sun at around 6000k and the all the rest at near 0 . It works out that objects in our orbit are constrained to be about 1%21 the temperature of the sun . It is a mistaken notion that average Absorptivity=Emissivity ( gray value ) will affect that ratio . A couple of major points : Lumped earth/atmosphere temperature is linear with sun temperature . Any nonlinearities within this envelope must cancel by this boundary . We are about 8c warmer than a uniform gray body in our orbit . Any discussion of “runaways” and “feedbacks” macht nichts . The SB/K equation has held up to at most a few percent of earth/sun temperature ratio . The idea that we are at some particular ratio where some nonlinearity occurs is non-sensical . It’s useful to keep in mind that the total change in temperature we’ve seen a century is only about 1%300 = 0.33% . I’m delighted that the sun is that constant . cosy.com/views/warm.htmI thought you were being serious. Sorry. I'll have to read the article when I have time, @jma23. My understanding of AGW theory is that carbon dioxide absorbs the infrared wavelengths of light predominantly scattered from the ground and doesn't typically re-radiate them, causing an increase in temperature. Water vapour does the same thing, but the atmospheric concentration of water is so great that it apparently isn't susceptible to long-term trends. If you have the time this blog is actually a more comprehensive read than the summary given on the CoSy site. scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/24/planck-stefan-boltzmann-kirchhoff-and-lte/ Ice core records going back 1 million years show carbon dioxide increases lag temperature increases. Water vapor overlaps the same parts of the narrow IR light spectrum that carbon dioxide also absorbs. One reason the nights low temperature can't go lower than the current dewpoint. Nasa's spectragraphs show the earths carbon dioxide is already saturated. It can't hold more and more energy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 15:50:23 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 30, 2015 15:50:23 GMT -5
your lack of imagination is impressive. Well I was thinking about genetically engineering dragons that could burn carbon dioxide out of the sky, and we could all fly around on them and... just out of curiosity, what do you think the impact of a nuclear war would be?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 9:34:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 16:13:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 16:13:31 GMT -5
Well I was thinking about genetically engineering dragons that could burn carbon dioxide out of the sky, and we could all fly around on them and... just out of curiosity, what do you think the impact of a nuclear war would be? If enough nuclear weapons are detonated, humans won't be worrying about global warming any more.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 17:57:56 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 30, 2015 17:57:56 GMT -5
just out of curiosity, what do you think the impact of a nuclear war would be? If enough nuclear weapons are detonated, humans won't be worrying about global warming any more. I was referring to global mean temp. want to try again?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 18:14:33 GMT -5
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 30, 2015 18:14:33 GMT -5
Well I was thinking about genetically engineering dragons that could burn carbon dioxide out of the sky, and we could all fly around on them and... just out of curiosity, what do you think the impact of a nuclear war would be? Bad...but just think of how many broken windows would result!
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 18:23:15 GMT -5
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 30, 2015 18:23:15 GMT -5
I'll have to read the article when I have time, @jma23. My understanding of AGW theory is that carbon dioxide absorbs the infrared wavelengths of light predominantly scattered from the ground and doesn't typically re-radiate them, causing an increase in temperature. Water vapour does the same thing, but the atmospheric concentration of water is so great that it apparently isn't susceptible to long-term trends. The 'key' to AGW is the feedback amplification, increased CO2 ends up doing some warming but caused more water vapor that does the actual major warming. And it appears that the amplification has been grossly over estimated. The thing is, man made global warming is probably true, man has an impact on the climate, however, it actually doesn't really appear to be too bad, and certainly doesn't justify spending trillions of dollars, especially since there are other environmental problems that are real and fixable that have been moved to the bottom of the list. All of the models have a range of warming (actual warming has been below the bottom of a lot if not most of them) but alarmist only focus on the very high end taking the impact from the worst case and trying to use that as justification for spending money. They also over value negatives and under value positives of higher temperatures and increased CO2. Even the so called consensus (such that it is) really only says "yes, AGW is more likely than not", not it will be the end of mankind.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 21:05:41 GMT -5
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 30, 2015 21:05:41 GMT -5
It took them only 1 day to back peddle. Blindly believing announcements without question is coming to an end as the public in general becomes more educated on the subject. The hysteria continues to be eliminated as the climate discussion continues into the realm of hard science. I've noticed most discussions on this subject are now only taking place in meteorological/physics sites. As I've said for years now. The physics of energy transfer will answer all questions on the theory of global warming. The government will regulate the internet and that will be the end of it. They're going to pass net neutrality or something equally as onerous and that'll be it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 21:06:42 GMT -5
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 30, 2015 21:06:42 GMT -5
I'll have to read the article when I have time, @jma23. My understanding of AGW theory is that carbon dioxide absorbs the infrared wavelengths of light predominantly scattered from the ground and doesn't typically re-radiate them, causing an increase in temperature. Water vapour does the same thing, but the atmospheric concentration of water is so great that it apparently isn't susceptible to long-term trends. The 'key' to AGW is the feedback amplification, increased CO2 ends up doing some warming but caused more water vapor that does the actual major warming. And it appears that the amplification has been grossly over estimated. The thing is, man made global warming is probably true, man has an impact on the climate, however, it actually doesn't really appear to be too bad, and certainly doesn't justify spending trillions of dollars, especially since there are other environmental problems that are real and fixable that have been moved to the bottom of the list. All of the models have a range of warming (actual warming has been below the bottom of a lot if not most of them) but alarmist only focus on the very high end taking the impact from the worst case and trying to use that as justification for spending money. They also over value negatives and under value positives of higher temperatures and increased CO2. Even the so called consensus (such that it is) really only says "yes, AGW is more likely than not", not it will be the end of mankind. There actually isn't even a correlation, let alone a cause and effect, of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures. They're just not connected.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 21:07:13 GMT -5
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 30, 2015 21:07:13 GMT -5
The culprit behind the warming trend is in all likelihood, the sun.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 30, 2015 21:08:58 GMT -5
just out of curiosity, what do you think the impact of a nuclear war would be? Bad...but just think of how many broken windows would result! Easy on broken window theory- that's how I earn my living. I spent the night with an overturned truck on I-95 because nobody could go do it and I had to keep the client happy. That's the trouble with living the dream of being my own boss- I work together intimately with the boss and he's an mfer.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 22:07:41 GMT -5
Post by EVT1 on Jan 30, 2015 22:07:41 GMT -5
The government will regulate the internet and that will be the end of it. They're going to pass net neutrality or something equally as onerous and that'll be it. You should hope they do- net neutrality is the core feature of a free internet. But if you call that onerous.......Hate freedom much?
So tell me this- If I pay for a 50MB internet connection what gives the ISP the right to throttle down that connection to websites it doesn't like, that compete with some of theirs, or that fail to pay what boils down to extortion? What side are you on- the freaking broadband monopolies? You are really going to hitch you wagon to Comcast and what they want? The anti-competition people? The people getting laws passed to keep others out of the game? The people that want us to pay twice what other countries pay for internet access for half the service- like we do with health care?
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 23:03:47 GMT -5
Post by b2r on Jan 30, 2015 23:03:47 GMT -5
The government will regulate the internet and that will be the end of it. They're going to pass net neutrality or something equally as onerous and that'll be it. You should hope they do- net neutrality is the core feature of a free internet. But if you call that onerous.......Hate freedom much?
So tell me this- If I pay for a 50MB internet connection what gives the ISP the right to throttle down that connection to websites it doesn't like, that compete with some of theirs, or that fail to pay what boils down to extortion? What side are you on- the freaking broadband monopolies? You are really going to hitch you wagon to Comcast and what they want? The anti-competition people? The people getting laws passed to keep others out of the game? The people that want us to pay twice what other countries pay for internet access for half the service- like we do with health care?
Comcast supports net neutrality!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Climate
Jan 30, 2015 23:50:03 GMT -5
Post by EVT1 on Jan 30, 2015 23:50:03 GMT -5
Comcast supports net neutrality! I know right Have to admire them though.
I want PBP on record- my prediction another drive by posting.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Climate
Jan 31, 2015 0:07:01 GMT -5
Post by EVT1 on Jan 31, 2015 0:07:01 GMT -5
At least we agree that Comcast supporting net neutrality is a joke
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Climate
Jan 31, 2015 0:34:24 GMT -5
Post by b2r on Jan 31, 2015 0:34:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 9:34:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 7:23:54 GMT -5
If enough nuclear weapons are detonated, humans won't be worrying about global warming any more. I was referring to global mean temp. want to try again? Too many variables. Not possible to model.
|
|