StreetScooby

+1000 +1000 I have long refused to eat lunch at work with other people. I'm lucky because the street expects everyone to eat at their desk. Back to the refusal, it's partly because I'm deaf in one ear, and I cannot keep up with a multiple person conversation in a noisy background. Even worse, my brain "fills in the gap" and I walk away thinking to myself - did he really say that. Much worse is when I actually ask someone "did you really say that". Then as icing on the cake, if they are making noise when they eat, I literally have to excuse myself, and that leaves an indelible mark on the relationship. I did that once many years ago. Someone commented on it, and I've never done it since. To this day, my wife will tell me to go clip my nails because they're "too long". We are all engines of karma

This guy's desktop area is impeccably clean. The company has a "clean desk" policy, and he clearly follows well defined rules, and others, too. We are all engines of karma

Now, this is the kind of answer I'm looking for here. What consequences can I expect when I take my upcoming action? Absolutely spot on here. If he did that, I would definitely wear them in such a manner that we both knew the situation. And that would be politically acceptable. +1 We are all engines of karma

I would literally be fired if I did that, probably that day, most certainly the next day. We are all engines of karma

No, that is definitely not going to work. Where I work, "perception is reality" is a fundamental principle, and these people take themselves very seriously. Yep, that's about where I'm at. And he's going to show up at work with the mouse pad under his mouse. I am not that good, not even close. Ah, this guy takes himself seriously, and rightfully so. He's actually picked up on this. Very impressive to me. He only clacked his mouse today when I walked by... I'm still going to get him a mouse pad, and he will definitely know where it came from It most certainly is not his problem...

That's been going on for years now. How do you think company pensions get funded? We are all engines of karma

He'd just get another one... We are all engines of karma

Yeah, I don't know where this guy is in the hierarchy... Gotta be careful here. Really leaning towards just getting a mouse pad and leaving it under his mouse. He's one of those types that picks up on unspoken things. As long as he doesn't think I one of those unspoken guys who'll shoot you...

Optical mouses need batteries? These are plugged into our machines... We are all engines of karma

I'm usually not that good at such things... We are all engines of karma

Ok, I'm looking for some advice here. Been at a new job for about a month now. There's a guy who sits close by who I can only guess has been the victim of bad mechanical mouses in the past. He works hard, with his mouse, and constantly picks it up and clacks it down, to make it move and stuff. But, it's one of these light-based mouses, and it's pointless for him to do it. And, he does it all day. When he leaves his desk, the place becomes much quieter. Also, he is one of the few people (around 20) in this space who doesn't have a mouse pad. This is starting to drive me nuts. Yes, it bothers me. I'm curious, how would others here deal with this situation. Should I just go get him a mouse pad and leave it under his mouse (I'm in the office much earlier than him)? What happens if he just throws the mouse pad away? What next? All feedback and comments welcomed. We are all engines of karma

I've been digging around in my limited spare time re: this figure, and came across this particular article (amongst many others). It's about what I expected. The "science" regarding the magnitude of the impact is far from "settled". Apparently, even the section in the latest IPCC report written by modellers emphasizes their lack of understanding, and that their estimate of climate sensitivity will most likely decrease going forward. Climate Cultists Has the desperate global warming crusade reached its Waterloo? We are all engines of karma

Where does taking care of yourself, and your family, fit into your philosophy? We are all engines of karma

Can you share some web links (aka, URLS) with us? We are all engines of karma

We're in agreement here. I think it's time for all the other Western Democracies to start funding their own defense. We cannot continue being the policeman of the world. Nuclear is really the only way forward at this point in time, if this issue is truly as serious as it's being sold. I also agree with your phrase "it's a good mid-term solution". There has to be other means of for providing our energy needs that will actually meet them, for the entire planet, as we go forward. Current "renewable" projects are not going to do, IMO. The EPA is out of control, and even the federal courts are telling them that now. We are all engines of karma

Interesting article from the WSJ this week. I'm going to see if I can find the various opinion polls and petitions referred to in this article. The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming? By Joseph Bast And Roy Spencer May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent." Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers. Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor. The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make. In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus. In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters. Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change. Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous. Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing." Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. We are all engines of karma

LOL... especially if they managed to decode those Twitter messages... We are all engines of karma

You've clearly shown that you are indeed a doer. And, you also do your homework.

Congrats on getting into skydiving. I expect, like it has for many of us in this forum, it will be a positive life changing experience for you. First, relax (...breathe). Your instructor will tell you everything you need to know, and he will do so in a way that's not overwhelming. Just do what you are told to do. If you want to do an additional thing, LOOK YOUR INSTRUCTORS IN THE EYE DURING FREEFALL, AND SMILE! Something tells me you won't have any problem doing this. You'll be given a large canopy. It will be very difficult to mess that up. Also, keep in mind that the Germans were putting large masses of troops out of airplanes long before WWII. We put a man on the moon in the 1960s. The equipment works, and it works well. Have fun, and keep us posted!

At least you had the decency to do this in the privacy of your home... We are all engines of karma

Thanks for this reply. Yet another thing I've learned from billvon, which going forward I'm going to condense into my best unix-like acronym YABV A very quick google query on "how much co2 is in the tundra" gave two Scientific American articles within three months of each other that could be viewed as contradictory. I don't view it that way, at all, but rather see it as an evolving scientific understanding: Melting Tundra Releases Carbon Dioxide Quickly Thawing Tundra May Produce Less CO2 From the last article: Having been professionally involved in large scale, highly nonlinear, math modelling of real world phenomenon I can say from experience that real world systems are very complex. Rational climate scientists (no, I'm not talking about Jim Hansen...) I have read consistently point out that there is still a lot we don't know about the climate system on the earth. These guys inspire a lot of confidence in me. I'm thankful they are actively working on this problem. They drive my evolving opinion that global warming is not going to be as disastrous as "alarmists" are claiming. The lower bound on the "climate sensitivity" being published by the IPCC continues to decrease with each report. There are far more important things that our politicians need to solve now, before squandering scarce resources on this issue. I watched Pandora's Promise this morning, and thought it was well done. What do you think of IFR technology, and why did Congress kill it? Are you equating the costs that this adminstration's radical EPA is trying to impose on our society with this? I don't see the comparison as being valid. The common refrain from Democrats these days that the "science is settled", "they don't understand science", etc., are simply specious assertions in this argument, IMO. Their continuing insistence on producing citizens that are not prepared to function as responsible participants in a civilized society, that can take care of themselves and their family, is a huge concern of mine. This will break our society long before global warming will, IMO. We are all engines of karma

Watched this documentary today. I thought it was well done. Thanks for posting it. We are all engines of karma

Where my parents grew up, families were started by 20. But, those folks were in marriages that lasted for the rest of the lives as a general rule. These days, a large fraction of children are born out of wedlock. IIRC, if you eliminate single mother hood families, you eliminate a lot of what is defined as poverty. The one effect of LBJ's "Great Society" has been the destruction of the nuclear family in certain cultures. Liberals think that's a good thing... We are all engines of karma

I understand the difference. Agreed, fully. I know this is not in the order of your reply... My point here is the magnitude of the changes being "advertised" by "alarmists" is far from certain. Do I think that the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by humans is causing change, and will continue to cause change? Yes, I do. Do I think we're going to reach a tipping point on this path, from which there will be no return, anytime soon? No, I don't. The magnitudes being touted by "alarmists" simply don't add up. They are ridiculous, IMO. Do I think that "solutions" being advocated by our government or "alarmists" is going to make any difference in our current path? Absolutely not. It will be a tremendous mis-allocation of resources we simply do not have. If the concerns were real, we would going full blown nuclear as we speak, and bringing the entire world with us. What this is really about, is a massive power grab and wealth transfer, IMO. The more I read, the more that opinion firms. We are all engines of karma

Some more detail on the Lennart Bengtsson "witch hunt"... A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line? I didn't realize this was such a respected guy... The "science" is not settled... Draconian costs and government impositions cannot be justified with the current understanding of climate science. Especially considering that those costs and impositions currently being advocated will not make any difference what so ever.... His interview here is an interesting read, also: Climate Change Debate: A Famous Scientist Becomes a Skeptic We are all engines of karma