livendive

Maybe if those citizens with arms weren't killing over 9,000 of their fellow citizens each year with those arms you would have a point. The gun murder rate in the USA suggests that maybe those citizens can't be trusted as much as you seem to think. I wonder what fraction of the gun murders in the US are committed by people legally allowed to own said guns. Personally, I'd like to see all inmates serving time for marijuana released, and a dramatic increase in the conviction and sentencing of felons found in possession of guns. If Jimmy Joe Gangbanger knows he's facing 5 years if caught carrying a gun, he might be a bit more hesitant. I'm currently job-hunting and found a position in Baltimore that looked promising. After a couple minutes of looking around, I found that the city has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, yet the state will not issue concealed carry permits. So much for that job. That got me to wondering though, so I looked a little deeper. In the US, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia are all CCW-free...they don't issue them. Within them, Baltimore, Chicaco, Newark, and Washington all rank in the top 20 for per capita violent crime. "Shall Issue" (excluding mitigating circumstances) and "May issue" (only issue if specific circumstances are met) states are reasonably distributed across the spectrum of violent crime rates in large cities, but "Shall not issue" are all in the top 20. Oh well, those cities weren't high on my list anyhow. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What is the exact line you believe they crossed that qualified them as being on "the other side" (whatever that is)? Did you feel the same about McVeigh & Nichols? And James Holmes? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Funny yet true. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

An entire day of "shelter in place" for Boston and its suburbs plus postponent of MLB and NHL games...this kid takes hide & seek to a whole new level! Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

They have, however, become MUCH more common in the last couple of decades. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Irony bomb: An overwhelming majority of history majors would be classified as "progressives" or "liberals". Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Perhaps, but I don't think so. The statement I'm disputing is that guns are primarily designed to kill people. That's a powerful statement, and quite wrong in my opinion. If that point were conceded, it would follow logically that people purchase guns for the primary purpose of killing people, and that's similarly incorrect. There are many purposes for guns, and the vast majority of guns that are sold are purchased for some purpose other than killing people. Shotguns work great for close quarter home defense, but most people buy them for shooting birds or skeet. Many people own several handguns, but only those used for concealed carry or kept in a nightstand are likely to ever be used to kill anyone. A "range gun" is just that. A .50 Desert Eagle is for killing trucks, not people. A .22 rifle is primarily for killing vermin or small game, or accuracy competitions. I have two guns...a .40 carry gun that my wife is comfortable shooting and that we keep in a nightstand (or on a nightstand, when I'm out of town ). Even though 100% of the rounds we put through it have been on a range, and that will likely remain the case forever, I guess you could argue that there is still a "kill people" aspect to its purpose. My other gun is a scary black gun that is, in my opinion, great fun on the range and a good coyote gun, but that's it. The world would have to change drastically before it would ever be used for killing people. Now for a bit of semantic masturbation: "assault weapon" is a stupid term. The security guards at my work have a purely defensive role. Assault is not in their job description, yet every one of them has an AR. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

A gun shoots bullets like a hammer pounds nails. You are free to decide where to put those bullets and nails...the tools don't care. Are these guns primarily built to kill people? Nope. They're designed to shoot at whatever the competitor is pointing at (hopefully NOT a person) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The only hunting I've done in the last 10 years was for rattlesnake, with a frog jig on a broom handle in one hand, and a .22 revolver loaded with shot in the other. When you're shooting at things dangerously close to your feet, it's nice to know that your steel toed shoes are all the protection you need, and I honestly can't think of any other purpose for .22 shot than shooting things less than 10 or so ft away. Similarly, I have friend who only uses a handgun for bear hunting. He says it's more fun that way. If I remember correctly, this also used to substantially lengthen his season, similar to archery and muzzleloaders. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Disagree. If that were the case, we wouldn't have handguns that range from .22 revolvers to .50 Desert Eagles. The former I've found particularly good for hunting rattlesnakes (loaded with shot). A friend of mine has a .445 super magnum specifically for bear hunting. An overwhelming majority of handguns are fired at relatively non-descript targets, not people. No, the purpose of a handgun is to shoot a projectile, same as a rifle, but in an easier to carry format. Nailguns and staple-guns are designed to shoot nails and staples, not to build houses. For each of these types of guns, the primary purpose of the tool is to launch something in the direction the gun is pointed at a high rate of speed. What it's pointed at is entirely up to the user. A secondary purpose would be something like "paperweight" or "collectible", not "shoot a bullet at something other than a person" or "build a shed". Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

[Reply]And I'm not talking about immediately evacuating X' MSL. It's more about changing long-term land-use planning, building codes, zoning, and considering potential futures when planning infrastructure projects (e.g. if we want fewer CO2 emissions per capita, we should make denser urban areas, restrict suburban sprawl, make mass transit more user-friendly, etc). Right. Decreasing CO2 by increasing populations density (and all the problems it causes - which aren't marginal) leads to other issues. Building up requires energy, as does the energy required to simply transfer things like water up to tall buildings. Problems with disease vectors. And if power ever goes out for a week (plausible) you've now got millions of people without power, meaning no water or food. Some dig city life. Some dig a more pastoral existence. Some people (like me) actually like having a back yard where I can grow some food and have the kids play. Urbanization and "home garden" are not two words that go together. One more thought on this. I'm not talking about draconian measures like razing houses to build apartment buildings. Rather, I mean take the long term land-use planning map and consider ways to make it more sustainable. Take some fraction of the public land on the outskirts of the city and zone it for agriculture, so the city doesn't have to truck in food so far. Designate some for a future water reservoir to accomodate changes in precipitation patterns. Some of the hundreds of square miles of planned single-family home sprawl can be rezoned for business, so people live closer to their jobs. What will the effect of this be? People like you and me who really like having private backyards with gardens and dogs and such will still be able to, but the value of those homes will go up, while the value of multi-family housing (inner city apartment buildings) will go down. Thus, people who prioritize short commutes and are willing to give up a backyard to achieve it will actually be able to afford to, and those of us who prioritize privacy over energy efficiency will have to pay a more realistic cost for doing so. As the market currently exists, the least efficient homes (single-family with a long commute)are the cheapest, while the most efficient (urban apartments/condos) are prohibitively expensive for the middle class. Right now you're free to drive what you want, so long as you accept that you may have to pay more in monthly fuel bills. Why should housing be any different? A related video, somewhat focused on Seattle but the concept is applicable anywhere. It's nearly an hour long, but reasonably well done in my opinion. http://courses.be.washington.edu/Projects/UDP/udp_matthews/udp_matthews.html Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Regulating your CO2 emissions is quite similar to regulating your particulate emissions. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by remediation...in my line of work, it's the repair of past damage to the environment. Do you mean there's a proposal to make normal citizens undertake sequestration projects? Actually, I don't think anyone really minds that a bunch of money will be made on these gadgets. The problem is it will be different people than are currently raking in the billions, and they don't like that. It's not human nature, it's business nature. The purpose of a business is to make money. Anything that restricts that ability is thus deemed bad. This is why environmental protection has to be a function of government...because it's a very rare company that actually recognizes it's in their long-term best interest to act socially and environmentally responsible. See Bunker Hill superfund site...in the 1970's when silver prices were high, there was a fire in the filter house for the smelter in Smelterville. Company execs (I could have sworn it was Sears & Roebuck, but now looks like Gulf Coast) evaluated the cost of shutting down vs the cost of lawsuits if they ran unfiltered. The latter was clearly more profitable, so they created one of the largest Superfund Sites in the country, where family get new yards every couple years with fresh dirt because kid's blood lead levels are so high (and kids like to eat dirt). Clear-cutting, over-fishing, and hapzard waste disposal...all very profitable (or less costly) activities that businesses are prone to without regulation. The fact that you don't mind paying for the gas is noted, however would it be fair for the richest guy on a lifeboat to buy up triple his share of drinking water just because he can afford it? Obviously an extreme example and we're nowhere near that point, but the basic concept can be considered applicable to any finite necessity (and yes, I'm old enough to remember the fuel lines and rationing of the late 70's). Preaching to the choir, as my half acre is one of four that size in my neighborhood, everything else is 1-20 acres and covered with crops and livestock. Again with the remediation thing. I assume you don't just mean reducing emissions? I certainly don't think it's the most important thing. Adaptation is more important to me. Mitigation (emission reduction) is an important but secondary consideration. If it is determined that you are doing something that harms your community, telling you to stop or leave is not the act of a despot, but rather a community leader. Theoretically speaking of course, as a lot of unlikely things would have to happen before I can imagine anything like that. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Dave - how does one test the accuracy of a model or a group of models? One must wait until the raw data is available to either validate or invalidate the results. That will be in about another 70 years. GCMs are hypotheses that are in intial stages of testing that cannot be validated by data from 2080 until we have data from the year 2080. Science is a PROCESS used to determine fact. GCMs are part of that process - "this computer predicts the future will look like x." In the future, the results may be "x minus 7." Or "x plus 3." We just don't know. We have to wait to find out. The accuracy of a climate model, by definition, cannot yet be determined. Although not a perfect solution, retrospective modeling can provide much better confidence in a model or set of models. That is, input a scenario that existed 100 years ago, with a goal of predicting what would happen in 60 years. Run the model and compare outputs to what actually happened. Do this with several models, hundreds or thousands of times each. If they collectively predict the eventual outcome with a reasonable degree of accuracy, you can place substantially more confidence in your forward looking prediction than just designing a model and waiting 60 years to see if it was accurate. That ithis is not considered "viable" is, to me, a problem. ALL options should be on the table. And "no remedial action" can be a mighty fine - even the best - alternative if remediation is to manage an event that is not going to occur. It would be like buying snowplows for Dubai because a model predicts that Dubai may get a foot per year in 2090. It would be wasteful to remediate something that we can't be even 50% certain will happen. Do we start evacuation and relocation of all people who live within a 30 foot above MSL location? Do we start now or later? When do we start? Why 30 feet? Why not 10 feet? Begin condemnations proceedings now? We should start now because we cannot take the chance that the sea won't inundate most of Florida? You are coming from a place that says soending money on resilience and energy independence, etcm, is a good thing. That's opinion. It's not wrong and not right. Opinions may be different. For example, I could see spending that money on road, bridge and maintenance and upgrade of existing infrastructure that makes the world around us safer and more efficient versus directing that money toward systems and technologies that are not yet deomonstrated as efficient. It can get there, and people can make choices of what to buy. There is, in my opinion, nothing virutous about a person taking other peoples' money to spend as that person sees fit. Understandably. It's necessary for a number of things. But when the government is saying "we've got to spend money on these things" it's because the private persons will not. A person who swould design a society with other people's money is not an altruist but an egotist. And a person who supports such spending - if not spending on such things himself - is saying that he or she will only do it with a gun held to his or her head. My view of an ideal society does not match yours or anyone else's. I do not think that my way of doing things works for everybody and I don't think that I should be telling anybody else what to do with his or her life (except my kids). A government doing nothing except, "we don't know whether this beach house will be on the beach in fifty years" has done enough. Let people who think that the ocean won't rise buy the properties and put their money where their mouths are. Let the people who think, "this place will be inundated in a decade" sell her house to someone who doubts it. That's how I see things. I don't buy fuel efficient cars unless they have 5 star safety ratings. That's best for me. What's best for others? That's up to them. I won't obligate you to subsidize a personal tank. You don't obligate me to subsidize an EV. I don't obligate you on that either. Several years ago, Billvon and I had a discussion here on hybrids and their suitability to my rather large quantity of driving (25k miles per year). At the time, the benefits could not justify the additional cost of owning two vehicles. Then I met my wife, we needed two vehicles anyhow, so we got her a Prius. The lease on that is coming up in a few months, and we're considering what we'll replace it with. We still want a vehicle with good fuel economy, however we also want all-wheel drive and enough room for the dogs. We'll probably go with the Subaru Crosstek, but the non-hybrid version. The reason? The hybrid version (unreleased, so based on rumors) will cost like $3k more and only get 3 more mpg. At the current price of gas, that option will not pay for itself in the time we expect to own the vehicle. As for your comment in a more general sense. The purpose of a society (let's call it a city, but the same applies to a state, nation, or planet) is to protect and stimulate the growth of its citizens. If a person is doing something that will have ill effects on the other members of the society or a public resource (like clean air, drinking water, power, etc), it is totally within the purview of the government to regulate that activity. If the state of California says, "New homes must be capable of maintaining a temperature between X and Y without using more than Z kWh per year". If a person wants a house that isn't as energy efficent (and thus likely costs less), they should build it somewhere other than California. You certainly have a right to prioritize a 5-star crash rating over fuel economy, however you must understand that every extra gallon of fuel you purchase is a gallon that is unavailable to the rest of your community. If they decide to place per-capita limitations on fuel consumption, you'll be free to abide by such rules or move. And I'm not talking about immediately evacuating X' MSL. It's more about changing long-term land-use planning, building codes, zoning, and considering potential futures when planning infrastructure projects (e.g. if we want fewer CO2 emissions per capita, we should make denser urban areas, restrict suburban sprawl, make mass transit more user-friendly, etc). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This is where the entire AGW argument lies. The predictions (always couched in "mayl) are such things as, "sea level may rise 3 meters by 2100." This is the same as saying, "sea levels probably won't increase 3 meters." That's how reasonable predictions work (may), however your example isn't particularly accurate of how these predictions really work. Different models predict different things, some more accurate than others depending on the variables. When these various models are combined, the outcome is a bit more complicated, but the accuracy is considerably better defined. See attached. The alternative is no remedial action, and the requests for massive changes are met exactly with massive opposition to even minor changes (see rushmc's and brenthutch's absolute hatred for anything related to fuel efficient vehicles...because making a finite resource last longer is a bad thing?) To simplify things, we can divide our options into 2 paths, either of which can be correct or incorrect. We can do nothing and hope things turn out ok. If we're correct, we'll still have inefficent urban planning, an even more congested transportation network, more energy demand than we can meet (due to population growth), and still be cruising through our finite fossil resources at an unsustainable rate. If we're incorrect, we'll have massive population migration (a signficant percentage of the global population lives quite close to a coast), water-wars, famine, increased natural disaster deaths (storms, heat waves, etc), and substantially increased disease epidemics. Alternately, we can try to adapt to and mitigate the more plausible predictions. If we're correct, we'll substantially reduce (but probably not completely) all the bad things that were previously listed as being outcomes of being wrong with Path A. If we're wrong, we'll have spent a bunch of money making our cities more resilient and energy independent, our transportation networks less congested, and have extended the lifespan of our fossil fuel reserves. Path A leads to a tolerable outcome or an intolerable outcome. Path B leads to a tolerable outcome or a good outcome. It seems to me that Path B wins by a score of 2-1. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Well then your opinion about me is wrong too You've yet to come remotely close to disproving it. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Thus the problem. We have a good 15 years of trend right now that is showing that the relationship (massive increase in ppm of CO2 not coupled with massive increase in temperature) has an exception. Climate science is searching for the missing heat that should be there. I think some more work on alternative forcings is warranted. They are thinking inside the box. One of the articles I mentioned emailing you detailed the uncertainty surrounding clouds. Alternately, Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Rush was asking for temperatures for the entire history of the planet. I said that would be a silly exercise with no point, and posted the best model I can of the temperature over the duration of human civilization...an important timeframe for us humans. I also acknowledged that the last 200 years were unreliable and could be disregarded. My entire point for posting the graph was not the last 200 years, but the preceding 11,000 years. If Rush chooses to ignore those last 200 years (which I presume he will), he can fill the void from some other source. In my opinion, his favorite source is talk-radio (or Exxon funded "expert" Doctors of Philosophy). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

And I very clearly stated, twice, that there was controversy regarding the 19th and 20th century data and they could be disregarded. Feel free to rebut with a more reliable model of global temperatures of the last 10,000 or so years. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You said this earlier in the thread, and I provided a response. Did you not see that? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

If you're not willing to look at the data and rebuttals I provide, this conversation cannot progress. I had to laugh at your CO2science.org link. Three staff members, all with the last name Idso, with phd's in geography, philosophy, and botany, funded by ExxonMobil. Talk about some iron-clad reputations! Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Either you didn't look at the data or you misread it. The temperature data I included does not pre-date humans, and it has only been slightly higher than today. The CO2 data I provided does in fact go back 800,000 years, which puts it well before the existence of men. During that timeframe, there are zero recorded instances of it exceeding today's level. The closest it comes as at the onset of previous interglacials, when it achieved 300 ppm. We're 33% beyond that and climbing. Previous temperature variations were based in part on the earths orbit and axis (see the link I posted about CO2 lagging temperature), and in part on a natural greenhouse effect (ice age atm CO2 mean of 185 ppm, deglaciation atm CO2 peaks around 300 ppm, current atm CO2 about 390 ppm). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

And, as lawrocket stated, the dire predictions are not coming true. Why? Observation and prediction are different activities. We can clearly observe a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and a trend that both are increase. Predicting how those will play out in the future is an inexact science at best due to uncertanties in GHG emissions and other human-related activities as well as in feedbacks (especially clouds, the role of which are not well understood) See http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm Very near our lifetime? The temperature data covers the entirety of human civilization and the CO2 data goes back 800,000 years. Did you actually look at the charts I attached? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

As do I Still waiting for your data on what should be considered normal given the age of this planet I wouldn't hold your breath on that answer. As I already said, it's an inane question. Clearly, global temperature variation has been substantial and has included temperatures not compatible with human life, especially in the earth's infancy. A more meaningful question would be focused on temperature variation during the existence of human civilization, which goes back 10-12 thousand years. If you view the attached graph 11300yr-temp-trend.JPG, you'll see what Marcott et all came up with for the last 11,300 years and published in Science magazine last year. It's a paid subscription, and thus would be wrong for me to copy/paste the entire article, however one image from the supplemental materials shouldn't hurt too much. Also, there is some controversy regarding the most recent (last 200 years) uptick. Feel free to disregard that portion if it doesn't match your talk-radio-formed opinions. The basics are still obvious...variation has generally been in the range of 0.5C from the 4500-5500 BP mean. Next, check out the long-term and short-term CO2/temp correlation images. I know of no rational person who could look at these two charts and conclude there is no correlation between the two variables. Clearly, they are closely related. Finally, watch the following video from NOAA to put current atmospheric CO2 trends in perspective. Clearly, we are venturing into a range not seen by any homo sapiens. Putting this all together. CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization. Blues, Dave OIk well since YOU came in all snotty and snarky 200 years? Your joking, right? His methodology (carbon dating, tree rings, and something to do with plankton) gets less precise in recent times. As I said, you can ignore the last 200 years if you wish. I've not heard of anyone disputing his findings on the preceding 11,100 years. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

As do I Still waiting for your data on what should be considered normal given the age of this planet I wouldn't hold your breath on that answer. As I already said, it's an inane question. Clearly, global temperature variation has been substantial and has included temperatures not compatible with human life, especially in the earth's infancy. A more meaningful question would be focused on temperature variation during the existence of human civilization, which goes back 10-12 thousand years. If you view the attached graph 11300yr-temp-trend.JPG, you'll see what Marcott et all came up with for the last 11,300 years and published in Science magazine last year. It's a paid subscription, and thus would be wrong for me to copy/paste the entire article, however one image from the supplemental materials shouldn't hurt too much. Also, there is some controversy regarding the most recent (last 200 years) uptick. Feel free to disregard that portion if it doesn't match your talk-radio-formed opinions. The basics are still obvious...variation has generally been in the range of 0.5C from the 4500-5500 BP mean. Next, check out the long-term and short-term CO2/temp correlation images. I know of no rational person who could look at these two charts and conclude there is no correlation between the two variables. Clearly, they are closely related. Finally, watch the following video from NOAA to put current atmospheric CO2 trends in perspective. Clearly, we are venturing into a range not seen by any homo sapiens. Putting this all together. CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

- Richard Feynman Agreed, and both sides of this debate are guilty of failing in this regard. Question: If you removed arguments between alarmists and deniers and just looked at peer-to-peer criticism of theories, which side do you think would demonstrate more? My suspicion is that you'd find substantially criticism and review on the alarmist side (in the scientific community, not so much on the social side). Skeptics, on the other hand, seem to jump on board with any argument that even remotely supports their vew. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)