or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

 That's a tough one. I'm not sure the track is very well suited to that exercise, since it has so many transitions of its own. I transferred it to CD and played it on my reference system, and I was unable to hear any significant changes. A time-resolved FFT of the data does not show much variation in bandwidth of the kind that is obvious when comparing lower bitrate music samples, so I the compression artifacts are not very apparent.
Hang on - are you saying that you are not aware of the consequences of significant further warming, if it occurs? The consequences of significant sea level increases, significantly altered rainfall patterns etc.? A few locales might do very well, but the overall global effect would be very bad. I asked previously, so I'll ask again - who are these "powers that be" and why (and how) are they pushing for a global redistribution of wealth?
So all stuff from your fevered imagination then. You evaded all three questions, in favor of more disconnected ranting. Reality doesn't play a big part in your world view, does it?
Just to clarify, which part of "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization" don't you like? And how, exactly, is that going to squeeze out the small players? And how does that compromise privacy?
Sure - but one could write an equally dire list of hypothetical consequences of any approach to energy if done badly, including the potential effects of global warming. It really doesn't further the argument in any meaningful way.
I don't disagree that there are multiple forces at work here in your "Church of Global Warming", but the fundamental science does not derive from them and, however unscientific they may be, they do not change the conclusions of actual climate science. Forget the doom-mongers - either you accept the science or you don't. I'll restate the observation that the majority of scientists, and not just the (potentially biased, in your view) climate scientists, do accept it. And I...
My post was primarily about the perception of science and scientific consensus, not the detail of the climate change debate. However, I mentioned it because, while it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for an ideological disagreement, the skeptic side appears (to me) to have tried to make it one to further their argument. I know that you feel strongly about this, and I'm not sure renewing the debate is going to achieve anything. So just a couple of brief comments: There are...
New Posts  All Forums: