Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate 249
New submitter dywolf writes: NASA-run Operation IceBridge has been monitoring and mapping ice sheets for the past eight years. They develop these maps in 3D using laser equipped aircraft to measure ice thickness. As glaciers reach the coast, they begin to accelerate, which causes crevasses to appear, which are essentially stretchmarks in the glacial strata. While a natural part of glaciers as they travel to sea, the glaciers of Greenland have increased in speed by 30% in the past decade. Jakobshavn Isbrae is Greenland's fastest glacier, and is now moving four times faster than it did 20 years ago.
So... (Score:3, Funny)
Must resist ex-wife joke......
Re: (Score:2)
When something starts to go down hill faster, stretch marks occur? Must resist ex-wife joke......
Yeah! Being divorced sucks! I wish I was a widower!
Re: (Score:2)
Being divorced is awesome, you just wish she would get off her ass and work so you didn't have to support her with alimony anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Being divorced is awesome, you just wish she would get off her ass and work so you didn't have to support her with alimony anymore.
It was actually a joke I heard on TV last night that made me laugh - "I wish I was a widower", i.e. "I wish she was dead"
Black Ice (Score:2)
Those glaciers look very sooty, does anyone know how much of that is man made from coal and diesel pollution?
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you ever seen a snow-covered parking lot get the snow plowed into piles, and then watch those piles melt away, becoming more and more "sooty", as you put it?
It's sediment gathered up in the glacier when it was forming, over a long period of time. As it melts, the sediment becomes more concentrated because it stays put while the water runs away.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a valid question, we've burned enough fossil fuels to the point were the amounts of CO2 we have put out would cover the entire globe in a blanket of co2 three foot high, so why is it so hard to believe that with that 3foot of co2 was also a fair bit of soot to go with it, we are burning about 7,000,000,000 tonnes of coal every year, that's a lot of smog and soot.
Re: (Score:2)
While sediments *are* gathered up by glaciers as they move, the sediments are gathered at the bottom of the glaciers...unless you are proposing some mechanism for moving the sediments from the bottom to the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Black Ice - yes (Score:2)
It's actually Glacier poop! It has no where to go so it drags it along with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a study dedicated to finding that out: http://darksnowproject.org/ [darksnowproject.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, a proper answer not silly pointless guessing.
I'M SHOCKED (Score:2)
Stretch marks... on a stretched material?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to the rest of us that whiny ACs and climate deniers who provide no evidence probably have their own political agenda.
Got facts? Provide 'em.
Got innuendo? Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any proof that he "wants to micromanage everyone's lives"?
Good News .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It looks like the scientists of NASA's biggest agenda is to protect this planet, why would you think otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL not surprised anyone hides behind AC on this.
The gloom and doomers are notably brittle, the only things they dislike more than unbelievers are unbelievers with legitimate points.
If you want empirical evidence of this, just post a list of failed predictions from the warming crowd.
Here's a starter for you
https://wattsupwiththat.files.... [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So... There's no global warming because you start your graph on a unusually warm year, use a satellite derived value, and one that measures the estimated temperature of the lower troposphere?
That's three strikes against your example graph already, and I barely had to look at it.
If we look at the surface temperature average, like HADCRUT4 [woodfortrees.org], there's clearly warming even if we start with your cherry-picked start point. The trend is much more pronounced if we use a 30 year graph [woodfortrees.org].
Heck if we use a 30 year RSS gra [woodfortrees.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Try the 2000 year graph
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and btw 57% of the man made co2 was put in the atmosphere in the 18 year period
So bs on you ?
Re: (Score:2)
In response to climate change, Elon Musk made a point to make cool electric cars. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, some people have refrained from taking planes and are using their cars if they don't really have to. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, people have chosen to select energy suppliers that provide 'green' energy. Millions of people died.
At this rate of millions dying, we soon will have not enough people to put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the
Re: (Score:2)
(Never mind that lack of action on climate change will probably cost billions of people their lives while doing nothing to help the planet. But what do results count as long as your intentions are good?)
You people are sickening.
FTFY
-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm usually not one to ad hominem by source, but seriously... slate.com? The whole site is a political screed. But, it gets worse...
You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific -or- academic.
The one academic link [ucar.edu] points to a summary on UCAR, from 2007(!?), that contains exactly one pretty chart, but *no data* to back it up (or even a link to said data.) If someone finds a link to hard data in any of this mess, please let me know. Meanwhile, it should be noted that one of UCAR's missions is literally "Engaging in effective advocacy."
The one scientific link [nasa.gov], to a NASA project site, tells the actual story. the TL;DR is that most of what they saw was routine, but two small areas got their attention... and they didn't measure those areas with anything useful, but instead literally used:
If you're going to link to something as backup for a story, how about you make it an article that contains some fact, and not an alarmist screed which supports its premise with a series of blind alley links, only one of which eventually leads to something useful... and that useful thing isn't even all that scientific?
Seriously - if you want less skeptics on the subject, it would help if you provided something more than blind assertion by a university-affiliated advocacy group, and what one guy did with his little handycam...
Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific -or- academic.
thats 2 more than the deniers usually produce, they usually link to denial blog sites.
Seriously - if you want less skeptics on the subject,
There is nothing wrong with sceptics, its the deniers you want to eliminate
Re: (Score:2)
its the deniers you want to eliminate
Good grief. I think the word you're searching for is "convince". And even that is dubious, at least based on how I see the term "denier" indiscriminately used in the real world. Forcing conformity is not how science gets moved forward.
For example, M&M are frequently labeled as "bad" "deniers" who just need to be quiet and go away. But in fact, they have contributed insightful criticisms to the field, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something. There's a fair amount of noise on climateaudit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no convincing a true climate science denier. They are ideologically incapable of being convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Touche. Nevertheless the majority of scientific evidence continues to support my side of the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Touche. Nevertheless the majority of scientific evidence continues to support my side of the issue.
That may be true. However, I dispute that carbon sensitivity estimations based on computer simulations and projections should be considered scientific evidence, nor taken particularly seriously until and unless they are verified from Mother Nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Dispute all the climate sensitivity estimations you want. At the rate we're going even the lowest estimations just mean it takes a few more decades to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. There is a massive difference between 1C temp raise and 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate sensitivity is defined as the expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2. But the way things are going now we won't stop at a doubling of CO2 so the difference between 1C and 4C is more a matter of time than any absolute limit on temperature rise.
Also I like how you guys always latch on to the bottom of the sensitivity range as if that's the only possible value. As I said in another place why aren't you as skeptical of 1C sensitivity as you are of 5C sensitivity? Time will tell but usually t
Re: (Score:3)
That only applies to people who believed climate change was happening because of Al Gore. If you can find evidence that global warming isn't happening, I'm interested in reading it. Unfortunately, nobody who has tried to respond to my requests in the past has come up with anything that works. (The last guy pointed me to a web page claiming that global warming projections had failed, without giving error bars for the projections. A projection only fails if the real result is outside the error bars.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the biggest problem with this whole debate (at least insofar as slashdot) is illustrated in your post...
Are you specifying "deniers" as in 'deniers of Anthropogenic Climate Change', or as in 'deniers or climate change' (the latter noticeably minus the human component)?
It's something I find disturbing... I'll explain a bit: Most of the alarmist crowd seem to hide behind that lack of distinction up there when advocating their views. To be fair, sadly, so does the media - especially the mainstream medi
Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, I draw the line with some basic facts and basic physics. If you disagree with those, I would say that you're in denial, and to have a rational discussion is as likely to have a rational discussion with a Young Earther on geology. This basic fact is that there is anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. We had a lot of CO2 captured in the soil of the earth, and we've put it in the atmosphere. If you want to dispute that, there's no helping you, you are in denial. Second is a basic bit of physics: with increased CO2 there is increased retention of heat -- given all else being equal. This is the greenhouse effect. If you dispute that, I would like to urge you to create a greenhouse and observe. We can fairly accurate estimate what increase in warmth we can expect with increase in CO2 concentration. Again, disregarding all other factors such as heat sinks and many of the things that make climate modelling so difficult. This is a highly idealized physical theory that cannot be blindly applied to climate, yet it establishes one important thing: CO2 is a forcing term in the earth's atmosphere by its ability to capture heat. And we can very exactly compute how much heat it captures, and boy, are we in trouble!
If you accept those two things, it might be worth having a discussion about climate change. We, as humans, have introduced a forcing term in the climate that can be expressed as an additional amount of energy that is retained in the atmoshpere, and we are now trying to establish the actual effects. It is fine to be sceptic about some of the results, but honestly, you should also consider the possibility that some of those models are right. Just dismissing them is not an option, as the idealized model already predicts massive trouble. You would have to explain how this is NOT a problem. Claiming ignorance won't help you here, as you are arguing that many knowledgeable people are basically wrong.
The third breed of denier/sceptic is the 'anti-alarmist'. They hate the discussion about what to do about climate change and are denying the science in order to derail the discussion. A fair person would examine the actual ideas, and propose a weighted argument about the costs of the ideas versus the actual uncertainty in the rate of change we're experiencing. A denier just denies the science.
Finally, there is the bona fide sceptic. Somebody that has read up on the subject, has found some major issues, and is busy keeping his peers (because he is climate scientist by now) honest. Some of them exist (people know them by name), and although many don't agree with them, the are fairly well respected.
So, what type are you: the 'young-earth' equivalent of the denier that cannot understand logic and science, the lazy sceptic that does understand a bit of science but cannot be bothered to actually read up on it, or the political activist that denies the science because he hates his policial adversaries, or a scientist that has some informed sceptical point of view? You seem to be a mix of the first three. A bit more honest than most, but still pretty deluded in your reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about the CO2 / H2O vapor positive feedback coefficient.
CO2 alone is not a significant greenhouse gas. To make it a problem they have to posit a positive feedback from CO2 to temp to H2O vapor to more temp etc etc.
Climate scientist are happy to pull large feedback coefficients from dark places (this is where the range of projections come from). Some have seriously put forward such high coefficients that the first exhale would inevitably make earth Venus. We mock them for this, you defend them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also because of the heating up. If we're putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 is a forcing greenhouse gas (water is a greenhouse gas, but self-regulating so it can't force a change), and the temperature is going up (and those three hypotheticals are indeed true), then it seems to me that AGW is the obvious conclusion, and anybody who thinks it isn't happening has some explaining to do.
Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? (Score:2)
Albedo? Do you even know what that word means? You do realize the ice is melting, exposing more dark ocean and earth and accelerating the retention of heat?
And Venus is your example of a self correcting mechanism? A planet with an surface temperature of nearly 900ÂF thanks to its CO2 atmosphere?
Please tell me you're actually mocking idiots that make those kinds of statements and l just missed the joke. ....
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah scientists believe in facts.... Just like the scientists that still believe man evolved from apes.... No proof yet - no "missing link" - total BS! just like everyone else knows.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, when you have a complicated feedback relation it's not quite clear what "*primarily*" means. Often there are threshold effects, and it is, indeed, the last straw that breaks the camel's back, because that's what pushes things past the threshold into a region where amplification happens rather than decay.
Re: (Score:3)
Skepticism is denying that the subject at hand has been sufficiently verified.
The idea that all "deniers" ignore all evidence is often used to form strawman arguments.
Re: (Score:3)
Skepticism is denying that the subject at hand has been sufficiently verified.
No, it isn't. Skepticism is reserving judgement on an issue until sufficient factual evidence has been provided to actually make an informed decision.
The idea that all "deniers" ignore all evidence is often used to form strawman arguments.
Of course deniers don't ignore all evidence, they only ignore the evidence that is contrary to their position and accept unquestioningly anything that supports their position.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
So the only thing you have in defence is an ad homenim attack?
This is actually a PERFECT example of such an attack: using an attack on the people making the argument to try to disregard the argument. By the way, the sci
Re: (Score:2)
Where is my "ad hominem" attack supposed to be?
I simply reminded people, in a somewhat sarcastic way, that progressives and the left have a long history of declaring scientific matters as clearcut (though they later turn out wrong) and committing state violence against people who disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Progressives are reactionary socialists who want to return to the politics of the 1930s.
Liberals are opposed to liberty.
That's America's political language today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course anthropogenic CO2 increases lead to "climate change". The debate is about how much, whether it's worth worrying about it, and whether we can do anything about it. From your remarks, it appears you
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
No, all that is necessary is to relegate you to the same status as the chemtrail crowd or the moon landing hoax believers so no one pays any attention to you.
Re: (Score:3)
That works both ways.
Looking around, your side appears to be losing.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish we were losing because that would mean anthropogenic global warming was not going to be a problem. But in the real world the evidence for AGW continues to pile up regardless of how much you convince yourself otherwise. It's not going to go way and you'll be living with it for the rest of your life.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for real world evidence. Note: Output from computer models is NOT real world evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, have you noticed that it's getting warmer around here? Have you noticed that CO2 has gone from about 280ppm to 400ppm since about 1850, and it's a result of human burning of fossil fuels? That CO2 has been a known greenhouse gas for over a century? Is any of this not real-world evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for real world evidence. Note: Output from computer models is NOT real world evidence.
The real world evidence is not in the climate models. They are merely tools to test how well we understand the interactions between the different things that affect climate. You may think they don't do that well but so far the real world observations are still within the 95% confidence range of the climate model output.
Real world evidence is in the surface temperature measurements, the melting of ice, the rise of sea level (from both melting ice and thermal expansion). Real world evidence is in the chang
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't saying that it isn't happening, we are saying that it doesn't matter whether it's happening or not.
Yes, and so will you. And it's not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?
Re: -dafuq, Slashdot? (Score:2)
Congratulations. That is the stupidest thing I've read on the internet today.
The cost of cancer treatment is high; the cost of doing nothing is small. That's the logic you're using. If we attack the problem now, aggressively, we might preserve many of the species that will be adversely affected by rapid shifts in environmental pressures -- ourselves included.
Or are you of the persuasion that believes a magic man in the sky is going to swoop down and save us all?
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck. I think if you're young enough you'll find out how badly wrong you are.
Re: (Score:3)
The IPCC's estimate of action was like .1% of GDP/year, or about $10 billion for the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
Gee, could you decide if you are the persecuted Jews, or if you are called Nazis. Claiming both makes you look stupid squared.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this supposed to be multiple choice, or can we select more than one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sorry that you feel left out. Guess what, this is what it means when the science is settled. It means that people stop caring about your untenable position. The world moves on and we are now looking at the effects of global warming, knowing that it occurs and that we do not know where it will stop. Glaciers are retreating, North Pole is shrinking, and Western Antartica is melting.
In contrast with you, Big Oil got the picture, and quite a few investigations are underway to figure out where the oil is when (not if, when) parts of the North Pole become accessible year around. I'm sure if Big Oil would listens to you they would save the 100s of millions they invest in this, but guess what, they follow the science, not the self-proclaimed sceptics that haven't been able to field a single climate model that explains how anthropogenic CO2 increase will NOT lead to climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry that you feel left out. Guess what, this is what it means when the science is settled.
Not to be trollish, but why is there a voice in my head that chants "A reading from the Gospel According To Doctor Mann..." whenever I see blind assertion that "the science is settled" - used as if it were some sort of magic wand that waves away the need for fact and proof?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not complaining about "consensus", just the use of it as a debate bludgeon. Please learn the difference. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
PS: ...where did Charles Darwin come from? I didn't know he was a climatologist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you talked to a psychologist or psychiatrist about that voice?
Dr. Mann is one researcher. No one researcher gets to say what's true or not. A "scientific consensus" is a short way of saying that a whole lot of smart people have devoted years and years to studying something, and they've almost all come up with the same conclusion. This is typically done by amassing a lot of facts and going through scientific proofs.
The nice thing about science is that you can theoretically go through it yourself
Re: (Score:2)
You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific
It would be nice if they provided sources, but there is nothing really controversial in the article. The article from 2007 [ucar.edu] noted that arctic sea ice was diminishing faster than any models had predicted. That has not changed since 2007: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/rep... [noaa.gov] .
Re: (Score:2)
I'm usually not one to ad hominem by source, but seriously... slate.com? The whole site is a political screed. But, it gets worse...
You could take a little initiative of your own and look in to Operation Ice Bridge [nasa.gov] which is the serious scientific research behind the article. But yes, the article could have pointed there too.
Re: (Score:2)
I came for the stretch marks.
Why do we always have to discuss the manner in the way data is presented when it's pretty well known that Global Warming is changing the poles? Much better to spend our time on "what's next" and "how fast?"
The stretch marks are obviously and indication of movement that is "faster" than what we usually see; and how fast is that? A meter per day?
I'm thinking something the size of New Jersey is going to slip into the ocean in the next few years and "what happens" after that? Do we
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if European governments stopped "doing something about it", Europe could be lowering their CO2 emissions as well.
The problem with the global warming activists isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their idiotic belief that the best way
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the global warming activists isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their idiotic belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
If it wasn't for government action, people would still be hauling coal out of the ground and burning it in the dirtiest (i.e. cheapest) ways. Your "government is bad because it's an axiom" argument is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Without government you eventually devolve into militia rule, slavery, rape, forcible starvation etc.
Perhaps you save much energy from the collapse of the standards of living of 98% of the population, and slave labor is an alternative source of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say anywhere that I wanted no government? I talked specifically about government intervention in the economy.
As for slavery, you really need to learn some history. Slavery is a construct of governments. In the US, slavery only continued to exist until the civil war because state and federal governments guaranteed and enforced property rights in slaves. That's why the fugitive slave act was such a hot issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem ... isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their ... belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
I'm intrigued. What is the best way to accomplish this? I'd advocate a market based solution (but not cap and trade), but even that would require government intervention. Is there a better way?
Re: (Score:2)
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention. The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking, an innovation driven by the market trying to increase the supply of a scarce resource, not government.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation i
Re: (Score:2)
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
They do, if there's no fair market price for pollution.
The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking,
A lucky coincidence. Similar kinds of innovation are responsible for digging up tar sands, which increase carbon emissions per unit of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth
Agreed. We need to proceed with caution. We're better equipped to tackle th
Re: (Score:2)
By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
I'm against using a carbon tax to reduce income and sales taxes because if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon which means you have to increase them again (with all of the politics that involves). Instead what I favor is a dividend where the proceeds of the carbon tax are distributed back in equal shares to all legal residents of the country. That rewards those with a lower carbon footprint and penalizes those with a higher car
Re: (Score:2)
if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon
I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
I suggest you do the math on that. I did, and I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
Could you give me an example? Game theory suggests that this would fail on any large scale.
I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
Assuming you have a good account of undiscovered repositories, which I think is probably unlikely, how do you know that 1000 ppm is quite safe? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know it's safe? You look at Earth's history and see when it was that high last time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
It actually went as high as 1700 ppm during the Cretaceous era; mean global temperatures were about 4C above modern temperatures, but the sun was a few percent weaker. Generally, when mean global temperatures go up, the higher latitudes get warmer, leading to an overall more gentle climate.
The way fossil fuels were deposited and the fact that a lot of them are not recoverable also
Re: (Score:2)
The underground economy and black markets are large scale markets that operate just fine without property rights or government regulation.
I don't see why you think that game theory suggests that "this would fail on any large scale".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the externality problem. The market only accounts for costs that the various players have to pay themselves. If a certain valuable activity requires some sort of fuel, then the market will optimize its consumption based on the direct cost. It will do nothing about any costs borne by anybody other than that particular market actor.
Consider good old-fashioned pollution. A factory owner might run a factory at its economic optimum by spewing pollution all over the place. That comes at a c
Re: (Score:2)
You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
Externalities only exist because government created them. Take water pollution. If the body of water being polluted belongs
Define: Market (Score:2)
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
An economic market is not a place or a thing, it's a set of rules that govern trade (eg: property law). Forget what you have been taught by Fox news and think about it for two seconds, how is a market even possible without property law?
Re: (Score:2)
If you thought about it for two seconds, you could realize that there are plenty of markets that don't even involve property, let alone property law, like, for example, all the markets in services. For many private and commercial transactions, property law is irrelevant because it's effectively enforceable. Black markets and markets in illegal goods or services also function perfectly fine without any kind of property law, an
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the evil government. I did find one government that acts on climate change
http://theconversation.com/beh... [theconversation.com]
Re:stretch marks oh noes :-0 - farts! (Score:2)
It's the farts of EVERY species on the planet that are causing global warming - so everything must die to protect the earth. Oh wait - they already engraved something like that on the "Georgia Guidestones".....
Re: (Score:2)
The global warming religious crowed needs to come to the realization that the earth IS affected by the sun
Yes, that's well understood. But the problem is that the sun has actually slightly decreased in average brightness since the '80s.
Re: (Score:2)
The global warming religious crowed needs to come to the realization that the earth IS affected by the sun
Whoever told you what the "crowed" thinks, was lying to you.