Slashdot Mirror

So you don't dispute sea rise has been negative for about six years?

That's a start I guess.

The rest of your argument pretty much doesn't matter after that now does it? You haven't found fault with either the data or the logic here, and merely sought clarification of one part you don't understand.

So in case you don't resistant quite what what you're looking at, here goes.

Because nominal sea was was unchanged for about 8000 years, never went up, that was an error, and six years ago flipped when ice began growing again.

Perhaps I explained that badly in my post. Please allow me to try again.

If you look at the longer term map you can see the sea rise for the past 8000 years was pretty constant. Then, six years ago it began falling. I did not try to make a graph like that with only six years but if you were t try the tool at nasa to get just the last 10 years it gives you this, at least it did with my browser, why don't you try it?

Now, there were spurious reports of "sea rise" in Miami but not, only 50 miles away, in the Florida Keys it was not rising. This was found out to be because Miami was sinking, as was Beijing, by about four inches a year because the silly fucks pumped all the groundwater out. You know how nature abhors a vacuum.

Here's the long history of sea rise:
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Look around 8000 years back. See that? That's the 33,3 century nominal sea rise.

That stopped a few years ago.

Now, if you look at the same time period in the NSIDC graph is ice, you'll see there's a corresponding uptick in sea ice:
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...

Ok? So uptick in ice, seas fall. Got that now?
Nore that carbon dioxide also flarlines 6 years ago.

Here's the stuff on the error in sea rise measurement in Miami:
Here's a picture of it:
http://geologylearn.blogspot.c...
Here's thr article in Nature about Florida.
http://www.nature.com/news/sou...
Here's the article about Beijing.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/73907...

Here's the Co2 flatline stuff:

2015 CO2 has flatlined.
13 March 2015 Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014, marking the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...

2016 CO2 flatlined for a second year in a row.
"The IEA reports that for the second year in a row, the world economy has grown while energy-related CO2 emissionsremained flat."
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

2017 CO2 emissions remain flat for a third year.
IEA finds CO2 emissions flat for third straight year even as global economy grew in 2016 17 March 2017.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/n...

MIT Technology Review also reported the fact CO2 stopped rising as well.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/n...

It doesn't matter what you "believe". The facts are, seas a falling, ice is growing and coe

The biggest danger is that after Brexit we might be able to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, which among other things guarantees freedom of expression.

Realistically this is one of the things the pro-Brexit lobby want. When they talk about "Brussels red-tape" what they really mean is "stuff that prevents us from doing whatever the hell we want" (remember the UK has no written constitution). Theresa May was openly talking about leaving the EHCR even before the Brexit referendum. And Chris Grayling has openly promoted the idea that the EHCR was necessary in the aftermath of World War II but is not necessary (or relevant) today.

Even though the government already curtails freedom of expression, the ECHR limits how far they can go. Once it's gone they will be unrestrained.

I suggest that they will try to spin it in the same way as Trumps tax reforms; i.e. it's a "big win for freedom and the little guy" when it's really the exact opposite.

A lot of transsexuals never have "the surgery", whatever you think "the surgery" is. But they still look like the gender they present as and would be far more at home in a washroom that matches their gender expression than one that matches their genitalia.

For example, the NC law would force this man to use the women's restroom. And it would force this woman to use the men's room.

And what's even more ironic is that while male-to-female transsexuals are pretty much all over the map as far as sexual orientation goes, the vast majority of female-to-male transsexuals are attracted to women, so they've just been thrown a license to party in the ladies' room!

And I utterly despise it. Here's how it works out.

1) They tear down lanes, increasing traffic, and turn them into ugly, overly broad sidewalks and bike lanes that nobody uses,

2) Installing deliberate "baffles" to slow down traffic flow. For example, here on Snorrabraut they have the center lane as an alternating turn lane into every little side street, and the outerlane in each direction also repeatedly turn into turn lanes, so that drivers have to keep alternating between the left and right lanes... with stoplights at each little intersection, of course.

3) "Increasing density" by ripping out all of the parking. This has the lovely side effect of, during busy times, cars that normally would have just parked instead have to circle around for long periods looking for spaces. Great for the environment, that! They usually rip out the parking first and then worry about whether they actually have anything to build there later.

4) "Increasing density" by ripping out public spaces. The hardest one to see go was Hjartatorg, as it had been basically built up and decorated by the city's teenagers, murals covering every square meter of the sides.

5) "Increasing density" by pushing out lower density businesses that people actually enjoy, like entertainment, for high density residential (these days, often hotels or apartments for tourists) and higher profit commercial.

6) "Increasing density" by building "up". The city is covered in tower cranes, each competing to build taller buildings than the last, and all doing their damnedest to block views of the ocean and famous city landmarks.

7) Going hyperaggressive on parking fines. There's even parking meters at the hospital parking lot, and meter readers go around ticketing patients' cars - even emergency room patients. On Menningarnótt they shut down car access to the entire city - which would be fine (it's a big festival), except that they don't provide nearly enough parking even for people at bus stops wanting to catch the buses into the city that they're supposed to take, and then go around ticketing all the cars on the outlots.

8) Building new buildings with insufficient parking, or - latest trend - no parking at all.

And on and on. It's so ridiculous in general, but even more ridiculous here on one of the windiest places on the planet, where winter lasts half a year, where there's almost no sun in the winter, etc.

And for what? So that we can't go places when we're sick or injured? So people can't commute? So that we have to exercise in their proscribed manner rather than our own? (my way to exercise is planting trees and improving my land... screw you, environment!) So that we have to live in little apartments in a city with ever-shrinking public spaces and ever-decreasing view? So that we can use a means of transportation that's 20+ times more likely to get you seriously injured per kilometer than driving, and almost as likely to seriously injure pedestrians? So that we can burn ~40 calories per kilometer biking (significantly more walking) which, at a local average embodied CO2 per food calorie of something of probably around 6g/kcal works out to 240g/km, three times worse than driving alone in a Prius** (even if you lower your baseline metabolism that only saves you about 14kcal/day/kg body mass reduction, far less than you burn to achieve that weight loss**)? Just ignoring the potentially even bigger issues from producing all of that extra food, such as methane emissions, destruction of habitat, algal blooms, pesticide pollution, damm

From http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...

"Saudi Arabia can cope with low oil prices for "at least eight years", Saudi Arabia's minister of petroleum's former senior adviser has told the BBC. Mohammed al-Sabban said the country's policy was to defend its current market share by enduring low prices. "You need to allow prices to go as low as possible in order to see those marginal producers move out of the market," he said."

Eight happy years!

http://www.theweek.co.uk/busin...

"The dramatic fall in the oil price will spur the UK economy to grow faster than had been predicted this year, according to influential forecaster the EY ITEM Club."

Yo-hoo

Agreed, I don't think Putin is funding all or maybe even any anti-franking protests because like you I'm anti-fracking but also most definitely anti-Russian imperialism. However he IS funding the far-right in Europe. See here for example:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/europ...

al Jazeera has a decent article on the reasoning behind it here also:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...

There are other far right parties in the UK that Russia likely has a hand in funding but are much harder to prove. One example is UKIP in the UK. Some years back a Lib Dem MP in the UK, Mike Hancock got in trouble for having an affair with a young girl (less than half his age) because the security services warned she was a Russian spy and a Russian whistleblower (a general) outed her as such also. The MP in question was on a number of British security committees. The girl in question, Katia Zatuliveter, was allowed to stay in the UK because the courts ruled there was not enough evidence of her being a spy. Case closed, end of story. Right?

Fast forward a couple of years, and we get a news story that seems completely unrelated, UKIP announces that it's got a new donor that's defected from the Tories, he donates £100,000 to UKIP. The Tories state that they've no idea who this guy is and investigation into official finances show that the guy was bluffing about having been a major Tory donor, despite claims of having donated over £100,000 to the Tories it seems he'd only ever donated about £20,000. The guy responds by saying he's "offended" by the Tories belittling his donation and ups his UKIP donation to £1million. It seems odd that UKIP and this guy were willing to lie about the scale of relevance he had to the Tories in order to pretend it was a much more major coup than it was, but so what, who cares, what has this got to do with anything?

Well, this little known small fry Tory donor, Arron Banks, defecting to UKIP to become a major political donor is married to none other than a Katia Zatuliveter, the claimed Russian spy who he was married to before, during, and since she "cheated" on him with strategic defence knowledge filled MP Mike Hancock.

All a massive coincidence? Maybe. But given that we know Putin is overtly funding France's far-right national front it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think he might be subversively funding similar far-right parties like UKIP (who have gone out their way to try and pretend they're not far right and are respectable even though their far-right nature shines through when they fuck up almost weekly) in the UK too.

So funding fracking protests? Maybe, probably not. Funding attempts to rip Europe apart? Well we know for a fact it is in some countries, we just don't know quite how far it reaches.

I wondered after the European elections why Europes elite didn't opt to listen to the eurosceptics, and opted to continue on a path of integration rather than giving the eurosceptic view the time of day in light of the amount of support the eurosceptic crowd had gained with it's well funded campaigns across Europe. It didn't make sense that they'd just ignore them altogether, but now I wonder if these guys know full well about all the Russian money being poured into far-right and eurosceptic campaigns then they may well recognise that much of the eurosceptic vote is simply Russian stirred dissent.

All those claims Russia made about the West stirring discontent in the Ukraine rather than it simply being a grass roots campaign for change that's been going on in the Ukraine since at least 2004 with their orange revolution? It seems that whatever Russia is accusing the West of doing, it is most definitely doing itself- even if you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt on some o

Atlantis tsunami theory; land looks to submerge when in fact it's water rushing over it.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/polit...‘found’-spain-11000-years-after-tsunami

This is the dumbest thing. You've been able to renew your tax disc online for years now and the site's always been fine. You don't have to replace you're existing paper disc until it expires so I don't understand how they've taken a functional site, added barely any additional load and made it fall over.

I put it down to many sites saying that anyone can check any cars status on the government's vehicle inquiry service (currently down). Loads of people want to check whether their friends and neighbours cars are legal.

You can't bequeath your ITunes account - it goes when you do.

Most of the big digital providers are very clear on the subject of ownership - it doesn’t belong to you. Purchasing electronic media doesn’t give you the same rights as buying the equivalent books, DVDs and CDs - because you’re buying a lifetime licence to use these digital files rather than a hard, tangible asset.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/prosp...

Selective breeding relies on random changes to DNA. Over the past 60 years, we've accelerated the process through mutation breeding. That involves exposing plant tissues or seeds to radiation or mutagenic chemicals. Many of our most popular crop varietals have been generated this way, and are often grown and cheerfully marketed as 'organic'.

In contrast, genetically engineered plants have been modified at specific points on their DNA, incorporating known sequences of DNA that code for specific desired changes.

Which seems safer to you? A randomly scrambled DNA that, for all anyone knows, also expresses a slow cumulative poison, or a specifically modified DNA that expresses exactly the intended change with no other alterations?

The organic food industry, unable to succeed by running the race better, faster or smarter, now seeks to win by tripping the other runners. The whole anti-GMO effort is without scientific merit, and is simply a calculated money-grab by the organic food industry. Unfortunately, this shambling anti-GMO monster created by the organic food industry is now killing people by the hundreds of thousands.

Considering the massive amount of wiretapping and various info collection, the Boston door to door searches, the cover-ups of Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the face both the presidential candidates cheated in the primaries, Obama in 08, Romney in 12, then Obama again in the actual election, torture in Gitmo and the FBI giving summary executions on US soil, and that's the tip of the iceberg. I think those of use who wear tinfoil have been recently vindicated.

The mosquito would not be missed. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/12525/mosquito-creature-won%E2%80%99t-be-missed

Details Missing from the quoted article is this bit:

The Frenchman, who suffers from epilepsy and drives a specially-modified car that has controls on the steering wheel to operate the throttle and brake, has filed a legal complaint against the vehicle's manufacturer.

Source here.

Unless Renault did these modifications for him, I doubt he has a chance in hell of winning his suit.

I've never seen a car you couldn't force into Neutral even under heavy acceleration.

It's like they had to balance out the stupid lame, half-baked porn filter law they just announced with something that actually made a bit of sense. Although knowing our government as I do, I'll wait until I've seen the small print, before I assume that the headlines are actually in tune with the reality of the proposals.

do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?

Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.

That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.

Hmmm.. this would explain why UK's PM backpedaled on bankers' bonuses.