Why extract from the atmosphere? Just use plain old dirty coal mines, but instead of burning it make a battery element out of it. Oh wait, that's how it's done already, and it's obviously evil because... something something Al Gore.
Nobody is dying in Europe, they are dying in a war in the Middle East. Syria is a drought prone region, climate change has nothing to do with the political crisis there.
So you think it is reasonable that scientific researchers are denied raw data making it impossible to replicate findings? You think it is alright to conspire to hide the truth because some people are ignorant? How do you expect verification without replication? Why do you fear the truth being told if your arguments are sound?
Well it goes back to the ultimate question, if mass/energy/momentum is conserved, where did it come from in the first place? If creation of energy is forbidden, then creation itself is also forbidden, therefore there must be a way to create energy.
Noone would be trying to watch this without the Streisand effect. I can't see how anyone could take such a terrible piece of filmmaking seriously. Hell, it doesn't even make fucking sense most of the time, it's just so disjointed and jarring. Blocking it worldwide would be doing humanity a favour.
Pity that 'someone else' tried to, failed, and instead agreed to license the CSIRO technology under royalty agreements, then reneged and failed to pay royalties. Now they have to follow through with that agreement and pay what they were due.
Sure. It's like the grown-ups drive around in real cars while out in the garage the kids argue over who made what on their go-kart whose design they copied from the kid up the street.
No, one guy has interpreted the MS terms to come to that conclusion without explaining why. I can see nothing in the MS terms that would disallow GPL, but I do see terms that explicitly allow GPL as it is an OSI approved license.
Just the one with the most prisoners. And legal bribery of your politicians. And more military than basically the world combined. Yeah, just your average modern utopia.
Why get it when CentOS fits the bill perfectly? Apart from the GP's rationale, it's also helping to build the profile and perception of CentOS if a major CIO advocates it. Congratulations are in order to the CentOS team for their great work, the fact it was even considered let alone requested is a testament to their excellence. Bravo.
So, pray tell, if physicists can't comment on climate science, why is the APS releasing statements about it in the first place, especially ones with such unscientific terms? Nothing in science is incontrovertible, the scientific method requires that any and all theorems can and should be questioned.
Well his other complaint is that somehow the mass of a proton is up for question while climate science is incontrivertable. Either they're both up for grabs, or the scientific method doesn't apply to climate science.
When is it ok to kill a human being? When is it ok to kill a dog? When is it ok to kill a rat? When is it ok to kill a spider? When is it ok to kill an ant?
When you are defending yourself or innocent parties from an existential threat to life.
Calling carbon a pollutant, well mislabelling CO2 as carbon and then calling it a pollutant is far more disingenious. You may as well call the ecosystem the carbonsystem. To say that addition of carbon dioxide to the environment is bad for life on earth relies entirely on 100 year predictions of temperature and has nothing to do with any biological fact.
Well you breath in ~400 ppm CO2 and breath out ~4000ppm CO2, so I guess it's TEN TIMES BACKGROUND LEVELS!!!
It's almost as if every molecule of every living creature contains carbon which was once atmospheric CO2. You - yes YOU - are made of the flesh of the animal made from the fruit of the plant made from the sunlight and CO2. Your entire body is a carbon footprint, a carbon spewing machine. Please turn yourself in to the nearest recycling centre.
There's more reason to question clean energy than that strawman though. Alternatives to gas and coal are expensive and difficult. Realistically solar and wind can only ever provide a fraction of what we need, hydro is regional and situational and has its own environmental issues, as does nuclear, and many such as tidal, thorium and geothermal are a long way from being effective. The easiest way for a western economy to reduce their CO2 output today, right now, is to go nuclear or to build modern coal fired plants which are far cleaner burners than the existing installed base. Both of these options are polictically unpalatable to environmentalists though, so don't expect them to happen anytime soon.
Yep, even skeptics agree that the world has been in a warming trend over the last 160 years, which is about the limit of the instrumental record in most places around the world. Problem is, 85% of mankinds CO2 contributions have happened in only the last 60 years, leaving 100 years of natural warming. All that is apparent is a natural trend continuing that existed before mankind could have possibly influenced events. In any case, CO2 is just one forcing among hundreds, and is easily eclipsed by H20. What's next, a ban on steam? Demonizing CO2, the giver of life, into pollution was the worst mistake the green movement has ever made.
I'm saddened that slashdot is so empty of a real scientific mindset. Since when was reproducing and verifying others experimentation anti-scientific instead of the very bedrock, the foundation of the scientific method?
All of the scenarios in the IPPC AR4 Multi-Model Mean predictions are not calculated as a decadal or centennial number but are calculated monthly. Nobody is averaging any predictions here, they are drawing a statistical trend of observations. The predictions are tracking above reality. Oh, and just so you know, Monckton is a Lord, just not a member of the House of Lords. Try to stick to facts please.
Slashdot Mirror
Why extract from the atmosphere? Just use plain old dirty coal mines, but instead of burning it make a battery element out of it. Oh wait, that's how it's done already, and it's obviously evil because... something something Al Gore.
Convince me you are sane.
How noble and generous of you. It won't restore your reputation one iota, but at least you aren't complete scum of the earth.
Nobody is dying in Europe, they are dying in a war in the Middle East. Syria is a drought prone region, climate change has nothing to do with the political crisis there.
Please, name a single life lost to climate change.
So you think it is reasonable that scientific researchers are denied raw data making it impossible to replicate findings? You think it is alright to conspire to hide the truth because some people are ignorant? How do you expect verification without replication? Why do you fear the truth being told if your arguments are sound?
Well it goes back to the ultimate question, if mass/energy/momentum is conserved, where did it come from in the first place? If creation of energy is forbidden, then creation itself is also forbidden, therefore there must be a way to create energy.
I have no words except these: fare ye well.
Almost like they'd need a national broadband network to pull it off.
Noone would be trying to watch this without the Streisand effect. I can't see how anyone could take such a terrible piece of filmmaking seriously. Hell, it doesn't even make fucking sense most of the time, it's just so disjointed and jarring. Blocking it worldwide would be doing humanity a favour.
2013 will be the year of Bitcoin on the desktop!
Pity that 'someone else' tried to, failed, and instead agreed to license the CSIRO technology under royalty agreements, then reneged and failed to pay royalties. Now they have to follow through with that agreement and pay what they were due.
Sure. It's like the grown-ups drive around in real cars while out in the garage the kids argue over who made what on their go-kart whose design they copied from the kid up the street.
No, one guy has interpreted the MS terms to come to that conclusion without explaining why. I can see nothing in the MS terms that would disallow GPL, but I do see terms that explicitly allow GPL as it is an OSI approved license.
So I ask you, why can GPL not be used?
Just the one with the most prisoners. And legal bribery of your politicians. And more military than basically the world combined. Yeah, just your average modern utopia.
Why get it when CentOS fits the bill perfectly? Apart from the GP's rationale, it's also helping to build the profile and perception of CentOS if a major CIO advocates it. Congratulations are in order to the CentOS team for their great work, the fact it was even considered let alone requested is a testament to their excellence. Bravo.
So, pray tell, if physicists can't comment on climate science, why is the APS releasing statements about it in the first place, especially ones with such unscientific terms? Nothing in science is incontrovertible, the scientific method requires that any and all theorems can and should be questioned.
Well his other complaint is that somehow the mass of a proton is up for question while climate science is incontrivertable. Either they're both up for grabs, or the scientific method doesn't apply to climate science.
When is it ok to kill a human being? When is it ok to kill a dog? When is it ok to kill a rat? When is it ok to kill a spider? When is it ok to kill an ant?
When you are defending yourself or innocent parties from an existential threat to life.
Calling carbon a pollutant, well mislabelling CO2 as carbon and then calling it a pollutant is far more disingenious. You may as well call the ecosystem the carbonsystem. To say that addition of carbon dioxide to the environment is bad for life on earth relies entirely on 100 year predictions of temperature and has nothing to do with any biological fact.
Well you breath in ~400 ppm CO2 and breath out ~4000ppm CO2, so I guess it's TEN TIMES BACKGROUND LEVELS!!!
It's almost as if every molecule of every living creature contains carbon which was once atmospheric CO2. You - yes YOU - are made of the flesh of the animal made from the fruit of the plant made from the sunlight and CO2. Your entire body is a carbon footprint, a carbon spewing machine. Please turn yourself in to the nearest recycling centre.
There's more reason to question clean energy than that strawman though. Alternatives to gas and coal are expensive and difficult. Realistically solar and wind can only ever provide a fraction of what we need, hydro is regional and situational and has its own environmental issues, as does nuclear, and many such as tidal, thorium and geothermal are a long way from being effective. The easiest way for a western economy to reduce their CO2 output today, right now, is to go nuclear or to build modern coal fired plants which are far cleaner burners than the existing installed base. Both of these options are polictically unpalatable to environmentalists though, so don't expect them to happen anytime soon.
Yep, even skeptics agree that the world has been in a warming trend over the last 160 years, which is about the limit of the instrumental record in most places around the world. Problem is, 85% of mankinds CO2 contributions have happened in only the last 60 years, leaving 100 years of natural warming. All that is apparent is a natural trend continuing that existed before mankind could have possibly influenced events. In any case, CO2 is just one forcing among hundreds, and is easily eclipsed by H20. What's next, a ban on steam? Demonizing CO2, the giver of life, into pollution was the worst mistake the green movement has ever made.
I'm saddened that slashdot is so empty of a real scientific mindset. Since when was reproducing and verifying others experimentation anti-scientific instead of the very bedrock, the foundation of the scientific method?
So, the value is limitless? BUY BUY BUY!!!
All of the scenarios in the IPPC AR4 Multi-Model Mean predictions are not calculated as a decadal or centennial number but are calculated monthly. Nobody is averaging any predictions here, they are drawing a statistical trend of observations. The predictions are tracking above reality. Oh, and just so you know, Monckton is a Lord, just not a member of the House of Lords. Try to stick to facts please.