Talk to me when the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) and the The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) are both strongly negative.
I honestly wonder if people will still support anthropogenic global warming when we have arctic ice growing back to the levels that were seen in the 70's. or if they opened a history book and realized that Greenland was settled by the Vikings as farmland.
For the record, it is Anthropogenic Global Warming, not just global warming, and more specifically Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming that people are skeptical of, not just global warming or climate change. There is a big difference. At least you were bold enough to say global warming and not the new catch-all buzz words climate disruption. The climate changes. That's what it does, has always done, and will always do. Adding the word "change" is actually redundant as climate has never been static.
Oh no! Google might find out that I check hockey scores online, and I posted a picture of myself on Facebook. EEP!
Seriously, if you have nothing to hide, then there isn't an issue. If you don't get a job because in your personal time you wanted to look at some boobies, then perhaps you don't want that job anyway, because your boss would be an asshole.
If he wanted to show that file sharing does not help indie artists, he should be comparing the numbers on indie artists before massive file sharing as it is today, and numbers now. I have no proof, and I make no claim to know if they have improved, but if I had to guess, I would say that there are far more bands that wouldn't have made it out of their home towns that are selling a lot of albums, and it is due to the ease of attainment by way of file sharing that has spread the word on them and allowed them to increase in popularity and reach.
The digital/information age we are now in has done nothing but help indie music. Sure, maybe some profits have been lost due to file sharing along the way, but having websites, posting song snippets, and yes, even file sharing has also made this an age where there are far more indie labels, and far more indie artists, seeing more exposure than ever before in music history.
Even if file sharing didn't exist, you likely wouldn't see any indie artists in the top 100 of any list, except "the top 100 indie artists".
You do realize that the graph you posted a link to shows data in a time frame that when viewed upon in a scale which displays the complete history of the earth falls into the realm of noise. 2000 years is less than the error associated with estimating the age of the earth. To look at such a short data set and assume that what occurred in that time frame can be compared to the entire data set is faulty science.
If you looked at Wayne Gretzky's career, and picked out two games where he didn't score a point, you wouldn't take that to mean that it was a catastrophic slump that must have led to the complete demise of his scoring ability. And you wouldn't assume that because a rookie baseball player hit a single homerun that he is going to be the most prolific hitter in the history of baseball.
Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice is growing. wow, who would have thought that systems and cycles on this planet are dynamic and will constantly change and adapt.
I don't claim to know all the answers to questions related to climate change, but I do know that there are far better ways we can be spending our money than on "man-made CO2" which may or may not have an effect on climate change. We know with certainty that pollutants in our water have negative health effects, we know for certain that toxins in the air we breath have negative health effects, but hey, lets forget all that and focus on something that occurs naturally in the environment with or without human influence.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk to me when the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) and the The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) are both strongly negative.
I honestly wonder if people will still support anthropogenic global warming when we have arctic ice growing back to the levels that were seen in the 70's. or if they opened a history book and realized that Greenland was settled by the Vikings as farmland.
For the record, it is Anthropogenic Global Warming, not just global warming, and more specifically Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming that people are skeptical of, not just global warming or climate change. There is a big difference. At least you were bold enough to say global warming and not the new catch-all buzz words climate disruption. The climate changes. That's what it does, has always done, and will always do. Adding the word "change" is actually redundant as climate has never been static.
Oh no! Google might find out that I check hockey scores online, and I posted a picture of myself on Facebook. EEP! Seriously, if you have nothing to hide, then there isn't an issue. If you don't get a job because in your personal time you wanted to look at some boobies, then perhaps you don't want that job anyway, because your boss would be an asshole.
If he wanted to show that file sharing does not help indie artists, he should be comparing the numbers on indie artists before massive file sharing as it is today, and numbers now. I have no proof, and I make no claim to know if they have improved, but if I had to guess, I would say that there are far more bands that wouldn't have made it out of their home towns that are selling a lot of albums, and it is due to the ease of attainment by way of file sharing that has spread the word on them and allowed them to increase in popularity and reach. The digital/information age we are now in has done nothing but help indie music. Sure, maybe some profits have been lost due to file sharing along the way, but having websites, posting song snippets, and yes, even file sharing has also made this an age where there are far more indie labels, and far more indie artists, seeing more exposure than ever before in music history. Even if file sharing didn't exist, you likely wouldn't see any indie artists in the top 100 of any list, except "the top 100 indie artists".
You do realize that the graph you posted a link to shows data in a time frame that when viewed upon in a scale which displays the complete history of the earth falls into the realm of noise. 2000 years is less than the error associated with estimating the age of the earth. To look at such a short data set and assume that what occurred in that time frame can be compared to the entire data set is faulty science. If you looked at Wayne Gretzky's career, and picked out two games where he didn't score a point, you wouldn't take that to mean that it was a catastrophic slump that must have led to the complete demise of his scoring ability. And you wouldn't assume that because a rookie baseball player hit a single homerun that he is going to be the most prolific hitter in the history of baseball.
Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice is growing. wow, who would have thought that systems and cycles on this planet are dynamic and will constantly change and adapt. I don't claim to know all the answers to questions related to climate change, but I do know that there are far better ways we can be spending our money than on "man-made CO2" which may or may not have an effect on climate change. We know with certainty that pollutants in our water have negative health effects, we know for certain that toxins in the air we breath have negative health effects, but hey, lets forget all that and focus on something that occurs naturally in the environment with or without human influence.