They would be interesting in Linux because Vista sucks. I tried to order a laptop from Dell and I told her that I wanted XP pro. I got ask a lot of questions on why I didn't want Vista. I told her that I would be using it with my company's intranet and I heard that there was some compatibility issues with other versions of Windowz, and I just wanted it to work with no hassles. Why are the computer companies resistant to choice? Looks like it would increase their sales. If all of the computer companies would stand up to the Evil Empire, then they would have to listen...or train a sith lord to rule the universe with an iron fist...and we seen how THAT turned out. Hey, I will start a computer company and call it "Skywalker" or "Solo" or "R2D2"...could someone start a legal defense fund for me...
>I can tell I'm dealing with a rational person here. No, you don't know anything about the >science, but you know the TRUTH.
Who said I know nothing about science? The one thing I know, with out a doubt about science is nothing is closed for debate...except this. Wonder why?
>The facts, however, differ. There is a direct link to man's activity, natural effects are not >large enough to produce the observed changes, and the historical record indicates that we are not >due for a "cycle" of warming that looks anything like what we are experiencing.
What "link" are you referring too? The fact is, CO2 in our atmosphere actually would make it cooler, not warmer. Again, historical records only "indicate" a very small slice of time, not enough to base a conclusion, unless you have other motives.
>I already indicated in detail why you were wrong, but you didn't read the links.
>No, you don't. Your whole post is entirely free of scientific content.
Other than 2 links to your propaganda sites, what science have you quoted?
>This is false. They are not in the same field, they often don't even work in the same department, >and most importantly, prediction of the climate is totally different from prediction of the >weather for reasons I already gave, which you ignored.
Not ignored, disputed. Let's look at the definition of Climatology, shall we? Climatology - The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena. Meteorology - The science that deals with the phenomena of the atmosphere, especially weather and weather conditions. If you can get your head out of Algore's butt long enough to read this, you will see that the definitions prove my point. Climatology even mentions Meteorology in it's definition.
>>You and your crowd wants to upset the world economy on less than 50 years of studies. >Don't tell me what me or "my crowd" thinks. And I note that you are as ignorant of the economics >of climate change as you are of the science.
I noticed that you just called me "ignorant" but did nothing to prove me wrong. Please, a debate, not name calling.
>>This world is, some say, billions of years old, we study it for less than 50 years and we know >>what is going on??? >So that's it, your big argument, the basis of debate? "I don't believe that science works, >therefore it's wrong." Great. Good argument there.
Look, my argument has more substance and validity than anything you have said. You are just following a washed up senator that couldn't even carry his own state in his bid for President. Algore even was quoted that his movie was "not factual, but drew all the right conclusions." Hey, but thank God he invented the internet so we can have this conversation.
>>Then the scientist realize that if there is no problem, there is no money...hence, there will >>always be a problem as long as there is a grant to pay for the study of it. >And your second big argument is a global conspiracy theory. No, what happens in reality is that >if somebody publishes dodgy work they get torn apart by the scientific community and nobody ever >cites their work again.
You are right, if someone disagrees with your position, the chicken little crowd brands them a heretic. This boils down to, if you tell a lie long and loud enough, people will start to believe it.
>>I am not worried about the polar ice caps melting. This will pass. >Sure, because it's all "natural", and not just "natural" but a "natural cycle" which will soon >reverse itself, and therefore you don't have to worry a
>That's nice. Do you also remember what the actual scientific literature was claiming at that time? >Of course not. Try here and here.
hehe, try no, I have read the propaganda, and I have read the truth? The TRUTH is, there is NO direct link to man's activity and this is a normal cycle. You can talk about ice samples and anything else and you still can't prove that it is man's fault. Computer models are based on what a person put in and how do you know if that person had an agenda? I know computers and it is "garbage in, garbage out." All of it is based on "IF this happens, and IF that happens, this will be the result." That, my friend, is a theory.
>>Ted Danson said, on the Johnny Carson show, that we won't be here in 15 years. He was wrong and >>so is Algore
>Brilliant logic there.
Ah, great comeback. Is that as in depth as you get? Come on, I want a debate.
>>You alarmist blindly listen to scientist that claim they can tell us what the climate was 1000 >>years ago and what it will be if we don't change our wicked ways. Did you ever stop to think that >>these are the same people that can't tell us what the weather will be like next week.
>Alarmist? What, is anyone who thinks global warming is happening and will continue to happen an >"alarmist" to you?
Not exactly, I never said that the globe isn't warming, I just said it was natural. Anyone who wants to turn the world on it collective ear to save a half of a degree, is an ALARMIST! You may fit that description.
>And no, they are not "the same people". One group is climatologists, and the other meteorologists. >It is far easier to predict a global annual average climate than it is to predict a local weather >event at a particular city on a particular day.
Both deal with the climate, therefore, they are in the same field. You can pick pepper out of gnat sh*t, I put them in the same category.
>>I am not ready to endorse a global economic "adjustment" based on a theory.
>It is not "just" a theory, but one supported by an enormous amount of evidence.
It is nothing BUT a theory. We have been "studying" this for a few decades. You and your crowd wants to upset the world economy on less than 50 years of studies. This world is, some say, billions of years old, we study it for less than 50 years and we know what is going on??? I think not. Let me paint you a picture. You scientist buddies notice a trend and go to the government for a grant to study it. The government gives the grant. Then the scientist realize that if there is no problem, there is no money...hence, there will always be a problem as long as there is a grant to pay for the study of it. The bald spot on the ozone layer is a good example of this. Did you know that there is no hole in the ozone layer 6 months out of the year? Look it up.
I am for hybrids, but not for the same reason. I want this country off of the dependency of foreign oil and I am against needless polluting on a local level. I am not worried about the polar ice caps melting. This will pass. If you didn't hear, February was one of the COLDEST on record...can you explain that?
I will be waiting for your next post...ok, not really.
I remember the morning shows claiming "global cooling".
Global Warming is natural. Ted Danson said, on the Johnny Carson show, that we won't be here in 15 years. He was wrong and so is Algore.
I have one question. You alarmist blindly listen to scientist that claim they can tell us what the climate was 1000 years ago and what it will be if we don't change our wicked ways. Did you ever stop to think that these are the same people that can't tell us what the weather will be like next week...?
I am not ready to endorse a global economic "adjustment" based on a theory.
The whole Global Warming movement is nothing more than the powers that be, trying to control us through unwanted and unneeded regulations. It is not about saving our kids, it is about controlling our kids. Wake Up!!!
Slashdot Mirror
They would be interesting in Linux because Vista sucks. I tried to order a laptop from Dell and I told her that I wanted XP pro. I got ask a lot of questions on why I didn't want Vista. I told her that I would be using it with my company's intranet and I heard that there was some compatibility issues with other versions of Windowz, and I just wanted it to work with no hassles. Why are the computer companies resistant to choice? Looks like it would increase their sales. If all of the computer companies would stand up to the Evil Empire, then they would have to listen...or train a sith lord to rule the universe with an iron fist...and we seen how THAT turned out. Hey, I will start a computer company and call it "Skywalker" or "Solo" or "R2D2"...could someone start a legal defense fund for me...
>I can tell I'm dealing with a rational person here. No, you don't know anything about the >science, but you know the TRUTH.
Who said I know nothing about science? The one thing I know, with out a doubt about science is nothing is closed for debate...except this. Wonder why?
>The facts, however, differ. There is a direct link to man's activity, natural effects are not >large enough to produce the observed changes, and the historical record indicates that we are not >due for a "cycle" of warming that looks anything like what we are experiencing.
What "link" are you referring too? The fact is, CO2 in our atmosphere actually would make it cooler, not warmer. Again, historical records only "indicate" a very small slice of time, not enough to base a conclusion, unless you have other motives.
>I already indicated in detail why you were wrong, but you didn't read the links.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=29387 62&page=1
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idartic le=8342
There is you some light reading.
>No, you don't. Your whole post is entirely free of scientific content.
Other than 2 links to your propaganda sites, what science have you quoted?
>This is false. They are not in the same field, they often don't even work in the same department, >and most importantly, prediction of the climate is totally different from prediction of the >weather for reasons I already gave, which you ignored.
Not ignored, disputed. Let's look at the definition of Climatology, shall we?
Climatology - The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena.
Meteorology - The science that deals with the phenomena of the atmosphere, especially weather and weather conditions.
If you can get your head out of Algore's butt long enough to read this, you will see that the definitions prove my point. Climatology even mentions Meteorology in it's definition.
>>You and your crowd wants to upset the world economy on less than 50 years of studies.
>Don't tell me what me or "my crowd" thinks. And I note that you are as ignorant of the economics >of climate change as you are of the science.
I noticed that you just called me "ignorant" but did nothing to prove me wrong. Please, a debate, not name calling.
>>This world is, some say, billions of years old, we study it for less than 50 years and we know >>what is going on???
>So that's it, your big argument, the basis of debate? "I don't believe that science works, >therefore it's wrong." Great. Good argument there.
Look, my argument has more substance and validity than anything you have said. You are just following a washed up senator that couldn't even carry his own state in his bid for President.
Algore even was quoted that his movie was "not factual, but drew all the right conclusions." Hey, but thank God he invented the internet so we can have this conversation.
>>Then the scientist realize that if there is no problem, there is no money...hence, there will >>always be a problem as long as there is a grant to pay for the study of it.
>And your second big argument is a global conspiracy theory. No, what happens in reality is that >if somebody publishes dodgy work they get torn apart by the scientific community and nobody ever >cites their work again.
You are right, if someone disagrees with your position, the chicken little crowd brands them a heretic. This boils down to, if you tell a lie long and loud enough, people will start to believe it.
>>I am not worried about the polar ice caps melting. This will pass.
>Sure, because it's all "natural", and not just "natural" but a "natural cycle" which will soon >reverse itself, and therefore you don't have to worry a
>That's nice. Do you also remember what the actual scientific literature was claiming at that time? >Of course not. Try here and here.
hehe, try no, I have read the propaganda, and I have read the truth? The TRUTH is, there is NO direct link to man's activity and this is a normal cycle. You can talk about ice samples and anything else and you still can't prove that it is man's fault. Computer models are based on what a person put in and how do you know if that person had an agenda? I know computers and it is "garbage in, garbage out." All of it is based on "IF this happens, and IF that happens, this will be the result." That, my friend, is a theory.
>>Ted Danson said, on the Johnny Carson show, that we won't be here in 15 years. He was wrong and >>so is Algore
>Brilliant logic there.
Ah, great comeback. Is that as in depth as you get? Come on, I want a debate.
>>You alarmist blindly listen to scientist that claim they can tell us what the climate was 1000 >>years ago and what it will be if we don't change our wicked ways. Did you ever stop to think that >>these are the same people that can't tell us what the weather will be like next week.
>Alarmist? What, is anyone who thinks global warming is happening and will continue to happen an >"alarmist" to you?
Not exactly, I never said that the globe isn't warming, I just said it was natural. Anyone who wants to turn the world on it collective ear to save a half of a degree, is an ALARMIST! You may fit that description.
>And no, they are not "the same people". One group is climatologists, and the other meteorologists. >It is far easier to predict a global annual average climate than it is to predict a local weather >event at a particular city on a particular day.
Both deal with the climate, therefore, they are in the same field. You can pick pepper out of gnat sh*t, I put them in the same category.
>>I am not ready to endorse a global economic "adjustment" based on a theory.
>It is not "just" a theory, but one supported by an enormous amount of evidence.
It is nothing BUT a theory. We have been "studying" this for a few decades. You and your crowd wants to upset the world economy on less than 50 years of studies. This world is, some say, billions of years old, we study it for less than 50 years and we know what is going on??? I think not. Let me paint you a picture. You scientist buddies notice a trend and go to the government for a grant to study it. The government gives the grant. Then the scientist realize that if there is no problem, there is no money...hence, there will always be a problem as long as there is a grant to pay for the study of it. The bald spot on the ozone layer is a good example of this. Did you know that there is no hole in the ozone layer 6 months out of the year? Look it up.
I am for hybrids, but not for the same reason. I want this country off of the dependency of foreign oil and I am against needless polluting on a local level. I am not worried about the polar ice caps melting. This will pass. If you didn't hear, February was one of the COLDEST on record...can you explain that?
I will be waiting for your next post...ok, not really.
I remember the morning shows claiming "global cooling".
Global Warming is natural. Ted Danson said, on the Johnny Carson show, that we won't be here in 15 years. He was wrong and so is Algore.
I have one question. You alarmist blindly listen to scientist that claim they can tell us what the climate was 1000 years ago and what it will be if we don't change our wicked ways. Did you ever stop to think that these are the same people that can't tell us what the weather will be like next week...?
I am not ready to endorse a global economic "adjustment" based on a theory.
The whole Global Warming movement is nothing more than the powers that be, trying to control us through unwanted and unneeded regulations. It is not about saving our kids, it is about controlling our kids. Wake Up!!!