Ever heard of the Carboniferous ? It's the period between 350 and 300 million years ago when the plants invented lignin, thus becoming trees, and the time when the first microorganisms became able to digest it. Dead trees that wouldn't rot accumulated over hundreds of meters of thickness. Those are the layers of carbons we now know as coal. And the over next 300 million another extra lot of plants accumulated and became petroleum.
My point is, it took 350 millions years for all that carbon to accumulate and we are burning it all and releasing it _all_ in the atmosphere in the span of 200 years. Doesn't that sound to you a little bit... fast ? Maybe ?
Full disclosure: I used to be a climate scientist, but now I work on experimental nuclear reactor designs because I think It's the only thing that'll get us out of this mess. Maybe.
Exactly. The only thing I can add is that, before that period, the atmosphere was higher in CO2, and the earth was hotter and wetter. Hmmm.
The summary misses an important point, while at the same time mentioning it: " Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction" The entire idea of AGW is based on climate models, yet these models have repeatedly failed to actually explain certain, specific observed phenomena. This leads people to question basing policy that will cost a large amount of money and freedom on those models. When you want to give bureaucrats authority to determine what I can and cannot do based on models which have with significant frequency failed to predict real-world phenomena, I am going to question the wisdom of such actions.
Note that there are multiple models, which do vary in their predictions. The Canadian CCCMA models are not too good, for instance. The rest of the models are relatively similar, just a bit different in their slope. They make lots of predictions of other variables, as part of the whole process. For instance:
The IPCC Third Assessment Report predicted 1.9 millimetres per year average sea level rise for 1993-2008; actual satellite measurements gave 3.4. (Note that the argument that the models always overestimate is wrong)
All the models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 C after the eruption of Mr. Pinatubo, and the recovery to a warming trend.
The IPCC AR4 climate models underestimated the area of sea-ice melt 2007-2009 by about 40%. (Again, note that the argument that the models always overestimate is wrong)
It's often observed that Hansen's 1988 predictions (the Model T of climate models) overestimated warming, but that's largely because the production of CO2 slowed down to 10% or so less than he predicted.
Meanwhile, we only need one model to be right. In 2000 a group from England tweaked a model's responses to greenhouse gas and sulphate forcing to fit the warming through 1996, and at this point (still a short time to evaluate a model) it's doing pretty well http://www.nature.com/nature/j..., predicting a quarter degree C increase for the average 2003-2012 compared to the average for 1987-196, which is just about perfect.
But the main point is, if your argument is that models need to be perfectly accurate about everything, you're wrong. The idea is that competing models can be evaluated on which one does a better job. And there is no climate model without an AGW term which predicts anything at all with any accuracy at all. For any honest scientist, that means you've got to adopt AGW as your hypothesis. You can certainly spend your spare time trying to formulate a climate model with no AGW which performs at all, but until you do that's in the same boat as perpetual motion, time travel, and faster than light travel. Period.
What makes me nuts about the climate changers is that they seem to believe that humans have more impact than the sun and other natural events and then have built a de facto religion around it. It's another example of scientific dogma where anyone who dares to challenge them becomes something 'other' and put on worldwide notice that they should be shunned. The other thing that makes me nuts is that they use the word 'denier;' it's offensive since the subtle equation is the Holocaust and, as a result, it discourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty for everyone. That's how cults operate, not how scientists should be pursuing science.
You do understand we're talking about climate CHANGE here, right? So, if you have evidence that the sun is CHANGING, in parallel with how much CO2 we are emitting, you really should share it. If you can't grasp that, you're not in a good position to be judging anybody else.
Okay, then, let's say that you can't evaluate each scientist; then you're back to the "consensus" thing again. You've got Linzen on one side; are there any others you can name? Because there are literally thousands that are on the "Yes there is AGW" side. As found in the famous 97% study the guy above didn't believe in, although he can't name anybody on the opposite side. Those are 97% of actual peer-reviewed scientific papers published on climate, doesn't include TV weathermen, dentists, college freshmen, people who've been retired for 40 years, and people with PhDs whose current job is selling cars, the way the petitions signed by "scientists" tend to.
What many skeptics "deny" is that global warming is likely to be big problem. They agree that global warming exists at some level. Why should we take someone like you seriously who argues against strawmen?
But the skeptics who agree that global warming exists at some level but deny that it is likely to be a problem never seem to have any argument with the ones who deny that there is any warming at all. In any other subject, they would be seen to be in opposition, but somehow in the AGW debate, they are seen as agreeing.
| The general scientific consensus has been wrong on countless things throughout history.
And it's been much much less wrong on its subject matter expertise than any other group of humans throughout history.
Interesting position; "There is no consensus, and besides, the consensus can be wrong". Good old shotgun arguments.
"How about you let other sides make their arguments and genuinely try to disprove those points rather than citing that x% of scientists believe in it so it must be true."
Yes, if only those who believe in AGW would point to some data to support their position. Because that just never happens. If only the IPCC would put some data into their reports, and provide citations to the papers they get it from.
Well, if you had read the paper you cited then you would have written:
He and a bunch of other people frequenting "www.scepticalscience.com" had a look at 11944 ABSTRACTS of arcticles that explicitly deal with the topics "global warming" or "global climate change". NOTHING ELSE. To put it bluntly, even the phrase "global cooling" doesn't pass muster. If the topic was something objective like "climate modelling" without explicitly putting "global warming" or "global climate change" in the topic it didn't pass muster.
The abstracts were evaluated among the 12 people who read them and the allowed to compare notes and re-evaluate their findings, thus building further consensus among the already biased evaluators. In the end, about 8000 of those abstracts evaluated by biased examiners chosen through a biased selection process were evaluated to contain no such statement and were hence excluded. That's 66.4%. Some 32.6% were found to agree with the global warming or global climate change hypothesis necessarily expoused as a topic. Oh the surprise.
You can't find disagreement if you close your eyes. or pretent they don't say anything.
Well, if you had read the paper rather than just the abstract, you would have seen
"We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.", which reproduced the results to within 1% of each of the 3 categories.
Of course, it is indeed possible that nobody who puts "global warming" in a paper would write it as part of the phrase "disproves global warming", and that nobody who writes "global climate change" would use it as part of the phrase "no global climate change", or to mean global cooling. It is indeed possible that searching for "global cooling" in the literature might provide a treasure trove of thousands of papers overwhelmingly taking the NO AGW position, and if you find that, you could definitely publish it in that journal. Otherwise, it's in that handwaving category along with other topics such as "things which could be causing climate change other than CO2", or "things which might prevent atmospheric CO2 from absorbing IR and thereby trapping heat".
How does "paving force more water vapor into the air"? I haven't seen a parking lot which transpires the way plants do, but maybe I'm behind the times.
You can't reason a man out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.
Blind faith doesn't exist, there is always reasoning no matter how shallow it is. Thinking that someone didn't reason is just another way of dehumanizing him.
Everyone can be reasoned out of a position, you just can't do it by calling him an idiot.
Claiming that someone is following blind faith when your argument is referring to authority is also not a good choice. If I don't know the climatologist refereed to and believe in him then there is just as much blind faith in that argument as there would be if you referred to a priest.
You have to listen to the other persons point of view and argue from that context. It takes a lot of time but I have occasionally done it.
Having a whiteboard available helps tremendously but you also need to understand why the person reasons as he does and where he made an incorrect conclusion.
Also, if you patronize him for just a moment you might just as well give up for the day, you are never going to convince anyone that way.
Personally I think that the environmental movement have taken the wrong approach to global warming.
If you want to shut down coal power plants and make people switch to electric vehicles it would be a lot easier to argue about the health benefits of not having the emissions.
There are plenty of studies about the subject and it is a lot more tangible for people to see the difference between how often you have to clean the windows in a city compared to a rural area and it is not hard to imagine the difference that does on your lungs.
It also doesn't help that a lot of environmentalists are more concerned about fighting the opposition rather than to convince them.
If concern about the health effects of coal would eliminate coal burning plants, there wouldn't be any coal burning plants any more. It hasn't even eliminated the dirtiest coal burning plants, which were grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act.
(And electric cars and coal power plants aren't opposed to each other, if you think about it; electric cars are agnostic as to where the electricity comes from. In places where the electricity comes from the dirtiest coal plants, gasoline vehicles are cleaner than electric ones).
On any other topic this name calling is derided as an ad hominen attack.
On any other topic, somebody who denies X will be called an X denier without somebody saying that's an ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem attack would be, for instance, accusing climate scientists of committing fraud in order to keep their vast wealth and power; or accusing people who are concerned about AGW of trying to destroy America, limit our freedom, redistribute the wealth, destroy the Third World, etc. etc.; or saying that "Climategate" proves the scientists who believe in AGW are all deliberately lying; or accusing Al Gore of making the whole thing up so he can make a fortune from sustainable energy; you know, stuff like that.
> On balance, scientists aren't entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly.
That sentence lumps professional alarmists in with actual scientists. Never been outside on a cloudy day? Those "scientists" (alarmists) who say clouds make it hot are the same ones who you said San Francisco would be underwater by the year 2010. Don't let their silly pseudo-science make you doubt the obvious facts of your experience. You know that when it's cloudy, it's cooler.
What you may not know not know is that islands near San Francisco have recently re-appeared after having been underwater for the last 60 years, the exact opposite of what the alarmists claimed. There is some important science around climate change. Earth HAS warmed a bit more in the last 100 years than the other planets have. There's also a metric ton of snake oil being sold by alarmists whose pseudoscience is nothing more than patter for their act. Confusing one with the other ends up getting you confused and making you look silly. You end up believing things like "it gets hot when it's cloudy", which is of course ridiculous.
Well, at risk of repeating myself, here's some of those actual scientists who find no negative feedback, and/or some positive feedback from clouds:
Never been outside on a cloudy night? It's warmer when the heat is reflected back than when it is radiated out into space. Don't let your interests in the islands off San Francisco make you doubt the obvious facts of your experience. You know that when it's cloudy, it's warmer.
The thing is, that AGW is primarily an effect of warming the cooler temps; at night, in winter, in higher latitudes, with less change in the tropics, in the day, when it's hot. So, whatever effects might occur from cooling the tropic days (which is apparently none, or close to it, but giving the credit of infinitesimal doubt) is irrelevant because those temps changed the least; the biggest warming, and therefore the most increase in clouds, will be in the winter nights in the high latitudes, where the clouds will be positive feedback.
This is just another one of the many, many balancing mechanisms in nature. Another obvious one is that more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat. Mother nature I has thousands of such negative feedback cycles that tend to buffer against changes.
Balancing shmalancing.
It gets hotter (on a planet whose surface is mostly ocean), the atmosphere gets more humid, more ice collects on the surface of whatever remaining pieces are below freezing.
The same reason your freezer frosts up in July and August, not in December; that doesn't mean your kitchen has a balancing mechanism to keep it from getting warm in the summer.
after you've purchased a product, you and the manufacturer are now in head to head opposition regarding support. every second you get some handholding costs them. the more serious the support required, the more skilled the support provider needed, and the more expensive.
they can't afford to assign talented engineers to answer phones, so you get support from people who know less about the product than you do.
Kind of like how the most virulently anti - gun - control people tend to be the ones who really shouldn't be armed.
Like the ones who make death threats against people who might sell smart guns?
We have a nicely workable alternative mechanism for em propagation, though, the ether theory failed completely in experiments, not just missing the predicted value by some factor, and it was all or nothing, I.e. it wasn't composed of smaller well established mechanisms to the point that its existence was predicted before people looked to confirm or falsify it.
Whereas AGW has no alternative theory with any predictive value whatsoever or any feasible known mechanism, does a pretty good job of predicting not just temperature but a lot of phenomena, and increasingly research is tightening up its accuracy, rather than pointing in a different direction, and is composed of so obvious and well established mechanisms that Arrhenius was able to predict it on purely theoretical grounds and calculate the basic temperature vs greenhouse gas equation which correctly fits the earth's actual temperature vs its theoretical temperature from black body radiation theory.
Otherwise, good call.
Those folks who believe that AGW is all a plot by scientists to keep the research money flowing embrace a "suppressed" paper which is skeptical of AGW and says, literally, there needs to be more research on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of the Carboniferous ? It's the period between 350 and 300 million years ago when the plants invented lignin, thus becoming trees, and the time when the first microorganisms became able to digest it. Dead trees that wouldn't rot accumulated over hundreds of meters of thickness. Those are the layers of carbons we now know as coal. And the over next 300 million another extra lot of plants accumulated and became petroleum.
My point is, it took 350 millions years for all that carbon to accumulate and we are burning it all and releasing it _all_ in the atmosphere in the span of 200 years. Doesn't that sound to you a little bit... fast ? Maybe ?
Full disclosure: I used to be a climate scientist, but now I work on experimental nuclear reactor designs because I think It's the only thing that'll get us out of this mess. Maybe.
Exactly. The only thing I can add is that, before that period, the atmosphere was higher in CO2, and the earth was hotter and wetter. Hmmm.
The summary misses an important point, while at the same time mentioning it: " Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction" The entire idea of AGW is based on climate models, yet these models have repeatedly failed to actually explain certain, specific observed phenomena. This leads people to question basing policy that will cost a large amount of money and freedom on those models. When you want to give bureaucrats authority to determine what I can and cannot do based on models which have with significant frequency failed to predict real-world phenomena, I am going to question the wisdom of such actions.
Note that there are multiple models, which do vary in their predictions. The Canadian CCCMA models are not too good, for instance. The rest of the models are relatively similar, just a bit different in their slope. They make lots of predictions of other variables, as part of the whole process. For instance:
The IPCC Third Assessment Report predicted 1.9 millimetres per year average sea level rise for 1993-2008; actual satellite measurements gave 3.4. (Note that the argument that the models always overestimate is wrong)
All the models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 C after the eruption of Mr. Pinatubo, and the recovery to a warming trend.
The IPCC AR4 climate models underestimated the area of sea-ice melt 2007-2009 by about 40%. (Again, note that the argument that the models always overestimate is wrong)
It's often observed that Hansen's 1988 predictions (the Model T of climate models) overestimated warming, but that's largely because the production of CO2 slowed down to 10% or so less than he predicted.
Meanwhile, we only need one model to be right. In 2000 a group from England tweaked a model's responses to greenhouse gas and sulphate forcing to fit the warming through 1996, and at this point (still a short time to evaluate a model) it's doing pretty well http://www.nature.com/nature/j..., predicting a quarter degree C increase for the average 2003-2012 compared to the average for 1987-196, which is just about perfect.
But the main point is, if your argument is that models need to be perfectly accurate about everything, you're wrong. The idea is that competing models can be evaluated on which one does a better job. And there is no climate model without an AGW term which predicts anything at all with any accuracy at all. For any honest scientist, that means you've got to adopt AGW as your hypothesis. You can certainly spend your spare time trying to formulate a climate model with no AGW which performs at all, but until you do that's in the same boat as perpetual motion, time travel, and faster than light travel. Period.
"nominal statis" - what is nominal and what is static? The reality is that climate change is the norm; a static climate is abnormal.
Yeah, probably tomorrow it could be 1000 degrees. Or maybe -500. Just too chaotic to predict.
What makes me nuts about the climate changers is that they seem to believe that humans have more impact than the sun and other natural events and then have built a de facto religion around it. It's another example of scientific dogma where anyone who dares to challenge them becomes something 'other' and put on worldwide notice that they should be shunned. The other thing that makes me nuts is that they use the word 'denier;' it's offensive since the subtle equation is the Holocaust and, as a result, it discourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty for everyone. That's how cults operate, not how scientists should be pursuing science.
You do understand we're talking about climate CHANGE here, right? So, if you have evidence that the sun is CHANGING, in parallel with how much CO2 we are emitting, you really should share it. If you can't grasp that, you're not in a good position to be judging anybody else.
Okay, then, let's say that you can't evaluate each scientist; then you're back to the "consensus" thing again. You've got Linzen on one side; are there any others you can name? Because there are literally thousands that are on the "Yes there is AGW" side. As found in the famous 97% study the guy above didn't believe in, although he can't name anybody on the opposite side. Those are 97% of actual peer-reviewed scientific papers published on climate, doesn't include TV weathermen, dentists, college freshmen, people who've been retired for 40 years, and people with PhDs whose current job is selling cars, the way the petitions signed by "scientists" tend to.
What many skeptics "deny" is that global warming is likely to be big problem. They agree that global warming exists at some level. Why should we take someone like you seriously who argues against strawmen?
But the skeptics who agree that global warming exists at some level but deny that it is likely to be a problem never seem to have any argument with the ones who deny that there is any warming at all. In any other subject, they would be seen to be in opposition, but somehow in the AGW debate, they are seen as agreeing.
| The general scientific consensus has been wrong on countless things throughout history. And it's been much much less wrong on its subject matter expertise than any other group of humans throughout history.
Interesting position; "There is no consensus, and besides, the consensus can be wrong". Good old shotgun arguments.
"How about you let other sides make their arguments and genuinely try to disprove those points rather than citing that x% of scientists believe in it so it must be true." Yes, if only those who believe in AGW would point to some data to support their position. Because that just never happens. If only the IPCC would put some data into their reports, and provide citations to the papers they get it from.
Well, if you had read the paper you cited then you would have written:
He and a bunch of other people frequenting "www.scepticalscience.com" had a look at 11944 ABSTRACTS of arcticles that explicitly deal with the topics "global warming" or "global climate change". NOTHING ELSE. To put it bluntly, even the phrase "global cooling" doesn't pass muster. If the topic was something objective like "climate modelling" without explicitly putting "global warming" or "global climate change" in the topic it didn't pass muster.
The abstracts were evaluated among the 12 people who read them and the allowed to compare notes and re-evaluate their findings, thus building further consensus among the already biased evaluators. In the end, about 8000 of those abstracts evaluated by biased examiners chosen through a biased selection process were evaluated to contain no such statement and were hence excluded. That's 66.4%. Some 32.6% were found to agree with the global warming or global climate change hypothesis necessarily expoused as a topic. Oh the surprise.
You can't find disagreement if you close your eyes. or pretent they don't say anything.
Well, if you had read the paper rather than just the abstract, you would have seen "We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.", which reproduced the results to within 1% of each of the 3 categories. Of course, it is indeed possible that nobody who puts "global warming" in a paper would write it as part of the phrase "disproves global warming", and that nobody who writes "global climate change" would use it as part of the phrase "no global climate change", or to mean global cooling. It is indeed possible that searching for "global cooling" in the literature might provide a treasure trove of thousands of papers overwhelmingly taking the NO AGW position, and if you find that, you could definitely publish it in that journal. Otherwise, it's in that handwaving category along with other topics such as "things which could be causing climate change other than CO2", or "things which might prevent atmospheric CO2 from absorbing IR and thereby trapping heat".
How does "paving force more water vapor into the air"? I haven't seen a parking lot which transpires the way plants do, but maybe I'm behind the times.
You can't reason a man out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.
Blind faith doesn't exist, there is always reasoning no matter how shallow it is. Thinking that someone didn't reason is just another way of dehumanizing him. Everyone can be reasoned out of a position, you just can't do it by calling him an idiot. Claiming that someone is following blind faith when your argument is referring to authority is also not a good choice. If I don't know the climatologist refereed to and believe in him then there is just as much blind faith in that argument as there would be if you referred to a priest. You have to listen to the other persons point of view and argue from that context. It takes a lot of time but I have occasionally done it. Having a whiteboard available helps tremendously but you also need to understand why the person reasons as he does and where he made an incorrect conclusion. Also, if you patronize him for just a moment you might just as well give up for the day, you are never going to convince anyone that way.
Personally I think that the environmental movement have taken the wrong approach to global warming. If you want to shut down coal power plants and make people switch to electric vehicles it would be a lot easier to argue about the health benefits of not having the emissions. There are plenty of studies about the subject and it is a lot more tangible for people to see the difference between how often you have to clean the windows in a city compared to a rural area and it is not hard to imagine the difference that does on your lungs.
It also doesn't help that a lot of environmentalists are more concerned about fighting the opposition rather than to convince them.
If concern about the health effects of coal would eliminate coal burning plants, there wouldn't be any coal burning plants any more. It hasn't even eliminated the dirtiest coal burning plants, which were grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act. (And electric cars and coal power plants aren't opposed to each other, if you think about it; electric cars are agnostic as to where the electricity comes from. In places where the electricity comes from the dirtiest coal plants, gasoline vehicles are cleaner than electric ones).
On any other topic this name calling is derided as an ad hominen attack.
On any other topic, somebody who denies X will be called an X denier without somebody saying that's an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be, for instance, accusing climate scientists of committing fraud in order to keep their vast wealth and power; or accusing people who are concerned about AGW of trying to destroy America, limit our freedom, redistribute the wealth, destroy the Third World, etc. etc.; or saying that "Climategate" proves the scientists who believe in AGW are all deliberately lying; or accusing Al Gore of making the whole thing up so he can make a fortune from sustainable energy; you know, stuff like that.
> On balance, scientists aren't entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly.
That sentence lumps professional alarmists in with actual scientists. Never been outside on a cloudy day? Those "scientists" (alarmists) who say clouds make it hot are the same ones who you said San Francisco would be underwater by the year 2010. Don't let their silly pseudo-science make you doubt the obvious facts of your experience. You know that when it's cloudy, it's cooler.
What you may not know not know is that islands near San Francisco have recently re-appeared after having been underwater for the last 60 years, the exact opposite of what the alarmists claimed. There is some important science around climate change. Earth HAS warmed a bit more in the last 100 years than the other planets have. There's also a metric ton of snake oil being sold by alarmists whose pseudoscience is nothing more than patter for their act. Confusing one with the other ends up getting you confused and making you look silly. You end up believing things like "it gets hot when it's cloudy", which is of course ridiculous.
Well, at risk of repeating myself, here's some of those actual scientists who find no negative feedback, and/or some positive feedback from clouds:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
http://rain.atmos.colostate.ed...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
Never been outside on a cloudy night? It's warmer when the heat is reflected back than when it is radiated out into space. Don't let your interests in the islands off San Francisco make you doubt the obvious facts of your experience. You know that when it's cloudy, it's warmer. The thing is, that AGW is primarily an effect of warming the cooler temps; at night, in winter, in higher latitudes, with less change in the tropics, in the day, when it's hot. So, whatever effects might occur from cooling the tropic days (which is apparently none, or close to it, but giving the credit of infinitesimal doubt) is irrelevant because those temps changed the least; the biggest warming, and therefore the most increase in clouds, will be in the winter nights in the high latitudes, where the clouds will be positive feedback.
This is just another one of the many, many balancing mechanisms in nature. Another obvious one is that more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat. Mother nature I has thousands of such negative feedback cycles that tend to buffer against changes.
That's Lindzen's "iris hypothesis", basically (in case you didn't know). Unfortunately, there isn't any evidence for it, http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... http://rain.atmos.colostate.ed... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
Balancing shmalancing. It gets hotter (on a planet whose surface is mostly ocean), the atmosphere gets more humid, more ice collects on the surface of whatever remaining pieces are below freezing. The same reason your freezer frosts up in July and August, not in December; that doesn't mean your kitchen has a balancing mechanism to keep it from getting warm in the summer.
after you've purchased a product, you and the manufacturer are now in head to head opposition regarding support. every second you get some handholding costs them. the more serious the support required, the more skilled the support provider needed, and the more expensive. they can't afford to assign talented engineers to answer phones, so you get support from people who know less about the product than you do.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014... http://m.washingtonpost.com/lo... http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c... http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/201... http://m.washingtontimes.com/n...
Kind of like how the most virulently anti - gun - control people tend to be the ones who really shouldn't be armed. Like the ones who make death threats against people who might sell smart guns?
How is a smart gun which defaults to fire different from a stupid gun?
We have a nicely workable alternative mechanism for em propagation, though, the ether theory failed completely in experiments, not just missing the predicted value by some factor, and it was all or nothing, I.e. it wasn't composed of smaller well established mechanisms to the point that its existence was predicted before people looked to confirm or falsify it. Whereas AGW has no alternative theory with any predictive value whatsoever or any feasible known mechanism, does a pretty good job of predicting not just temperature but a lot of phenomena, and increasingly research is tightening up its accuracy, rather than pointing in a different direction, and is composed of so obvious and well established mechanisms that Arrhenius was able to predict it on purely theoretical grounds and calculate the basic temperature vs greenhouse gas equation which correctly fits the earth's actual temperature vs its theoretical temperature from black body radiation theory. Otherwise, good call.
Those folks who believe that AGW is all a plot by scientists to keep the research money flowing embrace a "suppressed" paper which is skeptical of AGW and says, literally, there needs to be more research on it.
Isn't the whole point of Tesla to use cheap off the shelf batteries and manage their performance optimally via software?
Well, now I understand why hot pockets stay frozen in the middle, but the article doesn't tell me what I can do to heat it up...
Halfway through, turn them inside out.
I see what you mean. I like the instructions, use when bees are unlikely to be present. Good grief.
Autonomous weapons that identify threats and neutralize them, without human intervention? We used to call those dogs.