I wouldn't mind a rational, reasonable conversation on the topic, but instead you've got "its not happening so don't do anything" screamers...
"Well screw it, if the world is ending, we might as well enjoy ourselves..." - well, lets all be so totally selfish and not think of others - great for our children etc
"If it ISN'T ending, then perhaps we shouldn't derail our economy in the process of trying to improve the environment..." what economy is derailing, the banks did that. There is a new industry starting to replace the old. Things change and move on.
"Yet all we hear about are electric cars and solar power, neither of which make any economic sense." eh? new tech is ALWAYS expensive at the start, wind power is already cheaper than coal, solar is getting cheaper. http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Why spend money on something that has a payback period of more than 5 years when we have easier solutions right in front of us that have a payback period of as little as 1 year?" - short term thinking is detrimental to long term solutions. the payback on things like solar is shortening all the time
150 years ago, radicals attempted to do away with the major source of energy in southern US against the frantic resistance of those living there, who were terrified that ending slavery was just a pipe dream as there was clearly no economically viable replacement. those who rode the slavery horse until its death did in fact fare poorly, but on the whole, other forms of energy were found and the south did not in fact become a third world subsistence economy after all.
The only risk greater than man made global warming is the risk that man will try to stop global warming. Sure we are influencing the climate and we should try to reduce that influence. On the other hand, I don't see any good from experimenting with intentional manipulation of the climate OR from crippling the poor's access to energy and standard of living in order to reduce that influence outweighing the possible negatives of a warmer climate.
the third world poor aren't burning a lot of diesel or gasoline. their burning of sheep dung or whatever doesn't come from fossil fuels and doesn't result in a net increase of atmospheric CO2.
Oh, the climate models are quite good for the region I live in. Austria collects weather and climate data since more than 250 years already, so we have a pretty good timeline of climate conditions since the 18th century. If I remember correctly, yearly weather reports started in 1736, very important for a society depending heavily on agriculture. And tell you what: Average yearly temperatures have risen two degrees Celsius since the start of the weather records. And that includes the Year Without a Summer 1816 (probably caused by the volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815).
It's not as if the rising temperatures are something just recently discovered or somehow recalculated into the past. It's something that has been observed by several generation of scientists now.
Even more fundamental than that; earth's temperature is 30 degrees warmer than would be predicted by our black body radiation balance and our albedo; compare to the moon, for instance. Which is right about what CO2 absorbance in the atmosphere would predict; as was calculated by Svante Arrhenius over a century ago, at the birth of greenhouse gas theory. Those who believe that this effect will stop right at this temperature, despite added CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, have a lot of explaining to do.
Despite the argument that the onus is on AGW believers to provide proof, in fact any well established mechanism is not subject to this law. The onus to provide proof is not on those who believe if they turn on the light, the room will become brighter; the onus is on those who are 'skeptical' of that to explain why it would not. And providing examples of other things that provide illumination rather than the electric lights does not in the slightest count as such evidence.
Read the IPCC reports to answer all your questions. It really is that easy.
To your average denialist, the IPCC report is like a reverse Bible. Whereas the Bible is true, which is proved by the fact that it says it's true, and that must therefore be true; on the other handm the IPCC report is a lie, and therefore they don't have to read it to see what's in that might be a lie, because it's a lie.
Nope, deniers aren't skeptical. A skeptic even wonders if THEY are right, and are willing to change their mind in the face of evidence, instead of hunting for some third-hand anecdotal report that might possibly indicate a vague problem or issue with the evidence for. Then assumes it's true and the evidence for AGW being real is faked.
That's not skepticism. That's denial.
The distinction of denialists is that there is nothing that can, could, or would convince them to change their minds. Some of the more obtuse ones will cite this as a badge of pride; "There is nothing that will convince me that AGW is real". If you press denialists, asking "What piece of information is missing? What data would cause you to change your mind re the reality of AGW?" they will dodge the subject, giving an abstract answer like "convincing proof!" or "scientific proof!" or ask for something impossible, like a controlled study of planetary climates holding all factors except CO2 constant, or similar. Ideally, of course, this is determined a priori; the evidence required to establish probability is defined, the experiment is done to find that evidence, if it exists then the hypothesis is considered valid, otherwise it is considered insufficiently proved. Although this is more honored in the breach in reality, at least scientists will be able to tell you what evidence would convince them regarding any hypothesis, even if they're still just piling up observations. Every scientist knows that it's always possible to look at any amount of evidence for anything and say "Nope, not sufficiently convincing." even if everybody else on earth is convinced; so that point of view is not respected at all.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
What exactly is a "climate change denier"? Is that someone who denies that the climate changes? Would you be so kind as to point to a specific example of someone who has actually said the climate hasn't changed, isn't changing and won't change? I certainly don't know of anyone who is that stupid.
(Although, it does seem that some people think the climate shouldn't change and that, because it is changing, that's a Bad Thing. But those aren't the skeptics.)
Or by "climate change denier" do you mean someone who doesn't believe in future predictions of disaster? If so, could you explain how someone "denies" a future prediction? One either believes a prediction or doesn't believe it but it hasn't happened so there is nothing to "deny" or "accept".
"Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... There. Boy, you sure got some strong opinions for somebody who doesn't even know the definition of the subject under discussion.
So, there's a brilliant programmer or programmers who can and do create and negotiate their own path by constantly juggling the requirements, the current state of the project, the gap between where it is and where it wants to be, within their heads at all times, while keeping the code clean and readable.
And you want to convert your organization from reliance on one or a group of these talented programmers, so that you'd have to quit the business if anything happened to them, into one where the talents and knowledge and wisdom and good habits and skills and styles and diligence are all built into the processes so that mediocre programmers can do good work by just adhering to processes; and good programmers will find these processes are in accord with what they're doing anyway and not be hindered. Ha! Welcome to the dilemma of every organization, ever; making the leap from a bunch of talented people pooling their talents into an organization where the talent is built into the structure/function of the organization. If 5% organizations make the leap successfully, I'll be surprised.
I would be far more likely to be swayed by your argument if you were to show / link / discuss any actual "double-blind tests now showing liberals as more racist than conservatives", Please show me how average liberals are racist against white people, especially 'over and over'. There are kooks everywhere, I know, but claiming massive one-sidedness doesn't work with some sort of evidence by a researcher.
I was surprised to see that all double blind tests are now showing liberals as more racist than conservatives. The average liberal now has a default "affirmative action" position and is racist against white people.
This has been confirmed over and over again in studies, one even showed that liberals are far more likely to sacrifice a white person to save multiple black people than they are the other way around. So we gave truely crossed into delusional type unlogical thinking in politics as well.
Let's see now, where's the pony inside this pile...
"Overall, Republicans are slightly more likely to assess blacks unfavorably on these dimensions. For example, 39% of Republicans place blacks on the “lazy” side of the scale, while 31% of Democrats do. But by and large, Tabarrok is quite correct: both parties include substantial fractions willing to stereotype blacks unfavorably....This graph shows that identification with the Democratic Party tends to decline, and identification with the Republican party tends to increase, as attitudes toward black become less favorable—at least when attitudes are measured with two different racial stereotypes." http://themonkeycage.org/2012/...
"We examined the relation between political ideology and racial categorization.
People categorized morphed faces that ranged from 100% Black to 100% White.
Conservatism (vs. liberalism) was associated with the tendency to categorize racially ambiguous faces as Black.
Relation between ideology and categorization was mediated by opposition to equality.
This research helps to explain the ideological underpinnings of hypodescent." http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
" in Studies 1a and 1b we found that liberals were less willing to endorse the killing of an innocent person on consequentialist grounds when the name of the individual suggested he was Black than when it suggested he was White. Study 2 demonstrated that liberals’ biased application of moral principles, when made salient in a within-subjects design, was eliminated. When given both the Chip and Tyrone scenarios, participants were strikingly consistent in their use of consequentialist or deontological principles, such that their responses on the second scenario almost always mirrored those in the first. This suggests that participants explicitly believed that the principles they were invoking were general enough to apply regardless of the victim’s race. In Study 3 we found that conservatives were more likely to condone the killing of innocent civilians in a military attack when those civilians were Iraqis killed by Americans rather than Americans killed by Iraqis, while liberals did not demonstrate such a flexible set of responses. Finally, in Study 4 we primed participants with either patriotism or multiculturalism, and found that, analogous to the effects on self-reported political ideology in Study 4, participants primed with patriotism (compared to those primed with multiculturalism) were more likely to accept collateral damage when Iraqi civilians were killed by American forces, but not when American civilians were killed by Iraqi forces." http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/j...
"Identifying as" "Describing themselves as".
It's not like these people used to spend Sundays in church, and study the Bible, and memorize the Gospels, and have long family discussions about Christ and Christianity, but now they're stopped. It's just that it was very unfashionable in most of the US a while back to not say you're a Christian; and less unfashionable now.
That is simple to fix:
1) don't buy your hardware from a carrier.
2) or do, but put something like Cyanogenmod on it and give them the finger.
3)or, what I do: don't buy your hardware from a carrier and put Cyanogenmod on it.
My first criteria selecting a phone is can I run Cyanogenmod on it.
Reminds me of something I heard in the 70s, in all seriousness, from an aficionado of 60s US cars: "US cars aren't that bad, they last pretty well once you take them completely apart and put them together right"
Yes, I'm 100% sure that they just walked up there, plopped it down, and it didn't even *occur* to anyone at NOAA to consider the volcano thing.
Jesus fucking fuck, what the hell IS it with you people on slashdot who think that the first "insight" you have five seconds after thinking of something for the first time in your life hasn't occurred to people who do it for a living? Here's a hint: If you were *that* smart you wouldn't be talking shit on Slashdot.
Half of them were told too often by their parents how brilliant they were so they believe they can figure things out in five minutes that others spend lifetimes on, and the other half were told by their parents that they weren't smart enough and in order to get their parents' love they desperately have to show that they can figure things out in five minutes that others spend lifetimes on.
this seems to concentrate on exhaust emissions. But a 60s car emits more pollution just sitting there than a modern does running; modern cars trap evaporation from the gas tank, and are built with plastics that emit less in the way of hydrocarbons as well.
"The Abbott government’s chief business adviser, Maurice Newman, has warned that Australia is ill prepared for global cooling owing to widespread “warming propaganda” in his latest critique of mainstream climate science.
Newman, who chairs the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council, said there is evidence that the world is set for a period of cooling, rather than warming, leading to significant geopolitical problems because of a lack of preparedness.
Adam Bandt, deputy leader of the Greens, said Newman’s comments were an “embarrassment to the government”.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules.
For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?".
(Box, G. E. P. (1979), "Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building", in Launer, R. L.; Wilkinson, G. N., Robustness in Statistics, Academic Press, pp. 201–236.)
It really doesn't. The IR peak for CO2 is very, very sharp, meaning it doesn't hold in much of the spectrum t all, no matter what the concentration is. Think of it like laying out in the tundra, freezing to death, having a ten meter tall stack of washrags on your chest. Then you double the height of the washrag stack, only to find you aren't any better off. What you need is a nice, broad, nonsaturated blanket, like water vapor, which, surprise surprise, humans force into the air in an ever increasing amount thanks to construction of non-permeable surfaces that catch rainwater as well as irrigation and even producing more by burning hydrocarbons.
Even explains the "pause" in global warming, as the global economy has slowed, there has been less construction worldwide overall, and some construction has even been torn down (see places like Detroit).
Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium, which would mean that any warming is reversible, but of course that doesn't fit the agenda of the socialists in environmentalists clothing, who want to destroy capitalism as an ends unto itself (witness their hatred for nuclear power, which produces no CO2).
And here's the calculated plot of the earth's emission, with that "sharp" absorption, at 100 ppm CO2 and 1000 ppm CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.co...
go ahead and repeat with a straight face how insignificant that little hole at wavenumber 667 is.
The way things are going that'll be the last point we see 400ppm until the next extinction event.
CO2 levels below 400 ppm is relatively close to the level at which plants can not survive.
In terms of having healthy land ecosystems, 1000 - 2000 ppm is a far more historically normal range
So, for all those hundreds of years when it was 280 up until the last century, the earth was a desert. Good to know. The liberal textbooks cover it up.
I've been told by countless AGW supporters that the sun's output level has ZERO impact on climate. It was pointed out a few years ago that sun spot activity was lower than normal and could be reason that there has been a pause of nearly 20 years in warming, but many people called me names and told me I was stupid for saying the sun's output could change enough to affect climate.
Now you tell me it can be a major factor, more than CO2?
Sounds like your story changes over and over and keeps contradicting itself.
Who? Where? I've never seen an AGW supporter say anything like that.
Why does the temperature increase precede the CO2 level increase more often that not in that graph?
Because nobody was cranking large quantities of CO2 into the air.
You might as well say that you've disproved the hypothesis that chickens hatch out of eggs because you've seen chickens lay eggs.
I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you? It's your money, you should be able to spend it the way you want. Call 1 877 CASH NOW. Why would a government that doesn't stop you be necessarily corrupt?
As long as the Federal Government is underwriting flood insurance while not collecting enough to cover the costs it is the government's business. Why should the rest of us pay for other peoples recklessness.
Imagine my surprise when, 6 months after buying a house 10 miles from the coast and miles from the nearest lake, river, creek, or pond, I get notified that the altitude of my property means I'm in a CoE determined flood zone and the mortgage company requires me to take out flood insurance, even though there's never been anything resembling a flood here. They failed to inform me before purchase, because across the street is out of the flood zone, and they were confused. So now I'm out $5700 this year (been going up every year) because the feds are in fact stopping the subsidies. This is not "a house at the beach" this is a crummy 1950s 3 bedroom in a run of the mill working class neighborhood that's never flooded; I've lived here through a few hurricanes and a lot of rainstorms.
Always remember, when comparing religious violence, it's not fair to bring up the crusades or the inquisition or the conversion by sword of native populations all over the world in reference to Christianity because that's history, but it's totally fair to bring up the caliphate in reference to Islam because history tells you what their religion believes."
We aren't doing a comparative study of religions, dimwit.
Do you want to argue that it's okay for Muslims to kill people in the name of their religion, or that it's not okay for Christians to criticize Muslims for killing people in the name of their religion? Both of those stances, while wrong, are at least relevant.
Why do you want to go off the topic of modern Muslim violence to talk about past Christian violence?
Do you even have an argument?
Absolutely! Muslims are all killers, look at their history and the Caliphate and stuff, but Christians aren't, never mind their history! You go girl!
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't mind a rational, reasonable conversation on the topic, but instead you've got "its not happening so don't do anything" screamers... "Well screw it, if the world is ending, we might as well enjoy ourselves..." - well, lets all be so totally selfish and not think of others - great for our children etc "If it ISN'T ending, then perhaps we shouldn't derail our economy in the process of trying to improve the environment..." what economy is derailing, the banks did that. There is a new industry starting to replace the old. Things change and move on. "Yet all we hear about are electric cars and solar power, neither of which make any economic sense." eh? new tech is ALWAYS expensive at the start, wind power is already cheaper than coal, solar is getting cheaper. http://www.theguardian.com/env... "Why spend money on something that has a payback period of more than 5 years when we have easier solutions right in front of us that have a payback period of as little as 1 year?" - short term thinking is detrimental to long term solutions. the payback on things like solar is shortening all the time
150 years ago, radicals attempted to do away with the major source of energy in southern US against the frantic resistance of those living there, who were terrified that ending slavery was just a pipe dream as there was clearly no economically viable replacement. those who rode the slavery horse until its death did in fact fare poorly, but on the whole, other forms of energy were found and the south did not in fact become a third world subsistence economy after all.
The only risk greater than man made global warming is the risk that man will try to stop global warming. Sure we are influencing the climate and we should try to reduce that influence. On the other hand, I don't see any good from experimenting with intentional manipulation of the climate OR from crippling the poor's access to energy and standard of living in order to reduce that influence outweighing the possible negatives of a warmer climate.
the third world poor aren't burning a lot of diesel or gasoline. their burning of sheep dung or whatever doesn't come from fossil fuels and doesn't result in a net increase of atmospheric CO2.
Oh, the climate models are quite good for the region I live in. Austria collects weather and climate data since more than 250 years already, so we have a pretty good timeline of climate conditions since the 18th century. If I remember correctly, yearly weather reports started in 1736, very important for a society depending heavily on agriculture. And tell you what: Average yearly temperatures have risen two degrees Celsius since the start of the weather records. And that includes the Year Without a Summer 1816 (probably caused by the volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815).
It's not as if the rising temperatures are something just recently discovered or somehow recalculated into the past. It's something that has been observed by several generation of scientists now.
Even more fundamental than that; earth's temperature is 30 degrees warmer than would be predicted by our black body radiation balance and our albedo; compare to the moon, for instance. Which is right about what CO2 absorbance in the atmosphere would predict; as was calculated by Svante Arrhenius over a century ago, at the birth of greenhouse gas theory. Those who believe that this effect will stop right at this temperature, despite added CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, have a lot of explaining to do.
Despite the argument that the onus is on AGW believers to provide proof, in fact any well established mechanism is not subject to this law. The onus to provide proof is not on those who believe if they turn on the light, the room will become brighter; the onus is on those who are 'skeptical' of that to explain why it would not. And providing examples of other things that provide illumination rather than the electric lights does not in the slightest count as such evidence.
Read the IPCC reports to answer all your questions. It really is that easy.
To your average denialist, the IPCC report is like a reverse Bible. Whereas the Bible is true, which is proved by the fact that it says it's true, and that must therefore be true; on the other handm the IPCC report is a lie, and therefore they don't have to read it to see what's in that might be a lie, because it's a lie.
Nope, deniers aren't skeptical. A skeptic even wonders if THEY are right, and are willing to change their mind in the face of evidence, instead of hunting for some third-hand anecdotal report that might possibly indicate a vague problem or issue with the evidence for. Then assumes it's true and the evidence for AGW being real is faked.
That's not skepticism. That's denial.
The distinction of denialists is that there is nothing that can, could, or would convince them to change their minds. Some of the more obtuse ones will cite this as a badge of pride; "There is nothing that will convince me that AGW is real". If you press denialists, asking "What piece of information is missing? What data would cause you to change your mind re the reality of AGW?" they will dodge the subject, giving an abstract answer like "convincing proof!" or "scientific proof!" or ask for something impossible, like a controlled study of planetary climates holding all factors except CO2 constant, or similar. Ideally, of course, this is determined a priori; the evidence required to establish probability is defined, the experiment is done to find that evidence, if it exists then the hypothesis is considered valid, otherwise it is considered insufficiently proved. Although this is more honored in the breach in reality, at least scientists will be able to tell you what evidence would convince them regarding any hypothesis, even if they're still just piling up observations. Every scientist knows that it's always possible to look at any amount of evidence for anything and say "Nope, not sufficiently convincing." even if everybody else on earth is convinced; so that point of view is not respected at all.
of climate change deniers.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
What exactly is a "climate change denier"? Is that someone who denies that the climate changes? Would you be so kind as to point to a specific example of someone who has actually said the climate hasn't changed, isn't changing and won't change? I certainly don't know of anyone who is that stupid. (Although, it does seem that some people think the climate shouldn't change and that, because it is changing, that's a Bad Thing. But those aren't the skeptics.) Or by "climate change denier" do you mean someone who doesn't believe in future predictions of disaster? If so, could you explain how someone "denies" a future prediction? One either believes a prediction or doesn't believe it but it hasn't happened so there is nothing to "deny" or "accept".
"Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There. Boy, you sure got some strong opinions for somebody who doesn't even know the definition of the subject under discussion.
So, there's a brilliant programmer or programmers who can and do create and negotiate their own path by constantly juggling the requirements, the current state of the project, the gap between where it is and where it wants to be, within their heads at all times, while keeping the code clean and readable. And you want to convert your organization from reliance on one or a group of these talented programmers, so that you'd have to quit the business if anything happened to them, into one where the talents and knowledge and wisdom and good habits and skills and styles and diligence are all built into the processes so that mediocre programmers can do good work by just adhering to processes; and good programmers will find these processes are in accord with what they're doing anyway and not be hindered. Ha! Welcome to the dilemma of every organization, ever; making the leap from a bunch of talented people pooling their talents into an organization where the talent is built into the structure/function of the organization. If 5% organizations make the leap successfully, I'll be surprised.
I would be far more likely to be swayed by your argument if you were to show / link / discuss any actual "double-blind tests now showing liberals as more racist than conservatives", Please show me how average liberals are racist against white people, especially 'over and over'. There are kooks everywhere, I know, but claiming massive one-sidedness doesn't work with some sort of evidence by a researcher.
So.... have you never met a rightwinger before?
I was surprised to see that all double blind tests are now showing liberals as more racist than conservatives. The average liberal now has a default "affirmative action" position and is racist against white people. This has been confirmed over and over again in studies, one even showed that liberals are far more likely to sacrifice a white person to save multiple black people than they are the other way around. So we gave truely crossed into delusional type unlogical thinking in politics as well.
Let's see now, where's the pony inside this pile...
"Overall, Republicans are slightly more likely to assess blacks unfavorably on these dimensions. For example, 39% of Republicans place blacks on the “lazy” side of the scale, while 31% of Democrats do. But by and large, Tabarrok is quite correct: both parties include substantial fractions willing to stereotype blacks unfavorably....This graph shows that identification with the Democratic Party tends to decline, and identification with the Republican party tends to increase, as attitudes toward black become less favorable—at least when attitudes are measured with two different racial stereotypes." http://themonkeycage.org/2012/...
"We examined the relation between political ideology and racial categorization. People categorized morphed faces that ranged from 100% Black to 100% White. Conservatism (vs. liberalism) was associated with the tendency to categorize racially ambiguous faces as Black. Relation between ideology and categorization was mediated by opposition to equality. This research helps to explain the ideological underpinnings of hypodescent." http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
" in Studies 1a and 1b we found that liberals were less willing to endorse the killing of an innocent person on consequentialist grounds when the name of the individual suggested he was Black than when it suggested he was White. Study 2 demonstrated that liberals’ biased application of moral principles, when made salient in a within-subjects design, was eliminated. When given both the Chip and Tyrone scenarios, participants were strikingly consistent in their use of consequentialist or deontological principles, such that their responses on the second scenario almost always mirrored those in the first. This suggests that participants explicitly believed that the principles they were invoking were general enough to apply regardless of the victim’s race. In Study 3 we found that conservatives were more likely to condone the killing of innocent civilians in a military attack when those civilians were Iraqis killed by Americans rather than Americans killed by Iraqis, while liberals did not demonstrate such a flexible set of responses. Finally, in Study 4 we primed participants with either patriotism or multiculturalism, and found that, analogous to the effects on self-reported political ideology in Study 4, participants primed with patriotism (compared to those primed with multiculturalism) were more likely to accept collateral damage when Iraqi civilians were killed by American forces, but not when American civilians were killed by Iraqi forces." http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/j...
"Identifying as" "Describing themselves as". It's not like these people used to spend Sundays in church, and study the Bible, and memorize the Gospels, and have long family discussions about Christ and Christianity, but now they're stopped. It's just that it was very unfashionable in most of the US a while back to not say you're a Christian; and less unfashionable now.
Of course, the other thing about big ships is it takes them a long time to sink.
Yeah. Back in Vista/win7 days my media center hopes were dashed when I discovered that the cable channels routinely set drm on everything to no copy.
That is simple to fix: 1) don't buy your hardware from a carrier. 2) or do, but put something like Cyanogenmod on it and give them the finger. 3)or, what I do: don't buy your hardware from a carrier and put Cyanogenmod on it.
My first criteria selecting a phone is can I run Cyanogenmod on it.
Reminds me of something I heard in the 70s, in all seriousness, from an aficionado of 60s US cars: "US cars aren't that bad, they last pretty well once you take them completely apart and put them together right"
Yes, I'm 100% sure that they just walked up there, plopped it down, and it didn't even *occur* to anyone at NOAA to consider the volcano thing.
Jesus fucking fuck, what the hell IS it with you people on slashdot who think that the first "insight" you have five seconds after thinking of something for the first time in your life hasn't occurred to people who do it for a living? Here's a hint: If you were *that* smart you wouldn't be talking shit on Slashdot.
Half of them were told too often by their parents how brilliant they were so they believe they can figure things out in five minutes that others spend lifetimes on, and the other half were told by their parents that they weren't smart enough and in order to get their parents' love they desperately have to show that they can figure things out in five minutes that others spend lifetimes on.
this seems to concentrate on exhaust emissions. But a 60s car emits more pollution just sitting there than a modern does running; modern cars trap evaporation from the gas tank, and are built with plastics that emit less in the way of hydrocarbons as well.
"The Abbott government’s chief business adviser, Maurice Newman, has warned that Australia is ill prepared for global cooling owing to widespread “warming propaganda” in his latest critique of mainstream climate science. Newman, who chairs the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council, said there is evidence that the world is set for a period of cooling, rather than warming, leading to significant geopolitical problems because of a lack of preparedness. Adam Bandt, deputy leader of the Greens, said Newman’s comments were an “embarrassment to the government”. http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules. For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?". (Box, G. E. P. (1979), "Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building", in Launer, R. L.; Wilkinson, G. N., Robustness in Statistics, Academic Press, pp. 201–236.)
It really doesn't. The IR peak for CO2 is very, very sharp, meaning it doesn't hold in much of the spectrum t all, no matter what the concentration is. Think of it like laying out in the tundra, freezing to death, having a ten meter tall stack of washrags on your chest. Then you double the height of the washrag stack, only to find you aren't any better off. What you need is a nice, broad, nonsaturated blanket, like water vapor, which, surprise surprise, humans force into the air in an ever increasing amount thanks to construction of non-permeable surfaces that catch rainwater as well as irrigation and even producing more by burning hydrocarbons. Even explains the "pause" in global warming, as the global economy has slowed, there has been less construction worldwide overall, and some construction has even been torn down (see places like Detroit). Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium, which would mean that any warming is reversible, but of course that doesn't fit the agenda of the socialists in environmentalists clothing, who want to destroy capitalism as an ends unto itself (witness their hatred for nuclear power, which produces no CO2).
And here's the calculated plot of the earth's emission, with that "sharp" absorption, at 100 ppm CO2 and 1000 ppm CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.co... go ahead and repeat with a straight face how insignificant that little hole at wavenumber 667 is.
CO2 levels below 400 ppm is relatively close to the level at which plants can not survive.
In terms of having healthy land ecosystems, 1000 - 2000 ppm is a far more historically normal range
So, for all those hundreds of years when it was 280 up until the last century, the earth was a desert. Good to know. The liberal textbooks cover it up.
This sounds like a good reason to continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere if it means we can finally be rid of Florida.
Save Mia Mifla!
I've been told by countless AGW supporters that the sun's output level has ZERO impact on climate. It was pointed out a few years ago that sun spot activity was lower than normal and could be reason that there has been a pause of nearly 20 years in warming, but many people called me names and told me I was stupid for saying the sun's output could change enough to affect climate.
Now you tell me it can be a major factor, more than CO2?
Sounds like your story changes over and over and keeps contradicting itself.
Who? Where? I've never seen an AGW supporter say anything like that.
Why does the temperature increase precede the CO2 level increase more often that not in that graph?
Because nobody was cranking large quantities of CO2 into the air.
You might as well say that you've disproved the hypothesis that chickens hatch out of eggs because you've seen chickens lay eggs.
Incredible how well temperature predicts changes in CO2 concentration, isn't it? (Temperature is blue, CO2 is red)
See, there are these things called positive feedback loops; mostly, you don't want to get stuck in one.
I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you? It's your money, you should be able to spend it the way you want. Call 1 877 CASH NOW. Why would a government that doesn't stop you be necessarily corrupt?
As long as the Federal Government is underwriting flood insurance while not collecting enough to cover the costs it is the government's business. Why should the rest of us pay for other peoples recklessness.
Imagine my surprise when, 6 months after buying a house 10 miles from the coast and miles from the nearest lake, river, creek, or pond, I get notified that the altitude of my property means I'm in a CoE determined flood zone and the mortgage company requires me to take out flood insurance, even though there's never been anything resembling a flood here. They failed to inform me before purchase, because across the street is out of the flood zone, and they were confused. So now I'm out $5700 this year (been going up every year) because the feds are in fact stopping the subsidies. This is not "a house at the beach" this is a crummy 1950s 3 bedroom in a run of the mill working class neighborhood that's never flooded; I've lived here through a few hurricanes and a lot of rainstorms.
Always remember, when comparing religious violence, it's not fair to bring up the crusades or the inquisition or the conversion by sword of native populations all over the world in reference to Christianity because that's history, but it's totally fair to bring up the caliphate in reference to Islam because history tells you what their religion believes."
We aren't doing a comparative study of religions, dimwit.
Do you want to argue that it's okay for Muslims to kill people in the name of their religion, or that it's not okay for Christians to criticize Muslims for killing people in the name of their religion? Both of those stances, while wrong, are at least relevant.
Why do you want to go off the topic of modern Muslim violence to talk about past Christian violence?
Do you even have an argument?
Absolutely! Muslims are all killers, look at their history and the Caliphate and stuff, but Christians aren't, never mind their history! You go girl!