Nobody said it makes them bigger. It is however a prerequisite. Insects have exoskeletons. That puts an upper limit on their size relative to the oxygen content of the air. More oxygen allows bigger insects to be capable of existing. A dragonfly that big today would suffocate.
The only thing your post proves is that you are utterly ignorant of basic biology and paleontology. Proving yourself stupid on two things at once... you should run for Congress. The republican party loves candidates like you.
Dinosaurs make up about 0.01% of fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels are primarily the fossils of trees that grew in the carboniferous period - the first trees actually. Normally trees are carbon neutral - but those were not because nothing had yet evolved that could eat or decompose wood. They died and they all fossilized. And while they were alive, because they were not decomposed... the atmosphere had almost twice as much oxygen as today (that's why you could get dragonfly's a meter long).
Could it because those underlying assumptions are the most basic laws of physics and chemistry ? If global warming by human activity is WRONG - then the question is moot since our understanding of thermodynamics is ENTIRELY FALSE and cars and power plants don't exist to emit CO2 in the first place.
Humans emitting CO2 is not a greenhouse problem. Human breathing is carbon neutral - you can't breath out more CO2 than the carbon you've eaten (less actually since you grow cells out of some of it - that ballances out when you die and decompose). So every bit of CO2 you breath out, is ballanced by having had that same amount taken OUT by the plants you ate first.
The CO2 problem is carbon that was fossilized millions of years ago being burned today - with nothing having taken the equivalent amount out first.
I think it's a bit unfair to conflate ALL the money he gets together - a quite a lot of that is just the same general corporate welfare every other business gets as well, and the subsidy part is way less than the subsidies enjoyed by oil companies for example.
It's probably not an unsupportable position to say there should be no subsidies for him - but ONLY if you hold hte position that there should be no subsidies for any business, ever.
You realise this won't cost you a cent right ? This is the exact same subsidy Reagan instituted with no increase. Just permission to allocate it to a different service.
And what's your solution ? Hell even if you replace the prison system with mandatory death sentences executed the same day you will STILL need to pay for a justice system, and the cost of actually doing the executions...
Continental drift. When Wegener proposed it in 1912 he was laughed at. It was considered a lunatic fringe theory. When it was again proposed with minor changes in the 1960s with the help of computer models it convinced maybe half the scientists at the convention barely becoming consensus. When it's slightly altered successor plate tectonics came along in 1988 it became the absolute dominant theory and static continents went from absolute consensus to the lunatic fringe that moving continents had occupied since the 16th century.
There are plenty of others. Lamarckian inheritance went from common knowledge to discredited theory to partly vindicated as an aspect of evolution (epigenetic inheritance of acquired traits) in about 150 years.
You asked for one I just gave you two. This not unique to climate science. It's how science works.
Nothing has convinced me it's true. I support the theory with evidence. You may feel that evidence is weaker than I do. You may even be right but considering the opposition has no evidence whatsoever as a sceptic I still stand with climate change and will do so until and unless somebody presents an alternative theory with stronger evidence.
Healthy scepticism is trusting the evidence - and this is why modern evolutionary theory has changed quite a few things about Darwin's original theory, the crux of it is intact. And the social upheaval it caused at the time was, in fact, MUCH larger than what climate change is demanding - at a time when religion was fundamentally woven into the political process all over the world - it threatened that religion to the core. There's a reason creationists are STILL going crazy over it, but they aren't being scientific.
You're not BEING A healthy sceptic - you're being a denier and by your own admission just now, your reasoning is pure argumentum-ad-consequentum - an outright fallacy. Scepticism is wanting evidence and ACCEPTING it when it's presented - and changing your mind for NEW evidence. This has allowed evolutionary theory to be refined and improved over time - but those refinements never replaced the theory, they merely improved it. Climate science is the most scrutinized science on earth, because well funded opponents are desperate for any way to discredit it - scientific or not. Like evolutionary theory it has been refined over time (in fact - almost as much time), faced enormous opposition from dominant social forces which forced it to be rigorous.
All the sceptics are supporting the climate change theory right now because sceptics believe only that which has evidence. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for climate change, no evidence whatsoever for any of the ideas the deniers have proposed - sceptics are with the evidence. The other lot are deniers. The definition of a denier is one who insists on his position REGARDLESS of the evidence.
There is no difference between a climate denier and a creationist - indeed this is why they correlate so strongly. The vast majority of people who are one are also the other. That correlation has only gotten stronger over time too. In 2008 56% of republicans denied climate change. Today it's a mere 28% - these are people who share your political theories and the concerns that climate change proposals raise for people who believe those political theories - yet have ultimately yielded to the overwhelming evidence. That remaining 28% are made up almost entirely of the batshit insane religious right and a few basement dwelling Randians like you who think that believing something unpopular makes them smart because they think they are so special.
> In any case, studies of ice cores have shown consistently that CO2 enrichment is a centuries delayed response to climate warming, never preceding that warming.
Aww you read a little research and didn't understand what it meant. That's cute. No those studies did NOT show what you think it showed, in fact they showed the exact opposite - ice cores are one of the strongest pieces of evidence FOR climate change theory, if they were radically disproving it - you really think thousands of scientists across thousands of disparate fields would ALL have missed that... yet somehow YOU saw it ?
>Despite CO2 rising during the 20th and early 21st Century, temperatures have risen, fallen, risen and now stabilized for more than 18 years.
This is about climate, not temperatures - climate is an AVERAGE and the average has CONSISTENTLY gone up - and there is no pause, just more lies you believe and misrepresentations of scientific results which actually prove the opposite of what you've been told they proved.
>The funny thing about that is an anthropogenic influence on global temperatures has only been possible since 1950
What the hell are you on about ? You think the age of industry didn't produce a fuckton of CO2 ? We're talking about an age primarily driven by steam engines -which burnt a lot of very dirty coal, as in a LOT.
The valid ones ALSO starts out with that 1/100 presenting evidence for why the currently acceptable theory is wrong.
Merely being a 1/100 doesn't make you right, in fact in the vast majority of cases it makes you a crank. If you're 1/100 with EVIDENCE - then you won't BE 1/100 for very long.
>I was taught that the scientific method welcomed challenges to accepted beliefs - a return to that position would go a long way towards reforming belief in science.
Absolutely - but they have to be SCIENTIFIC challenges. The difference between a sceptic and a denier is that a sceptic will always be open to changing his mind when presented with new evidence. One who sets out to disprove something because he doesn't like it, and will ignore all evidence to the contrary no matter how overwhelming is NOT a sceptic, in fact he is the OPPOSITE of a sceptic - and we call them "deniers". The sceptics in climate science all ACCEPT the theory - because they were convinced by the absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence from thousands of unrelated scientific fields. The deniers deny the theory despite all that evidence and despite the lack of any shred of contradictory evidence whatsoever.
Whether you're a sceptic or not isn't determined by the popularity of a theory EITHER. It is determined by, and ONLY by whether you agree with the EVIDENCE.
That's a really, really stupid thing to say since you are completely ignoring how many WOULD have died without the vaccine. That's not hard to calculate - and it's a LOT more than 100...
>Make no mistake..."Climate Change" is an agenda driven science with a predetermined outcome.
Even if that was true, which it is not, that wouldn't make the results wrong or false. Frankly everything you say is completely irrelevant. Those things matter to academics. They are details that ONLY matter to academics - they have no political or business impact whatsoever.
In terms of policy only this part matters: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas ? We've had proof of that since the mid 19th century. If it is, and we know it is, then it means that increasing CO2 levels = less energy leaving the earth. Does less energy leaving mean things get hotter ?
Well there you go - either prove that the ENTIRETY of chemistry is bunk, or disprove thermodynamics and conservation of energy. You need both those to be ENTIRELY false, not a single shred of truth to them - for global warming to be false.
Which would be ironic because it means that for global warming to be false, all the stuff the deniers are defending would have to be false too - if global warming really was false, fossil fuels would be utterly worthless since neither power plants nor internal combustion engines would WORK if we were THAT wrong about chemistry and thermodynamics.
And besides - all that stuff you said are lies, told to you by professional liars - the SAME professional liars who spent years telling you smoking was healthy and lead in the air was both natural and harmless. They are very, very good at lying, and you are very, very gullible.
Total budget for doing absolutely everything the IPCC says we ought to do about climate science ? You say "trillions of dollars" but that's just a big scary number without context. Actual context ? It comes down to 0.02% of the global GDP over 20 years (for which the budget was calculated).
That's about 2 orders of magnitude LESS than we'll spend on fossil fuels over the same period (without counting subsidies).
Interestingly - that's the idea behind tenure, in practise it doesn't always live up to that ideal - most often by being turned into a perk for previous worker-drone stuff and of course it pisses off the rightwingers who think anybody who doesn't have the constant axe of imminent potental jobloss over their neck could not possibly do anything valuable.
ãWhat do we call "taking something you didn't pay for" again? I know there's a word for it, but I forget...
There are several. Depending on context it could be called 'public property', 'marketing material ', 'free samples', 'your birthday' or even 'copyright infringement '.
I find it odd that you only seem to know one name for it and apparently assume that all other variations are that name being euphemised. Doubly ironic when you realise that the name your thinking off actually isn't what that is called. The definition of stealing has nothing about payment anywhere in it. It's defined by lack of consent - which may or may not be gained with payment and it doesn't apply to all things. No amount of lack of consent will make copyright infringement "stealing" for example.
His actions may or may not be illegal but they sure as fuck weren't theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody said it makes them bigger. It is however a prerequisite. Insects have exoskeletons. That puts an upper limit on their size relative to the oxygen content of the air. More oxygen allows bigger insects to be capable of existing. A dragonfly that big today would suffocate.
Wingspan
The only thing your post proves is that you are utterly ignorant of basic biology and paleontology. Proving yourself stupid on two things at once ... you should run for Congress. The republican party loves candidates like you.
Dinosaurs make up about 0.01% of fossil fuels.
Fossil Fuels are primarily the fossils of trees that grew in the carboniferous period - the first trees actually. Normally trees are carbon neutral - but those were not because nothing had yet evolved that could eat or decompose wood. They died and they all fossilized.
And while they were alive, because they were not decomposed... the atmosphere had almost twice as much oxygen as today (that's why you could get dragonfly's a meter long).
Could it because those underlying assumptions are the most basic laws of physics and chemistry ?
If global warming by human activity is WRONG - then the question is moot since our understanding of thermodynamics is ENTIRELY FALSE and cars and power plants don't exist to emit CO2 in the first place.
Humans emitting CO2 is not a greenhouse problem. Human breathing is carbon neutral - you can't breath out more CO2 than the carbon you've eaten (less actually since you grow cells out of some of it - that ballances out when you die and decompose).
So every bit of CO2 you breath out, is ballanced by having had that same amount taken OUT by the plants you ate first.
The CO2 problem is carbon that was fossilized millions of years ago being burned today - with nothing having taken the equivalent amount out first.
I think it's a bit unfair to conflate ALL the money he gets together - a quite a lot of that is just the same general corporate welfare every other business gets as well, and the subsidy part is way less than the subsidies enjoyed by oil companies for example.
It's probably not an unsupportable position to say there should be no subsidies for him - but ONLY if you hold hte position that there should be no subsidies for any business, ever.
You realise this won't cost you a cent right ? This is the exact same subsidy Reagan instituted with no increase. Just permission to allocate it to a different service.
>What they need is to gain skils and obtain a steady job or make one.
Have you TRIED to get a job without a phone number ? What century do you think this is ?
And what's your solution ? Hell even if you replace the prison system with mandatory death sentences executed the same day you will STILL need to pay for a justice system, and the cost of actually doing the executions...
Poe's law in action.
I honestly can't tell if you're paranoid or sarcastic...
Continental drift. When Wegener proposed it in 1912 he was laughed at. It was considered a lunatic fringe theory. When it was again proposed with minor changes in the 1960s with the help of computer models it convinced maybe half the scientists at the convention barely becoming consensus. When it's slightly altered successor plate tectonics came along in 1988 it became the absolute dominant theory and static continents went from absolute consensus to the lunatic fringe that moving continents had occupied since the 16th century.
There are plenty of others. Lamarckian inheritance went from common knowledge to discredited theory to partly vindicated as an aspect of evolution (epigenetic inheritance of acquired traits) in about 150 years.
You asked for one I just gave you two. This not unique to climate science. It's how science works.
Nothing has convinced me it's true. I support the theory with evidence. You may feel that evidence is weaker than I do. You may even be right but considering the opposition has no evidence whatsoever as a sceptic I still stand with climate change and will do so until and unless somebody presents an alternative theory with stronger evidence.
Healthy scepticism is trusting the evidence - and this is why modern evolutionary theory has changed quite a few things about Darwin's original theory, the crux of it is intact. And the social upheaval it caused at the time was, in fact, MUCH larger than what climate change is demanding - at a time when religion was fundamentally woven into the political process all over the world - it threatened that religion to the core.
There's a reason creationists are STILL going crazy over it, but they aren't being scientific.
You're not BEING A healthy sceptic - you're being a denier and by your own admission just now, your reasoning is pure argumentum-ad-consequentum - an outright fallacy. Scepticism is wanting evidence and ACCEPTING it when it's presented - and changing your mind for NEW evidence.
This has allowed evolutionary theory to be refined and improved over time - but those refinements never replaced the theory, they merely improved it. Climate science is the most scrutinized science on earth, because well funded opponents are desperate for any way to discredit it - scientific or not. Like evolutionary theory it has been refined over time (in fact - almost as much time), faced enormous opposition from dominant social forces which forced it to be rigorous.
All the sceptics are supporting the climate change theory right now because sceptics believe only that which has evidence. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for climate change, no evidence whatsoever for any of the ideas the deniers have proposed - sceptics are with the evidence. The other lot are deniers.
The definition of a denier is one who insists on his position REGARDLESS of the evidence.
There is no difference between a climate denier and a creationist - indeed this is why they correlate so strongly. The vast majority of people who are one are also the other. That correlation has only gotten stronger over time too. In 2008 56% of republicans denied climate change. Today it's a mere 28% - these are people who share your political theories and the concerns that climate change proposals raise for people who believe those political theories - yet have ultimately yielded to the overwhelming evidence. That remaining 28% are made up almost entirely of the batshit insane religious right and a few basement dwelling Randians like you who think that believing something unpopular makes them smart because they think they are so special.
> In any case, studies of ice cores have shown consistently that CO2 enrichment is a centuries delayed response to climate warming, never preceding that warming.
Aww you read a little research and didn't understand what it meant. That's cute. No those studies did NOT show what you think it showed, in fact they showed the exact opposite - ice cores are one of the strongest pieces of evidence FOR climate change theory, if they were radically disproving it - you really think thousands of scientists across thousands of disparate fields would ALL have missed that... yet somehow YOU saw it ?
>Despite CO2 rising during the 20th and early 21st Century, temperatures have risen, fallen, risen and now stabilized for more than 18 years.
This is about climate, not temperatures - climate is an AVERAGE and the average has CONSISTENTLY gone up - and there is no pause, just more lies you believe and misrepresentations of scientific results which actually prove the opposite of what you've been told they proved.
>Again, easily verifiable historical fact.
FTFY.
>The funny thing about that is an anthropogenic influence on global temperatures has only been possible since 1950
What the hell are you on about ? You think the age of industry didn't produce a fuckton of CO2 ? We're talking about an age primarily driven by steam engines -which burnt a lot of very dirty coal, as in a LOT.
The valid ones ALSO starts out with that 1/100 presenting evidence for why the currently acceptable theory is wrong.
Merely being a 1/100 doesn't make you right, in fact in the vast majority of cases it makes you a crank.
If you're 1/100 with EVIDENCE - then you won't BE 1/100 for very long.
>I was taught that the scientific method welcomed challenges to accepted beliefs - a return to that position would go a long way towards reforming belief in science.
Absolutely - but they have to be SCIENTIFIC challenges.
The difference between a sceptic and a denier is that a sceptic will always be open to changing his mind when presented with new evidence. One who sets out to disprove something because he doesn't like it, and will ignore all evidence to the contrary no matter how overwhelming is NOT a sceptic, in fact he is the OPPOSITE of a sceptic - and we call them "deniers".
The sceptics in climate science all ACCEPT the theory - because they were convinced by the absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence from thousands of unrelated scientific fields.
The deniers deny the theory despite all that evidence and despite the lack of any shred of contradictory evidence whatsoever.
Whether you're a sceptic or not isn't determined by the popularity of a theory EITHER. It is determined by, and ONLY by whether you agree with the EVIDENCE.
That's a really, really stupid thing to say since you are completely ignoring how many WOULD have died without the vaccine.
That's not hard to calculate - and it's a LOT more than 100...
Well yeah... but so will all the others, and the human race. Seems rather a high price to pay...
Pretty much everything you just said applies to an equal or greater degree to the theory of evolution. Do you also think THAT isn't science enough ?
>Make no mistake..."Climate Change" is an agenda driven science with a predetermined outcome.
Even if that was true, which it is not, that wouldn't make the results wrong or false.
Frankly everything you say is completely irrelevant. Those things matter to academics. They are details that ONLY matter to academics - they have no political or business impact whatsoever.
In terms of policy only this part matters:
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas ? We've had proof of that since the mid 19th century.
If it is, and we know it is, then it means that increasing CO2 levels = less energy leaving the earth.
Does less energy leaving mean things get hotter ?
Well there you go - either prove that the ENTIRETY of chemistry is bunk, or disprove thermodynamics and conservation of energy.
You need both those to be ENTIRELY false, not a single shred of truth to them - for global warming to be false.
Which would be ironic because it means that for global warming to be false, all the stuff the deniers are defending would have to be false too - if global warming really was false, fossil fuels would be utterly worthless since neither power plants nor internal combustion engines would WORK if we were THAT wrong about chemistry and thermodynamics.
And besides - all that stuff you said are lies, told to you by professional liars - the SAME professional liars who spent years telling you smoking was healthy and lead in the air was both natural and harmless. They are very, very good at lying, and you are very, very gullible.
Total budget for doing absolutely everything the IPCC says we ought to do about climate science ? You say "trillions of dollars" but that's just a big scary number without context.
Actual context ? It comes down to 0.02% of the global GDP over 20 years (for which the budget was calculated).
That's about 2 orders of magnitude LESS than we'll spend on fossil fuels over the same period (without counting subsidies).
Interestingly - that's the idea behind tenure, in practise it doesn't always live up to that ideal - most often by being turned into a perk for previous worker-drone stuff and of course it pisses off the rightwingers who think anybody who doesn't have the constant axe of imminent potental jobloss over their neck could not possibly do anything valuable.
ãWhat do we call "taking something you didn't pay for" again? I know there's a word for it, but I forget...
There are several. Depending on context it could be called 'public property', 'marketing material ', 'free samples', 'your birthday' or even 'copyright infringement '.
I find it odd that you only seem to know one name for it and apparently assume that all other variations are that name being euphemised. Doubly ironic when you realise that the name your thinking off actually isn't what that is called. The definition of stealing has nothing about payment anywhere in it. It's defined by lack of consent - which may or may not be gained with payment and it doesn't apply to all things. No amount of lack of consent will make copyright infringement "stealing" for example.
His actions may or may not be illegal but they sure as fuck weren't theft.