This corporation lied, didn't deliver and ran over budget. But hey, as long as you can suck at the corporate dick, it's always the incompetent government, right?
oh my. 2/3 of SAP projects fail, and 75% of projects are so bad the CTO that started leave, they get a new CTO, and then they leave, then they get a 3rd CTO and the project is done. Way over cost, and most of the requested features pushed off.
a) They are fetus i the room, and this "don't seem to mind killing "
is a massive simplification of what is going on.
"so why wouldn't it be valid to do the same for someone who is actually suffering? so if I see you 'suffering' I should be able to kill you? Who defines suffering?
And living wills are pretty well accepted as a defense from the Dr.
At NO POINT are you to stop trying to keep me alive. AT NO POINT will you stop assisting in my critical life functions if I can not do it on my own. Spare NO EXPENSE to keep me alive not matter what.
To be clear: I would rather suffer and live then cease existence.
Wait, data centers is you link to technology? NC is the master of warehouses, well done.
No, it was unreasonable to take and only goes to hide the science and the impact of the change. The in context and appropriates statement by Colbert is just an excuse.
and no, I don't think NC is full if white trash, just people willing to remain ignorant with any facts that goes against a belief; which is far worse than white trash, now that I think about it.
Facts: 1) Visible light comes from the sun 2) visible light hits the earth an IR is expressed. 3) CO2 is transparent to visible light 4) CO2 absorb IR energy
Please explain why increasing CO2 would not result in an increase of trapped energy.
And the IPCC reports have been very conservative.
The vast majority of alarmist you see is the media.
"The most cherished chunk of leftish" no. Most people on the left are pro nuclear. Also, using current technology, yucca mountain may not be needed, see we can use that 'waste'.
A science museum should present actual science. There is no scientific debate about this subject. In fact by not showing it that have chose the side of ignorance. The exact opposite a museum is suppose to do.
"Global warming is of major concern, then not a month ago were told it's been a farce, (sorry Gore I like you). " WTF are you talking about?
Facts: 1) Visible light comes from the sun 2) visible light hits the earth an IR is expressed. 3) CO2 is transparent to visible light 4) CO2 absorb IR energy
Please explain why increasing CO2 would not result in an increase of trapped energy.
Facts: 1) Visible light comes from the sun 2) visible light hits the earth an IR is expressed. 3) CO2 is transparent to visible light 4) CO2 absorb IR energy
Please explain why increasing CO2 would not result in an increase of trapped energy.
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)
thje change in energy from the sun in no way accounts for the amount of energy being trapped. It would be a tiny, tiny percentage,AND the weather would return to pr- sun spot activity when the sun spot activity change, and it doesn't. Also, if it was the sun, the the upper most atmosphere would also be warming, it is not. Also, every body in the planet would be warming in accordance to the inverse square law. They are not.
Wow, that was a long way of saying you don't know what climate change is. Let me try to boil it down for your simple mind.
Climate change is about trapped energy. That mean these event will have more energy in them; which we see.
That means more, and/or bigger and bigger wind speeds. All of which we are seeing. In short, the amount of energy these storms express through a year is trending upwards.
IN order to keep it simple for you and you ilk, I am going to use a number which is SOLELY used as in example. That actual numbers are far too big for you.
Lets say 100 unit of energy are spent through storms a year, 100 years ago. no there is 110 until of energy spent through storms every year. An it keep increasing. It is a fact that the amount of energy released in storms is increasing.
"Though attempts are made regularly to tie a particular weather-event to the evil human-caused climate change" by the media, not the scientist. IN fact, this year is the first year where actual scientists who are experts in this field say 'yes, there are some indicators the amount of energy is caused by global warming.'
All you information seems to be coming from media headlines. Stop it. Media very seldom gets science information correct. Media is written for simpletons who want to feel informed with out actual spending the effort to be informed.
"None of the dire predictions made 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago came to life. " Yes, they are. the scientific one that is, not the media headline one. See above.
"ver the years, we moved from the threat of "Global Cooling" [wikipedia.org] (temperatures, supposedly, falling), to "Global Warming" (temperatures, supposedly, rising) see there oyu go, showing the world you don't understand the science or the history.
There are two effect. You can keep track of things up to 2, right? Particulate in the air blocking sunlight. This is happening, and in fact measurably less sunlight is hitting the earth now then 100 years ago. This has the effect of less energy hitting the surface, and thus less IR being created. This is happening, but its effect is dwarfed by global warming.
These thing are not opposite, they are two effects that aren't weight equally. Meaning more energy is trapped than sunlight blocked. And no, the don't cancel each other out, they make things worse. It's only simpleton who cant understand this.
Let me explain to you, at a high level, the science of gloabl warming. Let me know if you disagree wiht any of thise scienctific facts, then we can have an actual discussion. 1) The vast majority of visible light hitting the earth comes form our sun. disagree? please explain and show your work 2) Visible light passe through CO2. disagree? please explain and show your work 3) Visible light hits something and IR is expressed. disagree? please explain and show your work 4) CO2 absorbs IR. disagree? please explain and show your work
SO, the onerous is on YOU to explain where that energy is going if it isn't stating close to the Earth.
You don't explain them away. Frequency and longevity are changing. The amount of energy trap at the lower atmosphere is increasing.
Yes there had been droughts, and floods, and snowstorms, and so on. The impact of increased trapped energy is on top of those cycles. Changing those cycles.
You ever notice that deniers never talk about the actual science? only cherry pick things and use those as an attack?
Climatology is the science, climate change is an event that is happening, based on rock solid evidence. I would bet dollar to donuts you don' even know the science is. Hint, it's not rising temperature(increased amount of trapped energy, to e more precise.), rising temperature is the prediction(among others) of the science.
Slashdot Mirror
ug. Old people and their crappy cars.
fuck that noise, and stink, and increased cancer risk.
I'll just use my brain and harden a decent vehicle. kthxbye
Gosh, Kruse blames the government, while sucking the dick of a corporation! I'm shocked.
"State of Oregon has a miserable track record when it comes to IT developmen"
that's just blatantly false.
Yes, any systems you can compare by using overly simplistic examples are exactly the same.
This corporation lied, didn't deliver and ran over budget. But hey, as long as you can suck at the corporate dick, it's always the incompetent government, right?
WHen they take a job claiming they can do it, and then fail who else do you blame?
Did you have 24 hour on call on site service with a guaranteed over night part delivery?
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHahahhaha.
oh my. 2/3 of SAP projects fail, and 75% of projects are so bad the CTO that started leave, they get a new CTO, and then they leave, then they get a 3rd CTO and the project is done. Way over cost, and most of the requested features pushed off.
Then the contractor shouldn't have submitted the bid.
a) They are fetus i the room, and this "don't seem to mind killing "
is a massive simplification of what is going on.
"so why wouldn't it be valid to do the same for someone who is actually suffering?
so if I see you 'suffering' I should be able to kill you? Who defines suffering?
And living wills are pretty well accepted as a defense from the Dr.
A lot o things are natural, it doesn't make them good.
I'll take an unnatural living forever over death any day.
So where is the magic hospice that makes all the pain form disease deteriorating the body cease to be?
At NO POINT are you to stop trying to keep me alive. AT NO POINT will you stop assisting in my critical life functions if I can not do it on my own.
Spare NO EXPENSE to keep me alive not matter what.
To be clear: I would rather suffer and live then cease existence.
Wait, data centers is you link to technology? NC is the master of warehouses, well done.
No, it was unreasonable to take and only goes to hide the science and the impact of the change. The in context and appropriates statement by Colbert is just an excuse.
and no, I don't think NC is full if white trash, just people willing to remain ignorant with any facts that goes against a belief; which is far worse than white trash, now that I think about it.
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun
2) visible light hits the earth an IR is expressed.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light
4) CO2 absorb IR energy
Please explain why increasing CO2 would not result in an increase of trapped energy.
And the IPCC reports have been very conservative.
The vast majority of alarmist you see is the media.
"The most cherished chunk of leftish"
no. Most people on the left are pro nuclear. Also, using current technology, yucca mountain may not be needed, see we can use that 'waste'.
A science museum should present actual science.
There is no scientific debate about this subject. In fact by not showing it that have chose the side of ignorance. The exact opposite a museum is suppose to do.
"Global warming is of major concern, then not a
month ago were told it's been a farce, (sorry Gore I like you). "
WTF are you talking about?
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun
2) visible light hits the earth an IR is expressed.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light
4) CO2 absorb IR energy
Please explain why increasing CO2 would not result in an increase of trapped energy.
Science isn't a view point. When will you get that?
There is NO scientific alternate viewpoint of the increased energy in the atmosphere.
" present a balanced viewpoint "
False equivalency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Which you probably believe becasue of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun
2) visible light hits the earth an IR is expressed.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light
4) CO2 absorb IR energy
Please explain why increasing CO2 would not result in an increase of trapped energy.
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)
Do you have any actual references?
thje change in energy from the sun in no way accounts for the amount of energy being trapped. It would be a tiny, tiny percentage,AND the weather would return to pr- sun spot activity when the sun spot activity change, and it doesn't.
Also, if it was the sun, the the upper most atmosphere would also be warming, it is not.
Also, every body in the planet would be warming in accordance to the inverse square law. They are not.
we do, and you are only gathering one data point, which si lame, stupid, and frankly, beneath you.
930 tornadoes in 2012, 903 in 2013. So I'm not sure whose ass you are pulling numbers out of.
FYI: the US isn't the only place on the globe.
How about we stick to what experts in the fields are saying, shall we?
Wow, that was a long way of saying you don't know what climate change is.
Let me try to boil it down for your simple mind.
Climate change is about trapped energy. That mean these event will have more energy in them; which we see.
That means more, and/or bigger and bigger wind speeds. All of which we are seeing. In short, the amount of energy these storms express through a year is trending upwards.
IN order to keep it simple for you and you ilk, I am going to use a number which is SOLELY used as in example. That actual numbers are far too big for you.
Lets say 100 unit of energy are spent through storms a year, 100 years ago.
no there is 110 until of energy spent through storms every year.
An it keep increasing. It is a fact that the amount of energy released in storms is increasing.
"Though attempts are made regularly to tie a particular weather-event to the evil human-caused climate change"
by the media, not the scientist. IN fact, this year is the first year where actual scientists who are experts in this field say 'yes, there are some indicators the amount of energy is caused by global warming.'
All you information seems to be coming from media headlines. Stop it. Media very seldom gets science information correct. Media is written for simpletons who want to feel informed with out actual spending the effort to be informed.
"None of the dire predictions made 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago came to life. "
Yes, they are. the scientific one that is, not the media headline one. See above.
"ver the years, we moved from the threat of "Global Cooling" [wikipedia.org] (temperatures, supposedly, falling), to "Global Warming" (temperatures, supposedly, rising)
see there oyu go, showing the world you don't understand the science or the history.
There are two effect. You can keep track of things up to 2, right?
Particulate in the air blocking sunlight. This is happening, and in fact measurably less sunlight is hitting the earth now then 100 years ago. This has the effect of less energy hitting the surface, and thus less IR being created. This is happening, but its effect is dwarfed by global warming.
These thing are not opposite, they are two effects that aren't weight equally. Meaning more energy is trapped than sunlight blocked. And no, the don't cancel each other out, they make things worse. It's only simpleton who cant understand this.
Let me explain to you, at a high level, the science of gloabl warming. Let me know if you disagree wiht any of thise scienctific facts, then we can have an actual discussion.
1) The vast majority of visible light hitting the earth comes form our sun. disagree? please explain and show your work
2) Visible light passe through CO2. disagree? please explain and show your work
3) Visible light hits something and IR is expressed. disagree? please explain and show your work
4) CO2 absorbs IR. disagree? please explain and show your work
SO, the onerous is on YOU to explain where that energy is going if it isn't stating close to the Earth.
You don't explain them away.
Frequency and longevity are changing. The amount of energy trap at the lower atmosphere is increasing.
Yes there had been droughts, and floods, and snowstorms, and so on.
The impact of increased trapped energy is on top of those cycles. Changing those cycles.
You ever notice that deniers never talk about the actual science? only cherry pick things and use those as an attack?
That's becasue the science itself is rock solid.
Climatology is the science, climate change is an event that is happening, based on rock solid evidence. I would bet dollar to donuts you don' even know the science is. Hint, it's not rising temperature(increased amount of trapped energy, to e more precise.), rising temperature is the prediction(among others) of the science.
there are over 70 references. You're dismissive attitude shows you have no argument.
You lose.