"If you knew about science, you'd know that a warmer planet would be a lot more pleasant to live on. But of course, you don't." based on what? how is 150 degree summer and no land to grow crops 'better'? You think it's going to rise a few degrees and then stop? Without us taking action? Explain how the acid level in the ocean ring and killing off the number 1 Oxygen maker is a a good thing.
"IPCC-predicted temperature increases will cause less disruption than the kind of carbon emission reductions that would be necessary to "stabilize" the climate. it's predicted no such thing. Read it.
but here is the point you, and people like you, don't seem to grasp: The warming won't end unless we stop emitting, or find a good way to remove excess CO2. " unusually cold climate and can return to a warmer and more fruitful climate instead." and then what, as it continues to warm? hmm?
Why do people think oh., the caps will melt, and the it will be over and we will be fine? The caps are currently acting as a break, along with the oceans, when the caps are gone the temperature increase will be faster. And it's happen to fast to adapt to 200 degree summers.
If an iron asteroid the size of Texas was heading towards the earth would you want to take ction od just shrug and say well change happens!
Yes, it has been ruled out. Why to you think otherwise? we know the energy coming form the sun, we know the energy increase on the planet, and we know the upper most atmosphere isn't warming, thus ruling out the sun for the amount of increase.
"All sorts of things have been blamed for why climate models don't match reality " yes, becasue those few percent difference means they are completely wrong~ sheesh.
global warming is a well extablished fact. I wonder which part of the science you don't knoe? Help me find out: 1) Do you not know visible light comes from the sun? 2) Do you not know that when visible light hits something Infra red is created? 3) Do you not know that CO2 is 'clear' to visible light? 4) Do you not know that CO2 is opaque it infra red?
Those are scientific facts. So the hypothesis based on those facts is that the trapped energy will increase on earth. That means an increase in global temperature and a more energetic climate, such as bigger swing and more instance storms.
This is why the lower atmosphere is warming but not the outer atmosphere. This is how we know the suns small deviation can not account for the increase in temperature and energy.
All that is happening on top of 'normal' climate change cycles.
That's like being in a car hurtling towards a cliff and deciding not to do anything, because we don't really 'know' whats going to happen, it's all speculation.
Of course most article who claim peer review is broken don't understand peer review. For example, publishing is just the beginning of peer review, but many people here treat it as the final process of peer review.
And the quality of the initial review will change depending on the journal. At this moment in time, Open Access publishing is pretty horrible with the initial review of the paper.
Except one side has science and the others actually are denying the science.
"The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. " - H. L. Mencken
H.L. Mencken was a horrible person who was wrong i almost every thing he said, and took pleasure in telling other people how the should feel.
""I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him."" - H. L. Mencken
Actually, yes it does have ill effects on humans. I'm not sure what pundits teat you suck on to come up with your conclusion.
In the early to mid 1950s, DDT became one of the most widely used pesticides. This was when we thought it was completely harmless to human beings. When we originally used it to control lice, people were unaffected even though they were in direct contact with the pesticides.
One of the reasons why the DDT did not affect people is because it is difficult for DDT to be absorbed through human skin.
Eventually, we realized that some DDT was staying in our bodies. DDT was being used in the environment, on agricultural products, and on livestock. In the 1960's, concern arose about the widespread use of DDT and it's effects on humans.
A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day!
When DDT gets into our bodies, it is stored primarily in such fatty organs as the adrenals, testes, and thyroid. DDT is also stored in smaller concentrations in the liver and kidneys.
DDT concentrations are especially high in human milk. Milk production depends heavily on the use of stored body fat, and this is where DDT tends to stay in our bodies.
So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.
For fun, try and calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you.
Currently, there is much debate as to whether DDT can increase a woman's chance of breast cancer. Apparently, some researchers are saying that DDT (and some of its related forms) is an estrogen mimic. (For an in depth discussion of estrogen mimics, click here.)
Long run, there will be no Human winners. Sure, there may be a period where some people get some more oil out of the arctic, but it's not like warming will stop at that point.
emitting less is 1 thing we have to do, and collateral damage needs to be compared to the damage from not having any place to grow crops in 400 years.
Yes, more focus need sot be on the response, but when you have a group in congress who doesn't believe the science, along with another group that wants there to be disaster to bring in there second coming we're kinda screwed.
You're link is a horrible article, btw. Full of logical fallacy and manipulation. IT's an opinion piece at best.
"It's well-established fact that the poor make the best use of money. no they don't. They can't becasue ti takes money to us e money wisely. The poor do what they can to maximize the moment, and in the long run that is far more expensive.
"There is less waste and more immediate progress than with any organisation or institute. " No. for the same reason as above.
You want to help the poor? the best way I can see is double min. wage, and force them to put 15% away in a saving fund for 5 years. Another way would be to have planning be part of mandatory education, throughout their entire schooling.
" The rich of today pale in comparison to the wealthy of the last century. " laughably false.
", the 'wealth gap' was much wider, yet the standard of living for the poor was rising, "
It was rising because the gap was getting narrower.
" not falling the way it is today." when the gap is increasing.
100 years ago free market enslaved children in sweat shops, poisoned bodies of water, allow real owners to destroy anything in their past. Whole cities would have coal ash in the air all the time, created monopolies that remove choice.
"Religion does not cause poverty and misery." telling people to keep copulating and having children or they won't get a place in their heaven causes a lot of poverty and misery.
"l. Our current shitty state of the union is not due to any Religion, it's due to corrupt people in power." it's SPECIFICALLY becasue of religion. Pay attention. We have representatives that want the world to be shitty so their second coming will arrive.
1) Over population is a result of religion. This is a huge catalyst for many, many problems 2) Religion gives you an excuse to do what you want. "They had is coming" or "Bad Karma" or "god will sort it out" and so on. 3) It allows people to accept there current station as a divine will with some purpose. Decreasing peoples motivation to actual improve their life. 4) It makes society have to deal with crazy talk, 5) Make people self righteous and when any argument is countered that say 'must be a plan'
It's a warm blanket that that allow people to feel correct without evidence.
Removal or religion would lessen nearly every problem we have.
Slashdot Mirror
Bam, you win the thread.
"If you knew about science, you'd know that a warmer planet would be a lot more pleasant to live on. But of course, you don't."
based on what? how is 150 degree summer and no land to grow crops 'better'?
You think it's going to rise a few degrees and then stop? Without us taking action?
Explain how the acid level in the ocean ring and killing off the number 1 Oxygen maker is a a good thing.
"IPCC-predicted temperature increases will cause less disruption than the kind of carbon emission reductions that would be necessary to "stabilize" the climate.
it's predicted no such thing.
Read it.
So you are saying we will evolve to not needing to grow food in the next 500 years?
but here is the point you, and people like you, don't seem to grasp:
The warming won't end unless we stop emitting, or find a good way to remove excess CO2.
" unusually cold climate and can return to a warmer and more fruitful climate instead."
and then what, as it continues to warm? hmm?
Why do people think oh., the caps will melt, and the it will be over and we will be fine?
The caps are currently acting as a break, along with the oceans, when the caps are gone the temperature increase will be faster. And it's happen to fast to adapt to 200 degree summers.
If an iron asteroid the size of Texas was heading towards the earth would you want to take ction od just shrug and say well change happens!
Yes, it has been ruled out. Why to you think otherwise? we know the energy coming form the sun, we know the energy increase on the planet, and we know the upper most atmosphere isn't warming, thus ruling out the sun for the amount of increase.
"All sorts of things have been blamed for why climate models don't match reality "
yes, becasue those few percent difference means they are completely wrong~
sheesh.
global warming is a well extablished fact. I wonder which part of the science you don't knoe?
Help me find out:
1) Do you not know visible light comes from the sun?
2) Do you not know that when visible light hits something Infra red is created?
3) Do you not know that CO2 is 'clear' to visible light?
4) Do you not know that CO2 is opaque it infra red?
Those are scientific facts.
So the hypothesis based on those facts is that the trapped energy will increase on earth.
That means an increase in global temperature and a more energetic climate, such as bigger swing and more instance storms.
This is why the lower atmosphere is warming but not the outer atmosphere. This is how we know the suns small deviation can not account for the increase in temperature and energy.
All that is happening on top of 'normal' climate change cycles.
That's like being in a car hurtling towards a cliff and deciding not to do anything, because we don't really 'know' whats going to happen, it's all speculation.
IT's not broken, but it can have problems.
Of course most article who claim peer review is broken don't understand peer review. For example, publishing is just the beginning of peer review, but many people here treat it as the final process of peer review.
And the quality of the initial review will change depending on the journal. At this moment in time, Open Access publishing is pretty horrible with the initial review of the paper.
You do realize that they were mandated not to take humans into account. Those people didn't want a study, they want something to confirm a conclusion.
Except one side has science and the others actually are denying the science.
"The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. " - H. L. Mencken
H.L. Mencken was a horrible person who was wrong i almost every thing he said, and took pleasure in telling other people how the should feel.
""I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him."" - H. L. Mencken
Actually, yes it does have ill effects on humans. I'm not sure what pundits teat you suck on to come up with your conclusion.
In the early to mid 1950s, DDT became one of the most widely used pesticides. This was when we thought it was completely harmless to human beings. When we originally used it to control lice, people were unaffected even though they were in direct contact with the pesticides.
One of the reasons why the DDT did not affect people is because it is difficult for DDT to be absorbed through human skin.
Eventually, we realized that some DDT was staying in our bodies. DDT was being used in the environment, on agricultural products, and on livestock. In the 1960's, concern arose about the widespread use of DDT and it's effects on humans.
A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day!
When DDT gets into our bodies, it is stored primarily in such fatty organs as the adrenals, testes, and thyroid. DDT is also stored in smaller concentrations in the liver and kidneys.
DDT concentrations are especially high in human milk. Milk production depends heavily on the use of stored body fat, and this is where DDT tends to stay in our bodies.
So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.
For fun, try and calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you.
Currently, there is much debate as to whether DDT can increase a woman's chance of breast cancer. Apparently, some researchers are saying that DDT (and some of its related forms) is an estrogen mimic. (For an in depth discussion of estrogen mimics, click here.)
even saying 'somewhat' is giving it to much impact.
Clowns? so you don't understand science, can't think about the future and the only argument is an ad hom?
Let me help:
It's a bad thing for humans.
Long run, there will be no Human winners. Sure, there may be a period where some people get some more oil out of the arctic, but it's not like warming will stop at that point.
emitting less is 1 thing we have to do, and collateral damage needs to be compared to the damage from not having any place to grow crops in 400 years.
Yes, more focus need sot be on the response, but when you have a group in congress who doesn't believe the science, along with another group that wants there to be disaster to bring in there second coming we're kinda screwed.
You're link is a horrible article, btw. Full of logical fallacy and manipulation. IT's an opinion piece at best.
SO what you are telling us is that you don't understand the scientific process, good to know.
"It's well-established fact that the poor make the best use of money.
no they don't. They can't becasue ti takes money to us e money wisely. The poor do what they can to maximize the moment, and in the long run that is far more expensive.
"There is less waste and more immediate progress than with any organisation or institute. "
No. for the same reason as above.
You want to help the poor? the best way I can see is double min. wage, and force them to put 15% away in a saving fund for 5 years.
Another way would be to have planning be part of mandatory education, throughout their entire schooling.
" The rich of today pale in comparison to the wealthy of the last century. "
laughably false.
", the 'wealth gap' was much wider, yet the standard of living for the poor was rising, "
It was rising because the gap was getting narrower.
" not falling the way it is today."
when the gap is increasing.
100 years ago free market enslaved children in sweat shops, poisoned bodies of water, allow real owners to destroy anything in their past. Whole cities would have coal ash in the air all the time, created monopolies that remove choice.
Study some fucking history.
* Indeed, in the USA, the poor not only avoid all federal and state income tax but they receive credits;
false. The poor pay a hire real amount then rich people do.
Not to mention it cost more to be poor.
See: Vimes boot theory of economics.
Also
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/06/the_secret_tax_on_the_poor/
This is becasue the poor tend to be more devote* and as such easier to manipulate into tithing.
*got have some reason for being in a crappy situation
Bill Gates isn't some evil person. He ran a business, did some thing we don'y like, paid for those mistakes.
Now he is rich and helping the world.
He is a person.
"Religion does not cause poverty and misery."
telling people to keep copulating and having children or they won't get a place in their heaven causes a lot of poverty and misery.
"l. Our current shitty state of the union is not due to any Religion, it's due to corrupt people in power."
it's SPECIFICALLY becasue of religion. Pay attention.
We have representatives that want the world to be shitty so their second coming will arrive.
Religion gives one an excuse, Atheism give one responsibility, try again.
1) Over population is a result of religion. This is a huge catalyst for many, many problems
2) Religion gives you an excuse to do what you want. "They had is coming" or "Bad Karma" or "god will sort it out" and so on.
3) It allows people to accept there current station as a divine will with some purpose. Decreasing peoples motivation to actual improve their life.
4) It makes society have to deal with crazy talk,
5) Make people self righteous and when any argument is countered that say 'must be a plan'
It's a warm blanket that that allow people to feel correct without evidence.
Removal or religion would lessen nearly every problem we have.
Or it represents the majority opinion, but you surely wouldn't allow yourself to accept that now, would you