As it turns out, actual history is boring to most people, so now its the 'Made up History channel' much more consumer appeal.
It's a horrible channel with horrible stories. I do think there is overall merit to society in having a History channel the take a neutral stance and actual discus aspects of history. Sadly it would need to be government funded.
And when you think it can'tr get worse, there are people starting to demand the geocentristism(sp) needs to be taught in science class as an alternative theory to our current models that the earth revolve around the sun. No Shit.
Yes, the increase over normal cycle is due to the amount of CO2 we put into the air.
Carbon credit is a policy issue, not a science issue.
And as a policy issue, it a poor one. I find it acceptable only because getting a good policy is stifled by people who think humans can't change the world, in spite of the extraordinary evidence. Which would be fine if these people weren't also in power
oh, and this gem from the site: "it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. "
Is a lie. I big enough one to warrant never going to the site.
This is a discussion that's been going on for 100 years. In the 70s it was pretty obvious all the CO2 was changing the world. Then it was still a discussion between warming and cooling. By the end of the 70s, warming seemed likely. Something that has held true.
The particulate matter also blocks some light from getting to the surface. It's not enough to overcome the warming but it does have a measurable effect. Spencer is no different then a MD shilling for homeopathy. He takes his stance because the idea of global warming goes against his personal ideology of creationism.
"Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer." Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
That, right there, shows he is a poor scientist. No one ins science is trying to rid anyone of there belief. If someone give science a testable belief, then we can look at it. But saying "There is this thing no one can see, hear, smell, touch, ot taste, disprove it" Literally mean that person does not understand science. Sad someone can get a Ph.D. in a scientific field and say something like that. I mean, it's so out there I can almost believe he is stiring up manufactured controversy to sell his book. In fact, I wish he was..but it looks like he is just stuck in his ideology.
Of course, he make regular money from the Heartland Institute. Just so you know.
There are normal cycles. I know a lot of ignorant people like to spout off their mouth and say climatologist don't account for normal cycles, but they do.
While it is trending upward, there will be years that are flatter then others. Notice, it was still hotter then normal cycle would predicts. It's not like the temperature return no normal cycle temperatures.
yes, one 10 year blip is not a trend. No expert claims that. They may use a decade to illustrate a point.
Again he isn't a troll, he is just a non expert making a flip remark. Saying there was no warming in that 10 year period isn't really correct. 1998 was warm, then the the years to 05 area\n't as warm, stil part of the overall trend. 06
Here is the temperature from 98 - 10
Year Global Land Ocean 1998 - 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090 1999 - 0.4210 0.6759 0.3240 2000 - 0.3899 0.5174 0.3409 2001 - 0.5188 0.7207 0.4419 2002 - 0.5762 0.8318 0.4798 2003 - 0.5832 0.7735 0.5108 2004 - 0.5441 0.7115 0.4819 2005 - 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896 2006 - 0.5623 0.8158 0.4669 2007 - 0.5509 0.9852 0.3900 2008 - 0.4842 0.7801 0.3745 2009 - 0.5591 0.7595 0.4848 2010 - 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885
People who claim there 10 year cooling are really just grabbing two peaks and saying because there is a small valley between them that it isn't warming, or that it stopped. Its kinds of like 'God of the gaps' logical fallacy.
many of us are. Sadly the media love to stir up controversy where their isn't any, people in power don't understand science, some large corporation spreads money to people who claim it isn't so. SO people don't think it's real.
The temperatures are above normal cycles, and it is well beyond statistical blip.
It's like all the argument that where shown wrong in the 80s just wont die. It's not like the issue you have brought up haven't been investigated.
And if too much carbon gets into the air, the earth can become a heat trap. We are releasing almost all the carbon from all of history into the air. http://ncse.com/climate
Idiot. While an astronomer is not someone to go to for climate change science, not his specialty, but consensus among people who ARE climatologist is the AGW is real.
who deny that significant climate change is occurring who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring, but deny that human activity is significantly responsible who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring and that human activity is significantly responsible, but deny the scientific evidence about its significant effects on the world and our society who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring, that human activity is significantly responsible, and that it will have a significant effect on the world and our society, but who deny that humans can take significant actions to reduce or mitigate its impact
so many uneducated fools going on like there ignorance should hold the same value as an experts.
For those people saying 'there will be a benefit because of more [whatever]. You might want to wonder why you think after there is more arable land, or warmer Canada, the temperature wont continue to rise? What the cap are gone, are only buffer will be gone. Right not, they are acting as a heat sink. SO all the new land continue to with : a) get get hotter and then drier, or b) so much cloud cover appears plant find it difficult to grow.
Oh, and there is less sunshine hitting the ground, and it has started to impact plant growth. granted a tine amount, so far.
I would like to point out that many model predict an increase in ran; however that's not the end.
"...eed to induce fear to motivate funding" err, no. Facts are causing fear.
" to justify the additional bureaucratic power that they crave." and there we fucking go with THAT canard. HINT JACKASS: looking at AGW global warming does not mean addition bureaucratic power. That is a policy issue, not a science issue. Insurance companies and actual rials are already making the needed changes in their industries, addition bureaucratic power not needed. Companies that are impacting everyone and wont change? yes, bureaucratic power will be need, but I don't see why we can't do it with the current systems.
Fucking philosopher waste. Don't bother to understand science, and when you don't like something you just say it ain't so without bothering to learn. This is why modern philosophy is a dead end. You can gather knowledge, but you can never achieve anything or learn how to think about it.
Why do you, someone not educated in the field, someone who is pretty ignorant about advance science, someone who chose to get a degree that adds nothing to the world, why do YOU think you have the mental tools to claim the consensus of experts in a field are wrong?
This is literally like me telling you Plato never existed.
Are you stupid? dodged an ice age? It's not long a meteor hurling towards us, but the missed, so now everything is ok. It's going to keep getting warmer... and warmer. http://ncse.com/climate/denial/pillars
except we will know how to vaccinate and treat it.
"I don't care how professional, careful , trustworthy etc your group is sooner or later a mistake will be made or an accident beyond their control." I' m sure your dim witted ancestors said the same thing about the wheel.
And no, the difference between a pigs nose and a mans is not accidental. There are evolutionary pressure for why they are different. If you think that, then you don't understand evolution at all.
Humans don't eat their own because it isn't really good for them, and it's not a strong survival trait.
Being able to defend against is before MILLION OF PEOPLE DIE. There is your benefit. Also, developed the technology that makes vaccine and vaccine research better and faster.
""someone else will do it" seems to be a stupid argument to support doing it." that's a good argument because if someone else weaponizes it, we won't have a reasonable response time.
"As for developing cures, the main workaround for most of these sorts of diseases is the same- quarantine. Because when "stuff happens" even if a potential cure/vaccine may exist, you usually have no way or resources to get enough of it to everyone in time."
you need to stop talking now. Not only aren't you qualified to have this discussion, you are ignorant of even the most basic principles.
Quarantine a flu epidemic.. idiot.
SO, where do we quarentine the first 100+thousand? million? Before we know it it is in the wild. Limiting travel is part of it, but you need to reliace a few things.
It's will be, at least 3 days before the first symptions . And it won't become known until many people ahve it ad go to a hospital that reports it to the CDC. SO, at best, we are looking at a week. Best Case.
Some people get the flu and have it active and show little or no symptom.
If they got onto any public transportation? Now hoe may exposed? now who do you quarantine?
Quarantine people is really the weakest defense. Necessary, but weak.
If we know how to make the vaccines, we can ramp up very quickly. Like we did with the bird flu; which, BTW, had a 30+% mortality rate when first found, and almost every hospital in the NW was out of beds. Imagine if we had to have waited a month longer before getting the vaccine to people?
2 points: 1) Survival based on hospital only counts people who could go to the hospital.
2) The US is mid to low on any real metric.
I suspect that if you count the people who could not get any treatment at all until it became 'life threatening' the US would far much lower.
When people discuss umber about health care in the US, they seem to forget that the vast majority do not account for people who can not go to the hospital or doctor because they have no money. With cancer, want's it gets to the point where you could be considered an emergency, it's too late to do anything, so you are sent home.
Of course, the emergency room treatments make things more expensive for everyone who does pay. It would be far cheaper if everyone could go to the Doctor and get basic care.
Lets say you have an impacted tooth. This can lead to death. So, it gets infected, swells up and you go the the emergency room. Then they treat the infection and you have to leave.
But your tooth is still impacted..so you sue up the medication they give you and your infection returns rince repeat.
In a civilized country, that person could get their tooth removed.
Nice of you to cherry pick, but an objective view show the US isn't nearly as good as you seem to think.
Finally, it's laughable that you demand good links, but them make wild ass claims and don't provide any links. I don't think you understand what it's like to actually be poor. Where the decision is..hmm the cheapest health care or food.
Also you ignore kids. Kids get injured, kids have medical issues. If I took your advice, my son could not ahe gotten the treatment he needed for is intestinal problem until he was on the brink of death. And even then they would have fixed his issue, only the immediate life threatening part; which would have return. Fortunetly I have insurance, so he got the 20,000 surgery are recovery.
Slashdot Mirror
also, pay me rent for running through my property.
" There was nothing but drawings....random mumbling...and the bluish outline of people which interfered with what they were trying to show."
right, psychics.
As it turns out, actual history is boring to most people, so now its the 'Made up History channel' much more consumer appeal.
It's a horrible channel with horrible stories.
I do think there is overall merit to society in having a History channel the take a neutral stance and actual discus aspects of history. Sadly it would need to be government funded.
How to tell someone isn't really going to quit /. They talk about quitting /.
No, but you are the only person who doesn't bother to learn the tool they are using before complaining.
Haha, I joke, many people are whiny bitches that don't bother to figure out the tool before complaining.
"It amazes me that so much of the tech world continues to fawn over them."
Did it occur to you that you are wrong?
Companies about to become irrelevant think replacement is evil.
What a joke.
And when you think it can'tr get worse, there are people starting to demand the geocentristism(sp) needs to be taught in science class as an alternative theory to our current models that the earth revolve around the sun.
No Shit.
A) yes some people still deny it.
Yes, the increase over normal cycle is due to the amount of CO2 we put into the air.
Carbon credit is a policy issue, not a science issue.
And as a policy issue, it a poor one. I find it acceptable only because getting a good policy is stifled by people who think humans can't change the world, in spite of the extraordinary evidence. Which would be fine if these people weren't also in power
oh, and this gem from the site:
"it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. "
Is a lie. I big enough one to warrant never going to the site.
This is a discussion that's been going on for 100 years. In the 70s it was pretty obvious all the CO2 was changing the world. Then it was still a discussion between warming and cooling. By the end of the 70s, warming seemed likely. Something that has held true.
The particulate matter also blocks some light from getting to the surface. It's not enough to overcome the warming but it does have a measurable effect.
Spencer is no different then a MD shilling for homeopathy.
He takes his stance because the idea of global warming goes against his personal ideology of creationism.
"Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer." Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
That, right there, shows he is a poor scientist. No one ins science is trying to rid anyone of there belief. If someone give science a testable belief, then we can look at it. But saying "There is this thing no one can see, hear, smell, touch, ot taste, disprove it" Literally mean that person does not understand science. Sad someone can get a Ph.D. in a scientific field and say something like that. I mean, it's so out there I can almost believe he is stiring up manufactured controversy to sell his book. In fact, I wish he was..but it looks like he is just stuck in his ideology.
Of course, he make regular money from the Heartland Institute. Just so you know.
A) He is an astronomer. Don't take his flip comment as if he is an expert.
The experts have consensus AGW is real.
http://ncse.com/climate
The trend is longer the 10 years.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/388674main_portal2Huge.jpg
To answer you question:
There are normal cycles. I know a lot of ignorant people like to spout off their mouth and say climatologist don't account for normal cycles, but they do.
While it is trending upward, there will be years that are flatter then others.
Notice, it was still hotter then normal cycle would predicts. It's not like the temperature return no normal cycle temperatures.
yes, one 10 year blip is not a trend. No expert claims that. They may use a decade to illustrate a point.
Again he isn't a troll, he is just a non expert making a flip remark.
Saying there was no warming in that 10 year period isn't really correct. 1998 was warm, then the the years to 05 area\n't as warm, stil part of the overall trend. 06
Here is the temperature from 98 - 10
Year Global Land Ocean
1998 - 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090
1999 - 0.4210 0.6759 0.3240
2000 - 0.3899 0.5174 0.3409
2001 - 0.5188 0.7207 0.4419
2002 - 0.5762 0.8318 0.4798
2003 - 0.5832 0.7735 0.5108
2004 - 0.5441 0.7115 0.4819
2005 - 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896
2006 - 0.5623 0.8158 0.4669
2007 - 0.5509 0.9852 0.3900
2008 - 0.4842 0.7801 0.3745
2009 - 0.5591 0.7595 0.4848
2010 - 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885
People who claim there 10 year cooling are really just grabbing two peaks and saying because there is a small valley between them that it isn't warming, or that it stopped.
Its kinds of like 'God of the gaps' logical fallacy.
many of us are. Sadly the media love to stir up controversy where their isn't any, people in power don't understand science, some large corporation spreads money to people who claim it isn't so. SO people don't think it's real.
The temperatures are above normal cycles, and it is well beyond statistical blip.
It's like all the argument that where shown wrong in the 80s just wont die. It's not like the issue you have brought up haven't been investigated.
And if too much carbon gets into the air, the earth can become a heat trap. We are releasing almost all the carbon from all of history into the air.
http://ncse.com/climate
I assume it was about libertarians?
Idiot.
While an astronomer is not someone to go to for climate change science, not his specialty, but consensus among people who ARE climatologist is the AGW is real.
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/climate-change-is-good-science
"There's a bunch of charts and data to indicate that this might be the earth's natural cycling
no, there is not. we passed that 15 year ago.
I like when people invoke solar activity with out actually thinking.
There are sever types of deniers:
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/climate-change-is-good-science
who deny that significant climate change is occurring
who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring, but deny that human activity is significantly responsible
who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring and that human activity is significantly responsible, but deny the scientific evidence about its significant effects on the world and our society
who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring, that human activity is significantly responsible, and that it will have a significant effect on the world and our society, but who deny that humans can take significant actions to reduce or mitigate its impact
also:
http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101/how-much-human-responsibility-for-climate-change
so many uneducated fools going on like there ignorance should hold the same value as an experts.
For those people saying 'there will be a benefit because of more [whatever]. You might want to wonder why you think after there is more arable land, or warmer Canada, the temperature wont continue to rise?
What the cap are gone, are only buffer will be gone. Right not, they are acting as a heat sink. SO all the new land continue to with :
a) get get hotter and then drier, or
b) so much cloud cover appears plant find it difficult to grow.
Oh, and there is less sunshine hitting the ground, and it has started to impact plant growth. granted a tine amount, so far.
read up on why you are wrong:
http://ncse.com/climate
No, it is not improbably, in fact, it's likely.
I would like to point out that many model predict an increase in ran; however that's not the end.
"...eed to induce fear to motivate funding"
err, no. Facts are causing fear.
" to justify the additional bureaucratic power that they crave."
and there we fucking go with THAT canard. HINT JACKASS: looking at AGW global warming does not mean addition bureaucratic power. That is a policy issue, not a science issue. Insurance companies and actual rials are already making the needed changes in their industries, addition bureaucratic power not needed.
Companies that are impacting everyone and wont change? yes, bureaucratic power will be need, but I don't see why we can't do it with the current systems.
Fucking philosopher waste. Don't bother to understand science, and when you don't like something you just say it ain't so without bothering to learn. This is why modern philosophy is a dead end. You can gather knowledge, but you can never achieve anything or learn how to think about it.
Why do you, someone not educated in the field, someone who is pretty ignorant about advance science, someone who chose to get a degree that adds nothing to the world, why do YOU think you have the mental tools to claim the consensus of experts in a field are wrong?
This is literally like me telling you Plato never existed.
http://ncse.com/climate
http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101
http://ncse.com/climate/denial
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/pillars
Why are you under the impression global warming will stop? What happens when its 10c above what it is now? 15?
The benefit is temporary, since it will keep warming.
Are you stupid? dodged an ice age? It's not long a meteor hurling towards us, but the missed, so now everything is ok.
It's going to keep getting warmer... and warmer.
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/pillars
Shills? Stop being an ass.
There is no other explanation for what is happening.
http://ncse.com/climate
http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/why-is-it-called-denial
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/pillars
except we will know how to vaccinate and treat it.
"I don't care how professional, careful , trustworthy etc your group is sooner or later a mistake will be made or an accident beyond their control."
I'
m sure your dim witted ancestors said the same thing about the wheel.
And no, the difference between a pigs nose and a mans is not accidental. There are evolutionary pressure for why they are different.
If you think that, then you don't understand evolution at all.
Humans don't eat their own because it isn't really good for them, and it's not a strong survival trait.
Being able to defend against is before MILLION OF PEOPLE DIE. There is your benefit.
Also, developed the technology that makes vaccine and vaccine research better and faster.
""someone else will do it" seems to be a stupid argument to support doing it."
that's a good argument because if someone else weaponizes it, we won't have a reasonable response time.
"As for developing cures, the main workaround for most of these sorts of diseases is the same- quarantine. Because when "stuff happens" even if a potential cure/vaccine may exist, you usually have no way or resources to get enough of it to everyone in time."
you need to stop talking now. Not only aren't you qualified to have this discussion, you are ignorant of even the most basic principles.
Quarantine a flu epidemic.. idiot.
SO, where do we quarentine the first 100+thousand? million? Before we know it it is in the wild. Limiting travel is part of it, but you need to reliace a few things.
It's will be, at least 3 days before the first symptions . And it won't become known until many people ahve it ad go to a hospital that reports it to the CDC.
SO, at best, we are looking at a week. Best Case.
Some people get the flu and have it active and show little or no symptom.
If they got onto any public transportation? Now hoe may exposed? now who do you quarantine?
Quarantine people is really the weakest defense. Necessary, but weak.
If we know how to make the vaccines, we can ramp up very quickly. Like we did with the bird flu; which, BTW, had a 30+% mortality rate when first found, and almost every hospital in the NW was out of beds. Imagine if we had to have waited a month longer before getting the vaccine to people?
NOT. VIRII.
You sound like an idiot.
National healthcare gets a better deal on drugs. You know who gets the drugs the cheapest? the VA. do you know why? volume.
SO some drug companies make some money? so what?
2 points:
1) Survival based on hospital only counts people who could go to the hospital.
2) The US is mid to low on any real metric.
I suspect that if you count the people who could not get any treatment at all until it became 'life threatening' the US would far much lower.
When people discuss umber about health care in the US, they seem to forget that the vast majority do not account for people who can not go to the hospital or doctor because they have no money. With cancer, want's it gets to the point where you could be considered an emergency, it's too late to do anything, so you are sent home.
Of course, the emergency room treatments make things more expensive for everyone who does pay. It would be far cheaper if everyone could go to the Doctor and get basic care.
Lets say you have an impacted tooth. This can lead to death. So, it gets infected, swells up and you go the the emergency room. Then they treat the infection and you have to leave.
But your tooth is still impacted..so you sue up the medication they give you and your infection returns rince repeat.
In a civilized country, that person could get their tooth removed.
Nice of you to cherry pick, but an objective view show the US isn't nearly as good as you seem to think.
Finally, it's laughable that you demand good links, but them make wild ass claims and don't provide any links.
I don't think you understand what it's like to actually be poor. Where the decision is..hmm the cheapest health care or food.
Also you ignore kids. Kids get injured, kids have medical issues. If I took your advice, my son could not ahe gotten the treatment he needed for is intestinal problem until he was on the brink of death. And even then they would have fixed his issue, only the immediate life threatening part; which would have return. Fortunetly I have insurance, so he got the 20,000 surgery are recovery.