If you aren't using sense to filter what you are Reading on the internet already, then you are failing. That's always the risk, whether its a review on Amazon, and post on/. or a rating on google.
Top tip: Just because some person you do not know anything about claims an employer was mean to them on the internet does not automatically make it false.
No, so is punishing you for what your saying. You can say whatever you like, but of we don't like it the Inquisition will be talking to you, is also a form of censorship.
I am not saying that was what happened here, just that it is also a form of censorship.
Ob. slander and libel, and out and out lies etc . . . are different.
YOu're not a skeptic, you are a denier becasue all the data is out there, the experts publish. You just ignore it.
We know how much CO2 we release, and how it holds energy.
We know we produce more green house gasses then can be reabsorbed, by a long shot.
We know how much, that is pretty solid.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false? So now you have to answer: Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
I woulds argue adhering the the SPJ Code of ethics is the line, regardless of education. Don't get me wrong, being educated at an university mean you are more likely to get better writing. I prefer the journalists I read are educated and write at the college level, but that isn't needs, IMHO.
OMG, you link to crappy news site. That's all you got? Here is 5 falsifiable facts about global warming.:
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false? So now you have to answer: Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
Climate change science is actual Rock, Fucking. Solid. Iim going to show you right now that it is. I expect a full apology tio everyone from you. I expect you to change there narrative, and I expect you to stop spreading the FUD.
If you don't do that, your just a lying, moronic, troll, SOB who should be allowed anywhere near the internet.
Ready?
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false? So now you have to answer: Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
And no top of that, its the lower half* of the atmosphere that warming; which is another piece of scientific data that proves it's not externals.
SO, whats all the scientific discussion about, you may be asking?
It's about details, not IF but detail of what it's going to do. Example:
If it's 30C out side, and you put an ice cube on the sidewalk. would you argue it won't melt? Of course not, it would be a foolish thing to argue. Now, which bit will melt first? how much? will it crack? where will it crack? how does the temperature going from 30C at rising to 31C going to effect it?
THAT"S the discussion, not whether or not its going to warm up.
Not that In really expect you to allow data and science to change your emotional based greedy ass argument, but may people who can actually apply new data to their narrative might try to understand, you dipshiot.
Why do you think airmen have magic eyes? OMG, things with no good point of refererecne look out of place!!! oh noes!!!
This shit been debunked so many god damn times, can people just move on already?
here, I'll give you the umbrella reason why we do know know of any alien, or extraterrestrial being, items, or visitations:
Money.
If the military new about alien, especially in the 40's and 50's, they would announce it. T\You thing the red scare cost us money and advanced are military? nothing compared to 'aliens are attacking us' would be to ramp up all space programs. How much money do you think NASA and the military would be able to get?
Hello! I have worked around Naval and AF aviators. Yes, they are but I'm going to let you in in a secret: They're human, and can be trick by optics just like any other human.
Happen all the fucking time.
Oh, and what you saw in the film? It looks suspicious what a broken reflectors on a camera shows.
Money, doesn't not, and never has, win an election. Votes win an election., money is an excuse to make people feel like they have no power, so the become apathetic and don't participate.
If it was money, their would be no need for gerrymandering.
Slashdot Mirror
A) I've burned bridges, and I have no regrets.
B) If the employers is a crappy employees, then people should know.
The more informed the populace, the better the market works.
I long time ago, I worked for a company called SMS. It was crappy, and I would literally warn off people interviewing. It was literally that bad.
If you aren't using sense to filter what you are Reading on the internet already, then you are failing. That's always the risk, whether its a review on Amazon, and post on /. or a rating on google.
Top tip: Just because some person you do not know anything about claims an employer was mean to them on the internet does not automatically make it false.
No, so is punishing you for what your saying. You can say whatever you like, but of we don't like it the Inquisition will be talking to you, is also a form of censorship.
I am not saying that was what happened here, just that it is also a form of censorship.
Ob. slander and libel, and out and out lies etc . . . are different.
A) It's childish, everyone should be angry at this behaviors from any administration.
B) There was no 'liberal media' until people created far right media. Now center is consider liberal, so now the media is liberal.
C) You should actual get information from somewhere besides twitter.
alternatively:
1)A gun
2) Knowledge of where the correct human beings family is at.
They are not shills, every fucking think you say has been debunks or taken out of context.
You are a poor excuse for a limp wristed cum stain. please jump off a pier and die.
YOu're not a skeptic, you are a denier becasue all the data is out there, the experts publish. You just ignore it.
We know how much CO2 we release, and how it holds energy.
We know we produce more green house gasses then can be reabsorbed, by a long shot.
We know how much, that is pretty solid.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
Maybe you just aren't good at using google?
Google doesn't censor the internet.
You are free to build you own person search engine, or use BING, or what ever. Google is NOT THE INTERNET.
Since those negative price spike keep getting a little longer and a little more often, I think a comparison can be made.
I woulds argue adhering the the SPJ Code of ethics is the line, regardless of education. Don't get me wrong, being educated at an university mean you are more likely to get better writing. I prefer the journalists I read are educated and write at the college level, but that isn't needs, IMHO.
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode...
But you are replying to a person who would happily allow the government to step on your throat if it means he 'won'. trumpanzees are idiots.
You fucking Trumpanzees.
More warming means more moisture in the air.
More moisture means more snow when the more energetic lower atmosphere rush into the upper atmospheres, and is replaces by colder air.
The buggy whip is also technology.
The data it's based in is, in fact, falsifiable.
OMG, you link to crappy news site. That's all you got?
Here is 5 falsifiable facts about global warming.:
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
Climate change science is actual Rock, Fucking. Solid. Iim going to show you right now that it is. I expect a full apology tio everyone from you. I expect you to change there narrative, and I expect you to stop spreading the FUD.
If you don't do that, your just a lying, moronic, troll, SOB who should be allowed anywhere near the internet.
Ready?
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
And no top of that, its the lower half* of the atmosphere that warming; which is another piece of scientific data that proves it's not externals.
SO, whats all the scientific discussion about, you may be asking?
It's about details, not IF but detail of what it's going to do. Example:
If it's 30C out side, and you put an ice cube on the sidewalk. would you argue it won't melt? Of course not, it would be a foolish thing to argue. Now, which bit will melt first? how much? will it crack? where will it crack? how does the temperature going from 30C at rising to 31C going to effect it?
THAT"S the discussion, not whether or not its going to warm up.
Not that In really expect you to allow data and science to change your emotional based greedy ass argument, but may people who can actually apply new data to their narrative might try to understand, you dipshiot.
*approximation for brevity.
They don't publish garbage.
JFC you anti media idiots have gotten old already. Stop it.
Have you even read the SPJ code of ethics? do you even know how to apply it?
Fucking moron.
when the US did great thing like that. Now we can't even fix areas destroy by natural disaster, have more and more people going hungry and homeless.
But, hey, at least we keep cutting taxes!
You can trend US's greatness in innovation, infrastructure, creation right to taxes. Higher taxes, the better we have done.
"They wanted to see which wonder material could evade radar detection "
because that don't have radars of there own?
Why do you think airmen have magic eyes? OMG, things with no good point of refererecne look out of place!!! oh noes!!!
This shit been debunked so many god damn times, can people just move on already?
here, I'll give you the umbrella reason why we do know know of any alien, or extraterrestrial being, items, or visitations:
Money.
If the military new about alien, especially in the 40's and 50's, they would announce it. T\You thing the red scare cost us money and advanced are military? nothing compared to 'aliens are attacking us' would be to ramp up all space programs. How much money do you think NASA and the military would be able to get?
Hello! I have worked around Naval and AF aviators. Yes, they are but I'm going to let you in in a secret: They're human, and can be trick by optics just like any other human.
Happen all the fucking time.
Oh, and what you saw in the film? It looks suspicious what a broken reflectors on a camera shows.
Money, doesn't not, and never has, win an election. Votes win an election., money is an excuse to make people feel like they have no power, so the become apathetic and don't participate.
If it was money, their would be no need for gerrymandering.
"...don't understand freedom and sing the praises of communism."
And you don't seem to understand either.
Security and private club. A lot fewer shoplifters at costco.
Being a small business owner is no excuse to back slavery.
So you walking up to a checkout. A human will do it for 10 bucks, or do it yourself. Which do you choose?
Anyway, this is the ultimate goal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...