Yes, and people can't handle nuance. She is smarter, more experienced, pretty much invented modern ways how to minimize conflict with economics,
But all of that isn't a sound bite. And if one thing was proven during Gore run, is that the people on Slashdot are also mostly slow witted people who just believe headlines and not facts.
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 passes 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
The poster is a dipshit and a troll. He has no clue of the impact of that much water can have. He must think he lives in a bathtub or sie such stupidity.
Below is posted n the slim chance you will realize how much of an idiot you sound like to anyone who actual understand GW science and stop spouting nonsense.
global warming (GW) 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 passes 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
AGW is based on science, the models are about the impact of that testable science.
global warming (GW) 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 passes 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) Greenhouse 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
As are the denialist people. Well, not there science because they have none.
global warming (GW) 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 passes 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
The claim made by everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
As an example , in no way did they " adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion".
This also tell me you have no clue what you are talking about: "The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat."
Lets set your admitted ignorance aside ad go straight to the base science:
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 passes 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) Greenhouse 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
Although this isn't about racism, it's about exploitation, and its about finding someone cheaper no matter what. Ii's about not being loyal the the country that allowed you to become a billion dollar empire, it's about lies, and it's about the removal of empowerment from the people.
Didn't would have been just as happy to replace you with cheaper Americans.
When you call immigrants rapists. when you have a history of bringing up their race, even when they are american, when you say americans of a certain belief shouldn't be allowed back into the country.
That's why it's racism.
Trump has nothing to do with protecting the borders. You might ant to look at his history.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wage will go up becasue there will be a demand for workers.
So it will balance.
ANd it won't be triples, in fact most of what you ahve herd isn't anywhere near reality. It's scaremongering by corporations.
Yes, and people can't handle nuance. She is smarter, more experienced, pretty much invented modern ways how to minimize conflict with economics,
But all of that isn't a sound bite. And if one thing was proven during Gore run, is that the people on Slashdot are also mostly slow witted people who just believe headlines and not facts.
Which in no way backs the original quote.
More out of context baseless attack on Hillary.
Like all the attacks on her, it's pretty much made up.
global warming (GW) 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 passes 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
It's pretty accurate portrayal of how deniers look, right up there with flat earthers.
The poster is a dipshit and a troll. He has no clue of the impact of that much water can have. He must think he lives in a bathtub or sie such stupidity.
Do you ahve any clue how much water that is? considering we are on a sphere* every centimeter takes a lot more water than the previous. Do the math.**
Now you ahve all the water moving with the tide.
Oh and it's warmer.
Try to understand the volumes we are dealing with.
*yeah yeah, close enough
**if you can't why the fuck are you talking about a scientific topic?
Because the oceans do not rise evenly.
observed data DOES MATCH THE MODELS. Who is telling you otherwise?
The climate models are some of the best models every devise. they have done really well at forecasting.
So no, not dubious at all.
Global does have demonstrable ill effects. look at the oceans, the melting glaciers, reduced ice mass.
Are you seriously suggesting we wait until it too late to do anything to act?
It's like waiting for a asteroid to impact before doing anything about it.
stupid, myopic, bullshit.
We are way out of bounds from 'normal' global temperature deviations.
Do you realize you are basically a flat earther at this point?
the climate change natural, but we are out of those bounds, bu a long way.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Below is posted n the slim chance you will realize how much of an idiot you sound like to anyone who actual understand GW science and stop spouting nonsense.
global warming (GW) 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 passes 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
There as, and you have no clue about nation debt. How it works, how it compare to the deficit,, how it compares to assets. clearly you have no clue.
AGW is based on science, the models are about the impact of that testable science.
global warming (GW) 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 passes 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) Greenhouse 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
Too much is a bad thing for humans. It traps heat, this causes warming, that causes melting and more severe weather extremes.
For humans we want it back down to 300 ppm or so.
GLobal warming is a factor ontop of other long term acquirer trends.
IT's far more simple then deniers make it out to be.
1) We keep create CO2, and other, greenhouse gasses.
2) It's a fact those gases trap energy(heat)
3) it's a fact that about half of CO2 emitted by humans is NOT reabsorbed into the environment.
4) So the question is, how fast will ice melt with the increasing temperature. turns out: faster.
Maybe this will help:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
You forgot the fact the AGW is based on testable science that actually makes predictions.
As are the denialist people. Well, not there science because they have none.
global warming (GW) 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 passes 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
At this point your basically a flat earther.
Jeff Bezos read something someone else did and he wants to leverage it as his own? shocking.
1000's of experts? and the chinese government? And the european governments?
Explain How that work in the age of the internet? Explain how simple tests that can be done in any university and most high school is being kept down?
REal science is based on logical skepticism, not just crazy ass made up doubt. Not denial wrapped in skepticism.
Logic skepticism. There Is a reason why scientific experts i the field came to consensus regarding Global Warming.
There is a reason Countries that have the most economical impt still agree with Man Made GW.
When skepticism relies on an global conspiracy that involves thousands ,i f not 10's of thousands, or people, it's not real skepticism.
.
I've got bad news for you.
If we keep emitting CO2 it will end civilization. People can only breath so much CO2 and still function.
CIvilization also depends upon clean water as a resource, and we depend on the ocean.
Not tomorrow, but eventually. All of that is just facts.
"are you seriously denying the truth of my statement "this study reaches its headlined/highlighted conclusions by adjusting data"."
YES, because it's wrong and show a complete ignorance of science.
I'm not a climatologist.
Then shut up.
" However, I understand science and statistics "
The claim made by everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
As an example , in no way did they " adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion".
This also tell me you have no clue what you are talking about:
"The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat."
Lets set your admitted ignorance aside ad go straight to the base science:
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 passes 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) Greenhouse 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 actually address the facts of GW? 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?
"welcome to the party, pal."
Although this isn't about racism, it's about exploitation, and its about finding someone cheaper no matter what. Ii's about not being loyal the the country that allowed you to become a billion dollar empire, it's about lies, and it's about the removal of empowerment from the people.
Didn't would have been just as happy to replace you with cheaper Americans.
When you call immigrants rapists. when you have a history of bringing up their race, even when they are american, when you say americans of a certain belief shouldn't be allowed back into the country.
That's why it's racism.
Trump has nothing to do with protecting the borders. You might ant to look at his history.