Re:In other news... (Score:1) by hesiod (111176) on Friday December 10, @10:45AM (#11053017) (http://launch.yahoo....ion.asp?u=146 7244342)
> The best way to discredit global warming computer models would be to produce equally plausible models which don't predict warming.
None of the models are plausible. The Earth is too complex a system to accurately predict weather, even long-term, with current computing power.
OK, produce equally implausible models which don't predict warming. Why hasn't anyone done this? If it were lack of funding of difficulty getting published, I'm sure we would have heard about it.
The greatest threat to the environment is China. The Chinese have been overwhelmingly burning coal. Coal horribly pollutes the environment and unloads tons of radioactive material into the air.
Given the current rate of pollution in China, once it reaches Singapore's level of economic development, the level of pollution in China will exceed that in the USA. India is equally horrible.
They need to burn the coal to fuel the factories that keep WalMart's shelves stocked.
> Au contraire, there is a hell of a lot of money up for grabs for any > 'scientist' who wants to 'disprove' global warming.
Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen. And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
Much of the available funding for research and journal publication comes from US govt. agencies, notably the "Defense" department.
I guess we need to wait until George gets around to putting Right-thinking scientists in charge of these agencies.
By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot. Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue. I'll not reguritate the other side here, that is what Google is for. Suffice to say that despite twenty years of vigorous politically correct intellectual supression there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that you guys are full of it.
Also, there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that the theory of evolution is full of it.
To the best of my knowledge, No computer models exists that can be loaded with 1900 and then allowed to run and produce the 20th century without a lot of unexplained fudge factors to make it come out right. No model exists which has been allowed to run into the future and then checked with what actually happened a decade later has produced a match.
We all know that Detroit has a carburetor that will get 500 mpg on a gallon of tap water, but hasn't released it to the public because of the vast conspiracy with the oil companies, Saudi Arabia, and the global masonic conspiracy.
They have even gone so far as to totally suppress the manufacture of carburetors.
What I think really needs to change, is in the insurance arena. I own a 1989 Toyota 4runner. Reliable, but hellish on gas. I own this vehicle, because there are occasions when I *NEED* the carrying capacity and 4WD (hiking, whitewater kayaking etc). Yes, I own a SUV, and I am one of the few with a legitimate use for it.
Having said this, I don't need an SUV to commute to work. If it were possible for me to switch my plates to a more fuel efficent car - without taking out a separate policy - and only use my SUV when I needed it, I would be saving myself money, and doing a great deal for the environment. As it is, here in BC, if you have two vehicles, you have two insurance policies, there is no sharing allowed.
An electric car would be perfect for that.
How about if insurance was charged by the mile (or km.) rather than per year? Makes more sense when you think about it (of course it would require technological & legal changes). This would also give us an opportunity to save on insurance as well as gasoline by driving less.
First, they say it's 1500km- over 4500 feet- under water. The sea level drop in the last ice age was maybe 100m. And the floor of the Mediterranean was dry at one point, but that was seven million years ago. Nor is it clear what kind of geological subsiding could drop a city a mile and a half, yet preserve the walls.
It's 1.5km., about 1 mile deep.
But you are right, this would require either a geological subsidence many times faster than we have ever seen, or a miraculous mile high landslide that preserved the city intact. The latter would be just as unlikely underwater as above ground.
I think this belongs in the "face on Mars" category.
Personally, I've always wondered about dams. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO or CO2, and dams increase the surface area of our waterways. What does this do to evaporation and how does that affect the climate?
There has also been a lot of wetland drainage for agriculture which reduces surface area. Some Hydro dams eliminate seasonal flooding downstream which greatly reduces seasonal wetlands. Not good for ducks, don't know about climate.
Well, the whole point of buying a Japanese car is that it's made by Japanese labor. If I was going to buy today, there's no point in a "Japanese car", because it's made by the same sloppy American labor as a cheaper domestic car.
You could buy a Toyota Matrix made in Canada or a Pontiac Vibe made in California.
In Canada the Matrix is classed as an "import" because it's a Toyota, but the Vibe is a "domestic" because it's made by a north American company.
They're all made by Japanese made robots.
There's a local company that is replacing it's fleet of Ford Foci with Toyota Matrices.
Did you ever play that Nintendo game that kept saying "Thou hath... "
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
He was very happy to be free in Saudi Arabia and didn't give a damn about losing his US citizenship.
Re:Free Speech in Denmark??
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
It's easy to have less corruption when your entire population (and thus government) is less than 2% the size of the US. The entire country of denmark has a smaller total population than most US states. Hell, New York City has a population nearly double that of all of denmark... Try comparing countries of roughly equal population, or at least somewhere in the same magnitude of size and you might get somewhat less nonsensical data.
Liberated Iraq managed to score very badly on the corruption index in spite of having 10% of US population.
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"A Saudi-American captured in Afghanistan, labeled an enemy combatant and held in U.S. solitary confinement for nearly three years without charge returned to his family Monday after agreeing to forfeit his U.S. citizenship for freedom." http://www.cleveland.com/world/plaindealer/index.s sf?/base/news/1097578544287260.xml Detainee forfeits U.S. citizenship for freedom
Fair trade?
Re:Everyone saw it live on Tee-Vee!
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Surely the major goal of the co-ordinated 911 attackers was to instigate a defensive and vulnerable posture from US government, media and population.
The goal was to provoke a rash aggressive response which would get the US into the "quagmire" they're in now, with no way out and getting worse by the day.
Slashdot Mirror
3)Accept the fact that the manufacturing process is not perfect and pay extra for a zero dead pixel display.
In some industries they sell imperfect products as "Factory seconds" at discounted prices. Often they will put a different brand name on them.
eg.: most of my wardrobe.
An exception is the automobile industry. You don't have much chance of returning a defective car for refund or replacement.
I should have put a smiley or scowly on that.
Re:In other news...
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
by hesiod (111176) on Friday December 10, @10:45AM (#11053017)
(http://launch.yahoo....ion.asp?u=14
> The best way to discredit global warming computer models would be to produce equally plausible models which don't predict warming.
None of the models are plausible. The Earth is too complex a system to accurately predict weather, even long-term, with current computing power.
OK, produce equally implausible models which don't predict warming. Why hasn't anyone done this? If it were lack of funding of difficulty getting published, I'm sure we would have heard about it.
Were you asking from actual curiosity or trying to change his point in an attempt to disprove it?
The best way to discredit global warming computer models would be to produce equally plausible models which don't predict warming.
I'm wondering why nobody has done this?
The greatest threat to the environment is China. The Chinese have been overwhelmingly burning coal. Coal horribly pollutes the environment and unloads tons of radioactive material into the air.
Given the current rate of pollution in China, once it reaches Singapore's level of economic development, the level of pollution in China will exceed that in the USA. India is equally horrible.
They need to burn the coal to fuel the factories that keep WalMart's shelves stocked.
> Au contraire, there is a hell of a lot of money up for grabs for any
> 'scientist' who wants to 'disprove' global warming.
Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen. And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
Much of the available funding for research and journal publication comes from US govt. agencies, notably the "Defense" department.
I guess we need to wait until George gets around to putting Right-thinking scientists in charge of these agencies.
> What's controversial about this issue?
By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot. Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue. I'll not reguritate the other side here, that is what Google is for. Suffice to say that despite twenty years of vigorous politically correct intellectual supression there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that you guys are full of it.
Also, there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that the theory of evolution is full of it.
To the best of my knowledge, No computer models exists that can be loaded with 1900 and then allowed to run and produce the 20th century without a lot of unexplained fudge factors to make it come out right. No model exists which has been allowed to run into the future and then checked with what actually happened a decade later has produced a match.
Are there any models that don't predict warming?
All scientists agree that splitting the atom will produce energy.
Stanza:
Only atoms larger than Helium.
Of course you meant to say Iron.
And it's been fifty years off for fifty years, kind of like the end of the oil has been fifty years off for at least the last fifty years.
Most oil discovered in recent years is under one km. of ocean and the discovery rate is much less than consumption (which is growing exponentially).
So pray for cold fusion.
We all know that Detroit has a carburetor that will get 500 mpg on a gallon of tap water, but hasn't released it to the public because of the vast conspiracy with the oil companies, Saudi Arabia, and the global masonic conspiracy.
They have even gone so far as to totally suppress the manufacture of carburetors.
Or maybe just because it's ugly as sin? Naaaah.
Shut up and eat your Freedom Fries, you tasteless barbarian:
Classic Citroen
What I think really needs to change, is in the insurance arena. I own a 1989 Toyota 4runner. Reliable, but hellish on gas. I own this vehicle, because there are occasions when I *NEED* the carrying capacity and 4WD (hiking, whitewater kayaking etc). Yes, I own a SUV, and I am one of the few with a legitimate use for it.
Having said this, I don't need an SUV to commute to work. If it were possible for me to switch my plates to a more fuel efficent car - without taking out a separate policy - and only use my SUV when I needed it, I would be saving myself money, and doing a great deal for the environment. As it is, here in BC, if you have two vehicles, you have two insurance policies, there is no sharing allowed.
An electric car would be perfect for that.
How about if insurance was charged by the mile (or km.) rather than per year? Makes more sense when you think about it (of course it would require technological & legal changes).
This would also give us an opportunity to save on insurance as well as gasoline by driving less.
First, they say it's 1500km- over 4500 feet- under water. The sea level drop in the last ice age was maybe 100m. And the floor of the Mediterranean was dry at one point, but that was seven million years ago. Nor is it clear what kind of geological subsiding could drop a city a mile and a half, yet preserve the walls.
It's 1.5km., about 1 mile deep.
But you are right, this would require either a geological subsidence many times faster than we have ever seen, or a miraculous mile high landslide that preserved the city intact. The latter would be just as unlikely underwater as above ground.
I think this belongs in the "face on Mars" category.
Personally, I've always wondered about dams. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO or CO2, and dams increase the surface area of our waterways. What does this do to evaporation and how does that affect the climate?
There has also been a lot of wetland drainage for agriculture which reduces surface area.
Some Hydro dams eliminate seasonal flooding downstream which greatly reduces seasonal wetlands.
Not good for ducks, don't know about climate.
Don't forget to use the mirrors!
I've heard there are big companies using many copies of OpenBSD but haven't even bought a CD.
They should get their names on this list:
http://www.openbsd.com/donations.html
Well, the whole point of buying a Japanese car is that it's made by Japanese labor. If I was going to buy today, there's no point in a "Japanese car", because it's made by the same sloppy American labor as a cheaper domestic car.
You could buy a Toyota Matrix made in Canada or a Pontiac Vibe made in California.
In Canada the Matrix is classed as an "import" because it's a Toyota, but the Vibe is a "domestic" because it's made by a north American company.
They're all made by Japanese made robots.
There's a local company that is replacing it's fleet of Ford Foci with Toyota Matrices.
The spelling Nazis have been unloosed upon us.
... "
Did you ever play that Nintendo game that kept saying "Thou hath
He was very happy to be free in Saudi Arabia and didn't give a damn about losing his US citizenship.
It's easy to have less corruption when your entire population (and thus government) is less than 2% the size of the US.
The entire country of denmark has a smaller total population than most US states. Hell, New York City has a population nearly double that of all of denmark...
Try comparing countries of roughly equal population, or at least somewhere in the same magnitude of size and you might get somewhat less nonsensical data.
Liberated Iraq managed to score very badly on the corruption index in spite of having 10% of US population.
"A Saudi-American captured in Afghanistan, labeled an enemy combatant and held in U.S. solitary confinement for nearly three years without charge returned to his family Monday after agreeing to forfeit his U.S. citizenship for freedom."s sf?/base/news/1097578544287260.xml
http://www.cleveland.com/world/plaindealer/index.
Detainee forfeits U.S. citizenship for freedom
Fair trade?
Surely the major goal of the co-ordinated 911 attackers was to instigate a defensive and vulnerable posture from US government, media and population.
The goal was to provoke a rash aggressive response which would get the US into the "quagmire" they're in now, with no way out and getting worse by the day.
This formula as far as I can tell came from nowhere but a strangely tuned up mind
Are you saying there is no proof of the formula?
I've read that Hardy invited Ramanujan to England where he quickly succumbed to British food and weather.
There was 1 girl who was 16 who 69'ed with 3 different guys, because she was really really...
11669 * 3 =
1.588915931E12 ?
By "effective" do you you mean they started wars?