Look if 99% of the smartest people on earth say burning carbon is warming the planet WE NEED TO LISTEN!!!
Really?? 99%??
Do you have any proof whatsoever of this statistic-made-up-on-spot?? The real consensus is 0.3%. What is that? Only the looney fringe seems ot think Global Warming is indeed happening and caused my humans...
Why the freakin' hell are the all still running Windows??? I'm constantly stupendified by the stupidity of these so called experts that put these systems in place. If I had to run critical infrstructure it would be open source all the way and I would have forensics experts combing the code and comms for leaks, backdoors and vulnerabilities.
Before coming to terms with what's happening now, you need to understand the history.
Look at the historical evidence yourself and then consider what is happening now. Photographic and other evidence
If I had lots of money I'd take bets on the sea level not rising significantly. Once the pseudo-scientists with broken their climate change models based on faulty assumptions (which must be windows based, otherwise they'd probably work), have crawled back into their holes, the world will continue in natural cycles the way it always has until the sun stops shining. I wouldn't worry about that though, since it's not in the foreseeable future, at least in terms of the history of mankind.
Since 1984, Dr Bresinzky has had breakthrough treatment, yet the FDA (actually their Pharma sponsors) have been fighting him tooth and nail. Not that they have disputed that his treatment works, nor that his patients are having a much greater chance at recovery than with chemo, but rather on frivolous grounds.
Chemo kills people.
If they really have something going down under, they should not call it chemo. Maybe people will take note.
And since AC clearly has no idea of how many actually use Ubuntu as primary OS daily, he/she/it should shut up and go back to sweeping the pavement... Does AC know that Google uses Ubuntu?
I suppose AC does know about Europe and Africa? And Asia?
No, they're not fictious continents from the movies.
I agree that parents have the right to teach their children what they believe. They should also teach them why, so that, as kids grow older and develop their reason, they can choose to follow the parents' belief or not.
I have taught my kids many things when they were young, that I later had to correct. One such thing was creationism. As I realised that I was mislead, I corrected it and taught them what I had learned since. By doing that, I believe I have taught them that nothing is finite, but that being mistaken is not the end of the world. I believe in many things, but as my perception changes, I adjust what I believe to be true. Hey, I even change my belief about my wife as I get to know her better and after 25 years, I still do that. So why would I not teach my kids to adjust their beliefs in God or anything else as their experiences and knowledge grows?
When I was young, a preacher who would be considered fundamentalist by many, told us one day: Constant change is here to stay. I don't think he knew how true his statement was and how serious I took him. But the fact of the matter is that I have changed my views about pretty much everything to a greater or lesser degree.
However, reserving for myself, as a parent, the right to teach my kids a best I see fit, is not negotiable. It has nothing to do with government or any other out of control entity fancying itself to have control over my life or the life of those around me. The one and only job of government is to protect my liberties and to ensure no-one else abuses their liberty to limit mine. Finito. No more, no less.
The day government started usurping their authority to start teaching my kids, was a sad day indeed!
The number of people that are intollerant to milk has increased with the increase in the consumption of processed foods. This seems to be even more the case with Africans than with Europeans, the latter being most tolerant to cow's milk. Africans traditionally consumed lots of sour milk, where the proteins are already somewhat broken down, but benefits of consuming lots of cows milk (not dairy in general, since goat's milk differs substancially) have been great exaggerated mainly by the dairy industry.
A simple test: Don't drink any cow's milk or eat diary products for 1 - 2 months and then down a glass or two of fresh milk. If nothing happens in the next 24 hours, you're fine, but if, like me, your throat swells and is irritated, your nose starts running or some other symptom develops, you might be ok with milk, otherwise simply avoid it in future.
I thought we were talking about bread... Hmmm... so read about gliadin to spoil your doughy day!
What is the issue is how we deal with it. Why does the World Bank insist of making sooo much money out of this? They are robbing the poor countries blind with interested in the name of progress already, so while everyone is shouting warming of not, their agenda is not being recognised by many.
The list of scientific facts that Fred Singer has denied over the years doesn't paint a pretty picture. He's denied CFCs were responsible for the hole in the ozone, something he termed the "ozone scare".
And you have proof that the hole is now gone and Fred was wrong??
He's denied that second hand smoke causes the spectrum of diseases second hand smoke does indeed cause.
And again, your proof? It's an opinion at best, not that I like smoking or second hand smoke, mind you
He's denied that acid rain was a problem or what caused by industry emissions.
So are you denying that it was a specific very localised problem that was caused by very specific activities in a particular area and not world-wide?
He's denied human caused climate change.
And you have proof, right, which no-one else has. Lots of opinions yes, but proof is still to be seen. Historically the proof seems to point the other way, ie nothing we are doing is causing this non-event.
Would you disclose who you work for? Are you an IPCC employee or who pays you?;-P
The whole phonebook analogy is really poor. It really has nothing to do with the matter. It's not what this is about.
This is actually like having maths solutions for students on your site and getting people to come there is what Google does: It provides a listing. If however the answer to a problem is already displayed in the snippet with the link, then Google takes the need to visit the site away.
Google earns add revenue from their advertisers. In a similar the listed site earns revenue from it revenue sources. If however Google elliminates much of the traffic to the listed site, only Google profits from the link/snippet and then the listed site is entitled to have a share of Google's revenue for that link.
Nazi Germany's pre-shooting-war war-buildup was a weakening economy, not a strengthening one. Every time someone spent time and metal to machine a part for an Me109 instead of a toaster, or burned a driver's time and a liter of fuel to transport ammunition instead of kegs of bock, the country became a little more impoverished.
Bolloks! You've just stated that the US has been destroying itself since WWII. At 25% of your economy is based on making war. Of course, many more profit from the offensive destruction of other countries, so 25% is a conservative figure.
By the way, are you German or did you live in Germany before WWII? Probably not, but if you were, you'd know that it was good before WWII and even during it in the beginning. And we still have Volkswagen and others to show for it.
So the best course of action could just be to make sure fracking companies are held accountable to the law, like the rest of the people. Don't exempt them from the clean water act and many other laws. Fix the sleeve leaks, take them to court for hiding the evidence with NDA's where leaks have occurred and in general ensure they clean up their act. At least then the global warming alarmists will be happier with the lowered CO2 output (plants in general will be worse off I suppose) and we'll have a cleaner world.
How in the whole freakin' rational universe can this type of thing be patented?? I think I'll patent "flatulation while seated without audible disturbance" and then prevent guys all over from doing that. It's more inventive than this totally ridiculous patent (and for that matter most of the patents that the USPTO grants these days)
Joce640k, don't forget, we need to make contingency plans for when the sky falls on our heads. And don't forget to place a moratorium on taking cheese from the moon when foodstocks on earth become low.:-]
CO2 is good for the earth, for the atmosphere, for life as we know it. To think your puny contribution is having any effect, is the most bombastic and grandiose delusion, unless you are using people's stupidity and lack of knowledge it for political gain of course.
Or not. You're assuming its going to get worse. What if it gets better? There's 1% more foliage on earth than 10 years ago despite deforestation according to NASA. That is a huge amount of foliage. Maybe the politicians have it all wrong. The earth adjusts, we stop polluting (the real pollution, not this bollocks about life-giving CO2 being a pollutant) and things get better. We can't do that while being taxed to death in favour of the 1%.
Voting machines should by their very nature never be anything but open source, open design. There is no other way, but public transparency, that will guarantee nothing sinister happens in the process and it will also lay conspiracies to rest once and for all.
That also does not mean that the machines should be free (gratis) of course, so manufacturers can still bid on the process.
The proprietary nature of the current disasters just underscores and affirms that something should not be known to the public in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Look if 99% of the smartest people on earth say burning carbon is warming the planet WE NEED TO LISTEN!!!
Really?? 99%??
Do you have any proof whatsoever of this statistic-made-up-on-spot?? The real consensus is 0.3%. What is that? Only the looney fringe seems ot think Global Warming is indeed happening and caused my humans...
Why the freakin' hell are the all still running Windows??? I'm constantly stupendified by the stupidity of these so called experts that put these systems in place. If I had to run critical infrstructure it would be open source all the way and I would have forensics experts combing the code and comms for leaks, backdoors and vulnerabilities.
<shakes head and walks away>
Before coming to terms with what's happening now, you need to understand the history. Look at the historical evidence yourself and then consider what is happening now. Photographic and other evidence
Sigh.
If I had lots of money I'd take bets on the sea level not rising significantly . Once the pseudo-scientists with broken their climate change models based on faulty assumptions (which must be windows based, otherwise they'd probably work), have crawled back into their holes, the world will continue in natural cycles the way it always has until the sun stops shining. I wouldn't worry about that though, since it's not in the foreseeable future, at least in terms of the history of mankind.
It is indeed a really stupid article. All it actually says is that it is so, cause I say so. Denser journalism once again.
Do you actually know anything about cancer???
Since 1984, Dr Bresinzky has had breakthrough treatment, yet the FDA (actually their Pharma sponsors) have been fighting him tooth and nail. Not that they have disputed that his treatment works, nor that his patients are having a much greater chance at recovery than with chemo, but rather on frivolous grounds.
Chemo kills people.
If they really have something going down under, they should not call it chemo. Maybe people will take note.
she "could" have easily "wrote" those words
she "could" have easily "written" those words.
FTFY.
The queen is British after all!
97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
And without those papers they wouldn't have made anything... Global Warming is Man-made indeed.
Now if that pesky weather would just play along and start warming up like it should!
Did they try to use this? Apart from the quoted evidence, I know from experiece how well it works against both viral and bacterial infections.
spread too thin across its 7 remaining users
And since AC clearly has no idea of how many actually use Ubuntu as primary OS daily, he/she/it should shut up and go back to sweeping the pavement... Does AC know that Google uses Ubuntu?
I suppose AC does know about Europe and Africa? And Asia?
No, they're not fictious continents from the movies.
Posted from Ubuntu 12.10. Running on HP hardware.
When the world hit 7 billion, did you complain about overpopulation?
Really?
I have taught my kids many things when they were young, that I later had to correct. One such thing was creationism. As I realised that I was mislead, I corrected it and taught them what I had learned since. By doing that, I believe I have taught them that nothing is finite, but that being mistaken is not the end of the world. I believe in many things, but as my perception changes, I adjust what I believe to be true. Hey, I even change my belief about my wife as I get to know her better and after 25 years, I still do that. So why would I not teach my kids to adjust their beliefs in God or anything else as their experiences and knowledge grows?
When I was young, a preacher who would be considered fundamentalist by many, told us one day: Constant change is here to stay. I don't think he knew how true his statement was and how serious I took him. But the fact of the matter is that I have changed my views about pretty much everything to a greater or lesser degree.
However, reserving for myself, as a parent, the right to teach my kids a best I see fit, is not negotiable. It has nothing to do with government or any other out of control entity fancying itself to have control over my life or the life of those around me. The one and only job of government is to protect my liberties and to ensure no-one else abuses their liberty to limit mine. Finito. No more, no less.
The day government started usurping their authority to start teaching my kids, was a sad day indeed!
The number of people that are intollerant to milk has increased with the increase in the consumption of processed foods. This seems to be even more the case with Africans than with Europeans, the latter being most tolerant to cow's milk. Africans traditionally consumed lots of sour milk, where the proteins are already somewhat broken down, but benefits of consuming lots of cows milk (not dairy in general, since goat's milk differs substancially) have been great exaggerated mainly by the dairy industry.
A simple test: Don't drink any cow's milk or eat diary products for 1 - 2 months and then down a glass or two of fresh milk. If nothing happens in the next 24 hours, you're fine, but if, like me, your throat swells and is irritated, your nose starts running or some other symptom develops, you might be ok with milk, otherwise simply avoid it in future.
I thought we were talking about bread... Hmmm... so read about gliadin to spoil your doughy day!
What is the issue is how we deal with it. Why does the World Bank insist of making sooo much money out of this? They are robbing the poor countries blind with interested in the name of progress already, so while everyone is shouting warming of not, their agenda is not being recognised by many.
I liked this perspective: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/when-bankers-turn-climatologists
The list of scientific facts that Fred Singer has denied over the years doesn't paint a pretty picture. He's denied CFCs were responsible for the hole in the ozone, something he termed the "ozone scare".
And you have proof that the hole is now gone and Fred was wrong??
He's denied that second hand smoke causes the spectrum of diseases second hand smoke does indeed cause.
And again, your proof? It's an opinion at best, not that I like smoking or second hand smoke, mind you
He's denied that acid rain was a problem or what caused by industry emissions.
So are you denying that it was a specific very localised problem that was caused by very specific activities in a particular area and not world-wide?
He's denied human caused climate change.
And you have proof, right, which no-one else has. Lots of opinions yes, but proof is still to be seen. Historically the proof seems to point the other way, ie nothing we are doing is causing this non-event.
Would you disclose who you work for? Are you an IPCC employee or who pays you? ;-P
The whole phonebook analogy is really poor. It really has nothing to do with the matter. It's not what this is about.
This is actually like having maths solutions for students on your site and getting people to come there is what Google does: It provides a listing. If however the answer to a problem is already displayed in the snippet with the link, then Google takes the need to visit the site away.
Google earns add revenue from their advertisers. In a similar the listed site earns revenue from it revenue sources. If however Google elliminates much of the traffic to the listed site, only Google profits from the link/snippet and then the listed site is entitled to have a share of Google's revenue for that link.
Simple.
And the French are quite right about this.
The US has already made the most significant contribution to lowering CO2 emissions (which of course could mean totally nothing, since the CO2 hypotheses is fragile to say the least), Thanks to fracking US carbon emissions are at the lowest levels in 20 years. It's not a little drop, it's huge!
So the best course of action could just be to make sure fracking companies are held accountable to the law, like the rest of the people. Don't exempt them from the clean water act and many other laws. Fix the sleeve leaks, take them to court for hiding the evidence with NDA's where leaks have occurred and in general ensure they clean up their act. At least then the global warming alarmists will be happier with the lowered CO2 output (plants in general will be worse off I suppose) and we'll have a cleaner world.
How in the whole freakin' rational universe can this type of thing be patented?? I think I'll patent "flatulation while seated without audible disturbance" and then prevent guys all over from doing that. It's more inventive than this totally ridiculous patent (and for that matter most of the patents that the USPTO grants these days)
But in a a true free-market society (unlike the US), there is no limit to the abundance.
Joce640k, don't forget, we need to make contingency plans for when the sky falls on our heads. And don't forget to place a moratorium on taking cheese from the moon when foodstocks on earth become low. :-]
CO2 is good for the earth, for the atmosphere, for life as we know it. To think your puny contribution is having any effect, is the most bombastic and grandiose delusion, unless you are using people's stupidity and lack of knowledge it for political gain of course.
Or not. You're assuming its going to get worse. What if it gets better? There's 1% more foliage on earth than 10 years ago despite deforestation according to NASA. That is a huge amount of foliage. Maybe the politicians have it all wrong. The earth adjusts, we stop polluting (the real pollution, not this bollocks about life-giving CO2 being a pollutant) and things get better. We can't do that while being taxed to death in favour of the 1%.
Voting machines should by their very nature never be anything but open source, open design. There is no other way, but public transparency, that will guarantee nothing sinister happens in the process and it will also lay conspiracies to rest once and for all. That also does not mean that the machines should be free (gratis) of course, so manufacturers can still bid on the process. The proprietary nature of the current disasters just underscores and affirms that something should not be known to the public in general.