Weird how the AGWers cherry pick the Little Ice Age (basically the coldest point in the last 10,000 years) as their "normal" temperature that we should not go above, huh? http://www.oarval.org/Foster_20k.jpg
The Canadian government is already quietly jettisoning all manner of climate crapola at the federal level. Firing people, shuttering redundant and idiotic departments, things like that.
That may be true, but the Liberal Ontario government is determined to fuck the province over, even if they can't destroy the economy of the entire country.
There can only be one explanation for a phenomenon, and it can never have anything to do with climate change. So obviously sea level rise has nothing to do with it. Because, LIBERALS!
There can only be one explanation for a phenomenon, and it is always everything to do with climate change. So obviously falling sea levels has nothing to do with it. Because, CONSERVATIVES!
See how stupid that sounds when the shoe's on the other foot?
Really? Nothing that's distinctly Canadian? Did you see the closing ceremonies for the Vancouver Olympics? My wife and I watched both the Canadian and American coverage. The announcer on the Canadian coverage was happily chatting away about the festivities, whereas the American announcer was pretty much speechless, because what he was seeing was so not American.
We're a hell of a lot friendlier and more polite than Americans, in general. Not that there aren't exceptions; there certainly are. But on the whole, it's true. I've traveled a fair amount through Canada, various parts of the US, and some in Europe. I've never felt uncomfortable or out of place, except in the US. Now, that was mostly in the north east, as when I went through Tennessee, people were almost as friendly as Canadians. Americans just seem to be more blunt and "in your face" than pretty much anybody else I've encountered in my travels.
If that place qualifies as either a dump, or too small, then you have no right to bitch about the price of property, because you must pretty much be a 1%er.
Your statement relies on the unspoken assumption that Apple actually innovates. They don't seem to be doing much of that lately; more often their modus operandi is to treat customers and business partners with contempt, litigate against any company seen as competition, and overcharge for, well, virtually everything.
Other than the fact that it's proprietary, I do like the Lightning connectors. Especially compared to those damn 4 dimensional USB connectors: try to plug it in, fail, reverse, fail *again*, reverse once more, *then* it will go in.
Well, if they're 4 dimensional, that makes sense. 3 space dimensions, and 1 time dimension. You didn't plug it in at the right time, initially, and had to wait 6.43 seconds to get it into the right spot in time to make it work.:-/
"Will the test results incriminate the accused? Will the police have to keep up with their tireless searching for evildoers? Tune in next week, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel, when we won't answer these questions! Then in two weeks, we probably won't answer them again! But if you tune in a month from now, we'll find the answers to these pressing questions!!"
I had a similar idea at the time. Rather than a chopshop, though, I figured somebody, somewhere, had need for a passenger jet for something nefarious. Or for that matter, something legitimate, but that the authorities would find nefarious. Basically, a need for a large jet, that for some reason could not be obtained through normal channels.
The longer it is that no unexplained jet shows up doing something no major airline expects, though, increases the probability that I've been watching too many spy movies.....
Wow. The straw men in this article are thick and fast. Nowhere did I state that 2 cold winters were more important than a 15 year average. I just pointed out that the "single winter" that the GP discounted was not only a single winter, but was significantly more "unimportant outlier data" than what they were admitting to.
So, what caused the cooling trend from 1880 to 1905 or so? It would be very interesting to see data back to 1000 A.D plotted on that graph, which was roughly the middle of the Medieval Maximum, with temperatures roughly what they are today.
The scientific community as a whole once believed the world was flat. The scientific community as a whole once believed chocolate and red wine were bad for you. Or was that good for you? No, it was bad. No...good. The scientific community as a whole has changed its mind on many things in the past, as new research has been done, or flaws in old research and methodologies have been found.
A huge part of the basis of science is attempting to disprove theories with new research. When you fail to question conventional wisdom, it's not science. It's religion.
I find that figure for Europe very difficult to believe, as last year was full of news stories from Europe of below average temperatures. Can't say anything about Russia, as I don't read or speak the language, and don't really follow english language Russia Today.
I'm not preoccupied with US weather. That was just the map that the poster I replied to used.
Now, in response to yours, it shows that Antarctica is for the most part.5 to 2 degrees colder than the 1951-1980 average, yet the global warmists are saying that massive ice sheets are breaking off and melting because of (record?) high Antarctic temperatures.
January 6, 2014, Chicago, -16 F. Previous record of -14 F set in 1884. January 7, 2014,Central Park in New York City was 4 F (16 C). The previous record low for the day was set in 1896.
Oh...that's right. You only asked for a single one. Well, perhaps these southern Ontario record breaking lows will make you feel better, as they're not quite 100 years old:
Hamilton hit -22 C, previous record of -17.2 C set on March 4, 1962. London, -24 C, previous record of -22.8 C, set in 1950. Windsor, -17 C, previous record of -14.4 C, set in 1943.
0 A.D. was a bit cooler than it is now. By 1000 A.D. global temperatures had warmed to roughly what we're at now. Then it cooled down again, reaching a minimum somewhere around 1700 A.D. (which, incidentally, is what the global warming apologists frequently use as the pre-industrial average temperature, rather than an unusually cold minimum.) Then it started warming again, until about 1997, when it appears to have leveled off again.
Did Jesus develop lots if industrial technologies that caused a rise in CO2 and a corresponding rise in temperatures for the next 1000 years? Did an economic downturn in 1000 A.D. cause Jesus Industries Inc. to collapse, reducing CO2 output, and thereby cooling the earth off for the next 500 years or so? There must have been a cause, and since we all know that human produced CO2 is the only possible thing that affects global temperatures, that must have been it, right?
When I say the climate has always been in flux, I don't mean we've been in and out of ice ages for millions of years, with a 20,000 year static climate between ice ages, and an 80,000 year static climate during an ice age. I mean it's been in flux. Every single year is either warmer or colder than the year before it. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a static climate on earth. Man-made CO2 global warming models all seem to assume that the climate would be roughly static between ice ages, but for human-caused warming. All evidence points to this assumption being false.
An ice age is a period (an incredibly long one, I might add) of very cold, very dry weather across the entire planet. Of course it's weather related.
No, me deciding to work from home today rather than starting my car to drive to the office isn't going to start an ice age, so in that sense you're right, but you're using the most narrowly defined meaning of weather you possibly can, to avoid the fact that the climate of the earth has been in constant flux for millions of years, and somehow, now, the global warming apologists are convinced that we're suddenly causing it, and if we stopped burning fossil fuels, then the climate would become static.
Slashdot Mirror
Weird how the AGWers cherry pick the Little Ice Age (basically the coldest point in the last 10,000 years) as their "normal" temperature that we should not go above, huh?
http://www.oarval.org/Foster_20k.jpg
There is no chance of another glacial period occurring until CO2 levels drop well below 300 ppm again.
Really? So the known ice ages when the atmosphere was at 7000 ppm CO2 just...what? Didn't happen?
The Canadian government is already quietly jettisoning all manner of climate crapola at the federal level. Firing people, shuttering redundant and idiotic departments, things like that.
That may be true, but the Liberal Ontario government is determined to fuck the province over, even if they can't destroy the economy of the entire country.
There can only be one explanation for a phenomenon, and it can never have anything to do with climate change. So obviously sea level rise has nothing to do with it. Because, LIBERALS!
There can only be one explanation for a phenomenon, and it is always everything to do with climate change. So obviously falling sea levels has nothing to do with it. Because, CONSERVATIVES!
See how stupid that sounds when the shoe's on the other foot?
Really? Nothing that's distinctly Canadian? Did you see the closing ceremonies for the Vancouver Olympics? My wife and I watched both the Canadian and American coverage. The announcer on the Canadian coverage was happily chatting away about the festivities, whereas the American announcer was pretty much speechless, because what he was seeing was so not American.
We're a hell of a lot friendlier and more polite than Americans, in general. Not that there aren't exceptions; there certainly are. But on the whole, it's true. I've traveled a fair amount through Canada, various parts of the US, and some in Europe. I've never felt uncomfortable or out of place, except in the US. Now, that was mostly in the north east, as when I went through Tennessee, people were almost as friendly as Canadians. Americans just seem to be more blunt and "in your face" than pretty much anybody else I've encountered in my travels.
Besides: we have Red Green.
Almost a million dollars (CDN) for any decent-sized house that isn't a dump.
You must have only looked in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. Anything upwards of about $600,000 in the London area gets you an absolute mansion.
As an example: 4 bedrooms, 4 1/2 bathrooms, a huge lot, inground pool, 2 car garage, tons of landscaping, fountains, etc, for $715,000.
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?PropertyId=15394802
If that place qualifies as either a dump, or too small, then you have no right to bitch about the price of property, because you must pretty much be a 1%er.
Take a look at the $700,000 - $800,000 range:
http://www.realtor.ca/Map.aspx#CultureId=1&ApplicationId=1&RecordsPerPage=9&MaximumResults=9&PropertyTypeId=300&TransactionTypeId=2&SortOrder=A&SortBy=1&LongitudeMin=-81.48207731193361&LongitudeMax=-81.01035184806642&LatitudeMin=42.886606758167304&LatitudeMax=43.087019589728655&PriceMin=700000&PriceMax=800000&BedRange=0-0&BathRange=0-0&ParkingSpaceRange=0-0&viewState=m&Longitude=-81.24621458&Latitude=42.98689485&ZoomLevel=11&CurrentPage=1
There are plenty of huge houses, 3 car garages, etc, in there.
If you want to look at the more realistic for most people range of $300,000 to $400,000:
http://www.realtor.ca/Map.aspx#CultureId=1&ApplicationId=1&RecordsPerPage=9&MaximumResults=9&PropertyTypeId=300&TransactionTypeId=2&SortOrder=A&SortBy=1&LongitudeMin=-81.48207731193361&LongitudeMax=-81.01035184806642&LatitudeMin=42.886606758167304&LatitudeMax=43.087019589728655&PriceMin=300000&PriceMax=425000&BedRange=0-0&BathRange=0-0&ParkingSpaceRange=0-0&viewState=m&Longitude=-81.24621458&Latitude=42.98689485&ZoomLevel=11&CurrentPage=1
You'll still find plenty of very nice houses in there, too.
Fuck off, APK. You have nothing useful to add. To either the conversation, or life.
Free heat
It's hard to beat
Even with forced air
It works a treat
Burma Shave!
And the ocean has continued to warm over the past 20 years.
No, it hasn't.
NASA is a big proponent of AGW, and even they admit the oceans are not warming to the extent required to explain the pause.
Your statement relies on the unspoken assumption that Apple actually innovates. They don't seem to be doing much of that lately; more often their modus operandi is to treat customers and business partners with contempt, litigate against any company seen as competition, and overcharge for, well, virtually everything.
Other than the fact that it's proprietary, I do like the Lightning connectors. Especially compared to those damn 4 dimensional USB connectors: try to plug it in, fail, reverse, fail *again*, reverse once more, *then* it will go in.
Well, if they're 4 dimensional, that makes sense. 3 space dimensions, and 1 time dimension. You didn't plug it in at the right time, initially, and had to wait 6.43 seconds to get it into the right spot in time to make it work. :-/
"Will the test results incriminate the accused? Will the police have to keep up with their tireless searching for evildoers? Tune in next week, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel, when we won't answer these questions! Then in two weeks, we probably won't answer them again! But if you tune in a month from now, we'll find the answers to these pressing questions!!"
So, just because a non-police citizen can lie about what they witnessed, then it's OK for the police to use lousy techniques with known flaws? WTF?
You do realize providing false evidence in an investigation is a crime in itself in a lot of (most?) jurisdictions, right?
I had a similar idea at the time. Rather than a chopshop, though, I figured somebody, somewhere, had need for a passenger jet for something nefarious. Or for that matter, something legitimate, but that the authorities would find nefarious. Basically, a need for a large jet, that for some reason could not be obtained through normal channels.
The longer it is that no unexplained jet shows up doing something no major airline expects, though, increases the probability that I've been watching too many spy movies.....
Wow. The straw men in this article are thick and fast.
Nowhere did I state that 2 cold winters were more important than a 15 year average. I just pointed out that the "single winter" that the GP discounted was not only a single winter, but was significantly more "unimportant outlier data" than what they were admitting to.
So, what caused the cooling trend from 1880 to 1905 or so? It would be very interesting to see data back to 1000 A.D plotted on that graph, which was roughly the middle of the Medieval Maximum, with temperatures roughly what they are today.
The scientific community as a whole once believed the world was flat.
The scientific community as a whole once believed chocolate and red wine were bad for you. Or was that good for you? No, it was bad. No...good.
The scientific community as a whole has changed its mind on many things in the past, as new research has been done, or flaws in old research and methodologies have been found.
A huge part of the basis of science is attempting to disprove theories with new research. When you fail to question conventional wisdom, it's not science. It's religion.
I didn't use either of those words in my post. Stop trying to straw man me.
I find that figure for Europe very difficult to believe, as last year was full of news stories from Europe of below average temperatures. Can't say anything about Russia, as I don't read or speak the language, and don't really follow english language Russia Today.
I'm not preoccupied with US weather. That was just the map that the poster I replied to used.
Now, in response to yours, it shows that Antarctica is for the most part .5 to 2 degrees colder than the 1951-1980 average, yet the global warmists are saying that massive ice sheets are breaking off and melting because of (record?) high Antarctic temperatures.
Sorry, that Central Park temperature of 4 degrees F converts to -16 C, not 16 C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
January 6, 2014, Chicago, -16 F. Previous record of -14 F set in 1884.
January 7, 2014,Central Park in New York City was 4 F (16 C). The previous record low for the day was set in 1896.
Oh...that's right. You only asked for a single one.
Well, perhaps these southern Ontario record breaking lows will make you feel better, as they're not quite 100 years old:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blog...
Hamilton hit -22 C, previous record of -17.2 C set on March 4, 1962.
London, -24 C, previous record of -22.8 C, set in 1950.
Windsor, -17 C, previous record of -14.4 C, set in 1943.
Only a fool would argue with a Canadian about ice.
Heh heh. True. But there does seem to be a fairly large population of fools on the Internet, doesn't there?
0 A.D. was a bit cooler than it is now. By 1000 A.D. global temperatures had warmed to roughly what we're at now. Then it cooled down again, reaching a minimum somewhere around 1700 A.D. (which, incidentally, is what the global warming apologists frequently use as the pre-industrial average temperature, rather than an unusually cold minimum.) Then it started warming again, until about 1997, when it appears to have leveled off again.
Did Jesus develop lots if industrial technologies that caused a rise in CO2 and a corresponding rise in temperatures for the next 1000 years? Did an economic downturn in 1000 A.D. cause Jesus Industries Inc. to collapse, reducing CO2 output, and thereby cooling the earth off for the next 500 years or so? There must have been a cause, and since we all know that human produced CO2 is the only possible thing that affects global temperatures, that must have been it, right?
When I say the climate has always been in flux, I don't mean we've been in and out of ice ages for millions of years, with a 20,000 year static climate between ice ages, and an 80,000 year static climate during an ice age. I mean it's been in flux. Every single year is either warmer or colder than the year before it. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a static climate on earth. Man-made CO2 global warming models all seem to assume that the climate would be roughly static between ice ages, but for human-caused warming. All evidence points to this assumption being false.
An ice age is a period (an incredibly long one, I might add) of very cold, very dry weather across the entire planet. Of course it's weather related.
No, me deciding to work from home today rather than starting my car to drive to the office isn't going to start an ice age, so in that sense you're right, but you're using the most narrowly defined meaning of weather you possibly can, to avoid the fact that the climate of the earth has been in constant flux for millions of years, and somehow, now, the global warming apologists are convinced that we're suddenly causing it, and if we stopped burning fossil fuels, then the climate would become static.