Now, rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the rise is due to human effects: it means that the rise is real, but does not say what causes it. So, the "human produced gasses do not cause warming" argument needs a different explanation of the rise.
Even worse, the "human produced gasses do not cause warming" argument not only needs to find some other source for the warming, it needs to show why "human produced gasses" don't cause warming even though the physics appears to say they should.
Jesus fucking Christ. Any idiot denier knows the answer to that one -- it's the sun you moron. There was a whole lot more CO2, true, but the sun was a whole lot less bright.
Well, you've got the USA and Russia which have thousands of warheads -- they can fuck everyone, even have enough to play silly bugger games like preemptive attack.
Then you've got France and Britain which have enough to take out either the US or Russia, but not enough for any actual "war fighting".
Then you've got China, that could probably take out Russia, and maybe the US, but is more vulnerable to a first strike.
And Israel, India or Pakistan, could probably fuck up their neighbours.
And North Korea could probably blow themselves up.
(P.S. I don't think any of the "war fighting" plans would actually work -- If anyone attacks at least one of the 5 declared nuclear states then MAD is the way it will go).
It has about 16 SLBMs available at any one time -- Trident. Somewhere between 6 and 8 MIRVs per missile, so I'm conservatively counting 96 targets (some places get more than one bomb). There are 96 cities in Russia with more than 190 thousand population. The smallest target would be Armavir, population 188,832.
If you look at the size of the British (and French) deterrents, both have one 16-missile submarine available, they have enough firepower to more or less destroy either Russia or the US but not enough for any fancy shit like attacking hardened targets. I doubt Putin would have much "political support" if the 96 largest cities in Russia were nuked.
The threat is -- attack us and your population dies. It's the only thing we can do.
Controversial U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for Russian aircraft showing a "lack of respect" for America to be shot down "at a certain point,"
The 290th largest city in Russia is Vidnoye, with a population of 56,752.
Say bye bye to all Russian cities with more than 57 thousand people.
(For our American friends the same logic takes out everywhere bigger than El Cajon, California, with a population of around 103,000).
(Yeah, ok, not all of those could be launched, but even if only one SNLE gets to launch that's still 96 warheads, to which you have to add the 40 odd aircraft deliverable bombs).
Socialized medicine doesn't somehow equate to free and unlimited health care. We could spend 100% of GDP on health care and people would still eventually get to a point where there's nothing that can be done.
But that's not the way it works. Socialized medicine costs less that insurance based systems. Partly because it involves less bureaucracy.
I'm going to ignore your sociopathic rant about "unhealthy lifestyles".
Slashdot Mirror
Nexus 5.
Depends when was the last time they took a snapshot.
It's just a rounding error in the universe.
Interesting idea. Maybe it's the proof of the simulation theory, the discovery of the bit-width of the underlying hardware.
The Brexit leave vote was the greatest thing ever.
... for the EU. Finally we get rid of those deadweights who've been holding us back.
Get yourself over to Raqqua while you still have time.
Yay! More easy pickings! Off to Somalia to get a crew together...
The electric sun model shows great promise,
What a bore, I've been wasting my time talking to a grade-A lunatic.
Bye bye.
So, enlighten us, what's your beef with the standard solar model? What's your proposed replacement model?
>(3) What is the least/cheapest amount of work to keep humanity alive?
To exterminate >90% of the world population. But I'm not a big fan of this solution.
Nonsense -- the USA is only 4.35% of world population.
OBSF -- "The Sheep Look Up".
Now, rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the rise is due to human effects: it means that the rise is real, but does not say what causes it. So, the "human produced gasses do not cause warming" argument needs a different explanation of the rise.
Even worse, the "human produced gasses do not cause warming" argument not only needs to find some other source for the warming, it needs to show why "human produced gasses" don't cause warming even though the physics appears to say they should.
So, now we're Standard solar model skeptics, are we?
(Oh my god, I said model!)
Jesus fucking Christ. Any idiot denier knows the answer to that one -- it's the sun you moron. There was a whole lot more CO2, true, but the sun was a whole lot less bright.
What is this "race" of which you speak?
New MacBook Pros Max Out At 16GB RAM Due To Battery Life Concerns
Yup. The only downside. In a portable device. Idiots.
Well, you've got the USA and Russia which have thousands of warheads -- they can fuck everyone, even have enough to play silly bugger games like preemptive attack.
Then you've got France and Britain which have enough to take out either the US or Russia, but not enough for any actual "war fighting".
Then you've got China, that could probably take out Russia, and maybe the US, but is more vulnerable to a first strike.
And Israel, India or Pakistan, could probably fuck up their neighbours.
And North Korea could probably blow themselves up.
(P.S. I don't think any of the "war fighting" plans would actually work -- If anyone attacks at least one of the 5 declared nuclear states then MAD is the way it will go).
Britain doesn't have any ICBMs.
It has about 16 SLBMs available at any one time -- Trident. Somewhere between 6 and 8 MIRVs per missile, so I'm conservatively counting 96 targets (some places get more than one bomb). There are 96 cities in Russia with more than 190 thousand population. The smallest target would be Armavir, population 188,832.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Russia_by_population
If you look at the size of the British (and French) deterrents, both have one 16-missile submarine available, they have enough firepower to more or less destroy either Russia or the US but not enough for any fancy shit like attacking hardened targets. I doubt Putin would have much "political support" if the 96 largest cities in Russia were nuked.
The threat is -- attack us and your population dies. It's the only thing we can do.
Controversial U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for Russian aircraft showing a "lack of respect" for America to be shot down "at a certain point,"
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/trump-says-russian-planes-should-be-shot-down-at-certain-point-52743
Horray for Russia! You've destroyed the UK!
Pity about the UK counterstrike taking out all cites in Russia with more that 190 thousand people.
MAD -- its the game all nuclear families play.
France currently has 290 nuclear warheads.
The 290th largest city in Russia is Vidnoye, with a population of 56,752.
Say bye bye to all Russian cities with more than 57 thousand people.
(For our American friends the same logic takes out everywhere bigger than El Cajon, California, with a population of around 103,000).
(Yeah, ok, not all of those could be launched, but even if only one SNLE gets to launch that's still 96 warheads, to which you have to add the 40 odd aircraft deliverable bombs).
Trump: "Let's not fight those guys."
Hillary: "We should shoot down their planes over Syria."
But that isn't what they actually said, is it?
Trump said "shoot 'em down if they look at us funny".
Trump said "why can't we use nukes".
Of course Spain got nothing -- it was a fascist dictatorship.
All butt-hurt because you don't want to hear the truth about how the Affordable Care Act is the worst health-care plan in the western world
But, amazingly, still better than what was in place before,
Thanks, Mr Romney!
Socialized medicine doesn't somehow equate to free and unlimited health care. We could spend 100% of GDP on health care and people would still eventually get to a point where there's nothing that can be done.
But that's not the way it works. Socialized medicine costs less that insurance based systems. Partly because it involves less bureaucracy.
I'm going to ignore your sociopathic rant about "unhealthy lifestyles".