To protect US citizens from the government. In the US, we have juries to do that. In another country, they are not guaranteed an attempt at a fair trial.
'cos the US is the only country on earth with juries and fair trials.
And the US government has no influence at all over the Iraqi government.
And US soldiers, spies and mercenaries have no history of massacre, murder and rape in the region.
(By the way, if the US has no confidence in the justice of the Iraqi government it put into power whose fault is that?)
that as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously
If you've got true talent in designing hardware, you should work for a real company. Giving it away for free isn't going to feed you spouse and children. What are you going to tell them, "It brought happiness to some dudes on the internet that I don't know?" In the current economy, you need to look out for number one, not these commune pipe dreams.
Who the fuck do you think you are telling other people what to do.
If anyone has ever bothered to look, the "manmade global warming" claims began with the left, continues to be pushed by the left, and villifies the right.
Yeah, that Svante Arrhenius was a right commie bastard.
I mean
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
You lost sight of the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and has gone through numerous cycles of warming and cooling. We have reliable data for a few hundred years and you think you know the whole complex system. Think again.
Yup,. considered that, thunk again.
Still seeing AGW.
Now what do you recommend?
Idiot. The best argument for AGW is the observation that there has been climate change in the past.
A friend of mine proposed a very interesting argument against climate change, especially human-influenced climate change. "If God created the earth, why would he have created it in such a way that we would be allowed to pollute so badly that it ruins the atmosphere?" It's pretty difficult to argue with that statement.
Is your "friend" presuming to understand the will of God?
Why would God have created a world where 6 million people can starve to death in a forest while nobody gives a fuck?
As far as I know there is no peer reviewed study that suggests there has been no warming since 2000.
Why would anyone produce such a study? 11 years isn't enough for statistical significance.
Yes, I am aware that the "no warming since 2000" cherry pickers are using the HadCRUT data as it is the only series that produces this cherry. The irony is as delicious for me as the cherry is for them. ClimateGate - "Look those nasty CRU people are corrupting the data!" "Harry! Read Me!". Then "Look there is no warming since 2000 according to this wonderful data set from the CRU!"
The disagreeing data sets are part of the problem.
It would be extremely suspicious if all datasets, measuring slightly different things came out with the same numbers. As it is they are largely in agreement over periods large enough to real statistically significant trends.
Let's get a team of non-climate scientists, physicists for example, get some well known anti-warmists, like the Koch brothers to fund them and see if they agree with the temperature reconstructions produced by those corrupt bastards at the CRU.
And it worked!
The BEST team showed that the CRU numbers were wrong! The CRU underestimated the temperature!
What, sorry, that wasn't the result we wanted?!@#$
This was a pr campaign by the warmest. Smoke and mirrors...
No, this was a cynical operation by a bunch of physicists who went out and trolled people and organizations that fund the usual anti-warming losers saying that they'd give them a credible bit of anti-warmist propaganda for a few hundred thousands.
(I get the feeling that the smug physicists thought they'd discover some sloppiness by the climatologists that they could magnify).
But what they found was that the climatologists had it exactly right.
Whoops. Oh, well, no repeat funding, but it was fun.
When I was in a restaurant in Corsica a few years ago, the waiter got talking to my father-in-law (a physicist) about science. In his broken English, he blamed the hot weather on people burning petrol in their cars because, and I quote, "It wasn't this hot last year". Our response and his adamant reaction led us to never eat in that place again.
But was the restaurant any good?
Because if it was you're an idiot. And if it wasn't who cares what the waiter thinks about global warming?
(Why wern't you having the conversation in your broken French?)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's a bit bigger than 8 megabytes these days:
Of course it's tiny compared to some other things:
I can hardly imagine anything philosophers could ever universally agree upon.
Drink? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY
Or football? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvM
For an AC it's enormous.
Only an idiot would really honour the US constitution. It's a fucking stupid document and the US works despite rather than because of it.
Afghanistan is scaling up when we should be getting out. The Taliban is more or less broken
Hahahaha ...
You do know that the US has been negotiating with the Taliban ?
It isn't the Taliban who are more or less broken.
Why not?
(None of the things you cite are against sharia law of course).
Oooh look, anonymous coward is telling war stories.
Does it make your little pee-pee get all big (4cm) when you tell these silly stories?
To protect US citizens from the government. In the US, we have juries to do that. In another country, they are not guaranteed an attempt at a fair trial.
'cos the US is the only country on earth with juries and fair trials.
And the US government has no influence at all over the Iraqi government.
And US soldiers, spies and mercenaries have no history of massacre, murder and rape in the region.
(By the way, if the US has no confidence in the justice of the Iraqi government it put into power whose fault is that?)
Hey, how did you guess.
So if he is Anonymous Coward who are you?
If your idea is unique enough to get a patent, patent it. Not everybody who can invent wants to run a company.
Not everyone who can invent is a selfish git.
that as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously
If you've got true talent in designing hardware, you should work for a real company. Giving it away for free isn't going to feed you spouse and children. What are you going to tell them, "It brought happiness to some dudes on the internet that I don't know?" In the current economy, you need to look out for number one, not these commune pipe dreams.
Who the fuck do you think you are telling other people what to do.
Life is not all about money, but if you've got hungry kids, it's hard to keep that thought in the foreground of your mind.
True.
My kids are not hungry.
So, true, but uninteresting.
Who is this Al Gore of which you speak?
If anyone has ever bothered to look, the "manmade global warming" claims began with the left, continues to be pushed by the left, and villifies the right.
Yeah, that Svante Arrhenius was a right commie bastard.
I mean
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
That's straight out of Das Kapital isn't it.
You lost sight of the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and has gone through numerous cycles of warming and cooling. We have reliable data for a few hundred years and you think you know the whole complex system. Think again.
Yup,. considered that, thunk again.
Still seeing AGW.
Now what do you recommend?
Idiot. The best argument for AGW is the observation that there has been climate change in the past.
Uh, no.
A friend of mine proposed a very interesting argument against climate change, especially human-influenced climate change. "If God created the earth, why would he have created it in such a way that we would be allowed to pollute so badly that it ruins the atmosphere?" It's pretty difficult to argue with that statement.
Is your "friend" presuming to understand the will of God?
Why would God have created a world where 6 million people can starve to death in a forest while nobody gives a fuck?
It's ineffable.
As far as I know there is no peer reviewed study that suggests there has been no warming since 2000.
Why would anyone produce such a study? 11 years isn't enough for statistical significance.
Yes, I am aware that the "no warming since 2000" cherry pickers are using the HadCRUT data as it is the only series that produces this cherry. The irony is as delicious for me as the cherry is for them. ClimateGate - "Look those nasty CRU people are corrupting the data!" "Harry! Read Me!". Then "Look there is no warming since 2000 according to this wonderful data set from the CRU!"
The disagreeing data sets are part of the problem.
It would be extremely suspicious if all datasets, measuring slightly different things came out with the same numbers. As it is they are largely in agreement over periods large enough to real statistically significant trends.
Which "warming" that we see are you talking about? Ground stations or satellites? They tell different stories
Oh yeah?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/trend
Looks about the same to me.
I know, let's run an experiment.
Let's get a team of non-climate scientists, physicists for example, get some well known anti-warmists, like the Koch brothers to fund them and see if they agree with the temperature reconstructions produced by those corrupt bastards at the CRU.
And it worked!
The BEST team showed that the CRU numbers were wrong! The CRU underestimated the temperature!
What, sorry, that wasn't the result we wanted?!@#$
Today, it really does look like all the people in the "BEST" project were just puppets used in a bigger, pre-planned propaganda game."
Oh bugger! They're on to us! Quick, back to the secret hideout!
When did data analysis become science? Science is about testing hypothesis with controlled experiments. Where's the control?
Hey, look, another earth! Let's use that as the control!
No, let's colonize it and build lot's of fossil fuel based industry.
Oh bugger, back to the drawing board.
(Is astrophysics a science on your planet?)
This was a pr campaign by the warmest. Smoke and mirrors...
No, this was a cynical operation by a bunch of physicists who went out and trolled people and organizations that fund the usual anti-warming losers saying that they'd give them a credible bit of anti-warmist propaganda for a few hundred thousands.
(I get the feeling that the smug physicists thought they'd discover some sloppiness by the climatologists that they could magnify).
But what they found was that the climatologists had it exactly right.
Whoops. Oh, well, no repeat funding, but it was fun.
When I was in a restaurant in Corsica a few years ago, the waiter got talking to my father-in-law (a physicist) about science. In his broken English, he blamed the hot weather on people burning petrol in their cars because, and I quote, "It wasn't this hot last year". Our response and his adamant reaction led us to never eat in that place again.
But was the restaurant any good?
Because if it was you're an idiot. And if it wasn't who cares what the waiter thinks about global warming?
(Why wern't you having the conversation in your broken French?)