This study shows that the CRU team (who were the victims of the climategate hack) actually underestimated the warming. So instead of "hiding the decline" they were actually masking the warming. The red line on the following graph shows the CRU temperature reconstruction. http://www.berkeleyearth.org/images/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg
This study confirms that NASA GISS results are more reliable.
That's why all the people who like to blather about "no warming since 2000" quote the CRU data rather than the satellite data.
But as OP says, the cause of the warming is still not conclusively pinned down. Yes there is a correlation with atmospheric CO2 emissions, but correlation is only that.
Not quite.
We know there is a correlation between CO2 increase and temperature.
We know there is a mechanism that should cause temperature to increase as CO2 increases.
We know that mechanism is working (spectral analysis of radiation from the earth).
We haven't yet found any other cause of the temperature increase.
We know the CO2 increase is anthropogenic.
Correlation does not prove causation, but if there is causation there will be correlation.
That pattern seems to closely resemble the one where it was called global warming, then we saw record snowfalls and cold snaps, and now it's called climate change.
Nice story. Doesn't fit the facts.
The IPCC (see that - "CC", "Climate Change") made its first report in 1990, 20 odd years ago. The terms were always used interchangably.
There was one group that has made an effort to make sure to say "climate change" and not "global warming":
It's time for us to start talking about "climate change" instead of global warming and "conservation" instead of preservation.1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
In 2009 it was 47.7 biilion USD. In 2009 the budget deficit was 1.9 trillion USD. So cutting aid ain't going to fix the deficit.
(Of course 13.7 billion of that "aid" was military assistance (which is almost all spent on US hardware) and loads of the rest is also given on the condition that it is spent in the US. Much of it is really a subsidy of US industry and agriculture).
And - "pull our troops back". If you want to save cash you don't "pull them back" - you sack them. And selll their shiny toys.
Corporate tax would be simple too, it would just be a flat 9% on whatever number is listed in the "profit" column after whatever gets classed as "income" gets taken out (so money paid to owners of the company and taxed at the 9% income rate doesn't get taxed at the 9% corporate rate)
Okay. We are running into terminology problems here. When most people say "internet", they are referring to the WWW. I used that as the definition only because most other people do.
The Internet was invented (with a bit of help from his friends) by an academic, for use by other academics. He did it more-or-less in his "spare time", in response to a perceived need to transmit free-form information over a network. It wasn't like he was some engineer on the government payroll told to "go build an internet".
What on earth are you talking about?
Who is this "acedemic"?
Are you perhaps confusing the world wide web with the internet?
Search for "atteinte a l'integrite" on google. You'll see quite a lot of the references are talking about "integrite physique". This is lawyer talk, and the kind of weird language loved by cops.
Aficionados might rejoice that science-fiction finally matured and could claim to be great literature, but casual readers don't want to tax themselves with the challenging prose and labyrinthine plot of, say, Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun
Even that review describes itself as one of the best "science fantasies". Sorry, that means its not sci fi, its just princes and knights having swordfights for control of the kingdom, am I guessing right?
So you're whining that since your union is too crap to protect you other people's unions should fold too?
You're also being stupid enough to believe a crappy mistranslation from French to English. The actual union complaint was about the safety of police officers not the "integrity of the police force". Does your union not take action to protect your safety?
If you destroy a satellite, that position in space becomes unusable due to debris for centuries. We're not going to do it. This is why we were very angry with the Chinese for testing ASAT awhile back.
What do you mean you're not going to do it? You did it in 1985!
Slashdot Mirror
Because that's the real issue that most skeptics have been questioning of late.
Yeah, Anthony Watts says in his little whine:
The issue of “the world is warming” is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes.
Which confuses many of his slavish followers who keep trying on the "no warming since 2000" bullshit. He has to gently correct them a couple of times.
This study shows that the CRU team (who were the victims of the climategate hack) actually underestimated the warming. So instead of "hiding the decline" they were actually masking the warming. The red line on the following graph shows the CRU temperature reconstruction. http://www.berkeleyearth.org/images/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg
This study confirms that NASA GISS results are more reliable.
That's why all the people who like to blather about "no warming since 2000" quote the CRU data rather than the satellite data.
Ironic.
But as OP says, the cause of the warming is still not conclusively pinned down. Yes there is a correlation with atmospheric CO2 emissions, but correlation is only that.
Not quite.
We know there is a correlation between CO2 increase and temperature.
We know there is a mechanism that should cause temperature to increase as CO2 increases.
We know that mechanism is working (spectral analysis of radiation from the earth).
We haven't yet found any other cause of the temperature increase.
We know the CO2 increase is anthropogenic.
Correlation does not prove causation, but if there is causation there will be correlation.
That pattern seems to closely resemble the one where it was called global warming, then we saw record snowfalls and cold snaps, and now it's called climate change.
Nice story. Doesn't fit the facts.
The IPCC (see that - "CC", "Climate Change") made its first report in 1990, 20 odd years ago. The terms were always used interchangably.
There was one group that has made an effort to make sure to say "climate change" and not "global warming":
It's time for us to start talking about "climate change" instead of global warming and "conservation" instead of preservation.1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
-- Frank Luntz, Republican political consultant.
Yeah, it would be much better if the states had responsibilty for foreign affairs.
Paul would favor cutting DHS and is constantly mouthing off about closing all foreign bases and bringing all the troops home.
He "favors" cutting the DHS but doesn't propose it.
Seems to me a nut job would think that any of the listed government agencies actually do more good than harm.
What terrible evil does NOAA do? You got something against weather satellites?
I've suggested something a just as radical.
Cut all foriegn aid - That's right All of it
Oh go on then, how much would that save?
In 2009 it was 47.7 biilion USD. In 2009 the budget deficit was 1.9 trillion USD. So cutting aid ain't going to fix the deficit.
(Of course 13.7 billion of that "aid" was military assistance (which is almost all spent on US hardware) and loads of the rest is also given on the condition that it is spent in the US. Much of it is really a subsidy of US industry and agriculture).
And - "pull our troops back". If you want to save cash you don't "pull them back" - you sack them. And selll their shiny toys.
Corporate tax would be simple too, it would just be a flat 9% on whatever number is listed in the "profit" column after whatever gets classed as "income" gets taken out (so money paid to owners of the company and taxed at the 9% income rate doesn't get taxed at the 9% corporate rate)
So profits would always be zero. Very clever.
You can buy part of that lake if you depend on it for survival! If you can't afford it, you don't deserve a single drop of water from it.
Ok, that's water all sorted out.
What about the air? How am I going to monetize that?
Okay. We are running into terminology problems here. When most people say "internet", they are referring to the WWW. I used that as the definition only because most other people do.
Oh, you're an idiot. I see.
End of conversation.
The Internet was invented (with a bit of help from his friends) by an academic, for use by other academics. He did it more-or-less in his "spare time", in response to a perceived need to transmit free-form information over a network. It wasn't like he was some engineer on the government payroll told to "go build an internet".
What on earth are you talking about?
Who is this "acedemic"?
Are you perhaps confusing the world wide web with the internet?
What a man,
Search for "atteinte a l'integrite" on google. You'll see quite a lot of the references are talking about "integrite physique". This is lawyer talk, and the kind of weird language loved by cops.
But I like Iain Banks...
But do you like Iain M. Banks?
Aficionados might rejoice that science-fiction finally matured and could claim to be great literature, but casual readers don't want to tax themselves with the challenging prose and labyrinthine plot of, say, Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun
Even that review describes itself as one of the best "science fantasies". Sorry, that means its not sci fi, its just princes and knights having swordfights for control of the kingdom, am I guessing right?
Whooosh.....
(Also, he's a cop. Cops talk funny).
Context.
It's the "des policers" - "of policemen" that's the clue.
(Also the police union doesn't give a fuck about the institution of the police, that's not their job. They care about cops.)
Hell, even Fredrick Pohl's best stuff came in the 90's, not the 60's.
WTF? Pohl's best stuff was his collaborations with CM Kornbluth in the 50's.
[ posting names and addresses of police officers ] Sounds completely valid to me.
says the Anonymous Coward.
So, who did time for Kent State?
So you're whining that since your union is too crap to protect you other people's unions should fold too?
You're also being stupid enough to believe a crappy mistranslation from French to English. The actual union complaint was about the safety of police officers not the "integrity of the police force". Does your union not take action to protect your safety?
It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English.
No, the article has a problem with it's translation from the original French to English:
The original says:
Les magistrats ont parfaitement analysé la situation -ce site portant atteinte à l’intégrité des policiers
He said "integrity (in the sense of wholeness, i.e. life and limb) of policemen" not "integrity of the police force".
Bitcoin is the new Papiermark.
Soon you will need wheelbarrows for your bitcoin.
If you destroy a satellite, that position in space becomes unusable due to debris for centuries. We're not going to do it. This is why we were very angry with the Chinese for testing ASAT awhile back.
What do you mean you're not going to do it? You did it in 1985!
Poor old Solwind
Ooh you pedant.
Yes, you're right.
Still in France though. :-)