What I find interesting is the conclusion of your linked article which mentions that it has been much warmer in the past, but restates the supposed dangers of AGW.
Where does the article say that? Are you perhaps confusing the rantings of Easterbrook with the debunking of Easterbook?
I don't know of anyone that is a global warming denier.
You don't?
Cue the next mention of the "pause" or "hiatus" or "no warming in the last 17 years" in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Deniers always deny that any denier believes "x" where "x" is any randomly chosen part of:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas CO2 is increasing The CO2 increase is man made The CO2 increase is large/rapid Average global temperatures are rising There is no other known mechanism in play...
At least one denier has claimed every one of these, often multiple, inconsistent ones.
It's not science. The Scientific method requires that observations can be independently reproduced and that a hypothesis is falsifiable.
Unless you have a time machine, the proxies can not be independently verified and the only change in their outcome can come from altering the observers preferences (changing methods).
Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.
All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.
That's because all scientists are skeptics.
Wacky global warming deniers are not skeptics, they are credulous fools.
Skeptics look at the evidence before making their minds up, and change their minds if new evidence comes to light.
Deniers deny. Disprove one nutty theory and the continue denying with another, often incompatible nutty theory. This sometimes goes around in circles 'till they come back to the first, already disproven, theory.
The only way you could get from the RDC to Guinea in less that 14 days is by plane. There are no usable roads for much of the distance. (It can take more that 14 days to get from the interior of the RDC to the capital, never mind getting from there to Guinea).
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly it represents money raiders can use to buy your company out from under your feet.
What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
Do you think the Gnome Foundation ever got a penny from their users?
Anyway, I bunged 'em $500, not like it's serious money and they are doing good work.
So boil the willow bark in vinegar.
Big fucking deal.
(you have started wine maiking, right? Priorities, priorities...)
I would choose a lot of people from "the lower classes", as they have been accustomed to making do with what they can get.
Nope. Replace "the lower classes" by "the third world" and you'd be getting close.
Did you know there are people who hand-rewind electric motors?
Yeah, its still more or less like that every time I get a haircut.
In a fraction of a second it would cool too much to melt lead.
It's a good thing we don't use lead for soldering, then.
Melting point of lead: 621.5F (327.5C)
Melting point of solder ~370 F (~190 C)
Ok, I know that some kinds of marketing are a pain, but seriously:
Solar cell.
Many people claim that rebooting would be hard because all the nice easily available resource sources (iron, copper, and so on) have been worked out.
Yes, they were worked out.
And moved to where we live in already purified form.
Cars man. fucking cars.
Tons of useful metal lying all over the place.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas... yes, but not to the degree the models are claiming, or it would be hotter
Ca commence bien.
C02 is partially man made. Stipulate nearly all man made.
Our emissions are about 200% of the increase. Leave your "stipulations" at home.
C02 is large/rapid,but we are talking a change from .03% to .04%. not 30% to 40%, but 4 orders of magnitude smaller.
WTF? Please eat this tiny amount of botulotoxin I have here. Itls so small it can't have an effect on you.
Average global temp is on the rise, but has been doing so since the end of the last ice age.
Got a source for that, big boy?
There are other mechanism at play, like that great big fusion ball in the sky, that fluctuates in output.
so show a correlation between any solar parameter and global average temperatures.
Or water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas.
Which is in equilibrium with the liquid water in the oceans so cannot rise unless the temperature increases. Whoops!
You are a troll. Go away.
2500 km?
Why would bats migrate from the RDC to Guinea?
Which animal species are you going to suggest next? Fish? Insects?
What I find interesting is the conclusion of your linked article which mentions that it has been much warmer in the past, but restates the supposed dangers of AGW.
Where does the article say that? Are you perhaps confusing the rantings of Easterbrook with the debunking of Easterbook?
You missed my point. He's using Greenland surface temperatures as a proxy for global average temperatures. They aren't.
He also only goes back to 8500BC, no example of an ice-free Greenland there.
He's claiming Greenland has been much warmer in the recentish (~10Ky) past. It hasn't.
I don't know of anyone that is a global warming denier.
You don't?
Cue the next mention of the "pause" or "hiatus" or "no warming in the last 17 years" in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Deniers always deny that any denier believes "x" where "x" is any randomly chosen part of:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas ...
CO2 is increasing
The CO2 increase is man made
The CO2 increase is large/rapid
Average global temperatures are rising
There is no other known mechanism in play
At least one denier has claimed every one of these, often multiple, inconsistent ones.
So publish your results already.
What do you mean "once we go nuclear"?
We went nuclear in the '80s.
Oh, you don't live in France, so sorry.
Let me know when you find a non-mamalian rabies virus.
A bird is extremely improbable - Ebola is a mammalian disease.
As I've said before, the pre-existing disease in the close geographical area (near to where my wife's family live :-)) is a different strain.
It seems to me that this virus is airborne (with a little help from big-brained primates).
It's not science. The Scientific method requires that observations can be independently reproduced and that a hypothesis is falsifiable.
Unless you have a time machine, the proxies can not be independently verified and the only change in their outcome can come from altering the observers preferences (changing methods).
So, you believe that astronomy is not science.
Nor is paleontology, or geology.
Young earth creationist, perhaps?
Hur hur hur.
As I expected another long debunked idiocy.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337
On the graph you gave the "present" is 1855..
And I should give a fuck about the temperature in Greenland why exactly? I don't live in Greenland.
Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.
All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.
That's because all scientists are skeptics.
Wacky global warming deniers are not skeptics, they are credulous fools.
Skeptics look at the evidence before making their minds up, and change their minds if new evidence comes to light.
Deniers deny. Disprove one nutty theory and the continue denying with another, often incompatible nutty theory. This sometimes goes around in circles 'till they come back to the first, already disproven, theory.
The only way you could get from the RDC to Guinea in less that 14 days is by plane. There are no usable roads for much of the distance. (It can take more that 14 days to get from the interior of the RDC to the capital, never mind getting from there to Guinea).
(Maybe by boat, but I doubt it).
That's the point - there is a natural reservoir, it's the Tai forest in the Ivory Coast.
But the strain in Guinea turns out to be from the RDC.
So it seems highly probable that Ebola has already taken it's first trip on a plane.
Have an appropriate amount of fun.
Splendid. Where have you published this remarkable result?
Fuck you. The population of Conacry is between 1.5 and 2 million.