I think you're missing the point. It's not a faster way to order, it's to help people decide who have a hard time deciding. If you know what you want, this won't help you. If you're not sure, it offers suggestions to push you to something that might be what you want.
Yes, that's all correct except you're forgetting one thing. The 6 steps you went through account four about 1.2C warming of the earth per doubling of CO2, which is nothing to worry about. To get beyond that you need to add a lot of more steps to your 6, such as increasing water vapor increases heat trapping clouds.... etc. etc. etc.
That's where it's not so simple, and you really baffle me as how you haven't learned that is the steps 6 through 300 leads profit (armageddon) that others have problems with. Really, you seem to have a basic grasp of what's going on, how do you keep missing this simple fact?
In his defense on the recorder, it does sound like he's simply recording a speaker phone with something, such as another cell phone. At the beginning of the recording you can hear a bit of him fumbling around to get it going.
The 97% is based on scientific polling of actual climate scientists. It is fair to say that about 19 out of 20 people actually doing research and publishing papers in the field of climatology have concluded that the buildup of greenhouse gas caused by human activity is becoming the driving force behind global warming.
It's fair to say that 77 out of 79 have concluded it, since that's the actual number of climate scientists surveyed for that figure.
You should really read the paper and not just the press release. This line in the press release hides a dirty little secret:
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Of the over 10,000 scientists contacted and the over 3,000 that replied they narrowed down the "climatologists who are active in research" to 79 individuals. The 97% figure represents just 77 people out of those 79.
And that's amazing when you consider that the survey had just 2 questions:
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
I'm amazed that anyone would answer no to either, particularly a "climatologist active in research".
I think you missed his point. There has been much misinformation spread by activists supporting immediate action. "Spread" doesn't mean "in a peer reviewed research article" it means used as an argument in favor of certain actions or policies. This is true not only on all sides of the climate change debate, but pretty much whenever there's a political hot potato.
By limiting the meaning of "spreading misinformation" to only what you consider a true Scotsman of a scientific paper is completely missing why spreading misinformation is a problem.
What? You think that money put in the bank doesn't just go in a vault and sit there collecting dust. Do you really think that rich people invest their money in ways that provide capital in order to grease the wheels of the economy in the same way that spending money does? I don't get it, sounds too complicated so I'll just go on believing that spending is the only thing that matters.
So are you planning on at least just stopping talking about climate change?
Why do I only ever hear this asked of certain non-climate-experts? It seems there's a correlation between opinions on climate change and worthiness to discuss the topic. For example, Tim Flannery is a biologist and Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer yet I never hear people ask them to stop talking about climate because of their lack of expertise.
You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.
He didn't say that he believed invisible pink unicorns don't exist. He said that believing in invisible pink unicorns was foolish.
It appears that your "believe in existence" column is a boolean with NOT NULL. You think people can only believe something exists or believe that it doesn't exist. Atheists allow NULL in this column, so we can say, "I neither believe that it exists nor believe that it doesn't exist, I have a lack of belief either way".
Now, if the column is actually numerical column representing a probability of the thing existing, then we might be able to discuss different values.
I see the argument as one over the regulatory framework that would be needed to separate porn from non-porn. There are too many gray areas and it's too open to abuse. Whatever ills may be caused by porn, the cure is worse than the disease.
We need to promote the exchange of goods and tax it as little as possible. What needs to be taxed more is hoarding of wealth.
Hardly any wealth is hoarded, most of it is invested which is something that an economy needs at least as much as the exchange of goods, if not more so. Without people keeping money in banks so that banks can loan money to businesses there aren't going to be many goods to exchange in the first place. That's the "capital" part of capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows didn't support co-operative multitasking until Windows 95 came out, and if I'm right neither did the Mac.
I think you mean *only* supported co-operative multitasking. It was *pre-emptive* multitasking that was new in Windows 95 and OS X.
I think you're missing the point. It's not a faster way to order, it's to help people decide who have a hard time deciding. If you know what you want, this won't help you. If you're not sure, it offers suggestions to push you to something that might be what you want.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I doubt that this is going to force you to buy a particular pizza at gunpoint.
4. Profit!!! (guess for whom...)
It's not the producers of glyphosate, that's for sure, so I'm going to guess someone with a product that competes with glyphosate?
Yes, that's all correct except you're forgetting one thing. The 6 steps you went through account four about 1.2C warming of the earth per doubling of CO2, which is nothing to worry about. To get beyond that you need to add a lot of more steps to your 6, such as increasing water vapor increases heat trapping clouds.... etc. etc. etc.
That's where it's not so simple, and you really baffle me as how you haven't learned that is the steps 6 through 300 leads profit (armageddon) that others have problems with. Really, you seem to have a basic grasp of what's going on, how do you keep missing this simple fact?
Because gas taxes in NY are more than 3 times higher than in NJ. http://taxfoundation.org/artic...
In his defense on the recorder, it does sound like he's simply recording a speaker phone with something, such as another cell phone. At the beginning of the recording you can hear a bit of him fumbling around to get it going.
Back in the day we used to wish they would get run over by a bus, you young whippersnappers are pretty retro.
Would you care to share it?
it is mechanical engineering, actually
And only a bachelors at that.
The 97% is based on scientific polling of actual climate scientists. It is fair to say that about 19 out of 20 people actually doing research and publishing papers in the field of climatology have concluded that the buildup of greenhouse gas caused by human activity is becoming the driving force behind global warming.
It's fair to say that 77 out of 79 have concluded it, since that's the actual number of climate scientists surveyed for that figure.
You should really read the paper and not just the press release. This line in the press release hides a dirty little secret:
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Of the over 10,000 scientists contacted and the over 3,000 that replied they narrowed down the "climatologists who are active in research" to 79 individuals. The 97% figure represents just 77 people out of those 79.
And that's amazing when you consider that the survey had just 2 questions:
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
I'm amazed that anyone would answer no to either, particularly a "climatologist active in research".
I think you missed his point. There has been much misinformation spread by activists supporting immediate action. "Spread" doesn't mean "in a peer reviewed research article" it means used as an argument in favor of certain actions or policies. This is true not only on all sides of the climate change debate, but pretty much whenever there's a political hot potato.
By limiting the meaning of "spreading misinformation" to only what you consider a true Scotsman of a scientific paper is completely missing why spreading misinformation is a problem.
And from an anecdotal point of view...
That's why we have science, because "anecdotal point of view" is completely untrustworthy.
One centralized location PER STATE. Of course, you'd actually have to read more than a paragraph of bad summary to figure that out.
What? You think that money put in the bank doesn't just go in a vault and sit there collecting dust. Do you really think that rich people invest their money in ways that provide capital in order to grease the wheels of the economy in the same way that spending money does? I don't get it, sounds too complicated so I'll just go on believing that spending is the only thing that matters.
So are you planning on at least just stopping talking about climate change?
Why do I only ever hear this asked of certain non-climate-experts? It seems there's a correlation between opinions on climate change and worthiness to discuss the topic. For example, Tim Flannery is a biologist and Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer yet I never hear people ask them to stop talking about climate because of their lack of expertise.
You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.
yet broad public support is needed
I believe you're begging the question there.
What are you talking about, NetWare isn't even remotely related to Unix.
They did a port to the Motorola 68000 series, but that didn't go anywhere.
How many loaded guns got through security before the TSA?
I guess since a broken clock is right 2 times a day we can all drop the "it doesn't work" mantra.
He didn't say that he believed invisible pink unicorns don't exist. He said that believing in invisible pink unicorns was foolish.
It appears that your "believe in existence" column is a boolean with NOT NULL. You think people can only believe something exists or believe that it doesn't exist. Atheists allow NULL in this column, so we can say, "I neither believe that it exists nor believe that it doesn't exist, I have a lack of belief either way".
Now, if the column is actually numerical column representing a probability of the thing existing, then we might be able to discuss different values.
I see the argument as one over the regulatory framework that would be needed to separate porn from non-porn. There are too many gray areas and it's too open to abuse. Whatever ills may be caused by porn, the cure is worse than the disease.
“Let’s stop spending money we don’t have to kill people we don’t know for reasons we don’t understand.” -- Teller
We need to promote the exchange of goods and tax it as little as possible. What needs to be taxed more is hoarding of wealth.
Hardly any wealth is hoarded, most of it is invested which is something that an economy needs at least as much as the exchange of goods, if not more so. Without people keeping money in banks so that banks can loan money to businesses there aren't going to be many goods to exchange in the first place. That's the "capital" part of capitalism.
Nobody keeps money unused in their mattress.