Actually, it may be even more than that. According to the Atlantic article What ISIS Really Wants, the goal of ISIS is to bring about the apocalypse and thus end the world. So maybe, they want to be evil, with a capital E. Because, I don't think you can get much more evil than wanting to kill everybody everywhere.
Maybe the amount of CO2 we released only accounts for 0.5 degrees and there is some other yet undiscovered source for the other 0.5 degrees unrelated to humans and to CO2.
No, it's actually more than 100% human contribution, because the natural contribution is negative. That means without anthropogenic green house gases (and other sources such as land use change and albedo reductions) the earth would be cooling. So it's not just us, it's entirely us.
I'm just saying, do we have proof of this?
Yes, enough proof to convince 97% of the scientists who study this. The other 3% are mostly libertarians who refuse to accept the evidence because it's ideologically unpleasant for them.
Do we really know there is no alternative explanation for sure?
I suppose I was picturing the heads of some folks exploding when they realized they'd have to be skeptical of NASA's science in order to prove there was a consensus no one is supposed to be skeptical about anymore...
No one's head exploded because that's the not the consensus people are talking about. You're referencing "a NASA scientist" who admitted that there isn't a consensus on the reasons for ice gain in the Antarctic and that Antarctic ice models still need improvement, but you seem to have confused that with the consensus that Global Warming is real, is happening, and is primarily caused by human activity and the general Models of the climate system (although there is plenty of room for improvement, there as well, those aren't the models he was talking about).
That's just false. The Chrétien Liberal Party *was* a centrist party, but all the Liberal Party under all subsequent leaders has been an eco-leftist party. A particular spectacle in the recent election was that the Liberal Party was solidly to the left of the NDP.
Strangely enough the Liberals were to the left of the NDP on some issues and to the right of the conservatives on others.
The liberals helped balance their books like most politicians balance their books, by cheating.
You misspelled conservatives in that sentence. The Liberals actually balanced the books, the conservatives balanced the budget with a one-time asset sale. They didn't care about next year, because they had an election to win this year.
They made changes to employment insurance requirements which resulted in fewer eligible people. While not necessarily a bad thing based on circumstances, they failed to then adjust the EI payment rates to reflect the new number and instead kept it artificially high to collect more money than following the federal formula would normally allow. They also made significant cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces, offloading Federal expenses to the various provincial governments. In your household anology, this would be like a slumlord putting in new flooring and an in ground pool at his house while letting all his tenant buildings going to ruins and pointing at his beautiful house to prove how great a real estate mogul he is.
So are you complaining that the Liberals made the hard choices to balance the budget into balance? Or are you complaining they didn't make the choices you wanted them to make to balance the budget?
The also greatly benefited by the implementation of the GST under the previous government, the abolishment of which was a major party platform that the Liberals ran on. Surprising no one with a functioning brain cell, the Liberals decided NOT to get rid of the GST once in power.
To be fair, the Liberal finance minister really, really wanted to cancel it. He apparently exploded and literally threw furniture at his staff when they told him that he couldn't get rid of it, if ever wanted to balance the budget. He eventually calmed down and accepted it, but sometimes reality doesn't allow us to do what we want to do.
In general, neither the Conservatives or Liberals have been great at putting forward useful budgets that actually work, the liberals were just a bit better at making theirs look good on paper.
It's a bit more than that. The Liberals paid off $110 billion of Canada's debt, the Conservatives added $150 billion to Canada's deb. If you really think that a $260 billion difference in results is "just a bit better at making theirs look good on paper" then you need to have your head examined.
Was it a science based decision to force his cabinet to be 50% male and 50% female? Should decisions as to who runs a department of the government be based on merit not the chromosomal lottery?
Not to say some of the ministers of either sex weren't the best person for the job but whenever you arbitrarily apply some external criteria to your hiring practices you're pretty much guaranteeing the best candidate won't always win.
Have you looked at previous cabinets? This may be the most merit based cabinet in decades. Harper's cabinet (the previous prime minister) was filled with cronies and yes men. Under his leadership, you were more likely to get appointed to cabinet as payback for a favour than any merit based evaluation and very few people cared (few enough that over 10 years, I never heard a single person complain about the way cabinet ministers are appointed). It was so bad that Harper was shuffling his incompetent yes men from one position to the other to try and hide how much they were bungling the job.
Not wanting to fill out an intrusive form like this for no good reason, divulging personal history and other sensitive information to the government, does not make you a "paranoid conservative". It is the prudent thing to do. Setting aside the fear of the government having such information on you; how much do you trust their information security? The census information would be a treasure trove for social engineers. Rather than saying "paranoid conservatives", you should say "people who aren't fucking idiots and weren't born yesterday". Political affiliation has nothing to do with desiring privacy.
Oh noez. Teh hackers will know how many bathrooms are in ma house!
"Legitimate governmental purpose" does not change across a border, does not change with a vote, does not change with the opinions of the populace. It consists of protecting the lives and property of its citizens, no more, no less.
That's a libertarian opinion. It might surprise you that most people don't agree with that opinion.
nobody knows what the ship is capable of, nobody has written the book yet.
It's a space ship. There would literally be a library of technical specifications for everything on the ship.
So you are wrong, there is no correct yet as they are playing it by ear.
You conclusion doesn't follow. The point, which you obviously didn't understand, was that while the crew was perfectly capable in their imaginary skills, they consistently failed to show any level of common sense or rational problem solving skills. By repeatedly demonstrating gross incompetence at basic human tasks, the writers consistently broke my suspension of disbelief. I can't tell you how many times I saw them take unnecessarily convoluted approaches to simple problems.
In the specific example, that I already provided, the crew knows how refit a shuttle with a refrigeration unit, but can't figure out that they should give the guy who's dying of thirst a drink of water.
Nope, your sig is a lie. You are fanatically anti-Enterprise and anti-Voyager.
If you think I'm fanatically anti-either of the shows, you're quite mistaken. I'm reasonably sure that I've watched every episode of Voyager (and I wasn't hate-watching it), I watched the first season, season and half of Enterprise before I couldn't tolerate the show's many, many problems. I watched the last season because they hired a new head writer (who happened to have been the head writer on the lamentably cancelled Odyssey 5).
1) The worst Trek is way better than your average TV show today
That might be true, I don't watch the "average TV show today", either.
2) If you think you can do better they why don't you make your own science-fiction TV space show and get it on the air so you can prove it to us.
Do I also have to write, direct and star in the show? Or is merely organizing the money and hiring the talent sufficient to meet your expectations?
It is easy to criticize from the cheap seats as it costs you nothing but then again it also adds nothing to the conversation.
You are basically saying "Only people who agree with me are allowed to express their opinions".
But since California is our leader, and they are sitting on their hands instead of leading... meh. Let the other countries who are *vastly* ramping up their use of fossil fuels to achieve a higher standing of living for their people (China, India) take the lead, if they want to.
According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.
I have to give Voyager the edge here, it had three decent seasons. Enterprise had roughly three-quarters of a decent season.
More over I could bear to watch Voyager even when it was stupid and underachieving. I stopped watching Enterprise, the mind-numbing stupidity of every character on the show was just too horrible to watch. The best example of what was hideously wrong with the the terrible, terrible scripts for most of the show is this: A crew member is trapped on a planet, he refuses to be beamed up because his companion would be killed by the rapid temperature change. What do you do?
If you answered make him wait 8 hours on the side of a mountain while you retrofit a shuttle with a refrigeration unit, you chose wrong. What can't they cool or heat the transporter room? It's a spaceship, one would assume it they have some kind of temperature control on the rooms. Failing that, they have more than one shuttle, why didn't they send someone down with water and a tent? They were literally dying on the mountain side.
It's not just that one episode but that episode was emblematic of the problems with Enterprise that came up over and over and over again. The Enterprise personnel were hyper competent in narrow fields while as a team they failed do everything correctly. It only became watchable in the final season when they got a new head writer and he started trying to clean up all the crap from the previous seasons. Like, actually trying explain why all of the Vulcans on the show acted more like short-tempered hormonal teenagers than the cool detached logicians they are supposed to be.
So in summary, Voyager is marginally less worse than Enterprise. In both cases, you probably want to watch a different series.
Maybe if the education system here took their heads out of their asses, it would not matter which text book was used for a particular subject.
It seems to matter very much to the people who chose the book for the course because they also literally wrote the book. So they probably think it's the best and they get a portion of every sale.
The problem is that the text book and testing industry have such an incestuous relationship
Quite incestuous indeed, since they wrote the book and then picked the book that they wrote.
The vast, VAST majority comes from highly subsidized corn. HFCS is in everything because it's so cheap, it's so cheap because we're basically paying farmers to grow it while simultaneously refusing to import sugar at reasonable rates.
And fructose is specifically what the diets in this study reduced (from 28% to 10%) and generated nearly immediate health benefits. The Sugar Industry Association's response was a bit amusing. Of course, they say the study isn't large enough or long enough to make any solid conclusions (and they're probably right, it should be replicated, and larger and longer term studies should be done). The amusing part is where they try to explain away the observed benefits by claiming that the benefits might be caused weight loss induced by the dietary change and not directly by the high fructose sugar reduction. I find it amusing because they are basically arguing that high fructose corn syrup is making Americans fat and therefore sick, instead of just making them sick.
It looks like it's time for them to bring out the commercial where the government slaps the ice cream out of the hands of children again to remind Americans that it's their god given right to be eat garbage. And that a food industry that knows they're slowly poisoning you should be help completely free of responsibility for lying to you about it, after all, if you believe what they're saying, you're the idiot. I wish I was kidding about the last part, but I watched the Merchants of Doubt documentary last night, and one of the pro-tobacco scientists said exactly that. To his mind, the Tobacco companies are completely blameless for lying to you because after all, if they told you the truth you wouldn't buy their product. It's entirely the fault of smokers for believing anything that he and the tobacco companies have to say. It's libertarianism for the win.
According to the regular medical correspondent on the radio this morning, this study supposedly found the opposite. When the test subjects replaced fructose with other carbohydrates the subjects experienced across the board health improvements in a remarkably short period.
Apparently, they reduced consumption of fructose from 12% of dietary intake to 4%. I would like to see the results duplicated for confirmation, but if so, it points to a serious problem with North American food supplies. High fructose corn syrup seems to be used to sweeten almost everything, and according to these results it is making us sick(er).
Salt is a good example as many western nations are now having widespread iodine deficiencies because they've cut out their main source of iodine, which was iodised (table) salt.
[citation needed]
Here's a Lancet published study that found that Iodine deficiency in the United Kingdom was around 70% in 2011. Of course, that's just one study, the WHO put the rate in North America at around 10% in 2004, and this study put the rate of iodine deficiency in Australia between 50% (for pregnant women) to 75% for the volunteers. It's not clear to me whether the samples in the studies are unrepresentative, if the WHO is underestimating the levels of deficiency, or if there has been a rapid rise in the level of deficiency. Regardless, it looks like North Americans are likely getting enough iodine, the WHO result seems to be somewhat confirmed by Stats Canada who estimate that only about 30% of Canadians are not getting enough iodine. The level is higher than the WHO estimate but much lower than the UK and Australian measurements. This could be a cultural difference if North Americans are much more liberal with their salt than comparable overseas populations.
Here's a hint: Sometimes people lash out at the messenger because they dislike the message, but sometimes people lash out at the messenger because they dislike the messenger.
And I was right, he was in fact overweight and wasn't able to stop eating unhealthy foods, so he ended up basically skipping meals instead.
There is absolutely no evidence to conclude that you were right (or wrong) in any way, shape, or form. We don't know how much food he was eating before and after he lost his weight, we don't know what he was eating, and we don't even know what his starting and ending weights were. Concluding you are correct based on such scant evidence makes your other positions far less credible because it implies you are willing to accept a position with virtually nothing to support it.
Even though I'm inclined to agree with you that one of the steps to healthy living is to avoid too much processed junk food, your attitude and behaviour makes it difficult to agree with you.
Well, they calculated that additional heat the Earth is absorbing due to (primarily) CO2 emissions is around 2.5 x 10^14 Joules per second, then they divided that by the estimate amount of energy released by the Hiroshima bombs (~ 6.25 x 10^13) to get 4 bombs per second. Then, I assume, they multiplied by the number of seconds since 1998.
According to the same site, the conversion rate of Hiroshima bombs to Hurricane Sandys is just 2 to 1. You were only off by 9 orders of magnitude.
So, how much are you being paid to post this bullshit?
What bullshit? I asked you some questions. Important questions, given your extraordinary claims.
You've been ranting and raving about all over the comment section of this article about how Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the climate change scientists. I'm asking you why you are making these claims. I hope you'll understand that I'm a little confused about your claims since Shell, BP, and Chevron all acknowledge that climate change is real, and they have billions of dollars at stake. So, I'm curious why you don't believe in climate change, while virtually all of the experts do.
According to what someone else posted above, it's because the wind speed was estimated by looking at the storm and guessing how fast the winds were. It's not what I'd call the most accurate or reliable methodology.
Why? How do you know that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a myth? How do you know more about the climate than 97% of the people who study it and 90% of scientists in general, and every national science body in the world? When the evidence is all around us, what makes you prefer to believe that the scientists are lying to us for grant money (which they don't even get to keep)? How can you be so sure that releasing 40 billion tonnes of CO2 per year can have no measurable effect on the atmosphere or the climate?
You obviously have absolutely no idea the scale of the energies at play here. Many times the Hiroshima Bomb per second.
How many times? Apparently the anthropogenic effects of climate change are currently causing the earth to accumulate and addition 4 Hiroshima Bombs per second. The grand total is now at around 2.2 billion bombs. So, I'm curious. Do you think this hurricane is 4 billion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it may be even more than that. According to the Atlantic article What ISIS Really Wants, the goal of ISIS is to bring about the apocalypse and thus end the world. So maybe, they want to be evil, with a capital E. Because, I don't think you can get much more evil than wanting to kill everybody everywhere.
Do we have the evidence that shows that the amount of CO2 increase should actually increase the temperatire by 1C?
Yes.
Maybe the amount of CO2 we released only accounts for 0.5 degrees and there is some other yet undiscovered source for the other 0.5 degrees unrelated to humans and to CO2.
No, it's actually more than 100% human contribution, because the natural contribution is negative. That means without anthropogenic green house gases (and other sources such as land use change and albedo reductions) the earth would be cooling. So it's not just us, it's entirely us.
I'm just saying, do we have proof of this?
Yes, enough proof to convince 97% of the scientists who study this. The other 3% are mostly libertarians who refuse to accept the evidence because it's ideologically unpleasant for them.
Do we really know there is no alternative explanation for sure?
Yes
I suppose I was picturing the heads of some folks exploding when they realized they'd have to be skeptical of NASA's science in order to prove there was a consensus no one is supposed to be skeptical about anymore...
No one's head exploded because that's the not the consensus people are talking about. You're referencing "a NASA scientist" who admitted that there isn't a consensus on the reasons for ice gain in the Antarctic and that Antarctic ice models still need improvement, but you seem to have confused that with the consensus that Global Warming is real, is happening, and is primarily caused by human activity and the general Models of the climate system (although there is plenty of room for improvement, there as well, those aren't the models he was talking about).
Even if he does, it would still be pretty big improvement.
Remember, less evil is better.
That's just false. The Chrétien Liberal Party *was* a centrist party, but all the Liberal Party under all subsequent leaders has been an eco-leftist party. A particular spectacle in the recent election was that the Liberal Party was solidly to the left of the NDP.
Strangely enough the Liberals were to the left of the NDP on some issues and to the right of the conservatives on others.
The liberals helped balance their books like most politicians balance their books, by cheating.
You misspelled conservatives in that sentence. The Liberals actually balanced the books, the conservatives balanced the budget with a one-time asset sale. They didn't care about next year, because they had an election to win this year.
They made changes to employment insurance requirements which resulted in fewer eligible people. While not necessarily a bad thing based on circumstances, they failed to then adjust the EI payment rates to reflect the new number and instead kept it artificially high to collect more money than following the federal formula would normally allow. They also made significant cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces, offloading Federal expenses to the various provincial governments. In your household anology, this would be like a slumlord putting in new flooring and an in ground pool at his house while letting all his tenant buildings going to ruins and pointing at his beautiful house to prove how great a real estate mogul he is.
So are you complaining that the Liberals made the hard choices to balance the budget into balance? Or are you complaining they didn't make the choices you wanted them to make to balance the budget?
The also greatly benefited by the implementation of the GST under the previous government, the abolishment of which was a major party platform that the Liberals ran on. Surprising no one with a functioning brain cell, the Liberals decided NOT to get rid of the GST once in power.
To be fair, the Liberal finance minister really, really wanted to cancel it. He apparently exploded and literally threw furniture at his staff when they told him that he couldn't get rid of it, if ever wanted to balance the budget. He eventually calmed down and accepted it, but sometimes reality doesn't allow us to do what we want to do.
In general, neither the Conservatives or Liberals have been great at putting forward useful budgets that actually work, the liberals were just a bit better at making theirs look good on paper.
It's a bit more than that. The Liberals paid off $110 billion of Canada's debt, the Conservatives added $150 billion to Canada's deb. If you really think that a $260 billion difference in results is "just a bit better at making theirs look good on paper" then you need to have your head examined.
Was it a science based decision to force his cabinet to be 50% male and 50% female? Should decisions as to who runs a department of the government be based on merit not the chromosomal lottery?
Funny that you should care.
Not to say some of the ministers of either sex weren't the best person for the job but whenever you arbitrarily apply some external criteria to your hiring practices you're pretty much guaranteeing the best candidate won't always win.
Have you looked at previous cabinets? This may be the most merit based cabinet in decades. Harper's cabinet (the previous prime minister) was filled with cronies and yes men. Under his leadership, you were more likely to get appointed to cabinet as payback for a favour than any merit based evaluation and very few people cared (few enough that over 10 years, I never heard a single person complain about the way cabinet ministers are appointed). It was so bad that Harper was shuffling his incompetent yes men from one position to the other to try and hide how much they were bungling the job.
Not wanting to fill out an intrusive form like this for no good reason, divulging personal history and other sensitive information to the government, does not make you a "paranoid conservative". It is the prudent thing to do. Setting aside the fear of the government having such information on you; how much do you trust their information security? The census information would be a treasure trove for social engineers. Rather than saying "paranoid conservatives", you should say "people who aren't fucking idiots and weren't born yesterday". Political affiliation has nothing to do with desiring privacy.
Oh noez. Teh hackers will know how many bathrooms are in ma house!
"Legitimate governmental purpose" does not change across a border, does not change with a vote, does not change with the opinions of the populace. It consists of protecting the lives and property of its citizens, no more, no less.
That's a libertarian opinion. It might surprise you that most people don't agree with that opinion.
Let's see, Enterprise 1.0, the first one ever.
And?
nobody knows what the ship is capable of, nobody has written the book yet.
It's a space ship. There would literally be a library of technical specifications for everything on the ship.
So you are wrong, there is no correct yet as they are playing it by ear.
You conclusion doesn't follow. The point, which you obviously didn't understand, was that while the crew was perfectly capable in their imaginary skills, they consistently failed to show any level of common sense or rational problem solving skills. By repeatedly demonstrating gross incompetence at basic human tasks, the writers consistently broke my suspension of disbelief. I can't tell you how many times I saw them take unnecessarily convoluted approaches to simple problems.
In the specific example, that I already provided, the crew knows how refit a shuttle with a refrigeration unit, but can't figure out that they should give the guy who's dying of thirst a drink of water.
Nope, your sig is a lie. You are fanatically anti-Enterprise and anti-Voyager.
If you think I'm fanatically anti-either of the shows, you're quite mistaken. I'm reasonably sure that I've watched every episode of Voyager (and I wasn't hate-watching it), I watched the first season, season and half of Enterprise before I couldn't tolerate the show's many, many problems. I watched the last season because they hired a new head writer (who happened to have been the head writer on the lamentably cancelled Odyssey 5).
1) The worst Trek is way better than your average TV show today
That might be true, I don't watch the "average TV show today", either.
2) If you think you can do better they why don't you make your own science-fiction TV space show and get it on the air so you can prove it to us.
Do I also have to write, direct and star in the show? Or is merely organizing the money and hiring the talent sufficient to meet your expectations?
It is easy to criticize from the cheap seats as it costs you nothing but then again it also adds nothing to the conversation.
You are basically saying "Only people who agree with me are allowed to express their opinions".
But since California is our leader, and they are sitting on their hands instead of leading... meh. Let the other countries who are *vastly* ramping up their use of fossil fuels to achieve a higher standing of living for their people (China, India) take the lead, if they want to.
According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.
I have to give Voyager the edge here, it had three decent seasons. Enterprise had roughly three-quarters of a decent season.
More over I could bear to watch Voyager even when it was stupid and underachieving. I stopped watching Enterprise, the mind-numbing stupidity of every character on the show was just too horrible to watch. The best example of what was hideously wrong with the the terrible, terrible scripts for most of the show is this: A crew member is trapped on a planet, he refuses to be beamed up because his companion would be killed by the rapid temperature change. What do you do?
If you answered make him wait 8 hours on the side of a mountain while you retrofit a shuttle with a refrigeration unit, you chose wrong. What can't they cool or heat the transporter room? It's a spaceship, one would assume it they have some kind of temperature control on the rooms. Failing that, they have more than one shuttle, why didn't they send someone down with water and a tent? They were literally dying on the mountain side.
It's not just that one episode but that episode was emblematic of the problems with Enterprise that came up over and over and over again. The Enterprise personnel were hyper competent in narrow fields while as a team they failed do everything correctly. It only became watchable in the final season when they got a new head writer and he started trying to clean up all the crap from the previous seasons. Like, actually trying explain why all of the Vulcans on the show acted more like short-tempered hormonal teenagers than the cool detached logicians they are supposed to be.
So in summary, Voyager is marginally less worse than Enterprise. In both cases, you probably want to watch a different series.
Maybe if the education system here took their heads out of their asses, it would not matter which text book was used for a particular subject.
It seems to matter very much to the people who chose the book for the course because they also literally wrote the book. So they probably think it's the best and they get a portion of every sale.
The problem is that the text book and testing industry have such an incestuous relationship
Quite incestuous indeed, since they wrote the book and then picked the book that they wrote.
$180? Are they fucking insane?
The people reprimanding him are the people who chose the $180 textbook, and they also happen to be the authors of that overpriced textbook.
So no, it definitely not that they're insane... Unethical, corrupt and greedy, but not insane.
The vast, VAST majority comes from highly subsidized corn. HFCS is in everything because it's so cheap, it's so cheap because we're basically paying farmers to grow it while simultaneously refusing to import sugar at reasonable rates.
And fructose is specifically what the diets in this study reduced (from 28% to 10%) and generated nearly immediate health benefits. The Sugar Industry Association's response was a bit amusing. Of course, they say the study isn't large enough or long enough to make any solid conclusions (and they're probably right, it should be replicated, and larger and longer term studies should be done). The amusing part is where they try to explain away the observed benefits by claiming that the benefits might be caused weight loss induced by the dietary change and not directly by the high fructose sugar reduction. I find it amusing because they are basically arguing that high fructose corn syrup is making Americans fat and therefore sick, instead of just making them sick.
It looks like it's time for them to bring out the commercial where the government slaps the ice cream out of the hands of children again to remind Americans that it's their god given right to be eat garbage. And that a food industry that knows they're slowly poisoning you should be help completely free of responsibility for lying to you about it, after all, if you believe what they're saying, you're the idiot. I wish I was kidding about the last part, but I watched the Merchants of Doubt documentary last night, and one of the pro-tobacco scientists said exactly that. To his mind, the Tobacco companies are completely blameless for lying to you because after all, if they told you the truth you wouldn't buy their product. It's entirely the fault of smokers for believing anything that he and the tobacco companies have to say. It's libertarianism for the win.
According to the regular medical correspondent on the radio this morning, this study supposedly found the opposite. When the test subjects replaced fructose with other carbohydrates the subjects experienced across the board health improvements in a remarkably short period.
Apparently, they reduced consumption of fructose from 12% of dietary intake to 4%. I would like to see the results duplicated for confirmation, but if so, it points to a serious problem with North American food supplies. High fructose corn syrup seems to be used to sweeten almost everything, and according to these results it is making us sick(er).
Salt is a good example as many western nations are now having widespread iodine deficiencies because they've cut out their main source of iodine, which was iodised (table) salt.
[citation needed]
Here's a Lancet published study that found that Iodine deficiency in the United Kingdom was around 70% in 2011. Of course, that's just one study, the WHO put the rate in North America at around 10% in 2004, and this study put the rate of iodine deficiency in Australia between 50% (for pregnant women) to 75% for the volunteers. It's not clear to me whether the samples in the studies are unrepresentative, if the WHO is underestimating the levels of deficiency, or if there has been a rapid rise in the level of deficiency. Regardless, it looks like North Americans are likely getting enough iodine, the WHO result seems to be somewhat confirmed by Stats Canada who estimate that only about 30% of Canadians are not getting enough iodine. The level is higher than the WHO estimate but much lower than the UK and Australian measurements. This could be a cultural difference if North Americans are much more liberal with their salt than comparable overseas populations.
Here's a hint: Sometimes people lash out at the messenger because they dislike the message, but sometimes people lash out at the messenger because they dislike the messenger.
And I was right, he was in fact overweight and wasn't able to stop eating unhealthy foods, so he ended up basically skipping meals instead.
There is absolutely no evidence to conclude that you were right (or wrong) in any way, shape, or form. We don't know how much food he was eating before and after he lost his weight, we don't know what he was eating, and we don't even know what his starting and ending weights were. Concluding you are correct based on such scant evidence makes your other positions far less credible because it implies you are willing to accept a position with virtually nothing to support it.
Even though I'm inclined to agree with you that one of the steps to healthy living is to avoid too much processed junk food, your attitude and behaviour makes it difficult to agree with you.
Well, they calculated that additional heat the Earth is absorbing due to (primarily) CO2 emissions is around 2.5 x 10^14 Joules per second, then they divided that by the estimate amount of energy released by the Hiroshima bombs (~ 6.25 x 10^13) to get 4 bombs per second. Then, I assume, they multiplied by the number of seconds since 1998.
According to the same site, the conversion rate of Hiroshima bombs to Hurricane Sandys is just 2 to 1. You were only off by 9 orders of magnitude.
So, how much are you being paid to post this bullshit?
What bullshit? I asked you some questions. Important questions, given your extraordinary claims.
You've been ranting and raving about all over the comment section of this article about how Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the climate change scientists. I'm asking you why you are making these claims. I hope you'll understand that I'm a little confused about your claims since Shell, BP, and Chevron all acknowledge that climate change is real, and they have billions of dollars at stake. So, I'm curious why you don't believe in climate change, while virtually all of the experts do.
Even the U.S. Army considers climate change to be real and a potential threat.
According to what someone else posted above, it's because the wind speed was estimated by looking at the storm and guessing how fast the winds were. It's not what I'd call the most accurate or reliable methodology.
Man-Made Climate Change is a myth.
Why? How do you know that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a myth? How do you know more about the climate than 97% of the people who study it and 90% of scientists in general, and every national science body in the world? When the evidence is all around us, what makes you prefer to believe that the scientists are lying to us for grant money (which they don't even get to keep)? How can you be so sure that releasing 40 billion tonnes of CO2 per year can have no measurable effect on the atmosphere or the climate?
So big that we would have to drop a few HUNDRED nuclear bombs
So... Is the equivalent of 2.2 billion nuclear bombs enough?
You obviously have absolutely no idea the scale of the energies at play here. Many times the Hiroshima Bomb per second.
How many times? Apparently the anthropogenic effects of climate change are currently causing the earth to accumulate and addition 4 Hiroshima Bombs per second. The grand total is now at around 2.2 billion bombs. So, I'm curious. Do you think this hurricane is 4 billion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb?
I can think of a few worse places...