Weather is not Climate. By bringing that up, you automatically disqualify yourself.
Correlation does imply causation. And in the presence of a causative agent, it does so so strongly that onus to disprove causation is on the 'skeptics'. CO2 is one of the reasons Earth is warmer than its orbital position should suggest, and a rising concentration of a known greenhouse gas and a rising temperature is a strong correlation. So it is up to you to explain why this is not related.
So here's the deal: show us the peer-reviewed study that argues that the rising CO2 concentration is not causatively connected or shut up.
No, it is that simple. The Greenhouse Effect is what keeps the Earth above the temperature it would have if it were a perfect blackbody. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. That we can't account for all fluctuations does not make the general trend any more complex: CO2 concentrations correlate with temperature.
So if we grant that global mean temperature is rising, what do the 'skeptics' propose as a mechanism?
On the one hand we have exponentially rising concentrations of a known greenhouse gas, with isootope ratios pointing to humans as the cause of that rise, and on the other hand we have, what? Elves?
Like it or not, everything is political. Even a desire to not engage in politics and not hear anything about it is a political stance; it is an enabler of the current status quo.
This particular political conundrum is being driven by a specific technological development, so it's relevant in the Tech section.
And finally, no one put a gun to your head to force you to read this and engage in this discussion.
If the programmers are that limited that they need that much budget for retraining, he's going to run into trouble eventually, so he might as well save the time and do it now.
The real problem is that we can't see the outcomes of choices that weren't made.
What. The. Fuck?
You have done nothing but argue the outcome of a choice that wasn't made. You really are this stupid?
I really couldn't let this go without pointing out that with every post you make you prove the argument for postnatal abortion to improve the gene pool.
'would have been' is speculation. The facts say that the Internet is a government-funded initiative. Of which you said you had never seen a good one.
Now, when you find that you formulated your point of view in a stupid way, there are two things you can do: either admit that, reformulate, and start a useful discussion, or act as if you're right and start twisting definitions around. Guess which makes you look smart, and which makes you look like a complete retarded twit?
Again, you're moving the goalposts. You stated you had seen no positive outcomes of government research, while posting on the end-product of such research. If you don't see the contradiction, then you are retarded. Thus, libertard.
Why are you libertards so utterly and completely unable to look up history? Private business was all about creating walled gardens instead of interoperable networks. The Internet as it is now would most certainly not have happened without its origin as a research project in interoperable networking.
And whether or not it would have happened anyway is in fact irrelevant, as it did happen the way it did, all the basic research and first build-out funded by the federal government; whereas you flatly stated that you had seen no sign of good research being funded by the feds. While posting on a network built by fed-funded research.
Not just a hypocrite, but a stupid hypocrite as well.
Seriously, everytime I get someone on the line with bad reception or heavily distorted speech, it's an iPhone user.
It's a neat, well-styled application platform, but it's a lousy phone. Get yourself an iPod Touch or an iPad if you like the apps, and buy a small dumbphone for your phone needs.
Slashdot Mirror
What does mandatory carrying of ID have to do with privacy? People can't read my ID while I'm carrying it, now can they?
Really, it looks more like you are cherry picking.
Nope, that's perfectly fine grammar. You should read it as "patents that underly features that Apple customers expect from Apple products".
Mart
Yes, because the record is longer than 8 years.
Idiot.
Most obvious explanation would be a decrease of the drag coefficient (Cw). That is a known technique in automobile design to reduce fuel consumption.
I haven't seen that particular episode, but if their experiment led to a signifcantly decreased drag coefficient, then yes, that would indeed work.
Mart
Nonsense. The atmosphere is not held in place by the Earth's magnetic field, but by its gravity.
It's rather funny to see a condemnation of religion from a notorious believer in the Great Free Market and its Prophet Ron Paul (Peace be unto him).
Mart
Scientists biased in favour of Science! Shocking!
Mart
Two things:
So here's the deal: show us the peer-reviewed study that argues that the rising CO2 concentration is not causatively connected or shut up.
Mart
No, it is that simple. The Greenhouse Effect is what keeps the Earth above the temperature it would have if it were a perfect blackbody. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. That we can't account for all fluctuations does not make the general trend any more complex: CO2 concentrations correlate with temperature.
Mart
The answer to all your questions is 'Yes'.
You know, if you haven't studied the field beyond reading a novel, you'd better shut up.
Mart
Here are some good places to start.
Mart
So if we grant that global mean temperature is rising, what do the 'skeptics' propose as a mechanism?
On the one hand we have exponentially rising concentrations of a known greenhouse gas, with isootope ratios pointing to humans as the cause of that rise, and on the other hand we have, what? Elves?
Mart
Like it or not, everything is political. Even a desire to not engage in politics and not hear anything about it is a political stance; it is an enabler of the current status quo.
This particular political conundrum is being driven by a specific technological development, so it's relevant in the Tech section.
And finally, no one put a gun to your head to force you to read this and engage in this discussion.
Right, ethanol is not poisonous. That is why alcoholics don't have a serious risk of liver damage.
Mart
If the programmers are that limited that they need that much budget for retraining, he's going to run into trouble eventually, so he might as well save the time and do it now.
We don't use DNSSEC, so that's probably why I find BIND9 to be trouble free.
We do a lot of host mutations though, so I get to work a lot with BIND. The only hassle is to remind myself to update the zone serials.
As someone still maintaining a BIND9 deployment, I have to ask: do you have any arguments to go with that rant? Because I don't have any problems.
What. The. Fuck?
You have done nothing but argue the outcome of a choice that wasn't made. You really are this stupid?
I really couldn't let this go without pointing out that with every post you make you prove the argument for postnatal abortion to improve the gene pool.
Mart
I'm giving up. You're too stupid to have sensible discussion with.
'would have been' is speculation. The facts say that the Internet is a government-funded initiative. Of which you said you had never seen a good one.
Now, when you find that you formulated your point of view in a stupid way, there are two things you can do: either admit that, reformulate, and start a useful discussion, or act as if you're right and start twisting definitions around. Guess which makes you look smart, and which makes you look like a complete retarded twit?
Mart
It's not name-calling, it's stating facts.
Again, you're moving the goalposts. You stated you had seen no positive outcomes of government research, while posting on the end-product of such research. If you don't see the contradiction, then you are retarded. Thus, libertard.
Mart
Why are you libertards so utterly and completely unable to look up history? Private business was all about creating walled gardens instead of interoperable networks. The Internet as it is now would most certainly not have happened without its origin as a research project in interoperable networking.
And whether or not it would have happened anyway is in fact irrelevant, as it did happen the way it did, all the basic research and first build-out funded by the federal government; whereas you flatly stated that you had seen no sign of good research being funded by the feds. While posting on a network built by fed-funded research.
Not just a hypocrite, but a stupid hypocrite as well.
Mart
A bit hypocritical, that statement, given that you are using one of the most visible products of federal funding ever to post that.
Mart
It's funny how many of Microsoft's competitors commit suicide.
It's just like those reports of people being 'shot while trying to escape'.
If you need a phone, don't get an iPhone, period.
Seriously, everytime I get someone on the line with bad reception or heavily distorted speech, it's an iPhone user.
It's a neat, well-styled application platform, but it's a lousy phone. Get yourself an iPod Touch or an iPad if you like the apps, and buy a small dumbphone for your phone needs.
Mart