I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.
The Bering Strait had a record amount of ice still in the ocean well into April, the longest it has ever been present. If this ice was present in December, your argument may be valid. April is not winter, and the ice should not have been there.
Scientists don't debate facts. Facts are facts. Global average temperatures continue to rise, that's a fact and that fact means global warming is occurring. You can argue about the consequences of global warming, or about details within the theory, but the theories explaining the phenomenon have been tested for decades and still hold strong.
And this is what every single global-warming alarmist says, "The facts are not up for discussion, it's already proven, just do what I tell you to do!" Remember when your parents would do that, you ask why and they say "Because I said so!" That's what you, and your global-warming buddies are doing. You all sound more like a Pope during the Crusades than "scientists."
That would put you back in the 1970s when there was still some controversy on the basics. Real scientists don't say "prove to me that evolution doesn't exist" or "prove to me that physics is all a hoax" or "prove to me tectonic plates exist". That sort of thing is wasted on theory that is older than the scientist. That's how you treat new theories rather than theories that are more than 30 years old.
Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.
I believe you are confused on what constitutes a "scientific fact".
For example, tectonic plates are "scientific fact," It is widely and generally accepted that the Earth has tectonic plates, due to the overwhelming evidence. Relativity is also a "fact", but it is still subject to peer review. Some stellar objects have made relativity more complicated (black holes), yet the scientific fact remains after 80+ years of scrutiny.
Global warming is neither of the above. In the 1970's, it was all about global cooling. In the 1980's, it was the O-Zone layer. Now it is global warming. Scientific fact does not change every 10 years or every time someone writes a blog. There's data to prove global warming, and data to disprove it. For every article about the moss not growing in Japan, there's one about icebergs blocking the Bearing Strait.
To say that Global Warming is indisputable fact that should not be debated is a disgrace to Newton, Einstein, Tesla, and every other real and empirical scientist who has ever lived. Real scientists would say "I think this is happening, now somebody prove me wrong so society as a whole can learn and grow."
P.S. - 200 years ago the Earth underwent a mini Ice-Age, as was well documented throughout the Napoleonic Wars and the American Revolution. So yes, I hope we have a radically different climate. Traffic is bad enough in D.C., imagine if the commuters were staring at the icebergs in the Chesapeake Bay.
Since you don't want your Uranium anymore, please send it over here so the U.S. can build more carbon-free power plants. Otherwise, how will we power all of the Japanese-made electronics that you so graciously sell us?
There's more to education than attending school 5-days a week. I practically slept through school, never studied for a test, and only brought homework home when I had to type it on my computer. Yet my GPA was still excellent. It's because I wanted to learn, not go on American Idol or join the Jersey Shore. When I got my first computer, the stipulation was that I had to fix it when it broke. So it breaks, I learn how to fix it, so I can keep playing Command and Conquer Red Alert. In that process I am learning.
Attending school is about learning what is already known in the world. The ability to innovate is not present in most academic institutions, until you get into the graduate-school realm. How many computer companies were started by college drop-outs versus people with degrees? These tests measure memorization of facts which have already been proven, not the ability to create something new and radical. So while our students may not remember the date the Magna Carta was signed, they can sit around and think "I wonder if this would make things easier."
That's why the U.S. is winning the innovation sector of the sciences.
Give it two years before Siri is adapted to understand programmer jargon. I'd like to walk around with a headset saying "she-bang slash bin slash bash -w"
I spend all day at working writing up responses to posts which haven't yet happened on/. , in the hopes that I will be able to swoop in with a insightful long post that quickly. However nobody ever posts about Barney or Daredevil 2.
Hopefully these satellites were made right and have a properly aligned focus. As long as the focus is of the proper length, should be easy to adjust from far away objects (space to earth) to REALLY far away (light years) objects.
That's what was said, not "Anyone pulling First Sergeant duty in the Air Force" So while I may have been wrong about 1 out of 3 of the services which have First Sergeant rank, I am correct about 2 out of 3. OP is correct about 1 out of 3 services, and incorrect about 2 out of 3.
That's to say, I know they are out there and a lot of them are bad ass (let's avoid the "Air Force fights" flames).
Yeah, ignore what is right in front of you. Real easy to cherry-pick a statement, change the context, and make it say something else.
If you were actually a forward air controller, then you would fall under the "bad ass" category, just like PJ's and some SF (security forces, not special forces). If you submitted their leave forms and fetched the coffee for the Commander, then not so much. So what was your actual job series, not your Unit's name?
First, I know very few Air Force personnel who have been in any situation in which they are in direct combat with the enemy. That's to say, I know they are out there and a lot of them are bad ass (let's avoid the "Air Force fights" flames). However most of the Air Force spends more time putting gel in their hair and hanging out at the MWR tent in theater than doing anything else. SOURCE: been there, done that.
While you may be right about the Air Force, in both the Army and Marines, it is not a special duty assignment. Since we were discussing direct combat with the enemy, it is heavily implied that we are speaking about the Army and Marines, as they are the most likely to engage a 12-year old al-Qaeda fool planting a bomb on the side of the road.
Given that, in the Army and Marines, a duty position is "CQ runner" or "KP" or "tower guard". First Sergeant is a rank, generally E-8. However it can be given to any NCO with a memo written by a O-5 or above to indicate that the person has been awarded the title of First Sergeant and wear the rank, yet still be in the same pay grade (E-7, etc). SOURCE: had to deal with my crappy PSG being the 1SG while we were deployed.
The pastor has always said that the beginning of the bible is to be interpreted as an allegory. Consider the times it was written, with limited scientific understanding. Back then when people didn't understand something, they attached a supreme being to the idea (Thor or Zeus created lightening and thunder when they were mad) and explained it that way. The Universe may have been created in 7 days, but are those 7 days the same as our current understanding of 7 days. Seven days may equal 14 billion years in "supreme being" time. The same type of number distortions have been cited throughout history. Xerses didn't have a million-man army when he invaded Greece, it was more like 200,000. But back then 1 million was like saying a "gazillion."
Fast forward to today, and we understand larger numbers better, along with Math and Science. Therefore I'd argue that if the Bible was created today, it would have a more accurate depiction of events because we understand the Universe better, along with any potential beings out there. I like to look at it as the Bible did the best it could at the time. We know some of the stories to be true, we know others to be distorted due to the limited view of the original writers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.
The Bering Strait had a record amount of ice still in the ocean well into April, the longest it has ever been present. If this ice was present in December, your argument may be valid. April is not winter, and the ice should not have been there.
Scientists don't debate facts. Facts are facts. Global average temperatures continue to rise, that's a fact and that fact means global warming is occurring. You can argue about the consequences of global warming, or about details within the theory, but the theories explaining the phenomenon have been tested for decades and still hold strong.
And this is what every single global-warming alarmist says, "The facts are not up for discussion, it's already proven, just do what I tell you to do!" Remember when your parents would do that, you ask why and they say "Because I said so!" That's what you, and your global-warming buddies are doing. You all sound more like a Pope during the Crusades than "scientists."
That would put you back in the 1970s when there was still some controversy on the basics. Real scientists don't say "prove to me that evolution doesn't exist" or "prove to me that physics is all a hoax" or "prove to me tectonic plates exist". That sort of thing is wasted on theory that is older than the scientist. That's how you treat new theories rather than theories that are more than 30 years old.
Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.
Sorry, some of us were not yet conceived when the ozone layer fiasco was going on. Criticizing only makes you look like a crotchety old man.
I believe you are confused on what constitutes a "scientific fact".
For example, tectonic plates are "scientific fact," It is widely and generally accepted that the Earth has tectonic plates, due to the overwhelming evidence. Relativity is also a "fact", but it is still subject to peer review. Some stellar objects have made relativity more complicated (black holes), yet the scientific fact remains after 80+ years of scrutiny.
Global warming is neither of the above. In the 1970's, it was all about global cooling. In the 1980's, it was the O-Zone layer. Now it is global warming. Scientific fact does not change every 10 years or every time someone writes a blog. There's data to prove global warming, and data to disprove it. For every article about the moss not growing in Japan, there's one about icebergs blocking the Bearing Strait.
To say that Global Warming is indisputable fact that should not be debated is a disgrace to Newton, Einstein, Tesla, and every other real and empirical scientist who has ever lived. Real scientists would say "I think this is happening, now somebody prove me wrong so society as a whole can learn and grow."
P.S. - 200 years ago the Earth underwent a mini Ice-Age, as was well documented throughout the Napoleonic Wars and the American Revolution. So yes, I hope we have a radically different climate. Traffic is bad enough in D.C., imagine if the commuters were staring at the icebergs in the Chesapeake Bay.
Capitalism at work!
Since you don't want your Uranium anymore, please send it over here so the U.S. can build more carbon-free power plants. Otherwise, how will we power all of the Japanese-made electronics that you so graciously sell us?
Can I get a content caching server for my house?
By drop-out, I merely mean they did not finish school. Not that they failed classes or anything.
There's more to education than attending school 5-days a week. I practically slept through school, never studied for a test, and only brought homework home when I had to type it on my computer. Yet my GPA was still excellent. It's because I wanted to learn, not go on American Idol or join the Jersey Shore. When I got my first computer, the stipulation was that I had to fix it when it broke. So it breaks, I learn how to fix it, so I can keep playing Command and Conquer Red Alert. In that process I am learning.
Attending school is about learning what is already known in the world. The ability to innovate is not present in most academic institutions, until you get into the graduate-school realm. How many computer companies were started by college drop-outs versus people with degrees? These tests measure memorization of facts which have already been proven, not the ability to create something new and radical. So while our students may not remember the date the Magna Carta was signed, they can sit around and think "I wonder if this would make things easier."
That's why the U.S. is winning the innovation sector of the sciences.
Give it two years before Siri is adapted to understand programmer jargon. I'd like to walk around with a headset saying "she-bang slash bin slash bash -w"
I spend all day at working writing up responses to posts which haven't yet happened on /. , in the hopes that I will be able to swoop in with a insightful long post that quickly. However nobody ever posts about Barney or Daredevil 2.
Hopefully these satellites were made right and have a properly aligned focus. As long as the focus is of the proper length, should be easy to adjust from far away objects (space to earth) to REALLY far away (light years) objects.
Anyone pulling First Sergeant duty
That's what was said, not "Anyone pulling First Sergeant duty in the Air Force" So while I may have been wrong about 1 out of 3 of the services which have First Sergeant rank, I am correct about 2 out of 3. OP is correct about 1 out of 3 services, and incorrect about 2 out of 3.
That's to say, I know they are out there and a lot of them are bad ass (let's avoid the "Air Force fights" flames).
Yeah, ignore what is right in front of you. Real easy to cherry-pick a statement, change the context, and make it say something else.
If you were actually a forward air controller, then you would fall under the "bad ass" category, just like PJ's and some SF (security forces, not special forces). If you submitted their leave forms and fetched the coffee for the Commander, then not so much. So what was your actual job series, not your Unit's name?
If concrete goals = Lolcatz, getting a crowbar for Mafia Wars, and random inspirational posters, then you are correct.
Is this what Occupy means when they say 1% of the country controls everything?
Makes more sense than the Mayan end-of-the-world fiasco
All the better to torrent with, my dear!
First, I know very few Air Force personnel who have been in any situation in which they are in direct combat with the enemy. That's to say, I know they are out there and a lot of them are bad ass (let's avoid the "Air Force fights" flames). However most of the Air Force spends more time putting gel in their hair and hanging out at the MWR tent in theater than doing anything else. SOURCE: been there, done that.
While you may be right about the Air Force, in both the Army and Marines, it is not a special duty assignment. Since we were discussing direct combat with the enemy, it is heavily implied that we are speaking about the Army and Marines, as they are the most likely to engage a 12-year old al-Qaeda fool planting a bomb on the side of the road.
Given that, in the Army and Marines, a duty position is "CQ runner" or "KP" or "tower guard". First Sergeant is a rank, generally E-8. However it can be given to any NCO with a memo written by a O-5 or above to indicate that the person has been awarded the title of First Sergeant and wear the rank, yet still be in the same pay grade (E-7, etc). SOURCE: had to deal with my crappy PSG being the 1SG while we were deployed.
All I see is the universal Linux file permission.
Spoken like a true Armchair General....
First Sergeant is a rank in the military, not a duty position. And nobody who knew anything about the military would call a 1SG a duty position.
Too bad comments are disabled on her blog.... I could see some fun coming from that.
Someone in China must read /. and decided to adopt the Karma system.
The pastor has always said that the beginning of the bible is to be interpreted as an allegory. Consider the times it was written, with limited scientific understanding. Back then when people didn't understand something, they attached a supreme being to the idea (Thor or Zeus created lightening and thunder when they were mad) and explained it that way. The Universe may have been created in 7 days, but are those 7 days the same as our current understanding of 7 days. Seven days may equal 14 billion years in "supreme being" time. The same type of number distortions have been cited throughout history. Xerses didn't have a million-man army when he invaded Greece, it was more like 200,000. But back then 1 million was like saying a "gazillion."
Fast forward to today, and we understand larger numbers better, along with Math and Science. Therefore I'd argue that if the Bible was created today, it would have a more accurate depiction of events because we understand the Universe better, along with any potential beings out there. I like to look at it as the Bible did the best it could at the time. We know some of the stories to be true, we know others to be distorted due to the limited view of the original writers.
The relationship between Google and NSA is secret. The relationship between ATT and NSA was secret at one time as well. 2+2=4