These are weapons from the 80s. Weapons we helped Iraq to obtain when they were one of the people we were supporting in opposition to Iran. They do not in any way vindicate Bush, and that is the reason that Bush covered it up.
Yes...because that's all it takes to dismiss someone, not actually reading what was said, not checking out the source scientific paper, and just ignoring the guy's credentials. ya...cause thats the proper to evaluate statements: kneejerkage.
So yes, apparently that is all that passes for intellectual thought on your part. Namely, very little.
Since you're obviously too stupid or too lazy to check things out for yourself, here:
Philip Cary Plait (born September 30, 1964),[1] also known as The Bad Astronomer, is an American astronomer, skeptic, writer and popular science blogger. Plait has worked as part of the Hubble Space Telescope team, images and spectra of astronomical objects, as well as engaging in public outreach advocacy for NASA missions. He has written two books, Bad Astronomy and Death from the Skies. He has also appeared in several science documentaries, including Phil Plait's Bad Universe on the Discovery Channel. From August 2008 through 2009, he served as President of the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Basically a smaller scale Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
And here: here's the scientific paper in question: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... Not that it matters, since you probably dismiss any scientist out of hand based on who they voted for last election.
So mods who apaprently never took a basic civics course modded it 0 flamebait. I didnt think i'd have to break so Barney style, but here we go:
They fail to understand that perfect freedom is anarchy, and precludes living in groups as anything approaching free and equal members. The only way a group can experience perfect freedom is if only only person in the group, lets call him the Leader, enjoyrs perfect freedom, and everyone else enjoys less than that. Because perfect freedom is the freedom to do ANYTHING. including murder and theft or other impositions on others that involve them giving up their freedom. Example: if person A enjoys perfect freedom, and uses it to carry out murder on Person B (assuming he can without repercussions because he HAS perfect freedom), Person B obviously is not enjoying perfect freedom, having just lost his right to life to A's right to murder.
Thus in a free society we trade, via laws enacted and enforced by government, certain freedoms to enhance the freedoms of others. This way we achieve greater equality of freedom across society, with everyone enjoying a higher level of freedom. A few people, lets just The Powerful Minority, are forced to give up some level of their freedom, specifically what they would lord over everyone else and use to reduce everyone else's level of freedom, so that everyone else can enjoy a higher level of freedom.
Ergo: the very act of living in a civilized society involves the trading of absolute freedom, an ideal that cannot exist for everyone at the same time ina group, for the security and stability of having a higher and equal levle of freedom than they would otherwise have under the thumb of a Powerful few who did enjoy absolute freedom.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Someone apparently isnt aware that the average ACTUAL rate paid by companies is less than 14%, a third of the "official" rate. and the only reason the average is that high is because of the large number of small businesses that can't afford all the tax breaks, loopholes, and avoidance strategies that the big guys use to get their rates below 10%.
simply put: offshoring has 0 to to do with our corporate tax rate.
Oh my god...the antarctic sea ice saw a maximum...during winter...after being inundated with record amounts of freshwater, which freezes easier and at a warmer temperature, from the melting antarctic land ice (a volume of melted ice the size of Manhattan, and 3 miles thick)....shocking.
Just stop posting. You are wrong every single time. You repeat the same debunked myths, every single time.
You completely missed the point of hte article. The oceans ARE absorbing heat. More of it than we expected. That is not in debate, and not being challenged by the article.
All this article is saying is that the heat/energy isnt also making it into the deepest depths. Which is not exactly shocking. The fact that the ocean has different layers that do not (relatively) mix is not new. These differening layers are well known. Which means its being concentrated in the upper portions of the ocean, namely the layers that most affect weather and climate patterns.
I am not surprised that your response to this news is just like your response to the record sea ice in the antarctic: Denier: "See?! This disproves all your so called science. You're wrong, you didnt predict this." Science: "Actually, yes we did. We've known about this for some time. You just haven't been paying attention to what we actually say."
Oh, and just to be clear, the land ice, is NOT growing. The losses from western antarctica far outweight the extremely weak positive gains on the eastern part. The overall trend is still VERY much downward. The land ice is decreasing. And the Arctic is NOT normal, no, not even close. Those are blatant lies not backed by any actual observations.
You completely missed the point of hte article. The oceans ARE absorbing heat. More of it than we expected. That is not in debate, and not being challenged by the article.
All this article is saying is that the heat/energy isnt also making it into the deepest depths. Which is not exactly shocking. The fact that the ocean has different layers that do not (relatively) mix is not new. These differening layers are well known. Which means its being concentrated in the upper portions of the ocean, namely the layers that most affect weather and climate patterns.
The response of deniers to this news is much like their response to the record sea ice in the antarctic: Denier: "See?! This disproves all your so called science. You're wrong, you didnt predict this." Science: "Actually, yes we did. We've known about this for some time. You just haven't been paying attention to what we actually say, being too busy telling what we're 'really' said and 'really' want."
No, no we are not in an unsually unstable period of climate. Or more accurately stated, that instability is BECAUSE OF US. And no, no you cannot dump ever increasing amounts of energy into a system without effect. We ARE having an effect.
To be clear: The human race dumps in excess of 40 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmospehere, every year. To put that in perspective, that's the weight of 400,000 aircraft carriers. If formed into a cube, it's a cube 95,000 feet tall.
You say "but the dinosaurs were fine"...to which the response is, so what? That's a irrelevent msidirection. They evolved for their time, not ours. We evolved for out time, not theirs. You mention their size, as if its relevent and established fact that its because CO2, when thats far from the case, and there are still many different theories as to what accounts for their enourmous size while animals today are much smaller.
Fact is, tt took the planet MILLIONS of years for the concentrations of atmospheric gases to change from what the dinosaurs experienced to what we have. Or more accurately, what we had 200 years ago, because at the current rate, we will reach dinosaur CO2 levels in something like another 600 years. Which may be long compared to our lifespan, but is an eyeblink compared to the millions of years that seperate the dinosaurs atmospheric composition from our own.
Again, I'll break it down Barney style for you: -Weather is what's outside your window. Local, and immediate observation. -Climate is a whole bunch of those local observations, from a whole bunch of locations. IE, an average or trend.
1) The part of hurricanes most clearly linked to climate change is the season: it's been starting earlier, and lasting longer. No one really understands why this year was mild year for hurricanes, but agian: one year doesnt invalidate previous decades of observation. Next year could be the worst year ever. Or it could be mild too. Either way it will provide another data point, more observations, that can be applied and explored. And keep in mind that hurricanes, due their ginormous size and the amount of energy they contain, themselves cause changes in weather and climate over a tremendously large region.
2) Question: what caused the polar vortex to break its normal bounds and allow an unusal blast of arctic air to move southward into New England, while also allowing warm tropical air to come raging northward and cause a winter heat wave in Alaska? Could it have been the increased instabilty of the climate caused by dumping ever increasing amounts of energy into the system?
3) No, this level of drought has not occured in Calfornia before in recent history. Its not just young people who never experienced something like it before...neither have the old folks. No one who is currently alive was also alive during that last time California had such a severe drought. There is no evidence that its tied to El Nino considering that neither an El Nino nor La Nina event has occured during this drought. Fact of the matter that evidence is mounting that previous wetness of California is the anomaly, not the current dryness.
While this is not science that can be easily replicated in a lab in a short time frame so we can say "AHA! We have all the answers!", and will require millions of observations from around the globe over a tremendous time frame, the idea that you continually dump more and more energy into a system without affecting it is idiocy.
That is the legal definition, yes. And yet within the public sphere we also expect each other, particularly those in positions of power, such as big corporations, to also adhere to those principles and ideals.
The fact our constitution did not mention powerful private entities who would stifle our rights is an oversight the Founders did not anticipate, not a feature.
In fact, this leads to a fascinating discussion: does the concept of inalienable only pertain to governments? and thus corporate towns, like the Domino's pizza guy's town in Florida, can override and nullify all your rights simply because they arent government?
That would be a myth. Never once seen a union contract that did not provide for dismissal. And if a company ever actually signed that sort of agreement, then they deserve what they got and need to fire their lawyers/negotiating team.
the mistake is in thinking that capitalism and free markets are the same thing. they are not.
the closest their relationship comes is in being the two different axis of a graph. IE, "relative freeness of market" is one axis, and "ownership of the means of production" (of which capitalism is merely one extreme) is the other axis. must like the like the political spectrum which is better represented by an XY plot (right/left vs anarchy/totalitatrian) than a single left/right line.
And in all honesty, capitalism is government sponsored, at least in our system, with all the laws we created to protect and foster companies and economic growth/competition. The corporation itself, the very idea of it which is a fundamental legal fiction, wouldnt exist without laws to allow its existence.
Take for example the quarentined family members of the ebola patient in Dallas, TX. It was "highly suggested" to them to stay in their home and not leave until they were sure they weren't going to get sick and contagious. They tried to leave. And were told "no...it wasn't really a suggestion, get back inside." Their freedoms have quite obviously been curtailed for the next few days....for what seems a dang good reason at this time. Whether it will stand up in court should they decide to challenge it after the fact, I can't say. (I dont know the legal precedent, if it exists, for issues revolving around preventing the spread of a potential epidemic)
In fact government in general is about the giving up of some freedoms for the stability and security of a society larger than 1. Such as the "freedom to impose your beliefs on others". That's a no-no, not that that has stopped folks from trying to do it. Or the freedom to engage in any economic activity you can get away with....we have defined limits on what kinds of activity are considered legal, which kinds of goods and services can be sold, and which cannot.
So you cant really make a blanket statement like that. Specific circumstances and context matter.
In this case, this article, it's silliness. Some guy saying essentially "Fear the internet...wooooooooo (ghost sounds)". Meh.
So you're saying its not rational to talk about replacing X, which costs a lot of money and is inefficient, with Y, which costs less money and is more effcient?
They're making decisions to benefit themselves. Whether or not it also benefits the public who must use it is irrelevent to them.
Case in point: food safety. We have to regulate food safety, to FORCE a 100% safety ideal, specifically because corporations cannot be trusted, and HAVE in the distannt past made the calculation that they can afford to ignore X% of their customer base that may be negatively affected by Y businesspractice. In food safety this boils down to: "we can afford to make X number of people sick". It's why the forerunner to the FDA was created.
Most of it is from CO2 emissions. Technology that eliminates or reduces CO2 emissions IS a silver bullet.
Like say...solar. And manufacturing plant exhaust filters/traps. It is a false statement to state that we MUST reduce population or standard of living.
The two biggest concerns are food, and water. Changes in culture and habit can handle the food (less overeating in general, more fruit veggies and "sustainable" protein,....less beef).
Which leaves water, and water is no doubt the trickiest of the problems to be faced. And at a time when more and more of the world is facing water shortages, we have corporations seeking to privitize the water supply. But I do think we can overcome this one too.
It could affect water supply. And food supply. And through those indirect means, lead to famine and want.
For example: the privitization of the water supply. Or, how a fundamental human need is becoming a priviliedge, instead of a right: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/0...
Again with your false equivalence BS. While only an idiot would run against coal in Kentucky...where is it a reseaonable assumption that she is lying? She's from Kentucky. A large portion of Kentucky relies on coal. Is it really that big a stretch to think she supports coal?
And its fair to point out that nowhere in her support of coal does she include blatantly obvious "even a 4th grader wouldnt something so blatantly wrong" scientific statements along the lines of "we in acadamia all agree that the temperature on Mars is the same as here".
No, the models always were accurate. Its simply idiots like you that fail to understand or pay attention to timelines and logic.
Real world observations kept falling within the IPCC projections. The projections dont say "On Januray 1st 2015 it will be 20C." They give a range of outcomes. The IPCC projections gives 4 projections, ranging from very conservative at one extreme, to very not at the other. At no point did they actually fall outside those projections. From that standpoint alone the models were always accurate.
What was noticed though was the deviation between the projections (specifically the middle 2, the balanced projections) and the actual observations was increasing. Observations were trending more towards the more conservative projection, a projection considered unrealistic.
This is what let to the entire "pause" thing. We knew the energy is being dumped into the planet. We knew it wasn't leaving. So the question was, where was it going? Answer: Oceans.
And now the oceans, because of measurements like those in the/. submission, are being included and refined in the models as we get more data about how much heat they can abosrb, and how they react to it.
You mean the article talking about the so-called pause? The one caused by the heat going into the oceans? The thing this entire/. news item is even about ("Past Measurements Understated Ocean Warming" etc) ? The ocean absorbing heat that is now part of the models?
As for Dyson...two imporat words you dont find in his biography are "climate scientist". In fact, he rather quite well falls into the science trope of the phsycist who insits on talking about things outside his realm of expertise. (There's even an XKCD for that, though I am missing the link atm)
Slashdot Mirror
These are weapons from the 80s. Weapons we helped Iraq to obtain when they were one of the people we were supporting in opposition to Iran.
They do not in any way vindicate Bush, and that is the reason that Bush covered it up.
Yes...because that's all it takes to dismiss someone, not actually reading what was said, not checking out the source scientific paper, and just ignoring the guy's credentials. ya...cause thats the proper to evaluate statements: kneejerkage.
So yes, apparently that is all that passes for intellectual thought on your part. Namely, very little.
Since you're obviously too stupid or too lazy to check things out for yourself, here:
Philip Cary Plait (born September 30, 1964),[1] also known as The Bad Astronomer, is an American astronomer, skeptic, writer and popular science blogger. Plait has worked as part of the Hubble Space Telescope team, images and spectra of astronomical objects, as well as engaging in public outreach advocacy for NASA missions. He has written two books, Bad Astronomy and Death from the Skies. He has also appeared in several science documentaries, including Phil Plait's Bad Universe on the Discovery Channel. From August 2008 through 2009, he served as President of the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Basically a smaller scale Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
And here: here's the scientific paper in question: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Not that it matters, since you probably dismiss any scientist out of hand based on who they voted for last election.
So mods who apaprently never took a basic civics course modded it 0 flamebait.
I didnt think i'd have to break so Barney style, but here we go:
They fail to understand that perfect freedom is anarchy, and precludes living in groups as anything approaching free and equal members. The only way a group can experience perfect freedom is if only only person in the group, lets call him the Leader, enjoyrs perfect freedom, and everyone else enjoys less than that. Because perfect freedom is the freedom to do ANYTHING. including murder and theft or other impositions on others that involve them giving up their freedom. Example: if person A enjoys perfect freedom, and uses it to carry out murder on Person B (assuming he can without repercussions because he HAS perfect freedom), Person B obviously is not enjoying perfect freedom, having just lost his right to life to A's right to murder.
Thus in a free society we trade, via laws enacted and enforced by government, certain freedoms to enhance the freedoms of others. This way we achieve greater equality of freedom across society, with everyone enjoying a higher level of freedom. A few people, lets just The Powerful Minority, are forced to give up some level of their freedom, specifically what they would lord over everyone else and use to reduce everyone else's level of freedom, so that everyone else can enjoy a higher level of freedom.
Ergo: the very act of living in a civilized society involves the trading of absolute freedom, an ideal that cannot exist for everyone at the same time ina group, for the security and stability of having a higher and equal levle of freedom than they would otherwise have under the thumb of a Powerful few who did enjoy absolute freedom.
Oh...and No, reducing the rate would NOT increase the revenue brought in. that right there is a dead giveaway to your intellectual abilities.
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Someone apparently isnt aware that the average ACTUAL rate paid by companies is less than 14%, a third of the "official" rate. and the only reason the average is that high is because of the large number of small businesses that can't afford all the tax breaks, loopholes, and avoidance strategies that the big guys use to get their rates below 10%.
simply put: offshoring has 0 to to do with our corporate tax rate.
Oh my god...the antarctic sea ice saw a maximum...during winter...after being inundated with record amounts of freshwater, which freezes easier and at a warmer temperature, from the melting antarctic land ice (a volume of melted ice the size of Manhattan, and 3 miles thick)....shocking.
Just stop posting. You are wrong every single time.
You repeat the same debunked myths, every single time.
You completely missed the point of hte article.
The oceans ARE absorbing heat. More of it than we expected. That is not in debate, and not being challenged by the article.
All this article is saying is that the heat/energy isnt also making it into the deepest depths. Which is not exactly shocking.
The fact that the ocean has different layers that do not (relatively) mix is not new. These differening layers are well known.
Which means its being concentrated in the upper portions of the ocean, namely the layers that most affect weather and climate patterns.
I am not surprised that your response to this news is just like your response to the record sea ice in the antarctic:
Denier: "See?! This disproves all your so called science. You're wrong, you didnt predict this."
Science: "Actually, yes we did. We've known about this for some time. You just haven't been paying attention to what we actually say."
Oh, and just to be clear, the land ice, is NOT growing. The losses from western antarctica far outweight the extremely weak positive gains on the eastern part. The overall trend is still VERY much downward. The land ice is decreasing.
And the Arctic is NOT normal, no, not even close.
Those are blatant lies not backed by any actual observations.
You completely missed the point of hte article.
The oceans ARE absorbing heat. More of it than we expected. That is not in debate, and not being challenged by the article.
All this article is saying is that the heat/energy isnt also making it into the deepest depths. Which is not exactly shocking.
The fact that the ocean has different layers that do not (relatively) mix is not new. These differening layers are well known.
Which means its being concentrated in the upper portions of the ocean, namely the layers that most affect weather and climate patterns.
The response of deniers to this news is much like their response to the record sea ice in the antarctic:
Denier: "See?! This disproves all your so called science. You're wrong, you didnt predict this."
Science: "Actually, yes we did. We've known about this for some time. You just haven't been paying attention to what we actually say, being too busy telling what we're 'really' said and 'really' want."
No, no we are not in an unsually unstable period of climate. Or more accurately stated, that instability is BECAUSE OF US.
And no, no you cannot dump ever increasing amounts of energy into a system without effect. We ARE having an effect.
To be clear: The human race dumps in excess of 40 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmospehere, every year. To put that in perspective, that's the weight of 400,000 aircraft carriers. If formed into a cube, it's a cube 95,000 feet tall.
You say "but the dinosaurs were fine"...to which the response is, so what? That's a irrelevent msidirection. They evolved for their time, not ours. We evolved for out time, not theirs. You mention their size, as if its relevent and established fact that its because CO2, when thats far from the case, and there are still many different theories as to what accounts for their enourmous size while animals today are much smaller.
Fact is, tt took the planet MILLIONS of years for the concentrations of atmospheric gases to change from what the dinosaurs experienced to what we have. Or more accurately, what we had 200 years ago, because at the current rate, we will reach dinosaur CO2 levels in something like another 600 years. Which may be long compared to our lifespan, but is an eyeblink compared to the millions of years that seperate the dinosaurs atmospheric composition from our own.
ignorant AC mdoded insightful by ignorant mods.
Again, I'll break it down Barney style for you:
-Weather is what's outside your window. Local, and immediate observation.
-Climate is a whole bunch of those local observations, from a whole bunch of locations. IE, an average or trend.
Keep your eye on the man, not the dog (Cosmos clip):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
1) The part of hurricanes most clearly linked to climate change is the season: it's been starting earlier, and lasting longer. No one really understands why this year was mild year for hurricanes, but agian: one year doesnt invalidate previous decades of observation. Next year could be the worst year ever. Or it could be mild too. Either way it will provide another data point, more observations, that can be applied and explored. And keep in mind that hurricanes, due their ginormous size and the amount of energy they contain, themselves cause changes in weather and climate over a tremendously large region.
2) Question: what caused the polar vortex to break its normal bounds and allow an unusal blast of arctic air to move southward into New England, while also allowing warm tropical air to come raging northward and cause a winter heat wave in Alaska? Could it have been the increased instabilty of the climate caused by dumping ever increasing amounts of energy into the system?
3) No, this level of drought has not occured in Calfornia before in recent history. Its not just young people who never experienced something like it before...neither have the old folks. No one who is currently alive was also alive during that last time California had such a severe drought. There is no evidence that its tied to El Nino considering that neither an El Nino nor La Nina event has occured during this drought. Fact of the matter that evidence is mounting that previous wetness of California is the anomaly, not the current dryness.
While this is not science that can be easily replicated in a lab in a short time frame so we can say "AHA! We have all the answers!", and will require millions of observations from around the globe over a tremendous time frame, the idea that you continually dump more and more energy into a system without affecting it is idiocy.
I dont see where their plan is required?
That is the legal definition, yes.
And yet within the public sphere we also expect each other, particularly those in positions of power, such as big corporations, to also adhere to those principles and ideals.
The fact our constitution did not mention powerful private entities who would stifle our rights is an oversight the Founders did not anticipate, not a feature.
In fact, this leads to a fascinating discussion: does the concept of inalienable only pertain to governments? and thus corporate towns, like the Domino's pizza guy's town in Florida, can override and nullify all your rights simply because they arent government?
They are connected in one way....by the words they leave out, and who they favor (the company) and who they disadvantage (the worker).
The right to work...for less.
At will employment...the employer's will.
That would be a myth.
Never once seen a union contract that did not provide for dismissal.
And if a company ever actually signed that sort of agreement, then they deserve what they got and need to fire their lawyers/negotiating team.
the mistake is in thinking that capitalism and free markets are the same thing.
they are not.
the closest their relationship comes is in being the two different axis of a graph. IE, "relative freeness of market" is one axis, and "ownership of the means of production" (of which capitalism is merely one extreme) is the other axis. must like the like the political spectrum which is better represented by an XY plot (right/left vs anarchy/totalitatrian) than a single left/right line.
And in all honesty, capitalism is government sponsored, at least in our system, with all the laws we created to protect and foster companies and economic growth/competition. The corporation itself, the very idea of it which is a fundamental legal fiction, wouldnt exist without laws to allow its existence.
No.
No he was not.
He is only "moderate" in comparison to today's Tea Party bent GOP.
In his day he was at the vangaurd of the conservative movement helping push the GOP further rightward.
He was NOT a moderate Republican in his day.
were there an edit button i would change "is about" to "involves".
how many years now without an edit button? too many.
Actually, yes, several times it has.
Take for example the quarentined family members of the ebola patient in Dallas, TX. It was "highly suggested" to them to stay in their home and not leave until they were sure they weren't going to get sick and contagious. They tried to leave. And were told "no...it wasn't really a suggestion, get back inside." Their freedoms have quite obviously been curtailed for the next few days....for what seems a dang good reason at this time. Whether it will stand up in court should they decide to challenge it after the fact, I can't say. (I dont know the legal precedent, if it exists, for issues revolving around preventing the spread of a potential epidemic)
In fact government in general is about the giving up of some freedoms for the stability and security of a society larger than 1. Such as the "freedom to impose your beliefs on others". That's a no-no, not that that has stopped folks from trying to do it. Or the freedom to engage in any economic activity you can get away with....we have defined limits on what kinds of activity are considered legal, which kinds of goods and services can be sold, and which cannot.
So you cant really make a blanket statement like that.
Specific circumstances and context matter.
In this case, this article, it's silliness.
Some guy saying essentially "Fear the internet...wooooooooo (ghost sounds)".
Meh.
So you're saying its not rational to talk about replacing X, which costs a lot of money and is inefficient, with Y, which costs less money and is more effcient?
See? This is why you're dumb.
Why should we care if they lose money though?
They're making decisions to benefit themselves.
Whether or not it also benefits the public who must use it is irrelevent to them.
Case in point: food safety. We have to regulate food safety, to FORCE a 100% safety ideal, specifically because corporations cannot be trusted, and HAVE in the distannt past made the calculation that they can afford to ignore X% of their customer base that may be negatively affected by Y businesspractice. In food safety this boils down to: "we can afford to make X number of people sick". It's why the forerunner to the FDA was created.
Most of it is from CO2 emissions.
Technology that eliminates or reduces CO2 emissions IS a silver bullet.
Like say...solar.
And manufacturing plant exhaust filters/traps.
It is a false statement to state that we MUST reduce population or standard of living.
The two biggest concerns are food, and water. ....less beef).
Changes in culture and habit can handle the food (less overeating in general, more fruit veggies and "sustainable" protein,
Which leaves water, and water is no doubt the trickiest of the problems to be faced. And at a time when more and more of the world is facing water shortages, we have corporations seeking to privitize the water supply. But I do think we can overcome this one too.
It could affect water supply. And food supply. And through those indirect means, lead to famine and want.
For example: the privitization of the water supply. Or, how a fundamental human need is becoming a priviliedge, instead of a right:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/0...
Again with your false equivalence BS.
While only an idiot would run against coal in Kentucky...where is it a reseaonable assumption that she is lying?
She's from Kentucky. A large portion of Kentucky relies on coal. Is it really that big a stretch to think she supports coal?
And its fair to point out that nowhere in her support of coal does she include blatantly obvious "even a 4th grader wouldnt something so blatantly wrong" scientific statements along the lines of "we in acadamia all agree that the temperature on Mars is the same as here".
No, the models always were accurate.
Its simply idiots like you that fail to understand or pay attention to timelines and logic.
Real world observations kept falling within the IPCC projections. The projections dont say "On Januray 1st 2015 it will be 20C." They give a range of outcomes. The IPCC projections gives 4 projections, ranging from very conservative at one extreme, to very not at the other. At no point did they actually fall outside those projections. From that standpoint alone the models were always accurate.
What was noticed though was the deviation between the projections (specifically the middle 2, the balanced projections) and the actual observations was increasing. Observations were trending more towards the more conservative projection, a projection considered unrealistic.
This is what let to the entire "pause" thing.
We knew the energy is being dumped into the planet.
We knew it wasn't leaving.
So the question was, where was it going?
Answer: Oceans.
And now the oceans, because of measurements like those in the /. submission, are being included and refined in the models as we get more data about how much heat they can abosrb, and how they react to it.
You mean the article talking about the so-called pause? /. news item is even about ("Past Measurements Understated Ocean Warming" etc) ?
The one caused by the heat going into the oceans?
The thing this entire
The ocean absorbing heat that is now part of the models?
That article?
Try again buddy.
Not sure what you mean by few references...All these were on that page.
http://www.grida.no/publicatio...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncli...
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis...
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/...
http://www.aip.org/history/cli...
http://www.aip.org/history/cli...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
As for Dyson...two imporat words you dont find in his biography are "climate scientist".
In fact, he rather quite well falls into the science trope of the phsycist who insits on talking about things outside his realm of expertise.
(There's even an XKCD for that, though I am missing the link atm)