Because being healthy and having the ability to live a long comfortable life relatively free of health worries regardless of the size of your bank account....is bad thing that only commies want!
and why was that? where were female versions not the societally acceptable generic words to use? or why were their no gender neutral ones? could it be because society was patriarchal for the longest time and that fact colored a lot of cultural norms....
You seem to misunderstand the CO2 cycle. You see, in an ideal world, the cycle is neutral. It runs at 100%. IE, what gets created gets pumped back into the system.
We could create 4% of what's atmosphere, 50%, or 0.02%. It doesnt matter, cause what matters is that what we create is NOT PART OF THE CYCLE. IT'S IN ADDITION TO THE CYCLE. That's what causes the problems. We add CO2 without removing it, increasing hte overall concentration over time, increasing hte ability of hte atmosphere to trap heat over time.
Long version: 1: Nope. What you said is just gibberish covered bullshit, with a side of ignorance.
2: Ah yes! The "secret data set no one has ever seen" myth. Actually try a few dozen different and separate lines of evidence, each with multiple scientists studying it, each with multiple data sets, NONE OF IT SECRET. http://www.skepticalscience.co...
No, temps have not stalled or declined. No, you have nothing coherent, factual, or worthwhile to say. Yes, you are an ignorant buffoon just spreading more BS.
and yet you missed the part where it rated it "false", and gave the background on it.
Although Vice-President Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings: the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea.
Emphasis added.
But a spirited defense of Gore's statement penned by Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (the latter often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in 2000 noted that "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development" and that "No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution [to the Internet] over a longer period of time"
If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System," he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.
He was one of the early visionaries to see the potential of these projects. He did secure the passage of key legislature (ie, they were his bills) that led to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... He is one of the key figures in its history, such that even the fathers of the internet acknowledge his role: http://amsterdam.nettime.org/L...
You're confusion about what was actually predicted, doesnt make it reality.
The prediction are, and have been, that: -Artcic sea ice will decrease (it is) -Antarctic sea ice will increase (it is) -Antarctic land ice will decrease (it is)
The two antarctica ones are linked. Which if you read the article, you owuld understand.
2) You're misquoting Gore. The full statement he made is: "Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now."
You and Mi, if you're not the same person, are two of the biggest liars and misinformers on this subject on this site.
Fox news......one of the biggest climate misinformers and climate misquoters and "simply doesnt know what they are talking about concerning...anything"......is your source....
Ya.....nope. At best, in court, it would be hearsay. As in "my friend said that jonny said that beth said..."
Arctic ice has long been predicted to decrease. And it has been. We've already covered how you are wrong about it "increasing". It's not. YOu're wrong.
Antarctic SEA ice has long been predicted to increase. And it has been. Antacrtic LAND ice has long been predicted to decrease. And it has been. The two are connected.
The predictions HAVE BEEN materializing. You have yet to post anything approaching a factual statement. Your continued posts on the subject only serve to further expose your ignorance of the subject.
furthermore, here's images to illusrate how bad the arctic polar ice situation is. Just 10 years ago the arctic ocean was not navigable except by specially built boats (ie: icebreakers), even in summer/fall (minimum is reached ~September). Now it is. So again, Mi: nothing you say is correct or factual.
Mod this joker down. he is neither insightful, nor correct, and he deliberately misquotes in order to create false impressions.
To Mi: You are wrong on all counts. And the morphing is being done by you.
One: The relevant passage in his speech, that is to say, THE FULL ACTUAL QUOTE, which you so thoughtfully left out in order to misconstrue what he said, is:
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now.
Two: It's only recovering if you ignore the past 3 decades of observation in order to focus on the past 2 years. The trend is down down down. 2012 was the lowest EVER RECORDED. So low it broke all records and even went beyond standard statistical deviation expectations. The last two years were more ice than 2012, but so was EVERY YEAR EVER RECORDED. That's what happens when you set a new record low. Make no mistake: The past 2 years of ice coverage have still be below average, and the trend is still down. It is NOT recovering, it is NOT increasing. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Three: Oh hey, you tossed in Solyndra too (Drink!). Do we really REALLY need to cover how Slyndra is just another dogwhistle distraction from the facts? How Solyndra and its ilk represented not even 3% of all monies loaned out by the DOE? How the other 97% have not onlyy been successful, but the Government has actually earned a profit, such that over the course of the program it was made more money that it loaded out? How the government earned a return on its investment and success rate unseen and generally unheard of in the private venture capiltal world? How Solyndra's, and other solar panel startups, failing was not due to their own mistakes, not due to any scam or con, but due to the fact China's panel amkers are heaviliy subsidized and undercut the international market? Or how some of the companies who initially failed, are now getting up and back on their feet again?
Bringing up Solyndra is akin to saying "global warming can't be real because it's cold outside". It's that kind of ignorance and posturing. It's that kind of denial of, or ignoring of, reality.
Thank you for playing, but your lies and half truths have no place here. Go away.
One: he never said it. The relevant passage in his speech, which you so thoughtfully left out in order to misconstrue what he said, is:
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now.
Two: It's only recovering if you ignore the past 3 decades of observation in order to focus on the past 2 years. The trend is down down down. 2012 was the lowest EVER RECORDED. So low it broke all records and even went beyond standard statistical deviation expectations. The last two years were more ice than 2012, but so was EVERY YEAR EVER RECORDED. That's what happens when you set a new record low. Make no mistake: The past 2 years of ice coverage have still be below average, and the trend is still down. It is NOT recovering, it is NOT increasing. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Thank you for playing, but your lies and half truths have no place here.
they do not because their more concerned with actual sitting emmbers of congress, on the science committees, who say things like "god wont let the planet cook" and "CO2 is harmless".
if a non scientist is generally right, but wrong on specifics, or overstates, but is still generally on the right side of the debate, they might be excused for ignoring hm to focus on the non-scientists who put their fingers in their ears and go "lalallalalaitsnothappening".
Name em. cause otherwise its still just hte same garbage you always spout. What markets? Green energy industry? That market already exists. What profit motive? Seriously...what? He's already rich.
While he was an important and successful politician before, these days he's more involved in charity work and activism. His influence is nothing compared to the current sitting members of congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Because being healthy and having the ability to live a long comfortable life relatively free of health worries regardless of the size of your bank account....is bad thing that only commies want!
and why was that? where were female versions not the societally acceptable generic words to use? or why were their no gender neutral ones?
could it be because society was patriarchal for the longest time and that fact colored a lot of cultural norms....
nah. couldnt be that.
then i'd say yo're pretty dang foolish and blithely ignorant of reality.
which party rails against "the 1%"?
which party calls for higher taxes on the richest folks?
ya, they're run by the rich alright....
no
being a home improvement, he'll get that back in house value, so i wouldnt chalk that up against fuel cost equivalence.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
You seem to misunderstand the CO2 cycle.
You see, in an ideal world, the cycle is neutral. It runs at 100%.
IE, what gets created gets pumped back into the system.
We could create 4% of what's atmosphere, 50%, or 0.02%.
It doesnt matter, cause what matters is that what we create is NOT PART OF THE CYCLE. IT'S IN ADDITION TO THE CYCLE.
That's what causes the problems. We add CO2 without removing it, increasing hte overall concentration over time, increasing hte ability of hte atmosphere to trap heat over time.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Also: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Short version: you're full of shit.
Long version:
1: Nope. What you said is just gibberish covered bullshit, with a side of ignorance.
2: Ah yes! The "secret data set no one has ever seen" myth. Actually try a few dozen different and separate lines of evidence, each with multiple scientists studying it, each with multiple data sets, NONE OF IT SECRET.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
3: Nope. The models are good.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
No, temps have not stalled or declined.
No, you have nothing coherent, factual, or worthwhile to say.
Yes, you are an ignorant buffoon just spreading more BS.
the only thing false here is everything you spew.
Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
bullshit.
nothing you just stated is true.
Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Also, historically speaking, we haven't seen any periods where warming has caused mass famine and/or extinction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Ever since WSJ became part of the Fox noise/BS/disinformation machine, nothing the WSJ says is relevant.
If they say the sky is blue, I recommend checking first.
troll be trolling.
or troll needs to learn to read a graph:
http://static.skepticalscience...
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...
Courtesy: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
and yet you missed the part where it rated it "false", and gave the background on it.
Although Vice-President Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings: the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea.
Emphasis added.
But a spirited defense of Gore's statement penned by Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (the latter often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in 2000 noted that "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development" and that "No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution [to the Internet] over a longer period of time"
If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System," he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.
He was one of the early visionaries to see the potential of these projects.
He did secure the passage of key legislature (ie, they were his bills) that led to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
He is one of the key figures in its history, such that even the fathers of the internet acknowledge his role:
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/L...
You're confusion about what was actually predicted, doesnt make it reality.
The prediction are, and have been, that:
-Artcic sea ice will decrease (it is)
-Antarctic sea ice will increase (it is)
-Antarctic land ice will decrease (it is)
The two antarctica ones are linked. Which if you read the article, you owuld understand.
Who mods this garbage insightful?
1) It's not "completely" covered in ice.
2) You're misquoting Gore. The full statement he made is:
"Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now."
You and Mi, if you're not the same person, are two of the biggest liars and misinformers on this subject on this site.
Being higher than a record low is not "recovering".
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Fox news... ...one of the biggest climate misinformers and climate misquoters and "simply doesnt know what they are talking about concerning...anything"... ...is your source....
Ya.....nope. At best, in court, it would be hearsay. As in "my friend said that jonny said that beth said..."
Here's what actual science has to say on the subject:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
ah yes.
"we got stuck in ice, therefore GW is not real"...
who keeps modding this fool informative?
wow are you an idiot.
Arctic ice has long been predicted to decrease. And it has been. We've already covered how you are wrong about it "increasing". It's not. YOu're wrong.
Antarctic SEA ice has long been predicted to increase. And it has been.
Antacrtic LAND ice has long been predicted to decrease. And it has been.
The two are connected.
The predictions HAVE BEEN materializing.
You have yet to post anything approaching a factual statement.
Your continued posts on the subject only serve to further expose your ignorance of the subject.
furthermore, here's images to illusrate how bad the arctic polar ice situation is. Just 10 years ago the arctic ocean was not navigable except by specially built boats (ie: icebreakers), even in summer/fall (minimum is reached ~September). Now it is. So again, Mi: nothing you say is correct or factual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-co...
Mod this joker down. he is neither insightful, nor correct, and he deliberately misquotes in order to create false impressions.
To Mi:
You are wrong on all counts.
And the morphing is being done by you.
One:
The relevant passage in his speech, that is to say, THE FULL ACTUAL QUOTE, which you so thoughtfully left out in order to misconstrue what he said, is:
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now.
Emphasis added to show the oh so important part you left out.
http://www.truth-out.org/opini...
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...
Two:
It's only recovering if you ignore the past 3 decades of observation in order to focus on the past 2 years. The trend is down down down. 2012 was the lowest EVER RECORDED. So low it broke all records and even went beyond standard statistical deviation expectations. The last two years were more ice than 2012, but so was EVERY YEAR EVER RECORDED. That's what happens when you set a new record low. Make no mistake: The past 2 years of ice coverage have still be below average, and the trend is still down. It is NOT recovering, it is NOT increasing.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Three:
Oh hey, you tossed in Solyndra too (Drink!). Do we really REALLY need to cover how Slyndra is just another dogwhistle distraction from the facts? How Solyndra and its ilk represented not even 3% of all monies loaned out by the DOE? How the other 97% have not onlyy been successful, but the Government has actually earned a profit, such that over the course of the program it was made more money that it loaded out? How the government earned a return on its investment and success rate unseen and generally unheard of in the private venture capiltal world? How Solyndra's, and other solar panel startups, failing was not due to their own mistakes, not due to any scam or con, but due to the fact China's panel amkers are heaviliy subsidized and undercut the international market? Or how some of the companies who initially failed, are now getting up and back on their feet again?
Bringing up Solyndra is akin to saying "global warming can't be real because it's cold outside".
It's that kind of ignorance and posturing. It's that kind of denial of, or ignoring of, reality.
Thank you for playing, but your lies and half truths have no place here.
Go away.
You are wrong on all counts.
One: he never said it. The relevant passage in his speech, which you so thoughtfully left out in order to misconstrue what he said, is:
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now.
http://www.truth-out.org/opini...
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...
Two: It's only recovering if you ignore the past 3 decades of observation in order to focus on the past 2 years. The trend is down down down. 2012 was the lowest EVER RECORDED. So low it broke all records and even went beyond standard statistical deviation expectations. The last two years were more ice than 2012, but so was EVERY YEAR EVER RECORDED. That's what happens when you set a new record low. Make no mistake: The past 2 years of ice coverage have still be below average, and the trend is still down. It is NOT recovering, it is NOT increasing.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Thank you for playing, but your lies and half truths have no place here.
they do not because their more concerned with actual sitting emmbers of congress, on the science committees, who say things like "god wont let the planet cook" and "CO2 is harmless".
if a non scientist is generally right, but wrong on specifics, or overstates, but is still generally on the right side of the debate, they might be excused for ignoring hm to focus on the non-scientists who put their fingers in their ears and go "lalallalalaitsnothappening".
Name em. cause otherwise its still just hte same garbage you always spout.
What markets? Green energy industry? That market already exists.
What profit motive? Seriously...what? He's already rich.
While he was an important and successful politician before, these days he's more involved in charity work and activism. His influence is nothing compared to the current sitting members of congress.