...you exaggerate the level of effort required by Apple to do the right thing.
In my world the "right thing" is not to have an Apple Employee have to take even TWO HOURS the day before Christmas...
Because as everybody knows, all Apple employees are special little snowflakes whose precious little lives will be completely ruined by taking even two hours on a holiday to do the right thing.
Because if Apple had called even one in, you would have made it sound worse than Pegatron.
Or it matches the Apple business model and not that of Netflix. Apple sucks.
So Apple doesn't show the movie because "it matches the Apple business model", and that's why Apple sucks. What happen to you, did Tim Cook steal your girlfriend?
I've seen the flag-on-the-truck thing many times - never seen a confederate flag. While there are many in the South that still hate the damnyankees for the War of Northern Aggression, it's mostly pirate flags now. For a while I was confused - why were there so many Raiders fans across the South? But it's just the current generation's Rebel flag, without confusing the Northerners that it was about racism.
Are you sure it's a pirate flag, not a "death symbol" on BLACK not-quite-subtle message?
Really? McKitrick, McIntyre, Don Easterbrook, many others have their papers rejected for one nonsensical claim in them or another. Why? They don't toe the line of "AGW is the only possible explanation"...
If you compare germany with rest of europe then between 2007 and 2012 germany dropped just by 3% while EU average is 12% drop and even USA dropped more. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/t... Germany does two steps forward, one step back. It could do much better if it had sensible energy policy.
And if you begin at a date that isn't cherry picked for your argument...
Question is if german policy of dropping nuclear energy and going all green does help or not? Then you should pick appropriate metric and minimize noise.
Sure - but then you should start in the year "dropping nuclear energy" began, not cherry pick one years before.
E.g. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.euro..., comparing 1990 with 2012, you'll get a drop of 24.76%, with only the UK, Denmark and a couple of East Block states better, the "old" EU at 15% less, and the USA a plus of 26%
You added lot of irrelevant noise to get result you want.
In 1990-2007 germany with its sensible policies was leader in reducing CO2 emissions. In 2007-2012 it decided to drop nuke plants and other states fared better.
When you combine these two you get that germany was good but that is despite its later policy as other states did not in 7 years to catched lead it made in previous 17 years. If it continued policy of previous 17 years you would get bigger decrease of emissions.
BTW you link show 'Invalid session: xtDataset is null.', proof by inacessibility?
Nice try, but there were no new NPPs after 1990, so they can't have anything to do with CO2 reduction. Instead it was back then that more and more renewable energy was used.
Yeah, why not put yet another couple of trillions into prepping up nuclear power, instead of wasting a couple of millions into the improvement of renewables.
In Germany, the nuclear power companies are now demanding billions of Euros just to shut down their plants which have operated for decades (long past the original planned running time), and have already cost the tax payers tens of billions to build.
If you compare germany with rest of europe then between 2007 and 2012 germany dropped just by 3% while EU average is 12% drop and even USA dropped more.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/t...
Germany does two steps forward, one step back. It could do much better if it had sensible energy policy.
And if you begin at a date that isn't cherry picked for your argument...
No credible scientists is predicting the end of the world. Nor have the ever done so
Well yes, actually they have. Here's one saying that the oceans will boil off. Quote: "that's it for all the species on this planet." That's James Hansen, one of the leading climate scientists in the world.
Uhh. Either you are lying by massively miss-representing what he actually says, or you are actually to dumb to understand it. Either way, you should stay as far away as possible from discussions about anything, not just climate science, because you are either morally or intellectually corrupt.
I think you've actually made a unintended joke there, because Albert Einstein did exactly that. Newton's model of gravity was the accepted model of gravity for centuries until Einstein came along and showed a new model.
Only your questioning of climate science isn't akin to Einstein questioning Gravity, but to somebody who flaps his arms and jumps off a roof.
well, nuclear power is one option, but there are... less dangerous ones. Take a mix of solar, wind, water power (not just dammed rivers and such, also tidal).
That does not work yet, take Germany as counterexample. With its green energy policy it in 2013 managed in to increase its CO2 emissions while most of europe decreased its emissions, only Denmark, Estonia, Portugal have bigger increase.
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-g...
Of course that is ignoring that in 2013 Germany still emitted less CO2 than any year up to 2008 (for several decades) - when all NPPs still were running at full power.
That doesn't even make sense. If you're interested in science and finding out what is true and accurate, then stick around. If you just want to insult people when facts don't go your way, please leave.
Yeah, like you could teach me about science, you denialist. And no, I'm not going to fucking spout nonsense, if you don't wanna be insulted, stop being stupid.
Agreed, and this is what happens. Anyone who tries to publish a paper can tell you how much fun it is, even for papers that follow the current thinking in a particular field. I work with a couple scientists that published a paper in regards to climate change, and it took two years of sometimes colorfully worded review comments and re-submissions before it as accepted.
Other times, complete gibberish is accepted into a journal. Getting published is by no means a guarantee of the quality of the work; all it indicates is that the work fits within the world-view of the publisher.
Exactly - and notice how there are respectable journals, and not so respected journals, the former publish good papers, the other publish complete gibberish - or the stuff that gets widely quoted by deniers.
And popular technology isn't either. Read the sources on wikipedia.
The problem with those 1350+ articles is that as an individual, I don't have the time to read them all to verify your claims. So I have to rely on synthesis reports such as those from the IPCC and various science academies. And they are well summarized on wikipedia.
Oh, so now the argument is that there is too much evidence for GW to be checked by one man alone, so it can all be disregarded.
But I get your reasoning... Shiny pocket computers are more important than dealing with servitude.
I don't have to read the whole website to see that all I said was correct. What is your fucking point anyway? That you are morally superior to me because you have a fair phone - no wait, you said you could get one if you wanted to.
Me, I don't have any shiny pocket computers unlike you hypocrite. Fuck you.
Constantly questioning is running experiments, taking measurements, and trying to model the future and see how well it lines up with reality. Scientists are doing that all the time, and the result
Well, apart from the rather convenient starting year of 1998:
Another possible driver of the difference
between observed and simulated global
warming is increasing stratospheric
aerosol concentrations. Results from
several independent datasets show that
stratospheric aerosol abundance has
increased since the late 1990s, owing to
a series of comparatively small tropical
volcanic eruptions
8
. Although none of the
CMIP5 simulations take this into account,
two independent sets of model simulations
estimate that increasing stratospheric
aerosols have had a surface cooling impact
of about 0.07 C per decade since 1998
8,9
.
If the CMIP5 models had accounted for
increasing stratospheric aerosol, and had
responded with the same surface cooling
impact, the simulations and observations
would be in closer agreement
IOW the article itself points out that the reason for the overestimation was unpredictable high volcano activity. Feel free to create models that either predict the unpredictable, or always predicts high volcanic activity, resulting in underestimated temperature rise for almost all years where that doesn't come true.
Just look at the CO2 content of the atmosphere. For thousands of years before the industrial revolution it was basically constant (despite the numbers you just quoted, because that is how the carbon cycle works), since then it has been climbing at a rising rate. And there is no natural phenomenon that would explain that.
And you claim that the heat from undersea volcanoes drives Global Warming is too silly to even consider. But nice to see that you think we could replace fossil fuels with geothermal energy.
Deniers pretend to be skeptics. However, they are actually exactly the opposite: the distinguishing feature of deniers is not skepticism, but credulity-- they seen to credit pretty much anything they hear (or read on a blog somewhere)-- if it supports their pre-existing opinions.
And how is that different from the True Believer? Very few people who claim to worship at the altar of science behave in any way notably differently - tell 'em it's Science and if it supports their pre-existing opinions they adopt it as Gospel. Many people who claim to respect Science as little better than cargo cultists.
Sure, whatever you say. As long as you admit that all deniers are nothing but.
Unfortunately, the examples you give are typical examples of denier style of argumentation-- you just throw random stuff out
Not to mention that the argument accepts (for the sake of argument) that CO2 has something to do with warming - something which deniers usually strongly, well, deny.
A real skeptic would never feel the need to make such an "even if you were right"-argument. Deniers do.
Of them, at least Microsoft does use Pegatron (for their tablets). Also Dell and Sony manufacture there. And the rest of those listed have there own little "issues".
Slashdot Mirror
...you exaggerate the level of effort required by Apple to do the right thing.
In my world the "right thing" is not to have an Apple Employee have to take even TWO HOURS the day before Christmas...
Because as everybody knows, all Apple employees are special little snowflakes whose precious little lives will be completely ruined by taking even two hours on a holiday to do the right thing.
Because if Apple had called even one in, you would have made it sound worse than Pegatron.
Or it matches the Apple business model and not that of Netflix. Apple sucks.
So Apple doesn't show the movie because "it matches the Apple business model", and that's why Apple sucks. What happen to you, did Tim Cook steal your girlfriend?
I've seen the flag-on-the-truck thing many times - never seen a confederate flag. While there are many in the South that still hate the damnyankees for the War of Northern Aggression, it's mostly pirate flags now. For a while I was confused - why were there so many Raiders fans across the South? But it's just the current generation's Rebel flag, without confusing the Northerners that it was about racism.
Are you sure it's a pirate flag, not a "death symbol" on BLACK not-quite-subtle message?
Really? McKitrick, McIntyre, Don Easterbrook, many others have their papers rejected for one nonsensical claim in them or another. Why? They don't toe the line of "AGW is the only possible explanation"...
FTFY
If you compare germany with rest of europe then between 2007 and 2012 germany dropped just by 3% while EU average is 12% drop and even USA dropped more. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/t... Germany does two steps forward, one step back. It could do much better if it had sensible energy policy.
And if you begin at a date that isn't cherry picked for your argument...
Question is if german policy of dropping nuclear energy and going all green does help or not? Then you should pick appropriate metric and minimize noise.
Sure - but then you should start in the year "dropping nuclear energy" began, not cherry pick one years before.
E.g. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.euro..., comparing 1990 with 2012, you'll get a drop of 24.76%, with only the UK, Denmark and a couple of East Block states better, the "old" EU at 15% less, and the USA a plus of 26%
You added lot of irrelevant noise to get result you want. In 1990-2007 germany with its sensible policies was leader in reducing CO2 emissions. In 2007-2012 it decided to drop nuke plants and other states fared better. When you combine these two you get that germany was good but that is despite its later policy as other states did not in 7 years to catched lead it made in previous 17 years. If it continued policy of previous 17 years you would get bigger decrease of emissions. BTW you link show 'Invalid session: xtDataset is null.', proof by inacessibility?
Nice try, but there were no new NPPs after 1990, so they can't have anything to do with CO2 reduction. Instead it was back then that more and more renewable energy was used.
In Germany, the nuclear power companies are now demanding billions of Euros just to shut down their plants which have operated for decades (long past the original planned running time), and have already cost the tax payers tens of billions to build.
If you compare germany with rest of europe then between 2007 and 2012 germany dropped just by 3% while EU average is 12% drop and even USA dropped more. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/t... Germany does two steps forward, one step back. It could do much better if it had sensible energy policy.
And if you begin at a date that isn't cherry picked for your argument...
E.g. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do?switchdimensions=true, comparing 1990 with 2012, you'll get a drop of 24.76%, with only the UK, Denmark and a couple of East Block states better, the "old" EU at 15% less, and the USA a plus of 26%
Not to mention that Germany is still a net exporter of energy. IOW you ignored the many steps forward, and only looked at the last three.
No credible scientists is predicting the end of the world. Nor have the ever done so
Well yes, actually they have. Here's one saying that the oceans will boil off. Quote: "that's it for all the species on this planet." That's James Hansen, one of the leading climate scientists in the world.
Uhh. Either you are lying by massively miss-representing what he actually says, or you are actually to dumb to understand it. Either way, you should stay as far away as possible from discussions about anything, not just climate science, because you are either morally or intellectually corrupt.
Are you still questioning gravity?
I think you've actually made a unintended joke there, because Albert Einstein did exactly that. Newton's model of gravity was the accepted model of gravity for centuries until Einstein came along and showed a new model.
Only your questioning of climate science isn't akin to Einstein questioning Gravity, but to somebody who flaps his arms and jumps off a roof.
well, nuclear power is one option, but there are ... less dangerous ones. Take a mix of solar, wind, water power (not just dammed rivers and such, also tidal).
That does not work yet, take Germany as counterexample. With its green energy policy it in 2013 managed in to increase its CO2 emissions while most of europe decreased its emissions, only Denmark, Estonia, Portugal have bigger increase. http://phys.org/news/2014-05-g...
Of course that is ignoring that in 2013 Germany still emitted less CO2 than any year up to 2008 (for several decades) - when all NPPs still were running at full power.
That doesn't even make sense. If you're interested in science and finding out what is true and accurate, then stick around. If you just want to insult people when facts don't go your way, please leave.
Yeah, like you could teach me about science, you denialist. And no, I'm not going to fucking spout nonsense, if you don't wanna be insulted, stop being stupid.
Agreed, and this is what happens. Anyone who tries to publish a paper can tell you how much fun it is, even for papers that follow the current thinking in a particular field. I work with a couple scientists that published a paper in regards to climate change, and it took two years of sometimes colorfully worded review comments and re-submissions before it as accepted.
Other times, complete gibberish is accepted into a journal. Getting published is by no means a guarantee of the quality of the work; all it indicates is that the work fits within the world-view of the publisher.
Exactly - and notice how there are respectable journals, and not so respected journals, the former publish good papers, the other publish complete gibberish - or the stuff that gets widely quoted by deniers.
And popular technology isn't either. Read the sources on wikipedia. The problem with those 1350+ articles is that as an individual, I don't have the time to read them all to verify your claims. So I have to rely on synthesis reports such as those from the IPCC and various science academies. And they are well summarized on wikipedia.
Oh, so now the argument is that there is too much evidence for GW to be checked by one man alone, so it can all be disregarded.
Do you even know what a "species" is?
No, that just shows that the Intent, Capability, and Opportunity haven't yet aligned to result in an incident or attack... that you know of.
So there have been mysterious plane hijackings which have been hushed up and so nobody knows about them?
Nobody knows what happened to MH370 - and a hijacking is more likely than aliens.
ANd the "models" (aka baseless claims) of the deniers underestimate warming. Even in hindsight.
You obviously didn't read the website.
But I get your reasoning... Shiny pocket computers are more important than dealing with servitude.
I don't have to read the whole website to see that all I said was correct. What is your fucking point anyway? That you are morally superior to me because you have a fair phone - no wait, you said you could get one if you wanted to.
Me, I don't have any shiny pocket computers unlike you hypocrite. Fuck you.
Nah, the results have been demonstrated in more than one paper.
Which results? That when you start in 1998, you get less warming? Gee, yes, that is the point of cherry picking that year.
Well, I didn't expect actual studies in actual journals to sway your opinion.
Errm, he merely isn't swayed by what Tony Wuzzup told you what the studies say - maybe you should actually read them.
Constantly questioning is running experiments, taking measurements, and trying to model the future and see how well it lines up with reality. Scientists are doing that all the time, and the result
And the result is that for decades we've overestimated the effect of CO2 and that all the computer models are wrong. If you deny that after the multiple studies have shown it, then you're the denier.
Well, apart from the rather convenient starting year of 1998:
Another possible driver of the difference between observed and simulated global warming is increasing stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Results from several independent datasets show that stratospheric aerosol abundance has increased since the late 1990s, owing to a series of comparatively small tropical volcanic eruptions 8 . Although none of the CMIP5 simulations take this into account, two independent sets of model simulations estimate that increasing stratospheric aerosols have had a surface cooling impact of about 0.07 C per decade since 1998 8,9 . If the CMIP5 models had accounted for increasing stratospheric aerosol, and had responded with the same surface cooling impact, the simulations and observations would be in closer agreement
IOW the article itself points out that the reason for the overestimation was unpredictable high volcano activity. Feel free to create models that either predict the unpredictable, or always predicts high volcanic activity, resulting in underestimated temperature rise for almost all years where that doesn't come true.
Frankfurt is where they think the Lockerbie bomb got into the baggage system.
From a different plane coming from Malta.
And you claim that the heat from undersea volcanoes drives Global Warming is too silly to even consider. But nice to see that you think we could replace fossil fuels with geothermal energy.
And how is that different from the True Believer? Very few people who claim to worship at the altar of science behave in any way notably differently - tell 'em it's Science and if it supports their pre-existing opinions they adopt it as Gospel. Many people who claim to respect Science as little better than cargo cultists.
Sure, whatever you say. As long as you admit that all deniers are nothing but.
Unfortunately, the examples you give are typical examples of denier style of argumentation-- you just throw random stuff out
Not to mention that the argument accepts (for the sake of argument) that CO2 has something to do with warming - something which deniers usually strongly, well, deny.
A real skeptic would never feel the need to make such an "even if you were right"-argument. Deniers do.
None of them are using Pegatron.
Of them, at least Microsoft does use Pegatron (for their tablets). Also Dell and Sony manufacture there. And the rest of those listed have there own little "issues".