Huh? Nothing you said here is accurate. Read any textbook. We know the radiative equilibrium surface temperature of the Earth (the temperature it would be if it had no atmosphere) very well-- you can calculate that directly from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation; it comes out to 256 Kelvin, which is -17C. See, for example
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bage... http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
You will never read precise numbers for the warming given to us from our blanket that is the atmosphere,
...unless you check an astronomy text, which will go through the planetary equilibrium temperature and the greenhouse effect.
The average surface temperature of the Earth, including atmosphere, is 288K (15C). Subtract out the radiative equilibrium temperture of -17C and you get the average planetary greenhouse effect warming, which turns out to be 32 to 33C.
because those numbers don't exist.
Sure they do. This is not news; it's been known for ages. It will be in any astronomy textbook. Or even, for that matter, Wikipedia.
You may "know" that there was a global cooling scare in the 70s, but in fact there wasn't, or at least, there wasn't any such a scare supported by or coming from the science community. The American Meteorological Society wrote an article debunking that myth: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
The myth of the "1970s global cooling scare" rests primarily on one high-profile 1975 Newsweek article, with a scary headline ("The Cooling World"). But the atmospheric science community never had any consensus that the world was heading for a cooling trend.
Human-induced climate change is real... but this article is alarmism.
Climate change is real, but how much of a role humans play in it is something we will not fully understand for a long time.
Sorry, but no. Although there is a well-paid effort to make people believe otherwise, in fact, scientists are not actually stupid.
We've understood the basics of the greenhouse effect for over a century; we've had good measurements of infrared absorption spectra for sixty years; we've had good overall models of how it affects temperature for fifty years now; and we've been making detailed measurements of atmospheric profiles and the incident solar forcing factor for thirty years. The overall picture of how human-emitted greenhouse gasses play in climate is understood.
There is still a lot of science being done, but this is is filling in the fine details. The overall picture is not controversial (at least, not by scientists).
Climate change has no effect on a year-to-year basis. If we're showing the weather to someone from Year 1900, then ok, but we aren't, so this is just dumb.
To be fair, although I think the Mother Jones article is alarmist, the actual work cited catalogued heat-related deaths documented "for 783 lethal heatwaves in 164 cities across 36 countries," referencing a search of publications dating back to 1980. This was not a one-year study.
I hated the Abrams movies, but looks like they're avoiding that direction. The question for me is, is there really anything left that's new to say in the way of Star Trek stories, or will they just recycle old stories with new spiffy efffects.
Hate speech most certainly does exist. Just because it's protected by the first amendment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There is ONLY speech....how you perceive it is completely your opinion.
This. And I've spent countless hours trying to bang it into peoples' heads.
We seem to be saying different things. Nothing you posted supports the assertion "hate speech does not exist." What you wrote supports a position "hate speech, like any other kind of speech, is protected by the first amendment."
Fine.
Just don't phrase that using the statement "does not exist."
Nevertheless, "Oxford Martin School" is not a scientist. I'm sorry if you don't understand that a school is not a person.
neither is Carol Smith.
On David Brubaker, I'm willing to suspend judgement while waiting for you to tell me what kind of scientist he is and perhaps link to some of his research.
The article doesn't really show much in the way of mathematics used in biology. It's rather more cheerleading for mathematics in biology than really showing its power.
Mathematics is really great, surely it must have some application in biology, but the article is more about potential that actuality.
The danger here is that his presence on a council could be interpreted as tacit approval of what is happening. I believe this is the reason Elon Musk left the council. He started out saying he was accepting a seat on the council because it was better to be involved and have influence than to let the president surround himself with yes-men and crooks. But at the end of the day I believe Elon saw that his presence there served only to legitimize Trump's actions, so he left. Why exactly is Tim Cook still there?
For exactly the reason you just stated: "because it was better to be involved and have influence than to let the president surround himself with yes-men and crooks."
Bullshit. Citation needed.
Which "scientists" are you purportedly quoting here?
Such as Oxford Martin School or read the work of Carol Smith from United Nations University and David Brubaker from John Hopkins.
"Oxford Martin School" is not a scientist, in fact, is not even a person.
"Carol Smith from United Nations University" is not a scientist. She is a journalist.
I don't know anything about David Brubaker. He doesn't seem to be a scientist, or at least, google scholar can't dig up any citations to his papers. And he is not listed on the staff of Johns Hopkins.
Apple has FAR greater ability to create jobs than the federal government does as a general proposition. Apple is sitting on a gigantic war chest of money.
Apple reportedly has about $246 billion in cash. That seems like a large amount, but the U.S. has a population of 320 million, so think of it as 770 dollars per American.
But, of course, most of Apple's sales didn't come from America. So, two thirds of that logically should be used to "create jobs" in the places where they sell their products. So: figure they have two hundred and fifty dollars per American available to "create jobs."
I guess you can create jobs with $250 per person. But, "greater ability than the federal government"? In comparison, the federal government had a budget of 4 trillion dollars. Per year.
According to environmental scientists if you are using electricity and not living or at least pushing for their "agrarian utopia" you are destroying society and our environment.
Bullshit. Citation needed.
Which "scientists" are you purportedly quoting here?
Cook lives in a multi-million dollar abode so hard to claim, by their standards, that he is living a responsible lifestyle.
In Silicon Valley "multi-million dollar abode" means a shack with running water.
Although the article here seems tailor made to bring out both the political flames as well as the Apple-bashing flames, I would like to say that I admire this attitude.
I wish there were more people with the attitude that they want to do what they can to fix what problems they can, and that far too many people do instead say, "If you don't do what I want, I leave."
I'm sorry you don't like Cook as a person, or Apple as a company. Nevertheless, this is a worthy sentiment that is worth emulating.
Mr. Cook, with all due respect, how can you claim to be remotely "responsible" while your lifestyle, and the lifestyles of those like you, is destroying our society and our environment.
I'm curious as to what you know about Cook's "lifestyle". I will venture the guess "absolutely nothing whatsoever."
Yes, I'm well aware of the etymology thank you. The sense meaning "equipped" stems from that same etymology, branching off from the more direct sense that survives to us today, by way of sense 3 here, "To adjust to a particular specification or requirement".
Except that in the interpretation of laws you use the common, ordinary meaning of a word. You don't stretch out to cherry-pick some uncommon usage. Definitions one and two in the site you link are the common usage now, and were also the common usage in the 18th century: Regulate:
To dictate policy.
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
Boris: "We need an insidious plan to steal the private data from the Americans, every single one!"
Natasha: "Well, why don't we just ask them to give it to us?"
Boris: "You think that would work?"
Natasha (long pause): "We could say 'please'."
In the language of the time, "regulated" meant "equipped".
No, it didn't. Who the hell makes this shit up? It meant nothing of the sort.
Some aspects of the language has changed, but "regulated" meant then what it means now: regulated.
"Regulation" does not mean a piece of equipment, it means a rule. It's from the Latin word for "rule" (regis: genitive singular of rex) the same word used in English words such as "regent", someone who rules in place of a king.
So, to the contrary. I will cite this next time I am asked for an example of how CNN is NOT fake news.
Search Results
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot...
Video for Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation 16:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Carol Costello of CNN apologized on air for her network lying about the Milwaukee situation via a quick on...
WATCH: CNN Apologizes For Lying About Milwaukee Riots (VIDEO...
https://www.conservativeoutfit... News
Aug 18, 2016 - CNN just apologized on air for not showing the full clip of the... CNN's Carol Costello said she "regrets the second part of the statement was not included" in the report..@CarolCNN apologizes for not airing full clip of Milwaukee victim's sister calling.... Put yourself in her situation, your house just got shot at.
CNN anchor offers apology for shortening of Milwaukee clip – CNN...
https://cnncommentary.com/.../......
Aug 17, 2016 - On Wednesday morning, CNN Newsroom anchor Carol Costello offered... shot by an officer on Saturday afternoon, which triggered riots in the city.... On-air, Costello apologized, “I want to take a moment to clarify something from Monday.... CNN is a lying piece of crap network that is not a good place to get...
www.topbuzzapp.com/article/i6320193922531639812?app_id=1106
CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/.../c... Aug 17, 2016 - CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For Violence... an officer on Saturday afternoon, triggering destructive riots in the city.... On Wednesday, anchor Carol Costello issued a rare on-air apology.... You're one of the few people I've spoken with, who sees both sides of the situation.
Costello Apologizes For Deceptive Report About Milwaukee | The...
dailycaller.com/.../cnn-anchor-grovels-to-audience-after-allowing-deceptive-report-ab...
Aug 17, 2016 - CNN anchor Carol Costello apologized on Wednesday for allowing a deceptive report about the violence in Milwaukee to air that characterized...
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About... - Pinterest
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/... Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwau
Slashdot Mirror
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bage...
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
You will never read precise numbers for the warming given to us from our blanket that is the atmosphere,
...unless you check an astronomy text, which will go through the planetary equilibrium temperature and the greenhouse effect.
The average surface temperature of the Earth, including atmosphere, is 288K (15C). Subtract out the radiative equilibrium temperture of -17C and you get the average planetary greenhouse effect warming, which turns out to be 32 to 33C.
because those numbers don't exist.
Sure they do. This is not news; it's been known for ages. It will be in any astronomy textbook. Or even, for that matter, Wikipedia.
You may "know" that there was a global cooling scare in the 70s, but in fact there wasn't, or at least, there wasn't any such a scare supported by or coming from the science community. The American Meteorological Society wrote an article debunking that myth: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
The myth of the "1970s global cooling scare" rests primarily on one high-profile 1975 Newsweek article, with a scary headline ("The Cooling World"). But the atmospheric science community never had any consensus that the world was heading for a cooling trend.
Human-induced climate change is real... but this article is alarmism.
Climate change is real, but how much of a role humans play in it is something we will not fully understand for a long time.
Sorry, but no. Although there is a well-paid effort to make people believe otherwise, in fact, scientists are not actually stupid .
We've understood the basics of the greenhouse effect for over a century; we've had good measurements of infrared absorption spectra for sixty years; we've had good overall models of how it affects temperature for fifty years now; and we've been making detailed measurements of atmospheric profiles and the incident solar forcing factor for thirty years. The overall picture of how human-emitted greenhouse gasses play in climate is understood.
There is still a lot of science being done, but this is is filling in the fine details. The overall picture is not controversial (at least, not by scientists).
That said, this is definitely alarmism.
We agree, however, on that point.
Climate change has no effect on a year-to-year basis. If we're showing the weather to someone from Year 1900, then ok, but we aren't, so this is just dumb.
To be fair, although I think the Mother Jones article is alarmist, the actual work cited catalogued heat-related deaths documented "for 783 lethal heatwaves in 164 cities across 36 countries," referencing a search of publications dating back to 1980. This was not a one-year study.
Abstract of the original article: https://www.nature.com/nclimat...
Press release from Nature East Asia: http://www.natureasia.com/en/r...
Press release from U. Hawaii Manoa (the institution of the lead authors): http://www.hawaii.edu/news/201...
Article at phys.org: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-...
Article at Science Daily: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Interactive map of number of deadly heat days: https://maps.esri.com/globalri...
A hint: please don't use Mother Jones as a source for science information.
Of course, the irony of a leak about leakers being leaked is amusing.
I hated the Abrams movies, but looks like they're avoiding that direction. The question for me is, is there really anything left that's new to say in the way of Star Trek stories, or will they just recycle old stories with new spiffy efffects.
There is ONLY speech....how you perceive it is completely your opinion.
This. And I've spent countless hours trying to bang it into peoples' heads.
We seem to be saying different things. Nothing you posted supports the assertion "hate speech does not exist." What you wrote supports a position "hate speech, like any other kind of speech, is protected by the first amendment."
Fine.
Just don't phrase that using the statement "does not exist."
"Hate Speech" doesn't exist.
It's all Free Speech.
Hate speech most certainly does exist. Just because it's protected by the first amendment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Seems like a good interpretation of the constitution. That really is outside the range of what trademark law is about.
neither is Carol Smith.
On David Brubaker, I'm willing to suspend judgement while waiting for you to tell me what kind of scientist he is and perhaps link to some of his research.
It is worth keeping in mind, though, that ultimately the real culprits here are the terrorists.
Mathematics is really great, surely it must have some application in biology, but the article is more about potential that actuality.
The only thing I'm sure of there is the word "militia", which refers to a sort of military force.
So, you just ignore "well regulated"?
The danger here is that his presence on a council could be interpreted as tacit approval of what is happening. I believe this is the reason Elon Musk left the council. He started out saying he was accepting a seat on the council because it was better to be involved and have influence than to let the president surround himself with yes-men and crooks. But at the end of the day I believe Elon saw that his presence there served only to legitimize Trump's actions, so he left. Why exactly is Tim Cook still there?
For exactly the reason you just stated: "because it was better to be involved and have influence than to let the president surround himself with yes-men and crooks."
According to environmental scientists if you...
Bullshit. Citation needed. Which "scientists" are you purportedly quoting here?
Such as Oxford Martin School or read the work of Carol Smith from United Nations University and David Brubaker from John Hopkins.
"Oxford Martin School" is not a scientist, in fact, is not even a person.
"Carol Smith from United Nations University" is not a scientist. She is a journalist.
I don't know anything about David Brubaker. He doesn't seem to be a scientist, or at least, google scholar can't dig up any citations to his papers. And he is not listed on the staff of Johns Hopkins.
Apple has FAR greater ability to create jobs than the federal government does as a general proposition. Apple is sitting on a gigantic war chest of money.
Apple reportedly has about $246 billion in cash. That seems like a large amount, but the U.S. has a population of 320 million, so think of it as 770 dollars per American.
But, of course, most of Apple's sales didn't come from America. So, two thirds of that logically should be used to "create jobs" in the places where they sell their products. So: figure they have two hundred and fifty dollars per American available to "create jobs."
I guess you can create jobs with $250 per person. But, "greater ability than the federal government"? In comparison, the federal government had a budget of 4 trillion dollars. Per year.
According to environmental scientists if you are using electricity and not living or at least pushing for their "agrarian utopia" you are destroying society and our environment.
Bullshit. Citation needed.
Which "scientists" are you purportedly quoting here?
Cook lives in a multi-million dollar abode so hard to claim, by their standards, that he is living a responsible lifestyle.
In Silicon Valley "multi-million dollar abode" means a shack with running water.
I wish there were more people with the attitude that they want to do what they can to fix what problems they can, and that far too many people do instead say, "If you don't do what I want, I leave."
I'm sorry you don't like Cook as a person, or Apple as a company. Nevertheless, this is a worthy sentiment that is worth emulating.
Mr. Cook, with all due respect, how can you claim to be remotely "responsible" while your lifestyle, and the lifestyles of those like you, is destroying our society and our environment.
I'm curious as to what you know about Cook's "lifestyle". I will venture the guess "absolutely nothing whatsoever."
Yes, I'm well aware of the etymology thank you. The sense meaning "equipped" stems from that same etymology, branching off from the more direct sense that survives to us today, by way of sense 3 here, "To adjust to a particular specification or requirement".
Except that in the interpretation of laws you use the common, ordinary meaning of a word. You don't stretch out to cherry-pick some uncommon usage. Definitions one and two in the site you link are the common usage now, and were also the common usage in the 18th century:
Regulate:
To dictate policy.
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
Boris: "We need an insidious plan to steal the private data from the Americans, every single one!"
Natasha: "Well, why don't we just ask them to give it to us?"
Boris: "You think that would work?"
Natasha (long pause): "We could say 'please'."
In the language of the time, "regulated" meant "equipped".
No, it didn't. Who the hell makes this shit up? It meant nothing of the sort. Some aspects of the language has changed, but "regulated" meant then what it means now: regulated.
"Regulation" does not mean a piece of equipment, it means a rule. It's from the Latin word for "rule" (regis: genitive singular of rex) the same word used in English words such as "regent", someone who rules in place of a king.
Here is an interesting commentary from Forbes about how to find non-fake journalism. The number one item in his list of criteria for how to tell whether a site is legitimate news source: "If a reporter gets facts in a story wrong, will the news outlet investigate a complaint and publish a correction?"
After youtube played the clip you posted, the very next clip loaded was the apology from CNN and the correction. A google search for "Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation" gives me 95,200 hits.
So, to the contrary. I will cite this next time I am asked for an example of how CNN is NOT fake news.
Search Results ...
Video for Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation 16:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
...
WATCH: CNN Apologizes For Lying About Milwaukee Riots (VIDEO ...
https://www.conservativeoutfit... News
... CNN's Carol Costello said she "regrets the second part of the statement was not included" in the report. .@CarolCNN apologizes for not airing full clip of Milwaukee victim's sister calling .... Put yourself in her situation, your house just got shot at.
CNN anchor offers apology for shortening of Milwaukee clip – CNN ...
https://cnncommentary.com/.../......
... shot by an officer on Saturday afternoon, which triggered riots in the city. ... On-air, Costello apologized, “I want to take a moment to clarify something from Monday. ... CNN is a lying piece of crap network that is not a good place to get ...
www.topbuzzapp.com/article/i6320193922531639812?app_id=1106
...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/.../c...
... an officer on Saturday afternoon, triggering destructive riots in the city. ... On Wednesday, anchor Carol Costello issued a rare on-air apology .... You're one of the few people I've spoken with, who sees both sides of the situation.
Costello Apologizes For Deceptive Report About Milwaukee | The ...
dailycaller.com/.../cnn-anchor-grovels-to-audience-after-allowing-deceptive-report-ab...
...
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About ... - Pinterest
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot
Carol Costello of CNN apologized on air for her network lying about the Milwaukee situation via a quick on
Aug 18, 2016 - CNN just apologized on air for not showing the full clip of the
Aug 17, 2016 - On Wednesday morning, CNN Newsroom anchor Carol Costello offered
CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For
Aug 17, 2016 - CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For Violence
Aug 17, 2016 - CNN anchor Carol Costello apologized on Wednesday for allowing a deceptive report about the violence in Milwaukee to air that characterized
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwau