No he was helping the islamic fundamentalists gas their competition. But even whe you're helping muslims commit mass murder, they're still not happy, so he had to gas a few of them too.
Unfortunately this is exactly how bad it really was. Yes nobody dared attack anyone. But that was because Saddam had installed cannons aimed at markets, schools, etc. If a Sunni muslim from baghdad district A attacked anyone, that meant that the kindergarden would get 5 minutes of automatic fire. He "only fired" those guns once every 4 months or so.
If this is your idea of a better iraq than we have now, please, please move to North Korea, as such a system still exists there. And see for yourself how good it is. And afterwards move to Iraq. I think we can safely say that you'll be happyer in Iraq.
That's horribly sick and seems pretty threatening to me. I too would sue if they decided to use my house as the setting for a violent video game. You might say, "a church is not a private home" but I don't really see a difference. It's private property and simulating violence against its residents against their wishes should not be allowed.
(this plagiarism is just to show my support for the "trolls". Sony does not have the right to do this. Point)
You know, while I support your currently "semi"-balanced approach, you will not be able to maintain this "neutrality" of yours.
Why doesn't anyone talk about how the CHINESE government, who is actually killing people for censorship, should be stopped ? Where is the left's support for the people of China ?
Please show me, for once, that you are capable of actually thinking about something bad without blaming it on Bush or the American government ?
Your point basically comes down to : my allegations about bush are a conspiracy theory, so they must be right !
But the real situation is much less spectacular (obviously). Bush, and the American public, actually listen to your self-important dribble, and give you a "mission". The mere fact that you accuse your government is something Hong Kong would kill, or at least imprison you.
So please, join the real world. You'll find it to be a much more logical place than that scary illogical hole you occupy right now.
Real censorship in China, violence and guns
on
China Censoring Flickr
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
But don't forget. Amerika is evil, not China.
China... is just peachy. As is "we have the right to nuke you all to hell" Iran. "We use chemical rockets, but we don't have WMD's" Saddam, and a few others.
Don't forget, it's Bush who is evil. Not China, not Kim Jong Il, not Ahmadinejad and his islamic cleric band, and not "I like to gas non-arabs" Saddam. Those are excellent, moral human beings. And let's not forget Assad, Saudi Arabia, the palestinians, the pakistani's, and quite a few other, very moral, human beings.
Congratulations on attempting to insert sanity into this slashdot "discussion". The patent, obviously, lists exactly the genes it intends to use, and as such, is quite difficult to duplicate.
If this is really the minimal set (which seems kind of unlikely), I would even call it a huge accomplishment.
Anyway this patent seems to be exactly what a patent was meant to do. It describes a complex invention, and it describes it in a very detailed way. I don't see anything wrong with it. This is the biological version of a machine design. Ok it's the description of a near universal machine (if a bit complex to program), but it seems to me a very good patent.
Exactly the sort of thing you'd want a patent to be.
But don't let sanity prevent you from getting your panties in a knot.
No offense but you sound like a religious nut. You're argument is inconsistent, and yet you present it to convince me.
There is NO energy involved in the creation of virtual particles. Not near a black hole, not in an energy membrane. Yet a force is created. The total amount of energy causing this force is 0. That does not prevent this force due to particle decay. In the same way nothing can decay into a hydrogen atom, the energy need does not make it impossible, it only makes it harder. You are applying the second law of thermodynamics in the wrong way.
It is not impossible that entropy is created without energy. Just very unlikely. It is not impossible to violate conservation of energy, it's just very unlikely.
If virtual particles don't decay... good luck explaining hawking radiation. Or zero-point pressure (pressure between 2 membranes really close together). Or...
Yes we have trouble detecting virtual particles. But we'll learn. And obviously they'll turn out to be just as non-virtual as any other particle in the universe.
Besides the mere concept of a virtual particle is a decay mode. "Nothing" decays into a top and antitop quark, for example. Those quarks can decay further, virtual or not. Yes the odds are stacked against this occurence, but it's not impossible.
Nobody seriously claims that time began at the big bang. It's only a singularity in the sense that we can't detect anything before this event. And I've heard more than a few people say that we can't detect anything before the big bang YET.
This nonsense about there actually only being a single point in space at one time is bullshit. It's inconsistent as hell. Anything could exist (far enough from) that singularity, at that time, after AND before it.
Global warming will lead to a) temperature rise - temperature stays the same (obviously your ice age in europe claim would be on the temperature doesn't rise side) b) rainfall will increase, along with storms etc - rainfall will decrease and violent weather will occur LESS frequent
You're just a oh-no-the-world-is-gonna-end conspiracy theorist. Please don't claim you have science on your side, because you really don't. It's just this worldwide madness about "global warming" and you're just trying to "do your part" by screaming about it.
People ARE being threatened for discrediting global warming. That is one thing I know for sure, because I've seen it happen. Sometimes even students verbally attack professors that have studied the phenomenon and know it it a storm in a glass of water.
So please... just don't. Maybe spend your afternoon just learning about black body heating in space, read the second law of thermodynamics, and just calculate for yourself what's going to happen. Just make the earth a black sphere with a diameter of 12000 kilometer, and an athmosphere of 600 kilometer with a base density of 1 athmosphere, and calculate the heat gain, and heat loss. It's trivial. Then calculate the temperature of the athmosphere at ground level and compare it with the current temperature. And then check what the implications of this are. This will give you an upper bound for the temperature of the earth.
You will find the temperature that earth will always have, and you will find how much it can vary (say that earth is 10% reflective and re-calculate the temperature, the earth isn't 10% reflective, but hey, this will give you a lower bound of the same temperature.
Notice what the difference is between those 2 temperatures. Conclude that a temp rise of 5 degrees is completely impossible.
Because if this particle exists, and behaves as described, that would mean that you'd find enough energy for a "big bang" in, say, a cubic meter of empty space.
In short, this particle has enough energy for massive events, and it's omnipresent.
Also it decays, meaning that (minute quantities of...) matter are constantly being created, due to the off chance that a higgs boson would decay into a top and bottom quark and one of the top quarks decays into an electron and a few other things that will combine into a proton and voila... a hydrogen atom... out of nowhere. Literally out of nowhere.
Eventually, gravity (in short : by passing through a black hole, yes through, you read correctly), it will recombine into the original higgs boson.
So basically this will reduce "God"'s role in the creation of the universe further back before the big bang, by essentially verifying another prediction by the standard model, which will probably result in the following "creation" facts : 1) the universe has always existed, it neither came into existance, nor will it "ever" end (which is a bogus question anyway, since time only exists INSIDE the universe, it's pointless to ask what was there before the beginning of time, like it's pointless to ask where the moon is on the surface of the earth : it just isn't a location) 2) there are many, many, many big bangs, ours was neither the first, nor will it be the last, a big bang will occur "spontaneously" every x (trillion trillion) years. 3) the reason we haven't heard from people created in other big bangs is simple : it's not possible due to the massive distances involved, which are uncrossable, even by mere (massless) light.
Except the water in the athmosphere doesn't come from plants. It comes from the ocean. Yes the amount of water in the athmosphere will increase. But it will (obviously) come from the see, and be DELIVERED to plants by the winds instead of the other way around as you suggest.
Also you don't seem to be clear on the de-facto "closed box" entity that is the earth (this does not apply, obviously, to energy, as both cosmic radiation and the sun play a role there). The total amount of water will, obviously, stay constant. In the absolute worst case it will be re-divided. Any changes in water availability will be localized, and will be met by counter-evolutions at other locations. In short, if somewhere the amount of water lowers, it will increase somewhere else.
Plants can synthesize water directly from the athmosphere. The saturation of the athmosphere will be quasi-constant (even above the desert), and plants can synthesize water from the athmosphere.
Now you have claimed that increased heat will lead to less rainfall, I'm sure we won't hear you say that it will lead to more storms, right ? Let's see...
Paragraph 1 is about the "lying" white house. That paragraph does not attack the claim itself, but attacks the white house's use of it. This is not scientific, but political (obviously). It's simply a masked "Bush is evil" claim. Thinly masked.
The rest of the first 2 pages attempts to construct a conspiracy that so obviously just doesn't exist.
This paper does not critisize the claim. It blatantly calls it "false".
It's criticism of this claim then 1) verifies that the claim is indeed accurate (given the "creative selection" of the time period), regardless of that time period, stating, as the white house does that the US has lowered carbon emissions between 2000 and 2004 is entirely accurate. Thus the claim is not false. The reports states quite a few times here that that claim is indeed correct 2) goes on a far-fetched mission to further discredit the claim, yet completely fails to convince. It talks about "other indicators", and then leaves out any argument concerning the "other indicators"
This is just a piece of unsubstantiated propaganda and nothing more. It completely reverses it's position instead of showing what is really going on (it should state "while it is true that carbon emissions have decreased in the last 5 years they have increased over the last 25 years" or the same statement made more accurate. Anything else in the conclusion is at best uncareful research, at worst blatantly lying for political gain)
Yes I realize you're very keen to discredit the united states. Great.
One thing I do wonder : the ones who profit the most from oil usage (and know very well it'll be used for CO2 production) is Saudi Arabia (and Iran, and, well I'd have to look it up, but you get my point). Why doesn't anyone demand of them, who gain by far the most, to create a plan to re-absorb the co2 ?
Instead they're supposedly "victims" (increased desertification or some such). But that is bullshit. First Israel clearly demonstrates that driving back the desert is doable (notice that green-to-brown edge on the sattellite pictures of Israel ? It's the border of the west-bank and the border of syria, and the green is due to massive irrigation projects). Same with the gaza strip : nothing grows in the gaza strip, 50 meters across the border it's green. The gaza strip HAS irrigation infrastructure, but it needs to be repaired. And they shoot anyone trying to repair it (including other palestinians). Obviously it's not getting fixed. Also, Turkey seems to be making at least some progress in this in a few regions.
You forget how plants work. More co2 in the athmosphere increases their "fuel" they need to increase their biomass. More heat means that the plants can actually use more of that fuel, thereby reducing co2 levels in the athmosphere.
"But what about deforestation ?" - Doesn't matter. Trees don't actually contribute that much to biomass (which you can verify by going into just about any forest). Certainly not compared to algae or moss or grass.
Exact science, until 5 years ago, was apolitical. One of the reasons I truly hate the warming "debate".
I looked at the research, and I disagree, to state that humans are warming the climate is bullshit. It's the sun (that should come as a shock... why is the earth warmer ? Simple : the sun is brighter, it's been gaining strength at an accelerating rate since it was born, but the last 1200 years it accelerated warming. Oh and btw, it will keep warming until it goes nova).
Then what environmentalists seem to forget is that all plant life (and all other life) is basically an exercise in creating global warming (read the second law of thermodynamics and realise that plant and animal life has low entropy). Plants *will* evolve into species that heat the earth. The reasons for this are so trivial it's ridiculous. If there were an algae species that's 2% more efficient than the current species and it started spreading 50 years ago, it would actually cause more global warming than we're seeing.
In short the earth will keep warming, no matter what we do (we just don't control enough of the biosphere, nor do we even control enough of ourselves, so we're convicted to stand by and watch).
Some sanity needs to be inserted into this "debate". Because there really isn't a debate. First we need consensus on a few points 1) it is happening, true, for over a 1000 years now (probably even more) 2) we're not causing it. Maybe we're accelerating it *a bit* *a tiny tiny tiny bit*. But we're not causing it. We're, despite what everybody keeps saying, a tiny blip in the biosphere. Humans have a mass of less than one millionth of several plant species (algae, moss,... even the grain currently growing on earth, surprisingly has a larger mass than human civilization) (and that's including *all* machines, oil, etc). We can't destroy the earth even if we wanted to. It would take tens of thousands of years to do that. 3) actually changing global warming... not a chance. Sorry. Truly sorry. Not gonna happen. 4) there won't be ANY disasters due to global warming, not a single shoreline will change in any reasonable period of time (yes they may move over 100 years, or even 10 if the waves hit hard, however we *will* have time to prepare, and regardless of global warming, shorelines *will* move. We can't stop them). There won't be any hurricanes. There won't be an ice age in europe (I wonder who came up with that idiotic idea). There won't be desertification (in fact there will probably be less) 5) more co2 in the athmosphere will be automatically countered by more heat. That's how it works. 6) Much co2 in the air is *much* better btw, than much O2 in the air (you think you've seen flashfires ? think again, if o2 concentration were to double, we'd be in for a *big* problem at the next forest fire)
It's purely political. Now you might say the same about U.S. DOE releases.
But I refuse - completely - to read any "scientific" report that has "bush is evil" and "the washington times had the nerve to discredit me" on the first page.
Why ? Because such statements DO NOT belong in a scientific study. Neutral references from both sides, in peer-reviewed journals, yes. Note that still would mean that the washington times is off limits.
Also why is the study house so young ?
There are so many things wrong with calling this a "study" that it's ridiculous.
And this is not cherry picking ? (nearly) Every car company has a hybrid model these days.
And the prius isn't that good.
Now if Feel good cars or something like that outsold toyota, I might agree with you.
Currently, reducing greenhouse emissions immediately is an economic disaster. Letting it happen slowly over, say, 50 years, allowing for slow incremental improvement, yes there might be something in it. MIGHT.
And that's assuming we don't find a new nuclear energy source in that time (either massive deployment of breeder reactors, or, if by some miracle iter works (I'm kidding it will probably work), nuclear fusion). Breeder reactors can - very cheaply - provide all power we want, carbon free, for 40 years, without digging up an additional gram of uranium. With digging up extra uranium, it'll last over 300 years even with expected increases in power usage.
So what is the answer to greenhouse emissions ? Well the answer is the same it's been since, oh, 1960 : nuclear energy.
Thailand's king is very fond of youtube. It's his followers that are making problems. Truth be told, he did help a lot of people, and he didn't mind the youtube debacle at all.
"If you say what you think and someone threatens your life for saying it, they have broken the law in most civilized countries."
Name 1 (ONE) muslim country where this exists about islam. There is none. In most muslim countries it is punishable by death. Examples of countries where criticism of islam is punishable with death : -> Saudi Arabia -> Pakistan -> Iran -> Afghanistan (even now) -> Tunisia -> Libya ->...
Renouncing islam is also punishable by death in most of these countries.
1) Doing ANY research on an innocent individual is obviously completely illegal for the police 2) If any individual actually commits a crime, that's a failure of the police, not a problem in this individual 3) nobody, not even convicted murderers, are guilty
Obviously this is a recipe for disaster. The things the police is allowed to do should be well-defined, and respected, by "us", meaning the parliament. They should include, at least, surveillance of an individual, overt or covert, administrative arrest for a limited time, and the option to forcibly question anyone (without torture obviously), whatever violence is required to bring someone in for questioning is perfectly allowed for the police to inflict, wounds resulting from resistance against the police do NOT indicate a problem with the police, quite the contrary, a problem with the suspect.
As long as they stay within these limits, they can hopefully only do limited damage to an individual even if they are malevolent, and they actually have a chance of catching a criminal.
I do not see how this guy's rights were violated. Can someone please explain.
On the contrary, while I do not agree with the argument that his current actions are violating the rights of the state (of the police if you will), he is danguerously close to doing just that.
You seem to forget that we deplete soil already thousands of years. And yet it has not depleted. Obviously something else is happening : we can simply replenish the soil. Using, for one thing CO2, but also a few organic molecules, most notably hydrocarbons that contain nitrogen. Alternatively NOx's will do, if combined with a bacterium to process them.
Man, there are so many errors here I don't know where to begin. The Electron-Volt (eV) is a unit of energy (the work required to move an electron across a potential different of one Volt). Digital computers do not depend on the magnitude of the current, but on its abssence or presence. In fact, the goal is to have as little current as possible (less losses due to heat and radiation) -- we are nearing single-electron transistors. "Spintronics" would instead carry the information in the spin state (up or down) of an electron. The reference to "charge" probably stems from memory, where information is stored in the magnetization state of a small amount of matter. You, my man, are an idiot :
1) what is the difference between an electron at 1 keV and 100 keV ? The speed.
2) absence or presence ? You haven't touched a circuit in 20 years, have you ? Maybe you have a point in a "my first circuit" setup, but in the real world 0's also have electrons flowing
3) "nearing single electron transistors" ? You wouldn't be making this statement if you had EVER used a transistor. It wouldn't have any use for a single electron transistor. It's an absurd concept. A transistor is an amplifier.
4) charge and "magnetization state" are completely, completely different things, oh and btw, I've yet to see the first magnetic memory in operation. hard disks are generally referred to as external storage, not memory
I guess slashdot will be slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
No he was helping the islamic fundamentalists gas their competition. But even whe you're helping muslims commit mass murder, they're still not happy, so he had to gas a few of them too.
Unfortunately this is exactly how bad it really was. Yes nobody dared attack anyone. But that was because Saddam had installed cannons aimed at markets, schools, etc. If a Sunni muslim from baghdad district A attacked anyone, that meant that the kindergarden would get 5 minutes of automatic fire. He "only fired" those guns once every 4 months or so.
If this is your idea of a better iraq than we have now, please, please move to North Korea, as such a system still exists there. And see for yourself how good it is. And afterwards move to Iraq. I think we can safely say that you'll be happyer in Iraq.
The right is very interested, as is the center. However Saddam is worse than China. Or, to put it better, islam is worse than China. Lots worse.
That's horribly sick and seems pretty threatening to me. I too would sue if they decided to use my house as the setting for a violent video game. You might say, "a church is not a private home" but I don't really see a difference. It's private property and simulating violence against its residents against their wishes should not be allowed.
(this plagiarism is just to show my support for the "trolls". Sony does not have the right to do this. Point)
You know, while I support your currently "semi"-balanced approach, you will not be able to maintain this "neutrality" of yours.
Why doesn't anyone talk about how the CHINESE government, who is actually killing people for censorship, should be stopped ? Where is the left's support for the people of China ?
Please show me, for once, that you are capable of actually thinking about something bad without blaming it on Bush or the American government ?
Your point basically comes down to : my allegations about bush are a conspiracy theory, so they must be right !
But the real situation is much less spectacular (obviously). Bush, and the American public, actually listen to your self-important dribble, and give you a "mission". The mere fact that you accuse your government is something Hong Kong would kill, or at least imprison you.
So please, join the real world. You'll find it to be a much more logical place than that scary illogical hole you occupy right now.
But don't forget. Amerika is evil, not China.
... is just peachy. As is "we have the right to nuke you all to hell" Iran. "We use chemical rockets, but we don't have WMD's" Saddam, and a few others.
China
Don't forget, it's Bush who is evil. Not China, not Kim Jong Il, not Ahmadinejad and his islamic cleric band, and not "I like to gas non-arabs" Saddam. Those are excellent, moral human beings. And let's not forget Assad, Saudi Arabia, the palestinians, the pakistani's, and quite a few other, very moral, human beings.
Obviously someone who provides religious justification for mass slaughter is a moral cleric, who just "has different values" from us (islamic values, something like 9/11 ?), and we should respect that.
"Anagrams for "United States of America": Neofascism Attitude Era, Me See Faustian Dictator, Satanic Federates, I'm Out"
Do you seriously believe that ?
Try to live in the real world. I do think that indeed, you live in a dream world, under dictators, however, bush is not your dictator.
Congratulations on attempting to insert sanity into this slashdot "discussion". The patent, obviously, lists exactly the genes it intends to use, and as such, is quite difficult to duplicate.
If this is really the minimal set (which seems kind of unlikely), I would even call it a huge accomplishment.
Anyway this patent seems to be exactly what a patent was meant to do. It describes a complex invention, and it describes it in a very detailed way. I don't see anything wrong with it. This is the biological version of a machine design. Ok it's the description of a near universal machine (if a bit complex to program), but it seems to me a very good patent.
Exactly the sort of thing you'd want a patent to be.
But don't let sanity prevent you from getting your panties in a knot.
No offense but you sound like a religious nut. You're argument is inconsistent, and yet you present it to convince me.
There is NO energy involved in the creation of virtual particles. Not near a black hole, not in an energy membrane. Yet a force is created. The total amount of energy causing this force is 0. That does not prevent this force due to particle decay. In the same way nothing can decay into a hydrogen atom, the energy need does not make it impossible, it only makes it harder. You are applying the second law of thermodynamics in the wrong way.
It is not impossible that entropy is created without energy. Just very unlikely. It is not impossible to violate conservation of energy, it's just very unlikely.
If virtual particles don't decay ... good luck explaining hawking radiation. Or zero-point pressure (pressure between 2 membranes really close together). Or ...
Yes we have trouble detecting virtual particles. But we'll learn. And obviously they'll turn out to be just as non-virtual as any other particle in the universe.
Besides the mere concept of a virtual particle is a decay mode. "Nothing" decays into a top and antitop quark, for example. Those quarks can decay further, virtual or not. Yes the odds are stacked against this occurence, but it's not impossible.
Nobody seriously claims that time began at the big bang. It's only a singularity in the sense that we can't detect anything before this event. And I've heard more than a few people say that we can't detect anything before the big bang YET.
This nonsense about there actually only being a single point in space at one time is bullshit. It's inconsistent as hell. Anything could exist (far enough from) that singularity, at that time, after AND before it.
Your claims are ridiculous :
... just don't. Maybe spend your afternoon just learning about black body heating in space, read the second law of thermodynamics, and just calculate for yourself what's going to happen. Just make the earth a black sphere with a diameter of 12000 kilometer, and an athmosphere of 600 kilometer with a base density of 1 athmosphere, and calculate the heat gain, and heat loss. It's trivial. Then calculate the temperature of the athmosphere at ground level and compare it with the current temperature. And then check what the implications of this are. This will give you an upper bound for the temperature of the earth.
make your choice : always pick a single choice
Global warming will lead to
a) temperature rise - temperature stays the same (obviously your ice age in europe claim would be on the temperature doesn't rise side)
b) rainfall will increase, along with storms etc - rainfall will decrease and violent weather will occur LESS frequent
You're just a oh-no-the-world-is-gonna-end conspiracy theorist. Please don't claim you have science on your side, because you really don't. It's just this worldwide madness about "global warming" and you're just trying to "do your part" by screaming about it.
People ARE being threatened for discrediting global warming. That is one thing I know for sure, because I've seen it happen. Sometimes even students verbally attack professors that have studied the phenomenon and know it it a storm in a glass of water.
So please
You will find the temperature that earth will always have, and you will find how much it can vary (say that earth is 10% reflective and re-calculate the temperature, the earth isn't 10% reflective, but hey, this will give you a lower bound of the same temperature.
Notice what the difference is between those 2 temperatures. Conclude that a temp rise of 5 degrees is completely impossible.
Because if this particle exists, and behaves as described, that would mean that you'd find enough energy for a "big bang" in, say, a cubic meter of empty space.
...) matter are constantly being created, due to the off chance that a higgs boson would decay into a top and bottom quark and one of the top quarks decays into an electron and a few other things that will combine into a proton and voila ... a hydrogen atom ... out of nowhere. Literally out of nowhere.
In short, this particle has enough energy for massive events, and it's omnipresent.
Also it decays, meaning that (minute quantities of
Eventually, gravity (in short : by passing through a black hole, yes through, you read correctly), it will recombine into the original higgs boson.
So basically this will reduce "God"'s role in the creation of the universe further back before the big bang, by essentially verifying another prediction by the standard model, which will probably result in the following "creation" facts :
1) the universe has always existed, it neither came into existance, nor will it "ever" end (which is a bogus question anyway, since time only exists INSIDE the universe, it's pointless to ask what was there before the beginning of time, like it's pointless to ask where the moon is on the surface of the earth : it just isn't a location)
2) there are many, many, many big bangs, ours was neither the first, nor will it be the last, a big bang will occur "spontaneously" every x (trillion trillion) years.
3) the reason we haven't heard from people created in other big bangs is simple : it's not possible due to the massive distances involved, which are uncrossable, even by mere (massless) light.
Except the water in the athmosphere doesn't come from plants. It comes from the ocean. Yes the amount of water in the athmosphere will increase. But it will (obviously) come from the see, and be DELIVERED to plants by the winds instead of the other way around as you suggest.
...
Also you don't seem to be clear on the de-facto "closed box" entity that is the earth (this does not apply, obviously, to energy, as both cosmic radiation and the sun play a role there). The total amount of water will, obviously, stay constant. In the absolute worst case it will be re-divided. Any changes in water availability will be localized, and will be met by counter-evolutions at other locations. In short, if somewhere the amount of water lowers, it will increase somewhere else.
Plants can synthesize water directly from the athmosphere. The saturation of the athmosphere will be quasi-constant (even above the desert), and plants can synthesize water from the athmosphere.
Now you have claimed that increased heat will lead to less rainfall, I'm sure we won't hear you say that it will lead to more storms, right ? Let's see
Paragraph 1 is about the "lying" white house. That paragraph does not attack the claim itself, but attacks the white house's use of it. This is not scientific, but political (obviously). It's simply a masked "Bush is evil" claim. Thinly masked.
The rest of the first 2 pages attempts to construct a conspiracy that so obviously just doesn't exist.
This paper does not critisize the claim. It blatantly calls it "false".
It's criticism of this claim then
1) verifies that the claim is indeed accurate (given the "creative selection" of the time period), regardless of that time period, stating, as the white house does that the US has lowered carbon emissions between 2000 and 2004 is entirely accurate. Thus the claim is not false. The reports states quite a few times here that that claim is indeed correct
2) goes on a far-fetched mission to further discredit the claim, yet completely fails to convince. It talks about "other indicators", and then leaves out any argument concerning the "other indicators"
This is just a piece of unsubstantiated propaganda and nothing more. It completely reverses it's position instead of showing what is really going on (it should state "while it is true that carbon emissions have decreased in the last 5 years they have increased over the last 25 years" or the same statement made more accurate. Anything else in the conclusion is at best uncareful research, at worst blatantly lying for political gain)
Yes I realize you're very keen to discredit the united states. Great.
One thing I do wonder : the ones who profit the most from oil usage (and know very well it'll be used for CO2 production) is Saudi Arabia (and Iran, and, well I'd have to look it up, but you get my point). Why doesn't anyone demand of them, who gain by far the most, to create a plan to re-absorb the co2 ?
Instead they're supposedly "victims" (increased desertification or some such). But that is bullshit. First Israel clearly demonstrates that driving back the desert is doable (notice that green-to-brown edge on the sattellite pictures of Israel ? It's the border of the west-bank and the border of syria, and the green is due to massive irrigation projects). Same with the gaza strip : nothing grows in the gaza strip, 50 meters across the border it's green. The gaza strip HAS irrigation infrastructure, but it needs to be repaired. And they shoot anyone trying to repair it (including other palestinians). Obviously it's not getting fixed. Also, Turkey seems to be making at least some progress in this in a few regions.
You forget how plants work. More co2 in the athmosphere increases their "fuel" they need to increase their biomass. More heat means that the plants can actually use more of that fuel, thereby reducing co2 levels in the athmosphere.
"But what about deforestation ?" - Doesn't matter. Trees don't actually contribute that much to biomass (which you can verify by going into just about any forest). Certainly not compared to algae or moss or grass.
Exact science, until 5 years ago, was apolitical. One of the reasons I truly hate the warming "debate".
... why is the earth warmer ? Simple : the sun is brighter, it's been gaining strength at an accelerating rate since it was born, but the last 1200 years it accelerated warming. Oh and btw, it will keep warming until it goes nova).
... even the grain currently growing on earth, surprisingly has a larger mass than human civilization) (and that's including *all* machines, oil, etc). We can't destroy the earth even if we wanted to. It would take tens of thousands of years to do that. ... not a chance. Sorry. Truly sorry. Not gonna happen.
I looked at the research, and I disagree, to state that humans are warming the climate is bullshit. It's the sun (that should come as a shock
Then what environmentalists seem to forget is that all plant life (and all other life) is basically an exercise in creating global warming (read the second law of thermodynamics and realise that plant and animal life has low entropy). Plants *will* evolve into species that heat the earth. The reasons for this are so trivial it's ridiculous. If there were an algae species that's 2% more efficient than the current species and it started spreading 50 years ago, it would actually cause more global warming than we're seeing.
In short the earth will keep warming, no matter what we do (we just don't control enough of the biosphere, nor do we even control enough of ourselves, so we're convicted to stand by and watch).
Some sanity needs to be inserted into this "debate". Because there really isn't a debate. First we need consensus on a few points
1) it is happening, true, for over a 1000 years now (probably even more)
2) we're not causing it. Maybe we're accelerating it *a bit* *a tiny tiny tiny bit*. But we're not causing it. We're, despite what everybody keeps saying, a tiny blip in the biosphere. Humans have a mass of less than one millionth of several plant species (algae, moss,
3) actually changing global warming
4) there won't be ANY disasters due to global warming, not a single shoreline will change in any reasonable period of time (yes they may move over 100 years, or even 10 if the waves hit hard, however we *will* have time to prepare, and regardless of global warming, shorelines *will* move. We can't stop them). There won't be any hurricanes. There won't be an ice age in europe (I wonder who came up with that idiotic idea). There won't be desertification (in fact there will probably be less)
5) more co2 in the athmosphere will be automatically countered by more heat. That's how it works.
6) Much co2 in the air is *much* better btw, than much O2 in the air (you think you've seen flashfires ? think again, if o2 concentration were to double, we'd be in for a *big* problem at the next forest fire)
It's purely political. Now you might say the same about U.S. DOE releases.
But I refuse - completely - to read any "scientific" report that has "bush is evil" and "the washington times had the nerve to discredit me" on the first page.
Why ? Because such statements DO NOT belong in a scientific study. Neutral references from both sides, in peer-reviewed journals, yes. Note that still would mean that the washington times is off limits.
Also why is the study house so young ?
There are so many things wrong with calling this a "study" that it's ridiculous.
And this is not cherry picking ? (nearly) Every car company has a hybrid model these days.
And the prius isn't that good.
Now if Feel good cars or something like that outsold toyota, I might agree with you.
Currently, reducing greenhouse emissions immediately is an economic disaster. Letting it happen slowly over, say, 50 years, allowing for slow incremental improvement, yes there might be something in it. MIGHT.
And that's assuming we don't find a new nuclear energy source in that time (either massive deployment of breeder reactors, or, if by some miracle iter works (I'm kidding it will probably work), nuclear fusion). Breeder reactors can - very cheaply - provide all power we want, carbon free, for 40 years, without digging up an additional gram of uranium. With digging up extra uranium, it'll last over 300 years even with expected increases in power usage.
So what is the answer to greenhouse emissions ? Well the answer is the same it's been since, oh, 1960 : nuclear energy.
Thailand's king is very fond of youtube. It's his followers that are making problems. Truth be told, he did help a lot of people, and he didn't mind the youtube debacle at all.
Perhaps next time you read about the global warming "debate" you'll remember this, and actually take a look at the claims.
"If you say what you think and someone threatens your life for saying it, they have broken the law in most civilized countries."
...
Name 1 (ONE) muslim country where this exists about islam. There is none. In most muslim countries it is punishable by death. Examples of countries where criticism of islam is punishable with death :
-> Saudi Arabia
-> Pakistan
-> Iran
-> Afghanistan (even now)
-> Tunisia
-> Libya
->
Renouncing islam is also punishable by death in most of these countries.
Unfortunately it's also "objective reality" that the founder of the muslim religion, the "prophet" muhammad, was a
-> genocidal murderer
-> (incestuous) paedophile
-> thief
-> plunderer
-> gave his soldiers orders to rape captive women
-> a terrorist
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm
Slashdot rules for the police:
1) Doing ANY research on an innocent individual is obviously completely illegal for the police
2) If any individual actually commits a crime, that's a failure of the police, not a problem in this individual
3) nobody, not even convicted murderers, are guilty
Obviously this is a recipe for disaster. The things the police is allowed to do should be well-defined, and respected, by "us", meaning the parliament. They should include, at least, surveillance of an individual, overt or covert, administrative arrest for a limited time, and the option to forcibly question anyone (without torture obviously), whatever violence is required to bring someone in for questioning is perfectly allowed for the police to inflict, wounds resulting from resistance against the police do NOT indicate a problem with the police, quite the contrary, a problem with the suspect.
As long as they stay within these limits, they can hopefully only do limited damage to an individual even if they are malevolent, and they actually have a chance of catching a criminal.
I do not see how this guy's rights were violated. Can someone please explain.
On the contrary, while I do not agree with the argument that his current actions are violating the rights of the state (of the police if you will), he is danguerously close to doing just that.
You seem to forget that we deplete soil already thousands of years. And yet it has not depleted. Obviously something else is happening : we can simply replenish the soil. Using, for one thing CO2, but also a few organic molecules, most notably hydrocarbons that contain nitrogen. Alternatively NOx's will do, if combined with a bacterium to process them.