They're like all media outlets in that they pander to their viewers' prejudices. Everybody loves the news when it confirms their already strongly held opinions. Wikipedia's editors are no different it seems. If they were genuinely impartial they would hold all outlets to the same standard.
Apart from slashdot publishing a press release from an industry body, which it seems to do regularly with no embarrassment whatsoever, please tell us how much all this is costing the tax payer? The entire industry is based on tax credits and subsidy.
Amazing that it takes 5 years to build one of those. I remember reading that the US built 160 carriers during World War 2. Of course their construction was a lot simpler and the effort was balls-deep but still. That's a fuck-ton of ships.
the difference between variation by natural causes and variation from anthropogenic causes?
You seem to be having trouble understanding there's no way attribution can be assigned given the extent of natural variation. That is why so many climate scientists have spent so many tax-payers $ trying to erase that natural variation by fucking about with the statistics.
You're talking about modelled rises in sea level. Climate models are similar in skill to economic models. They struggle to make meaningful predictions beyond about 3 months.
Shame you had nothing to say about the graphs. Why don't you go to realclimate or "skepticalscience" to find some info on them, notable not for what they say but what they do not say.
Sea level rise hasn't accelerated sharply over the past 100 years. I wish people like you would stop promoting that climate propaganda website. The only notable thing about it is what it doesn't say, not what it does. As Obama's former undersec for Science said:
“Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today.”
There are no "additional costs of dealing with climate change" over and above any costs you incur dealing with a climate that varies naturally. That is to say, if you're going to build on the coast you build sea defences (because sea level rise has been constant for hundreds of years and storms occur, naturally) and if you're going to build near or on river flood plains you build flood defences because floods occur, naturally. This is just common sense. Their frequency isn't increasing in any case but how often they happen doesn't make any difference to whether you should defend against them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. David Rose's recent piece about NOAA evidence fabrication before the Paris climate summit is almost certainly the "trigger" for this.
gold standard
Good god.
They're like all media outlets in that they pander to their viewers' prejudices. Everybody loves the news when it confirms their already strongly held opinions. Wikipedia's editors are no different it seems. If they were genuinely impartial they would hold all outlets to the same standard.
I would agree with you if wikipedia held other news outlets to the same standard.
This needs to be modded up. Slashdot is a slow, steady stream of soft-left propaganda these days.
The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.
I'm simply pointing out that Apple don't really care for open standards. If they did they'd implement Vulkan.
If they want a cross-platform standard, all they need to do is implement the Vulkan API.
Apart from slashdot publishing a press release from an industry body, which it seems to do regularly with no embarrassment whatsoever, please tell us how much all this is costing the tax payer? The entire industry is based on tax credits and subsidy.
Amazing that it takes 5 years to build one of those. I remember reading that the US built 160 carriers during World War 2. Of course their construction was a lot simpler and the effort was balls-deep but still. That's a fuck-ton of ships.
You seem to be having trouble understanding there's no way attribution can be assigned given the extent of natural variation. That is why so many climate scientists have spent so many tax-payers $ trying to erase that natural variation by fucking about with the statistics.
Yes. Though I don't expect you natural variation deniers to understand the point I am making.
As I suspected. You have no answers.
You're talking about modelled rises in sea level. Climate models are similar in skill to economic models. They struggle to make meaningful predictions beyond about 3 months.
Fracking is the solution to fossil fuel dependency.
I thought Anonymous was just this one guy with goggle-eyes staring vacantly into the camera with his mouth open.
Eh?
They did a data dump, a torrent, with all these sites on? Isn't that, you know, a bad idea?
What? No it doesn't.
Many uses of recursion aren't required to scale.
Shame you had nothing to say about the graphs. Why don't you go to realclimate or "skepticalscience" to find some info on them, notable not for what they say but what they do not say.
Floods are not increasing, or do you mean to suggest the US is inside some weird no-flood climate zone?
Sea level rise? It's not even statistical noise.
Severity varies naturally, as does frequency. Neither of these two things has increased in recently years despite warming.
There are no "additional costs of dealing with climate change" over and above any costs you incur dealing with a climate that varies naturally. That is to say, if you're going to build on the coast you build sea defences (because sea level rise has been constant for hundreds of years and storms occur, naturally) and if you're going to build near or on river flood plains you build flood defences because floods occur, naturally. This is just common sense. Their frequency isn't increasing in any case but how often they happen doesn't make any difference to whether you should defend against them.