Why should he? Climate scientists haven't established Human caused global warming is real. So far we just have a gently upward trend starting about 400 years ago, very similar to the previous upward trends that were entirely natural.
(1) Who gives a fuck? Seriously. Nobody has demonstrated the small amount of warming we've had and can expect in future isn't beneficial to mankind and the biosphere - especially the biosphere, which quite likes CO2 and expends a lot of energy trying to keep itself warm above and below certain lines of latitude.
(2) Aren't they talking about data taken on ships by physically reading thermometers to an accuracy less than the claimed effect? As I was taught: If you don't know your error, you haven't made a measurement. In this case the error could be even greater than the effect itself!
A comment: This paper is getting so much publicity I'm going to call BS on it for now. I expect someone like Steve McIntyre will rock up in a few months time after having analysed the data to show where they fucked up their analysis. By then nobody will care of course.
I don't want any corporation "keeping track" of anything of mine. It's why I don't use Siri or Cortana and it's why I don't have a sinister Echo sitting in my lounge. It feels like we're sleep-walking into some kind of nannying corporate dystopia. Hopefully I'll be dead before it's gone too far.
Scientists know: mainly greenhouse gases, released by human activities.
Err, no. That's a working hypothesis without any evidence. Of course some scientists are busy trying to manufacture the evidence, mostly by jerking off historical data to make the trend look somehow unusual against the background of natural variation (yea, Schmidt + NASA). The full-retard "there is no natural variation" you saw in Michael Mann's work has largely been forgotten/is not longer cited because he got busted by Steve McIntyre. However it hasn't been retracted because you know, retracting it would be admitting you actually know fuck all - and that would be bad for the rent-seeking business.
No, LinkedIn has always done this. It's a giant pain in the ass. It's just other people clicking a "find my contacts" button and handing over email addresses to LinkedIn from their address books. I blocked LinkedIn because of this years ago.
How the hell is tiny Scotland going to get better EU terms than the UK has? It would have to join the Euro for starters - that's compulsory for new members. What a fucking disaster that would be. "Independence" - having your economy run from Berlin. How's that going for Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece?
They can but I don't see the point of arguing this way. What is the government going to do, hold another referendum to be sure? That's precisely what happened in Holland, France and Ireland - keep voting until you vote the way we want you to. The British people aren't going to fall for that. In any case on a constituency basis the vote was 66% in favour of leaving - and constituencies are how MPs get elected.
Scotland is 10% of the UK population. It would be fucking retarded for Scotland to leave the UK because of EU membership when Scotland does 4 x the business with the UK than it does with the EU. But that appears to be the SNP position. Of course the SNP doesn't give a shit about EU membership, they're just looking for levers to force Scotland out of the UK. Unfortunately for them the polls on independence aren't budging.
Hmmmm. The rationality of "experts" brought Europe the Euro, which has been an utter fucking disaster. Sneering little cunts like you would have voted to join it of course.
If there's a trade war. Why don't you take the absolutely stupid case scenario and write about it as if it's a general rule. You know, just to "prove" some half-arsed point you're trying to make.
You do realise that most of the civil servants employed in the UK are members of quangos involved in the implementation of EU law and regulation, don't you? The EU outsources its civil service to member countries.
Except that isn't true. Top 3 reasons for voting to Leave: (1) The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK, (2) Regain control over immigration and borders, (3) concern about the EU expanding its membership and powers.
What the fuck is wrong with you? The Brexit vote was in the United Kingdom. It's got fuck all to do with the USA and Trump. It happened 3 months before Trump was even elected, and in case you didn't know, it happened in a completely different country. It wasn't "just a poll". The legal challenge concerns whether or not the government can invoke A50 without a vote in Parliament. There was a vote in Parliament in any case on a minor motion, passed with a huge majority. The court case is simply going to affirm the limits of Royal Prerogative powers in the UK, meaning there may have to be primary legislation before A50 can be enacted. So what? Parliament is not going to vote it down.
WTF is it with people on Slashdot? They don't seem to have the first fucking clue what's going on here.
I call bullshit on your comment. The EU has no trade deal with China. It has a "trade and cooperation agreement" signed in 1985, which is just a most-favoured nation agreement. So if there are tariffs your company is paying them already.
What is wrong with your brain? Who gives a shit about Alabama? Some twat said the UK economy was failing, with ISP ADSL 1Mbit broadband. Fucking retard.
Wilbur Ross said that before he joined Trumps team. Since then he's set securing a free trade deal between the US and Britain one of his top priorities. That is to say, that the UK will be at the front of the queue.
Failing economy? Are you completely fucking retarded? The UK is doing better than most other economies in Europe even with Brexit priced in. And when it comes to broadband, something you seem to have a pea in your knickers about, I live in a small town and I've got BT Infinity. Yea - it's rolled out to most cities and towns in the UK these days. 1mb connections are mostly in rural areas.
Stop writing. You seem to know precisely FUCK ALL about the UK.
No, they imply it. Deliberately so. The reason is if you start talking about natural variation you have to start talking about the limits and extents of natural variation. Once you do that you can easily see that current warming is well within it. It's very deliberate and very deceptive. It's what Michael Mann's "hockey stick" was all about - i.e. denying any variability whatsoever, which is clearly untrue (and so the methods used to generate the graph proved to be, though obviously nobody's talking about that either - it hasn't been retracted as far as I know).
I would like them to tell the truth. Current warming and trends are well within the range of natural variation, that the Medieval Warm Period (the most recent warm period before the current one) was slightly warmer than today and that we should all move along because there's absolutely nothing to see here.
Svensmark (a real, actual experimental physicist who does actual, real science, i.e. does not spend his career fudging surface temperature records to fit his confirmed bias) has a number of excellent presentations on this.
Nobody has ever said that it is only man who is causing climate change
Actually the tsunami of climate change bollocks in the media and on most websites 24/7 implies precisely that. Nobody talks about natural variation at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should he? Climate scientists haven't established Human caused global warming is real. So far we just have a gently upward trend starting about 400 years ago, very similar to the previous upward trends that were entirely natural.
+1 insightful. If I had a +1 on this thread to give.
(1) Who gives a fuck? Seriously. Nobody has demonstrated the small amount of warming we've had and can expect in future isn't beneficial to mankind and the biosphere - especially the biosphere, which quite likes CO2 and expends a lot of energy trying to keep itself warm above and below certain lines of latitude.
(2) Aren't they talking about data taken on ships by physically reading thermometers to an accuracy less than the claimed effect? As I was taught: If you don't know your error, you haven't made a measurement. In this case the error could be even greater than the effect itself!
A comment: This paper is getting so much publicity I'm going to call BS on it for now. I expect someone like Steve McIntyre will rock up in a few months time after having analysed the data to show where they fucked up their analysis. By then nobody will care of course.
OK I'm done. Start down-voting my comment.
I don't want any corporation "keeping track" of anything of mine. It's why I don't use Siri or Cortana and it's why I don't have a sinister Echo sitting in my lounge. It feels like we're sleep-walking into some kind of nannying corporate dystopia. Hopefully I'll be dead before it's gone too far.
Err, no. That's a working hypothesis without any evidence. Of course some scientists are busy trying to manufacture the evidence, mostly by jerking off historical data to make the trend look somehow unusual against the background of natural variation (yea, Schmidt + NASA). The full-retard "there is no natural variation" you saw in Michael Mann's work has largely been forgotten/is not longer cited because he got busted by Steve McIntyre. However it hasn't been retracted because you know, retracting it would be admitting you actually know fuck all - and that would be bad for the rent-seeking business.
Ah well.
No, LinkedIn has always done this. It's a giant pain in the ass. It's just other people clicking a "find my contacts" button and handing over email addresses to LinkedIn from their address books. I blocked LinkedIn because of this years ago.
If Scotland did that it would find itself with far higher interest rates and a terrible credit rating. Knock yourself out.
How the hell is tiny Scotland going to get better EU terms than the UK has? It would have to join the Euro for starters - that's compulsory for new members. What a fucking disaster that would be. "Independence" - having your economy run from Berlin. How's that going for Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece?
Oh dear.
They can but I don't see the point of arguing this way. What is the government going to do, hold another referendum to be sure? That's precisely what happened in Holland, France and Ireland - keep voting until you vote the way we want you to. The British people aren't going to fall for that. In any case on a constituency basis the vote was 66% in favour of leaving - and constituencies are how MPs get elected.
Scotland is 10% of the UK population. It would be fucking retarded for Scotland to leave the UK because of EU membership when Scotland does 4 x the business with the UK than it does with the EU. But that appears to be the SNP position. Of course the SNP doesn't give a shit about EU membership, they're just looking for levers to force Scotland out of the UK. Unfortunately for them the polls on independence aren't budging.
Hmmmm. The rationality of "experts" brought Europe the Euro, which has been an utter fucking disaster. Sneering little cunts like you would have voted to join it of course.
If there's a trade war. Why don't you take the absolutely stupid case scenario and write about it as if it's a general rule. You know, just to "prove" some half-arsed point you're trying to make.
You do realise that most of the civil servants employed in the UK are members of quangos involved in the implementation of EU law and regulation, don't you? The EU outsources its civil service to member countries.
Except that isn't true. Top 3 reasons for voting to Leave: (1) The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK, (2) Regain control over immigration and borders, (3) concern about the EU expanding its membership and powers.
What the fuck is wrong with you? The Brexit vote was in the United Kingdom. It's got fuck all to do with the USA and Trump. It happened 3 months before Trump was even elected, and in case you didn't know, it happened in a completely different country. It wasn't "just a poll". The legal challenge concerns whether or not the government can invoke A50 without a vote in Parliament. There was a vote in Parliament in any case on a minor motion, passed with a huge majority. The court case is simply going to affirm the limits of Royal Prerogative powers in the UK, meaning there may have to be primary legislation before A50 can be enacted. So what? Parliament is not going to vote it down.
WTF is it with people on Slashdot? They don't seem to have the first fucking clue what's going on here.
I call bullshit on your comment. The EU has no trade deal with China. It has a "trade and cooperation agreement" signed in 1985, which is just a most-favoured nation agreement. So if there are tariffs your company is paying them already.
What is wrong with your brain? Who gives a shit about Alabama? Some twat said the UK economy was failing, with ISP ADSL 1Mbit broadband. Fucking retard.
Wilbur Ross said that before he joined Trumps team. Since then he's set securing a free trade deal between the US and Britain one of his top priorities. That is to say, that the UK will be at the front of the queue.
Incredible. Not a single lesson has been learned from Brexit or the Trump election by Mr Tablizer.
Failing economy? Are you completely fucking retarded? The UK is doing better than most other economies in Europe even with Brexit priced in. And when it comes to broadband, something you seem to have a pea in your knickers about, I live in a small town and I've got BT Infinity. Yea - it's rolled out to most cities and towns in the UK these days. 1mb connections are mostly in rural areas.
Stop writing. You seem to know precisely FUCK ALL about the UK.
You realise this is fake news don't you?
No, they imply it. Deliberately so. The reason is if you start talking about natural variation you have to start talking about the limits and extents of natural variation. Once you do that you can easily see that current warming is well within it. It's very deliberate and very deceptive. It's what Michael Mann's "hockey stick" was all about - i.e. denying any variability whatsoever, which is clearly untrue (and so the methods used to generate the graph proved to be, though obviously nobody's talking about that either - it hasn't been retracted as far as I know).
I would like them to tell the truth. Current warming and trends are well within the range of natural variation, that the Medieval Warm Period (the most recent warm period before the current one) was slightly warmer than today and that we should all move along because there's absolutely nothing to see here.
Svensmark (a real, actual experimental physicist who does actual, real science, i.e. does not spend his career fudging surface temperature records to fit his confirmed bias) has a number of excellent presentations on this.
Actually the tsunami of climate change bollocks in the media and on most websites 24/7 implies precisely that. Nobody talks about natural variation at all.
... about as much integrity as required to "adjust" older temperatures downwards to increase the upward trend?
Yea.