Actually, we don't know why there was such a massive CO2 outbreak. If you'd RTFA, you'd know that vulcanism could not account for it all. There is speculation it could have something to do with massive amounts of methane being released from the oceans. However, nobody really knows why it happened. You are included in that group, by the way.
Yes, yes - I know. Much of the methane could have been released as a secondary effect of the original heating caused by CO2. The initial heating as a result CO2 did not have simple effects.
Really? Prove it! Note that I'd hardly qualify setting off every nuke on the planet as "a little shake up." Furthermore, if you'd bothered to read some of the earlier articles I've shown you, you'd have seen that global CO2 levels and temperature fluctuations haven't always been in sync. Sometimes temps have risen without CO2 increases, other times temps have dropped despite them. All this points to the fact that our models for understanding the climate are woefully inadequate. But don't let that stop you from feeling full of self-confidence in them.
At no point have I ever said I have fullconfidence in them. No-one who wants to call themselves a scientist should ever have such confidence. There are very many different effects that can cause temperature fluctations. They include orbital effects (inclination, eccentricity), solar fluctionations, ocean current directions, vulcanism (which, indicentally can work both ways - CO2 can have a temperature increase effect while SO2 can act as a barrier to sunlight).
There are many different controls for temperature, but what no decent physicist or chemist doubts is that CO2 is definitely one of them.
Do you know how many people might die of starvation if, for example, internal combustion engines were outlawed? How many people will freeze to death if coal-fired power plants are shut down? Sure, it won't hurt developed nations that much (more in the pocketbook than anything else), but other nations would be devastated. You could kill hundreds of thousands -- perhaps even millions -- with such stuff as CO2 emission bans due to increased costs of transporting food.
So you have gone from trying to deny that CO2 has an affect to arguing that if we react as if it does, we will cause problems?
No-one is seriously suggesting we shut down all internal combustion engines or coal-fired plants. But, what we should be doing is attempting to cut back on our ever-growing use of such things, and looking at long term substitutes - perhaps nuclear power.
As with any risk, a thorough analysis must be made to determine (a) if the risk is real and (b) what are the costs of mitigating it. (A) has not yet been proven in any way at all.
Sorry to be so blunt - I try not to be rude, but no-one with any sense could not see the plain evidence of increased arctic and antarctic melting, and increased sea levels. This is now historical fact, not subject to debate.
We have models, assumptions, projections, guesses, and wild speculation...but no solid evidence that says, yes, indeed, we humans are hurting the planet in a way that is dangerous and potentially unrecoverable,
Sorry, but we do have considerable quantative and qualitative evidence that human activity is having a dramatic effect on the CO2 concentration.
and the only method to correct the situation is to drastically curb the use of fossil fuels.
Please explain how else you would cut back on CO2 output without putting some restrictions on use of fossil fuels?
You keep nimbly attempting to sidestep this point,
Which point?
and I'm going to keep right on dragging you back to it. You won't like it,
How do you know? I thrive on debate!
but I'm going to force you to substantiate your argument. You can try all the "we'll be extinct!" scare tactics you want,
But you are mistaken! I am not going to say such scary things, as I don't beli
of JBoss these days? Weren't the obosoleted by the Spring Framework for the most part?
This is an interesting point, for several reasons.
Firstly, Spring does obsolete some of J2EE, but only some. It also integrates and works very well with other parts of it. Some people think of Spring as a replacement for J2EE. In fact, it simply makes a lot of it far easier to use.
Secondly, the huge success of Spring shows that you don't need the appalling attitude of JBoss. Spring developers seem to have a completely different and far less arrogant attitude - which is that whatever you want to do, whatever approach you want to take, they will try and make development easier for you.
Spring shows that nice guys can definitely succeed. And, to be honest, the attitude of some JBoss guys actually puts some of us off using their product.
Of course, we could just remove Java and run Microsoft Windows Server 2003 instead..? Would that make you happier?
I agree with you. Java has been one of the main reasons why Linux has had such a wide acceptance server-side in the corporate world.
The trouble with those who hold such strong views as RMS is that there seems to be no ability to compromise, or recognise that small steps towards an ideal are better than none.
Ahh...it's so nice to have current news that just illustrates the silliness of your argument. So, if you read here [yahoo.com], you see that there was massive global warming 247 million years ago that caused a great deal of death planetwide. So, tell me about all those coal plants, SUV's, and other modern-day accoutrements that existed 'way back when that caused such hideous global warming 247 million years ago. I'm sure they'll dig up a Ford Explorer fossil anyday now. Or (gasp!) could it be that global warming has happened before -- and may be happening again -- all without any ounce of input from us puny humans? Nah, that'd just torpedo your entire argument, wouldn't it? Can't have that, so let's move along...move along...
Yes - there was massive global vulcanism over a long time period that caused huge heating via CO2 release. It was called the Permian extinction.
Guess what? That isn't happening now - large areas of the surface of the Earth aren't covered with lava. The problem is that our CO2 emissions are affecting the atmosphere as if it was.
But anyway, let's follow your argument to its conclusion, in the context of a more recent extinction event.....
65 million years ago, there was phenomenal explosion due to an asteroid impact. Nothing us humans could do now could get within a thousandth of that effect.
So, here is an idea - let's let off all our nuclear weapons right now! We humans are so feeble, that it has got to be harmless, as the Earth has survived so much more!! Do you advocate that?
The point you seem to want to ignore that even though we can't do a huge amount, we need only do a little to shake up the climate a fraction to make life seriously difficult for a large proportion of humanity.
Hundreds of millions of years ago, 95% of all species disappeared. That is terrifying, as only a few hundred individuals of a species need to survive for it to continue. That means that virtually all life was wiped off of our planet.
Are you willing to risk a thousandth of that effect? A millionth?
So how the heck are we suppose to stop Global Warming if the sun is getting warmer, we have increased Solar Flares, and our magnetic shield which keeps us alive is collapsing?
The Sun is, on average, getting warmer on a timescale of hundreds of millions of years, and the collapse of the magnetic field will be relatively harmless - it is the atmosphere that shields us from most radiation - not magnetism.
Funny, because you're completely (and purposefully) ignoring it.
When have I done that? When does 'be aware of' equal 'ignore'?
If you weren't so blind to things around you (or living in an echo chamber) you'd be aware there are vastly differing opinions on global warming/climate change/whatever.
Sorry, you lose! I wanted refereed quality scientific publications, not rants.
And - guess what? Google hits don't equate to scientific research or proof! I can only conclude that you're either too stupid to search for it, too apathetic to care, or too biased to risk exposing yourself to contrary opinions. I'll be generous and say it's the latter, but you feel free to give me reason to change that assumption.
I am a scientist. I have worked with doubt and uncertainty, and I understand how science works. Science is about contrary opinions. It is about refereed publications, not google-searched rants. It is about consensus built up over decades.
I am saying there is not enough data to make such a conclusion. The burden of proof is on you, dear sir, to provide unquestionable, unassailable, irrefutable evidence backed by broad, overwhelming, near-total scientific consensus that there is a need to reduce CO2 emissions as you advocate.
No, actually, it isn't. Because, strangely, for someone who rants on about controvery, you don't seem to accept that there is no unassailable proof for anything ever. We have to base all our judgements on the balance of evidence. The mere fact you have asked for such thinks proves you haven't the faintest idea about science, or evidence, and so aren't qualified to discuss these matters.
If you are prepared to engage in a debate based on refereed quality publications, fine. But if you are simply going to use google as your research tool, this is a waste of time.
Perhaps you are unaware of the concept of solar maxima and minima. As it just so happens, we're in the middle of an unusually long warming period for old Sol. But please, don't let facts like that distract you from your logic-lite argument.
I am fully aware of this.
And I'm so glad you're the one and only person on the planet that's been charged with the responsiblity of making this conclusion. No doubt the thousands of other climatologists who diagree with you are wrong, despite their years of experience and walls full of degrees. You, sir, know it all and have all the answers. I'm sure you sleep well at night knowing that.
Erm - that is you - you are ignoring the expertise. It is the thousands of climatologists who are fully aware of solar maxima and minima. Please provide some substantial scientific publications that demonstrate that solar intensity changes do indeed account for all warming.
The facts of the matter are this: for every it's-all-human global warming proponent there's also another equally-qualified opponent who can make a scientific argument to the contrary. The claim that there is "scientific consensus" supporting manmade climate change is the biggest lie there is right now.
Prove it. You claim it is a lie - then please provide numbers of papers for and against.
The biosphere of our planet is an amazingly complex system that we don't even begin to understand. To claim we know it all and can thus say that this caused that is the height of arrogance and hubris.
Ah - and that explains how you are so sure that solar output changes explain everything?
It is because things are so complicated that mankind working so hard to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so damn stupid.
My own view is that we owe it to generations following us to at least acknowledge that it's a possibibilty.
And having acknowledged that, to make what feeble efforts might be within our remit to try to counter it.
This is a good argument. The problem is that some think that it would take a lot of expense and economic sacrifice to counteract global warming, and that sacrifice would damage future generations. This is not my personal view.
Yet the "environmentalist" crowd consistently ignore this fact when saying global warming/climate change/whatever-we're-calling-it-this-week is caused my humans..
Of course they don't! The sun is warming up very slowly over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
So a billion or so of us pitiful human beings in our SUV's are having more impact on this planet than a thermonuclear furnace with the mass of 1.3 million earths outputting 2.8 x 10^26 Watts a meere eight light-minutes away?
Yes, because it is pretty constant.
A furnace you admit is growing warmer?
Over a time period of hundreds of millions and billions of years.
Pardon me if I guffaw lightly in your direction.
No problem.
While CO2 may be a greenhouse gas,
It is.
and we may be adding it to our atmosphere,
We are.
to say that we are the sole cause of this when the sun is heating up at the same time smacks of blinders on your part.
Where did anyone say we are the sole cause?
You appear to have completely disregarded the possibility that the Earth may be heating up largely or solely because of the increased solar output.
Of course I haven't! Periodic fluctuations in solar intensity are common and - guess what? They have of course been taken into account! And guess what else? They don't account for anything like the warming that has been taking place.
Yes.... slowly. Over a timescale of hundreds of millions of years. I would be interested how this could explain a recent warming over a period of decades....
The single biggest contributor to atmospheric CO2 is "out-gassing" that happens in the mid-ocean plates.
No, it isn't. If it was, then the oceans would not act as a sink for CO2.
Mankind contributes some, but not much.
Nonsense. Volcanic CO2 production from all sources is less that 1% of the production by human activities.
My issue with all of the Global Warming scare is that it based on computer modeling of temperatures 100+ years out. Our computer models, are only maybe good 10 days out at any given time.
No. With systems like the weather different models are used at different scales. This is entirely appropriate for such chaotic systems. For example, we can't easily model things like turbulent fluid flow at small scales, but we can model the overall gross flow of such system at larger scales.
It's all cyclical. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
No, it isn't that simple. It is not purely cyclical - the weather systems are unstable. You can get dramatic changes over short periods of time. Like the Younger Dryas. We could cause such changes, and we probably are.
In the 1970's, there was a ton of hype and fearmongering about "Global cooling" and "the next Ice Age!". That was proved to be a bunch of BS.
It was not BS - it was accurate! There is going to be global cooling and another ice age. The question is when. However, a new ice age in a few thousand years is not going to help the immediate problem of global warming while we are dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, which will cause problems on a scale of centuries or even decades.
The sun is going to burn out in a few billion years. As it does so, it will cool and expand slowly enveloping the earth.
No; the Sun is actually slowly warming up.
It's pretentious and incorrect to think that something as insignificant as mankind is the main cause of global warming.
No; it is realistic and correct. We have already had a significant impact on the composition of the atmosphere in terms of CO2 concentration - the main source of warming.
Example: A basic MFC (like VC98) app will take half a second to load on a 64meg 400MHz celeron. Using the latest jre1.5.0_06, the equivalent do-nothing single form Swing app can take up to 4-5 seconds to load.
I think this load time leads to the "Java is slow" perception some people have. Thoughts?
On my 2GHz portable just about any GUI app takes several seconds to load, Java or not.
The two views are not contradictory. Understanding *how* something functions or was put together doesn't mean it wasn't made. That logic is akin to:
I know how a PC works, and how it is put together, therefore Dell does not make PCs.
No, it isn't akin to that at all. It is akin to:
I know how a PC is assembled automatically, therefore I don't believe they are hand-made.
We have a vast amount of evidence that life evolves complexity, and we know an awful lot about how it can do this unaided. To assume that there is a designer when no designer is needed is irrational.
That's a really fallacious argument. I am fully capable of simultanesouly understanding how computers are made and still believing that Dell exists.
Trouble is, PCs aren't like organisms.
So just face facts and realize that if you "get it", most everybody else probably does too. Your're arguing a debate that doesn't really exist.
agree with you on the economy, but the civil rights stuff is rather outweighed by ID cards, ASBOism, the CCTV state, ID cards (again, cos it really really is a bad implementation of a terrible idea based on a profound misapprehension about some of the fundamentals of security), virtually all the police, civil order, legal rights type legislation passed since October 2001...
No, it really isn't. That sort of thing is very
and above all, Iraq, I'm afraid, cancels out all the rest of it as far as I'm concerned. The man is lying, and IMO a criminal.
Actually, I am also a natural Lib Dem like you, but I have to say that this comment is outrageous. There has never been any evidence that he has lied - it is just something shallow and easy to say because it gives a convenient 'baddie' in a complex and unpleasant situation. You may disagree with going to war, and you are probably right that the intelligence services were incompetent (nothing new there) and provided false information, but to say that Tony Blair actually lied is just cheap politics and very lazy thinking.
I assume that letting Iraquis continue to live under a brutal child-torturing dictatorship was a good idea? I am afraid I agree with the left-winger Ann Clwyd, who unlike other 'armchair commentators' actually went to Iraq and saw the horrors. She remains in favour of the removal of a terrible leader and real criminal.
FWIW I'm mostly a lib dem, so arguing that at least New Labour isn't the Tories, whilst true, isn't a terribly high standard to reach.
Oh, it is; it really is. I am a gay man, and I was positively victimised under the tories for 20 years. It is easy for those who weren't treated as second-class citizens to say that labour and tories are 'somewhat the same'.
I would also point out that under the Tories I had a free education up to the age of 21, free dental treatment, and once signed on the dole for almost six months.
Yes, and the tories helped to dismantle those things by wrecking the economy. With far more in education and far more health services, there is no way all those these things could continue to be free (although higher taxes would have helped).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, we don't know why there was such a massive CO2 outbreak. If you'd RTFA, you'd know that vulcanism could not account for it all. There is speculation it could have something to do with massive amounts of methane being released from the oceans. However, nobody really knows why it happened. You are included in that group, by the way.
Yes, yes - I know. Much of the methane could have been released as a secondary effect of the original heating caused by CO2. The initial heating as a result CO2 did not have simple effects.
Really? Prove it! Note that I'd hardly qualify setting off every nuke on the planet as "a little shake up." Furthermore, if you'd bothered to read some of the earlier articles I've shown you, you'd have seen that global CO2 levels and temperature fluctuations haven't always been in sync. Sometimes temps have risen without CO2 increases, other times temps have dropped despite them. All this points to the fact that our models for understanding the climate are woefully inadequate. But don't let that stop you from feeling full of self-confidence in them.
At no point have I ever said I have fullconfidence in them. No-one who wants to call themselves a scientist should ever have such confidence. There are very many different effects that can cause temperature fluctations. They include orbital effects (inclination, eccentricity), solar fluctionations, ocean current directions, vulcanism (which, indicentally can work both ways - CO2 can have a temperature increase effect while SO2 can act as a barrier to sunlight).
There are many different controls for temperature, but what no decent physicist or chemist doubts is that CO2 is definitely one of them.
Do you know how many people might die of starvation if, for example, internal combustion engines were outlawed? How many people will freeze to death if coal-fired power plants are shut down? Sure, it won't hurt developed nations that much (more in the pocketbook than anything else), but other nations would be devastated. You could kill hundreds of thousands -- perhaps even millions -- with such stuff as CO2 emission bans due to increased costs of transporting food.
So you have gone from trying to deny that CO2 has an affect to arguing that if we react as if it does, we will cause problems?
No-one is seriously suggesting we shut down all internal combustion engines or coal-fired plants. But, what we should be doing is attempting to cut back on our ever-growing use of such things, and looking at long term substitutes - perhaps nuclear power.
As with any risk, a thorough analysis must be made to determine (a) if the risk is real and (b) what are the costs of mitigating it. (A) has not yet been proven in any way at all.
Sorry to be so blunt - I try not to be rude, but no-one with any sense could not see the plain evidence of increased arctic and antarctic melting, and increased sea levels. This is now historical fact, not subject to debate.
We have models, assumptions, projections, guesses, and wild speculation...but no solid evidence that says, yes, indeed, we humans are hurting the planet in a way that is dangerous and potentially unrecoverable,
Sorry, but we do have considerable quantative and qualitative evidence that human activity is having a dramatic effect on the CO2 concentration.
and the only method to correct the situation is to drastically curb the use of fossil fuels.
Please explain how else you would cut back on CO2 output without putting some restrictions on use of fossil fuels?
You keep nimbly attempting to sidestep this point,
Which point?
and I'm going to keep right on dragging you back to it. You won't like it,
How do you know? I thrive on debate!
but I'm going to force you to substantiate your argument. You can try all the "we'll be extinct!" scare tactics you want,
But you are mistaken! I am not going to say such scary things, as I don't beli
of JBoss these days? Weren't the obosoleted by the Spring Framework for the most part?
This is an interesting point, for several reasons.
Firstly, Spring does obsolete some of J2EE, but only some. It also integrates and works very well with other parts of it. Some people think of Spring as a replacement for J2EE. In fact, it simply makes a lot of it far easier to use.
Secondly, the huge success of Spring shows that you don't need the appalling attitude of JBoss. Spring developers seem to have a completely different and far less arrogant attitude - which is that whatever you want to do, whatever approach you want to take, they will try and make development easier for you.
Spring shows that nice guys can definitely succeed. And, to be honest, the attitude of some JBoss guys actually puts some of us off using their product.
Of course, we could just remove Java and run Microsoft Windows Server 2003 instead..? Would that make you happier?
I agree with you. Java has been one of the main reasons why Linux has had such a wide acceptance server-side in the corporate world.
The trouble with those who hold such strong views as RMS is that there seems to be no ability to compromise, or recognise that small steps towards an ideal are better than none.
Ahh...it's so nice to have current news that just illustrates the silliness of your argument. So, if you read here [yahoo.com], you see that there was massive global warming 247 million years ago that caused a great deal of death planetwide. So, tell me about all those coal plants, SUV's, and other modern-day accoutrements that existed 'way back when that caused such hideous global warming 247 million years ago. I'm sure they'll dig up a Ford Explorer fossil anyday now. Or (gasp!) could it be that global warming has happened before -- and may be happening again -- all without any ounce of input from us puny humans? Nah, that'd just torpedo your entire argument, wouldn't it? Can't have that, so let's move along...move along...
Yes - there was massive global vulcanism over a long time period that caused huge heating via CO2 release. It was called the Permian extinction.
Guess what? That isn't happening now - large areas of the surface of the Earth aren't covered with lava. The problem is that our CO2 emissions are affecting the atmosphere as if it was.
But anyway, let's follow your argument to its conclusion, in the context of a more recent extinction event.....
65 million years ago, there was phenomenal explosion due to an asteroid impact. Nothing us humans could do now could get within a thousandth of that effect.
So, here is an idea - let's let off all our nuclear weapons right now! We humans are so feeble, that it has got to be harmless, as the Earth has survived so much more!! Do you advocate that?
The point you seem to want to ignore that even though we can't do a huge amount, we need only do a little to shake up the climate a fraction to make life seriously difficult for a large proportion of humanity.
Hundreds of millions of years ago, 95% of all species disappeared. That is terrifying, as only a few hundred individuals of a species need to survive for it to continue. That means that virtually all life was wiped off of our planet.
Are you willing to risk a thousandth of that effect? A millionth?
So how the heck are we suppose to stop Global Warming if the sun is getting warmer, we have increased Solar Flares, and our magnetic shield which keeps us alive is collapsing?
:)
The Sun is, on average, getting warmer on a timescale of hundreds of millions of years, and the collapse of the magnetic field will be relatively harmless - it is the atmosphere that shields us from most radiation - not magnetism.
Don't worry
Here is a very simple explanation.
Which is completely irrelevant, as it shows how carbon cycles long term on a time scale of millions of years, and excludes human factors.
"No; the Sun is actually slowly warming up."
Huh? Someone better call god. The sun is violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics again!
Of course it isn't. It is simply burning different fuels as its composition changes with time.
But seriously, I don't think Sun's expansion or temperature change is affecting our current situation with global warming...
Indeed.
Funny, because you're completely (and purposefully) ignoring it.
When have I done that? When does 'be aware of' equal 'ignore'?
If you weren't so blind to things around you (or living in an echo chamber) you'd be aware there are vastly differing opinions on global warming/climate change/whatever.
Sorry, you lose! I wanted refereed quality scientific publications, not rants.
And - guess what? Google hits don't equate to scientific research or proof!
I can only conclude that you're either too stupid to search for it, too apathetic to care, or too biased to risk exposing yourself to contrary opinions. I'll be generous and say it's the latter, but you feel free to give me reason to change that assumption.
I am a scientist. I have worked with doubt and uncertainty, and I understand how science works. Science is about contrary opinions. It is about refereed publications, not google-searched rants. It is about consensus built up over decades.
I am saying there is not enough data to make such a conclusion. The burden of proof is on you, dear sir, to provide unquestionable, unassailable, irrefutable evidence backed by broad, overwhelming, near-total scientific consensus that there is a need to reduce CO2 emissions as you advocate.
No, actually, it isn't. Because, strangely, for someone who rants on about controvery, you don't seem to accept that there is no unassailable proof for anything ever. We have to base all our judgements on the balance of evidence. The mere fact you have asked for such thinks proves you haven't the faintest idea about science, or evidence, and so aren't qualified to discuss these matters.
If you are prepared to engage in a debate based on refereed quality publications, fine. But if you are simply going to use google as your research tool, this is a waste of time.
Geronimo wasn't certified until IBM got in the mix. JBoss was there first.
That is true, but irrelevant. The original post claimed that JBoss was the '_only_' certfied J2EE app server.
Perhaps you are unaware of the concept of solar maxima and minima. As it just so happens, we're in the middle of an unusually long warming period for old Sol. But please, don't let facts like that distract you from your logic-lite argument.
I am fully aware of this.
And I'm so glad you're the one and only person on the planet that's been charged with the responsiblity of making this conclusion. No doubt the thousands of other climatologists who diagree with you are wrong, despite their years of experience and walls full of degrees. You, sir, know it all and have all the answers. I'm sure you sleep well at night knowing that.
Erm - that is you - you are ignoring the expertise. It is the thousands of climatologists who are fully aware of solar maxima and minima. Please provide some substantial scientific publications that demonstrate that solar intensity changes do indeed account for all warming.
The facts of the matter are this: for every it's-all-human global warming proponent there's also another equally-qualified opponent who can make a scientific argument to the contrary. The claim that there is "scientific consensus" supporting manmade climate change is the biggest lie there is right now.
Prove it. You claim it is a lie - then please provide numbers of papers for and against.
The biosphere of our planet is an amazingly complex system that we don't even begin to understand. To claim we know it all and can thus say that this caused that is the height of arrogance and hubris.
Ah - and that explains how you are so sure that solar output changes explain everything?
It is because things are so complicated that mankind working so hard to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so damn stupid.
However, the guy has created the _only_ full J2EE certified open source appserver
No - it is not the only one.
There is also Apache Geronimo.
My own view is that we owe it to generations following us to at least acknowledge that it's a possibibilty.
And having acknowledged that, to make what feeble efforts might be within our remit to try to counter it.
This is a good argument. The problem is that some think that it would take a lot of expense and economic sacrifice to counteract global warming, and that sacrifice would damage future generations. This is not my personal view.
Of course they don't! The sun is warming up very slowly over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
So a billion or so of us pitiful human beings in our SUV's are having more impact on this planet than a thermonuclear furnace with the mass of 1.3 million earths outputting 2.8 x 10^26 Watts a meere eight light-minutes away?
Yes, because it is pretty constant.
A furnace you admit is growing warmer?
Over a time period of hundreds of millions and billions of years.
Pardon me if I guffaw lightly in your direction.
No problem.
While CO2 may be a greenhouse gas,
It is.
We are.
to say that we are the sole cause of this when the sun is heating up at the same time smacks of blinders on your part.
Where did anyone say we are the sole cause?
You appear to have completely disregarded the possibility that the Earth may be heating up largely or solely because of the increased solar output.
Of course I haven't! Periodic fluctuations in solar intensity are common and - guess what? They have of course been taken into account! And guess what else? They don't account for anything like the warming that has been taking place.
Nobody wants your products.
Evidence?
The computing public despises Java.
So why has it just risen above C++ on sourceforce?
So what's your reason for even existing?
Portability, ease of development... etc... etc...
"No; the Sun is actually slowly warming up."
Ergo, the Earth is slowly warming up.
Yes.... slowly. Over a timescale of hundreds of millions of years. I would be interested how this could explain a recent warming over a period of decades....
good ol' H2O vapor is the main source of warming. I've heard it is responsible for 31 celcius increase in the planet's temperature. Nifty!
Water vapour changes in response to temperature. Having lots of vapour around did not help stop the ice ages caused by drops in CO2 level.
The single biggest contributor to atmospheric CO2 is "out-gassing" that happens in the mid-ocean plates.
No, it isn't. If it was, then the oceans would not act as a sink for CO2.
Mankind contributes some, but not much.
Nonsense. Volcanic CO2 production from all sources is less that 1% of the production by human activities.
My issue with all of the Global Warming scare is that it based on computer modeling of temperatures 100+ years out. Our computer models, are only maybe good 10 days out at any given time.
No. With systems like the weather different models are used at different scales. This is entirely appropriate for such chaotic systems. For example, we can't easily model things like turbulent fluid flow at small scales, but we can model the overall gross flow of such system at larger scales.
It's all cyclical. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
No, it isn't that simple. It is not purely cyclical - the weather systems are unstable. You can get dramatic changes over short periods of time. Like the Younger Dryas. We could cause such changes, and we probably are.
In the 1970's, there was a ton of hype and fearmongering about "Global cooling" and "the next Ice Age!". That was proved to be a bunch of BS.
It was not BS - it was accurate! There is going to be global cooling and another ice age. The question is when. However, a new ice age in a few thousand years is not going to help the immediate problem of global warming while we are dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, which will cause problems on a scale of centuries or even decades.
The sun is going to burn out in a few billion years. As it does so, it will cool and expand slowly enveloping the earth.
No; the Sun is actually slowly warming up.
It's pretentious and incorrect to think that something as insignificant as mankind is the main cause of global warming.
No; it is realistic and correct. We have already had a significant impact on the composition of the atmosphere in terms of CO2 concentration - the main source of warming.
The installer is 16MB, but the size of the jre once installed is ~50M. (The size difference comming from the fact that the installer is compressed)
But if it is only 16MB to install, who cares how big it is afterwards? 50MB is insignificant in terms of disk space these days.
Example: A basic MFC (like VC98) app will take half a second to load on a 64meg 400MHz celeron. Using the latest jre1.5.0_06, the equivalent do-nothing single form Swing app can take up to 4-5 seconds to load.
I think this load time leads to the "Java is slow" perception some people have. Thoughts?
On my 2GHz portable just about any GUI app takes several seconds to load, Java or not.
The moon has atmosphere now?
Actually it does; a very, very thin one.... which, I guess, is how it is in some bizzare way, less harsh.
The two views are not contradictory. Understanding *how* something functions or was put together doesn't mean it wasn't made. That logic is akin to:
I know how a PC works, and how it is put together, therefore Dell does not make PCs.
No, it isn't akin to that at all. It is akin to:
I know how a PC is assembled automatically, therefore I don't believe they are hand-made.
We have a vast amount of evidence that life evolves complexity, and we know an awful lot about how it can do this unaided. To assume that there is a designer when no designer is needed is irrational.
That's a really fallacious argument. I am fully capable of simultanesouly understanding how computers are made and still believing that Dell exists.
Trouble is, PCs aren't like organisms.
So just face facts and realize that if you "get it", most everybody else probably does too. Your're arguing a debate that doesn't really exist.
The debate exists, and is important.
No, it really isn't. That sort of thing is very
Should have previewed...
I mean 'very easy to say if, as I assume, you aren't one of those affected by the civil rights laws'.
agree with you on the economy, but the civil rights stuff is rather outweighed by ID cards, ASBOism, the CCTV state, ID cards (again, cos it really really is a bad implementation of a terrible idea based on a profound misapprehension about some of the fundamentals of security), virtually all the police, civil order, legal rights type legislation passed since October 2001...
No, it really isn't. That sort of thing is very
and above all, Iraq, I'm afraid, cancels out all the rest of it as far as I'm concerned. The man is lying, and IMO a criminal.
Actually, I am also a natural Lib Dem like you, but I have to say that this comment is outrageous. There has never been any evidence that he has lied - it is just something shallow and easy to say because it gives a convenient 'baddie' in a complex and unpleasant situation. You may disagree with going to war, and you are probably right that the intelligence services were incompetent (nothing new there) and provided false information, but to say that Tony Blair actually lied is just cheap politics and very lazy thinking.
I assume that letting Iraquis continue to live under a brutal child-torturing dictatorship was a good idea? I am afraid I agree with the left-winger Ann Clwyd, who unlike other 'armchair commentators' actually went to Iraq and saw the horrors. She remains in favour of the removal of a terrible leader and real criminal.
FWIW I'm mostly a lib dem, so arguing that at least New Labour isn't the Tories, whilst true, isn't a terribly high standard to reach.
Oh, it is; it really is. I am a gay man, and I was positively victimised under the tories for 20 years. It is easy for those who weren't treated as second-class citizens to say that labour and tories are 'somewhat the same'.
I would also point out that under the Tories I had a free education up to the age of 21, free dental treatment, and once signed on the dole for almost six months.
Yes, and the tories helped to dismantle those things by wrecking the economy. With far more in education and far more health services, there is no way all those these things could continue to be free (although higher taxes would have helped).