Erm, since when is 1850 "late" 19th century? "In contrast to its uncertain beginning, there is a consensus that the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th century."
(replying to my own post) Reminds me of the time Dubya claimed that Europeans demanding genetically modified food to be labeled as such also would starve Africans.
As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Even if climate is unchanging records will still increase. Citing increasing records as evidence of global warming is an example of a classic fallacy.
Well, oddly enough this cuts both ways: where are the record lows? If climate didn't change, there should also be new record lows. And no, counting 2008 because it was the coldest in the 21st century doesn't count - start 100 years ago.
Perhaps the earliest person to hypothesize the concept of climate change was the medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD). Shen Kuo theorized that climates naturally shifted over an enormous span of time, after observing petrified bamboos found underground near Yanzhou (modern day Yan'an, Shaanxi province), a dry climate area unsuitable for the growth of bamboo trees.
Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686, after a voyage to the southern hemisphere. Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century was the first to map the course of the Gulf Stream for use in sending mail overseas from the United States to Europe. Francis Galton invented the term anticyclone.[2] Helmut Landsberg led to statistical analysis being used in climatology, which led to its evolution into a physical science.
No, I cited The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Bill O'Reilly cheered for in 2006 when one of their studied showed what he wanted them to say (Liberal bias in the media during the congressional midterm election). The one lead by Robert Lichter, who once worked for Fox News. The one that obviously is much more truthful than you will ever be. And again the only thing conservatives are consistent in is their inconsistency - calling that "flip-flopping" would "show my Liberal bias", I'm sure
Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.
[...] when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative...
Boo-hoo, Obama gets much more air time being bashed than McCain.
This raises another good point, regarding the 'scarcity' of nuclear fuels alluded to a few level up in this thread. All the radioactive material we could be using to turn water into steam to power electrical generators is already sitting there burning at the same rate underground right now, it's just heating the surrounding rocks in a more diffuse spread than if it was all stuck into a reactor together.
We will run out of nuclear fuels at the same point in time whether we're using them or not, cause by their very natures, radioactive materials are always sitting there radiating. It's just a question of whether we take advantage of that energy while it's there, or just let it warm a lot of rocks a little bit until it all burns out.
Well, not really, because in nature these materials will just decay slowly, while in most nuclear reactors (not in RTGs and fusion reactors) a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction is used, that is the material is prepared in a way so that it becomes much more likely that a free neutron can hit a nucleus, which results in induced fission, a nuclear reaction which breaks the nucleus into smaller nuclei as well as smaller particles including some free neutrons, which can again induce fission in other nuclei etc. By doing so, the rate of decay is increased by several orders of magnitude, resulting in the material being "used up" much faster than it would in nature.
Gotta call horseshit on that one. I never hear PC users start stupid, adolescent arguments about their fanboy-love for their systems with me if I mention the reasons a Mac is nice.
Well, I do hear PC users start stupid, adolescent arguments about their hateboy-hate for everybody who has ever used a Mac and enjoyed it. Heck, I'm just answering to one.
Just FWIW, the last time I checked Apple had the largest product placement budget of any computer maker I could find. At least at that time, HP had something like 10 times the computer sales, but less than one third the product placement budget.
So this was about ten years ago. Well, good you are still fully up-to-date.
Anyway, I once read an article about a company that rents Macs to TV, movie and advertising productions - no money coming from Apple in any way or form.
Heck, why would Apple pay so the Apple logo gets taped over or turned into a pear? IOW, yes, Macs do show up without Apple paying for it.
Police reports are published in (almost?)every US paper. Often these are just arrest records, and if you are found not guilty you'll always have your name attached to a news snippet saying you were arrested for X offense.
It's a price we pay for having an open court system.
So does the arrest record come with your address? The court papers sure do.
So, what is your point? Surely, the images of me doing various things at home are theoretically available to my neighbor with good binoculars, who happens to be watching at the right time. Does that mean that it should be also made available to two billion of my neighbors on Internet? If so, is it too much for me to ask that at least I am identified by initials rather than full name?
Don't forget that the court papers will likely contain your address, so people will know where the show is performed.
Your words would have much more value if you would post your full name for us to Google any court documents about you - but you are too coward to even log in here.
Slashdot Mirror
"The last ice age was before the start of the Holocene, over 11,000 years ago. Not, as you claim the "late 19th centure[sic].""
Uhh, the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19th century.
Erm, since when is 1850 "late" 19th century? "In contrast to its uncertain beginning, there is a consensus that the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th century."
The last ice age was before the start of the Holocene, over 11,000 years ago. Not, as you claim the "late 19th centure[sic]."
Ah, but he didn't say ice age, he said "freakin' ice age" - a ice age for freaks.
(replying to my own post)
Reminds me of the time Dubya claimed that Europeans demanding genetically modified food to be labeled as such also would starve Africans.
Interesting theory - not backed up in any way, but, well, "interesting".
No one is denying climate change.
Well, let's say very few people in the last 3 years, before almost every sceptic said it.
No one even denies that human activity (or the sun or various natural cycles) influences the change.
Apart from about a hundred post in this discussion alone
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939
Ah yes, the Golden Age of the Dustbowl - something the Conservatives obviously want back.
Jesus Christ, will you actually look at the fucking numbers? Sunspot numbers and global temperature do not correlate!
Odd that you don't mention the people who claim that the same events are prove that there is no Global Warming.
As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Even if climate is unchanging records will still increase. Citing increasing records as evidence of global warming is an example of a classic fallacy.
Well, oddly enough this cuts both ways: where are the record lows? If climate didn't change, there should also be new record lows. And no, counting 2008 because it was the coldest in the 21st century doesn't count - start 100 years ago.
Perhaps the earliest person to hypothesize the concept of climate change was the medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD). Shen Kuo theorized that climates naturally shifted over an enormous span of time, after observing petrified bamboos found underground near Yanzhou (modern day Yan'an, Shaanxi province), a dry climate area unsuitable for the growth of bamboo trees.
Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686, after a voyage to the southern hemisphere. Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century was the first to map the course of the Gulf Stream for use in sending mail overseas from the United States to Europe. Francis Galton invented the term anticyclone.[2] Helmut Landsberg led to statistical analysis being used in climatology, which led to its evolution into a physical science.
No, I cited The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Bill O'Reilly cheered for in 2006 when one of their studied showed what he wanted them to say (Liberal bias in the media during the congressional midterm election). The one lead by Robert Lichter, who once worked for Fox News. The one that obviously is much more truthful than you will ever be. And again the only thing conservatives are consistent in is their inconsistency - calling that "flip-flopping" would "show my Liberal bias", I'm sure
Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.
[...] when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative...
Boo-hoo, Obama gets much more air time being bashed than McCain.
This raises another good point, regarding the 'scarcity' of nuclear fuels alluded to a few level up in this thread. All the radioactive material we could be using to turn water into steam to power electrical generators is already sitting there burning at the same rate underground right now, it's just heating the surrounding rocks in a more diffuse spread than if it was all stuck into a reactor together.
We will run out of nuclear fuels at the same point in time whether we're using them or not, cause by their very natures, radioactive materials are always sitting there radiating. It's just a question of whether we take advantage of that energy while it's there, or just let it warm a lot of rocks a little bit until it all burns out.
Well, not really, because in nature these materials will just decay slowly, while in most nuclear reactors (not in RTGs and fusion reactors) a sustained nuclear fission chain reaction is used, that is the material is prepared in a way so that it becomes much more likely that a free neutron can hit a nucleus, which results in induced fission, a nuclear reaction which breaks the nucleus into smaller nuclei as well as smaller particles including some free neutrons, which can again induce fission in other nuclei etc. By doing so, the rate of decay is increased by several orders of magnitude, resulting in the material being "used up" much faster than it would in nature.
Gotta call horseshit on that one. I never hear PC users start stupid, adolescent arguments about their fanboy-love for their systems with me if I mention the reasons a Mac is nice.
Well, I do hear PC users start stupid, adolescent arguments about their hateboy-hate for everybody who has ever used a Mac and enjoyed it. Heck, I'm just answering to one.
Just FWIW, the last time I checked Apple had the largest product placement budget of any computer maker I could find. At least at that time, HP had something like 10 times the computer sales, but less than one third the product placement budget.
So this was about ten years ago. Well, good you are still fully up-to-date.
Anyway, I once read an article about a company that rents Macs to TV, movie and advertising productions - no money coming from Apple in any way or form.
Heck, why would Apple pay so the Apple logo gets taped over or turned into a pear? IOW, yes, Macs do show up without Apple paying for it.
Yeah, Vista is da bomb.
And it just keeps bombing.
Oh no, it doesn't - it defaults to restart without showing a BSOD, so there!
Jerry: Hi, I'm a PC.
Bill: And so am I - but deep down inside, I wish I was a Mac.
Jerry: Well, try Vista, and you'll be one step closer.
Yeah, a junk mailer scanning court documents for addresses will give a fuck about robots.txt. Anyway: http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/01/google-spiders-sometimes-ignore-meta.html - even if it isn't malice, there's still incompetency.
Police reports are published in (almost?)every US paper. Often these are just arrest records, and if you are found not guilty you'll always have your name attached to a news snippet saying you were arrested for X offense. It's a price we pay for having an open court system.
So does the arrest record come with your address? The court papers sure do.
Here's the funny thing. If everyone's aware of what everyone else is doing, then it becomes much harder to blackmail people.
Yeah, but it's also easier to stalk people.
So to shut your stupid pie hole, all I have to do is slap a stupid case on your ass? Okay, YOU BROKE MY GARDEN GNOME.
So, what is your point? Surely, the images of me doing various things at home are theoretically available to my neighbor with good binoculars, who happens to be watching at the right time. Does that mean that it should be also made available to two billion of my neighbors on Internet? If so, is it too much for me to ask that at least I am identified by initials rather than full name?
Don't forget that the court papers will likely contain your address, so people will know where the show is performed.
And what method does she propose instead to allow the population to monitor abuses of their court system when it targets individuals?
The same they had before they could just Google the information? Oh, I forgot, Democracy wasn't invented before there was an internet.
Your words would have much more value if you would post your full name for us to Google any court documents about you - but you are too coward to even log in here.
The court record would say so.
So the court record would say that an innocent is scheduled to be on trial?