I see lots of people arguing that the melting and warming are not happening.
Let's take your argument and apply it to just about anything else. If earthquakes happened in the recent past, especially before fracking, then it means fracking is probably not responsible for earthquakes in any significant way. If avalanches happened in the recent past, especially before the invention of skiing, then it means that skier are probably not responsible for avalanches in any significant way. This is the problem with most arguments against anthropogenic global warming. If you change the context to just about anything else, it's immediately apparent how silly the argument it.
Yes, one might expect some warming. But 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade isn't just some. If we experienced that rate of warming for just 1000 years, far less than the time since the last ice age, that would be 20 degrees Celsius. It isn't the warming itself that's the problem, but the rate of warming.
Yes, it's normal for the climate to change and the Arctic ice to have low extents and high extents. That doesn't mean we can't be the cause of the ice melting today. Likewise, it's normal for there to be earthquakes, but that doesn't mean that the process of fracking can't cause manmade earthquakes. I certainly understand the scientific method. The warming we see today due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was predicted over 100 years ago, and today we observe that increased carbon dioxide and warming. I see no other credible explanation for the warming that is based on a phenomenon we have observed.
So the cardboard isn't as thick as the paper because if you compare them there is paper (some thickness) where the cardboard doesn't exist (has no thickness)? I'm not sure how you can't understand. The Arctic sea ice is growing smaller both in surface area and thickness. It is melting. The reason it is melting is because of the warming. Playing semantic games isn't going to convince anyone otherwise, except for people who want to be willingly deceived. If you showed some evidence the ice was actually recovering, that would be actual evidence for no warming. Instead, you provide anecdotes from what happened decades ago. Whatever.
I don't see anything in your post about the thickness of the ice. The anecdotes in your post relate to the surface area of the ice. Read the article again if you do not understand the difference between area and thickness. If you still don't understand, how about a simple analogy: a 1" by 1" piece of cardboard is thicker than a sheet of 8 1/2" by 11" paper, although the paper has more surface area.
Right. The warming that isn't happening that isn't causing the Arctic ice to thin. I suppose you can convince yourself of anything if you refuse to look at any evidence that disagrees with your conclusion.
People die. We are not immortal. But to claim that we don't have to worry about a poison gas cloud coming our way because people die anyway is ludicrous. The argument that X happens naturally, therefore we need not be concerned about X, only appeals to those who want to dismiss a topic they find uncomfortable to deal with.
Earthquakes have been happening for millions of years without fracking. Did the dinosaurs frak to create Earthquakes and tectonic plate movement back then? If not, then humans couldn't possibly be causing earthquakes due to fraking now. It's just simple logic! I guess the scientists involved in this research are just looking to get rich.
Oops, this isn't about climate research, so my troll science post won't get modded up.
Re:Emacs vs VIM: Who cares?
on
Vim Turns 20
·
· Score: 1
I learned vi years ago when I realized that on some Unix systems I may not have any other visual editor installed. It's still true today... when I install Fedora I have to use vi to edit files until I get emacs installed. I would recommend learning vi to anyone who uses Unix or Linux extensively. I would recommend emacs or some other editor to anyone else.
Just think if the guy were doing climate research. People would be claiming all climate research is a fraud. I wonder how many people will declare all psychology research is a fraud. I suppose many people do already.
We don't have just a correlation. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. So we have causation. Furthermore, the hypothesis that humans burning fossil fuels would increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would in turn lead to warming was put forth over 100 years ago. We ran the experiment and observed the predicted results. The only thing we haven't done is have a control, which would require a complete twin of Earth with a different energy source as the only difference. Since we cannot do that, we will never have the "proof" you desire. Your attitude is a convenient way of believing whatever you want to believe despite any evidence to the contrary. It's the same as ID proponents who explain away all evidence for evolution.
Who said the only cause of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is burning fossil fuels? All arguments I've heard against global warming are just like this -- they have an obvious and fatal flaw. There is a mountain of evidence to support the hypothesis that the climate is warming due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels. If there's any major flaw in the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, no one appears to have found it.
Yes, the best explanation is not proof. Science only gives good, working explanations, never proofs. Asking for proof that global warming is man made is therefore unreasonable. There will never, ever be ironclad proof, just as there is no proof the universe didn't spring into existence last Thursday, or that I am not the only sentient being in the universe and everyone else is a mindless automaton or even a simulation projected into my mind.
We're not "calling" results positive. The results *are* positive. Warming was predicted over 100 years ago. We keep confirming that we're observing the warming, again and again and again. Let me know of a study that shows no warming or cooling, and that would be a negative result.
Global warming was predicted to be caused by humans burning fossil fuels over 100 years ago. Every confirmation that the Earth is warming without providing any other plausible explanation for the warming is more evidence to confirm this hypothesis.
I see only one explanation for the recent warming -- increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels. Do you think there's another plausible explanation? I've heard increased solar output, and a change in the flux of cosmic rays, neither of which we seem to have observed. On the other hand, increased temperatures due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels was predicted over 100 years ago, long before it ever happened. It sounds like the best explanation available to me.
If someone is denying climate change today, I see no reason why they would not keep denying for the next twenty years. Even after dramatic climate changes in 50-100 years, I have no doubt that they will still say there's no proof that the changes were the result of doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. After all, there's no other Earth to run a controlled experiment on, so by definition there can never be any iron-clad proof. There's also no proof the universe wasn't created last Thursday.
Apple does not have a monopoly position. Microsoft was found guilty of having a monopoly in the OS market and using that power to unfairly compete in other markets, such as web browsers. It's not about bundling at all, except that is the specific way Microsoft abused its monopoly.
Yes, a teacher who was trained in the technique that the program used would be better. But that would cost far more money. It would require an additional dedicated teacher for more than six hours per day for a classroom of 25 students. Computers give personalized, individualized instruction for far less money than people, so it can be economically feasible to use them. As long as the computer uses a good curriculum, some time on the computer can do wonders.
Yes, a teacher is best. There are ways computer can help, by giving individualized instruction that a teacher may not have time to give, or may not have the training to give. I once worked for a literacy company that sold software that gave students personalized help to assist them in learning to read and write. From the results I saw, using the computer program for fifteen minutes a day really helped. In the writing samples I saw, the students often went from making unintelligible scribbles to writing coherent paragraphs within a year. Of course, the teachers still had to have some training, and the work at the computer was reinforced by giving the children cheap "books" printed on thin paper to take home, but using the program was an essential part of the instruction.
I've heard that JUMP Math may be a similar system for teaching math.
You can't just plop a student in front of a computer and expect that the student will learn better, or even learn anything at all. The curriculum needs to be in place, and the computer needs to do what a computer is best at -- interacting with a student repetitively without making a mistake or judging the student. And computers can even help in the U.S., especially in classrooms crowded with poor children who need far more attention that one teacher can give.
I immediately edited the Wikipedia article on Chrome to include this outrageous controversy, but my edit was reverted by deletionist fanbois who insist on removing any material that offends them! Can you believe it!?!?
Slashdot Mirror
I see lots of people arguing that the melting and warming are not happening.
Let's take your argument and apply it to just about anything else. If earthquakes happened in the recent past, especially before fracking, then it means fracking is probably not responsible for earthquakes in any significant way. If avalanches happened in the recent past, especially before the invention of skiing, then it means that skier are probably not responsible for avalanches in any significant way. This is the problem with most arguments against anthropogenic global warming. If you change the context to just about anything else, it's immediately apparent how silly the argument it.
Yes, one might expect some warming. But 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade isn't just some. If we experienced that rate of warming for just 1000 years, far less than the time since the last ice age, that would be 20 degrees Celsius. It isn't the warming itself that's the problem, but the rate of warming.
Yes, it's normal for the climate to change and the Arctic ice to have low extents and high extents. That doesn't mean we can't be the cause of the ice melting today. Likewise, it's normal for there to be earthquakes, but that doesn't mean that the process of fracking can't cause manmade earthquakes. I certainly understand the scientific method. The warming we see today due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was predicted over 100 years ago, and today we observe that increased carbon dioxide and warming. I see no other credible explanation for the warming that is based on a phenomenon we have observed.
So the cardboard isn't as thick as the paper because if you compare them there is paper (some thickness) where the cardboard doesn't exist (has no thickness)? I'm not sure how you can't understand. The Arctic sea ice is growing smaller both in surface area and thickness. It is melting. The reason it is melting is because of the warming. Playing semantic games isn't going to convince anyone otherwise, except for people who want to be willingly deceived. If you showed some evidence the ice was actually recovering, that would be actual evidence for no warming. Instead, you provide anecdotes from what happened decades ago. Whatever.
I don't see anything in your post about the thickness of the ice. The anecdotes in your post relate to the surface area of the ice. Read the article again if you do not understand the difference between area and thickness. If you still don't understand, how about a simple analogy: a 1" by 1" piece of cardboard is thicker than a sheet of 8 1/2" by 11" paper, although the paper has more surface area.
Right. The warming that isn't happening that isn't causing the Arctic ice to thin. I suppose you can convince yourself of anything if you refuse to look at any evidence that disagrees with your conclusion.
People die. We are not immortal. But to claim that we don't have to worry about a poison gas cloud coming our way because people die anyway is ludicrous. The argument that X happens naturally, therefore we need not be concerned about X, only appeals to those who want to dismiss a topic they find uncomfortable to deal with.
Alien landing zones? Some military thingy? Bizarre art project? Nope.
Chuck Testa.
Earthquakes have been happening for millions of years without fracking. Did the dinosaurs frak to create Earthquakes and tectonic plate movement back then? If not, then humans couldn't possibly be causing earthquakes due to fraking now. It's just simple logic! I guess the scientists involved in this research are just looking to get rich.
Oops, this isn't about climate research, so my troll science post won't get modded up.
I learned vi years ago when I realized that on some Unix systems I may not have any other visual editor installed. It's still true today... when I install Fedora I have to use vi to edit files until I get emacs installed. I would recommend learning vi to anyone who uses Unix or Linux extensively. I would recommend emacs or some other editor to anyone else.
Just think if the guy were doing climate research. People would be claiming all climate research is a fraud. I wonder how many people will declare all psychology research is a fraud. I suppose many people do already.
We don't have just a correlation. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. So we have causation. Furthermore, the hypothesis that humans burning fossil fuels would increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would in turn lead to warming was put forth over 100 years ago. We ran the experiment and observed the predicted results. The only thing we haven't done is have a control, which would require a complete twin of Earth with a different energy source as the only difference. Since we cannot do that, we will never have the "proof" you desire. Your attitude is a convenient way of believing whatever you want to believe despite any evidence to the contrary. It's the same as ID proponents who explain away all evidence for evolution.
If you don't know by now, you know nearly nothing about global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Who said the only cause of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is burning fossil fuels? All arguments I've heard against global warming are just like this -- they have an obvious and fatal flaw. There is a mountain of evidence to support the hypothesis that the climate is warming due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels. If there's any major flaw in the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, no one appears to have found it.
Yes, the best explanation is not proof. Science only gives good, working explanations, never proofs. Asking for proof that global warming is man made is therefore unreasonable. There will never, ever be ironclad proof, just as there is no proof the universe didn't spring into existence last Thursday, or that I am not the only sentient being in the universe and everyone else is a mindless automaton or even a simulation projected into my mind.
We're not "calling" results positive. The results *are* positive. Warming was predicted over 100 years ago. We keep confirming that we're observing the warming, again and again and again. Let me know of a study that shows no warming or cooling, and that would be a negative result.
Global warming was predicted to be caused by humans burning fossil fuels over 100 years ago. Every confirmation that the Earth is warming without providing any other plausible explanation for the warming is more evidence to confirm this hypothesis.
I see only one explanation for the recent warming -- increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels. Do you think there's another plausible explanation? I've heard increased solar output, and a change in the flux of cosmic rays, neither of which we seem to have observed. On the other hand, increased temperatures due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels was predicted over 100 years ago, long before it ever happened. It sounds like the best explanation available to me.
If someone is denying climate change today, I see no reason why they would not keep denying for the next twenty years. Even after dramatic climate changes in 50-100 years, I have no doubt that they will still say there's no proof that the changes were the result of doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. After all, there's no other Earth to run a controlled experiment on, so by definition there can never be any iron-clad proof. There's also no proof the universe wasn't created last Thursday.
Having a monopoly is fine. Abusing the monopoly to unfairly compete is not. Is Apple abusing a monopoly? If so, call the FTC.
Apple does not have a monopoly position. Microsoft was found guilty of having a monopoly in the OS market and using that power to unfairly compete in other markets, such as web browsers. It's not about bundling at all, except that is the specific way Microsoft abused its monopoly.
Yes, a teacher who was trained in the technique that the program used would be better. But that would cost far more money. It would require an additional dedicated teacher for more than six hours per day for a classroom of 25 students. Computers give personalized, individualized instruction for far less money than people, so it can be economically feasible to use them. As long as the computer uses a good curriculum, some time on the computer can do wonders.
Yes, a teacher is best. There are ways computer can help, by giving individualized instruction that a teacher may not have time to give, or may not have the training to give. I once worked for a literacy company that sold software that gave students personalized help to assist them in learning to read and write. From the results I saw, using the computer program for fifteen minutes a day really helped. In the writing samples I saw, the students often went from making unintelligible scribbles to writing coherent paragraphs within a year. Of course, the teachers still had to have some training, and the work at the computer was reinforced by giving the children cheap "books" printed on thin paper to take home, but using the program was an essential part of the instruction.
I've heard that JUMP Math may be a similar system for teaching math.
You can't just plop a student in front of a computer and expect that the student will learn better, or even learn anything at all. The curriculum needs to be in place, and the computer needs to do what a computer is best at -- interacting with a student repetitively without making a mistake or judging the student. And computers can even help in the U.S., especially in classrooms crowded with poor children who need far more attention that one teacher can give.
I immediately edited the Wikipedia article on Chrome to include this outrageous controversy, but my edit was reverted by deletionist fanbois who insist on removing any material that offends them! Can you believe it!?!?
Gas prices have always risen. All you have is a correlation between policies and prices, not causation.