Yeah. Actually, It does. See, here's how it works. You preach enough Global Warming fire and brimstone and all the telescope money gets spent on worthless computer models. Hence, when a planet killer does show up out of the blue, the money that could have been spent on real science that could have saved us instead went to a stupid religion.
I have a question for you global warmers... Why don't you tell us how the planet managed to go into an ice age 450 million years ago when the CO2 concentrations were at 4400 PPM compared to our current 370... I'm waiting.
Could it be that CO2 is like a warm blanket. Keep adding CO2 and it's like adding blankets. Throw an extra blanket on your bed and you're warmer. Throw two extra blankets on your bed and you're warmer still. Throw an extra 30 blankets on your bed and you're not really that much warmer than you were with three blankets. Oh wait!! Fire and brimstone! Fire and brimstone!! And boogie men! Sleep under 30 blankets and you'll combust spontaneously! Oh my gawds, its teh global warmins!!
Dual use actually. Great for G-strings and cheaper than toilet paper! Reminds me of a story someone once told me: They went some poor ass foreign country and were charged $1 for a small square of toilet paper at the restroom. I asked them why they didn't just use the dollar and let the natives fish it out of the bowl. At least that way, they'd earn that damned dollar.
The U.S. is suffering inflation. It's not that the cost of metal is increasing, it's that the value of your currency is falling. Fast.
Damn it AC. You make a great point and then you go fuck it up by defining inflation based on an exchange rate! Inflation is being caused by the round-the-clock minting of new money. Simple supply and demand. I'd point you to the M3 report as evidence to that fact, but the US Government stopped printing it and *one* congressman gave a shit. I'll assure you, M3 is the only thing the Fed stopped printing. So stick that in your conspiracy theories and smoke it.
The "poor" Americans are some of the richest people in the world, just look at the obesity levels.
By your logic, Bill Gates should be the fattest man alive. Poor diets high in fat and calories but low in actual nutrition are generally the cheapest. See McDonald's for details.
The important bit is that the law enforcement agencies never got their hands on the records of the 22 Million innocent people (including mine, as I own a German credit card). I don't mind the fact that the banks did a search on their own database.
Really? That's great!! Because our next search is going to be on all accounts that have ever purchased anything from allofmp3.com. You know, that legal in Russia but illegal in Germany website that sells MP3s from RIAA artists without consent or royalty payments. You wouldn't happen to be a previous customer of theirs... would you? Don't worry, we'll know soon enough. Besides, two years jail time isn't really all that bad.
that CS degree was probably a little too light on the "science" to really admit you to the conversation.
Yet another logical fallacy. You were asked a direct question and you ignored it. I'll assume that means you don't know the answer to the question. In which case, you're shouting at someone for being ignorant when you yourself don't know. Maybe your degree was a little light on the science, because if you did study environmental science, you certainly don't seem to know very much about it.
There is a fair amount of difference in the professional opinion of a corporate shill who is paid to spout the company line, and someone who has spent the majority of their life studying something.
Yeah, "shills" like the worlds preeminent hurricane forecaster Dr. William M. Gray. He's been studying weather patterns since 1961 and he believes global warming is complete and utter bullshit. He doesn't believe money should be spent hand over fist on global warming computer models and instead should be put into real science like meteorology. Apparently, the global warming crowd doesn't like having their government welfare check threatened by people who might actually put the funds to good use though, so he's been labeled a "propagandist," "shill," "last holdout," and any other derogatory name you can think of. Funny, when Exxon spends a few million on research, everyone involved is a shill, yet when the US Government spends a few billion dollars on modeling it's important work! I wonder, why do the "climate scientists" shout down descent? It couldn't have anything to do with that government check, could it?
But apparently it takes a bored IT guy on slashdot to correct an international consortium of climatologists.
And why not? It took a bored minerals consultant and a bored economics professor to point out that the infamous hockey stick being touted by "real" scientist Michael Mann was actually spitting out hockey sticks with random data. If it has been accounted for, then please enlighten us... How much lower would the temperature be *EXACTLY* without the solar radiation increase according to the computer model you say accounts for such a thing?
I mean, we're all curious and you seem to know so much about it. So please, do share that information in between insulting the people who dare ask questions.
I don't know for sure if that's the case, but the fact that the ice depth is increasing in the interior doesn't necessarily refute climate change.
No, that is not the case. Greenland has been getting colder. It's very simple: The ice sheet atop Greenland has been growing, not melting. I have provided ample evidence to support this assertion. Evidence in the form of observations, not predictions and computer models. If you guys want to rationalize that thicker glaciers equals global warming, then go right ahead.
Your link mentions a thickness increase in the interior only; there's a decrease on the margins.
No. If you could read, you'd see that my article, published in Oct 2005, clearly states that there is an overall average thickening to the tune of 54 cm over an 11 year period.
Another study and that NASA report points to an overall decrease in ice.
An unpublished study according to the link you provide. Really, I'd love to see that study, but all you've provided is an article in National Geographic. Of course, we can all remember National Geographic led the global cooling craze in 1975. But now, I suppose, they are an authoritative source. Much moreso than a peer reviewed scientific journal...
Try again, unless you want to argue over how big the interior is relative to the parts that are shrinking
I don't have to argue. The information is provided in the article I linked to. It's very simple. The average thickness over the entirety of Greenland has increased 54 cm (21 inches) in a recent 11 year period. Is there anything else that you cowards would like to add?
Now if only the ice were getting thinner in Greenland, we'd have something to worry about. Unfortunately for you global warming scaremongers, that isn't the case. It seems the ice has been getting thicker in Greenland over the past decade or so.
And the only bubble to burst is the term 'Web 2.0'. The sooner the better.
Here's a neat trick. Replace every reference of "Web 2.0" with "AJAX" and watch slashbots come out of the woodwork to defend the new and improved internet. You say household cleaner, they say web two ohhh. For some reason, it seems slashbots hate the marketbots.
It would be such an obscene invasion of privacy, that I don't even believe Congress would do it.
The RIAA used the DMCA to violate privacy and subpoena ISP records with nothing but a signature from a court clerk. No judge, no oversight, nothing. It took a lawsuit to stop them. Congress was only shocked when gay pornographers started exploiting the law in the same way.
Your point is moot. The library does not pay a royalty with the money they collect for photocopies. They use it to pay for paper, toner, and copier repair. If the technology were cheaper, it would be the same. No one minds if you make digital images of the pages rather than photocopy them as long as you aren't disturbing anyone. So bring your digital camera or a portable scanner and save yourself a quarter a page. They won't care. I promise you. Does that mean they are promoting theft at the library?
Downloading those music files with her computer and paid for net access was like going into a store and robbing the place with your parents' car and gun.
Interesting. I liken it more to going to the public library and making a copy of a chapter out of a book with the Xerox machine. You didn't buy the book. Is the library therefore assisting you in stealing the book?
that's only because they have managed to convince some judges that seeding a file (or 1000) via P2P is on the same level as a full-blown for-profit piracy ring.
No, actually that was the 1997 NET Act which made sharing files with no profit motive a felony criminal offense. The RIAA didn't need to convince a judge, just pay off legislators.
thats a billionare donating only 1.5 million every 5 years for charity
I think you misspelled politician. Sony lobbied politicians to the tune of 1.235 million dollars last year (2005). Politicians and judges aren't going to protect you. There is no justice in a totally corrupt system like America's system of "democracy."
However, the imperfect models we are talking about are not based on any "climate religion", they represent the best "educated guess" humanity can muster, they have acurately predicted many events on a regional basis and are regularly used to predict the paths of cyclones.
plenty of computer simulations and estimates... the rate of methane emission levels out; and no one has a *CLUE* why.
Gee... if the models are correct... shouldn't they have PREDICTED this? The "iron clad" proof held up by all the global warming cultists are nothing more than computer models. Models that spit out hockey sticks even when you input random data. Models that predict death, destruction, fire and brimstone. However when it comes to major observations that these all knowing models should have anticipated, they come up short.
What shocks me: You are so sold on the global warming religion, that you can't put those two things together yourself. If the models are correct, why didn't they predict this?
Slashdot Mirror
So Global Warming looks like a comet?
Yeah. Actually, It does. See, here's how it works. You preach enough Global Warming fire and brimstone and all the telescope money gets spent on worthless computer models. Hence, when a planet killer does show up out of the blue, the money that could have been spent on real science that could have saved us instead went to a stupid religion.
I have a question for you global warmers... Why don't you tell us how the planet managed to go into an ice age 450 million years ago when the CO2 concentrations were at 4400 PPM compared to our current 370... I'm waiting.
Could it be that CO2 is like a warm blanket. Keep adding CO2 and it's like adding blankets. Throw an extra blanket on your bed and you're warmer. Throw two extra blankets on your bed and you're warmer still. Throw an extra 30 blankets on your bed and you're not really that much warmer than you were with three blankets. Oh wait!! Fire and brimstone! Fire and brimstone!! And boogie men! Sleep under 30 blankets and you'll combust spontaneously! Oh my gawds, its teh global warmins!!
Dual use actually. Great for G-strings and cheaper than toilet paper! Reminds me of a story someone once told me: They went some poor ass foreign country and were charged $1 for a small square of toilet paper at the restroom. I asked them why they didn't just use the dollar and let the natives fish it out of the bowl. At least that way, they'd earn that damned dollar.
The U.S. is suffering inflation. It's not that the cost of metal is increasing, it's that the value of your currency is falling. Fast.
Damn it AC. You make a great point and then you go fuck it up by defining inflation based on an exchange rate! Inflation is being caused by the round-the-clock minting of new money. Simple supply and demand. I'd point you to the M3 report as evidence to that fact, but the US Government stopped printing it and *one* congressman gave a shit. I'll assure you, M3 is the only thing the Fed stopped printing. So stick that in your conspiracy theories and smoke it.
The "poor" Americans are some of the richest people in the world, just look at the obesity levels.
By your logic, Bill Gates should be the fattest man alive. Poor diets high in fat and calories but low in actual nutrition are generally the cheapest. See McDonald's for details.
The important bit is that the law enforcement agencies never got their hands on the records of the 22 Million innocent people (including mine, as I own a German credit card). I don't mind the fact that the banks did a search on their own database.
Really? That's great!! Because our next search is going to be on all accounts that have ever purchased anything from allofmp3.com. You know, that legal in Russia but illegal in Germany website that sells MP3s from RIAA artists without consent or royalty payments. You wouldn't happen to be a previous customer of theirs... would you? Don't worry, we'll know soon enough. Besides, two years jail time isn't really all that bad.
that CS degree was probably a little too light on the "science" to really admit you to the conversation.
Yet another logical fallacy. You were asked a direct question and you ignored it. I'll assume that means you don't know the answer to the question. In which case, you're shouting at someone for being ignorant when you yourself don't know. Maybe your degree was a little light on the science, because if you did study environmental science, you certainly don't seem to know very much about it.
There is a fair amount of difference in the professional opinion of a corporate shill who is paid to spout the company line, and someone who has spent the majority of their life studying something.
Yeah, "shills" like the worlds preeminent hurricane forecaster Dr. William M. Gray. He's been studying weather patterns since 1961 and he believes global warming is complete and utter bullshit. He doesn't believe money should be spent hand over fist on global warming computer models and instead should be put into real science like meteorology. Apparently, the global warming crowd doesn't like having their government welfare check threatened by people who might actually put the funds to good use though, so he's been labeled a "propagandist," "shill," "last holdout," and any other derogatory name you can think of. Funny, when Exxon spends a few million on research, everyone involved is a shill, yet when the US Government spends a few billion dollars on modeling it's important work! I wonder, why do the "climate scientists" shout down descent? It couldn't have anything to do with that government check, could it?
But apparently it takes a bored IT guy on slashdot to correct an international consortium of climatologists.
And why not? It took a bored minerals consultant and a bored economics professor to point out that the infamous hockey stick being touted by "real" scientist Michael Mann was actually spitting out hockey sticks with random data. If it has been accounted for, then please enlighten us... How much lower would the temperature be *EXACTLY* without the solar radiation increase according to the computer model you say accounts for such a thing?
I mean, we're all curious and you seem to know so much about it. So please, do share that information in between insulting the people who dare ask questions.
If I were the Bush administration, and I wanted to know who was writing "propaganda" on Wiki, this still works for me.
I don't know for sure if that's the case, but the fact that the ice depth is increasing in the interior doesn't necessarily refute climate change.
No, that is not the case. Greenland has been getting colder. It's very simple: The ice sheet atop Greenland has been growing, not melting. I have provided ample evidence to support this assertion. Evidence in the form of observations, not predictions and computer models. If you guys want to rationalize that thicker glaciers equals global warming, then go right ahead.
Your link mentions a thickness increase in the interior only; there's a decrease on the margins.
No. If you could read, you'd see that my article, published in Oct 2005, clearly states that there is an overall average thickening to the tune of 54 cm over an 11 year period.
Another study and that NASA report points to an overall decrease in ice.
An unpublished study according to the link you provide. Really, I'd love to see that study, but all you've provided is an article in National Geographic. Of course, we can all remember National Geographic led the global cooling craze in 1975. But now, I suppose, they are an authoritative source. Much moreso than a peer reviewed scientific journal...
Try again, unless you want to argue over how big the interior is relative to the parts that are shrinking
I don't have to argue. The information is provided in the article I linked to. It's very simple. The average thickness over the entirety of Greenland has increased 54 cm (21 inches) in a recent 11 year period. Is there anything else that you cowards would like to add?
Now if only the ice were getting thinner in Greenland, we'd have something to worry about. Unfortunately for you global warming scaremongers, that isn't the case. It seems the ice has been getting thicker in Greenland over the past decade or so.
And the only bubble to burst is the term 'Web 2.0'. The sooner the better.
Here's a neat trick. Replace every reference of "Web 2.0" with "AJAX" and watch slashbots come out of the woodwork to defend the new and improved internet. You say household cleaner, they say web two ohhh. For some reason, it seems slashbots hate the marketbots.
It would be such an obscene invasion of privacy, that I don't even believe Congress would do it.
The RIAA used the DMCA to violate privacy and subpoena ISP records with nothing but a signature from a court clerk. No judge, no oversight, nothing. It took a lawsuit to stop them. Congress was only shocked when gay pornographers started exploiting the law in the same way.
Are we still calling it now that Lynksys/Cisco has a product called that?
I'm guessing yeah, still calling it that.
Could they maybe make one of those attractive robotic girls that does this? It would make the perfect companion for the average slashdot reader.
Don't Date Robots!
Your point is moot. The library does not pay a royalty with the money they collect for photocopies. They use it to pay for paper, toner, and copier repair. If the technology were cheaper, it would be the same. No one minds if you make digital images of the pages rather than photocopy them as long as you aren't disturbing anyone. So bring your digital camera or a portable scanner and save yourself a quarter a page. They won't care. I promise you. Does that mean they are promoting theft at the library?
Downloading those music files with her computer and paid for net access was like going into a store and robbing the place with your parents' car and gun.
Interesting. I liken it more to going to the public library and making a copy of a chapter out of a book with the Xerox machine. You didn't buy the book. Is the library therefore assisting you in stealing the book?
that's only because they have managed to convince some judges that seeding a file (or 1000) via P2P is on the same level as a full-blown for-profit piracy ring.
No, actually that was the 1997 NET Act which made sharing files with no profit motive a felony criminal offense. The RIAA didn't need to convince a judge, just pay off legislators.
thats a billionare donating only 1.5 million every 5 years for charity
I think you misspelled politician. Sony lobbied politicians to the tune of 1.235 million dollars last year (2005). Politicians and judges aren't going to protect you. There is no justice in a totally corrupt system like America's system of "democracy."
http://www.on2.com/company/news-room/press-release s/?id=222
There's really nothing new, or special about this technique. Definately nothing to 'keep firewall admins up at night'.
Ever get the feeling that this was submitted by someone who works at a telco in order to get panicky sys-admins who read slashdot to execute this.
However, the imperfect models we are talking about are not based on any "climate religion", they represent the best "educated guess" humanity can muster, they have acurately predicted many events on a regional basis and are regularly used to predict the paths of cyclones.
So you concede the models are wrong. Thank you.
plenty of computer simulations and estimates ... the rate of methane emission levels out; and no one has a *CLUE* why.
Gee... if the models are correct... shouldn't they have PREDICTED this? The "iron clad" proof held up by all the global warming cultists are nothing more than computer models. Models that spit out hockey sticks even when you input random data. Models that predict death, destruction, fire and brimstone. However when it comes to major observations that these all knowing models should have anticipated, they come up short.
What shocks me: You are so sold on the global warming religion, that you can't put those two things together yourself. If the models are correct, why didn't they predict this?