Quibbling? I think that is the most important part. Or do you think 0.1C over 100 years is the same as 10C over 100 years?
Whenever there is some change that has to be made to the predictions it is never as large as you suggested. I defy you to name a single time that some error or new mechanism in climate science that has ever made such a difference to the projected outcomes.
If scientists found that the warming levels would be limited to 0.1C over 100 years then it would be major news and would cause joyous celebrations everywhere. Hell, if this kept us below the 2C target of the Paris agreement then it would be plastered all over the news sites. But this isn't that news. Nobody has even suggested in any quietly optimistic way that this is that news. For a 0.1C increase to be the case, the temperature graph would have to suddenly turn to be almost completely flat. Even if CO2 and methane levels stayed constant at current levels, the temperature rise would be more than that.
Also, no model shows a prediction anywhere near 10C, so your example was of a range that has nothing to do with the temperature rise over the next 100 years. Your estimates are widely inaccurate, as is your belief that this is anything more than a quibble.
I'm not a denier, and yet I know that it is extremely arrogant to assert that we *know* what is going on with the climate. We don't. We have a hypothesis. Most good scientists will say the same thing. Only arrogant fools assert brazenly that either (a) humans are definitely heating up the planet; or (b) humans are definitely not heating up the planet. We don't have conclusive proof of either.
The IPCC states that the evidence is unequivocal that global warming is occurring and that the odds are at least 95% that humans are the principal cause of it. It seems that the scientists of the world disagree with your assessment. Maybe they are being arrogant as you say, or maybe they just know more about this than you do.
For example, you think that the 200 year timescale is insignificant on a scale of 4.5 billion years, and yet it is the very short time that makes it significant. The temperature rise over such a short period is way above any naturally occurring climate change. You say that we only believe that CO2 and methane are involved, and yet the effect of those gases on the transfer of various forms of energy have been known by scientists for centuries. In fact, the idea that man's increase of greenhouse gases could result in the warming of the planet was postulated long before we had the measurements to back it up. Your notion of what scientists have established is over 200 years out of date.
Finally, another claim that you make that I suspect is wrong is that you are not a denier. It is a favorite tactic of climate change deniers to make it appear that we are less sure of what is going on by suggesting that there is still debate within the scientific community about the causes. This has gone on ever since that leaked Republican party memo that warned "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly".
Is it wrong to claim phrenology is wrong because there was one thing they hadn't factored. Hint. It's not one thing. It's one thing after another after another - an endless stream of excuses to account for the fact that the models fail to predict accurately. Funny but KE=1/2mv^2 is 100% accurate, every time, day or night, in any newtonian frame of reference.
There have been errors found in the models due to previously unknown factors (like the one being discussed now). It should be noted that these errors were found by scientists; the ones the deniers keep saying are in collusion to only back the existing theories and hide the mistakes. (Oops! Yet another denialist theory that is not borne out by the evidence. Why is it that these errors are not treated with the same passion by the ignorant masses?)
So for all the mistakes found, which ones have ever made enough difference to totally disprove the science behind the climate change theories? Answer: none at all. Some of the updates that have been incorporated into the models have shown that the older models actually underestimated the amount of warming going on. Still, it's far better just to say that there were mistakes in the models, and that therefore is must all be wrong, rather than have to admit that the models keep getting more accurate at showing that AGW is real.
It is the same as bringing up phrenology to show that scientists can get it wrong, and therefore they must be wrong now. That is simply the same fuzzy-headed logic that brought about phrenology in the first place. There have been many more times that science in general got it right, even against opposition by the laypeople; the link between smoking and cancer, that asbestos is dangerous, that electricity doesn't leak from the wall sockets, that seat belts and helmets save lives, that plants and animals evolve to become new species. Congratulations. You have become just another one in the long list of people who think they know better than the trained scientists who spend every day analyzing the facts and figures.
Deniers like to jump on any news they think will embarrass the scientific community and try to pretend that it is a game-changer. They love to say "I told you so" even though they didn't tell us so. No denier has ever said that the methane levels are lower in the atmosphere than predicted because of the effect of hydroxl molecules. They simply don't have the scientific knowledge to understand why they say that AGW is wrong.
On another note, it's a good thing that the Trump administration will gut the funding and ability of NASA and the Department of Energy from being able to help find discoveries that show us where the models are wrong (or even potentially bring about techniques to reduce the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere).
Don't you think that it is more arrogant to claim that all the climate models are wrong in their entirety simply because there was one thing that they hadn't factored? What will happen is that once some more research is done, the models will be updated and the outcomes will be affected in an insignificant way. But the graphs will continue to go in the same direction and none of this will suddenly disprove the theories. And above all, the temperatures will keep on rising.
The habit of the deniers to find hope in even the tiniest of adjustments to the theories and models show how unscientific their viewpoint is. It is the same as how they all claimed that the world was actually cooling and pointed to how in 1998 it dropped back to same level as 1997 because it was an unusually hot year. They ignored all the decades of warming that we have had up until that point and desperately clung to the smallest of blips on the graph (which has been shown since then to be entirely insignificant). And yet they are still so sure of their beliefs (without any evidence) that they call the people who do have theories, equations, facts, and figures arrogant!
You are misrepresenting what was said. The science was settled that an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by humans leads to a warming of the atmosphere. Nobody ever said that all climate research had been finished and that every aspect of global warming was known.
So yes, the science that was being discussed at the time remains settled because this new research does not disprove AGW. It is merely quibbling about the rates of change.
Finally some scientists that have the guts to say that they don't know why something is happening! Rejoice!
What a stupid thing to say. Perhaps you would like to cite an example of any scientist who claims that they know everything. You won't be able to, because you just lied.
Think about it, if you can. If scientists went around saying that they knew it all then they would put themselves out of business because there would be no need to do any more research. Scientific papers usually provide margins of error to show the parts where they still don't know all the factors. They also will conclude with where they still think that more research is needed, either because there questions that their research could not answer (or was out of the scope of the paper) or there were new questions raised by the results. That is hardly the thing that would need to be said if the scientists thought that they had all the answers.
What makes you think that they haven't produced reports stating what proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from what source. Have a look at the report to which I linked rather than just assuming that nobody talks about this.
Besides, who cares what the percentage is that can be apportioned to humans. If the equilibrium is out of balance, then it is up to us to solve the problem. Who else is going to if we don't?
Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?
You can at least start with the IPCC report for a round-up of the science, then look at the scientific journals that have been published since then for any updates that have been made.
I didn't really notice the people trying to monetize the web until around 2006
We have had ad-blockers since the 90s, so people were definitely out to make money (or at least to cover their costs). When Google AdWords was launched in 2000, I thought that this was a worthy step forward as they could be just simple text ads rather than the bandwidth-hogging graphic ads that had been the norm. At the time I was quite happy to leave those sorts of advertisements unblocked to support sites that didn't waste my precious data allowance. Sadly, these days we have to contend with bloated websites that use up our bandwidth and CPU cycles, as well as erode our privacy.
I hadn't thought of it that way. Heaven is a communist dictatorship. And presumably you can't get pregnant in Heaven (since you have to die to get in), so if there is sex then it would be purely for pleasure and not procreation.
It looks like there might be a lot of fundamentalists who are in for a bit of a shock when they die. That is, unless they find that there is no afterlife and so they would be in for no shock at all.
It certainly does seem unreasonable. I have done searches on people's names before, and quite often I find results for people of that name who are not the same as the one I am looking for. For example, what if I had searched for the judge's name? Am I am criminal looking to defraud him, or am I looking for a cartoon to have a laugh at made by as different person (presumably). A name is simply not a unique identifier.
I can easily imagine that Google will succeed in fighting this warrant.
Generally speaking, the first thing that I do when I watch any Youtube video is to turn off annotations and change the speed to 125%. For some slow talkers, I change the speed to 150%. This is to try to get close to the speed that I would have read the same information had the video just be a textual website.
As for the annotations, 99% of them are useless, annoying popups that distract me from the video. I can't imagine that the end screens and cards would be any more relevant.
Are you saying that the article is wrong and that there hasn't just been a study about Arctic ice loss by Qinghua Ding of the University of California (and others) published in the journal Nature Climate Change? Because that is what the article is about. Why would you not believe that? Surely that is not something that really needs to be proven.
If you want the proof of what the study talked about then you should grab a copy of the journal because that is where you will find it (quite correctly). This was the point of my original post to which you replied. Since you didn't seem to understand the difference between a study and news of a study then I don't think you will be able to comprehend the science behind the study, so maybe it is not worth bothering to get the journal.
Maybe next time, try to read the entire first sentence before replying.
I never said all the climate scientists in the world are lying; just a large number of them.
So the rest of the scientists have to be complicit by remaining silent. The more likely answer is that you are wrong. You can't get enough information just by looking at the temperature graphs to falsify all the research done in this field.
Saying that we are in a "warming period" is meaningless. That is just saying that it is getting warmer because it is getting warmer. Why is it a warming period? There must be some physics behind it. Is it because of all the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere is trapping the heat? If not, what is the mechanism that is causing the temperature increase, and how do you explain that the rate of increase is far in excess of what normally happens with natural variation?
The scientists who you deride show their workings, give tables of data and publish their formulas. All you can do is to tell us to just look at the temperature graph for the last century. If you want to prove the scientists to be wrong and corrupt then you have to provide some actual proof. And while you are proving that the science is wrong, you also need to prove your assertion that the scientists are willfully corrupt and are deliberately lying in order to receive grant money.
You are going to need some actual proof if you want to claim that the data is fake. The fact that you don't like the word trick is simply not enough. For a conspiracy as massive as what you suggest, you should easily be able to find dozens, if not hundreds, of disillusioned scientists who came into the profession thinking that they were saving the world. These people would be able to furnish actual proof massive levels of fraud. So where are they?
Instead, we have the same level of paranoid ravings as that associated with the faked moon landing and Elvis still being alive. It would be less laughable if it wasn't for the fact that deniers scorn the early temperature records as being unreliable and that scientists don't take the urban heat island effect into account, while simultaneously claiming that any adjustments made to old data to correct for errors are actually attempts to fake the data. You can't have it both ways.
Even if you eliminate the human element completely, then the same end result will still occur, although it may take longer to get to that point.
That is an unsupported supposition. As we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the temperature keeps on rising. Even if we reduce it, we only slow the rate of increase. It will continue this way until we can eventually get our emissions under the level that can be dissipated and absorbed naturally.
On the other hand, the natural swing found by the study will most likely swing back to become cooler again. It will not result in the same runaway warming that we are causing. There are other long term changes happening too, but they are much slower than we are experiencing now and will therefore be more manageable by humans, animals and plants alike.
The article doesn't need to prove anything, other than cite the study, because it isn't science. It is just news about the science. I am sure that the study itself, which was made by scientists and published in a scientific journal, would actually show their workings; otherwise they would not get published. But the fact that we haven't seen the study is not itself evidence that the figures were based on "no science what-so-ever".
If you walk into a room with your eyes closed, you cannot definitively say that there isn't a red ball in the room. All you can say is that you can't see a red ball. Similarly, if you haven't read the paper, you can't say that the percentages are unproven. All you can say is that you haven't seen the proof.
Should the original poster have read the study before discussing the percentages? If this were an academic discussion or an official policy document then absolutely. But this is just a forum on the internet, occupied by deniers who make no effort to prove their own claims. Regurgitating figures from the article is a step up for a lot of people around here who never get past reading the headlines.
Care to specify which sentences, or are you going to just continue to vaguely decry it as lies without actually addressing anything head on?
Ah, but that would be feeding the trolls. But if you look at the one bit of evidence that was provided (the link to Wikipedia article on global cooling), you find that this is the second sentence:
This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.
This directly contradicts the timeline presented that the science lacked consistency. The other massive claim is that there has been no real action to cut down on emissions. This ignores that we are moving to energy efficient products (even to the extent of banning the non-efficient versions). It ignores the construction of renewable and low emission power plants and the phasing out of old, dirty plants. It is such a stupid claim, and an obvious troll.
The rest is just the usual denier bullshit that has been addressed time and time again.
At least knowing it's due to naturally occurring phenomenon will allow us to avoid harmful carbon taxes that won't actually do anything to solve the problem.
Except that is not what this study found. Since man-made warming plays the larger role, it seems that carbon taxes will do something to solve the problem. And I think that you will find that the effect of carbon taxes on the environmental would not be described as harmful.
Of course, if all you are interested in is the economy, then it will survive and grow just like it has despite the abolition of slavery, etc.
Are you seriously saying that you can determine the cause of the warming just by looking at the temperature graphs alone? How is that supposed to work?
And how can you possibly have so much certainty as to be able to make the utterly fantastic leap that all the climate scientists in the world are lying just to make a buck. Don't tell me that you can also see psychological insights in temperature graphs too. I can't wait until you start solving crimes by barometric pressure readings.
Guestimation of ranges based on no science what-so-ever. Good one.
What? It's based on the study that is being discussed here. Based on the article, I don't have enough details about the study to find how they came up with those figures, but neither do you have enough information to say that it was based on "no science what-so-ever".
The return rate for Linux-based netbooks was significantly higher that Windows ones. I don't think that it can be said that people found that they didn't need Windows. Also, it was Vista that didn't work well on netbooks. They fixed this with the Windows 7 Starter Edition, which finallly replaced XP on netbooks.
Netbooks still exist in the form of... netbooks. The Lenovo Ideapad 100S or the HP Stream 11 spring to mind as examples of this format. The specs tend to be 11" screen, 2GB RAM & 32GB SSD & full Windows 10. I've had a few different varieties of this sort of thing, and they do a reasonable job even though I'm not a big fan of Windows 10.
I never thought I'd say this, but Microsoft may be the only organization out there that can save Linux from itself.
I think that Linux is doing well enough without Microsoft making their own distribution. Yes, Linux has had some problems with some aspects, but so has Microsoft. Just look at the changes that it made with Windows 8 and how they have had to backtrack some of their ideas with Windows 10. I am also wary about the direction that MacOS is going too, so there is no knight in shining armour out there to save the day for us.
But it is still possible for most people to find a distro or OS that suits their needs. If you have found that FreeBSD is right for you then good for you. I don't see Microsoft wanting to own their own alternative to Windows any time soon. Even their Linux subsystem was based on an existing distribution.
No. The IDE still runs under Windows. This extension uses SSH to run the compiler on a remote Linux system.
Remind me again why I'd spend money on this instead of just freely using eclipse or netbeans or something?
You don't have to spend money on Visual Studio. This extension works with the free Community edition as well as the paid version. But if you don't currently use Visual Studio then you don't need change just for this feature. It is only really useful if you also want to use the software to develop Windows and mobile applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Quibbling? I think that is the most important part. Or do you think 0.1C over 100 years is the same as 10C over 100 years?
Whenever there is some change that has to be made to the predictions it is never as large as you suggested. I defy you to name a single time that some error or new mechanism in climate science that has ever made such a difference to the projected outcomes.
If scientists found that the warming levels would be limited to 0.1C over 100 years then it would be major news and would cause joyous celebrations everywhere. Hell, if this kept us below the 2C target of the Paris agreement then it would be plastered all over the news sites. But this isn't that news. Nobody has even suggested in any quietly optimistic way that this is that news. For a 0.1C increase to be the case, the temperature graph would have to suddenly turn to be almost completely flat. Even if CO2 and methane levels stayed constant at current levels, the temperature rise would be more than that.
Also, no model shows a prediction anywhere near 10C, so your example was of a range that has nothing to do with the temperature rise over the next 100 years. Your estimates are widely inaccurate, as is your belief that this is anything more than a quibble.
I'm not a denier, and yet I know that it is extremely arrogant to assert that we *know* what is going on with the climate. We don't. We have a hypothesis. Most good scientists will say the same thing. Only arrogant fools assert brazenly that either (a) humans are definitely heating up the planet; or (b) humans are definitely not heating up the planet. We don't have conclusive proof of either.
The IPCC states that the evidence is unequivocal that global warming is occurring and that the odds are at least 95% that humans are the principal cause of it. It seems that the scientists of the world disagree with your assessment. Maybe they are being arrogant as you say, or maybe they just know more about this than you do.
For example, you think that the 200 year timescale is insignificant on a scale of 4.5 billion years, and yet it is the very short time that makes it significant. The temperature rise over such a short period is way above any naturally occurring climate change. You say that we only believe that CO2 and methane are involved, and yet the effect of those gases on the transfer of various forms of energy have been known by scientists for centuries. In fact, the idea that man's increase of greenhouse gases could result in the warming of the planet was postulated long before we had the measurements to back it up. Your notion of what scientists have established is over 200 years out of date.
Finally, another claim that you make that I suspect is wrong is that you are not a denier. It is a favorite tactic of climate change deniers to make it appear that we are less sure of what is going on by suggesting that there is still debate within the scientific community about the causes. This has gone on ever since that leaked Republican party memo that warned "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly".
Is it wrong to claim phrenology is wrong because there was one thing they hadn't factored. Hint. It's not one thing. It's one thing after another after another - an endless stream of excuses to account for the fact that the models fail to predict accurately. Funny but KE=1/2mv^2 is 100% accurate, every time, day or night, in any newtonian frame of reference.
There have been errors found in the models due to previously unknown factors (like the one being discussed now). It should be noted that these errors were found by scientists; the ones the deniers keep saying are in collusion to only back the existing theories and hide the mistakes. (Oops! Yet another denialist theory that is not borne out by the evidence. Why is it that these errors are not treated with the same passion by the ignorant masses?)
So for all the mistakes found, which ones have ever made enough difference to totally disprove the science behind the climate change theories? Answer: none at all. Some of the updates that have been incorporated into the models have shown that the older models actually underestimated the amount of warming going on. Still, it's far better just to say that there were mistakes in the models, and that therefore is must all be wrong, rather than have to admit that the models keep getting more accurate at showing that AGW is real.
It is the same as bringing up phrenology to show that scientists can get it wrong, and therefore they must be wrong now. That is simply the same fuzzy-headed logic that brought about phrenology in the first place. There have been many more times that science in general got it right, even against opposition by the laypeople; the link between smoking and cancer, that asbestos is dangerous, that electricity doesn't leak from the wall sockets, that seat belts and helmets save lives, that plants and animals evolve to become new species. Congratulations. You have become just another one in the long list of people who think they know better than the trained scientists who spend every day analyzing the facts and figures.
Deniers like to jump on any news they think will embarrass the scientific community and try to pretend that it is a game-changer. They love to say "I told you so" even though they didn't tell us so. No denier has ever said that the methane levels are lower in the atmosphere than predicted because of the effect of hydroxl molecules. They simply don't have the scientific knowledge to understand why they say that AGW is wrong.
On another note, it's a good thing that the Trump administration will gut the funding and ability of NASA and the Department of Energy from being able to help find discoveries that show us where the models are wrong (or even potentially bring about techniques to reduce the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere).
Don't you think that it is more arrogant to claim that all the climate models are wrong in their entirety simply because there was one thing that they hadn't factored? What will happen is that once some more research is done, the models will be updated and the outcomes will be affected in an insignificant way. But the graphs will continue to go in the same direction and none of this will suddenly disprove the theories. And above all, the temperatures will keep on rising.
The habit of the deniers to find hope in even the tiniest of adjustments to the theories and models show how unscientific their viewpoint is. It is the same as how they all claimed that the world was actually cooling and pointed to how in 1998 it dropped back to same level as 1997 because it was an unusually hot year. They ignored all the decades of warming that we have had up until that point and desperately clung to the smallest of blips on the graph (which has been shown since then to be entirely insignificant). And yet they are still so sure of their beliefs (without any evidence) that they call the people who do have theories, equations, facts, and figures arrogant!
You are misrepresenting what was said. The science was settled that an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by humans leads to a warming of the atmosphere. Nobody ever said that all climate research had been finished and that every aspect of global warming was known.
So yes, the science that was being discussed at the time remains settled because this new research does not disprove AGW. It is merely quibbling about the rates of change.
Finally some scientists that have the guts to say that they don't know why something is happening! Rejoice!
What a stupid thing to say. Perhaps you would like to cite an example of any scientist who claims that they know everything. You won't be able to, because you just lied.
Think about it, if you can. If scientists went around saying that they knew it all then they would put themselves out of business because there would be no need to do any more research. Scientific papers usually provide margins of error to show the parts where they still don't know all the factors. They also will conclude with where they still think that more research is needed, either because there questions that their research could not answer (or was out of the scope of the paper) or there were new questions raised by the results. That is hardly the thing that would need to be said if the scientists thought that they had all the answers.
What makes you think that they haven't produced reports stating what proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from what source. Have a look at the report to which I linked rather than just assuming that nobody talks about this.
Besides, who cares what the percentage is that can be apportioned to humans. If the equilibrium is out of balance, then it is up to us to solve the problem. Who else is going to if we don't?
Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?
You can at least start with the IPCC report for a round-up of the science, then look at the scientific journals that have been published since then for any updates that have been made.
I didn't really notice the people trying to monetize the web until around 2006
We have had ad-blockers since the 90s, so people were definitely out to make money (or at least to cover their costs). When Google AdWords was launched in 2000, I thought that this was a worthy step forward as they could be just simple text ads rather than the bandwidth-hogging graphic ads that had been the norm. At the time I was quite happy to leave those sorts of advertisements unblocked to support sites that didn't waste my precious data allowance. Sadly, these days we have to contend with bloated websites that use up our bandwidth and CPU cycles, as well as erode our privacy.
I hadn't thought of it that way. Heaven is a communist dictatorship. And presumably you can't get pregnant in Heaven (since you have to die to get in), so if there is sex then it would be purely for pleasure and not procreation.
It looks like there might be a lot of fundamentalists who are in for a bit of a shock when they die. That is, unless they find that there is no afterlife and so they would be in for no shock at all.
It certainly does seem unreasonable. I have done searches on people's names before, and quite often I find results for people of that name who are not the same as the one I am looking for. For example, what if I had searched for the judge's name? Am I am criminal looking to defraud him, or am I looking for a cartoon to have a laugh at made by as different person (presumably). A name is simply not a unique identifier.
I can easily imagine that Google will succeed in fighting this warrant.
Generally speaking, the first thing that I do when I watch any Youtube video is to turn off annotations and change the speed to 125%. For some slow talkers, I change the speed to 150%. This is to try to get close to the speed that I would have read the same information had the video just be a textual website.
As for the annotations, 99% of them are useless, annoying popups that distract me from the video. I can't imagine that the end screens and cards would be any more relevant.
Are you saying that the article is wrong and that there hasn't just been a study about Arctic ice loss by Qinghua Ding of the University of California (and others) published in the journal Nature Climate Change? Because that is what the article is about. Why would you not believe that? Surely that is not something that really needs to be proven.
If you want the proof of what the study talked about then you should grab a copy of the journal because that is where you will find it (quite correctly). This was the point of my original post to which you replied. Since you didn't seem to understand the difference between a study and news of a study then I don't think you will be able to comprehend the science behind the study, so maybe it is not worth bothering to get the journal.
Maybe next time, try to read the entire first sentence before replying.
I never said all the climate scientists in the world are lying; just a large number of them.
So the rest of the scientists have to be complicit by remaining silent. The more likely answer is that you are wrong. You can't get enough information just by looking at the temperature graphs to falsify all the research done in this field.
Saying that we are in a "warming period" is meaningless. That is just saying that it is getting warmer because it is getting warmer. Why is it a warming period? There must be some physics behind it. Is it because of all the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere is trapping the heat? If not, what is the mechanism that is causing the temperature increase, and how do you explain that the rate of increase is far in excess of what normally happens with natural variation?
The scientists who you deride show their workings, give tables of data and publish their formulas. All you can do is to tell us to just look at the temperature graph for the last century. If you want to prove the scientists to be wrong and corrupt then you have to provide some actual proof. And while you are proving that the science is wrong, you also need to prove your assertion that the scientists are willfully corrupt and are deliberately lying in order to receive grant money.
Thanks for the link. I shall read through that once I have had a few coffees to get the brain going!
You are going to need some actual proof if you want to claim that the data is fake. The fact that you don't like the word trick is simply not enough. For a conspiracy as massive as what you suggest, you should easily be able to find dozens, if not hundreds, of disillusioned scientists who came into the profession thinking that they were saving the world. These people would be able to furnish actual proof massive levels of fraud. So where are they?
Instead, we have the same level of paranoid ravings as that associated with the faked moon landing and Elvis still being alive. It would be less laughable if it wasn't for the fact that deniers scorn the early temperature records as being unreliable and that scientists don't take the urban heat island effect into account, while simultaneously claiming that any adjustments made to old data to correct for errors are actually attempts to fake the data. You can't have it both ways.
Even if you eliminate the human element completely, then the same end result will still occur, although it may take longer to get to that point.
That is an unsupported supposition. As we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the temperature keeps on rising. Even if we reduce it, we only slow the rate of increase. It will continue this way until we can eventually get our emissions under the level that can be dissipated and absorbed naturally.
On the other hand, the natural swing found by the study will most likely swing back to become cooler again. It will not result in the same runaway warming that we are causing. There are other long term changes happening too, but they are much slower than we are experiencing now and will therefore be more manageable by humans, animals and plants alike.
The article doesn't need to prove anything, other than cite the study, because it isn't science. It is just news about the science. I am sure that the study itself, which was made by scientists and published in a scientific journal, would actually show their workings; otherwise they would not get published. But the fact that we haven't seen the study is not itself evidence that the figures were based on "no science what-so-ever".
If you walk into a room with your eyes closed, you cannot definitively say that there isn't a red ball in the room. All you can say is that you can't see a red ball. Similarly, if you haven't read the paper, you can't say that the percentages are unproven. All you can say is that you haven't seen the proof.
Should the original poster have read the study before discussing the percentages? If this were an academic discussion or an official policy document then absolutely. But this is just a forum on the internet, occupied by deniers who make no effort to prove their own claims. Regurgitating figures from the article is a step up for a lot of people around here who never get past reading the headlines.
Care to specify which sentences, or are you going to just continue to vaguely decry it as lies without actually addressing anything head on?
Ah, but that would be feeding the trolls. But if you look at the one bit of evidence that was provided (the link to Wikipedia article on global cooling), you find that this is the second sentence:
This directly contradicts the timeline presented that the science lacked consistency. The other massive claim is that there has been no real action to cut down on emissions. This ignores that we are moving to energy efficient products (even to the extent of banning the non-efficient versions). It ignores the construction of renewable and low emission power plants and the phasing out of old, dirty plants. It is such a stupid claim, and an obvious troll.
The rest is just the usual denier bullshit that has been addressed time and time again.
At least knowing it's due to naturally occurring phenomenon will allow us to avoid harmful carbon taxes that won't actually do anything to solve the problem.
Except that is not what this study found. Since man-made warming plays the larger role, it seems that carbon taxes will do something to solve the problem. And I think that you will find that the effect of carbon taxes on the environmental would not be described as harmful.
Of course, if all you are interested in is the economy, then it will survive and grow just like it has despite the abolition of slavery, etc.
Are you seriously saying that you can determine the cause of the warming just by looking at the temperature graphs alone? How is that supposed to work?
And how can you possibly have so much certainty as to be able to make the utterly fantastic leap that all the climate scientists in the world are lying just to make a buck. Don't tell me that you can also see psychological insights in temperature graphs too. I can't wait until you start solving crimes by barometric pressure readings.
Guestimation of ranges based on no science what-so-ever. Good one.
What? It's based on the study that is being discussed here. Based on the article, I don't have enough details about the study to find how they came up with those figures, but neither do you have enough information to say that it was based on "no science what-so-ever".
The return rate for Linux-based netbooks was significantly higher that Windows ones. I don't think that it can be said that people found that they didn't need Windows. Also, it was Vista that didn't work well on netbooks. They fixed this with the Windows 7 Starter Edition, which finallly replaced XP on netbooks.
Netbooks still exist in the form of... netbooks. The Lenovo Ideapad 100S or the HP Stream 11 spring to mind as examples of this format. The specs tend to be 11" screen, 2GB RAM & 32GB SSD & full Windows 10. I've had a few different varieties of this sort of thing, and they do a reasonable job even though I'm not a big fan of Windows 10.
I never thought I'd say this, but Microsoft may be the only organization out there that can save Linux from itself.
I think that Linux is doing well enough without Microsoft making their own distribution. Yes, Linux has had some problems with some aspects, but so has Microsoft. Just look at the changes that it made with Windows 8 and how they have had to backtrack some of their ideas with Windows 10. I am also wary about the direction that MacOS is going too, so there is no knight in shining armour out there to save the day for us.
But it is still possible for most people to find a distro or OS that suits their needs. If you have found that FreeBSD is right for you then good for you. I don't see Microsoft wanting to own their own alternative to Windows any time soon. Even their Linux subsystem was based on an existing distribution.
So basically they're just porting the IDE.
No. The IDE still runs under Windows. This extension uses SSH to run the compiler on a remote Linux system.
Remind me again why I'd spend money on this instead of just freely using eclipse or netbeans or something?
You don't have to spend money on Visual Studio. This extension works with the free Community edition as well as the paid version. But if you don't currently use Visual Studio then you don't need change just for this feature. It is only really useful if you also want to use the software to develop Windows and mobile applications.