Please find a link to this new information - the only incident I have heard of regarded a bomb dating back to the Iran-Iraq war (when Iraq was a US ally) and caused two people to be treated for exposure http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/37222 55.stm.
No reliable tempretaure measurements exist from measuring stations which are not now deep inside the heat domes of major population centers so I'd like to know how it has been 'measured' reliably enough to state with a high degree of confidence that global tempratures are up 1 degree.
Depending on how far you go back - I believe both Scott and Admunsen took a fair few measurements in both Antartica, many people have taken measurements in the Artic, Himalayas, Alps etc. over the last century. None of which are deep within heat domes of major population centres. I'd also like to point that geographic evidence, in terms of glacier sizes are fairly good indicators of temperature change over thousands of years. Just because it wasn't done in the great state of Louisiana don't mean it ain't true. There are other places where people have been measuring this kind of data for a couple of centuries.
Although I am impressed that you can find enough data to link climate change to solar activity - either you have the data or you don't.
And in which publications did these mistakes get hihglighted?
Not the general press, but in the scientific press thus supporting the original article.
I like the opinion on the second hand smoke issue though - I don't think there is any significant medical study that has not concluded that second hand smoke is a significant risk to health. Yet you manage to claim that this issue is unresolved.
I'm not talking about certain lifestyles being repressed because they conflict with my values, I don't care if you want to smoke in your own house, if you want to share racist comments in your own home, if you want to smack yourself, or if (as I suspect) you are under the age of 14 I don't care if you want to work or if you want to work for 50 cents an hour.
However, any time you abuse a black guy in public or refuse to help them then your are infringing their rights. If you want to send your 12 year old kids out to work on the farm you are intefering with their right to an education, if you want to smoke in a public place then you are risking other peoples health. Isn't that you repressing them? If you don't believe in this (i.e. social responsibility) then you are by definition not a Republican, you are an anarchist.
Your post is a fantastic argument against right wing idiots like yourself...
I mean who but an idiot would argue that racism is something that shouldn't be banned. Can you argue that it is your right to abuse black people or to refuse to employ them?
As for most of the rest these are just put in place to ensure your rights do not infringe on other peoples welfare - smoking a cigarette has been banned in public buildings so others don't get lung cancer from your smoke, smoke in your home by all means (I'm a smoker and I would not argue that should force others to share my unhealthy habit), minimum wage is put in place not to prevent people taking poorly paid jobs but to make sure they get paid a wage that they can live on and who can possibly argue in favour of sending children to work?
What would you think if I said "I need more power for my fantastic lifestyle so I'm going to flood your village to create a hydroelectric plant. You're not going to get any benefit from this - it's just so I can have more powerful air-con, better TV, bigger fridge etc. You can either move, with no compensation or assistance, or you can die."
Wouldn't that be terrorism? But hey who cares - it's not you that suffers...
Maybe where you live the shoreline will disapear at the rate of an inch per 5 years. However people in the Maldives are a bit upset that their entire nation is expected to be under water in less than a century. They can't afford to build walls to stop this and why should they pay for the impact of someone else's selfish energy usage? Or are you suggesting that they should all leave their homes behind?
With respect as to whether we are responsible - that is still only an issue in the US press and US politics. A vast majority of scientists support this hypothesis and a vast majority of people believe it worldwide.
Again though I think you are making some rather glib statements - it's easy to make these comments when someone else will reap what you sow...
Nice response - "many of us are attached to geography as we know it today".
Please repeat that glib statement to those who will lose their homes, their livlehoods and very likely their lives. Do you think farmers scraping a living in the low lying areas of Bangladesh would appreciate your sanctimonious b*llsh*t when their means of feeding their families disapears under sea level? Are you unattached enough to your own house/land to let these people have it instead?
Why oh why is the future of the world's environments going to be decided by idiots like you? If you could keep the resulting problems from global warming within your own borders I wouldn't care what you did and neither would anyone else. But you can't...
Why should my country/continent/world suffer because you feel it is your God given right to drive a 3 tonne SUV that gets 8 miles to the gallon? What is wrong with trying to be more energy efficient, both in industry and personally?
It says something outrageous when your government denies the existence of global warming but yet comissions the Pentagon to investigate the security and military implications. Says to me that you don't care about stopping it because it might have a negative impact on your standard of life instead you want to look at using the military to maintain your standard of life at the expense of others.
Didn't want to rise to the bait but couldn't help it...
Interesting the diference in opinion on this topic in the US as compared to the rest of the world.
I have not seen any articles in credible scientific magazines, such as New Scientist, Scientific American, Science etc. that have dismissed the link between carbon dioxide and global warming or that man is responsible for the majority of the change in CO2 levels and I have not seen (in a long time) any articles in major European newspapers denying the existence of global warming. Yet the Portland Tribune is held up as evidence. The author has a Masters degree and works for a free market think tank - what is his Masters in? What is this author's scientific qualification for his claims?
Unfortunately it seems that in the US the press is full of this kind of political opinion masquerading as science. You can see the consequences on Slashdot - the discussion generally becomes divided into US readers and everyone else. The readers from the US denying the cause and effect relationship that appears to exist and everyone else expressing their amazement that people living in the world's most industrial nation do not seem to understand this simple science...
I've worked in the mobile telecommunications industry for a few years and it wouldn't suprise me if most of senior management and a good proportion of the engineers were active members of Al Queda. The number of times employees have caused lengthy but avoidable outages is incredible...
I always thought this was down to bad planning or sheer laziness or incompetence but maybe they were deliberatly attacking our communications infrastructure?
And what about all those terrorists attacking our networks on New Years Eve with their denial of service attacks cunningly disguised as Happy New Year text messages?
If, for example, the main central clearing bank in your country goes tits up then your economy could be seriously impacted. I think that could be mission critical and it's nothing to do with anyone dying (directly).
If my companies mission is to deliver widgets and anything stops me delivering widgets my mission is threatened. Therefore any software to support this would be mission critical.
You don't care, your President doesn't care, your fellow countrymen don't care. They're all alright, screw the rest of the world.
And you wonder why America is so unpopular at the moment?
Right - onto your points:
Kyoto is regarded as one of the least cost effective methods of curbing green house gasses by who? The US government? Japan and the European nations seem to think it is a workable approach and it is definately better than doing nothing. It may make US industry slightly less competetive if they can't cut cornrs with regard to polution - but that ain't my problem unlike global warming. You obviously do not understand scientific method either - science progresses by challenging ideas hence the scientific community will very rarely reach a total consensus. They are fairly close on global warming causing sea levels to rise though as there is plenty of data to back up this assertion - try looking in New Scientist, Nature, Scientific American for some information.
With respect to terrorism - of course I blame the terrorists for the attacks, but I also blame your idiot of a President for charging into Afganistan and Iraq without any plan of how to restore the peace (if they had a plan it isn't working) and managing to piss off the entire Arab world through their inability to be even remotely fair in their stance on Isreal.
I also get annoyed when the US repeatedly flouts WTO regulations but yet tries to enforce them on others depending on which is in it's own self interest. I agree that the US President should look out for American business first but does that mean they should behave like the Mafia - getting their way through bullying and coercion? What happened to ethics?
Interesting that you call me clueless when you just trot out the same crap you see on Fox news.
It is not an American charity, if it was to be described that way then it would be more accurate to describe it as a European charity. The European nations contribute more per head of population and have a larger total population than the US. It is not an uncaring and socialist (why socialist is used as an insult I will never understand) organisation, it has problems and is often hamstrung by some of it's members particularly the US. Being a bit more secular and liberal we tend to look more at the benefit to the recipients rather than see it as an opportunity to enforce our religious views on others.
With respect to the survey results - Egypt does not have 500 million inhabitants but I was applying this across the entire middle east. My assertion that the 20% that swapped were pro-west originally is simple logic and onviously beyond you. If they hadn't been pro-west then both survey results would have been 90% hating the US. And generally in the middle east it is the educated and wealthy that support the West.
The first assumption has no value - whether the Earth is cool or not compared to most of it's history doesn't matter. It suits us and our civilisation.
On the second assumption - almost all scientists involved in any kind of climate research would maintain that human action is very likely to be responsible for this. It's only in the US (out of the developed world) where there is any political disagreement on this...
Because the US pays a disproportional cost for UN activities?
Is this the same US that refused to pay any UN dues recently? The same US that gives less per head through government aid than almost any other western nation?
Even if what you had claimed bore any relation to the truth, twisting foreign aid so it furthers your religious views rather than actually being focussed on delivery the most aid is morally reprehensible whether you pay the most or not.
Oh, and I would disagree that there is no diference between 70% and 90%, it's probably 100 million people and most of those that would have changed their opinion would be the most educated and influential of those populations, in fact the ones most likely to support the west.
Very true - I was about as correct as the person I responded to when referring to terrorism, unless you count embassy bombings in Africa as attacks on American territory but not attacks on Americans and American interests in the Middle East.
Which recession was this that he turned around? The one that started after he entered office?
Interesting that you can make that claim when he is the only recent pres. (I believe) that has ended his term with more people out of work than when he started it.
Your view on terrorism is also interesting, how many times did the US get hit by foreign terrorists whilst Clinton was in office?
It is amazing how you can delude yourself enough to use two examples that were, in reality, screw ups by Bush...
You know I would love to butt out of your election. However when you country is responsible for causing me problems then I feel I have every right to comment.
Why should my house be flooded by rising sea levels caused by global warming because you guys want to drive 20 tonne SUVs and your government refuses to even sign up to the Kyoto agreement? Why should my city be regularly affected by terrorist alerts because your idiot of a leader has made the world a much less stable place? Why should my country (a very close ally of the US) loose business because of anti-competetive trade practices, such as import tariffs on steel, put in place illegally by your government?
Stop screwing over the world and maybe the world WILL butt out.
Slashdot Mirror
Please find a link to this new information - the only incident I have heard of regarded a bomb dating back to the Iran-Iraq war (when Iraq was a US ally) and caused two people to be treated for exposure http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/37222 55.stm.
Hardly a weapon of mass disrution is it?
No reliable tempretaure measurements exist from measuring stations which are not now deep inside the heat domes of major population centers so I'd like to know how it has been 'measured' reliably enough to state with a high degree of confidence that global tempratures are up 1 degree.
Depending on how far you go back - I believe both Scott and Admunsen took a fair few measurements in both Antartica, many people have taken measurements in the Artic, Himalayas, Alps etc. over the last century. None of which are deep within heat domes of major population centres. I'd also like to point that geographic evidence, in terms of glacier sizes are fairly good indicators of temperature change over thousands of years. Just because it wasn't done in the great state of Louisiana don't mean it ain't true. There are other places where people have been measuring this kind of data for a couple of centuries.
Although I am impressed that you can find enough data to link climate change to solar activity - either you have the data or you don't.
And in which publications did these mistakes get hihglighted?
Not the general press, but in the scientific press thus supporting the original article.
I like the opinion on the second hand smoke issue though - I don't think there is any significant medical study that has not concluded that second hand smoke is a significant risk to health. Yet you manage to claim that this issue is unresolved.
1. Stop the hate, and stop foaming at the mouth.
Kenneth Starr, Swift Boat Vets for Truth..... no the Republicans are never guilty of any hate or foaming at the mouth.
No you clearly do not understand.
I'm not talking about certain lifestyles being repressed because they conflict with my values, I don't care if you want to smoke in your own house, if you want to share racist comments in your own home, if you want to smack yourself, or if (as I suspect) you are under the age of 14 I don't care if you want to work or if you want to work for 50 cents an hour.
However, any time you abuse a black guy in public or refuse to help them then your are infringing their rights. If you want to send your 12 year old kids out to work on the farm you are intefering with their right to an education, if you want to smoke in a public place then you are risking other peoples health. Isn't that you repressing them? If you don't believe in this (i.e. social responsibility) then you are by definition not a Republican, you are an anarchist.
Your post is a fantastic argument against right wing idiots like yourself...
I mean who but an idiot would argue that racism is something that shouldn't be banned. Can you argue that it is your right to abuse black people or to refuse to employ them?
As for most of the rest these are just put in place to ensure your rights do not infringe on other peoples welfare - smoking a cigarette has been banned in public buildings so others don't get lung cancer from your smoke, smoke in your home by all means (I'm a smoker and I would not argue that should force others to share my unhealthy habit), minimum wage is put in place not to prevent people taking poorly paid jobs but to make sure they get paid a wage that they can live on and who can possibly argue in favour of sending children to work?
Too busy riting projekt plans to spell check....
You could at least spell honour correctly though....
The other side of this, having been both a developer and a PM is:
PM: When can you get it delivered?
LD: In a couple of weeks it's 95% finished.
(A week later)
PM: How are we progressing?
LD: Almost there, another couple of weeks, it's 95% finshed.
(Several weeks later)
PM: How are we progressing?
LD: Almost there, another couple of weeks, it's 95% there. But look at this cool feature I've added.
PM: Was that in the spec?
LD: No but surely everyone wants VI support in their RPG. Otherwise how are they going to grep for the items they are carrying?
PM commits sepeku.
You callous f*cker!
What would you think if I said "I need more power for my fantastic lifestyle so I'm going to flood your village to create a hydroelectric plant. You're not going to get any benefit from this - it's just so I can have more powerful air-con, better TV, bigger fridge etc. You can either move, with no compensation or assistance, or you can die."
Wouldn't that be terrorism? But hey who cares - it's not you that suffers...
Maybe where you live the shoreline will disapear at the rate of an inch per 5 years. However people in the Maldives are a bit upset that their entire nation is expected to be under water in less than a century. They can't afford to build walls to stop this and why should they pay for the impact of someone else's selfish energy usage? Or are you suggesting that they should all leave their homes behind?
With respect as to whether we are responsible - that is still only an issue in the US press and US politics. A vast majority of scientists support this hypothesis and a vast majority of people believe it worldwide.
Again though I think you are making some rather glib statements - it's easy to make these comments when someone else will reap what you sow...
Not quite true.
The UK mobile telco I work for will route an emergency call even if there is no SIM in the phone.
I believe (and I have just checked this with one of our Radio Access Network guys) that it is the same for any network...
Nice response - "many of us are attached to geography as we know it today".
Please repeat that glib statement to those who will lose their homes, their livlehoods and very likely their lives. Do you think farmers scraping a living in the low lying areas of Bangladesh would appreciate your sanctimonious b*llsh*t when their means of feeding their families disapears under sea level? Are you unattached enough to your own house/land to let these people have it instead?
Gnnnaaargh!!!!
I can feel myself on the verge of going postal...
Why oh why is the future of the world's environments going to be decided by idiots like you? If you could keep the resulting problems from global warming within your own borders I wouldn't care what you did and neither would anyone else. But you can't...
Why should my country/continent/world suffer because you feel it is your God given right to drive a 3 tonne SUV that gets 8 miles to the gallon? What is wrong with trying to be more energy efficient, both in industry and personally?
It says something outrageous when your government denies the existence of global warming but yet comissions the Pentagon to investigate the security and military implications. Says to me that you don't care about stopping it because it might have a negative impact on your standard of life instead you want to look at using the military to maintain your standard of life at the expense of others.
Didn't want to rise to the bait but couldn't help it...
Interesting the diference in opinion on this topic in the US as compared to the rest of the world.
I have not seen any articles in credible scientific magazines, such as New Scientist, Scientific American, Science etc. that have dismissed the link between carbon dioxide and global warming or that man is responsible for the majority of the change in CO2 levels and I have not seen (in a long time) any articles in major European newspapers denying the existence of global warming. Yet the Portland Tribune is held up as evidence. The author has a Masters degree and works for a free market think tank - what is his Masters in? What is this author's scientific qualification for his claims?
Unfortunately it seems that in the US the press is full of this kind of political opinion masquerading as science. You can see the consequences on Slashdot - the discussion generally becomes divided into US readers and everyone else. The readers from the US denying the cause and effect relationship that appears to exist and everyone else expressing their amazement that people living in the world's most industrial nation do not seem to understand this simple science...
Why a truck?
If the vehicle didn't weigh 3 tonnes you might get a few more miles out of it.
How about trying the same trick with a Smart car? It would be a fraction of the weight and might actually be able to travel a useful diference.
I've worked in the mobile telecommunications industry for a few years and it wouldn't suprise me if most of senior management and a good proportion of the engineers were active members of Al Queda. The number of times employees have caused lengthy but avoidable outages is incredible...
I always thought this was down to bad planning or sheer laziness or incompetence but maybe they were deliberatly attacking our communications infrastructure?
And what about all those terrorists attacking our networks on New Years Eve with their denial of service attacks cunningly disguised as Happy New Year text messages?
Not only that but it would make the resulting lead crystal (especially if cut) so much more classy than standard vitreous blocks...
Muppet!
If, for example, the main central clearing bank in your country goes tits up then your economy could be seriously impacted. I think that could be mission critical and it's nothing to do with anyone dying (directly).
If my companies mission is to deliver widgets and anything stops me delivering widgets my mission is threatened. Therefore any software to support this would be mission critical.
Oh dear...
You don't care, your President doesn't care, your fellow countrymen don't care. They're all alright, screw the rest of the world.
And you wonder why America is so unpopular at the moment?
Right - onto your points:
Kyoto is regarded as one of the least cost effective methods of curbing green house gasses by who? The US government? Japan and the European nations seem to think it is a workable approach and it is definately better than doing nothing. It may make US industry slightly less competetive if they can't cut cornrs with regard to polution - but that ain't my problem unlike global warming. You obviously do not understand scientific method either - science progresses by challenging ideas hence the scientific community will very rarely reach a total consensus. They are fairly close on global warming causing sea levels to rise though as there is plenty of data to back up this assertion - try looking in New Scientist, Nature, Scientific American for some information.
With respect to terrorism - of course I blame the terrorists for the attacks, but I also blame your idiot of a President for charging into Afganistan and Iraq without any plan of how to restore the peace (if they had a plan it isn't working) and managing to piss off the entire Arab world through their inability to be even remotely fair in their stance on Isreal.
I also get annoyed when the US repeatedly flouts WTO regulations but yet tries to enforce them on others depending on which is in it's own self interest. I agree that the US President should look out for American business first but does that mean they should behave like the Mafia - getting their way through bullying and coercion? What happened to ethics?
Clueless?
Interesting that you call me clueless when you just trot out the same crap you see on Fox news.
It is not an American charity, if it was to be described that way then it would be more accurate to describe it as a European charity. The European nations contribute more per head of population and have a larger total population than the US. It is not an uncaring and socialist (why socialist is used as an insult I will never understand) organisation, it has problems and is often hamstrung by some of it's members particularly the US. Being a bit more secular and liberal we tend to look more at the benefit to the recipients rather than see it as an opportunity to enforce our religious views on others.
With respect to the survey results - Egypt does not have 500 million inhabitants but I was applying this across the entire middle east. My assertion that the 20% that swapped were pro-west originally is simple logic and onviously beyond you. If they hadn't been pro-west then both survey results would have been 90% hating the US. And generally in the middle east it is the educated and wealthy that support the West.
The first assumption has no value - whether the Earth is cool or not compared to most of it's history doesn't matter. It suits us and our civilisation.
On the second assumption - almost all scientists involved in any kind of climate research would maintain that human action is very likely to be responsible for this. It's only in the US (out of the developed world) where there is any political disagreement on this...
Because the US pays a disproportional cost for UN activities?
Is this the same US that refused to pay any UN dues recently? The same US that gives less per head through government aid than almost any other western nation?
Even if what you had claimed bore any relation to the truth, twisting foreign aid so it furthers your religious views rather than actually being focussed on delivery the most aid is morally reprehensible whether you pay the most or not.
Oh, and I would disagree that there is no diference between 70% and 90%, it's probably 100 million people and most of those that would have changed their opinion would be the most educated and influential of those populations, in fact the ones most likely to support the west.
Very true - I was about as correct as the person I responded to when referring to terrorism, unless you count embassy bombings in Africa as attacks on American territory but not attacks on Americans and American interests in the Middle East.
Which recession was this that he turned around? The one that started after he entered office?
Interesting that you can make that claim when he is the only recent pres. (I believe) that has ended his term with more people out of work than when he started it.
Your view on terrorism is also interesting, how many times did the US get hit by foreign terrorists whilst Clinton was in office?
It is amazing how you can delude yourself enough to use two examples that were, in reality, screw ups by Bush...
You know I would love to butt out of your election. However when you country is responsible for causing me problems then I feel I have every right to comment.
Why should my house be flooded by rising sea levels caused by global warming because you guys want to drive 20 tonne SUVs and your government refuses to even sign up to the Kyoto agreement? Why should my city be regularly affected by terrorist alerts because your idiot of a leader has made the world a much less stable place? Why should my country (a very close ally of the US) loose business because of anti-competetive trade practices, such as import tariffs on steel, put in place illegally by your government?
Stop screwing over the world and maybe the world WILL butt out.