Along with the predictions that it would desertify except for the ones that said it would glaciate.
By 2012? Who were they then? These vague claims that someone made some prediction are worthless unless we know who, whether they had widespread peer support, and what precicely the prediction was and in what time scale.
The mainstream scientific opinion for the last 20+ years that it would get hotter and wetter have indeed been right though.
52 million years ago is easily long enough for tectonics to feature. The continents weren't in the same places they are now, and ocean currents around Antarctica flowed very differently.
Oh, and it was also a time of high CO2.
So I wouldn't go thinking you've made some great rebuttal of AGW there if I was you.
It's long been predicted as the most likely scenario that global warming will make Britain wetter. Britain's weather mostly comes from the Atlantic, and warmer weather causes more evaporation, which turns to rain as it hits land masses.
Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Anyone who talks of climate trends with anything less that a 30 year view is an idiot. However for those idiots that say "Global warming has stalled for the last 10 years" it's nice to rub their faces in their own shit.
You're the one to talk? "statistically, you don't even have a passport" = that's the dumbest thing I read all day.
Population of USA = 314 million. Number with passports = 110 million.
And comparing this story with the suicide of Megan Meier isn't just fucking stupid, it's also rather fucked up. You're using her for shock value, even though it's apples and oranges, just because you can't argue for shit. Fucking shame on you.
Come back to me when you're mature enough to know that saying fuck isn't actually making an argument.
And save her from what? From doing something stupid to make a point? I know that sounds fucking callous
Yes it does. Basically you're championing the right of internet trolls to say what they want, over the victims who are genuinely hurt by this. And saying people should have a thicker skin is no answer. People have the resilience to abuse that they have. Some have more, some have less. The conscious mind is like the tip of an ice-berg, with the sub-concious mind responsible for far more of how we react. And the concious mind is not in control of how the sub-concious mind reacts. At best it can influence it a little.
Again, it's not the victims fault they are damaged by abusers behaviour.
It's not so black and white. Free speech can be wrong. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is the classic example. Racist abuse for another example is certainly wrong.
if you go some place where people have the ability to say what they think, you better brace yourself because its coming your way!
People should have a thicker skin, its only words and words cannot hurt you, didn't they teach you that in school? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
The world is more complicated than the trite mantras they taught you at school.
The fact that bankers should be facing more and harsher repercussions of their actions, doesn't have any bearing on whether or not thins kid should face the repercussions of his actions.
I certainly don't see any sign of Aspergers in his behaviour. There seems to be no lack of understanding on his part about how what he says can upset other people. He's not offending through lack of social ability. Indeed he displays a reasonable skill in being deliberately offensive.
No one's talking about a new law. He's been questioned relating to offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. That's a law of 24 years standing. 7 years older than the troll in question.
What you are really suggesting is that a right to be sheltered from the opinions of others exists.
This wasn't opinion, it was abuse. There might be borderline cases between these two, but the tweets in this case aren't borderline.
What you are really suggesting is we should legislate speaking to one another. Its not practical.
It's perfectly practical. It's nothing new. Libel, slander, racial hatred, death threats, misuse of the postal service, etc. etc.
The correct response is for the Athlete to either do nothing, or to tweet back and say, "you don't my dad; and your a real jerk who will probably never get laid, have sucky life."
Which will do precisely nothing to stop an abuser. And yet people have committed suicide (and murder) as a result of cyberbullying. Do you have a suggestion that could really work to stop that happening, other than the law?
I'm not sure how you progress from asking two questions (one of which is obvious by opening a dictionary or encyclopedia, the second of which is irrelevant) to saying Apple is free to engage in censorship.
a) It isn't censorship, and a dictionary makes it obvious it's not. b) Therefore I not only DIDN't say Apple are free to engage in censorship, I wouldn't. You're in the land of delusion. c) "You're arguing that it's okay to bar people of knowledge so long as you're 'only' blocking a product which is tied to a financial interest" More delusion. Nothing even slightly like that was said by me.
I recommend following arguments more logically next time.
I recommend you see a shrink to deal with your delusions.
Slashdot Mirror
Along with the predictions that it would desertify except for the ones that said it would glaciate.
By 2012? Who were they then? These vague claims that someone made some prediction are worthless unless we know who, whether they had widespread peer support, and what precicely the prediction was and in what time scale.
The mainstream scientific opinion for the last 20+ years that it would get hotter and wetter have indeed been right though.
If that's the best you've got...
And yet he doesn't say "we would soon never see snow."
"Heavy snow will return occasionally," says Dr Viner, "but when it does we will be unprepared"
Which is pretty much where we are in England.
52 million years ago is easily long enough for tectonics to feature. The continents weren't in the same places they are now, and ocean currents around Antarctica flowed very differently.
Oh, and it was also a time of high CO2.
So I wouldn't go thinking you've made some great rebuttal of AGW there if I was you.
It's long been predicted as the most likely scenario that global warming will make Britain wetter. Britain's weather mostly comes from the Atlantic, and warmer weather causes more evaporation, which turns to rain as it hits land masses.
Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Anyone who talks of climate trends with anything less that a 30 year view is an idiot. However for those idiots that say "Global warming has stalled for the last 10 years" it's nice to rub their faces in their own shit.
Since the temperature isn't any hotter than it was in 1936
In what way is 0.2 degrees higher temperature than July 1936 not hotter?
The global alarmists said (in 2001) that we would soon never see snow.
Who precisely said that, and what specifically did they say.
You don't seem to be too good with the facts.
Cold temperatures in Celsius. Hot temperatures in Fahrenheit. It's the natural way.
In 1936, according to the article, it was almost as warm. Basically, a "so what?".
Never read The Grapes of Wrath I take it.
0.2 degrees higher than the the hottest month on record is certainly a notable event.
Of course they can. Just as anyone can hold a seance, or go ghost hunting. It's all bunk, so do as you please!
You're the one to talk? "statistically, you don't even have a passport" = that's the dumbest thing I read all day.
Population of USA = 314 million.
Number with passports = 110 million.
And comparing this story with the suicide of Megan Meier isn't just fucking stupid, it's also rather fucked up. You're using her for shock value, even though it's apples and oranges, just because you can't argue for shit. Fucking shame on you.
Come back to me when you're mature enough to know that saying fuck isn't actually making an argument.
And save her from what? From doing something stupid to make a point? I know that sounds fucking callous
Yes it does. Basically you're championing the right of internet trolls to say what they want, over the victims who are genuinely hurt by this. And saying people should have a thicker skin is no answer. People have the resilience to abuse that they have. Some have more, some have less. The conscious mind is like the
tip of an ice-berg, with the sub-concious mind responsible for far more of how we react. And the concious mind is not in control of how the sub-concious mind reacts. At best it can influence it a little.
Again, it's not the victims fault they are damaged by abusers behaviour.
Ah, that's a different guy. He's not the one the story is about.
Rape is wrong, and free speech it not.
It's not so black and white. Free speech can be wrong. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is the classic example. Racist abuse for another example is certainly wrong.
if you go some place where people have the ability to say what they think, you better brace yourself because its coming your way!
Not if you are in a country that has wise laws to protect people. Less free speech and more protection from abuse could have saved this girl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier
People should have a thicker skin, its only words and words cannot hurt you, didn't they teach you that in school?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
The world is more complicated than the trite mantras they taught you at school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier
Again you dodge the accusation that you are a sycophantic cowardly twat with ad hominem bullshit.
You can't even remember who it was you threw your juvenile insult at. Hint: not me.
Ad hominem? Well we can certainly add hypocrite to the list of your faults.
The fact that bankers should be facing more and harsher repercussions of their actions, doesn't have any bearing on whether or not thins kid should face the repercussions of his actions.
This kid had Aspergers.
Citation?
I certainly don't see any sign of Aspergers in his behaviour. There seems to be no lack of understanding on his part about how what he says can upset other people. He's not offending through lack of social ability. Indeed he displays a reasonable skill in being deliberately offensive.
So, let me get this straight, you don't address being accused of being a coward and sycophant
I don't have a duty to address every stupid comment you make. I just addressed the causation of your ignorance of the world.
There's nothing innocent about the teen in question. Stupid, yes, vile, yes. Innocent, no.
No one's talking about a new law. He's been questioned relating to offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. That's a law of 24 years standing. 7 years older than the troll in question.
What you are really suggesting is that a right to be sheltered from the opinions of others exists.
This wasn't opinion, it was abuse. There might be borderline cases between these two, but the tweets in this case aren't borderline.
What you are really suggesting is we should legislate speaking to one another. Its not practical.
It's perfectly practical. It's nothing new. Libel, slander, racial hatred, death threats, misuse of the postal service, etc. etc.
The correct response is for the Athlete to either do nothing, or to tweet back and say, "you don't my dad; and your a real jerk who will probably never get laid, have sucky life."
Which will do precisely nothing to stop an abuser. And yet people have committed suicide (and murder) as a result of cyberbullying. Do you have a suggestion that could really work to stop that happening, other than the law?
And the "victim" chose to be in that public place.
Presumably you use the same argument for rape. The victim chose to go out at night, clearly it was her own fault she was raped.
And you must be American, thinking the American way is the one true way, and the rest of the world should do as you do.
And yet, statistically, the chances are you don't even have a passport. You haven't a clue what alternatives to the American way look like.
I'm not sure how you progress from asking two questions (one of which is obvious by opening a dictionary or encyclopedia, the second of which is irrelevant) to saying Apple is free to engage in censorship.
a) It isn't censorship, and a dictionary makes it obvious it's not.
b) Therefore I not only DIDN't say Apple are free to engage in censorship, I wouldn't. You're in the land of delusion.
c) "You're arguing that it's okay to bar people of knowledge so long as you're 'only' blocking a product which is tied to a financial interest" More delusion. Nothing even slightly like that was said by me.
I recommend following arguments more logically next time.
I recommend you see a shrink to deal with your delusions.