Actually, the inverse is true. People who consume diet drinks regularly actually gain weight. This is likely caused by the mistaken belief that drinking diet beverages actually contributes something to weight loss, although this is mere speculation. Regardless, scientists studying the issue have located a massive treasure trove of data at the in-store Walmart McDonalds, where some of the largest people on earth consume large quantities of food and diet cola.
Even if it rises 5 feet by 2100, that's still less than an inch a year. I don't see anyone getting caught by surprise by this and having their home washed out from under them.
If it doesn't matter if you adjust one up or the other down, why did they choose to adjust the more accurate data up instead of the suspect data down? What happens to the trend if we in fact adjust the ship data down to match the buoy data? I'm guessing the trend DOES change, since this particular adjustment changed the trend from a 15+ year pause that very few disputed and spent countless hours trying to explain and solve into a "hey, look, the pause is gone" moment.
I don't understand why the more accurate buoy data needs to be adjusted. Shouldn't the discrepancy reveal a problem with the ship data, resulting in that entire set getting adjusted downward instead? If I have a map and a roadsign and an atlas that all say the distance between two landmarks is 14km, but using a GPS system reveals the distance is actually 13.5km, do I adjust the GPS data upwards to get it closer to the older data, or do I assume the older data wasn't as precise or had some errors?
1. claiming scientists are failing to correct the data for urban island effect means you're a troll?
2. incompetence is exclusive to one side?
3. do you have a list of those being funded to instill anti-science propaganda? Proof of the funding? Or is this an unfounded accusation based on an assumption?
4. why is it okay to accuse one side of being bought with money, but not the other? US Climate Science research spending is in the Billions of dollars.
Hold on there mister, the Laschamp event only lasted less than 500 years, and occurred in the middle of an ice age, over 41,000 years ago. I don't know about you, but I see a whole lot of unknowns that make it very difficult to conclude that "the climate didn't change".
How much of the surface of the earth was already covered with ice/snow -unknown
How much of an increase in annual cloud cover over non-ice/snow regions did the planet experience during this event -unknown
How accurate are the ice cores in capturing relatively short events measuring hundreds, not thousands of years -unknown
How much variation was there during this event in terms of the strength of the field -unknown
I would prefer to not draw any conclusions from what little data we have of this event. We have the technology to measure GCR's, and we have the technology to measure cloud cover. Let's verify the theory of GCR's and cloud formation, let's quantify it, and then let's see if we can accurately predict cloud cover and irradiance fluctuations based on this data.
Wow, way to link to some obscure student essay just to have an argument. Maybe you could've pulled the actual financials from google instead:
http://press.blackberry.com/co...
Q4 2015: positive cashflow of $76Million versus a negative cashflow of 784Million in Q4 2014
Q4 2015: cash and investments of $3.27 billion, up $608Million from Q4 2014
Q4 2015: earnings of $0.04 per share, versus loss of $0.08 per share in Q4 2014
I would say the original claim of them pulling out of a nosedive would be accurate. It doesn't mean they're flying high again, but they did manage to generate some positives.
Peer reviewed paper, huh? You know Nature rejected Lu's submissions, right? He ended up publishing his work in a "pay for play" journal known for publishing research rejected by mainstream journals.
Lu Debunked: http://www.geneticliteracyproj...
"Many of the world’s top scientists have challenged his research. Dennis vanEngelsdorp called Lu’s first study “an embarrassment” while Scott Black, executive director of the bee-hugging Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, characterized it as fatally flawed, both in its design and conclusions.
University of Illinois entomologist May Berenbaum, who chaired the National Academy of Sciences 2007 National Research council study on the Status of Pollinators in North America called it “effectively worthless” to serious researchers. “The experimental design and statistical analysis are just not reliable,” she said."
As far as cold in Europe, cherry picking a few UK averages doesn't actually impart much information about what's happening. Wikipedia lists unusual cold waves in Europe for 2004/5, 2005/6, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2012.
It's funny you ask me to stick to actual science and data, when I'm the one who pointed out that the actual science and data overwhelmingly support the case that neonics likely aren't the cause of CCD. You sound like a Greenpeace brainwashed whacko who refuses to examine the evidence. Enjoy your envirocult worshipping, I'll stick with the science that's enabled our society to feed 7 billion people worldwide and land rovers on Mars.
Well first off, you're linking to the debunked work of Chensheng Lu. And I don't know where you're getting your info about Europe's cold and mild winters, but here's the top link from google when I search:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Finally, you fail to address the fact that Australia is one of the heaviest users of neonics, yet they have not suffered any issues at all with bee colony collapses. Oh, and they're also free of the varroa mite incidentally.
Sorry, but this isn't true. And I work for the province in health care, so I should know a bit about it. Hip replacements and knee replacements have been prioritized by the provincial government. It comes at the expense of many other services, such that arthroscopic surgeries for all other joints now have waiting lists longer than 2 months. However, things like MRI's, X-rays and CAT scans are often sought by Canadians south of the border simply because the wait times can be outrageous. There are multiple MRI clinics in the Buffalo region boasting dozens of machines each. Yet we have hospitals here with a single MRI machine and a 6 week waiting list. Many patients will simply cross the border and pay for an MRI same day simply because they can't wait two months in order for actual treatment to begin. This is where the provincial government will massage the statistics. Even though the patient needs to wait 6 weeks to get the MRI, that's not counted in wait times for the actual surgery. Once the MRI is done, a specialist will consult with the patient. It's at that point that they start timing how long it takes.
The article you're linking to is actually very weak on facts. There was never any claim that Canadians are flocking to the US to get medical care. HOWEVER, wealthy Canadians regularly DO head to the US in order to get immediate treatment. We have wait times for almost all medical services, not because of a decision to save money and be fiscally conservative, but simply because our health care costs continue to rise faster than revenues. The provincial government of Ontario, for example, has been running a deficit for the past decade, and our debt is now approaching $300 billion for a population of 13 million. This has resulted in several credit downgrades. We simply can't afford to increase spending any more. Unfortunately health care costs continue to rise, so people end up having to wait longer and longer for service. 1 in 9 Canadian doctors have left Canada to practice in the US, simply because there's no budget to hire them on at the hospitals, and the pay for family physicians is low compared to the US. 1 in 5 Canadian specialists have left for the US: http://www.nationalpost.com/st...
I'm from Canada, and I can tell you that comparing US and Canadian taxes really isn't valid. First off, we have multiple layers of taxes beyond simple income tax. We have a 13% sales tax on almost everything. We have both provincial and federal taxes on gas, resulting in a per gallon price over $4. We have additional taxes on tobacco and alcohol beyond anything you pay in the US. We have 'service' taxes for many different government services. And all of these taxes go to a government that has a puny defense budget and no space agency. Our health care system is a mess, as costs continue to spiral and our largest province population wise continues to drown in debt. The solution to the health care costs is to simply put people on waiting lists. The government has prioritized the most common surgeries needed for an aging population, as those are the ones who tend to vote. As a result, hip, knee, and heart surgeries take priority and get the majority of the funding. All others are left underfunded and with long waiting lists. Those with lots of money (politicians) buy additional health insurance and seek medical treatments in the US.
The decline in honey bee populations in North America correlates very well with 2 factors: varroa mites and cold winters. The mortality rate for bee colonies over winter correlates very well with both the spread of the varroa mite, as well as the development of resistance in the mites to treatments. We also see spikes in the mortality rates for bee colonies in regions that suffer an unusually cold winter. I didn't claim that neonicotinoids can't be to blame. I claimed that the data didn't correlate, and I claimed that it was more likely to be the varroa mite. And if you actually looked at the data yourself, you'd see that for yourself.
Here's your citation: Annual Colony Losses
If you're too lazy to actually read it, here's the relevant numbers:
Alberta 13% loss in 2012, 23% in 2013, 18% in 2014
Saskatchewan 17% in 2012, 27% in 2013, 18% in 2014
Manitoba 16% in 2012, 46% in 2013, 24% in 2014
You can read more about the devastation the varroa mite has caused here: Varroa Mites
The varroa mite is developing resistance to our normal methods of treating them, resulting in a decreased ability to control and limit the damage they cause. The Canadian Honey Bee council lists the varroa mite as their primary concern.
Complete bullshit is right! How is it that some regions that use neonics are not suffering any bee colony deaths at all? Australia is one of the heaviest users of neonics, yet their bee colonies are quite healthy. Canada's prairies also use neonics, yet their bees are doing absolutely fine. Neonics were in use for 15 years before these bee colony deaths began to appear. Certainly not very much correlation at all between usage of neonics and bee deaths. It's quite likely that the real culprit is the varroa mite, and the bee viruses it carries. The mite has become a serious problem in both the US and Europe, and the spread of the mite correlates much better with the spread of CCD.
Considering how much California seems to be willing to spend on dubious infrastructure such as not so high speed trains, why aren't they building desalinization plants to solve their water shortage?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the inverse is true. People who consume diet drinks regularly actually gain weight. This is likely caused by the mistaken belief that drinking diet beverages actually contributes something to weight loss, although this is mere speculation. Regardless, scientists studying the issue have located a massive treasure trove of data at the in-store Walmart McDonalds, where some of the largest people on earth consume large quantities of food and diet cola.
It costs $15 and their data doesn't even get deleted...a scam that has netted $1.7M for ALM
They're too expensive. Even hybrid vehicles cost more than the regular gas powered versions.
WTF?! When was the last time you've ever heard of a dogfight?
June 17th, 2015
Holland?
Even if it rises 5 feet by 2100, that's still less than an inch a year. I don't see anyone getting caught by surprise by this and having their home washed out from under them.
If it doesn't matter if you adjust one up or the other down, why did they choose to adjust the more accurate data up instead of the suspect data down? What happens to the trend if we in fact adjust the ship data down to match the buoy data? I'm guessing the trend DOES change, since this particular adjustment changed the trend from a 15+ year pause that very few disputed and spent countless hours trying to explain and solve into a "hey, look, the pause is gone" moment.
I don't understand why the more accurate buoy data needs to be adjusted. Shouldn't the discrepancy reveal a problem with the ship data, resulting in that entire set getting adjusted downward instead? If I have a map and a roadsign and an atlas that all say the distance between two landmarks is 14km, but using a GPS system reveals the distance is actually 13.5km, do I adjust the GPS data upwards to get it closer to the older data, or do I assume the older data wasn't as precise or had some errors?
"rates that far exceed those reported for any previous geological period"
^ This is made up.
hmmm...appeal to the authority of science and scientists? Check!
Hold on there mister, the Laschamp event only lasted less than 500 years, and occurred in the middle of an ice age, over 41,000 years ago. I don't know about you, but I see a whole lot of unknowns that make it very difficult to conclude that "the climate didn't change".
How much of the surface of the earth was already covered with ice/snow -unknown
How much of an increase in annual cloud cover over non-ice/snow regions did the planet experience during this event -unknown
How accurate are the ice cores in capturing relatively short events measuring hundreds, not thousands of years -unknown
How much variation was there during this event in terms of the strength of the field -unknown I would prefer to not draw any conclusions from what little data we have of this event. We have the technology to measure GCR's, and we have the technology to measure cloud cover. Let's verify the theory of GCR's and cloud formation, let's quantify it, and then let's see if we can accurately predict cloud cover and irradiance fluctuations based on this data.
Of course this isn't Microsoft's fault, it's Apple's!
Wow, way to link to some obscure student essay just to have an argument. Maybe you could've pulled the actual financials from google instead: http://press.blackberry.com/co...
Q4 2015: positive cashflow of $76Million versus a negative cashflow of 784Million in Q4 2014
Q4 2015: cash and investments of $3.27 billion, up $608Million from Q4 2014
Q4 2015: earnings of $0.04 per share, versus loss of $0.08 per share in Q4 2014
I would say the original claim of them pulling out of a nosedive would be accurate. It doesn't mean they're flying high again, but they did manage to generate some positives.
As far as cold in Europe, cherry picking a few UK averages doesn't actually impart much information about what's happening. Wikipedia lists unusual cold waves in Europe for 2004/5, 2005/6, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2012. It's funny you ask me to stick to actual science and data, when I'm the one who pointed out that the actual science and data overwhelmingly support the case that neonics likely aren't the cause of CCD. You sound like a Greenpeace brainwashed whacko who refuses to examine the evidence. Enjoy your envirocult worshipping, I'll stick with the science that's enabled our society to feed 7 billion people worldwide and land rovers on Mars.
Well first off, you're linking to the debunked work of Chensheng Lu. And I don't know where you're getting your info about Europe's cold and mild winters, but here's the top link from google when I search: http://www.theguardian.com/env... Finally, you fail to address the fact that Australia is one of the heaviest users of neonics, yet they have not suffered any issues at all with bee colony collapses. Oh, and they're also free of the varroa mite incidentally.
Sorry, but this isn't true. And I work for the province in health care, so I should know a bit about it. Hip replacements and knee replacements have been prioritized by the provincial government. It comes at the expense of many other services, such that arthroscopic surgeries for all other joints now have waiting lists longer than 2 months. However, things like MRI's, X-rays and CAT scans are often sought by Canadians south of the border simply because the wait times can be outrageous. There are multiple MRI clinics in the Buffalo region boasting dozens of machines each. Yet we have hospitals here with a single MRI machine and a 6 week waiting list. Many patients will simply cross the border and pay for an MRI same day simply because they can't wait two months in order for actual treatment to begin. This is where the provincial government will massage the statistics. Even though the patient needs to wait 6 weeks to get the MRI, that's not counted in wait times for the actual surgery. Once the MRI is done, a specialist will consult with the patient. It's at that point that they start timing how long it takes.
The article you're linking to is actually very weak on facts. There was never any claim that Canadians are flocking to the US to get medical care. HOWEVER, wealthy Canadians regularly DO head to the US in order to get immediate treatment. We have wait times for almost all medical services, not because of a decision to save money and be fiscally conservative, but simply because our health care costs continue to rise faster than revenues. The provincial government of Ontario, for example, has been running a deficit for the past decade, and our debt is now approaching $300 billion for a population of 13 million. This has resulted in several credit downgrades. We simply can't afford to increase spending any more. Unfortunately health care costs continue to rise, so people end up having to wait longer and longer for service. 1 in 9 Canadian doctors have left Canada to practice in the US, simply because there's no budget to hire them on at the hospitals, and the pay for family physicians is low compared to the US. 1 in 5 Canadian specialists have left for the US: http://www.nationalpost.com/st...
I'm from Canada, and I can tell you that comparing US and Canadian taxes really isn't valid. First off, we have multiple layers of taxes beyond simple income tax. We have a 13% sales tax on almost everything. We have both provincial and federal taxes on gas, resulting in a per gallon price over $4. We have additional taxes on tobacco and alcohol beyond anything you pay in the US. We have 'service' taxes for many different government services. And all of these taxes go to a government that has a puny defense budget and no space agency. Our health care system is a mess, as costs continue to spiral and our largest province population wise continues to drown in debt. The solution to the health care costs is to simply put people on waiting lists. The government has prioritized the most common surgeries needed for an aging population, as those are the ones who tend to vote. As a result, hip, knee, and heart surgeries take priority and get the majority of the funding. All others are left underfunded and with long waiting lists. Those with lots of money (politicians) buy additional health insurance and seek medical treatments in the US.
And yet the actual data says they're not dying like never before, in fact they're doing quite fine: http://www.capabees.com/2014/0...
The decline in honey bee populations in North America correlates very well with 2 factors: varroa mites and cold winters. The mortality rate for bee colonies over winter correlates very well with both the spread of the varroa mite, as well as the development of resistance in the mites to treatments. We also see spikes in the mortality rates for bee colonies in regions that suffer an unusually cold winter. I didn't claim that neonicotinoids can't be to blame. I claimed that the data didn't correlate, and I claimed that it was more likely to be the varroa mite. And if you actually looked at the data yourself, you'd see that for yourself.
Here's your citation: Annual Colony Losses If you're too lazy to actually read it, here's the relevant numbers: Alberta 13% loss in 2012, 23% in 2013, 18% in 2014 Saskatchewan 17% in 2012, 27% in 2013, 18% in 2014 Manitoba 16% in 2012, 46% in 2013, 24% in 2014 You can read more about the devastation the varroa mite has caused here: Varroa Mites The varroa mite is developing resistance to our normal methods of treating them, resulting in a decreased ability to control and limit the damage they cause. The Canadian Honey Bee council lists the varroa mite as their primary concern.
Actually, there's no carpet bombing of neonics, that's not how they're applied.
Complete bullshit is right! How is it that some regions that use neonics are not suffering any bee colony deaths at all? Australia is one of the heaviest users of neonics, yet their bee colonies are quite healthy. Canada's prairies also use neonics, yet their bees are doing absolutely fine. Neonics were in use for 15 years before these bee colony deaths began to appear. Certainly not very much correlation at all between usage of neonics and bee deaths. It's quite likely that the real culprit is the varroa mite, and the bee viruses it carries. The mite has become a serious problem in both the US and Europe, and the spread of the mite correlates much better with the spread of CCD.
Considering how much California seems to be willing to spend on dubious infrastructure such as not so high speed trains, why aren't they building desalinization plants to solve their water shortage?