Al Gore, Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, and many more ARE hypocrites. They produce more CO2 in a single year than I have produced in my entire life. If they're serious about how catastrophic it's going to be, why haven't they ceased their own air travel? They can attend meetings via teleconference, travel by electric vehicles/sailboats, and vacation locally. Why is it all the climate conferences are attended physically by thousands of air travellers? They should be via teleconference only!
Leonardo DiCaprio's lifestyle produces more CO2 in a year than my lifestyle will produce in a lifetime. Likewise all the politicians. Why would I change my lifestyle when they haven't changed theirs? Deal with the small group responsible for the majority of emissions first. Ban all government air travel. They can teleconference around the world, they don't need to travel. And stop the Hollywood crowd from jet-setting around the world. Do this, and then I'll consider how I can cut my own emissions.
For the past several thousand years, food supply has been plentiful for most established civilizations, most of the time. Eating more food than what our bodies naturally burn isn't the problem. Our bodies have a complex system of hormones which regulate our appetite, so for the vast majority of people, overeating shouldn't be an issue. However, sugar, flour, and other fast-energy carbohydrates are prevalent in modern western diets, resulting in an obesity epidemic. These carbohydrates are resulting in increased insulin resistance in a large segment of the population, and insulin resistance leads to obesity. There are lots of different factors at play in the current obesity epidemic, but plentiful food isn't one of them. Food was plentiful in the 19th century, and obesity wasn't an epidemic then. There have been several studies which indicate formula feeding babies may be a factor. The war on dietary fat, led by nutrition scientists, caused a huge increase of carbohydrates in our diet. Dietary fat does not trigger an insulin response, whereas carbohydrates do. And insulin is the hormone that triggers fat cells to start storing energy. Cheap grain, finely processed flours, added sugars, and mass production have adversely affected our diet and messed up our body's ability to regulate our weight.
All that does is prevent your computer from saving your browsing history. Every site you visit still logs your visits. Google still logs all of your searches.
You have the wrong chart there, as it's combining mobile and tablet. Here's tablet market share. Apple as a manufacturer has the largest share. iOS as a tablet platform is second to Android.
Oh okay, you can stay away from Google. So Bing, Duck Duck Go, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, eBay, Instagram, Oracle, Reddit, and Slashdot can also do whatever they want with your browsing history as well. Can you even use the internet and stay away from all of the content providers that are able to do what they want with your browsing history?
Maybe you need this explained to you. The FTC and the FCC have different rules regarding privacy. The head of the FCC has said that he will now align the FCC rules with the FTC rules, so there is consistency across departments. Also, Google is allowed to do whatever it wants with your browsing history, but your ISP is not. Why is it okay for Google, but not your ISP?
And the head of the FCC, who incidentally happens to be an Obama appointee, said the move by congress was a good move, because it will allow the FCC to align their privacy rules with the FTC.
So you're completely okay with the fact that Google is allowed to do whatever they want with your data, because they're not an ISP (except in cities where they are), but it's the end of the world because Comcast is now allowed to? And how do you feel about Obama appointee, Ajit Pai, saying it was a good move by congress, because it will allow the FCC to align their privacy rules with the FTC and eliminate conflicts/confusion?
Google is already doing this. My wife searches for a product online at home, and suddenly all the google ads I'm seeing at work are related to her searches.
You picked one of many reconstuctions, and it's one that shows current temperatures warmer than the medieval warm period. And it's also one that has been criticized:
At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions.
~Hans von Storch, May 2007
why wouldn't you cite Ljungqvist's 2010 30-proxy reconstruction, which was more widely supported? Ljungqvist's chart Is it because it shows both the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Roman warm period were just as warm or warmer than today?
That's all great in theory, but in actual real world examples, (i.e. Geology - the past is the key to the present), the Eocene had CO2 levels double, triple or even more than what today's levels are, and life was thriving. At one point, CO2 concentrations hit 4000ppm during the Eocene. Oddly, this high concentration didn't trigger an extinction event! Care to explain that? Google the Azolla Event. It may have been what led to the initial formation of our polar caps. Massive plant growth in the Arctic ocean led to the sequestering of large amounts of CO2 in the bottom of the Arctic ocean.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
Al Gore, Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, and many more ARE hypocrites. They produce more CO2 in a single year than I have produced in my entire life. If they're serious about how catastrophic it's going to be, why haven't they ceased their own air travel? They can attend meetings via teleconference, travel by electric vehicles/sailboats, and vacation locally. Why is it all the climate conferences are attended physically by thousands of air travellers? They should be via teleconference only!
Leonardo DiCaprio's lifestyle produces more CO2 in a year than my lifestyle will produce in a lifetime. Likewise all the politicians. Why would I change my lifestyle when they haven't changed theirs? Deal with the small group responsible for the majority of emissions first. Ban all government air travel. They can teleconference around the world, they don't need to travel. And stop the Hollywood crowd from jet-setting around the world. Do this, and then I'll consider how I can cut my own emissions.
Hey Asshat, CO2 is not toxic, to farming or to people. It's beneficial. It also doesn't cause mutations.
If the road has curves you'd probably prefer a "normal" sports car, as such the appeal is extremely limited.
Ya, because braking or downshifting when approaching a turn is inconceivable...
They were talking about cubic inches, not square. You know, 3D printing is all the rage now....
how far away are we from cheap commercial versions?
And like most complex systems they're prone to failure* for a wide variety of reasons.
*Citations needed.
For the past several thousand years, food supply has been plentiful for most established civilizations, most of the time. Eating more food than what our bodies naturally burn isn't the problem. Our bodies have a complex system of hormones which regulate our appetite, so for the vast majority of people, overeating shouldn't be an issue. However, sugar, flour, and other fast-energy carbohydrates are prevalent in modern western diets, resulting in an obesity epidemic. These carbohydrates are resulting in increased insulin resistance in a large segment of the population, and insulin resistance leads to obesity. There are lots of different factors at play in the current obesity epidemic, but plentiful food isn't one of them. Food was plentiful in the 19th century, and obesity wasn't an epidemic then. There have been several studies which indicate formula feeding babies may be a factor. The war on dietary fat, led by nutrition scientists, caused a huge increase of carbohydrates in our diet. Dietary fat does not trigger an insulin response, whereas carbohydrates do. And insulin is the hormone that triggers fat cells to start storing energy. Cheap grain, finely processed flours, added sugars, and mass production have adversely affected our diet and messed up our body's ability to regulate our weight.
Um, where were you in 2012?
Great story, except the last appointment to the commission was in 2016.
The commission itself voted 16-15 to recommend it not be renewed.
Key sentence in the story that's not being told by all left-wing propaganda media:
The commission started its last two-day meeting on April 10. Notably, the Post reports, the commission voted 16-15 not to recommend its renewal
That's right, the commission itself recommended not renewing itself! But fakenews "TRUMP HATES SCIENCE" is what gets posted everywhere.
So there's something definitely wrong with Tesla's valuation.
All that does is prevent your computer from saving your browsing history. Every site you visit still logs your visits. Google still logs all of your searches.
You have the wrong chart there, as it's combining mobile and tablet. Here's tablet market share. Apple as a manufacturer has the largest share. iOS as a tablet platform is second to Android.
There's not really any decent alternative to Google. Bing sucks. Don't try and pretend otherwise.
Oh okay, you can stay away from Google. So Bing, Duck Duck Go, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, eBay, Instagram, Oracle, Reddit, and Slashdot can also do whatever they want with your browsing history as well. Can you even use the internet and stay away from all of the content providers that are able to do what they want with your browsing history?
Maybe you need this explained to you. The FTC and the FCC have different rules regarding privacy. The head of the FCC has said that he will now align the FCC rules with the FTC rules, so there is consistency across departments. Also, Google is allowed to do whatever it wants with your browsing history, but your ISP is not. Why is it okay for Google, but not your ISP?
And the head of the FCC, who incidentally happens to be an Obama appointee, said the move by congress was a good move, because it will allow the FCC to align their privacy rules with the FTC.
So you're completely okay with the fact that Google is allowed to do whatever they want with your data, because they're not an ISP (except in cities where they are), but it's the end of the world because Comcast is now allowed to? And how do you feel about Obama appointee, Ajit Pai, saying it was a good move by congress, because it will allow the FCC to align their privacy rules with the FTC and eliminate conflicts/confusion?
Google is already doing this. My wife searches for a product online at home, and suddenly all the google ads I'm seeing at work are related to her searches.
At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions.
~Hans von Storch, May 2007
why wouldn't you cite Ljungqvist's 2010 30-proxy reconstruction, which was more widely supported? Ljungqvist's chart Is it because it shows both the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Roman warm period were just as warm or warmer than today?
Medieval warm period was global: http://science.sciencemag.org/...
http://co2science.org/data/mwp...
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
That's all great in theory, but in actual real world examples, (i.e. Geology - the past is the key to the present), the Eocene had CO2 levels double, triple or even more than what today's levels are, and life was thriving. At one point, CO2 concentrations hit 4000ppm during the Eocene. Oddly, this high concentration didn't trigger an extinction event! Care to explain that? Google the Azolla Event. It may have been what led to the initial formation of our polar caps. Massive plant growth in the Arctic ocean led to the sequestering of large amounts of CO2 in the bottom of the Arctic ocean.