Then there's the medieval warm period. Then there's the little ice age. What caused those two climate shifts?
Don't you know? The party line is that they were just "local phenomena, not global." Of course, if you ask them if they have any evidence to back their assertions, they don't answer.
As a friend of mine likes to comment, "It's probably not a good idea to run an open-ended experiment of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to see what happens." Even if AGW is the biggest scam the world has ever seen, that's still true.
Does anyone here believe that Facebook wouldn't sell data mined from your logged chats down the river if they thought that it would make them a buck?
If that bothers you, do what I do: don't participate. I've never been to Facebook, let alone registered. Never seen the point of it, really. And, I might add, I turned both Google Buzz and Chat off as quickly as possible because I find them pointless. Let them data mine all they want, AFAIC because there's nothing of mine there for them to sell.
Well, that's odd, because the LIA supposedly lasted until 1850.
No, because the LIA didn't suddenly end, it gradually tapered off. By 1830, it would have been impossible to drag cannon across the Hudson in the winter; by 1850, it didn't freeze over at all.
Yeah, instead skeptics pretend the MWP and LIA are more than local events.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that the weren't, or are you just arguing by assertion? I ask because there's lots of evidence that the LIA affected North America as well as Europe. (In 1776, Major Hamilton was able to drag the guns of Fort Ticonderoga across the frozen Hudson River to New York; by 1830, that would have been impossible.)
Don't put words in my mouth. AGW skeptics don't ignore long-term trends like the Early Medieval Warm or the Little Ice Age in setting up models. Skeptics don't select a small number of tree-ring samples that Just Happen to fit their ideas while discarding the majority that don't. Skeptics don't add arbitrary, ad hoc adjustments to their data to hide the fact that the data doesn't fit their theory. That's what the alarmists do, and have been caught doing, repeatedly.
Yes, Jerry Pournelle, the man with two PhDs, one in Poly Sci, the other in Psyc. Among other things, he was campaign manager for Barry Goldwater Jr. and ran Sam Yorty's last successful campaign for Mayor of Los Angeles. He didn't turn to writing until after Yorty left office and his job as Deputy Mayor came to an end. He probably has even less use for the Country Club Republicans than BO does.
All the conservatives I've talked to think that unless there's a corporation somewhere profiting from our activities in space, it's not worth spending money on.
I don't know which conservatives you've been talking to, but I'll bet you haven't taken a look at Jerry Pournelle. He not only wants to see us back in space ("Growing up, I always knew I'd live to see the first man on the Moon. I didn't know I'd also live to see the last one.") he wants to see the US offer an X Prize of about $10 billion or so for the first manned colony on the Moon to last at least a year. (The idea is that it costs us nothing unless somebody actually wins it)
When I first saw the article's title, I thought that this was the UNIT it was referring to. Says a lot about the type of people I hang out with, doesn't it?
I don't like to be a grammar nazi, but if you think the OP's post was grammatical, maybe you need a grammar checker yourself. (Hint: take a better look at the first word of what I quoted.)
Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer. They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula. BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.
Congratulation! You've lived up to your nick Yet Again! As any Food Network junkie could have told you, Emeril isn't particularly attached to EVOO -- in fact, he never uses the term -- preferring to spice anything and everything he makes with a seasoning blend he calls "essence," even if it doesn't seem appropriate. Rachael Ray is, among other things, the Queen of EVOO and the inventor of the term. (For those of you who don't watch Thirty Minute Meals, the term stands for Extra Virgin Olive Oil.)
why would you care about dirt being on your freight train.
Weight. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the weight of all the dust and dirt on a large freight train added up to hundreds of pounds, possibly coming close to a ton on some of the largest ones. Hauling all that extra weight cross-country adds to the fuel costs. If the dust and dirt don't cling to this coating very well, it may well pay for itself quickly in lowered fuel costs in a very short time.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? With all their money, I'd think they could afford to pay cash.
Don't you know? The party line is that they were just "local phenomena, not global." Of course, if you ask them if they have any evidence to back their assertions, they don't answer.
It's not the basic idea that's the problem, it's the extreme lengths some of the more enthusiastic supporters want to go to.
As a friend of mine likes to comment, "It's probably not a good idea to run an open-ended experiment of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to see what happens." Even if AGW is the biggest scam the world has ever seen, that's still true.
Quick question? Are you actually ignorant enough to think that scientific questions are decided by consensus instead of the facts?
I don't know where you live, but I live in Southern California, and I'd love to be paying only $2.50/gallon for gas!
If that bothers you, do what I do: don't participate. I've never been to Facebook, let alone registered. Never seen the point of it, really. And, I might add, I turned both Google Buzz and Chat off as quickly as possible because I find them pointless. Let them data mine all they want, AFAIC because there's nothing of mine there for them to sell.
I suspect that by modern standards it would be more accurate to say that it walkedBASIC.
Personally, I prefer my desktop. It may not be portable, but the screen's much bigger and with my bad vision, that's an important consideration.
No, because the LIA didn't suddenly end, it gradually tapered off. By 1830, it would have been impossible to drag cannon across the Hudson in the winter; by 1850, it didn't freeze over at all.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that the weren't, or are you just arguing by assertion? I ask because there's lots of evidence that the LIA affected North America as well as Europe. (In 1776, Major Hamilton was able to drag the guns of Fort Ticonderoga across the frozen Hudson River to New York; by 1830, that would have been impossible.)
Don't put words in my mouth. AGW skeptics don't ignore long-term trends like the Early Medieval Warm or the Little Ice Age in setting up models. Skeptics don't select a small number of tree-ring samples that Just Happen to fit their ideas while discarding the majority that don't. Skeptics don't add arbitrary, ad hoc adjustments to their data to hide the fact that the data doesn't fit their theory. That's what the alarmists do, and have been caught doing, repeatedly.
Yes, Jerry Pournelle, the man with two PhDs, one in Poly Sci, the other in Psyc. Among other things, he was campaign manager for Barry Goldwater Jr. and ran Sam Yorty's last successful campaign for Mayor of Los Angeles. He didn't turn to writing until after Yorty left office and his job as Deputy Mayor came to an end. He probably has even less use for the Country Club Republicans than BO does.
If you start out by assuming your conclusions, then cherry-pick your data, it's amazing what you can "prove."
I don't know which conservatives you've been talking to, but I'll bet you haven't taken a look at Jerry Pournelle. He not only wants to see us back in space ("Growing up, I always knew I'd live to see the first man on the Moon. I didn't know I'd also live to see the last one.") he wants to see the US offer an X Prize of about $10 billion or so for the first manned colony on the Moon to last at least a year. (The idea is that it costs us nothing unless somebody actually wins it)
When I first saw the article's title, I thought that this was the UNIT it was referring to. Says a lot about the type of people I hang out with, doesn't it?
What's it all agrout, Alfie?
I don't like to be a grammar nazi, but if you think the OP's post was grammatical, maybe you need a grammar checker yourself. (Hint: take a better look at the first word of what I quoted.)
You do know, don't you, that those files are Windows specific? We're talking about Linux here.
Not everybody needs a mechanical grammar checker. In your case, however, I can see how that's a concern.
Congratulation! You've lived up to your nick Yet Again! As any Food Network junkie could have told you, Emeril isn't particularly attached to EVOO -- in fact, he never uses the term -- preferring to spice anything and everything he makes with a seasoning blend he calls "essence," even if it doesn't seem appropriate. Rachael Ray is, among other things, the Queen of EVOO and the inventor of the term. (For those of you who don't watch Thirty Minute Meals, the term stands for Extra Virgin Olive Oil.)
Personally, I was expecting that every CubeSat would have its own pony. OMG! PONIES! LOTS AND LOTS OF PINK PONIES!!!11!!!!
Because you're one of them.
Weight. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the weight of all the dust and dirt on a large freight train added up to hundreds of pounds, possibly coming close to a ton on some of the largest ones. Hauling all that extra weight cross-country adds to the fuel costs. If the dust and dirt don't cling to this coating very well, it may well pay for itself quickly in lowered fuel costs in a very short time.