People aren't picking up 'random' mushrooms. They are deliberately seeking mushrooms that they "know" are good to eat, and making a tragic mistake. Amanitas can be easily mistaken for other mushrooms.
The point of the article is that the mushroom is becoming more widespread.
Its true that only a small number of people will eat mushrooms that they encounter in the wild. But the number of encounters is going up.
You are wrong. CFCs are chemically stable, non-toxic and non-flammable.
There only so many permutations possible in chemistry, and CFCs are truly a wonder of chemistry.
Alternatives are only partially up to be replacements, and are more than often corrosive, toxic, unstable.
You are correct on the facts.
Banning CFCs was at best a big mistake, if not outright a crime.
It is inevitable that CFCs prohibition is ended at some point, because it simply makes no sense at all.
You are totally wrong on the conclusions. Long term destruction of the ozone would have been a disaster.
In other words, I don't care about the physics or the chemistry or the meteorology. CO2 can't possibly cause global warming because it would interfere with someone's profit margin.
Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press
The irony is the majority of people who are *literate* in science and math (including, what, about 95% of climate scientists?) agree that global warming is real and we need to do something about it. It's the scientifically illiterate who keep trying to claim (with their scientifically illiterate arguments, of course) that it's all a big conspiracy with no scientific support...
Ignore all the stupid people, they don't understand it. Also, ignore all the smart people. Just listen to me, I'm the only one you can trust.
Yes, its true that many people are illiterate in math and science. But most of them are aware of the limits of their understanding.
For the past 20 years corporates like Exxon have been trashing the scientists who actually are quite knowledgeable about science, match, climatalogy, etc. They've been undermining public education efforts. They've demeaning any scientist who speaks out as 'greedy', while raking in record profits.
If the public is misinformed about climate change, its largely Exxon's fault.
I'm guessing that the answer is "everyone except the following....." and that list would immediately put those few dozen people under a spotlight, destroying their privacy.
Then everyone would learn how boring that one guy is.
That's great. Now we just have to adjust our civilization to work the same as that other advanced civilization that existed 2.5 million years ago, and we're all set.
This is stupid 10 ways to Sunday. No wonder you're posting AC.
To list just one example:
The real shame is that while they've been preaching, real issues are being ignored. Mountain top mining goes on. Coal ash fallout continues. The irony is that if they addressed these real and obvious concerns about which few disagree, then carbon emissions would be reduced as a side effect.
From extreme drought, heat waves and floods to unprecedented tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, wildfires and winter storms, a record 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each caused $1 billion or more in damages — and most regrettably, loss of human lives and property
Just like the current global warming debate, climatologists noticed and extremely slight rise in average temperature (less than 1 degree C), and immediately started asking what WE were doing to cause it.
You are quite mistaken on cause and effect.
Actually, the theory of greenhouse gases was understood over 100 years ago, and scientists like Arrhenius made some early predictions that increased CO2 could increase the climate. This was long before we were able to measure a significant increase in global temperature.
If you have an explanation for why increased CO2 would not have a greenhouse effect, please submit your results to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.
If the government were not in a position to grant special favors to companies because it is regulating everything in sight, then business would have no use buying off politicians.
cuts two ways: businesses would not need to buy off politicians because they would control us directly.
Slashdot Mirror
People aren't picking up 'random' mushrooms. They are deliberately seeking mushrooms that they "know" are good to eat, and making a tragic mistake. Amanitas can be easily mistaken for other mushrooms.
The point of the article is that the mushroom is becoming more widespread.
Its true that only a small number of people will eat mushrooms that they encounter in the wild. But the number of encounters is going up.
There is no "other side", scientifically speaking. Sun spots? give me a break.
I found biking an excellent way to relax during graduate school as well.
Seriously, take drugs, sleep. when you're awake and sober, read anything that isn't in your academic field.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr
My bike ride is powered by Extra Big Ass Fries!
You are wrong. CFCs are chemically stable, non-toxic and non-flammable. There only so many permutations possible in chemistry, and CFCs are truly a wonder of chemistry. Alternatives are only partially up to be replacements, and are more than often corrosive, toxic, unstable.
You are correct on the facts.
Banning CFCs was at best a big mistake, if not outright a crime. It is inevitable that CFCs prohibition is ended at some point, because it simply makes no sense at all.
You are totally wrong on the conclusions. Long term destruction of the ozone would have been a disaster.
I don't recall that E=mc^2 needed peer pressure (consensus) to win converts.
That's because there wasn't a propaganda industry fightingt its acceptance.
Citation of existing case of this happening needed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6G6Ap-mF0k&feature=fvwrel
In other words, I don't care about the physics or the chemistry or the meteorology. CO2 can't possibly cause global warming because it would interfere with someone's profit margin.
Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press
The irony is the majority of people who are *literate* in science and math (including, what, about 95% of climate scientists?) agree that global warming is real and we need to do something about it. It's the scientifically illiterate who keep trying to claim (with their scientifically illiterate arguments, of course) that it's all a big conspiracy with no scientific support...
Ignore all the stupid people, they don't understand it. Also, ignore all the smart people. Just listen to me, I'm the only one you can trust.
For the past 20 years corporates like Exxon have been trashing the scientists who actually are quite knowledgeable about science, match, climatalogy, etc. They've been undermining public education efforts. They've demeaning any scientist who speaks out as 'greedy', while raking in record profits.
If the public is misinformed about climate change, its largely Exxon's fault.
I'm guessing that the answer is "everyone except the following....." and that list would immediately put those few dozen people under a spotlight, destroying their privacy.
Then everyone would learn how boring that one guy is.
Because its ubiquitous, you'll find it easier to find people to help you manage your list .
You know who else used propaganda to demonize his enemies? Hitler!
That's great. Now we just have to adjust our civilization to work the same as that other advanced civilization that existed 2.5 million years ago, and we're all set.
--Jeremy
Who needs fire anyway?
Right. Maybe everything we know about chemistry is all wrong! who can say?
$4 billion is 0.0003% of our national economy.
Then it shouldn't be a big deal to invest that much in alternative energy and conservation?
Yeah, nobody in the climate change community talks about mining http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2009/2009-06-23-01.asp
http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/
Just like the current global warming debate, climatologists noticed and extremely slight rise in average temperature (less than 1 degree C), and immediately started asking what WE were doing to cause it.
You are quite mistaken on cause and effect.
Actually, the theory of greenhouse gases was understood over 100 years ago, and scientists like Arrhenius made some early predictions that increased CO2 could increase the climate. This was long before we were able to measure a significant increase in global temperature.
If you have an explanation for why increased CO2 would not have a greenhouse effect, please submit your results to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php
Get a clue!
Here in Wisconsin we used to be represented by Senator Feingold, one of the poorest senators. He came pretty close. But he was defeated by a TP dude.
You realize that the sun doesn't actually have a surface, right? It's increasingly dense atmosphere all the way down.
an increasingly dense atmosphere of turtles, to be precise.
cuts two ways: businesses would not need to buy off politicians because they would control us directly.