When, exactly, has Wikileaks actively gathered evidence? Oh, never. Wikileaks just waits for others to the gathering, they just do the publishing. Next, they will be blaming global warming on Wikileaks.
... and simultaneously promoting the global warming hoax!
They also know where bin Laden is hiding, but are covering that up.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is necessary for court of law because of significant losses that convicting innocent people causes; but it is not the level that is needed for engineering efforts and society-level planning of environmental issues.
When you're talking about changing the basis for the global economy, it is needed.
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 will not significanly change the climate?
I wouldn't say so. I personally am not big on AGW simply because too many of the scientists we have seen for it have a serious "we don't have to show data to riff raff" attitude, and to me that is the opposite of science. Scientists, those that I consider "real" scientists anyway, like Einstein, were happy to show you their work.
The report makes very clear, these 'requests' were just plain harrassment. Jones et al weren't trying to hide anything, because there was nothing to hide. And the panel was clearly sympathetic to his situation.
He was obviously frustrated by other workers
in the field trying to "undermine" his work,
which is just the sort thing the the Virgina AG is trying to do.
The article leaves me feeling not very enlightened.
When the Chernobyl disaster happened, two changes were made simultaneously to the local ecosystem: (1) There was radioactive crud spread around. (2) Humans left the area.
The article makes it sound like they just tried to do surveys and evaluate biodiversity, and different people are getting different answers about whether biodiversity is up or down. Seems to me that this tells us absolutely nothing.
This study is telling us something. It is explictly about measuring biodiversity. It is more comprehensive than previous studies, so it is probably more accurate.
It may not directly assess the causes of changes in biodiversity, but you do need to do the measurements first.
And it gets worse. Weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup.
And then Monsanto will sell you stronger (more dangerous) herbicides. Along with new GM seeds that are resistant to these new, more dangerous herbicides.
Agreed. The smallest company on the list is 78 employees. Most are in the 1000s and up.
The best place I've worked for had less than 50.
I'm satisfied with my current employer, which has several thousand. The bureacracy isn't horrific, and I have decent abitility to innovate. But its not at all the same experience.
A tax on carbon is a tax on everything. Food prices will rise. The price of everything ordered on Amazon will rise. The price of everyhtng transported by road or rail will rise.....
Yes,the price of everything will rise. But it will affect some things more than others. Local food costs will rise less than food flown in from around the world, for example. Things transported by rail will probably be cheaper than those transported by less efficient trucking.
In other words, the tax will provide incentives for more efficient use of fossil fuels. Which is the desired outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
When, exactly, has Wikileaks actively gathered evidence? Oh, never. Wikileaks just waits for others to the gathering, they just do the publishing. Next, they will be blaming global warming on Wikileaks.
... and simultaneously promoting the global warming hoax!
They also know where bin Laden is hiding, but are covering that up.
consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women.
The British authorities want to interrogate him: "What's it like?".
After 5 minutes of watching 5 minutes of FOX, I end up banging my head against the wall. Which makes me stupid.
But did the Sumerians and the Chinese and everyone else experience the same flood? at the same time? Let me know if you can back that up.
And the cover shot of the sky with trees makes it all so clear. And the byline "Learn by doing: less theory, more results". Even more clear.
Wow! that's exactly what I've been looking for!
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is necessary for court of law because of significant losses that convicting innocent people causes; but it is not the level that is needed for engineering efforts and society-level planning of environmental issues.
When you're talking about changing the basis for the global economy, it is needed.
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 will not significanly change the climate?
I didn't think so.
Then listen to this one. It isn't like the science is settled (of course, some of it is). As he says,
The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, .....
You don't have to present a false choice between the Discovery Institute and 'scientists.'
And you don't have to present a false choice between the WSJ's stupid strawman argument, and "skepticism".
I wouldn't say so. I personally am not big on AGW simply because too many of the scientists we have seen for it have a serious "we don't have to show data to riff raff" attitude, and to me that is the opposite of science. Scientists, those that I consider "real" scientists anyway, like Einstein, were happy to show you their work.
Breaking: some crafty hackers have uncovered all the secret data thats been hidden from us "riff raff", and released it here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm
happy reading!
which is just the sort thing the the Virgina AG is trying to do.
Thousands (Millions) of flies cover the leaves of a big tree, all 'glued' to the leaves by the mycelia
The question is, do they welcome us?
Brilliant!
The article leaves me feeling not very enlightened.
When the Chernobyl disaster happened, two changes were made simultaneously to the local ecosystem: (1) There was radioactive crud spread around. (2) Humans left the area.
The article makes it sound like they just tried to do surveys and evaluate biodiversity, and different people are getting different answers about whether biodiversity is up or down. Seems to me that this tells us absolutely nothing.
This study is telling us something. It is explictly about measuring biodiversity. It is more comprehensive than previous studies, so it is probably more accurate.
It may not directly assess the causes of changes in biodiversity, but you do need to do the measurements first.
It's like you have no clue what scientists are like.
Or even what science is like.
You should really RTFA, esp. the parts about increase concentrations of C02
And then Monsanto will sell you stronger (more dangerous) herbicides. Along with new GM seeds that are resistant to these new, more dangerous herbicides.
And on and on and on...
Its hard to understand how a global consensus of climate scientists could have got the global cooling thing so wrong.
It would be like a Nazi who didn't know that Henry Ford admired Adolf Hitler.
The best place I've worked for had less than 50.
I'm satisfied with my current employer, which has several thousand. The bureacracy isn't horrific, and I have decent abitility to innovate. But its not at all the same experience.
PONIES!
But if you follow that slippery slope, you'll end up with NOTHING on FB. And isn't that something we can all agree on?
Ban them from FB now, or you will feel the wrath of my ISP.
No really. ( I bike to work,and keep a towel in the company locker room. )
What about ACORN and George Soros? how do they fit in?
A tax on carbon is a tax on everything. Food prices will rise. The price of everything ordered on Amazon will rise. The price of everyhtng transported by road or rail will rise. ....
Yes,the price of everything will rise. But it will affect some things more than others. Local food costs will rise less than food flown in from around the world, for example. Things transported by rail will probably be cheaper than those transported by less efficient trucking.
In other words, the tax will provide incentives for more efficient use of fossil fuels. Which is the desired outcome.