The vast majority of it is. You can go to a tiny town stuck up in the north and get 100/100 internet service for a very competitive price. Assuming that's not the case kind of showed your bias;)
He said it could be free by 2010 or 2015. He's right - it could be. Most experts place the date later, but agree it will likely happen within the next 100 years. Did you expect to sound clever with your pithy one-liner? It didn't work. You just outed yourself to be dishonest by picking one date and ignoring the other, and pretending that this one guy represents all researchers.
This is going to sound really, really bizarre, but you could familiarise yourself with some of the most basic research, which would answer all of your questions. Believe it or not, but the climate scientists have taken historical events & trends into account when working on this. You also might want to be aware that in the Cretaceous period CO2 was at about 2000ppm, not the 8000ppm required to be 20x the current level.
So to answer your question - the research findings show that it is most definitely human output which is responsible for the vast majority of climate change. It's easy to ignore science when it tells you something you don't want to hear, but it doesn't magically invalidate science and make you correct - it just shows you have a disdain for knowledge and the scientific method, which is ironic considering without the scientific method you'd not be alive to complain about how it's wrong.
You do realise that every time you post something like that, the only thing you achieve is letting people see you really have no idea what you're going on about. Let's try this again:
Climate: (noun) - the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period
Weather: (noun) - the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
Please let your strawman go and actually attack the science, if it's that easy. Apparently it's not, as every fossil fuel company has tried and they can't do it, and the scientist who can would get the Nobel prize and a practically unlimited research budget.
Sustainability does not imply stasis - it just means that whatever something is doing, that it can keep doing it. That can be growth, stagnation, decline, ballet dancing, shooting monkeys into space, teaching badgers to dance, whatever. The idea that sustainability implies stasis is an error you have concocted.
The fact your last sentence (after the first comma) outlines the very nature of sustainability kind of illustrates that:)
This has been discussed ad infinitum in the relevant reports and papers, which is a bit of a clue you haven't done your homework.
The warmer weather would make the current farmland less able to produce crops (as it's geared up to maximise output of select crops in the current climate), and the new land will most likely not be great farmland. For example, great swathes of Canada has terrible topsoil because of glacial erosion. That would be terrible farmland, and hopes of it being just as productive as the land it replaces are just that - hopes. That's not even considering the floods of pests to these new climes, the lack of supporting infrastructure, etc.
So yes, the growing season would be larger, but the land capable of being farmed would be less (and lacking infrastructure) so it's not as simple as you assume.
This is the thing - you don't have enough money to live an extravagant lifestyle, if the external costs were factored in. You're not paying your share of the eventual costs related to dealing with global warming, which if factored in would probably push your lifestyle out of your reach. Buying a new planet isn't cheap.
The sad thing is you clearly don't understand what global warming is - what we're witnessing is not a natural cycle. It's happening way faster than it has before, the cause of which has been demonstrated to be man-made, and it's messing with stuff we as a species need in order to survive. Your "extravagant lifestyle" will be impossible should you continue to live it, and everyone else has to pay.
You sound incredibly selfish and incredibly ignorant, which isn't really surprising. If you'd be bothered to learn about climate change and what's likely to happen, you'd at least stop being ignorant. I can't help you with the selfishness, though, especially as you seem to treat it like a badge of honor.
History will not look kindly on people like you, and it would be quite right.
So because of two bad parents in your family (you and your mother) you are willing to condemn all homosexual people? Brilliant. "Best" does mean something to liberals - and I doubt they would use it to describe your logic or parenting skills, both of which (by your own admission, whether you realise it or not) are less than adequate.
You outed yourself with your last sentence. The only place global cooling was discussed was in the media, not in the scientific literature. It also wasn't the 1980s or 1990s, but the 1970s, which also means you either have a terrible memory, or are regurgitating something you heard someone else say. So, to sum up, you just demonstrated that you:
1. Get your scientific information from the mass media 2. Have a terrible memory of this topic, or simply regurgitate what others say without checking.
Just one of those is enough to make people not listen to you, but you got both. Brilliant.
You do realise what the quotes mean, right? When a word is put in quotes, it denotes a non-standard use of the word - either highlighting that the word doesn't mean what it purports, or referring to a subset who masquerade under that title but which represent something distinct. Using "gamers" to differentiate between actual gamers and misogynistic muppets who also call themselves "gamers" is one such valid use.
You've clearly decided not to educate yourself. There are answers for all your questions, which you don't seem to be bothered to read, preferring to live in ignorance instead. Weird. Your tirade simply told everyone you are ignorant and happy to be ignorant. Shame.
It's not a benefit. Your ground will melt, you will be inundated with pests, and the land where your current food grows might well become less productive, leading to shortages. When someone says global warming is a benefit, it's a clear indication they don't know what they're talking about.
You'd know the answers to these questions if you had sought them out. The fact you didn't seems to indicate you've already made your mind up, and are precisely the sort of person we've been discussion - that which likes to look like they're engaged in a rational, adult discussion, but who are doing anything but...
You are denying the facts. You cherry-picked years and held them up as evidence of no warming, even though the years surrounding that 18 years (and stretching back decades) point to it existing. If those measurements are accurate, then you agree warming is happening. If you accept those measurements and still claim there has been no warming, you are lying to yourself.
So you really just don't have a clue, and are railing against some fiction of a scientist you've concocted in your head, based on mistrust and ignorance of scientific findings, scientists, and the scientific method in general.
Case in point: You cited 3 years. Whether the ice was record in quantity or not (it wasn't, but that's another story), 3 years is precisely 1/10th of the period needed for that to even register in the field of climatology. With that single number you just outed yourself as either an ignorant buffoon who values his own opinion more than that of actual experts, or someone who is being intellectually dishonest. Neither is nice, but you've got to pick one.
Aaah - I thought you were being intellectually dishonest. It's now readily apparent you are just simply ignorant. Read the latest IPCC report, and you'll have your answers. Of course you should have already done this if you feel confident enough to spout nonsense on the internet...
Walruses spend a massive amount of time on the ice. You'd know that if you'd done half the research you claim you have:) It's true that at this time of year they can be found on land, but saying ice has no effect on walrus populations is pretty weird, considering it's a massive part of their life, and especially during mating season. Heck, it's one of the reasons they have tusks - to get out of the ice, and to keep ice holes open.
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of it is. You can go to a tiny town stuck up in the north and get 100/100 internet service for a very competitive price. Assuming that's not the case kind of showed your bias ;)
Seeing as road signs are still in miles in the UK, it's not surprising :)
It's morally wrong to talk about it because it's factually incorrect.
He said it could be free by 2010 or 2015. He's right - it could be. Most experts place the date later, but agree it will likely happen within the next 100 years. Did you expect to sound clever with your pithy one-liner? It didn't work. You just outed yourself to be dishonest by picking one date and ignoring the other, and pretending that this one guy represents all researchers.
This is going to sound really, really bizarre, but you could familiarise yourself with some of the most basic research, which would answer all of your questions. Believe it or not, but the climate scientists have taken historical events & trends into account when working on this. You also might want to be aware that in the Cretaceous period CO2 was at about 2000ppm, not the 8000ppm required to be 20x the current level.
So to answer your question - the research findings show that it is most definitely human output which is responsible for the vast majority of climate change. It's easy to ignore science when it tells you something you don't want to hear, but it doesn't magically invalidate science and make you correct - it just shows you have a disdain for knowledge and the scientific method, which is ironic considering without the scientific method you'd not be alive to complain about how it's wrong.
You do realise that every time you post something like that, the only thing you achieve is letting people see you really have no idea what you're going on about. Let's try this again:
Climate: (noun) - the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period
Weather: (noun) - the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
Please let your strawman go and actually attack the science, if it's that easy. Apparently it's not, as every fossil fuel company has tried and they can't do it, and the scientist who can would get the Nobel prize and a practically unlimited research budget.
Eh? Did they not know the first amendment only applies to the government? Weird. Sounds like a bunch of muppets.
Sustainability does not imply stasis - it just means that whatever something is doing, that it can keep doing it. That can be growth, stagnation, decline, ballet dancing, shooting monkeys into space, teaching badgers to dance, whatever. The idea that sustainability implies stasis is an error you have concocted.
The fact your last sentence (after the first comma) outlines the very nature of sustainability kind of illustrates that :)
This has been discussed ad infinitum in the relevant reports and papers, which is a bit of a clue you haven't done your homework.
The warmer weather would make the current farmland less able to produce crops (as it's geared up to maximise output of select crops in the current climate), and the new land will most likely not be great farmland. For example, great swathes of Canada has terrible topsoil because of glacial erosion. That would be terrible farmland, and hopes of it being just as productive as the land it replaces are just that - hopes. That's not even considering the floods of pests to these new climes, the lack of supporting infrastructure, etc.
So yes, the growing season would be larger, but the land capable of being farmed would be less (and lacking infrastructure) so it's not as simple as you assume.
This is the thing - you don't have enough money to live an extravagant lifestyle, if the external costs were factored in. You're not paying your share of the eventual costs related to dealing with global warming, which if factored in would probably push your lifestyle out of your reach. Buying a new planet isn't cheap.
The sad thing is you clearly don't understand what global warming is - what we're witnessing is not a natural cycle. It's happening way faster than it has before, the cause of which has been demonstrated to be man-made, and it's messing with stuff we as a species need in order to survive. Your "extravagant lifestyle" will be impossible should you continue to live it, and everyone else has to pay.
You sound incredibly selfish and incredibly ignorant, which isn't really surprising. If you'd be bothered to learn about climate change and what's likely to happen, you'd at least stop being ignorant. I can't help you with the selfishness, though, especially as you seem to treat it like a badge of honor.
History will not look kindly on people like you, and it would be quite right.
You should see where Iceland gets most of its energy, then realise they're not part of the problem.
So because of two bad parents in your family (you and your mother) you are willing to condemn all homosexual people? Brilliant. "Best" does mean something to liberals - and I doubt they would use it to describe your logic or parenting skills, both of which (by your own admission, whether you realise it or not) are less than adequate.
Nope, and the fact you asked that means you really don't know what's going on.
You notice you wrote "presumed", right? If you didn't, then there's your answer. If you did realise you wrote that, then you suck as a human being.
It's a feature of a river, namely the deepest part. It appears to come from the German for 'Valley' ('Thal'/'Tal') and 'Way' or 'Path' ('Weg').
You outed yourself with your last sentence. The only place global cooling was discussed was in the media, not in the scientific literature. It also wasn't the 1980s or 1990s, but the 1970s, which also means you either have a terrible memory, or are regurgitating something you heard someone else say. So, to sum up, you just demonstrated that you:
1. Get your scientific information from the mass media
2. Have a terrible memory of this topic, or simply regurgitate what others say without checking.
Just one of those is enough to make people not listen to you, but you got both. Brilliant.
You do realise what the quotes mean, right? When a word is put in quotes, it denotes a non-standard use of the word - either highlighting that the word doesn't mean what it purports, or referring to a subset who masquerade under that title but which represent something distinct. Using "gamers" to differentiate between actual gamers and misogynistic muppets who also call themselves "gamers" is one such valid use.
No but his hubris prevents him from realising that his understanding of the world isn't perfect, hence him wailing on about such nonsense.
You've clearly decided not to educate yourself. There are answers for all your questions, which you don't seem to be bothered to read, preferring to live in ignorance instead. Weird. Your tirade simply told everyone you are ignorant and happy to be ignorant. Shame.
It's not a benefit. Your ground will melt, you will be inundated with pests, and the land where your current food grows might well become less productive, leading to shortages. When someone says global warming is a benefit, it's a clear indication they don't know what they're talking about.
You'd know the answers to these questions if you had sought them out. The fact you didn't seems to indicate you've already made your mind up, and are precisely the sort of person we've been discussion - that which likes to look like they're engaged in a rational, adult discussion, but who are doing anything but...
You are denying the facts. You cherry-picked years and held them up as evidence of no warming, even though the years surrounding that 18 years (and stretching back decades) point to it existing. If those measurements are accurate, then you agree warming is happening. If you accept those measurements and still claim there has been no warming, you are lying to yourself.
So you really just don't have a clue, and are railing against some fiction of a scientist you've concocted in your head, based on mistrust and ignorance of scientific findings, scientists, and the scientific method in general.
Case in point: You cited 3 years. Whether the ice was record in quantity or not (it wasn't, but that's another story), 3 years is precisely 1/10th of the period needed for that to even register in the field of climatology. With that single number you just outed yourself as either an ignorant buffoon who values his own opinion more than that of actual experts, or someone who is being intellectually dishonest. Neither is nice, but you've got to pick one.
Aaah - I thought you were being intellectually dishonest. It's now readily apparent you are just simply ignorant. Read the latest IPCC report, and you'll have your answers. Of course you should have already done this if you feel confident enough to spout nonsense on the internet...
Walruses spend a massive amount of time on the ice. You'd know that if you'd done half the research you claim you have :) It's true that at this time of year they can be found on land, but saying ice has no effect on walrus populations is pretty weird, considering it's a massive part of their life, and especially during mating season. Heck, it's one of the reasons they have tusks - to get out of the ice, and to keep ice holes open.