The reason we have the scientific method is that common sense is useless when trying to discern fact from fiction. The world is constantly more bizarre than common sense dictates. It sounds like you simply don't understand what scientists claim happened back then, and so to deal with that, instead of accepting the limits of your intellect, are attacking those scientists (and those who *do* understand, or who realise the experts might know more than them). You are the ignorant twit, it seems.
The hubris is strong with this one. First, your "logic" and "reason" are telling you something evidence does not, and secondly you still think it matters that your boss calls you a senior systems engineer/architect. And yes, you are anti-science, as you are making assumptions about reality, claiming they are scientifically valid, and then getting upset when people point that out to you. You aren't questioning theories - you are ignoring them and putting your own hypotheses in their place, devoid of supporting evidence beyond urban myth and lazy thinking. You are the Glenn Beck of science. I hope you are happy with yourself - judging by your ego, you probably are.
Regardless of what you just said, imperial units are still ridiculous, and it sounds like someone touched a nerve to get that response from you:) Yes, every country on the planet has a unique quality - trying to explain the joke of still using imperial units in the 21st century as a quirk of character is ridiculous. Units are designed to ease the recording and/or transmission of measurements, meaning the more people use them, the more useful they are. Using imperial units is as sensible as using an Iroquoian language as the national language, and explaining it as a quirk of character when people point out that no-one can understand you. Bashing America is not always good - in fact, it's rarely good - but pointing out an anachronism which is actively hurting the US's participation in the world stage is not bashing. The fact you seem to think it is speaks more about your insecurity than the veracity of your claims.
Oh, and heavier-than-air flight did not originate in the US, fyi. The only thing that originated in the US in that regard was having a flight surrounded by journalists.
I'm pretty sure that's not correct - I've not heard any brits pronounce it that way. They would probably pronounce it as "rer", but not "er". "Leebrer", quite possibly, but never "liber".
He clearly meant "society" or a group of people when referring to "country". So yes, people belong to a group - the group does not belong to the people.
A republic can be a democracy, or not. A democracy can be a republic, or not. You don't seem to know what "democracy" or "republic" means - why should anyone listen to you discuss the merits or problems of either?
"Republic" and "democracy" clearly mean different things to what you understand. You might want to head on over to a dictionary. A republic simply means a country that is not ruled by a dynastic leader. A democracy simply means a country in which the people choose the leaders. Clearly the two are not mutually exclusive, and the US is both, albeit to various lengths.
How can the US go back to being "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch"? Do you even know what "republic" means?
Your answer is very illuminating. In most democracies there are a host of parties which people vote for, and which have a good chance of becoming important in the policy-making of the country in question. The fact you think that isn't the case speaks volumes about how you view politics, and if your thinking is in any way common, explains why the current US situation came about. You seem to think the joke of US democracy is somehow normal.
It's not a republic any more? The US has a dynastic leader, akin to a royal or dictatorial family? Weird. Or, maybe, you just don't know what the word "republic" means. That would make more sense.
You don't even know what these words mean, yet get so irate when people use them correctly. What's wrong with your brain? A republic means a country without a dynastic leader. That's it. It might have democracy, it might not, it has nothing to do with it.
For you it's an issue. For science, scientists, and those who are scientifically literate, it's still just science. If the evidence changed, so would their opinions. Your opinion most likely will never change, regardless of the evidence - if that weren't the case, you'd not be parroting this Monckton-esque nonsense all over the internet for everyone to read, highlighting your ignorance and stubbornness for all to see. Get a grip - you are the very thing you are complaining about. You are the ideologue. Your cause is the ideology. You don't even realise it - it's tragic. History will not look back kindly on people of your ilk, and quite rightly so. With all the benefits we have of education, you seem quite happy to just pick what you want to know, ignore the rest, complain it doesn't exist, and then condemn those who sought the truth out for themselves and tried to educate you on your own selfish shortcomings. You are a lazy, ignorant, scared little human being. I pity you.
Tell that to people who live in cities which are thousands of years old! Plus it's not entirely easy to move, say, New York, London, or even smaller (but just as awesome) Amsterdam further inland. I agree caution is needed, but it's needed in the causing and mitigation of global warming. So far we're only seeing it on the mitigation side, while industry continues unabated, with the Koch brothers doing all they can to keep it that way.
If you knew anything about this topic beyond what you've been told by non-scientists with conflicts of interest, you'd know the answers to both of those preconditions. Hint:
1. Human industry's continued emission of CO2 2. Keep CO2 levels in an acceptable range to minimise uncontrolled warming
Water vapour is short-lived in the atmosphere, generally turning to rain in a short period of time. When the atmosphere warms up, however, it can hold more water vapour, which increases warming even further. So more CO2 leads directly to more water vapour in the atmosphere.
It is settled. You saying it isn't doesn't make it so. The precise details of just how much affect mankind's CO2 output is having on the world still needs more accuracy, but then that always will be the case, as no science is 100% perfect. You seem to be arguing from ignorance. We, as a species, know enough already that the continued spewing of CO2 into the atmosphere will change our planet, and will cause massive disruption to how we live our lives. That's what happens when crops we rely on are no longer found in the places we grow them, when weather events get stronger, and when trillions of dollars of real estate is flooded.
The number of autism diagnoses is increasing, not necessarily the number of autistic people. Please not the difference. This is what happens when diagnosis improves. We've seen the same happen before when all sorts of diseases and conditions are discovered. By your logic AIDS doesn't exist, as before the 1980s no-one was diagnosed with it. See how ridiculous you sound? Probably not.
And found to be false. Your point? His data set was from experimentation he performed himself, so it's not as if the data could be shared and different conclusions made. When it comes to climatology, the data sets are shared all over the place, and anyone can check the methodology behind the collection of data, and the conclusions drawn from it. You comparing the two makes you sound as scientifically-illiterate as Jenny McCarthy. Are you happy now?
Because it won't be utopia? How do you know that warming those areas won't cause feedback which increases the temperature even more? Because that's a distinct possibility, given the huge amounts of methane trapped in the frozen ground. And, funnily enough, people like the weather where they live, as that's what they (and their cultures) are used to. Weird, I know.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we have the scientific method is that common sense is useless when trying to discern fact from fiction. The world is constantly more bizarre than common sense dictates. It sounds like you simply don't understand what scientists claim happened back then, and so to deal with that, instead of accepting the limits of your intellect, are attacking those scientists (and those who *do* understand, or who realise the experts might know more than them). You are the ignorant twit, it seems.
The hubris is strong with this one. First, your "logic" and "reason" are telling you something evidence does not, and secondly you still think it matters that your boss calls you a senior systems engineer/architect. And yes, you are anti-science, as you are making assumptions about reality, claiming they are scientifically valid, and then getting upset when people point that out to you. You aren't questioning theories - you are ignoring them and putting your own hypotheses in their place, devoid of supporting evidence beyond urban myth and lazy thinking. You are the Glenn Beck of science. I hope you are happy with yourself - judging by your ego, you probably are.
Regardless of what you just said, imperial units are still ridiculous, and it sounds like someone touched a nerve to get that response from you :) Yes, every country on the planet has a unique quality - trying to explain the joke of still using imperial units in the 21st century as a quirk of character is ridiculous. Units are designed to ease the recording and/or transmission of measurements, meaning the more people use them, the more useful they are. Using imperial units is as sensible as using an Iroquoian language as the national language, and explaining it as a quirk of character when people point out that no-one can understand you. Bashing America is not always good - in fact, it's rarely good - but pointing out an anachronism which is actively hurting the US's participation in the world stage is not bashing. The fact you seem to think it is speaks more about your insecurity than the veracity of your claims.
Oh, and heavier-than-air flight did not originate in the US, fyi. The only thing that originated in the US in that regard was having a flight surrounded by journalists.
I'm pretty sure that's not correct - I've not heard any brits pronounce it that way. They would probably pronounce it as "rer", but not "er". "Leebrer", quite possibly, but never "liber".
He clearly meant "society" or a group of people when referring to "country". So yes, people belong to a group - the group does not belong to the people.
A republic can be a democracy, or not. A democracy can be a republic, or not. You don't seem to know what "democracy" or "republic" means - why should anyone listen to you discuss the merits or problems of either?
"Republic" and "democracy" clearly mean different things to what you understand. You might want to head on over to a dictionary. A republic simply means a country that is not ruled by a dynastic leader. A democracy simply means a country in which the people choose the leaders. Clearly the two are not mutually exclusive, and the US is both, albeit to various lengths.
How can the US go back to being "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch"? Do you even know what "republic" means?
Your answer is very illuminating. In most democracies there are a host of parties which people vote for, and which have a good chance of becoming important in the policy-making of the country in question. The fact you think that isn't the case speaks volumes about how you view politics, and if your thinking is in any way common, explains why the current US situation came about. You seem to think the joke of US democracy is somehow normal.
"Early 2000 called ... yadda yadda ..."
Seriously - you're either a terrible programmer, a troll, or both.
It's not a republic any more? The US has a dynastic leader, akin to a royal or dictatorial family? Weird. Or, maybe, you just don't know what the word "republic" means. That would make more sense.
You don't even know what these words mean, yet get so irate when people use them correctly. What's wrong with your brain? A republic means a country without a dynastic leader. That's it. It might have democracy, it might not, it has nothing to do with it.
Which is the very definition of oligarchy... your point? :)
One guy saying something does not an oligarchy make, regardless of who that guy is.
For you it's an issue. For science, scientists, and those who are scientifically literate, it's still just science. If the evidence changed, so would their opinions. Your opinion most likely will never change, regardless of the evidence - if that weren't the case, you'd not be parroting this Monckton-esque nonsense all over the internet for everyone to read, highlighting your ignorance and stubbornness for all to see. Get a grip - you are the very thing you are complaining about. You are the ideologue. Your cause is the ideology. You don't even realise it - it's tragic. History will not look back kindly on people of your ilk, and quite rightly so. With all the benefits we have of education, you seem quite happy to just pick what you want to know, ignore the rest, complain it doesn't exist, and then condemn those who sought the truth out for themselves and tried to educate you on your own selfish shortcomings. You are a lazy, ignorant, scared little human being. I pity you.
Not to mention LV-429. There was some talk of nuking that one, though.
... he says with absolutely no evidence, thereby only highlighting his own bias, making himself look a total numpty in the process.
I'm pro-nuke and I believe climatology. Your point? Apart from that generalisations are stupid?
Tell that to people who live in cities which are thousands of years old! Plus it's not entirely easy to move, say, New York, London, or even smaller (but just as awesome) Amsterdam further inland. I agree caution is needed, but it's needed in the causing and mitigation of global warming. So far we're only seeing it on the mitigation side, while industry continues unabated, with the Koch brothers doing all they can to keep it that way.
If you knew anything about this topic beyond what you've been told by non-scientists with conflicts of interest, you'd know the answers to both of those preconditions. Hint:
1. Human industry's continued emission of CO2
2. Keep CO2 levels in an acceptable range to minimise uncontrolled warming
Water vapour is short-lived in the atmosphere, generally turning to rain in a short period of time. When the atmosphere warms up, however, it can hold more water vapour, which increases warming even further. So more CO2 leads directly to more water vapour in the atmosphere.
It is settled. You saying it isn't doesn't make it so. The precise details of just how much affect mankind's CO2 output is having on the world still needs more accuracy, but then that always will be the case, as no science is 100% perfect. You seem to be arguing from ignorance. We, as a species, know enough already that the continued spewing of CO2 into the atmosphere will change our planet, and will cause massive disruption to how we live our lives. That's what happens when crops we rely on are no longer found in the places we grow them, when weather events get stronger, and when trillions of dollars of real estate is flooded.
Please read more.
The number of autism diagnoses is increasing, not necessarily the number of autistic people. Please not the difference. This is what happens when diagnosis improves. We've seen the same happen before when all sorts of diseases and conditions are discovered. By your logic AIDS doesn't exist, as before the 1980s no-one was diagnosed with it. See how ridiculous you sound? Probably not.
And found to be false. Your point? His data set was from experimentation he performed himself, so it's not as if the data could be shared and different conclusions made. When it comes to climatology, the data sets are shared all over the place, and anyone can check the methodology behind the collection of data, and the conclusions drawn from it. You comparing the two makes you sound as scientifically-illiterate as Jenny McCarthy. Are you happy now?
Because it won't be utopia? How do you know that warming those areas won't cause feedback which increases the temperature even more? Because that's a distinct possibility, given the huge amounts of methane trapped in the frozen ground. And, funnily enough, people like the weather where they live, as that's what they (and their cultures) are used to. Weird, I know.