Wonderful - you got one thing right, which I wasn't even referring to. It's the rest of your post which is drenched in inaccuracy and ignorance. You knowing how to spell Kyoto doesn't change that.
Then write your obviously-easy-to-write-if-all-the-science-can-be-rebutted-in-a-single-sentence paper, get it peer reviewed, and collect your Nobel prize and $1m. Go on! Wait, you can't? Because science is hard, you don't understand it, and they're not wrong? How weird!
Did you just discount his accurate reply, which showed that your entire post was fallacious? Weird. You claimed English keeps the pronunciation of words it has borrowed, which is patently false to anyone who knows about the Great Vowel Shift, and the associated shifts in other European languages. Again - weird you'd do that.
Ha! Here you go again! Hand-waiving the issues away as if they're due to some quality the US, and only the US, has. Hint: Diversity exists across the world. It was not invented or perfected in the US. Other diverse areas manage to not have the same problems you blame on diversity in the US. What is it with you and blaming minorities? You're worrying.
It's telling you seem to try to blame all inadequacies in the US on various subcultures. Very telling. It's almost as if you are racist, but don't even have the guts to admit it - your behaviour is indistinguishable. Nearly every single time I see someone criticise the US's performance in one area, you pop up, dribble the word "demographics" into the discussion, make some feeble excuse to try to not sound racist, then disappear again. You need help. Seriously. It seems it's you whose picked delusion. Racist, short-sighted, hate-filled, lazy delusion.
Your lack of knowledge of this subject is matched only by your hubris, which I suspect is why you can scream your ignorance for all to hear, and not realise just how ridiculous it makes you sound. The report may have been produced by a handful of people, but it is based on the peer-reviewed papers of thousands of scientists. You do know how science works, right? Because I'm starting to think you really don't. But I guess if that keeps you happy, that's all that matters.
Hint: they don't just use the surface air temperature. Funnily enough, you are not more clever than all the climatologists in the world, even if you think you are.
Yes, the climate in Russia, Canada and Northern Europe will be more suitable for crops, but their soil won't be. Canada's topsoil in the places you are talking about have been scraped away by glaciation, meaning they are next to useless for growing crops. Russia's permafrost will release massive amounts of methane when they melt, exacerbating the problem. Oceans will rise, swamping trillions of dollars' worth of city property (including many capital cities, and New York, for example). If you think it's not a big deal to have tens of millions of refugees, then you might need to re-evaluate your definition of "big deal", as that will cause untold pressure on infrastructure.
I guess if you don't actually look into what you claim, it all sounds peachy. It's once you actually do, and realise you are painting a rosy future not based on any actual science, do we realise we're in for quite a bumpy ride, to put it lightly. But you've already made up your mind, so this will fall on deaf ears.
Again - newspaper articles! Ha! It's not your memory that is fading, but your ability to reason. Newspaper articles are not a source for gauging the scientific consensus in any given period of time. You know that, as the scientist you claim to be.
And here-in lies the crux of your problem. If you rely on magazines and newspapers for your scientific knowledge, you will undoubtedly believe a whole bunch of crap. Just like you are showing now. What a pity. No wonder you are spouting the oft-debunked Christopher Monckton's talking points. It's strange that you claim to believe the facts, but you clearly make no effort to discover them, substituting newspaper articles for peer-reviewed papers. You are a bad scientist, my friend.
You are clearly an intelligent person, which is what makes this so sad. Your post is full of errors which the actual facts you claim to believe have proven to be false.
1. The medieval warm period affected just the northern Atlantic area - it was not global, and so is rather irrelevant in this discussion without you also discussing the rest of the world's climate during this period. It was also colder then than now, so it's rather pointless to even bring it up in discussion.
2. The Himalayan glaciers *are* receding. It sounds like you are paraphrasing Christopher Monckton's claims that they are not, which is strange, as the man himself has recanted that particular belief in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, they've been receding constantly, at least since satellite data has been available to demonstrate that fact.
3. Global cooling was not a scientifically-accepted hypothesis in the 1970s. It was, however, trotted around in the media for sensationalism, which is where this idea comes from that it was the scientific consensus at the time, when that is demonstrably nonsense.
4. Since the early 1900s, 80% of the ice on Kilimanjaro has disappeared. 80%. To say that the ice (which, colloquially, is what "Kilimanjaro's Snow" refers to) has not receded is patently false.
The source for your facts clearly needs some adjustment, as you are parroting the same debunked nonsense the anti-AGW crowd has been trotting around for years now. The facts are there - you don't seem to be wanting to look for them.
Canada's topsoil in the areas which will warm up were scraped away by glaciation, meaning those areas will be next to useless for crops. Siberia's permafrost contains a lot of methane, which will be released into the atmosphere if it melts, which is a potent greenhouse gas, which will cause even more warming. Its topsoil also isn't great for farming, plus the industry, skills, and workers required to farm Canada and Siberia's non-existent suitable farmland isn't in either Canada or Siberia, which is a bit of a problem for your notion. That spreading north of suitable climate for growing crops means that huge swathes of the US will no longer be able to produce crops, which doesn't sound like a good situation for the US to be in.
But whatever - you have your "facts", so I guess we can just ignore this stuff forever, with no ill-effects. Right?
You don't seem to understand. The US could halve its spending on healthcare and *everyone* would have healthcare coverage. Everyone. Not a single person without insurance. No-one would worry about getting sick and losing their house. No lawyers would fight in courts as to who would pay how much of what health costs to whom in the case of an accident. No massive health insurance companies gouging people for money. No hospitals charging $20 for an aspirin. No paperwork or money at hospitals. All of that nonsense goes away. All of that for spending LESS money. But whatever - scream about nutritionists' rights if you want. The rest of the developed world looks on at discussions like this and scratches their heads with disbelief. If everyone has the right to healthcare, those who are in the healthcare sector provide it via the channels established by the government-chartered, but independent, health service, which is staffed by people who know what costs what and who can provide what to whom. It is paid for by taxes (less than you pay now for your health insurance), and the financial difference between getting sick/injured and not is 0. But keep telling yourself that systems like that are somehow inherently bad, and that people who chose to become nutritionists will get woken up at 3:00am by someone asking about zinc supplements. It's not a mystery - look at other countries who spend fractions of the US's healthcare spending on systems which do what you seem to think is impossible or immoral. If you were correct, there would be mass protests by healthcare workers the world over screaming that they are slaves. Hint: those don't happen. Whatever. It's your funeral, and for some, quite literally so.
How dare you bring facts to this discussion! Can't you see that the perfect nation of the US is being besmirched by the UN again?? It is incumbent upon everyone to try to come up with the most bizarre, racist explanations in order to protect the US's reputation as the bestest country on the planet! Showing that even taking away the oft-blamed black community, the US is still lagging far behind the rest of the developed world isn't helping! How dare yOH SAY CAN YOU SEEblarghblarghblargh *head assplodes*
"Ethnic violence"? What's that supposed to mean? Scary brown people? There's violence or there is not - the ethnicity involved doesn't magically make violence non-violent, or vice versa. If you keep peddling such nonsensical terms you are going to look like a complete ass, and quite rightly so.
You have no evidence for that - it's just a nice excuse to make you think that the US isn't as messed up as it is. You also seem to be woefully ill-informed of the diversity in many places in Europe which rivals (or beats) the diversity in many violence-soaked places in the US. So to recap: you are making excuses for your country based on nonsense, in some childish attempt to not have to think about the intrinsic issues in the US which makes it one of the most dangerous countries in the developed world. You do realise you, and those who think like you, are causing harm to the US, right? As you gladly dismiss any criticism as being European propaganda, ensuring the harm continues unabated, just so you can feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside. You're clearly an intelligent person, so I have no idea what happened to you to skew your brain this way.
Put down the flag, read more, and you'll see why you are incredibly wrong. You are peddling falsehoods in some vain attempt to make the US seem less like the strange beast it is. You do realise if everyone adopted your tactic, any intrinsic problems in the US would never be solved, as everyone would gather together to waive their hands about to try to deflect the problem. Every single one of your points is factually incorrect. But you seem to think it's an accurate portrayal of reality, and so the insanity continues. Get a grip, man.
Very droll, however you do see far more mass shootings in the US than any other developed country in the world by far. So I don't think you are as correct as you seem to wish to think you are. To paraphrase Shakespeare: Something is rotten in the states of America.
Most men are killed because of who they are - gay men and transgendered people are frequently killed for how they were born. If you can't distinguish the two, and why one is heinously more severe than the other, you fail as a human being.
Slashdot Mirror
Wonderful - you got one thing right, which I wasn't even referring to. It's the rest of your post which is drenched in inaccuracy and ignorance. You knowing how to spell Kyoto doesn't change that.
Then write your obviously-easy-to-write-if-all-the-science-can-be-rebutted-in-a-single-sentence paper, get it peer reviewed, and collect your Nobel prize and $1m. Go on! Wait, you can't? Because science is hard, you don't understand it, and they're not wrong? How weird!
It only equals readily-available plutonium with our currently-used fuel cycles. That will not always hold true.
Did you just discount his accurate reply, which showed that your entire post was fallacious? Weird. You claimed English keeps the pronunciation of words it has borrowed, which is patently false to anyone who knows about the Great Vowel Shift, and the associated shifts in other European languages. Again - weird you'd do that.
Ha! Here you go again! Hand-waiving the issues away as if they're due to some quality the US, and only the US, has. Hint: Diversity exists across the world. It was not invented or perfected in the US. Other diverse areas manage to not have the same problems you blame on diversity in the US. What is it with you and blaming minorities? You're worrying.
It's telling you seem to try to blame all inadequacies in the US on various subcultures. Very telling. It's almost as if you are racist, but don't even have the guts to admit it - your behaviour is indistinguishable. Nearly every single time I see someone criticise the US's performance in one area, you pop up, dribble the word "demographics" into the discussion, make some feeble excuse to try to not sound racist, then disappear again. You need help. Seriously. It seems it's you whose picked delusion. Racist, short-sighted, hate-filled, lazy delusion.
Niche is pronounced "neesh" in, at least, British English, fyi.
Your lack of knowledge of this subject is matched only by your hubris, which I suspect is why you can scream your ignorance for all to hear, and not realise just how ridiculous it makes you sound. The report may have been produced by a handful of people, but it is based on the peer-reviewed papers of thousands of scientists. You do know how science works, right? Because I'm starting to think you really don't. But I guess if that keeps you happy, that's all that matters.
Hint: they don't just use the surface air temperature. Funnily enough, you are not more clever than all the climatologists in the world, even if you think you are.
Yes, the climate in Russia, Canada and Northern Europe will be more suitable for crops, but their soil won't be. Canada's topsoil in the places you are talking about have been scraped away by glaciation, meaning they are next to useless for growing crops. Russia's permafrost will release massive amounts of methane when they melt, exacerbating the problem. Oceans will rise, swamping trillions of dollars' worth of city property (including many capital cities, and New York, for example). If you think it's not a big deal to have tens of millions of refugees, then you might need to re-evaluate your definition of "big deal", as that will cause untold pressure on infrastructure.
I guess if you don't actually look into what you claim, it all sounds peachy. It's once you actually do, and realise you are painting a rosy future not based on any actual science, do we realise we're in for quite a bumpy ride, to put it lightly. But you've already made up your mind, so this will fall on deaf ears.
There isn't a pause in warming, so that is irrelevant. None have predicted space Elephants either, which matters just as much.
Thermonuclear detonation? No. Not even close. You clearly have no idea of what you speak.
Again - newspaper articles! Ha! It's not your memory that is fading, but your ability to reason. Newspaper articles are not a source for gauging the scientific consensus in any given period of time. You know that, as the scientist you claim to be.
And here-in lies the crux of your problem. If you rely on magazines and newspapers for your scientific knowledge, you will undoubtedly believe a whole bunch of crap. Just like you are showing now. What a pity. No wonder you are spouting the oft-debunked Christopher Monckton's talking points. It's strange that you claim to believe the facts, but you clearly make no effort to discover them, substituting newspaper articles for peer-reviewed papers. You are a bad scientist, my friend.
You are clearly an intelligent person, which is what makes this so sad. Your post is full of errors which the actual facts you claim to believe have proven to be false.
1. The medieval warm period affected just the northern Atlantic area - it was not global, and so is rather irrelevant in this discussion without you also discussing the rest of the world's climate during this period. It was also colder then than now, so it's rather pointless to even bring it up in discussion.
2. The Himalayan glaciers *are* receding. It sounds like you are paraphrasing Christopher Monckton's claims that they are not, which is strange, as the man himself has recanted that particular belief in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, they've been receding constantly, at least since satellite data has been available to demonstrate that fact.
3. Global cooling was not a scientifically-accepted hypothesis in the 1970s. It was, however, trotted around in the media for sensationalism, which is where this idea comes from that it was the scientific consensus at the time, when that is demonstrably nonsense.
4. Since the early 1900s, 80% of the ice on Kilimanjaro has disappeared. 80%. To say that the ice (which, colloquially, is what "Kilimanjaro's Snow" refers to) has not receded is patently false.
The source for your facts clearly needs some adjustment, as you are parroting the same debunked nonsense the anti-AGW crowd has been trotting around for years now. The facts are there - you don't seem to be wanting to look for them.
Canada's topsoil in the areas which will warm up were scraped away by glaciation, meaning those areas will be next to useless for crops. Siberia's permafrost contains a lot of methane, which will be released into the atmosphere if it melts, which is a potent greenhouse gas, which will cause even more warming. Its topsoil also isn't great for farming, plus the industry, skills, and workers required to farm Canada and Siberia's non-existent suitable farmland isn't in either Canada or Siberia, which is a bit of a problem for your notion. That spreading north of suitable climate for growing crops means that huge swathes of the US will no longer be able to produce crops, which doesn't sound like a good situation for the US to be in.
But whatever - you have your "facts", so I guess we can just ignore this stuff forever, with no ill-effects. Right?
Propaganda is disinformation intended to skew perception. The stories about Tesla are not disinformation. It seems you just don't like Tesla.
You don't seem to understand. The US could halve its spending on healthcare and *everyone* would have healthcare coverage. Everyone. Not a single person without insurance. No-one would worry about getting sick and losing their house. No lawyers would fight in courts as to who would pay how much of what health costs to whom in the case of an accident. No massive health insurance companies gouging people for money. No hospitals charging $20 for an aspirin. No paperwork or money at hospitals. All of that nonsense goes away. All of that for spending LESS money. But whatever - scream about nutritionists' rights if you want. The rest of the developed world looks on at discussions like this and scratches their heads with disbelief. If everyone has the right to healthcare, those who are in the healthcare sector provide it via the channels established by the government-chartered, but independent, health service, which is staffed by people who know what costs what and who can provide what to whom. It is paid for by taxes (less than you pay now for your health insurance), and the financial difference between getting sick/injured and not is 0. But keep telling yourself that systems like that are somehow inherently bad, and that people who chose to become nutritionists will get woken up at 3:00am by someone asking about zinc supplements. It's not a mystery - look at other countries who spend fractions of the US's healthcare spending on systems which do what you seem to think is impossible or immoral. If you were correct, there would be mass protests by healthcare workers the world over screaming that they are slaves. Hint: those don't happen. Whatever. It's your funeral, and for some, quite literally so.
How dare you bring facts to this discussion! Can't you see that the perfect nation of the US is being besmirched by the UN again?? It is incumbent upon everyone to try to come up with the most bizarre, racist explanations in order to protect the US's reputation as the bestest country on the planet! Showing that even taking away the oft-blamed black community, the US is still lagging far behind the rest of the developed world isn't helping! How dare yOH SAY CAN YOU SEEblarghblarghblargh *head assplodes*
"Ethnic violence"? What's that supposed to mean? Scary brown people? There's violence or there is not - the ethnicity involved doesn't magically make violence non-violent, or vice versa. If you keep peddling such nonsensical terms you are going to look like a complete ass, and quite rightly so.
You have no evidence for that - it's just a nice excuse to make you think that the US isn't as messed up as it is. You also seem to be woefully ill-informed of the diversity in many places in Europe which rivals (or beats) the diversity in many violence-soaked places in the US. So to recap: you are making excuses for your country based on nonsense, in some childish attempt to not have to think about the intrinsic issues in the US which makes it one of the most dangerous countries in the developed world. You do realise you, and those who think like you, are causing harm to the US, right? As you gladly dismiss any criticism as being European propaganda, ensuring the harm continues unabated, just so you can feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside. You're clearly an intelligent person, so I have no idea what happened to you to skew your brain this way.
Put down the flag, read more, and you'll see why you are incredibly wrong. You are peddling falsehoods in some vain attempt to make the US seem less like the strange beast it is. You do realise if everyone adopted your tactic, any intrinsic problems in the US would never be solved, as everyone would gather together to waive their hands about to try to deflect the problem. Every single one of your points is factually incorrect. But you seem to think it's an accurate portrayal of reality, and so the insanity continues. Get a grip, man.
Very droll, however you do see far more mass shootings in the US than any other developed country in the world by far. So I don't think you are as correct as you seem to wish to think you are. To paraphrase Shakespeare: Something is rotten in the states of America.
Most men are killed because of who they are - gay men and transgendered people are frequently killed for how they were born. If you can't distinguish the two, and why one is heinously more severe than the other, you fail as a human being.
*Whoever.
Two points - 0.9.8 is still under development, and so not ancient, and the problem was introduced in 1.0.1.