Yet when we compare outcomes, the US doesn't do that well. Clearly something is up. If you just want to focus on some unsubstantiated claims on Slashdot and ignore the actual statistics, I can understand why you'd be so confused.
Solar panels do work on cloudy days, just not as well. Also you can say CO2 is good for plants, as that is correct, but to use that fact to try to show how global warming is not bad just shows you don't understand this at all. The amount of CO2 which benefits plants depends on the species. The most important plant species for humans are our crops. These have been engineered over the course of human existence to yield the optimum nutritional value for our current CO2 levels - adding more CO2 will increase crop yield by weight, but decrease the crop's nutritional value. The extra CO2 also brings with it increased temperatures, bringing different pests to the crops, and slowly moving arable farmland towards the poles (and it crosses borders like they weren't there), where infrastructure, experience, and communities might not exist to make use of it. This is just scratching the surface of the complicated relationship between plants and CO2, something you are either entirely unaware of or dishonest enough to ignore.
The investigation into those showed nothing incorrect or dishonest happened. You might want to actually offer evidence of your position rather than blurting out something you think has something to do with it.
No. That gained traction in the public press, but the papers published at the time shows it was not the common understanding. Hint: don't let other people put words in your mouth when they are stupid.
It is more about spotting people of interest acting in very interesting ways. Yes, they know who the terror suspects are (hence them being terror suspects), but they need to be able to build up cases to charge these people. Collection of evidence is a large step in this direction. Don't be so quick to dismiss evidence and substitute your own explanation - it only serves to show us how little you value truth in your arguments.
Because they frequently tell us. That's the entire point of terrorism - to have goals, and to use force or the threat of force to politically coerce people into achieving those goals. You being ignorant of this doesn't change anything.
Uber is simply not engaged in "ride sharing". Ride sharing is when a driver is going to make a journey, and takes one or more people with them, in return for covering their costs on the way. No money is made, and the journey happens regardless of the extra people along for the ride.
It's actually working rather well for us in Europe. Our declining birth-rates means we need an influx of young workers to shore up the inevitable pension deficit facing us in the future. If you think the 0.000001% of refugees who are causing problems somehow make it a bad idea, then you might want to brush up on your statistics, and also question whether it is right to tar millions for the actions of a few. We demand more from our legal systems and from human rights, but apparently some people (and I apologise if you are not one of them) seem to be willing to throw out improving our future and helping millions save themselves and their families for the simple feeling of being more secure, even though their security won't be increased one iota. It's the irrational cowards who have a problem with immigration, not rational people.
But yes, temperature itself is not the largest immediate issue, but its side-effects can indeed create pressing matters.
One causes higher storm surges in the world's most valuable real-estate upon which the financial capitals of the world are built and are an absolute necessity for our civilisation to continue, and the other pisses off cartographers. Trying to equate the two shows either a complete lack of understanding of the subject, or an intellectual dishonesty worthy of nothing but scorn. Pick one.
You seem to be unaware that data is usually always adjusted. You suck at science, yet here you are thinking you know enough to disprove an entire field. Your arrogance (or is it just wishful thinking?) is pathetic.
Aaah the old "massive global conspiracy involving every single accredited academic institution in the world, which also ignores the massive awards awaiting anyone who could expose it" excuse for ignoring science. You seriously don't seem to understand the amount of awards, prestige and funding awaiting anyone who can overturn these findings. Nobel prizes, you name it. That all is waiting for the first to be able to do so. No one has as it's like asking people to prove cows are jellyfish.
The adjustments generally used (which always have to be performed when you mix data from different measurement techniques) are lowering the recorded temperature. You are either woefully ignorant of this field, or are being intellectually dishonest.
It's more likely a case of you not bothering to seek out investigative journalism (of which there has been an ever-increasing amount), and when some accidentally crosses your path you assume it must be a change in the amount of journalism, and nothing else. Not, possibly, that because you don't care about journalism when you see an article "attacking" someone you like you have to find a reason for the article's existence beyond the person you like fucking up.... naaah. Couldn't be that. It must be some massive conspiracy amongst journalists of all flavours to deceive you. Your arrogance is disgusting. No wonder you are so confused by the world around you.
Those things are not entirely connected (and some of them not even slightly connected), so your point seems to be that there are some small revolutions attempting to be started. This is business as normal for mankind, and not some harbinger of future troubles.
If you had said fundamental Islam, I'd agree with you. I'd also have to mention that fundamental Christianity, Judaism - you name it - are also just as incompatible with human rights. Moderate forms recognise this and so focus on the internal relationship between believer and their god or gods, instead of trying to reshape society in the image of their religion.
Gather some evidence, write a paper, and get a Nobel prize or two. Either you don't understand what you are saying, or you are criminally lazy. Pick one.
We do have accurate models. You not knowing about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Why are you so angry with scientists instead of yourself? It's your job to educate you, not theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet when we compare outcomes, the US doesn't do that well. Clearly something is up. If you just want to focus on some unsubstantiated claims on Slashdot and ignore the actual statistics, I can understand why you'd be so confused.
So the cause of these issues is poor local governance using the EU as a tool to subvert their electorate's wishes?
Solar panels do work on cloudy days, just not as well. Also you can say CO2 is good for plants, as that is correct, but to use that fact to try to show how global warming is not bad just shows you don't understand this at all. The amount of CO2 which benefits plants depends on the species. The most important plant species for humans are our crops. These have been engineered over the course of human existence to yield the optimum nutritional value for our current CO2 levels - adding more CO2 will increase crop yield by weight, but decrease the crop's nutritional value. The extra CO2 also brings with it increased temperatures, bringing different pests to the crops, and slowly moving arable farmland towards the poles (and it crosses borders like they weren't there), where infrastructure, experience, and communities might not exist to make use of it. This is just scratching the surface of the complicated relationship between plants and CO2, something you are either entirely unaware of or dishonest enough to ignore.
The investigation into those showed nothing incorrect or dishonest happened. You might want to actually offer evidence of your position rather than blurting out something you think has something to do with it.
No. That gained traction in the public press, but the papers published at the time shows it was not the common understanding. Hint: don't let other people put words in your mouth when they are stupid.
It is more about spotting people of interest acting in very interesting ways. Yes, they know who the terror suspects are (hence them being terror suspects), but they need to be able to build up cases to charge these people. Collection of evidence is a large step in this direction. Don't be so quick to dismiss evidence and substitute your own explanation - it only serves to show us how little you value truth in your arguments.
And people who have lived in Europe for centuries. Terrorism happens where people are. There is no singular cause or common trait.
As that is not a political party, I'd say you need to revisit your argument.
Because they frequently tell us. That's the entire point of terrorism - to have goals, and to use force or the threat of force to politically coerce people into achieving those goals. You being ignorant of this doesn't change anything.
Uber is simply not engaged in "ride sharing". Ride sharing is when a driver is going to make a journey, and takes one or more people with them, in return for covering their costs on the way. No money is made, and the journey happens regardless of the extra people along for the ride.
It's actually working rather well for us in Europe. Our declining birth-rates means we need an influx of young workers to shore up the inevitable pension deficit facing us in the future. If you think the 0.000001% of refugees who are causing problems somehow make it a bad idea, then you might want to brush up on your statistics, and also question whether it is right to tar millions for the actions of a few. We demand more from our legal systems and from human rights, but apparently some people (and I apologise if you are not one of them) seem to be willing to throw out improving our future and helping millions save themselves and their families for the simple feeling of being more secure, even though their security won't be increased one iota. It's the irrational cowards who have a problem with immigration, not rational people.
But yes, temperature itself is not the largest immediate issue, but its side-effects can indeed create pressing matters.
One causes higher storm surges in the world's most valuable real-estate upon which the financial capitals of the world are built and are an absolute necessity for our civilisation to continue, and the other pisses off cartographers. Trying to equate the two shows either a complete lack of understanding of the subject, or an intellectual dishonesty worthy of nothing but scorn. Pick one.
The climategate link which showed absolutely nothing wrong?
You seem to be unaware that data is usually always adjusted. You suck at science, yet here you are thinking you know enough to disprove an entire field. Your arrogance (or is it just wishful thinking?) is pathetic.
Aaah the old "massive global conspiracy involving every single accredited academic institution in the world, which also ignores the massive awards awaiting anyone who could expose it" excuse for ignoring science. You seriously don't seem to understand the amount of awards, prestige and funding awaiting anyone who can overturn these findings. Nobel prizes, you name it. That all is waiting for the first to be able to do so. No one has as it's like asking people to prove cows are jellyfish.
The adjustments generally used (which always have to be performed when you mix data from different measurement techniques) are lowering the recorded temperature. You are either woefully ignorant of this field, or are being intellectually dishonest.
Some are doing that, not all. Your comment does nothing to disprove the parent's comment.
It's more likely a case of you not bothering to seek out investigative journalism (of which there has been an ever-increasing amount), and when some accidentally crosses your path you assume it must be a change in the amount of journalism, and nothing else. Not, possibly, that because you don't care about journalism when you see an article "attacking" someone you like you have to find a reason for the article's existence beyond the person you like fucking up.... naaah. Couldn't be that. It must be some massive conspiracy amongst journalists of all flavours to deceive you. Your arrogance is disgusting. No wonder you are so confused by the world around you.
Those things are not entirely connected (and some of them not even slightly connected), so your point seems to be that there are some small revolutions attempting to be started. This is business as normal for mankind, and not some harbinger of future troubles.
If you had said fundamental Islam, I'd agree with you. I'd also have to mention that fundamental Christianity, Judaism - you name it - are also just as incompatible with human rights. Moderate forms recognise this and so focus on the internal relationship between believer and their god or gods, instead of trying to reshape society in the image of their religion.
Gather some evidence, write a paper, and get a Nobel prize or two. Either you don't understand what you are saying, or you are criminally lazy. Pick one.
We do have accurate models. You not knowing about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Why are you so angry with scientists instead of yourself? It's your job to educate you, not theirs.
It's OK. Bow out gracefully. You don't seem to understand this, which is fine.
Oh. I thought you were discussing science, not some conspiracy being waged in your head. Tragic.
Still waiting for your link...