It is all about saving money. It costs almost $1billion per year to pay the/salaries/ at my university alone. (40k students.) Most of the professors have to scrounge for funds from private industry, and the admin staff are right at the poverty line.
Of course world governments want to take the cost of higher education off of their books.
Taking money away from bank share-holders. They profited for years on the banks negligence -- they should share the risk as well.
Reform the political system: no gerrymandering electorates, instant run-off voting, limits on corporate donations/advertising/PACs, etc.
No tax-breaks to corporations who off-shore jobs
A commission to look into regulatory capture
Make it easy to punish the board when a corporation does something illegal.
I once surveyed conservatives and liberals on a range of issues, and discovered a very well established empirical fact: they disagree on hardly anything; however, they believe that they disagree.
WHOLE lot like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. How'd that work out?
A true conservative would respect the traditions of society, which includes a distrust of market fundamentalism, which is really a radical LIBERAL idea from the 30s.
Of course, it is just one paper. Pretty meaningless by itself. A hot-shot researcher such as yourself should be able to find a few dozen papers on the topic in no time.
So why are you bothering me to find papers that you claim to be able to find yourself? Isn't this just a way to try and claim the intellectual high-ground -- belying a fear that you actually don't have it at all? Professional researchers don't jump up and down with "link me a paper" remarks.
I haven't read all of the latest IPCC report because (if you have looked at it you would already know the answer).
If I dug up a few references to support 1000s of years, would that change anything for you at all? Would you say "Hey, I was WRONG, I really do know less then I think I do".
A researcher in a completely unrelated industry (telecom).
Right... so you know more about climate science and ocean acidification, then the scientists who spends all their days studying it!!!!
If I remember correctly, you're the one that claimed the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for "thousands of years". Please support that claim with peer reviewed research.
I could refer you to the IPCC reports, but what would be the point. A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, right?
You looked at some numbers on a website -- almost certainly with the same politics as you. That's like saying that you know all about something because you watched a news story on TV.
As I thought, you've never looked at the actual numbers
You never looked at the numbers.
The truth is
The truth is that *you* think you know better then people who spend their lives looking at the numbers, because you have some "insight" into their motivation.
You are obviously not interested in learning something. Go to school if you are. If you think ocean acidification isn't happening and the science is wrong, then make a scientific argument.
Quit the play-act of politics disguised as scientific skepticism. Or keep it up. Doesn't matter to me.
wtf are you talking about. CO2 comes/out/ of the ocean as it warms up. As for "unscientific" acidification, you are so funny! Science must be the thing you do when you *ignore* evidence. All those scientists aren't actually doing any science!
A single atom of CO2 going into the atmosphere might last 5-15 years. However, the ocean contains a lot of CO2, and it *slowly* seeps out as the ocean warms. (It takes a long time to warm the ocean, because the ocean has a large heat capacity.) So, CO2 goes into the atmosphere, warms the earth a tiny bit, which causes the ocean to release more CO2, etc. The process take 100s (up to 1000) years to stabilise.
Atmospheric water reaches new levels of equilibrium in a matter of days to weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
The video showed they have an agenda
Woopty-do-dah
Prey-tell who doesn't have an agenda? Yourself?
Somehow I think that you believe that the world would have been better off without wikileaks, because they have an agenda.
It is as if the right had found its next target.
It is all about saving money. It costs almost $1billion per year to pay the /salaries/ at my university alone. (40k students.) Most of the professors have to scrounge for funds from private industry, and the admin staff are right at the poverty line.
Of course world governments want to take the cost of higher education off of their books.
Who will inflict justice on Amazon?
The financial services industry
you have to provide a solid alternative.
I once surveyed conservatives and liberals on a range of issues, and discovered a very well established empirical fact: they disagree on hardly anything; however, they believe that they disagree.
I heard one tea partier say racist things, so therefore the entire movement is just about white supremacy.
Can you spot the logical fallacy anywhere?
WHOLE lot like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. How'd that work out?
A true conservative would respect the traditions of society, which includes a distrust of market fundamentalism, which is really a radical LIBERAL idea from the 30s.
Except that there was a control group. IDIOT!
Being a gay man is a disease. AIDS is an advanced form.
You talk like a closet fag. Try not to dream of muscles when you sleep tonight.
Women love homo-erotica. They don't fantasize about guys having sex, but rather, imagine men falling romantically in love with each other. Weird, eh?
So... which statement in particular are you talking about. You just changed statements from under me.
The paper is here.
Yes, it would. Peer reviewed papers please - just as the one I have you that supported all the statements I had made in this thread.
Fate of fossil-fuel CO2 in geologic time
Of course, it is just one paper. Pretty meaningless by itself. A hot-shot researcher such as yourself should be able to find a few dozen papers on the topic in no time.
So why are you bothering me to find papers that you claim to be able to find yourself? Isn't this just a way to try and claim the intellectual high-ground -- belying a fear that you actually don't have it at all? Professional researchers don't jump up and down with "link me a paper" remarks.
I haven't read all of the latest IPCC report because (if you have looked at it you would already know the answer).
If I dug up a few references to support 1000s of years, would that change anything for you at all? Would you say "Hey, I was WRONG, I really do know less then I think I do".
If the answer is no, then I just wont bother.
A researcher in a completely unrelated industry (telecom).
Right... so you know more about climate science and ocean acidification, then the scientists who spends all their days studying it!!!!
If I remember correctly, you're the one that claimed the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for "thousands of years". Please support that claim with peer reviewed research.
I could refer you to the IPCC reports, but what would be the point. A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, right?
A researcher? For who? Who pays your bills?
See, I don't do "politics". I do science. You should try it.
What do you do for a living?
You looked at some numbers on a website -- almost certainly with the same politics as you. That's like saying that you know all about something because you watched a news story on TV.
As I thought, you've never looked at the actual numbers
You never looked at the numbers.
The truth is
The truth is that *you* think you know better then people who spend their lives looking at the numbers, because you have some "insight" into their motivation.
Please.
You are obviously not interested in learning something. Go to school if you are. If you think ocean acidification isn't happening and the science is wrong, then make a scientific argument.
Quit the play-act of politics disguised as scientific skepticism. Or keep it up. Doesn't matter to me.
wtf are you talking about. CO2 comes /out/ of the ocean as it warms up. As for "unscientific" acidification, you are so funny! Science must be the thing you do when you *ignore* evidence. All those scientists aren't actually doing any science!
Grow a brain.
You have a smoking gun! NOT
A single atom of CO2 going into the atmosphere might last 5-15 years. However, the ocean contains a lot of CO2, and it *slowly* seeps out as the ocean warms. (It takes a long time to warm the ocean, because the ocean has a large heat capacity.) So, CO2 goes into the atmosphere, warms the earth a tiny bit, which causes the ocean to release more CO2, etc. The process take 100s (up to 1000) years to stabilise.
Atmospheric water reaches new levels of equilibrium in a matter of days to weeks.
Undermine the economy and the environmental stuff WILL be sidelined. You'll lose political and economic backing for it.
A sustainable economy does not imply that the economy is undermined. That is a tacit assumption that /you/ are making, which is just incorrect.
Probably because /. is extremely averse to comments that go against the grain.
The no-warming since 1998 is such an obvious example of cherry-picking, and so obviously beside the point of a multi-decadal trend. Grow a brain.
I'm afraid not, cupcake. Trash the economy and it all goes away like frost in the summer sun.
Well, psychopath, you might be rich today, but tomorrow, it will be our children. Hopefully you will be the one hung-drawn and quartered, and not me.
Because it has been up to 8000 ppm without the Earth having caught fire befo
If you go back far enough in history there was no O2 in the atmosphere. Therefore it should be fine to do without it.