Are you seriously posting with a link to desmogblog.com ? A propaganda site founded by a PR firm and expert from Canada, who is on the board of directors of the Suzuki foundation?
An article writen by Kenvin Grandia and green activist and political expert manipulator in that area.
Really?
You need to vet your "debunking" much more carefully before you go spreading it all over the place.
After what you wrote, I'm not very worried about what you think of me.
Seriously, talking about being geared? You think the poor have winter arctic gear to spare?
If you had a hard time camping in 30C and you cant pee after drinking 6 liters of water, you have a problem my friend.
I live in Montreal and sometimes work in northern Quebec. I have seen extremes from -50 to +44 Celsius. Though its draining at +44, you need lots of water and shouldn't do hard labor, its much easier to survive than -10 with the same resources.
That you are trying to wiggle around that and pretend its not true, just shows you aren't objective.
Its much harder to survive when you are poor in the cold than in the heat. Which is why you have shanty towns in the tropics and you don't have them in northern climates.
Your "nearly-as-certain" part is where you go off the rails. There is no evidence that water vapor is a "strong" positive feedback loop. There is a whole lot of speculation, but no evidence. Considering that there has been pretty much no warming for the past 18.8 years and a steady increase in CO2, this puts a real damper on the positive feedback loop theory.
There is in fact more recent theories that increased water vapor acts as a control mechanism and creates a negative feedback loop, by increasing cloud cover which reduced incoming sunlight.
The fact that you think its just wishful thinking that climate is self-regulating is laughable. What do you think climate has been doing for 99.9999% of the planets life without humans?
My education is deficient, then you go on to say an undergraduate text on atmospheric science would answer my questions... really? To understand what part of climate science is secondary education level, I need to read a college level text? That makes sense to you?
It all goes back to what I've been saying elsewhere. The basics are understood and accepted by pretty much everyone. The debate is in extent, impact and natural variability.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the change in Ph levels science is still learning, and some seem to think there is nothing to see concerning your "acidification" claims.
Ah, now you get mad, because I don't agree with your extremism.
The question concerning your 2 assertions is by how much? And is it anything to worry about?
You obviously don't know much about this subject, all I see you parrot is mainstream talking points.
The science on ocean Ph levels is barely in its infancy. The amount of data points so small, its basically meaningless. Not to mention Ph can vary by orders of magnitude beyond the weak changes being purported withing the span of hours in 1 spot.
Keeping getting angry though. You seem more convincing.
Someone who worked on climate studies starting in 1979 at the Institute for Energy Analysis isn't qualified? Someone who worked on climate studies for the JASON group isnt qualified?
You clearly are grasping at straws trying to put down someone you know nothing about.
You should really look up the qualifications of those you put up high on pedestals, you would find they are no more qualified than he is.
As usual your ideology is showing. "My experts are the righteous experts, while all others are poseurs".
Your side keeps claiming that there are no scientists that disagree with catastrophic global warming of the apocalypse, but everytime a scientists raises his hand and says, I DON'T, BAM. You guys attack the shit out of him, discredit him, re-write history, make mountains out of ant hills and generally do allot of hand waving and brushing under the carpet.
Its getting old, and people are seeing through it.
I'm sorry martian man, you have bought into appeal to authority. Your statement is exactly an appeal to authority.
Climate science is made up of all sorts of scientists and many of the most prominent ones are just statisticians, mathematicians, anthropologists, etc...
You cannot tell me with a straight face that Freeman Dyson is not qualified to make a sound judgement on some of the findings by reading published literature on the subject.
Unless you listen to mainstream media alarmism and a few of the extremists on that side, even the IPCC barely points to barely more than half "could" be man made and they have absolutely no idea if its bad or not.
The tipping point argument holds no water and has no evidence.
But the questions you mention are valid ones, I just think you believe they are answered when they are not.
You are really being a dick with your un-useful rebuttals.
1. This thread is about Vegas, so asking drivers to speak clear English IS relevant; 2. Being a Cab driver is a SERVICE, which is paid for by the customer; 3. The service should be efficient and be a pleasant experience; 4. Most people do not want to hear loud music (never mind from which country or which type) while they are riding in a taxi, the cabbie is on my dime (see point 2), he can listen to music when I get off; 5. Most people do not want to hear a loud one sided conversation in ANY language while riding in a taxi, the cabbie is on my dime (see point 2), he can have a conversation when I get off; 6. When you get into a cab, you pay for efficient transportation to your destination. The service price should include proper navigation, if I have to pull out my phone and be the GPS, then I'll charge you half the price back; 7. GPS should be in every taxi in 2015, no exception, trying to defend the un-defendable is ludicrous; 8. Rent a car? And pay all those hotel fees for parking and the valet service? Did you really just say that, for Vegas? The only time renting a car in Vegas makes ANY sense, is if you are NOT going on the strip; 9. I dont want to get out and find a new cab, I want good service the first time, which is why I pay for it. This is WHY Uber and Lyft are getting traction, because the service is so utter shit at the moment. And that was the point of the OP, GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER if you dont want competition;
Not everyone travels the same way. The main point is, Taxi service is a paid service and if that industry wishes to remain relevant, they need to increase customer experience and quality of service. All your points where actually reinforcing the fact that the taxi services are shit, because your answer to everything was, Do it Yourself. In that case, Taxi's shouldnt exist, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Droughts are natural and they havent been increasing in frequency or intensity, unless you can otherwise prove it.
Same goes for hurricanes.
Tropical disease spreading has not been linked to an increase of 0.8c, that would be rediculous.
Food prices have skyrocketed because of so called GREEN initiatives like wasting maze/corn for fuel production.
Look it up. The rise in world wide food prices is directly linked to the idiotic ethanol projects.
Are you seriously posting with a link to desmogblog.com ? A propaganda site founded by a PR firm and expert from Canada, who is on the board of directors of the Suzuki foundation?
An article writen by Kenvin Grandia and green activist and political expert manipulator in that area.
Really?
You need to vet your "debunking" much more carefully before you go spreading it all over the place.
It seems to lack imagination.
I foresee internet speeds growing slowly reducing the new normal until there is a "for pay" fast lane.
After what you wrote, I'm not very worried about what you think of me.
Seriously, talking about being geared? You think the poor have winter arctic gear to spare?
If you had a hard time camping in 30C and you cant pee after drinking 6 liters of water, you have a problem my friend.
I live in Montreal and sometimes work in northern Quebec. I have seen extremes from -50 to +44 Celsius. Though its draining at +44, you need lots of water and shouldn't do hard labor, its much easier to survive than -10 with the same resources.
That you are trying to wiggle around that and pretend its not true, just shows you aren't objective.
You are being disingenuous.
Its much harder to survive when you are poor in the cold than in the heat. Which is why you have shanty towns in the tropics and you don't have them in northern climates.
Your "nearly-as-certain" part is where you go off the rails. There is no evidence that water vapor is a "strong" positive feedback loop. There is a whole lot of speculation, but no evidence. Considering that there has been pretty much no warming for the past 18.8 years and a steady increase in CO2, this puts a real damper on the positive feedback loop theory.
There is in fact more recent theories that increased water vapor acts as a control mechanism and creates a negative feedback loop, by increasing cloud cover which reduced incoming sunlight.
The fact that you think its just wishful thinking that climate is self-regulating is laughable. What do you think climate has been doing for 99.9999% of the planets life without humans?
My education is deficient, then you go on to say an undergraduate text on atmospheric science would answer my questions... really? To understand what part of climate science is secondary education level, I need to read a college level text? That makes sense to you?
It all goes back to what I've been saying elsewhere. The basics are understood and accepted by pretty much everyone. The debate is in extent, impact and natural variability.
It is, I agree, I try to keep my calm when dealing with those who think they are smarter than others and argue from ideology.
It could also increase crop productions, growing seasons, greening of the earth and eventual just start getting cold again.
So tell me why we should fear this slight increase in temperature again, when there is no evidence it is a problem?
You didint juste write all of that with à straight face did you?
Strip naked and try to survive in -10C weather compared to +40C.
Then come back and tell me heat is worst for humans than cold.
You religious people are literally insane.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the change in Ph levels science is still learning, and some seem to think there is nothing to see concerning your "acidification" claims.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
All of your assertions are conjecture.
If only you had some evidence, or that observations could support your claims.
Really now?
So heat kills more than cold, when it comes to climate?
Explain that one to me.
Yes, Dr David Evans.
But unfortunately, there wont be any verifying by the alarmist side. They do not want to be told they where wrong.
They will ignore it like they do all evidence or observations that dont fit the agenda.
Another talking point.
The worst case scenario fallacy.
Now its 90%? Or your just being conservative because you don't believe the 97% version of propaganda?
WHAT is settled is the question? Do you know whats settled? Please tell me EXACTLY what is settled. :)
Ah, now you get mad, because I don't agree with your extremism.
The question concerning your 2 assertions is by how much? And is it anything to worry about?
You obviously don't know much about this subject, all I see you parrot is mainstream talking points.
The science on ocean Ph levels is barely in its infancy. The amount of data points so small, its basically meaningless. Not to mention Ph can vary by orders of magnitude beyond the weak changes being purported withing the span of hours in 1 spot.
Keeping getting angry though. You seem more convincing.
Someone who worked on climate studies starting in 1979 at the Institute for Energy Analysis isn't qualified?
Someone who worked on climate studies for the JASON group isnt qualified?
You clearly are grasping at straws trying to put down someone you know nothing about.
You should really look up the qualifications of those you put up high on pedestals, you would find they are no more qualified than he is.
As usual your ideology is showing. "My experts are the righteous experts, while all others are poseurs".
Your side keeps claiming that there are no scientists that disagree with catastrophic global warming of the apocalypse, but everytime a scientists raises his hand and says, I DON'T, BAM. You guys attack the shit out of him, discredit him, re-write history, make mountains out of ant hills and generally do allot of hand waving and brushing under the carpet.
Its getting old, and people are seeing through it.
I'm sorry martian man, you have bought into appeal to authority. Your statement is exactly an appeal to authority.
Climate science is made up of all sorts of scientists and many of the most prominent ones are just statisticians, mathematicians, anthropologists, etc...
You cannot tell me with a straight face that Freeman Dyson is not qualified to make a sound judgement on some of the findings by reading published literature on the subject.
You would be wrong.
Unless you listen to mainstream media alarmism and a few of the extremists on that side, even the IPCC barely points to barely more than half "could" be man made and they have absolutely no idea if its bad or not.
The tipping point argument holds no water and has no evidence.
But the questions you mention are valid ones, I just think you believe they are answered when they are not.
The whole debate is exactly what you just said, "Extent and impact!".
Those who want to shutdown the debate would like you to believe its settled, when its far from it.
You can assert that the model has problems.
You seem to not understand that between black and white, there is a whole lot of grey.
Who do you think are climatologist?
They are all Geologists, statisticians, economists, mathematicians, psychologists, physicists, etc...
So you are saying Dyson is not as capable at basic understanding of the "high school grade SETTLED science" that is climate science?
You simple minded ideologists cant have your cake and eat it too. Its either simple grade school science or its not. Its either settled or its not.
Your argumenting from emotion and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You do know New Mexico is IN the USA right?
You are really being a dick with your un-useful rebuttals.
1. This thread is about Vegas, so asking drivers to speak clear English IS relevant;
2. Being a Cab driver is a SERVICE, which is paid for by the customer;
3. The service should be efficient and be a pleasant experience;
4. Most people do not want to hear loud music (never mind from which country or which type) while they are riding in a taxi, the cabbie is on my dime (see point 2), he can listen to music when I get off;
5. Most people do not want to hear a loud one sided conversation in ANY language while riding in a taxi, the cabbie is on my dime (see point 2), he can have a conversation when I get off;
6. When you get into a cab, you pay for efficient transportation to your destination. The service price should include proper navigation, if I have to pull out my phone and be the GPS, then I'll charge you half the price back;
7. GPS should be in every taxi in 2015, no exception, trying to defend the un-defendable is ludicrous;
8. Rent a car? And pay all those hotel fees for parking and the valet service? Did you really just say that, for Vegas? The only time renting a car in Vegas makes ANY sense, is if you are NOT going on the strip;
9. I dont want to get out and find a new cab, I want good service the first time, which is why I pay for it. This is WHY Uber and Lyft are getting traction, because the service is so utter shit at the moment. And that was the point of the OP, GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER if you dont want competition;
Not everyone travels the same way. The main point is, Taxi service is a paid service and if that industry wishes to remain relevant, they need to increase customer experience and quality of service. All your points where actually reinforcing the fact that the taxi services are shit, because your answer to everything was, Do it Yourself. In that case, Taxi's shouldnt exist, right?
I think you have it backwards.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...