Man, maybe i should go back to school and learn english as a second language or something.
If the government ordered you under yhe threat of impriisonment to put a uniform on, pick up a gun, kill whoever they decided was an enemy or be killed by the enemy while others killed the enemy, are you more or less free? If you refuse and go to prison, are you less free? If you refuse and manage to make it to another country the doesn't ship you back to go to prison, leaving friends and family behind, are you less free?
Now, with a strong military, we do have the benifit and freedom from other countries not attacking us. But, even if you do not recognize that or think what the politicians are making the military do is pointless, you cannot deny that you are able to continue to live your life, to get an education, find a partner, go to parties, or relax and post on slashdot because people volunteered to serve in the military so you are not forced to. Those people idealy would be relaxing in a base talking about hypotheticals, but they were ordered to war and because they were there, you were not required to be.
Now i use the term you figuratively. For all i know you could have already served. But for those who didn't they stayed free because people did serve.
There is no irony there. The problem you "if" is not a likely scenario. As i stated already, the soldier does not decide to start a war, politicians do and they will do so when they see fit regardless of what you think about it. As early as WWWII, the majority of the US was against joining the war. The government held of until they let the japanese strick the pearl harbor navel base. (There is ample evidence that we knew it was comming and fsiled to prepare or take ghe limited warning seriously)
But you can go back to the civil war. The north could have scuttled fort sumter and abandoned it but Lincoln used it to push us into a war the majority of the US (north snd south) didn't want.
And please, lets not forget Vietnam where we had large protests shoving the lack of approval in to the politicians face on a regular basis. We, as a nation have even went to war with no standing military in our history so even disbanding the military altogether does little more than cause more citizens to be killed when they decide to go to war.
How many other things is there a large public outcry about that the politicians ignore? securing the borders might be one. The patriot act and it's evolution might be one. Gitmo might be one. More people apposed the PPACA than support it at certain times. Wall street banker bail outs I guess might be one, but of course everyone supported that. Hell, there is a large outcry over the IRS BS but one side of the politicians fear it will come back onto the administration somehow and want to make a mockery out of trying to get to the truth and determine if any illegal activities took place.
Nope, not at all. I'm saying some people in war was useless in achieving goals outside of distracting the enemy long enough for the useful people to win the battle.
This is a by product of a draft when you are just throwing bodies into the fight and not able of fielding highly trained killing machines. In a volunteer military, you get to weed out those who don't make the cut. In a draft, sometimes the only way to get a useful soldier is to kill off a less desirable soldier. This is sort of like fighting a war through attrition except you have an ace up your sleeve. Vietnam, whether official or not, saw a lot of battles like this where they sent wave after wave of soldiers up a hill. This was only possible because of the draft.
Regardless of what the oceans are doing at this moment, unless they all the sudden started doing it, it has been happening for all of time. Well, with it's variations within the system. So either the temp measured today is as valid as the temp measured yesterday, or 150 years ago, or the temps measures yesterday and 150 years ago are invalid also- due to the oceans.
You see, you cannot change mid stream and trot something that has always existed out when it is convenient or the temp record becomes inconvenient. The data as presented needs to be at least congruent with the calculations within it. Otherwise it is smoke and mirrors trying to hang onto belief that doesn't appear to be true any more.
The source of heating is believed to be a tearing apart, or rifting, of the crust under the Antarctic ice sheet. This allows movement of magma and creates volcanic eruptions, melting the ice. Liquid water and geological activity under the sheet allows the massive feature to slip off the continent.
So yes, it does appear that it is recent as in happening now. Otherwise tearing would have been replaced with something like torn apart and allows would likely have been allowed. So even if they were active in the past, the wording suggest it is happening recently.
You should find it fascinating. Outside of moral grounds, there are bonds that empower the government of the US that also places limits on the government. One of those limits is the right to due process when you are in US jurisdiction. A US citizen is in US jurisdiction wherever they are. A terrorist or even a school teacher who looks like a terrorist in another country might not be. Put those same people in the US, and they have the same right to due process.
Now right may be the wrong words here. The bonds that empower the federal government, the Constitution, forbids the government from denying due process to "we the people" except in a narrow window in which habeas corpus can be suspended- but that requires custody of the person and does not allow extrajudicial punishment outside of holding a person.
So no matter how contrived they can make an excuse to execute a foreigner on foreign soil, the government is expressly forbidden to do so on a US citizen who has not been afforded due process or is not showing an imminent threat to others. Of course in one of these instances, it seems to be collateral damage. It would be like a cop shooting at a suspect shooting other people and in the process killing a citizen with a stray bullet 2 blocks away. Not a criminal act, but the state is still responsible.
Ok, then separate the oceans from the other readings and claims of warming. That is the point, it is either built in, meaning you walk outside and take the temp and it is accurate despite the oceans, or it is not and needs separated completely.
The problem is that the oceans also contribute to the recorded heat. Only considering them separate when it is convenient or when the temp readings are inconvenient is misleading bordering on fraud.
Nah, it was a court that released the memo. They have no legitimate reason to hide the truth for the administration. Especially, when it appears the administration tried to negate their importance.
There was a FOIA request and it was refused. Someone took them to court and won but the administration appealed. The appeals court released the thing- presumable redacting it themselves.
They are keeping you free. We already know the politicians will go to war when they see fit regardless of what you think. When this happens and there aren't enough people serving their country, they enacts this thing called a draft in which you are forced to join the army and if you do poorly, you end up being fodder for the people more likely to survive to find cover behind while they kick ass.
Most ever other country, at least until reletively recently, has had a compulsory military service requirement for all males and some even women. Those people who volunteer, for whatever reason it may be, because we have an all volunteer military in the US, you are free to do as you please.
So get over yourself. If it wasn't for them, it would be like the Vietnam war and your number would eventually come up or you would live in fear of that happening. You are free, alive and safe because someone else stepped and you weren't forced to. Stop being an idiot.
I believe I will believe the science being done by scientists. Granted, they are from Texas and Texas is an oil state, but it's up for peer review in the journal "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" and I have yet to find anyone challenging it.
What has significantly changed in the oceans so that they do not play a role any other year except when it appears to be cooling or the warming lapsed?
Here is the problem with blaming the oceans. The effects we see aren't new. they were present in the past, they will be present in the future. Separating them when it is convenient is misleading and outright dishonest because you do not separate the effects at other times. It is like saying 2+2 is 4 except when you have less than 5 and some weird unknown rule kicks in and you add 1 but it is still accurate because you want it to be.
Now it is true that the oceans do absorb and release heat. It is true for measurements in 1999, 1918, 2006, 2014 and it will be true for measurements in 2025 and 3000.
What is true also is that the entire "Ocean did its thing so the lack of warming all the sudden is not real" is impossible to test because of decadal oscillations and rotational current patterns. The temp and effects of the temps in the Sargasso Sea for instance will naturally change with deviations in the North Atlantic decadal oscillations as well as the migration of the currents which pretty much guarantee changes in temps from year to year.
The importance of the linked article is for climate modeling, not debunking the lack of observed increases in warming.
This site is about as social as i normally get. I had to turn the advertising off because it started throwing pop up in new windows.
Anyhow, when it was on, nothing interested me unless i was looking for something specific and it judt happened to be there. But in searches and crap like that, i go out of my way to avoid the advertising links or products unless it is something specific and they are yhe only providers. Slashvertisements on the other hand seems to work because when i need to solve a problrm, i generally remember something from an article here.
I see you attended the dimwhits school of debating. Its sad that you can't even see the logical problem and instead of offering insight, move to spouting little more than an evasion of the question before trying to appeal to authority.
Here is a hint- well as close of one that i can give you without drawing a picture, the temps recorded at any other point in time already have the effects of the oceans built in. It is illigitimate to attemp to separate those effects and prod them out as a reason for an observation when it is completely dismissed or hidden when there is warming.
So in short, if it is enough of an impact to be stated as a reason for the lack of cooling, why is it hidden when there is warming and wouldn't that make the warming number inflated. The effects are natural snd built inti the temps by default so any reading atany other time that shows warming is just as legitimate as reading that show the lack of warming. You cannot change the rules for only part of the game when you think you might not be winning.
Two guys decide to see who is a better driver, one of them or a current record holder. They get the same car and decide to race down the same road. The current record holder made the trip in 10 minutes. The first guy tries and gets a close 10.5 minutes. The second guy tries and gets 9.75 minutes. The first guy complains he was driving into the wind and the second guy was driving with the wind. They look it up and there was wind going both directions when the previous record was set. Now, who was fastest? The second guy of course. The fact there was or was not any wind or which direction it was blowing doesn't change the times reported for the run.
Now, does the temp record adjust for every decadal oscillation event, does it adjust for every single day of low solar activity? Of course it does bevause it is built into the temp as it is taken. But for some reason, it needs to be held separate as an excuse for a lack of warming when it is not held separate to explain the warming. Further, it would be almost impossible to separate it from historic records.
So it is comparing apples to tractors or something because it isn't the same measurment if what was previously influencing the warming is separated and used as a cause for the cooling when nothing changed. All of the reasons are natural and have implications going either way. All the blaming the lack of warming on oceans does is point to cyclical natural events for the differences in temps. That is not what the science is saying though.
I don't think you understand the problem. All of what you have said has happened in the past. The inverse has also happened causing it to appear warmer also. All that is natural and built in so when temp readings from 30 years ago are brought up, it would be incorect to claim they are inflated and too warm because of the oceans. Now that there is a lul in the warming, it it just as incorect to cite the natural phenom for yhe temp readings.
It either countd then as it does now or it is changing yhe goal posts mid stream. Interedtingly, if hou are to say natural cycles cause the warming to stop, then natural cycles can be behind the majority of reported warming just the same. As several post now solidify, none of this happening with the ocean is new, its just being used by some to excuse yhe failings in models.
In most places in the US, if a building ends up being across a property line for a number of years unaposed, that amount of property becomes a deeded right of way. It used to change ownership and might still do so in some areas via squatters rights.
These rules came abouy from problems with surveys, incorectly recorded deed maps, and the lack of zoning over history. It could come about from something like a house or out building being built on or close to the property line. It gets added on and not recorded, sold and the new owner sees they have 20 feet to the property line on the east side of the building not realizing the previous owner already used 15 feeet up. So the new owner adds on another 15 feet and not its ten foot over. Now lets say 20 years pass and the neighboring property is passed to an heir. They cannot make you tear down the building now.
It isn't much of an issue now because zoning requires set backs and building permits and this is checked with plotting maps made from deed data. But at aone time, you could survey your property and find the survey pin was moved our something and someone's barn or house was on your property.
I doubt russia would do that. They know it would cause them to be targets. The problem is that mutually assured destruction is still a possibility and quite a few weapons systems design to evade first strikes still exist.
Thats all fine and all but it still doesn't explain why all the sudden the oceans need special consideration when temp measurements show a lapse in warming. These natural mechanisms were in place long before the lapse in warming and contributed to the record with the claimed warming. Ironically, you just made yhe case that the warming has been somewhat attributed to natural circumstances that seem to be absent now which i do not think was your point.
So either the watming is influenced by thrse nstural cycles also or something just happened. All anyone has done so far is explain why the models needed changed but not why the oceans all tje sudden invalidate a lapse in warming. Unless you are saying all that natural cyclical activity just started and never influenced temp records before the lapse in cooling. I don't think that is right either.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't be regarded as unmanly, just a reason to why the enemy wasn't worth much and needed to be killed- so carpet bombing and a lot of other things normally considered a war crime now would be in use.
You see, it often isn't the people fighting the wars who are all gun ho for war. Often it is people sitting safely behind desks pushing pencils and risking a paper cut of an assassination attempt from a disgruntled constituent that they haven't bothered to listen to for several years.
I don't remember ever seeing anyone claiming that other than someone who is leftist or liberal or whatever the favorite term of the day is now. They all vote democrat or third party that makes democrat look conservative.
Well, Nixon was claimed to be leftist because of the EPA and a few other things but if anything, Reagan, Bush Sr. Goldwater are considered conservative which is more right than left.
The biggest complaint about politicians republicans have is that once they are in Washington, they are more worried about what happens in Washington than in the districts and states they represent.
Perhaps it was the drunk posting from a phone or maybe you are trying to skirt the issue and hoping it somehow is hidden well enough not to impinge on global warming or something, but I'm not sure you even understand the question.
No one said the oceans weren't an important part of the equation. Someone said the warming stopped and the reply was only if you don't count the oceans. Now, the ocean's effect, whether included in models or not, were by default included in temperature readings. So when temp readings show no extra warming in a couple decades, all the sudden the oceans are being trotted out to dismiss it. So what has changed to make the oceans all the sudden magically special insomuch that they cancel the lack of warming?
In other words, unless something significant has happened concerning the oceans, any deviation in its importance or understanding will only affect modeling and not real world temperature readings. The temp taken today will have the same legitimacy as the temp taken in 1620, 1980, 2000, 2014, or 2025- unless someone can explain how the oceans all the sudden matter outside of the norm when no warming has been observed. Otherwise, the oceans cannot be used to explain a period of no or little warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, maybe i should go back to school and learn english as a second language or something.
If the government ordered you under yhe threat of impriisonment to put a uniform on, pick up a gun, kill whoever they decided was an enemy or be killed by the enemy while others killed the enemy, are you more or less free? If you refuse and go to prison, are you less free? If you refuse and manage to make it to another country the doesn't ship you back to go to prison, leaving friends and family behind, are you less free?
Now, with a strong military, we do have the benifit and freedom from other countries not attacking us. But, even if you do not recognize that or think what the politicians are making the military do is pointless, you cannot deny that you are able to continue to live your life, to get an education, find a partner, go to parties, or relax and post on slashdot because people volunteered to serve in the military so you are not forced to. Those people idealy would be relaxing in a base talking about hypotheticals, but they were ordered to war and because they were there, you were not required to be.
Now i use the term you figuratively. For all i know you could have already served. But for those who didn't they stayed free because people did serve.
There is no irony there. The problem you "if" is not a likely scenario. As i stated already, the soldier does not decide to start a war, politicians do and they will do so when they see fit regardless of what you think about it. As early as WWWII, the majority of the US was against joining the war. The government held of until they let the japanese strick the pearl harbor navel base. (There is ample evidence that we knew it was comming and fsiled to prepare or take ghe limited warning seriously)
But you can go back to the civil war. The north could have scuttled fort sumter and abandoned it but Lincoln used it to push us into a war the majority of the US (north snd south) didn't want.
And please, lets not forget Vietnam where we had large protests shoving the lack of approval in to the politicians face on a regular basis. We, as a nation have even went to war with no standing military in our history so even disbanding the military altogether does little more than cause more citizens to be killed when they decide to go to war.
Yeah, that worked so well with Vietnam.
How many other things is there a large public outcry about that the politicians ignore? securing the borders might be one. The patriot act and it's evolution might be one. Gitmo might be one. More people apposed the PPACA than support it at certain times. Wall street banker bail outs I guess might be one, but of course everyone supported that. Hell, there is a large outcry over the IRS BS but one side of the politicians fear it will come back onto the administration somehow and want to make a mockery out of trying to get to the truth and determine if any illegal activities took place.
Nope, not at all. I'm saying some people in war was useless in achieving goals outside of distracting the enemy long enough for the useful people to win the battle.
This is a by product of a draft when you are just throwing bodies into the fight and not able of fielding highly trained killing machines. In a volunteer military, you get to weed out those who don't make the cut. In a draft, sometimes the only way to get a useful soldier is to kill off a less desirable soldier. This is sort of like fighting a war through attrition except you have an ace up your sleeve. Vietnam, whether official or not, saw a lot of battles like this where they sent wave after wave of soldiers up a hill. This was only possible because of the draft.
Read my orignal link.
http://www.techtimes.com/artic...
I can see how they would back down from that.
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://gawker.com/arrest-clima...
It's not like they are free to say anything about anything they find without fear of repercussions.
And you do not seem to understand.
Regardless of what the oceans are doing at this moment, unless they all the sudden started doing it, it has been happening for all of time. Well, with it's variations within the system. So either the temp measured today is as valid as the temp measured yesterday, or 150 years ago, or the temps measures yesterday and 150 years ago are invalid also- due to the oceans.
You see, you cannot change mid stream and trot something that has always existed out when it is convenient or the temp record becomes inconvenient. The data as presented needs to be at least congruent with the calculations within it. Otherwise it is smoke and mirrors trying to hang onto belief that doesn't appear to be true any more.
The source of heating is believed to be a tearing apart, or rifting, of the crust under the Antarctic ice sheet. This allows movement of magma and creates volcanic eruptions, melting the ice. Liquid water and geological activity under the sheet allows the massive feature to slip off the continent.
So yes, it does appear that it is recent as in happening now. Otherwise tearing would have been replaced with something like torn apart and allows would likely have been allowed. So even if they were active in the past, the wording suggest it is happening recently.
You should find it fascinating. Outside of moral grounds, there are bonds that empower the government of the US that also places limits on the government. One of those limits is the right to due process when you are in US jurisdiction. A US citizen is in US jurisdiction wherever they are. A terrorist or even a school teacher who looks like a terrorist in another country might not be. Put those same people in the US, and they have the same right to due process.
Now right may be the wrong words here. The bonds that empower the federal government, the Constitution, forbids the government from denying due process to "we the people" except in a narrow window in which habeas corpus can be suspended- but that requires custody of the person and does not allow extrajudicial punishment outside of holding a person.
So no matter how contrived they can make an excuse to execute a foreigner on foreign soil, the government is expressly forbidden to do so on a US citizen who has not been afforded due process or is not showing an imminent threat to others. Of course in one of these instances, it seems to be collateral damage. It would be like a cop shooting at a suspect shooting other people and in the process killing a citizen with a stray bullet 2 blocks away. Not a criminal act, but the state is still responsible.
Ok, then separate the oceans from the other readings and claims of warming. That is the point, it is either built in, meaning you walk outside and take the temp and it is accurate despite the oceans, or it is not and needs separated completely.
The problem is that the oceans also contribute to the recorded heat. Only considering them separate when it is convenient or when the temp readings are inconvenient is misleading bordering on fraud.
Nah, it was a court that released the memo. They have no legitimate reason to hide the truth for the administration. Especially, when it appears the administration tried to negate their importance.
There was a FOIA request and it was refused. Someone took them to court and won but the administration appealed. The appeals court released the thing- presumable redacting it themselves.
They are keeping you free. We already know the politicians will go to war when they see fit regardless of what you think. When this happens and there aren't enough people serving their country, they enacts this thing called a draft in which you are forced to join the army and if you do poorly, you end up being fodder for the people more likely to survive to find cover behind while they kick ass.
Most ever other country, at least until reletively recently, has had a compulsory military service requirement for all males and some even women. Those people who volunteer, for whatever reason it may be, because we have an all volunteer military in the US, you are free to do as you please.
So get over yourself. If it wasn't for them, it would be like the Vietnam war and your number would eventually come up or you would live in fear of that happening. You are free, alive and safe because someone else stepped and you weren't forced to. Stop being an idiot.
I believe I will believe the science being done by scientists. Granted, they are from Texas and Texas is an oil state, but it's up for peer review in the journal "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" and I have yet to find anyone challenging it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
But then again, I believe in sky fairies as long as we are confessing our beliefs in things.
Sigh..
What has significantly changed in the oceans so that they do not play a role any other year except when it appears to be cooling or the warming lapsed?
Here is the problem with blaming the oceans. The effects we see aren't new. they were present in the past, they will be present in the future. Separating them when it is convenient is misleading and outright dishonest because you do not separate the effects at other times. It is like saying 2+2 is 4 except when you have less than 5 and some weird unknown rule kicks in and you add 1 but it is still accurate because you want it to be.
Now it is true that the oceans do absorb and release heat. It is true for measurements in 1999, 1918, 2006, 2014 and it will be true for measurements in 2025 and 3000.
What is true also is that the entire "Ocean did its thing so the lack of warming all the sudden is not real" is impossible to test because of decadal oscillations and rotational current patterns. The temp and effects of the temps in the Sargasso Sea for instance will naturally change with deviations in the North Atlantic decadal oscillations as well as the migration of the currents which pretty much guarantee changes in temps from year to year.
The importance of the linked article is for climate modeling, not debunking the lack of observed increases in warming.
I dunno.. Do you?
http://www.techtimes.com/artic...
This site is about as social as i normally get. I had to turn the advertising off because it started throwing pop up in new windows.
Anyhow, when it was on, nothing interested me unless i was looking for something specific and it judt happened to be there. But in searches and crap like that, i go out of my way to avoid the advertising links or products unless it is something specific and they are yhe only providers. Slashvertisements on the other hand seems to work because when i need to solve a problrm, i generally remember something from an article here.
I see you attended the dimwhits school of debating. Its sad that you can't even see the logical problem and instead of offering insight, move to spouting little more than an evasion of the question before trying to appeal to authority.
Here is a hint- well as close of one that i can give you without drawing a picture, the temps recorded at any other point in time already have the effects of the oceans built in. It is illigitimate to attemp to separate those effects and prod them out as a reason for an observation when it is completely dismissed or hidden when there is warming.
So in short, if it is enough of an impact to be stated as a reason for the lack of cooling, why is it hidden when there is warming and wouldn't that make the warming number inflated. The effects are natural snd built inti the temps by default so any reading atany other time that shows warming is just as legitimate as reading that show the lack of warming. You cannot change the rules for only part of the game when you think you might not be winning.
Two guys decide to see who is a better driver, one of them or a current record holder. They get the same car and decide to race down the same road. The current record holder made the trip in 10 minutes. The first guy tries and gets a close 10.5 minutes. The second guy tries and gets 9.75 minutes. The first guy complains he was driving into the wind and the second guy was driving with the wind. They look it up and there was wind going both directions when the previous record was set. Now, who was fastest? The second guy of course. The fact there was or was not any wind or which direction it was blowing doesn't change the times reported for the run.
Now, does the temp record adjust for every decadal oscillation event, does it adjust for every single day of low solar activity? Of course it does bevause it is built into the temp as it is taken. But for some reason, it needs to be held separate as an excuse for a lack of warming when it is not held separate to explain the warming. Further, it would be almost impossible to separate it from historic records.
So it is comparing apples to tractors or something because it isn't the same measurment if what was previously influencing the warming is separated and used as a cause for the cooling when nothing changed. All of the reasons are natural and have implications going either way. All the blaming the lack of warming on oceans does is point to cyclical natural events for the differences in temps. That is not what the science is saying though.
I don't think you understand the problem. All of what you have said has happened in the past. The inverse has also happened causing it to appear warmer also. All that is natural and built in so when temp readings from 30 years ago are brought up, it would be incorect to claim they are inflated and too warm because of the oceans. Now that there is a lul in the warming, it it just as incorect to cite the natural phenom for yhe temp readings.
It either countd then as it does now or it is changing yhe goal posts mid stream. Interedtingly, if hou are to say natural cycles cause the warming to stop, then natural cycles can be behind the majority of reported warming just the same. As several post now solidify, none of this happening with the ocean is new, its just being used by some to excuse yhe failings in models.
When a clown dresses like a business man, how do you know he is a clown?
Sometimes the confusion is intentional
In most places in the US, if a building ends up being across a property line for a number of years unaposed, that amount of property becomes a deeded right of way. It used to change ownership and might still do so in some areas via squatters rights.
These rules came abouy from problems with surveys, incorectly recorded deed maps, and the lack of zoning over history. It could come about from something like a house or out building being built on or close to the property line. It gets added on and not recorded, sold and the new owner sees they have 20 feet to the property line on the east side of the building not realizing the previous owner already used 15 feeet up. So the new owner adds on another 15 feet and not its ten foot over. Now lets say 20 years pass and the neighboring property is passed to an heir. They cannot make you tear down the building now.
It isn't much of an issue now because zoning requires set backs and building permits and this is checked with plotting maps made from deed data. But at aone time, you could survey your property and find the survey pin was moved our something and someone's barn or house was on your property.
I doubt russia would do that. They know it would cause them to be targets. The problem is that mutually assured destruction is still a possibility and quite a few weapons systems design to evade first strikes still exist.
Thats all fine and all but it still doesn't explain why all the sudden the oceans need special consideration when temp measurements show a lapse in warming. These natural mechanisms were in place long before the lapse in warming and contributed to the record with the claimed warming. Ironically, you just made yhe case that the warming has been somewhat attributed to natural circumstances that seem to be absent now which i do not think was your point.
So either the watming is influenced by thrse nstural cycles also or something just happened. All anyone has done so far is explain why the models needed changed but not why the oceans all tje sudden invalidate a lapse in warming. Unless you are saying all that natural cyclical activity just started and never influenced temp records before the lapse in cooling. I don't think that is right either.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't be regarded as unmanly, just a reason to why the enemy wasn't worth much and needed to be killed- so carpet bombing and a lot of other things normally considered a war crime now would be in use.
You see, it often isn't the people fighting the wars who are all gun ho for war. Often it is people sitting safely behind desks pushing pencils and risking a paper cut of an assassination attempt from a disgruntled constituent that they haven't bothered to listen to for several years.
I don't remember ever seeing anyone claiming that other than someone who is leftist or liberal or whatever the favorite term of the day is now. They all vote democrat or third party that makes democrat look conservative.
Well, Nixon was claimed to be leftist because of the EPA and a few other things but if anything, Reagan, Bush Sr. Goldwater are considered conservative which is more right than left.
The biggest complaint about politicians republicans have is that once they are in Washington, they are more worried about what happens in Washington than in the districts and states they represent.
Perhaps it was the drunk posting from a phone or maybe you are trying to skirt the issue and hoping it somehow is hidden well enough not to impinge on global warming or something, but I'm not sure you even understand the question.
No one said the oceans weren't an important part of the equation. Someone said the warming stopped and the reply was only if you don't count the oceans. Now, the ocean's effect, whether included in models or not, were by default included in temperature readings. So when temp readings show no extra warming in a couple decades, all the sudden the oceans are being trotted out to dismiss it. So what has changed to make the oceans all the sudden magically special insomuch that they cancel the lack of warming?
In other words, unless something significant has happened concerning the oceans, any deviation in its importance or understanding will only affect modeling and not real world temperature readings. The temp taken today will have the same legitimacy as the temp taken in 1620, 1980, 2000, 2014, or 2025- unless someone can explain how the oceans all the sudden matter outside of the norm when no warming has been observed. Otherwise, the oceans cannot be used to explain a period of no or little warming.