If you believe that human-created carbon dioxide contributes, to global warming, as Muller does, then you are one of the 97% of scientists who believe the standard doctrine.
Mr. Muller was willing, at the beginning of his research we are discussing, to consider the possibility that human-created carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Is that a problem for you? If so, why?
As I understand it, upon examining the evidence, Mr. Muller is now convinced that this possibility is true. Is that a problem for you? If so, why?
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS.
Many of these weapons were already in Iraq by the time Obama became president, and many were supplied to the Iraqi government. That the Iraqi government lost them later to ISIS is the fault of the Iraqi government, not anybody else.
Syria, Libya, and the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq represent the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.
Oh golly, yet another armchair diplomat. What exactly would you have done differently? Even with 20/20 hindsight it is not clear to me what Obama did wrong in those countries. Keep in mind that the Iraqi government was very clear that it wanted the US troops out of the country even before Obama became president.
Except that you have been tricked by Fake News again, because the CIA never proclaimed "high confidence" in Iraq WMD. The Bush administration had to go somewhere else to hear what they wanted to hear.
I would call dissemination of the DNC and Podesta emails by journalists an extreme exercise of the 1st amendment rights.
The issue is not that journalists published those leaked emails, the issue is that there is growing evidence that the Russian government was involved in the leaking.
Personally I consider the shrill attempts to discredit this news rather amusing. There is obviously a keyboard brigade that is trying to suppress this news. Volunteer or professional is not relevant, but they are squeaking like a stuck pig.
The Russians government using hacking to try to influence the US elections is big enough news on its own. There is no need to drag in anything else, that is playing partisan politics.
We haven't even touched upon the whole climate change thing yet and trust me, you will be floored when you see the big picture.
You don't fully understand that clickbait spiel yet. Yes, you have to say 'you will be floored', 'you will be astonished', 'will surprise you' or something like that, but then you have to proved a link.
Astonishing, I know, but keep trying, you'll get there.
I guess I'm confused, but we've developed Android applications for years, one of which involves an interactive water surface. We made use of pressure sensitivity and it worked fine.
It is true that the Android API provides a 'pressure' parameter with touch events, but as far as I know in practice this is just an estimate based on the area of the detected touch. That is, the more pixels are covered by a finger, the stronger of the touch is assumed to be. There are truly pressure-sensitive pens available for Android (and for iOS), but they are far from common. Apple's pressure-sensitive screen is something new, at least for a consumer-electroncs device.
A lot of the basic principles behind climate science are well-established physics and chemistry that have been known for over a century:
Burning carbon compounds gives CO2
CO2 captures heat
More heat causes higher temperatures
The first step is basic chemistry, and has been abundantly supported by direct CO2 measurements in the atmosphere. The second step is directly reproducible in a laboratory environment, and its effect is used on an industrial scale in greenhouses. The third step is an immediate consequence of a thermodynamic law.
There is plenty of room for debate as to where the heat is absorbed, because the behaviour of the oceans in particular is fairly tricky, but apart from that these steps are beyond reasonable dispute. People disputing these three steps deserve the same warm welcome as inventors of Perpetual Motion devices.
Again, beyond these three basic points there is room for reasonable debate, but on a grand scale that doesn't really matter. More heat means higher temperatures somewhere and this will have consequences for ice and snow, for ocean circulations, for biotopes, and for the weather patterns. The `only' thing left is to establish exactly what these consequences will be on a smaller scale. And yes, that is tricky and requires more and more refined climate models. But that the climate is changing in some way is beyond reasonable dispute.
Exactly where in the NSA mission statement is this covered?
Twenty seconds on wikipedia would have answered that question for you. This is exactly the job of the NSA, particularly for SIGNINT. You might find their mission to be troubling and I might even agree but it IS their job.
Yeah, the job of the NSA is SIGINT. That's probably a surprise to exactly nobody here on/.
But where does it say it is allowed to monitor anybody it feels like? Note the word allowed in my sentence. What the NSA has been doing and is doing right now is not relevant, this is about legal and moral restraints.
So let me rephrase my question a little bit: Is it legal for NSA spy on French presidents? Exactly where in the NSA mission statement is this covered?
Yeah, that's another option. Writing something so ludicrously inconsistent and rambling that everyone must realise it is a spoof. Humour! The grease in the axles of society! Bravo! (Although a little too subtle for some people, I'm afraid.)
As this is a European company it is subject to European data protection and privacy legislation.
This is almost certainly not true. If the bank has a significant presence in a country, it is usually an independent bank with only a loose link with the mother company. For example, Santander in Brazil is very much a Brazilian bank, and has little to do with Santander Spain.
Slashdot Mirror
If you believe that human-created carbon dioxide contributes, to global warming, as Muller does, then you are one of the 97% of scientists who believe the standard doctrine.
Mr. Muller was willing, at the beginning of his research we are discussing, to consider the possibility that human-created carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Is that a problem for you? If so, why?
As I understand it, upon examining the evidence, Mr. Muller is now convinced that this possibility is true. Is that a problem for you? If so, why?
Release ALL OF IT as a torrent and encourage people around the globe to download it.
Do you have any idea how many Petabytes of data you are talking about?
Is this more WP "Fake news" ?
No, it is not.
Or do you think that Mr. Mann has not gotten any death-threats, or does not fear this will get worse now during the Trump regime?
Quote by Richard Muller, from the very article you linked to:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)
Again, you fell for propaganda.
Being concerned that global warming might be real and that human-created CO2 may contribute is now propaganda rather than being open-minded?
Ah yes, he said a few months ago that he now owns the highest building in NY. It's all so obvious now!
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS.
Many of these weapons were already in Iraq by the time Obama became president, and many were supplied to the Iraqi government. That the Iraqi government lost them later to ISIS is the fault of the Iraqi government, not anybody else.
Syria, Libya, and the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq represent the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.
Oh golly, yet another armchair diplomat. What exactly would you have done differently? Even with 20/20 hindsight it is not clear to me what Obama did wrong in those countries. Keep in mind that the Iraqi government was very clear that it wanted the US troops out of the country even before Obama became president.
You mean that was also Hillary?
Now lets dumb it down so a nerd such as yourself can understand it. THERE WAS NO HACK. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A HACK.
Since you ask so nicely, here you go: http://arstechnica.com/securit...
See http://arstechnica.com/securit....
Except that you have been tricked by Fake News again, because the CIA never proclaimed "high confidence" in Iraq WMD. The Bush administration had to go somewhere else to hear what they wanted to hear.
I would call dissemination of the DNC and Podesta emails by journalists an extreme exercise of the 1st amendment rights.
The issue is not that journalists published those leaked emails, the issue is that there is growing evidence that the Russian government was involved in the leaking.
Personally I consider the shrill attempts to discredit this news rather amusing. There is obviously a keyboard brigade that is trying to suppress this news. Volunteer or professional is not relevant, but they are squeaking like a stuck pig.
The Russians government using hacking to try to influence the US elections is big enough news on its own. There is no need to drag in anything else, that is playing partisan politics.
By whom?
Wikileaks was not Fake News, asshole.
The source doesn't matter. The contents of the emails damned her. Nothing else.
He did not use the word 'fake' at all; it is you who tries to put that word in his mouth.
Regarding the emails, exactly what was so damning about them? As far as I can tell the only reasonable reaction to those emails was 'yeah, so?'.
We haven't even touched upon the whole climate change thing yet and trust me, you will be floored when you see the big picture.
You don't fully understand that clickbait spiel yet. Yes, you have to say 'you will be floored', 'you will be astonished', 'will surprise you' or something like that, but then you have to proved a link.
Astonishing, I know, but keep trying, you'll get there.
I guess I'm confused, but we've developed Android applications for years, one of which involves an interactive water surface. We made use of pressure sensitivity and it worked fine.
It is true that the Android API provides a 'pressure' parameter with touch events, but as far as I know in practice this is just an estimate based on the area of the detected touch. That is, the more pixels are covered by a finger, the stronger of the touch is assumed to be. There are truly pressure-sensitive pens available for Android (and for iOS), but they are far from common. Apple's pressure-sensitive screen is something new, at least for a consumer-electroncs device.
A lot of the basic principles behind climate science are well-established physics and chemistry that have been known for over a century:
The first step is basic chemistry, and has been abundantly supported by direct CO2 measurements in the atmosphere. The second step is directly reproducible in a laboratory environment, and its effect is used on an industrial scale in greenhouses. The third step is an immediate consequence of a thermodynamic law.
There is plenty of room for debate as to where the heat is absorbed, because the behaviour of the oceans in particular is fairly tricky, but apart from that these steps are beyond reasonable dispute. People disputing these three steps deserve the same warm welcome as inventors of Perpetual Motion devices.
Again, beyond these three basic points there is room for reasonable debate, but on a grand scale that doesn't really matter. More heat means higher temperatures somewhere and this will have consequences for ice and snow, for ocean circulations, for biotopes, and for the weather patterns. The `only' thing left is to establish exactly what these consequences will be on a smaller scale. And yes, that is tricky and requires more and more refined climate models. But that the climate is changing in some way is beyond reasonable dispute.
Right, let's teach Utopia instead of reality.
Let's teach both Utopia and reality.
Exactly where in the NSA mission statement is this covered?
Twenty seconds on wikipedia would have answered that question for you. This is exactly the job of the NSA, particularly for SIGNINT. You might find their mission to be troubling and I might even agree but it IS their job.
Yeah, the job of the NSA is SIGINT. That's probably a surprise to exactly nobody here on /.
But where does it say it is allowed to monitor anybody it feels like? Note the word allowed in my sentence. What the NSA has been doing and is doing right now is not relevant, this is about legal and moral restraints.
So let me rephrase my question a little bit: Is it legal for NSA spy on French presidents? Exactly where in the NSA mission statement is this covered?
That's just the argument that always goes so well on schoolyards: 'but Teach?!? Everyone is doing it!'.
The people who these agencies SHOULD be spying on?
Why should the NSA spy on French presidents? Exactly where in the NSA mission statement is this covered?
Yeah, that's another option. Writing something so ludicrously inconsistent and rambling that everyone must realise it is a spoof. Humour! The grease in the axles of society! Bravo! (Although a little too subtle for some people, I'm afraid.)
As this is a European company it is subject to European data protection and privacy legislation.
This is almost certainly not true. If the bank has a significant presence in a country, it is usually an independent bank with only a loose link with the mother company. For example, Santander in Brazil is very much a Brazilian bank, and has little to do with Santander Spain.
You're going for the loaded question of the week award?