Turns out not. Ever notice people who don't smoke get lung cancer too?
Smoke is one of a number of things that a carcinogenic and mutagenic but the body usually takes care of this. in 2004 we found out there's a cytochrome B enzyme, the CYP1B1 variant, and that it only occurs in cancer cells, and a phytoallexin in some foods is converted to picotaneol which happens to kill cancer cells but not regular cells. Gene 53 controls this and low and behold gene 53 is deactived in nearly all cancer patients. This theory just panned out with trials in SF of Potters new prostate drug, so good they stopped the trials and just gave it to everyone and that was V1.0 of his drug, V2.0 works in the general case. So it's not so much smokes cause cancer (so does gasoline, those organics are generally why non-smokers get it) as it is the body lacks the raw materials to make the molecules that get rid of cancer. Long story short, spraying fugicides since wwii did it, since plants make this phytolallexin in response to mold.
So, bad example, try a car analogy, they go over well here.
"I dunno about other areas, but I've read that Europe is also suffering from a very intense heat wave." "Northern Europe here. We've not seen summer yet this year. It's just cold and wet."
And you wonder why real scientists just giggle at Hansen and his PR campaign that even supposedly intelligent people have swallowed hook line and sinker.
The state of science eduction in the US is utterly appalling, matched only by the intellectual laziness of believing any old crap you read without *actually checking it out*.
So.... areas that can grow coffee can't any more because things got warmer but places that just wern't quite warm enough to grow coffee didn't get warmer? How does THAT work?
For each acre you lose you pick one up somewhere else. Call me when Greenland competes with Yirgacheffe.
And about those tropical fossils under the north (and south) pole(s)...
"n particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.
Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2. The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3C cooler compared to the present sims."
It took 10 years to drive this point into their skulls and they haven't even noticed all plants aren't created equal yet. They will.
A decade ago suggestions plants might eat co2 with a positive feedback was scoffed at - because of one paper that tried to bring dead grass back to live in a desert and failed (no water, ahem). It was at that point I knew something wasn't right and the more you look the less right it gets. But if you only believe what Time prints you get what you deserve.
Pretty much. "Survival of the fittest" means that which can adapt best, not that which is most fit for a certain static set of conditions (which doesn't really occur in nature).
Yeah, about that deep statistical analysis. I went to Waterloo in the 80s in the math faculty and I went back 2 years ago just to have a look around, and found myself in the stats department, a hall with about 12 offices.
You know how those office doors have jokes on them? 3 of the doors had the math behind the IPCC model with snide comments and exclamation marks. If you think their math is valid I don't think you've sought professional guidance there.
I was a math major. Give me that data and I can write you two reports, one that shows it's hotter than normal and one that shows it's about the same if not a little cooler. And these guys get to pick which stations data to use, that's even better.
The drought in the us has everything to do with bad land management and very little to do with the weather; they accelerated biological succession about 5000 years because of insane industrial processing of the land before figuring out what an "ecosystem" is.
They did this in Babylon too, the dumb shits, and that's why you can't see the hanging gardens. They blamed the gods of course, you can blame the Mayans or CO2 or whatever gets you through the night but the actual science is a bit more complicated than that.
Very few thigs in this world are static - coastlines, temperatures, ice levels, they bound around all over the place, they always have and always will. Why would anybody think these things are static or predictable?
"he deserves to be up there with the likes of Asimov, Wells and Verne"
What do you mean "deserves to be" he already is. The fact he produced that volume of such brilliant work is impressive, the fact he was profoundly schizophrenic and was able to write in spite of this even moreso.
On a good day I'd put him above Asimov and Clarke, and they've always been my favorites.
Adams wrote two Dr. Who episiodes, and if you see them it's very clear it's only a tiny stretch from there to Hitchhiker. They're not like the other episodes, they're like, well, Hitchhiker.
As for authors, Harry Harrison and Robert Silverberg. I read them as a kid.
"Before Al Gore got involved, there was little to no commercial traffic over the Internet (you couldn't sell anything). This was back when the NSF(?) was involved. Afterwards, you could start selling and interest in the Internet increased rapidly."
Uh, not even close.
Gore signed a bill that funded ARPA's developmental funding to bring up the protocol(s).
The NSF and the non-commercial AUP thing was years later once the net was actually in use, it was Steve Wolff that cut the net loose from its government moorings and figured the industry didn't need the government setting policy, so the NSF net was opened up.
As an aside, I asked him why he didn't liberate the DNS and only adressed the wires. He said it didn't seem important. Oops.
But, that's why you could plug in 100 connections all over the US if you want but a new TLD, well, there's "issues". Never mind.NATO was turned on when a general called out of the blue and asked for it.
And this will sink them into irrelevancy; they're not much more than an obstacle these days. I'm sure there'll be some warts (cf. "blink") but overall it's to see things get done without the icann of the web standards world.
You know, you don't have to be a right-winger to know something's not right about this stuff. And if you classify all opponents of your beliefs "right wiingers" then you end up guilty of asserting one more climate science "mis-truths".
Slashdot Mirror
You'd believe data from those crooks? That's so cute.
Turns out not. Ever notice people who don't smoke get lung cancer too?
Smoke is one of a number of things that a carcinogenic and mutagenic but the body usually takes care of this. in 2004 we found out there's a cytochrome B enzyme, the CYP1B1 variant, and that it only occurs in cancer cells, and a phytoallexin in some foods is converted to picotaneol which happens to kill cancer cells but not regular cells. Gene 53 controls this and low and behold gene 53 is deactived in nearly all cancer patients. This theory just panned out with trials in SF of Potters new prostate drug, so good they stopped the trials and just gave it to everyone and that was V1.0 of his drug, V2.0 works in the general case. So it's not so much smokes cause cancer (so does gasoline, those organics are generally why non-smokers get it) as it is the body lacks the raw materials to make the molecules that get rid of cancer. Long story short, spraying fugicides since wwii did it, since plants make this phytolallexin in response to mold.
So, bad example, try a car analogy, they go over well here.
"I dunno about other areas, but I've read that Europe is also suffering from a very intense heat wave."
"Northern Europe here. We've not seen summer yet this year. It's just cold and wet."
And you wonder why real scientists just giggle at Hansen and his PR campaign that even supposedly intelligent people have swallowed hook line and sinker.
The state of science eduction in the US is utterly appalling, matched only by the intellectual laziness of believing any old crap you read without *actually checking it out*.
Facts matter.
That's because you guys got north america's summer rain. The weather went sideways, literally because of El Nina. it does that.
So.... areas that can grow coffee can't any more because things got warmer but places that just wern't quite warm enough to grow coffee didn't get warmer? How does THAT work?
For each acre you lose you pick one up somewhere else. Call me when Greenland competes with Yirgacheffe.
And about those tropical fossils under the north (and south) pole(s)...
Bonus. I live in Canada. Bring it.
This is Dysons suggestion. You could also make homes out of the wood. Just a thought.
Actually if we hadn't cut down or otherwise nearly all the trees in the world things might be a little different right now.
You are aware there's two major types of plants on earth, low co2 ones and high co2 ones right? (Go look up CAM plants in Wiki)
And you are aware the IPCC sort of ignored the fact that plants eat co2 right?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"n particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.
Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.
The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3C cooler compared to the present sims."
It took 10 years to drive this point into their skulls and they haven't even noticed all plants aren't created equal yet. They will.
A decade ago suggestions plants might eat co2 with a positive feedback was scoffed at - because of one paper that tried to bring dead grass back to live in a desert and failed (no water, ahem). It was at that point I knew something wasn't right and the more you look the less right it gets. But if you only believe what Time prints you get what you deserve.
And there's a really cool book called "How to lie with statistics".
Now, go get the Norwegian tree ring graphs, and take the IPCC hocky stick graph.
Now *normalize the axes* and superimpose them. Now start laughing and stop worrying.
"0.2 degrees higher than the the hottest month on record is certainly a notable event."
No, it's a data point and doesn't matter. Trends do.
If you cut down all the trees you get a desert. No matter what the climate.
Pretty much. "Survival of the fittest" means that which can adapt best, not that which is most fit for a certain static set of conditions (which doesn't really occur in nature).
Yeah, about that deep statistical analysis. I went to Waterloo in the 80s in the math faculty and I went back 2 years ago just to have a look around, and found myself in the stats department, a hall with about 12 offices.
You know how those office doors have jokes on them? 3 of the doors had the math behind the IPCC model with snide comments and exclamation marks. If you think their math is valid I don't think you've sought professional guidance there.
Follow the money.
I was a math major. Give me that data and I can write you two reports, one that shows it's hotter than normal and one that shows it's about the same if not a little cooler. And these guys get to pick which stations data to use, that's even better.
It did this in the 80s. El Nino.
The drought in the us has everything to do with bad land management and very little to do with the weather; they accelerated biological succession about 5000 years because of insane industrial processing of the land before figuring out what an "ecosystem" is.
They did this in Babylon too, the dumb shits, and that's why you can't see the hanging gardens. They blamed the gods of course, you can blame the Mayans or CO2 or whatever gets you through the night but the actual science is a bit more complicated than that.
Very few thigs in this world are static - coastlines, temperatures, ice levels, they bound around all over the place, they always have and always will. Why would anybody think these things are static or predictable?
"Headlines like this prove nothing - the overwhelming body of scientific literature shows that AGW does exist,"
No, it really doesn't. It hasn't been proved, just marketed better than the other theories (which seem to explain things better).
If you're so sure of this tell me what % of carbon is mans contribution.
"he deserves to be up there with the likes of Asimov, Wells and Verne"
What do you mean "deserves to be" he already is. The fact he produced that volume of such brilliant work is impressive, the fact he was profoundly schizophrenic and was able to write in spite of this even moreso.
On a good day I'd put him above Asimov and Clarke, and they've always been my favorites.
Adams wrote two Dr. Who episiodes, and if you see them it's very clear it's only a tiny stretch from there to Hitchhiker. They're not like the other episodes, they're like, well, Hitchhiker.
As for authors, Harry Harrison and Robert Silverberg. I read them as a kid.
Also, Fred & Geoffrey Hoyle, and John Wyndham.
Keep in mind that Bob Kahn is more deserving of the title "father of the Internet". Vint just helped with the last 3/4 of tcp.
Bob just isn't as good as shameless self promotion.
"Before Al Gore got involved, there was little to no commercial traffic over the Internet (you couldn't sell anything). This was back when the NSF(?) was involved. Afterwards, you could start selling and interest in the Internet increased rapidly."
Uh, not even close.
Gore signed a bill that funded ARPA's developmental funding to bring up the protocol(s).
The NSF and the non-commercial AUP thing was years later once the net was actually in use, it was Steve Wolff that cut the net loose from its government moorings and figured the industry didn't need the government setting policy, so the NSF net was opened up.
As an aside, I asked him why he didn't liberate the DNS and only adressed the wires. He said it didn't seem important. Oops.
But, that's why you could plug in 100 connections all over the US if you want but a new TLD, well, there's "issues". Never mind .NATO was turned on when a general called out of the blue and asked for it.
And this will sink them into irrelevancy; they're not much more than an obstacle these days. I'm sure there'll be some warts (cf. "blink") but overall it's to see things get done without the icann of the web standards world.
You can "spin" it all you want but you know damn well that's not how science is supposed to work. T
Look how it compares to the Scandanavian data: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/.images/00-both2.png
How bout simply comparing the Hockey Stick graph to the Scandanavian data (after the X and Y axes are normalized.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/.images/00-both2.png
That's the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.
You know, you don't have to be a right-winger to know something's not right about this stuff. And if you classify all opponents of your beliefs "right wiingers" then you end up guilty of asserting one more climate science "mis-truths".
We need more truth, less lies and less rhetoric.