They don't like anyone perceived as supportive / keeping in power the brutal Shah regime of 3 decades. You know, the one started with 1953 coup d'etat; read about the circumstances, consequences, think how you would perceive such actions.
They have good relations with India (with which they collaborate in supporting anti-Taliban Afghan government...you know, the one also US-backed), Japan, South Korea, China, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, CIS; generally not exactly Muslim.
And formal legality of something isn't a terribly good argument. Not only because it's easy to push the stakes; I'm pretty sure what any dictator does anywhere is legal, to use the most extreme example.
Look, it's just a simple conclusion of "follow the money" argument that anti-AGW people try to keep throwing around...while totally blind to what would be the easiest, most straightforward way to do that (hey, if it's "the truth", just hidden?) Nothing more.
Plus you know, however we are dependent on those companies, there's always risk of lesser profits...
Are you for real? I don't have a problem with findings of American Geophysical Union about Gulf Stream...
But somebody above used only this one finding, in line with what he wants, ignoring some other things the AGU says:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
Hey, even better for Arctic rim countries - as far away as they can be;p
BTW, we're not sure where our limits of adaptability are until we hit them - so better to play safe; already causing one of the biggest and most rapid extinction events in geological history might be, at the least, not a good sign about the influence on the surroundings, on which we also depend.
And you do know what are some of the most wealthy corporations around, right? I'll give a hint: somewhat involved in sources of energy. And would be more than happy to make any scientists able to refute AGW fabulously wealthy on the personal level, any grant institution with assured funding.
(really funny how the facts are facts for you only as long as they reaffirm what you want... to hell with all the rest of "facts" the messengers bring)
Could hypothetically get...interesting now that most of the international community said "to hell with territorial inviolability of european borders" (generally sort of a sanctity for the last half a century) by agreeing to independent Kosovo.
After all it's not fair how Finland won't get the best benefits (*); and all just because of loosing its Arctic coast ((*)however small they would be in comparison - always something) to the Soviet Union in a war aggression by the latter. Luckily, I can sleep well knowing the Fins won't push for something like that; at least as long as Greenland decides to rejoin EU...
Funny how that terminology, and seemingly pro-science polemic with one extremely simplistic example thrown around (how one can even think it's sensible to use "the PC" for this?), appears to be mostly just a slightly stronger than usual manifestation of certain universal "errors" in...physical structure of the brain / the workings its neural network. Things like just-world phenomenon, correspondence bias or illusory superiority (which indeed partly disappear in some disorders...or indeed even if somebody "simply doesn't care")
Optimally you won't mind that, everything could end up much cheaper and much more convenient. At my highschool we had sort of similar scheme (though with analogue books obviously) - pay yearly what was at most 1/6th (probably less) the cost of full new set, get all needed books from the library, during the first week / first lesson of each subject (and of course return them at the year end; it was still a better deal than own set & resales). Sure, most of those books was around one decade old, but also for most of them it didn't matter - especially if the whole thing was organized by the school.
Do you have an impression that double / multiple star systems were up to this point neglected in searches of planets? While "gravitational instability" model perhaps even suggests they are at least comparably likely to form planets?
(question is how much we would care; those radiation numbers certainly look awfully high)
Regarding magnetic field: due to interactions in the field of Jupiter, its radio emissions can apparently "outshine" the Sun; occasionally... Maybe somebody who's strongly into radio astronomy, and available to you, can comment if our radio telescopes have the potential of resolving such source?
PS. Overall: remember this assumption is an integral part of the theories of relativity. Many predictions of which have been successfully verified again and again.
Sure, some other theory might very well supplant it in the future, but most likely in this style.
In special relativity it is equal to c; indeed any interaction is limited to c. Now, go fetch some isolated efforts dispelling all the evidence supportive of relativity.
Yes, you just have to look how it influences objects. On the scale of our system, with distances measured in light minutes and hours, it's straightforward enough for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Though thawing should be still generally seasonal, with some fun consequences
(and wouldn't US "take over" Canada anyway? At least as far as population dynamics go)
...ignoring for a minute how effects of AGW might very well influence population pressures, and deforestations or agricultural practices.
Into swimming pool OTOH...
My apologies - as I understand now, you are merely a part of a very small silenced elite among climate scientists.
Well ,at the least being sure that you will be certainly rehabilitated in the future must sound very uplifting. And elite.
They don't like anyone perceived as supportive / keeping in power the brutal Shah regime of 3 decades. You know, the one started with 1953 coup d'etat; read about the circumstances, consequences, think how you would perceive such actions.
They have good relations with India (with which they collaborate in supporting anti-Taliban Afghan government...you know, the one also US-backed), Japan, South Korea, China, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, CIS; generally not exactly Muslim.
And formal legality of something isn't a terribly good argument. Not only because it's easy to push the stakes; I'm pretty sure what any dictator does anywhere is legal, to use the most extreme example.
Still, "Iranian Cyber Army" is awfully convenient.
Look, it's just a simple conclusion of "follow the money" argument that anti-AGW people try to keep throwing around...while totally blind to what would be the easiest, most straightforward way to do that (hey, if it's "the truth", just hidden?) Nothing more.
Plus you know, however we are dependent on those companies, there's always risk of lesser profits...
I see, you're above the whole American Geophysical Union...glad you cleared that out.
Are you for real? I don't have a problem with findings of American Geophysical Union about Gulf Stream...
But somebody above used only this one finding, in line with what he wants, ignoring some other things the AGU says:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
Hey, even better for Arctic rim countries - as far away as they can be ;p
BTW, we're not sure where our limits of adaptability are until we hit them - so better to play safe; already causing one of the biggest and most rapid extinction events in geological history might be, at the least, not a good sign about the influence on the surroundings, on which we also depend.
And you do know what are some of the most wealthy corporations around, right? I'll give a hint: somewhat involved in sources of energy. And would be more than happy to make any scientists able to refute AGW fabulously wealthy on the personal level, any grant institution with assured funding.
(really funny how the facts are facts for you only as long as they reaffirm what you want... to hell with all the rest of "facts" the messengers bring)
You know, 6 months is just the extreme in one point...
Could hypothetically get...interesting now that most of the international community said "to hell with territorial inviolability of european borders" (generally sort of a sanctity for the last half a century) by agreeing to independent Kosovo.
After all it's not fair how Finland won't get the best benefits (*); and all just because of loosing its Arctic coast ((*)however small they would be in comparison - always something) to the Soviet Union in a war aggression by the latter. Luckily, I can sleep well knowing the Fins won't push for something like that; at least as long as Greenland decides to rejoin EU...
Of course you realize the people saying that also support AGW?
As opposed to working cat before? What's that?
(/me looks around...yup, the beast sleeps; on the coffer this time)
Funny how that terminology, and seemingly pro-science polemic with one extremely simplistic example thrown around (how one can even think it's sensible to use "the PC" for this?), appears to be mostly just a slightly stronger than usual manifestation of certain universal "errors" in...physical structure of the brain / the workings its neural network. Things like just-world phenomenon, correspondence bias or illusory superiority (which indeed partly disappear in some disorders...or indeed even if somebody "simply doesn't care")
"seems to be noisier than even the Model M — in fact, it echoes!"?... yes please! :>
Optimally you won't mind that, everything could end up much cheaper and much more convenient. At my highschool we had sort of similar scheme (though with analogue books obviously) - pay yearly what was at most 1/6th (probably less) the cost of full new set, get all needed books from the library, during the first week / first lesson of each subject (and of course return them at the year end; it was still a better deal than own set & resales). Sure, most of those books was around one decade old, but also for most of them it didn't matter - especially if the whole thing was organized by the school.
Optimally...
Do you have an impression that double / multiple star systems were up to this point neglected in searches of planets? While "gravitational instability" model perhaps even suggests they are at least comparably likely to form planets?
(question is how much we would care; those radiation numbers certainly look awfully high)
Regarding magnetic field: due to interactions in the field of Jupiter, its radio emissions can apparently "outshine" the Sun; occasionally...
Maybe somebody who's strongly into radio astronomy, and available to you, can comment if our radio telescopes have the potential of resolving such source?
PS. Overall: remember this assumption is an integral part of the theories of relativity. Many predictions of which have been successfully verified again and again.
Sure, some other theory might very well supplant it in the future, but most likely in this style.
In special relativity it is equal to c; indeed any interaction is limited to c. Now, go fetch some isolated efforts dispelling all the evidence supportive of relativity.
Yes, you just have to look how it influences objects. On the scale of our system, with distances measured in light minutes and hours, it's straightforward enough for a long time.
Observed distances are "just" getting larger, nothing external strictly required.
And adding another one to the question about north pole: what is deeper than the center of the Earth?
Nope, didn't happen.