6 Million Theartres X 9 Million Theatres = 42 Million dollars.
Highly possible since the math used by Production companies to figure out the Net when there are people getting paid a portion of the Net is even more complicated, mysterious and convuleted than Bistromathematics.
Ask anyone who's ever taken a percentage of the Net, Production company will show that it lost more money than it took to actually produce it.
And PS, I also have worked for a famous NH alternative transportation company. But as usual you nuts only pay attention to stuff you think suports your position, and ignores anything that doesn't conform with your twisted view of reality.
PS for anyone but this turd who may be rading this. I in no way represent my company in this discusion, nor have I ever made on comments that would insuate that.
I'm hoping/. will remove that part of his comment. Just so you know, should my company be contacted I will persue legal action.
So how long before you start getting jack-booted thugs to go around beating up people that don't agree with you.
Your the one in the PR community, your job is to run around collecting soundbytes and passing them on the web like you actually know something. I mean it is our only job.
Well into you start running the jack booted thugs. Forcing people to wear RW on their armbands so you can round them up when your ready.
Nice to see you avoid technical discussion and head on off and dig up personal and work information to post up here. I've let CmdrTaco know. I've asked them not to get rid of our editorial comment (Nice to see how calm and reasoned you people are when someone shows information that doesn't abide by your religion).
Wouldn't have minded you mentioning what I do. I would have gladly clarified. My company provides environmental equipment for the oil industries, water monitoring, soil strength and the like. So you would rather they not be environmentally conscious in doing their perfectly legal business?? Who cares if it contaminates the water right? But regardless that's the home office, and it's an area they are TRYING to get into, not that we are in. The US division doesn't deal with oil companies at all. The closest energy area we work with is hydro-electric (Which I assume as a left wing Birkenstock wearing long haired nut your against as well.) and what we monitor is Dam integrity. I assume your against that too. You'd rather see dams collapse. But regardless MY company, the US division, does not even have an oil company in our customer database. Anyone who chooses to attack people personally rather than discuss the facts is obviously someone who lack knowledge, as well as intelligence, morals, etc etc etc.
Bet you also like donating money to the ALF, if not actually participating. I mean your tactics are the same. If you lived locally would I find you at my doorstep? Or maybe you'd toss a Molotov cocktail in my cars, seems like it's more your style. Any arson attacks on SUV in the SF area? Maybe the SF PD would like a tip.
But on to some of your mis-truths, lies in your words.
"real scientists"
Really? Well let's see who is behind real climate. Would that be Environmental Media Services with a name like that it tends to hold up my acertation that it's a PR firm. Even better they have the same street address as Fenton Communications yet another PR firm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fenton the company that brought us such great science as the Alar scare. Yeah great source you've got there. Who's on the board of directors, Heinrich Himmler.
As to altenergyaction, do you always cite yourself as a reference? You don't see any issue with that, and is your buddy Smith the president (former?) of Cherokee Forest Voices. That some kind of group of scientists? Sounds like it's on par with the likes of MIT, UCLA and all that. Geez make it easier or me. Looks like you are directly paid by them, and admit it. Then attack me for selling equipment that makes large structures safe. Yeah money grubbing weasel that I am. At least I don't work directly for a PR company. Looks like you get a few bucks from Real Climate too. Anyways since you obviously run that site, anyone here can see the tactics of the group.
So again, would you rather discuss science, or are you going to continue with attacks lightweight communist thug.
As to SidV, show your ignoarnce, no way you could, or do know why I use that handle. And again, your so simply minded to you there is only left wing and right wing, and attack anyone that doesn't agree with you. I'm pretty sure if Sid came back the only thing he'd care about is getting a fix, but I'm sure he wouldn't side with facists like you.
Some people, myself included, wouldn't take money if it was offered to put forth the real story and hypocricy on this issue. So I was just curious as to how much ethics and morals were going for these days. Figured you would know.
Plenty of people, and why are you digging so deep.
I'm not in the pay of anyone, but I reckon you are, proof, digging on stuff below the front page. Big Warming can't loose all that funding in for bogus science. I'm sure they pay you people well to come in push their PR firms.
Both your links are known fronts for enviornmentalists groups. Not only are they PR companies, but they work for PR groups, which is another name for enviornmentalist groups. How much did Greenpeace spend on PR last year? 150 Million? It was 140 Million in 2000.
And By the way both realclimate and altenergyaction are not run by scientists, they are run by enviornmentalists.
I imagine your one of the ones that believes dandruff and farming are also large factors in global warming. You must also believe they cause Tsunamis.
Well you would wouldn't you I mean your paid to believe these things and spread disinformation.
I've already posted a link to a study showing, through direct measurement, that the US is a Carbon sink. i.e. for every pound of CO2 we emmit, we absorb a little bit more than a pound.
Did you agree when they said the cause of the Dec 26th Tsunami was Global Warming? Or when they said that Hurricanes were on the rise due to global warming. Most people didn't because Global Warming doesn't cause Earthquakes (Certianly not warming of 1 degree Farenheit on average global mean) and Hurricanes are on the decrease, as our weather records show.
BTW You called me wrong before when I stated how much warming we had in the 20th century, but you still haven't backed that up. You would think if I was so wrong you could easily show how stupid I was, yet you just go on and use insults as a debating tactic. But that's okay, obviously your opinions on this are just fantasy perpetuated byt the Media scare tactics, I don't expect you to deal with reality in the discusion.
But even without that your plan falls apart. Because your realeasing C02 much faster than your consuming it. Either you have to increase the concentration in the atmosphere, and we all burn up. Or else you will lower the concentration, and we all freeze.
Remember your basic premise is that the earth cannot handle any change in atmospheric CO2, becuase even are realitively minor changes in the past 10 years is leading s to destruction.
PS How will the Grass pellet burning reduce CO2? Last I checked plant life was carbon based, and ideal cumbustion of any plant life releases CO2 and H2O.
Regardless of how and where we get it, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere increases atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Has no weight within scientific journals. In case you haven't noticed, this is slashdot, not a peer reiewed scientific journal. But then again you may be delusional enough to not know that.
Yes I took that choice, as such I don't try to submit to journals. Quite a difference between a journal and a web shite.
My degrees aren't relevant here; In otherwords you have none. So your opinions ar as useless as mine, forgetting for the moment mine are informed, yours are not.
Ah such an empathetic individual you are. Someone points out your lack of knowlede and challenges your religion, thus kill everyone. I have made an informed choice, I have read the majority of the scientific research in the area over 20 years. I understand the concept, degree or not, as do others, many with advanced degrees. Maybe you should actually learn something about, don't let other make the decesion for you.
You've been brainwashed to equate Global Warming = fossil fuel usage. Of course reducing fossil fuel usage is a good goal. Thankfully it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Also thankfully once someone finds a feasible alternative the entire world will jump on board. We don't have that alternative yet. And the real crime against humanity is the squandering of rescources on absurd ideas that have no potential. People like you that escelate the fear to find an alternative cause people to flail and waste time and money on pie-in-the-sky ideas like grass powered cars, electric cars, hydrogen, et al.
P.S. I worked for two years for a company looking to replace Fossil Fuel IC engines, I still think they have a viable alternative for certain applications. But I didn't do it out of fear of Global Warming. I did it because the idea makes sense, unlike Global Warming.
Actually your point is irrelevant. Mine is not based on politics. Therefore drawing the connection is useless. However, using our majority rules position, that's okay. Bush got the majority of the vote. Mr. Heinz didn't. Must make Bush right. Right?
So knowledge can only be grantd by a University, anyone who is self taught has no worth. But anyways, I see you've ignored the point of your own personal knowlede and university degree on the sunject. Or in fact any knowledge, other than your showing a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. So what is your Phd in?
So your the only arbitrator on what is a useful new technology? I've already stated I'm all for new technology, but I'm not for investing in impractical technology, or technologies that use more fossil fuels, like you are. Your willing to just throw money at any crackpot technology, regardless of it's merits. I;d rather spend money on workable things, and efficiencies. I should also point out that I never said, previously, I was against any particular technology, or the $4 billion research bill that President Bush signed to study alternative fuel. I simply stated my position against fear mongering chicken littles like yourself. In fact I have worked on such things, and I also improve efficiencies in my own life. As well as helping others in the same ways. But I don't shout "THE SKY IS FALLING!"
Nope, never said anything at all like that, never have, never will. But for the moment we have to stick with the tried and true. You know why. It works, at the moment the alternatives don't. And so long as we waste time and money on things like grass pellets for autombiles, we'll be far from the answer.
Actually my views have little to do with the bush administration, and pre-date his fathers administration. So why don't you take your labels somewhere else where they might make sense. But you are probable incapable of that. You're a left wing wacko, so anyone that doesn't agree with you is a right wing wacko. When in reality the majority of this country is neither right or left wing. So by your own twisted, misguided and lackluster logic, since your political view is not in the majority we should ignore it. LEMMINGS HOOOO!!!!!
Science is not politics (in fact they are pretty much diametrically opposed). You're the one who develops scientific beliefs that border on religious fundamentalism based on your politics. Not I. Go Label yourself. I base my scientific beliefs on facts and measured results.
No I don't have a Doctorate in anything, I would rather work and make a living than pay a University to validate me. I have however, as implied above, studied this and other things for my entire adult life. Do You have an advanced degree in it? No? So your opinion is obviously worthless, your just a sniveling little crybaby snot. In fact I doubt many people do on the subjects they comment on here. I guess so long as they don't offend your tenuous belief system (religion) it's okay. Why should we care about what you say on the data, which you don't anyways, you prefer political type statements about things you know nothing about, even in a shallow grasp of the basics way, I doubt you could explain even the most basic premises of Global warming.
Other governments, yeah there are many more that are not a part of it, are a part of it under duress and many that are realize it for the joke it is. Regardless, you still sound like a lemming. "Look all of them believe in it, lets all go jump over the cliff. " Why don't we just turn ourselves into yesman for the French, rather than think for ourselves. Sorry I forgot, you on't know how to think for yourself.
Hey also have socialized medicine (and most want to get out of it) should we also turn our health care into something modeled after theirs? Oh I forgot, you're a socialist, err liberal. So you probably think that would be great.
As to the US Position, Clinton refused to sign onto it. The US senate voted 95-0 that if presented to them they would not sign it, and the current Kyoto Lite regulations being proposed is done so by a Republican.
So again, your all wet and know not of what your talking about.
And it wasn't for short term business reasons. Quite the opposite.
Oh man, talk about going out on a limb. Attacking my "Right Wing" beliefs. Might hold true, if I were right wing, or religous. Speaking as an Independant Agnostic, I love it when you dogmatic left wing nuts piegonhole everyone you disagree with as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. And I never even discuss "right to life" and rarely discuss "gay marriage" because I couldn't care less. You on the other hand feel the need to confuse the nation with fears of Global Wrming that you don't even understand. You just report the crap from your enviornmental activist buddies that you don't even understand.
And your thought about my technological beliefs is far from the truth. I'm all for efficiency, all for real alternative fuels (Nothing current incliding this hair-brained grass pellet scheme works, or uses less fossil fuels). What I'm not for is distorting science and fear mongering to get people to change. There are plenty of reasons in their own right. But you somehow feel the need to make unsubstantiated claims about the destruction of the world if we don't change.
And talk about puppet. You don't even now what your talking about, but your perfectly happy to let activists pull your strings and tell you what to say.
I prefer to research the data and come to my own conclusions, and come to an understanding of the process. Rather than just repeat Greenpeace press releases like you do.
I've seen brainwashed cultist capable of more independant thought than the liberal puppet you are, hell even the right wing wackos sometimes deviate from the party line, you apparently are incapable of it.
Oh yes, nd I've never seen any GW skeptic that has a stated religous belief, I do however know of one in particular that spends the majority of his time discounting creationists. He too deals with facts instead of dogma.
You sound just like anyother religous group, it's common belief don't question it CHARGE!!!!!
Sound like a bunch of lemmings..
It is not, nor has it ever been a mainstream position off the scientific community, it is however a mainstream position of enviornmentalists and the media as well as certain types of activists and religous folowers like yourself, who love doom and gloom scenarios. These are the ones who have short and long term economic and political interest, a situation ever discussed within the climate community. Talk about big bsiness. GW research is a 4 Billion dollar industry, not even counting alternative fuels research, with the most dollars going to whomever can come up with the biggest disaster scenario.
As to ludicrous your statements are nothing more than that of a fanatic who wants to believe in doom and gloom of society and technology, that mankind can only do bad, and never does good, unless what happens conforms to your political viewpoint. Sadly as you've shown, you don't even understand the basics and resort to Ad Hominme attacks in an attempt to discredit people who have knowledge on the subject.
If you want a doom and gloom scenario, following religous type luddites such as yourself who's only motivation is political and anti-business is the sure path to destruction.
Luckily your invective rhetoric is sperating yourself from the regular populace. Keep screaming "THE END IS NIGH" From your soapbox.
Well it's obvious you've bought into the religion hook line and sinker. And I like how you keep calling me wrong and ill-informed without actually putting forth any facts to refute the facts and citatations I've put forward. You just run around and screaming WE'RE DOOMED! WE'RE DOOMED!
Yeah it's nice to come up with end of the world scenarios (not based in fact at all, as proven by you the Cardinal of the Global Warming Church) that end the world a hundred years in the future. So you can complain about how people are destroying it, without actually having to back it up.
So you seem to think that an extremely complex system is in fact simple and that there is only one outcome, and that it is bad, and that there are zero mitigating circumstances.
But lets look at your claims.
"will cause temperatures to rise, will cause glaciers to melt, and will eventually cause sea levels to rise."
Current loss of the Greenland glaciers is estimate at about 0.15 inches a year when you factor in areas where glaciers are receding, and then factoring in areas where glaciers are expanding. that 0.15 inches is a net loss. Yes this will increase sea levels slightly, and at the current rate of loss will take approx 800,000 years. Even with increased warming it will still take 100's of thousands of years. I'm not particularly worried, and there will be many more significant geologic changes in that time. Yes Glaciers are receding and melting in some areas, but they are also expanding in many areas. As they have done since there has been water on Earth. Give me an example of receding and I will happily furnish many counter-examples.
"Heavily populated areas will become uninhabitable.."
Direct measurements are showing that the Urban heat Island effect is far outpacing that of GW, meaning that irrelevant of global temperatures heavily populated areas are increasing in temperature, and true to history, population in heavily populated areas continues to increase. Mexico City, much warmer than most areas, shows a dramatic increase in population in recent years. So I'm not sure where you uninhabitable comes in. The majority of cities in the world today are extremely warm compared to the areas where we see the most dramatic global warming. Most people don't realize that the GW effect is most pronounced in the Alaska and Siberia, where regional averages are going from lows of -42 to -38, hardly making the area "more" un-inhabitable, quite the contrary. Yet this is where the majority of warming is occurring, while more populous areas are seeing significantly less warming. And this is exactly how Global Warming theory predicts it will happen.
"..and agriculture will be devastated.
And what is that based upon? While increasing atmospheric CO2 does not link directly to increased temperatures (See the global cooling trend from 1939 to 1976 during the greatest increase in human induced atmospheric CO2) Increased plant growth has been directly related to atmospheric CO2 and that an increase of 200% has been shown to be extremely beneficial to all forms of plant growth. Since warmer temperatures are also associated with increased plant growth (Compare plant growth in Ecuador to say Alaska) the combination will mean that we are entering a true cornucopia of plenty in agriculture if GW shows to be true. Remember warmness and CO2 are the primary needs of plants, besides sunlight.
"We aren't talking about "current trends"
We aren't? When GW alarmists expect 3 degrees C change in the 20th century, and instead we see 0.5 degrees C change we shouldn't take that into account when they predict changes for the next 100 years? You cite that I am wrong. Please cite for me an example that shows from direct measurement that the global mean temperature for the 20th century was more than 0.5 - 0.6 degrees C.
"That is roughly the same as saying "war is not necessarily unpleasant"."
Actually no it isn't, I don't see were warming equates to war. What your saying is that summer is roughly the same as war. I don't see the correlation.
"the long-term outcome is a positive one, but the short-term consequences are always bad.
Are they really now? Can you give an example. I'd like to give one. Most areas of the world (Non equatorial) see a persistent 30 Degree C change in temperatures on a recurring yearly cycle. There are many short term consequences to this. For example as winter approaches, temperatures drop, people find this as a bad thing. They complain about it bitterly, t
We have recently updated our web site, to provide an improved service to our clients. Some URLs may have moved. To locate the page you are looking for, please connect to our new:
Home page
Search page
Site index
We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.
very true, thankfully there is nothing to worry about in that area as there is no evidence that sea levels are rising signifigantly. In fact all current measurements show that it has risen a maxumum of 15 milimeters in 7 YEars, and even at that it peaked higher than that in conjunction with the 1998 El Nino, and that the temprature of the water is the most signifigant factor in both short and long term measurements.
Global mean sea level variations 1993 - 2000 I don't like this graph as it is variation, and the 0 point is not explained, however deviation from 1993 - 2000 is ~ 15mm
In fact Tuvalu is in the epicenter of a large area of falling sea levels. That has been falling for 50 years.
Find Tuvalu
Below is a mean sea level mark as made in 1841 in Tasmania. Current measurements of mean sea level are below that mark.
To protect Gaia it is imperative that we remove the filthy noxious material known as crude oil from the festering wounds of mother Earth. This Oil is trapped and is harming Gaia the provider of life.
We must remove this toxin and turn it into something useful. By using Large SUV like vehicles we can convert much of this mass noxious waste oil into life giving C02 which will make our plants stronger, healthier, and grow faster and better. This will give us a truly Green Earth, free from obnoxious black oil.
And if this global warming stuff is true, maybe we can help those areas of the earth above 30 degrees latitude and free them from the dangerous killing colds and storms that plague those people for most of the year.
And were not even sure this minor warmth is caused by CO2, the Sun is a much more likely suspect, since it's output is more directly linked to climate, and it's effects much more profound.
Your confusing Bruce Schneier with Counterpane security. There is a connection obviously, but wheras Counterpane concentrates on the computer security area, Schneier does not limit himself to that.
As to no realation between physical and electronic security. Ponder this. If a Gain physical access to your computer I also have access to your network. Mitnick showed us that the two are not as seperate as people would like to think.
All very true. Actually he is an expert on Security "Systems" both physical and electonic, has written many books on the subject and is pretty much considered an industry expert.
He has become in expert in all areas because he realizes that they are not seperated as people think. For instance, if a physical safe holds the root passwords for the network, than that impacts network security, and if the network holds the combination for the physical safe that impacts physical security.
In fact his monthly newsletter discusses all of these aspects, physical and electronic, and consults iin both areas. He was invited to join the working group, which says something about his credentials.
To paraphrase him, Security is a mentality, whether elctronic or physical. It's not as much what you have as how you impliment it.
Slashdot Mirror
6 Million Theartres X 9 Million Theatres = 42 Million dollars.
Highly possible since the math used by Production companies to figure out the Net when there are people getting paid a portion of the Net is even more complicated, mysterious and convuleted than Bistromathematics.
Ask anyone who's ever taken a percentage of the Net, Production company will show that it lost more money than it took to actually produce it.
And PS, I also have worked for a famous NH alternative transportation company. But as usual you nuts only pay attention to stuff you think suports your position, and ignores anything that doesn't conform with your twisted view of reality.
PS for anyone but this turd who may be rading this. I in no way represent my company in this discusion, nor have I ever made on comments that would insuate that.
/. will remove that part of his comment. Just so you know, should my company be contacted I will persue legal action.
I'm hoping
So how long before you start getting jack-booted thugs to go around beating up people that don't agree with you.
Your the one in the PR community, your job is to run around collecting soundbytes and passing them on the web like you actually know something. I mean it is our only job.
Well into you start running the jack booted thugs. Forcing people to wear RW on their armbands so you can round them up when your ready.
Nice to see you avoid technical discussion and head on off and dig up personal and work information to post up here. I've let CmdrTaco know. I've asked them not to get rid of our editorial comment (Nice to see how calm and reasoned you people are when someone shows information that doesn't abide by your religion).
Wouldn't have minded you mentioning what I do. I would have gladly clarified. My company provides environmental equipment for the oil industries, water monitoring, soil strength and the like. So you would rather they not be environmentally conscious in doing their perfectly legal business?? Who cares if it contaminates the water right? But regardless that's the home office, and it's an area they are TRYING to get into, not that we are in. The US division doesn't deal with oil companies at all. The closest energy area we work with is hydro-electric (Which I assume as a left wing Birkenstock wearing long haired nut your against as well.) and what we monitor is Dam integrity. I assume your against that too. You'd rather see dams collapse. But regardless MY company, the US division, does not even have an oil company in our customer database. Anyone who chooses to attack people personally rather than discuss the facts is obviously someone who lack knowledge, as well as intelligence, morals, etc etc etc.
Bet you also like donating money to the ALF, if not actually participating. I mean your tactics are the same. If you lived locally would I find you at my doorstep? Or maybe you'd toss a Molotov cocktail in my cars, seems like it's more your style. Any arson attacks on SUV in the SF area? Maybe the SF PD would like a tip.
But on to some of your mis-truths, lies in your words.
"real scientists"
Really? Well let's see who is behind real climate. Would that be Environmental Media Services with a name like that it tends to hold up my acertation that it's a PR firm. Even better they have the same street address as Fenton Communications yet another PR firm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fenton the company that brought us such great science as the Alar scare. Yeah great source you've got there. Who's on the board of directors, Heinrich Himmler.
As to altenergyaction, do you always cite yourself as a reference? You don't see any issue with that, and is your buddy Smith the president (former?) of Cherokee Forest Voices. That some kind of group of scientists? Sounds like it's on par with the likes of MIT, UCLA and all that. Geez make it easier or me. Looks like you are directly paid by them, and admit it. Then attack me for selling equipment that makes large structures safe. Yeah money grubbing weasel that I am. At least I don't work directly for a PR company. Looks like you get a few bucks from Real Climate too. Anyways since you obviously run that site, anyone here can see the tactics of the group.
So again, would you rather discuss science, or are you going to continue with attacks lightweight communist thug. As to SidV, show your ignoarnce, no way you could, or do know why I use that handle. And again, your so simply minded to you there is only left wing and right wing, and attack anyone that doesn't agree with you. I'm pretty sure if Sid came back the only thing he'd care about is getting a fix, but I'm sure he wouldn't side with facists like you.
How much do they pay you BTW? Just curious.
Some people, myself included, wouldn't take money if it was offered to put forth the real story and hypocricy on this issue. So I was just curious as to how much ethics and morals were going for these days. Figured you would know.
Plenty of people, and why are you digging so deep.
I'm not in the pay of anyone, but I reckon you are, proof, digging on stuff below the front page. Big Warming can't loose all that funding in for bogus science. I'm sure they pay you people well to come in push their PR firms.
Both your links are known fronts for enviornmentalists groups. Not only are they PR companies, but they work for PR groups, which is another name for enviornmentalist groups. How much did Greenpeace spend on PR last year? 150 Million? It was 140 Million in 2000.
And By the way both realclimate and altenergyaction are not run by scientists, they are run by enviornmentalists.
I imagine your one of the ones that believes dandruff and farming are also large factors in global warming. You must also believe they cause Tsunamis.
Well you would wouldn't you I mean your paid to believe these things and spread disinformation.
Oh and PS.
I've already posted a link to a study showing, through direct measurement, that the US is a Carbon sink. i.e. for every pound of CO2 we emmit, we absorb a little bit more than a pound.
So nothing to worry about there right?
A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink n North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models
I read them all. Doesn't mean I have to agree with their fear mongering that's not based in reality. For instance just today /A>
New evidence: farming is huge source of greenhouse gases
Snowpack Surveys Bode Well for L.A. Water Supply LADWP Reports Highest Snow Levels in a Decade
Adaptation the key to surviving climate change, scientists say
AFRICA: Climate change becoming a matter of life and death
Oh look, directly to your early point "It was made crystal clear at the UN climate change conference in Argentina last November that the international community won't support global systems to regulate greenhouse gases. The US, China and developing countries decided Kyoto would not extend beyond 2012. Overtures by the European Union to extend it were rejected. Most greens pretend this did not occur. They also ignore the fact that most governments are not persuaded by claims that global warming presents a cataclysmic threat.
" Liberal plan will cost Canadians billions of dollars annually, Tories say
How many do you read?
Did you agree when they said the cause of the Dec 26th Tsunami was Global Warming? Or when they said that Hurricanes were on the rise due to global warming. Most people didn't because Global Warming doesn't cause Earthquakes (Certianly not warming of 1 degree Farenheit on average global mean) and Hurricanes are on the decrease, as our weather records show.
BTW You called me wrong before when I stated how much warming we had in the 20th century, but you still haven't backed that up. You would think if I was so wrong you could easily show how stupid I was, yet you just go on and use insults as a debating tactic. But that's okay, obviously your opinions on this are just fantasy perpetuated byt the Media scare tactics, I don't expect you to deal with reality in the discusion.
You must have missed the memo from your fear mongering friends New evidence: farming is huge source of greenhouse gases
But even without that your plan falls apart. Because your realeasing C02 much faster than your consuming it. Either you have to increase the concentration in the atmosphere, and we all burn up. Or else you will lower the concentration, and we all freeze.
Remember your basic premise is that the earth cannot handle any change in atmospheric CO2, becuase even are realitively minor changes in the past 10 years is leading s to destruction.
PS How will the Grass pellet burning reduce CO2? Last I checked plant life was carbon based, and ideal cumbustion of any plant life releases CO2 and H2O.
Regardless of how and where we get it, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere increases atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Has no weight within scientific journals. In case you haven't noticed, this is slashdot, not a peer reiewed scientific journal. But then again you may be delusional enough to not know that.
Yes I took that choice, as such I don't try to submit to journals. Quite a difference between a journal and a web shite.
My degrees aren't relevant here; In otherwords you have none. So your opinions ar as useless as mine, forgetting for the moment mine are informed, yours are not.
Ah such an empathetic individual you are. Someone points out your lack of knowlede and challenges your religion, thus kill everyone. I have made an informed choice, I have read the majority of the scientific research in the area over 20 years. I understand the concept, degree or not, as do others, many with advanced degrees. Maybe you should actually learn something about, don't let other make the decesion for you.
You've been brainwashed to equate Global Warming = fossil fuel usage. Of course reducing fossil fuel usage is a good goal. Thankfully it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Also thankfully once someone finds a feasible alternative the entire world will jump on board. We don't have that alternative yet. And the real crime against humanity is the squandering of rescources on absurd ideas that have no potential. People like you that escelate the fear to find an alternative cause people to flail and waste time and money on pie-in-the-sky ideas like grass powered cars, electric cars, hydrogen, et al.
P.S. I worked for two years for a company looking to replace Fossil Fuel IC engines, I still think they have a viable alternative for certain applications. But I didn't do it out of fear of Global Warming. I did it because the idea makes sense, unlike Global Warming.
Actually your point is irrelevant. Mine is not based on politics. Therefore drawing the connection is useless. However, using our majority rules position, that's okay. Bush got the majority of the vote. Mr. Heinz didn't. Must make Bush right. Right?
So knowledge can only be grantd by a University, anyone who is self taught has no worth. But anyways, I see you've ignored the point of your own personal knowlede and university degree on the sunject. Or in fact any knowledge, other than your showing a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. So what is your Phd in?
So your the only arbitrator on what is a useful new technology? I've already stated I'm all for new technology, but I'm not for investing in impractical technology, or technologies that use more fossil fuels, like you are. Your willing to just throw money at any crackpot technology, regardless of it's merits. I;d rather spend money on workable things, and efficiencies. I should also point out that I never said, previously, I was against any particular technology, or the $4 billion research bill that President Bush signed to study alternative fuel. I simply stated my position against fear mongering chicken littles like yourself. In fact I have worked on such things, and I also improve efficiencies in my own life. As well as helping others in the same ways. But I don't shout "THE SKY IS FALLING!"
Nope, never said anything at all like that, never have, never will. But for the moment we have to stick with the tried and true. You know why. It works, at the moment the alternatives don't. And so long as we waste time and money on things like grass pellets for autombiles, we'll be far from the answer.
Actually my views have little to do with the bush administration, and pre-date his fathers administration. So why don't you take your labels somewhere else where they might make sense. But you are probable incapable of that. You're a left wing wacko, so anyone that doesn't agree with you is a right wing wacko. When in reality the majority of this country is neither right or left wing. So by your own twisted, misguided and lackluster logic, since your political view is not in the majority we should ignore it. LEMMINGS HOOOO!!!!!
Science is not politics (in fact they are pretty much diametrically opposed). You're the one who develops scientific beliefs that border on religious fundamentalism based on your politics. Not I. Go Label yourself. I base my scientific beliefs on facts and measured results.
No I don't have a Doctorate in anything, I would rather work and make a living than pay a University to validate me. I have however, as implied above, studied this and other things for my entire adult life. Do You have an advanced degree in it? No? So your opinion is obviously worthless, your just a sniveling little crybaby snot. In fact I doubt many people do on the subjects they comment on here. I guess so long as they don't offend your tenuous belief system (religion) it's okay. Why should we care about what you say on the data, which you don't anyways, you prefer political type statements about things you know nothing about, even in a shallow grasp of the basics way, I doubt you could explain even the most basic premises of Global warming.
Other governments, yeah there are many more that are not a part of it, are a part of it under duress and many that are realize it for the joke it is. Regardless, you still sound like a lemming. "Look all of them believe in it, lets all go jump over the cliff. " Why don't we just turn ourselves into yesman for the French, rather than think for ourselves. Sorry I forgot, you on't know how to think for yourself.
Hey also have socialized medicine (and most want to get out of it) should we also turn our health care into something modeled after theirs? Oh I forgot, you're a socialist, err liberal. So you probably think that would be great.
As to the US Position, Clinton refused to sign onto it. The US senate voted 95-0 that if presented to them they would not sign it, and the current Kyoto Lite regulations being proposed is done so by a Republican.
So again, your all wet and know not of what your talking about.
And it wasn't for short term business reasons. Quite the opposite.
Oh man, talk about going out on a limb. Attacking my "Right Wing" beliefs. Might hold true, if I were right wing, or religous. Speaking as an Independant Agnostic, I love it when you dogmatic left wing nuts piegonhole everyone you disagree with as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. And I never even discuss "right to life" and rarely discuss "gay marriage" because I couldn't care less. You on the other hand feel the need to confuse the nation with fears of Global Wrming that you don't even understand. You just report the crap from your enviornmental activist buddies that you don't even understand.
And your thought about my technological beliefs is far from the truth. I'm all for efficiency, all for real alternative fuels (Nothing current incliding this hair-brained grass pellet scheme works, or uses less fossil fuels). What I'm not for is distorting science and fear mongering to get people to change. There are plenty of reasons in their own right. But you somehow feel the need to make unsubstantiated claims about the destruction of the world if we don't change.
And talk about puppet. You don't even now what your talking about, but your perfectly happy to let activists pull your strings and tell you what to say.
I prefer to research the data and come to my own conclusions, and come to an understanding of the process. Rather than just repeat Greenpeace press releases like you do.
I've seen brainwashed cultist capable of more independant thought than the liberal puppet you are, hell even the right wing wackos sometimes deviate from the party line, you apparently are incapable of it.
Oh yes, nd I've never seen any GW skeptic that has a stated religous belief, I do however know of one in particular that spends the majority of his time discounting creationists. He too deals with facts instead of dogma.
You sound just like anyother religous group, it's common belief don't question it CHARGE!!!!!
Sound like a bunch of lemmings..
It is not, nor has it ever been a mainstream position off the scientific community, it is however a mainstream position of enviornmentalists and the media as well as certain types of activists and religous folowers like yourself, who love doom and gloom scenarios. These are the ones who have short and long term economic and political interest, a situation ever discussed within the climate community. Talk about big bsiness. GW research is a 4 Billion dollar industry, not even counting alternative fuels research, with the most dollars going to whomever can come up with the biggest disaster scenario.
As to ludicrous your statements are nothing more than that of a fanatic who wants to believe in doom and gloom of society and technology, that mankind can only do bad, and never does good, unless what happens conforms to your political viewpoint. Sadly as you've shown, you don't even understand the basics and resort to Ad Hominme attacks in an attempt to discredit people who have knowledge on the subject.
If you want a doom and gloom scenario, following religous type luddites such as yourself who's only motivation is political and anti-business is the sure path to destruction.
Luckily your invective rhetoric is sperating yourself from the regular populace. Keep screaming "THE END IS NIGH" From your soapbox.
Well it's obvious you've bought into the religion hook line and sinker. And I like how you keep calling me wrong and ill-informed without actually putting forth any facts to refute the facts and citatations I've put forward. You just run around and screaming WE'RE DOOMED! WE'RE DOOMED!
Yeah it's nice to come up with end of the world scenarios (not based in fact at all, as proven by you the Cardinal of the Global Warming Church) that end the world a hundred years in the future. So you can complain about how people are destroying it, without actually having to back it up.
Fear mongering un-informed zealot that you are.
So you seem to think that an extremely complex system is in fact simple and that there is only one outcome, and that it is bad, and that there are zero mitigating circumstances.
But lets look at your claims.
"will cause temperatures to rise, will cause glaciers to melt, and will eventually cause sea levels to rise."
Current loss of the Greenland glaciers is estimate at about 0.15 inches a year when you factor in areas where glaciers are receding, and then factoring in areas where glaciers are expanding. that 0.15 inches is a net loss. Yes this will increase sea levels slightly, and at the current rate of loss will take approx 800,000 years. Even with increased warming it will still take 100's of thousands of years. I'm not particularly worried, and there will be many more significant geologic changes in that time. Yes Glaciers are receding and melting in some areas, but they are also expanding in many areas. As they have done since there has been water on Earth. Give me an example of receding and I will happily furnish many counter-examples.
"Heavily populated areas will become uninhabitable.."
Direct measurements are showing that the Urban heat Island effect is far outpacing that of GW, meaning that irrelevant of global temperatures heavily populated areas are increasing in temperature, and true to history, population in heavily populated areas continues to increase. Mexico City, much warmer than most areas, shows a dramatic increase in population in recent years. So I'm not sure where you uninhabitable comes in. The majority of cities in the world today are extremely warm compared to the areas where we see the most dramatic global warming. Most people don't realize that the GW effect is most pronounced in the Alaska and Siberia, where regional averages are going from lows of -42 to -38, hardly making the area "more" un-inhabitable, quite the contrary. Yet this is where the majority of warming is occurring, while more populous areas are seeing significantly less warming. And this is exactly how Global Warming theory predicts it will happen.
"..and agriculture will be devastated.
And what is that based upon? While increasing atmospheric CO2 does not link directly to increased temperatures (See the global cooling trend from 1939 to 1976 during the greatest increase in human induced atmospheric CO2) Increased plant growth has been directly related to atmospheric CO2 and that an increase of 200% has been shown to be extremely beneficial to all forms of plant growth. Since warmer temperatures are also associated with increased plant growth (Compare plant growth in Ecuador to say Alaska) the combination will mean that we are entering a true cornucopia of plenty in agriculture if GW shows to be true. Remember warmness and CO2 are the primary needs of plants, besides sunlight.
"We aren't talking about "current trends"
We aren't? When GW alarmists expect 3 degrees C change in the 20th century, and instead we see 0.5 degrees C change we shouldn't take that into account when they predict changes for the next 100 years? You cite that I am wrong. Please cite for me an example that shows from direct measurement that the global mean temperature for the 20th century was more than 0.5 - 0.6 degrees C.
"That is roughly the same as saying "war is not necessarily unpleasant"."
Actually no it isn't, I don't see were warming equates to war. What your saying is that summer is roughly the same as war. I don't see the correlation.
"the long-term outcome is a positive one, but the short-term consequences are always bad.
Are they really now? Can you give an example. I'd like to give one. Most areas of the world (Non equatorial) see a persistent 30 Degree C change in temperatures on a recurring yearly cycle. There are many short term consequences to this. For example as winter approaches, temperatures drop, people find this as a bad thing. They complain about it bitterly, t
Our site has been updated
We have recently updated our web site, to provide an improved service to our clients. Some URLs may have moved. To locate the page you are looking for, please connect to our new:
Home page
Search page
Site index
We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.
very true, thankfully there is nothing to worry about in that area as there is no evidence that sea levels are rising signifigantly. In fact all current measurements show that it has risen a maxumum of 15 milimeters in 7 YEars, and even at that it peaked higher than that in conjunction with the 1998 El Nino, and that the temprature of the water is the most signifigant factor in both short and long term measurements. Global mean sea level variations 1993 - 2000 I don't like this graph as it is variation, and the 0 point is not explained, however deviation from 1993 - 2000 is ~ 15mm
In fact Tuvalu is in the epicenter of a large area of falling sea levels. That has been falling for 50 years.
Find Tuvalu Below is a mean sea level mark as made in 1841 in Tasmania. Current measurements of mean sea level are below that mark.
Isle of the dead
To protect Gaia it is imperative that we remove the filthy noxious material known as crude oil from the festering wounds of mother Earth. This Oil is trapped and is harming Gaia the provider of life.
We must remove this toxin and turn it into something useful. By using Large SUV like vehicles we can convert much of this mass noxious waste oil into life giving C02 which will make our plants stronger, healthier, and grow faster and better. This will give us a truly Green Earth, free from obnoxious black oil.
And if this global warming stuff is true, maybe we can help those areas of the earth above 30 degrees latitude and free them from the dangerous killing colds and storms that plague those people for most of the year.
And were not even sure this minor warmth is caused by CO2, the Sun is a much more likely suspect, since it's output is more directly linked to climate, and it's effects much more profound.
"and the consequences of that are unpredictable, but probably unpleasant. "
And the information to back this up is?
Change is not neccearilly unpleasant.
Current trends have shown a 100 year rise of 0.5 degrees C.
Within the 30 degree C yearly cycle it's not exactly enough to make me crap my pants.
No but he is perfectly capable, and qualified, on commenting on the systems in place, and their quality, which is what he was asked to do.
For refrences please see:
Do Terror Alerts Work? Olympic Security U.S. 'No-Fly' List Curtails Liberties A National ID Card Wouldn't Make Us Safer
Your confusing Bruce Schneier with Counterpane security. There is a connection obviously, but wheras Counterpane concentrates on the computer security area, Schneier does not limit himself to that.
As to no realation between physical and electronic security. Ponder this. If a Gain physical access to your computer I also have access to your network. Mitnick showed us that the two are not as seperate as people would like to think.
All very true. Actually he is an expert on Security "Systems" both physical and electonic, has written many books on the subject and is pretty much considered an industry expert.
He has become in expert in all areas because he realizes that they are not seperated as people think. For instance, if a physical safe holds the root passwords for the network, than that impacts network security, and if the network holds the combination for the physical safe that impacts physical security.
In fact his monthly newsletter discusses all of these aspects, physical and electronic, and consults iin both areas. He was invited to join the working group, which says something about his credentials.
To paraphrase him, Security is a mentality, whether elctronic or physical. It's not as much what you have as how you impliment it.