Well, kids (depending on age) are not scared by macabre jokes/cartoons.
When I grew up we had a joke type called 'alle Kinder', aka 'all children', sorry I can not make perfect rhymes, as I lack knowledge about english names, but I try:
All the children are watching the burning house, But not _Klaus_ (should rhyme with house) he looks out of the window (in german it would rhyme with house: 'er schaut raus')
All the children are up to the neck in mud/swamp but not Porter, he is shorter.
All the children watch the burning car just not Kell he is in the seat belt.
I don't recall anyone getting psychological problems from such jokes... but well, we are a tough generation! (*flex*)
Taking global warming sceptics serious is the same as taking any religious or ideologic nut cracks serious. Why would I?
If I have to talk to such idiots, I try to shift topic. If that does not work I order a strong alcoholic beverage and start thinking about the next computer game I'm going to program.
Would you dare to confront an American Battle Cruiser Sure! I doubt they have a sea worthy Battle Cruiser... perhaps you want to google what a battle cruiser is. But, well it was the parents fault to start that discussion:D
When the Soviets started Sputnik, they were just 10 years beyond german WWII technology. When the USA sent people to the moon, they where 20 years beyond german WWII technology.
No idea which point in technology advancement we want to assign China at the moment. But technology wise they are minimum 30 beyond the moon technology of the USA. Probably a decade more. Considering that the moon crew vehicle, landers etc. had less processing power than a toaster... everything can now bought on the world market.
But obviously Ice Age and Warm Age should be called Ice Epoch and Warm Epoch, and glacial and inter glacial should be called Ice Age and Warm Age (like every layman calls them anyway), and voila: no need to mix english terms with latin terms and reverse their meaning.
Or maybe a non-political equivalent Research institutions in the EU are non political...
and supply the results to any nation that's not in arrears with the UN. Climate research results are distributed free of charge by all research institutes since decades... everyone working in that has signed an international treaty.
Per capita is a nice metric and all, but then you can argue that India and China are completely justified in bringing up their CO2 emmmissions to the pointy where they are putting out the same per capita as the enemy, the USA. No one is arguing that. Especially as it is complete nonsense. Why, how and for what purpose should China or India or any other aim for reaching the same per capita CO2 production like the USA?
The argument is that the stupid american a*****es should cut back to sane levels.
So do we decide that the USA must reduce their per capita output to Burundi's? This is called a straw man.
And bottom line: all nations have to cut down to ZERO, and that quite quickly.
Does the planet's atmosphere pay attention by the per capita emissions? It doesn't, another straw man. However the one with the economic power to do so, should do it, especially when they are the worst polluters.
no about you, but I was taught that the energy retentian characteristics of an atmosphere is directly related to the amount of greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not how many people place the gases there. So, we demand that the biggest per capita polluters cut down, and hence in the long run, the amount gets reduced in the quickest way. Of course you could start with those who produce the least... with no measurable effect:D
I don't really care what you believe Nitpicking again? s/believe/convinced/
instead tell me your reasoning. Barkeeper is actually a fun job (in a bar or pub), if I would receive UBI, I guess working as bar keeper in the evening would be my first choice.
There always will be "the rich" and they (and others) always will like "to look at skin". There always will be people who want to wake desire, they enjoy it, and fulfill it (for a price?), or play with the looks of their audience.
So far I had no need to know this... but that might change.
Scripts MAY create tags which will then load resources from another origin. Bah, does such a spec make sense or is that for historical reasons the case?
Per capita is the most important metric. Every human who is above acerage *easily* can refuce his CO2 output. And every government governing over such poeple should enforce it.
Slashdot Mirror
And what has that to do with CO2 produced by mankind?
There is no global AGW fund, any nation is putting money into.
And there is no global fund where China gets money from.
You must be an real idiot to believe such nonsense.
No one asked the U.s to pay for anything.
How dumb are you?
That was of course a tragedy!
The problem with macabre jokes is, they easy get ditastful.
I still remember the first two my father told me (I was about 12 or 14)
I found them 'shake head' but still funny at that time.
Sometimes I tell them, but this is not the platform :)
If Richard Wagner is played in the background I would agree!
Well,
kids (depending on age) are not scared by macabre jokes/cartoons.
When I grew up we had a joke type called 'alle Kinder', aka 'all children', sorry I can not make perfect rhymes, as I lack knowledge about english names, but I try:
All the children are watching the burning house,
But not _Klaus_ (should rhyme with house)
he looks out of the window (in german it would rhyme with house: 'er schaut raus')
All the children are up to the neck in mud/swamp
but not Porter,
he is shorter.
All the children watch the burning car
just not Kell
he is in the seat belt.
I don't recall anyone getting psychological problems from such jokes ... but well, we are a tough generation! (*flex*)
Taking global warming sceptics serious is the same as taking any religious or ideologic nut cracks serious.
Why would I?
If I have to talk to such idiots, I try to shift topic. If that does not work I order a strong alcoholic beverage and start thinking about the next computer game I'm going to program.
Oki, I wait for your Nobel price then.
CO2 levels before/during/after 'ice ages' trail the forming and melting of the glaciers. Actually a no brainer ...
Pssst! S E X in free fall!
Would you dare to confront an American Battle Cruiser ... perhaps you want to google what a battle cruiser is. But, well it was the parents fault to start that discussion :D
Sure! I doubt they have a sea worthy Battle Cruiser
At least he speaks and writes a second language ... ... a German could make the same mistake.
Swim
Which word would you chose? Drive? Travel? Move? Float? Drift? Go? Find?
When the Soviets started Sputnik, they were just 10 years beyond german WWII technology.
When the USA sent people to the moon, they where 20 years beyond german WWII technology.
No idea which point in technology advancement we want to assign China at the moment. But technology wise they are minimum 30 beyond the moon technology of the USA. Probably a decade more. Considering that the moon crew vehicle, landers etc. had less processing power than a toaster ... everything can now bought on the world market.
Except that the satellite _WAS_ dismantled and its microwave sensor is now somewhere in south america.
I have no idea :D
But obviously Ice Age and Warm Age should be called Ice Epoch and Warm Epoch, and glacial and inter glacial should be called Ice Age and Warm Age (like every layman calls them anyway), and voila: no need to mix english terms with latin terms and reverse their meaning.
Or maybe a non-political equivalent ...
Research institutions in the EU are non political
and supply the results to any nation that's not in arrears with the UN. ... everyone working in that has signed an international treaty.
Climate research results are distributed free of charge by all research institutes since decades
Per capita is a nice metric and all, but then you can argue that India and China are completely justified in bringing up their CO2 emmmissions to the pointy where they are putting out the same per capita as the enemy, the USA.
No one is arguing that. Especially as it is complete nonsense. Why, how and for what purpose should China or India or any other aim for reaching the same per capita CO2 production like the USA?
The argument is that the stupid american a*****es should cut back to sane levels.
So do we decide that the USA must reduce their per capita output to Burundi's?
This is called a straw man.
And bottom line: all nations have to cut down to ZERO, and that quite quickly.
Does the planet's atmosphere pay attention by the per capita emissions?
It doesn't, another straw man. However the one with the economic power to do so, should do it, especially when they are the worst polluters.
no about you, but I was taught that the energy retentian characteristics of an atmosphere is directly related to the amount of greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not how many people place the gases there. So, we demand that the biggest per capita polluters cut down, and hence in the long run, the amount gets reduced in the quickest way. Of course you could start with those who produce the least ... with no measurable effect :D
I don't really care what you believe
Nitpicking again? s/believe/convinced/
instead tell me your reasoning.
Barkeeper is actually a fun job (in a bar or pub), if I would receive UBI, I guess working as bar keeper in the evening would be my first choice.
There always will be "the rich" and they (and others) always will like "to look at skin".
There always will be people who want to wake desire, they enjoy it, and fulfill it (for a price?), or play with the looks of their audience.
Good to know.
So far I had no need to know this ... but that might change.
Scripts MAY create tags which will then load resources from another origin.
Bah, does such a spec make sense or is that for historical reasons the case?
No no no, you got it all wrong!
It is a clear case that the alarmists 30 years ago had no clue at all!
Does not change the fact that people who die early cost the economy and the society lots of money.
So, you are taking back your claim, that solar panles (PV) are not CO2 neutral?
Your idea that nuclear power will be cheaper in future than solar is hillarious :)
Which claim?
No, the crucial piece was the power vacuum in Iraq.
In other words the conquered areas could not defend them selves.
Ready yo take arms, haha. Most of them are slaves. You seem to know nothing about ISIS, except for a random newspaper head line.
"Stand up meetings" can easily be attended remotely, too.
Per capita is the most important metric.
Every human who is above acerage *easily* can refuce his CO2 output.
And every government governing over such poeple should enforce it.
You are just an idiot.