Everyday I use anonymous communication/travel methods in order to stop big brother from monitoring me. I don't have any evidence there watching me, I just feel it, because of my sixth sense you see.
Maybe it's because you're using anonymous communication methods they're watching you.
Picture it:
The NSA has just spent teraflops breaking your mixmastered messages and all they get is the loveletter you sent to the Bush twins.
I find that fighting violence with violence does wonders.
One night coming home from the cinema, this guy walks up to me, says 'give me your wallet'. I say 'fuck you and give my best to your mother'. He pulls a knife. I kick him in the balls. I walk home with his wallet and knife.
Violence doesn't work? Pftui I say. It's even profitable.
The data provided is probably correct.
What one might suspect is bias in favour of a conclusion that will result in increased funding for Mr. Keeling's activities. I have known far too many scholars to not suspect that most of these 'soft' sciences include heavy bias in favour of one side of the issue or the other.
If anyone feels like having a quick go at the raw data, it can be found here:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/GLOBALVIEW/gv/
As you will notice, the variations are rather large, some even to the point that one must suspect an anomaly local in nature.
The variations are also seasonally variable. Might this just be part of a larger seasonal variation? Sun spots? Might a scientist secretly have taken up smoking?
As it says in the article, the rise is not uniform across the globe, so it might just be local volcanic activity that sets the Mauna Loa meter off.
Is this really data we want to use as a basis for banning fossil fuels?
And even if the data correctly predicts rising CO2 levels, is the correlation between CO2 levels on Mauna Loa and global temperature reliable?
And if it is, will we be able to substantially affect the outcome by using alternate (more expensive) fuels?
And even more pertinent: Will China be in on the deal? One billion Chinese who are rapidly reaching the same levels of industrialization as the West might be reluctant to give up higher living standards for that warm, fuzzy feeling that alternate fuels give you.
The advantage of this whole scheme would be that we wouldn't have to kill so many brown people when we don't need their oil anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Avians beat technology in speed test.
Variant:
In Backwards South Africa
Data-usage is accounted for in bushels of wheat
In Outer Mongolia you can't incorporate. You are incorporated.
Picture it:
The NSA has just spent teraflops breaking your mixmastered messages and all they get is the loveletter you sent to the Bush twins.
I find that fighting violence with violence does wonders.
One night coming home from the cinema, this guy walks up to me, says 'give me your wallet'. I say 'fuck you and give my best to your mother'. He pulls a knife. I kick him in the balls. I walk home with his wallet and knife.
Violence doesn't work? Pftui I say. It's even profitable.
The data provided is probably correct. What one might suspect is bias in favour of a conclusion that will result in increased funding for Mr. Keeling's activities. I have known far too many scholars to not suspect that most of these 'soft' sciences include heavy bias in favour of one side of the issue or the other. If anyone feels like having a quick go at the raw data, it can be found here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/GLOBALVIEW/gv/ As you will notice, the variations are rather large, some even to the point that one must suspect an anomaly local in nature. The variations are also seasonally variable. Might this just be part of a larger seasonal variation? Sun spots? Might a scientist secretly have taken up smoking? As it says in the article, the rise is not uniform across the globe, so it might just be local volcanic activity that sets the Mauna Loa meter off. Is this really data we want to use as a basis for banning fossil fuels? And even if the data correctly predicts rising CO2 levels, is the correlation between CO2 levels on Mauna Loa and global temperature reliable? And if it is, will we be able to substantially affect the outcome by using alternate (more expensive) fuels? And even more pertinent: Will China be in on the deal? One billion Chinese who are rapidly reaching the same levels of industrialization as the West might be reluctant to give up higher living standards for that warm, fuzzy feeling that alternate fuels give you. The advantage of this whole scheme would be that we wouldn't have to kill so many brown people when we don't need their oil anymore.