So you reject out of hand the Permian report, you know, an actual geological example, because of some vague notion that higher-than-now CO2 was great for dragonflies?
Could you describe her symptoms? The flu shot I got this season gave me a bit of woozy feeling that evening with a low grade fever easily dealt with by a couple of Tylenols. In other words, my immune system was doing its job.
It's funny how you can spend all your time worried about environmentalists, when it's the scientists you ought to be paying attention to. But I guess it's easier just to create strawmen and red herrings.
Al Gore has little or nothing to do with actual research, and if grant money is your accusation, well then pretty much all publicly-funded science can be thrown out the door; everything from archaeology to high energy physics research. Are you that determined to reject climatology that most of the science that goes on in the world is disposable?
Perhaps that's because you don't have the faintest idea what the scientists are talking about. Have you even read the IPCC reports or any of the primary literature?
How are you any different than a Creationist at this point? Simply declaring "Those scientists are just spouting a religion" any different than what the kooks at Answers in Genesis say about biology?
Grow the fuck up. The universe doesn't give one single fuck about your ideology or pseudo-skepticism. Be a fucking adult and accept the reality that barfing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not some neutral practice.
Fucking hell, people like you piss me off. So fucking lazy that you just latch on to the kooky green activists and make believe in your pathetic fact free minds that Al Gore somehow represents the climatology community.
I don't think a lot of scientists say the end of the world is nigh. You seem to be confusing scientists with activists. I ignore the latter, but pay a great deal of attention to the former.
What these researchers are trying to say is that there are consequences to large amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphere. Now I can't say that human activity will produce as radical an increase as massive volcanism on the scale described in this article, but still, it ought to make you pause to think that maybe, just maybe, puling out millions of years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in the space of three centuries is probably not a great idea, and while the consequences likely won't be that 90% of life dies out, it will have some serious consequences for us and many of those critters we happen to inhabit this planet with.
But hey, I guess it's probably more comforting to make nasty accusations against scientists. That way, you don't have to do a thing and you can feel all clever and righteous. Those stupid scientists, how dare they remind us that we don't live in a vacuum. They must be crooked grant seekers.
I'm reasonably sure that increased dust levels would likely subside within a few years, maybe a few decades. Radical increases in CO2 and the ensuing acidification in the oceans would take considerably longer to return to something approaching normal levels. That's rather the point. There are multiple ways that CO2 can be barfed into the atmosphere in vast quantities in a relatively short period of time, but getting rid of that CO2 may take a lot longer, and the effects of that rise in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface might take centuries or millennia.
Why is it so very hard for people to accept that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever their source, is not a good thing for a lot of species?
You do realize that it too on something like 12k to 13k years for the major glacial retreats from the last glacial maximum to about 10k years ago when the current period began? You talk as if accelerating glacial losses (along with land ice losses in Greenland and Antarctica) measurable in mere decades were the same thing.
You mean the cherry picked time period that you trumpet to declare that AGW is false, even as the actual trends show the opposite. Yes, we all know about pseudo-skeptics and their ability to defy what the scientists are actually observing.
At some point the denialists will run out of runway, but sadly, by the time they do, any notion of being able to even mitigate the effects will be long gone. And probably around the same time, we'll start running out of cheap fossil fuels, so we'll get a nice double whammy.
But as long as the Koch Brothers make money today, well, fuck the future.
Those evil climatologists are up there with the evil evolutionists who medical researchers. It's a global conspiracy to kill oil, Christianity and cigarettes!
People die all the time. I wasn't aware that was an argument for allowing them to be murdered...
The whole point of anthropogenic climate change isn't that we should stop climate change, it's that massive CO2 emissions from human sources over the last three centuries are producing far greater and more harmful changes than natural processes. This
No scientist is going to point to a specific event and go "That's caused by AGW". The theory cannot hope to explain every weather event. But what it can explain are trends.
The Earth isn't, but people are, and a good many are living in fairly marginal areas, and not just in terms of agriculture. Will humanity die out. Most certainly not. But there will be consequences, and they will ultimately be fair more expensive than if we had tried to curb emissions.
Aren't all climatologists frauds and communists? Thank goodness for the Koch Brothers, Mark Steyn and Christopher Booker, paragons of scientific research and virtue. I think the time has come to start culling climatologists, too many of these evil people daring to say releasing CO2 is bad. After all, we all know that carbon emissions don't happen, and even if they did, they're good for you much like how cigarette smoke and teaching Creationism will lead to a better society.
The benefits seem shadowed by Powershell's problems. As others said, an extension to the Bourne shells would have been one thing, but this bizarre child of CMD.EXE and bash seems to have inherited the worst of both.
Frankly, I don't find parsing ls into constituent fields all that hard, providing the actual structure of output remains stable, which in general it does if you keep to one of the toolsets. I remember some grief moving from System V to GNU way back in the day, but haven't had any kind of real problem in years. Myself, I'm a huge fan of awk, which I've used to do all sorts of heavy lifting data manipulation in a C-like scripting language.
Managing to nuke Seoul would be a catastrophe; huge loss of life, regional and indeed even global economic impact would be huge, and something tells me if the NK regime was actually collapsing, they would have no qualms about doing as much damage as they could to South Korea. The risks as far as regional stability are concerned are probably the chief reasons that China still backs them and even the US does its part by facilitating food shipments when the almost perpetual famines reach crisis level.
There are no easy answers to North Korea. Regime collapse is in many ways more frightening than keeping it going. I really don't see an end in sight. The Kims have done something rather rare on the face of it; a multigenerational monarchical dictatorship; with a sort of absolutism that even the absolute monarchs of Europe could not have imagined. There seemed to be some during the transition between Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un, and indeed by the looks of it many high ranking North Koreans thought so as well as they sought to increase business ties with China, but Kim Jong Il chose his heir well and the third Kim is as ruthless as his father or grandfather and has tamed the NK military machine to his will. I'd say any new hope of change is decades off now.
The Bourne shells along with the standard toolkit, even the pre-GNU toolkit, just seem a cleaner, more efficient scripting solution. Powershell feels very bloated, and while it is by far the best way to expose the underlying system to scripting, and is certainly much much better than the earlier alternatives (like VBScript and WMI), it's still a bad solution. I use it because I have to, not because I particularly want to. For much of my automation scripting, a bash shell with some decent extensions and/or utilities to handle WMI would probably do just as well.
For the most part, I fail to see the advantage of the OOP nature. Most of the work I do is either in automation or in importing and exporting data, and frankly most of that is text based, so that's where the Powershell paradigm really falters.
I'm dubious that they features are improvements, but it could simply be a philosophical difference. What I was raised with, so to speak, in the *nix world was a toolset built of discrete commands and a fairly simplistic scripting language (though I admit the passage from sh to ksh to bash has introduced more complex structures). Powershell drives me nuts because there are a bazillion scriptlets tied to the already overly complex underpinnings that is the Windows kernel, WMI,.Net and everything else ever thrown at Windows.
As I said Powershell is necessary, but it is a necessary evil, and I still like the Unix toolset a lot more. The whole KISS philosophy underscores *nix, whereas Windows has been a behemoth made ever more complex.
For the most part I use the remote admin tools in Windows 7. At some point I'm sure they'll put enough incompatible functions in the Windows 8/Server 2012 GPO that Windows 7 Group Policy Admin tool will no longer work, and then I guess I'm stuck, but for now I only log on to my Server 2012 machines fairly infrequently. Still, there are things that must be done via a desktop, unless one wishes to spend a half hour looking for the right Powershell script. I'm slowly gaining more proficiency with Powershell and using it more, but the number of scripts is insane, and when you throw in Exchange 2010/2013 with all its libraries, I don't know how the human brain can handle it. There are just not enough hours in the day for me to spend pouring through the guts of Powershell.
I don't ever remember *nix being this hard. Maybe I was a lot younger and faster on my feet when it came to learning Bourne shell scripting and the *nix toolset, but there's just something about the Windows toolsets, powershell or the older functionality found in the resource kits, that defies my ability to get a handle on it. I find that what I can whip up in bash in five minutes takes me 45 minutes in Powershell.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saddened to hear there are ACs in the future. BTW, how does Beta turn out?
So you reject out of hand the Permian report, you know, an actual geological example, because of some vague notion that higher-than-now CO2 was great for dragonflies?
Could you describe her symptoms? The flu shot I got this season gave me a bit of woozy feeling that evening with a low grade fever easily dealt with by a couple of Tylenols. In other words, my immune system was doing its job.
It's funny how you can spend all your time worried about environmentalists, when it's the scientists you ought to be paying attention to. But I guess it's easier just to create strawmen and red herrings.
Al Gore has little or nothing to do with actual research, and if grant money is your accusation, well then pretty much all publicly-funded science can be thrown out the door; everything from archaeology to high energy physics research. Are you that determined to reject climatology that most of the science that goes on in the world is disposable?
Perhaps that's because you don't have the faintest idea what the scientists are talking about. Have you even read the IPCC reports or any of the primary literature?
How are you any different than a Creationist at this point? Simply declaring "Those scientists are just spouting a religion" any different than what the kooks at Answers in Genesis say about biology?
Grow the fuck up. The universe doesn't give one single fuck about your ideology or pseudo-skepticism. Be a fucking adult and accept the reality that barfing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not some neutral practice.
Fucking hell, people like you piss me off. So fucking lazy that you just latch on to the kooky green activists and make believe in your pathetic fact free minds that Al Gore somehow represents the climatology community.
I don't think a lot of scientists say the end of the world is nigh. You seem to be confusing scientists with activists. I ignore the latter, but pay a great deal of attention to the former.
What these researchers are trying to say is that there are consequences to large amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphere. Now I can't say that human activity will produce as radical an increase as massive volcanism on the scale described in this article, but still, it ought to make you pause to think that maybe, just maybe, puling out millions of years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in the space of three centuries is probably not a great idea, and while the consequences likely won't be that 90% of life dies out, it will have some serious consequences for us and many of those critters we happen to inhabit this planet with.
But hey, I guess it's probably more comforting to make nasty accusations against scientists. That way, you don't have to do a thing and you can feel all clever and righteous. Those stupid scientists, how dare they remind us that we don't live in a vacuum. They must be crooked grant seekers.
I'm reasonably sure that increased dust levels would likely subside within a few years, maybe a few decades. Radical increases in CO2 and the ensuing acidification in the oceans would take considerably longer to return to something approaching normal levels. That's rather the point. There are multiple ways that CO2 can be barfed into the atmosphere in vast quantities in a relatively short period of time, but getting rid of that CO2 may take a lot longer, and the effects of that rise in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface might take centuries or millennia.
Why is it so very hard for people to accept that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever their source, is not a good thing for a lot of species?
You do realize that it too on something like 12k to 13k years for the major glacial retreats from the last glacial maximum to about 10k years ago when the current period began? You talk as if accelerating glacial losses (along with land ice losses in Greenland and Antarctica) measurable in mere decades were the same thing.
You mean the cherry picked time period that you trumpet to declare that AGW is false, even as the actual trends show the opposite. Yes, we all know about pseudo-skeptics and their ability to defy what the scientists are actually observing.
At some point the denialists will run out of runway, but sadly, by the time they do, any notion of being able to even mitigate the effects will be long gone. And probably around the same time, we'll start running out of cheap fossil fuels, so we'll get a nice double whammy.
But as long as the Koch Brothers make money today, well, fuck the future.
I don't read scientific journalism any more. Can you point me to some journal citations?
Those evil climatologists are up there with the evil evolutionists who medical researchers. It's a global conspiracy to kill oil, Christianity and cigarettes!
People die all the time. I wasn't aware that was an argument for allowing them to be murdered...
The whole point of anthropogenic climate change isn't that we should stop climate change, it's that massive CO2 emissions from human sources over the last three centuries are producing far greater and more harmful changes than natural processes. This
Now let's move to California and Australia...
No scientist is going to point to a specific event and go "That's caused by AGW". The theory cannot hope to explain every weather event. But what it can explain are trends.
The Earth isn't, but people are, and a good many are living in fairly marginal areas, and not just in terms of agriculture. Will humanity die out. Most certainly not. But there will be consequences, and they will ultimately be fair more expensive than if we had tried to curb emissions.
But the Earth has got warmer. It doesn't mean every spot on the globe warms up.
If you're going to criticize a theory, at least have the wit to understand what it says. Otherwise, you just come off looking like an infantile moron.
Aren't all climatologists frauds and communists? Thank goodness for the Koch Brothers, Mark Steyn and Christopher Booker, paragons of scientific research and virtue. I think the time has come to start culling climatologists, too many of these evil people daring to say releasing CO2 is bad. After all, we all know that carbon emissions don't happen, and even if they did, they're good for you much like how cigarette smoke and teaching Creationism will lead to a better society.
The benefits seem shadowed by Powershell's problems. As others said, an extension to the Bourne shells would have been one thing, but this bizarre child of CMD.EXE and bash seems to have inherited the worst of both.
Frankly, I don't find parsing ls into constituent fields all that hard, providing the actual structure of output remains stable, which in general it does if you keep to one of the toolsets. I remember some grief moving from System V to GNU way back in the day, but haven't had any kind of real problem in years. Myself, I'm a huge fan of awk, which I've used to do all sorts of heavy lifting data manipulation in a C-like scripting language.
More like about seventy, each one slightly different and with slightly different capabilities so you end up having to write a wrapper scriptlet.
Managing to nuke Seoul would be a catastrophe; huge loss of life, regional and indeed even global economic impact would be huge, and something tells me if the NK regime was actually collapsing, they would have no qualms about doing as much damage as they could to South Korea. The risks as far as regional stability are concerned are probably the chief reasons that China still backs them and even the US does its part by facilitating food shipments when the almost perpetual famines reach crisis level.
There are no easy answers to North Korea. Regime collapse is in many ways more frightening than keeping it going. I really don't see an end in sight. The Kims have done something rather rare on the face of it; a multigenerational monarchical dictatorship; with a sort of absolutism that even the absolute monarchs of Europe could not have imagined. There seemed to be some during the transition between Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un, and indeed by the looks of it many high ranking North Koreans thought so as well as they sought to increase business ties with China, but Kim Jong Il chose his heir well and the third Kim is as ruthless as his father or grandfather and has tamed the NK military machine to his will. I'd say any new hope of change is decades off now.
The Bourne shells along with the standard toolkit, even the pre-GNU toolkit, just seem a cleaner, more efficient scripting solution. Powershell feels very bloated, and while it is by far the best way to expose the underlying system to scripting, and is certainly much much better than the earlier alternatives (like VBScript and WMI), it's still a bad solution. I use it because I have to, not because I particularly want to. For much of my automation scripting, a bash shell with some decent extensions and/or utilities to handle WMI would probably do just as well.
For the most part, I fail to see the advantage of the OOP nature. Most of the work I do is either in automation or in importing and exporting data, and frankly most of that is text based, so that's where the Powershell paradigm really falters.
I'm dubious that they features are improvements, but it could simply be a philosophical difference. What I was raised with, so to speak, in the *nix world was a toolset built of discrete commands and a fairly simplistic scripting language (though I admit the passage from sh to ksh to bash has introduced more complex structures). Powershell drives me nuts because there are a bazillion scriptlets tied to the already overly complex underpinnings that is the Windows kernel, WMI, .Net and everything else ever thrown at Windows.
As I said Powershell is necessary, but it is a necessary evil, and I still like the Unix toolset a lot more. The whole KISS philosophy underscores *nix, whereas Windows has been a behemoth made ever more complex.
For the most part I use the remote admin tools in Windows 7. At some point I'm sure they'll put enough incompatible functions in the Windows 8/Server 2012 GPO that Windows 7 Group Policy Admin tool will no longer work, and then I guess I'm stuck, but for now I only log on to my Server 2012 machines fairly infrequently. Still, there are things that must be done via a desktop, unless one wishes to spend a half hour looking for the right Powershell script. I'm slowly gaining more proficiency with Powershell and using it more, but the number of scripts is insane, and when you throw in Exchange 2010/2013 with all its libraries, I don't know how the human brain can handle it. There are just not enough hours in the day for me to spend pouring through the guts of Powershell.
I don't ever remember *nix being this hard. Maybe I was a lot younger and faster on my feet when it came to learning Bourne shell scripting and the *nix toolset, but there's just something about the Windows toolsets, powershell or the older functionality found in the resource kits, that defies my ability to get a handle on it. I find that what I can whip up in bash in five minutes takes me 45 minutes in Powershell.