I'm sorry. Could we start at credibility here? Why, if you're investigating a scientific theory, would you both considering what Al Gore or the Koch Brothers had to say?
As to the rest of it, well, for one of the first times in history we are able to predict with at least a certain level of certainty a major ecological crisis shaping up. Our ancestors had these, and they often spelled catastrophe for civilizations. So why shouldn't one at least hope that nation states and international organizations might, for once, actually try to cut emissions to at least slow down the warming? After all, the solution to that problem also happens to solve some other problems, and will leave us with a goodly supply of long chain hydrocarbons whose uses go beyond running various kinds of combustion engines.
There is a lot of debate about aspects of AGW, not about AGW itself. Misrepresenting debate as some sort of lack of consensus on the general aspects of any given theory is being deceitful. That's like saying "There is a lot of debate on whether Proto-Indo-European sprang from the Kurgan culture or from Anatolia, therefore French, Hindi and Old Church Slavonic are not related languages."
Good thing satellite data isn't the only kind of temperature and climate data available. And no model is going to provide the level of accuracy you demand. Really, you don't need that level of accuracy any more than a physicist needs to count the lifespan of every single uranium atom to know uranium's halflife.
There is one single extra-Gospel source that Jesus existed, and that is Josephus. Once you strip away the 2nd and 3rd century "additions", what you get is basically "there was a Nazarene named Jesus who was a holy man and had a following, and who was put to death by the Romans."
Um, but they do have a lot to do with rain belts, and along with warming temperatures you also see those shift, which will mean increased pace of desertification.
I'm curious. Do you think the universe gives one sweet fuck about your political ideology. We can debate the scientific merits of these claims, but to attack them because they somehow collide with your political ideology is so fucking stupid I can only assume your either a moron or mentally ill.
It's hard to see such people as myth when monster international corporations and uber-rich guys like the Koch Brothers are very much behind a massive campaign to discredit AGW researchers. I can't say whether they want the climate to continue to warm. They could be more mundanely evil in not giving a sweet fuck what happens 50 or 100 years from now, so long as their net worth continues up in the short and medium term.
The problem here is that it seems rather likely that the habitable zones won't grow in size. Rather they will shift in latitude. There will be very real geopolitical ramifications to the North American and Eurasian growth zones jumping northward. Imagine the North American Grain Belt heading a few degrees north. All of a sudden, large areas currently under cultivation in the United States cease to arable, or at least cheaply arable. At the same time, Canada gains large amounts of arable land much farther north. In a few generations, you could see US food security compromised, with large amounts of the grain it needs suddenly in another sovereign country. The US will almost certainly be able to come to some accord with Canada, but other parts of the world may not be so lucky. A brief survey of historic and prehistoric migrations heavily suggests that people don't just sit on their asses and quietly die out when they can no longer get enough food and water.
In scientific circles, there is very little debate. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a PR debate instigated by fossil fuel companies. As to your last sentence, either you're wilfully lying, or you're an ignoramus.
Mark Fucking Zuckerberg. We just changed the TOS, and no we I'm coming for the other one. That's what you get for signing up with Facebook. Fucking stupid rube.
Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.
This message brought to you the Committee to Elect Ron Paul in 2016, though if cornered, he'll disclaim he had anything to do with it, and insist he just started the organization, and really just let anybody at all make statements on his behalf.
I'm not clear here. Are you actually asserting that human activity cannot have an effect on the climate, or more specifically the weather? I just want to get clear what you're claim is, because, on the face of it, what you just wrote is completely false. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just ignorant, because the alternative is that you are immoral.
Of course the guy is a shill. He was being paid by Oracle to write pro-Oracle commentary. Worse, it's not even the first time he did it. Remember all the nonsense he posted on the SCO vs. Linux battles? The guy is a dishonorable piece of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry. Could we start at credibility here? Why, if you're investigating a scientific theory, would you both considering what Al Gore or the Koch Brothers had to say?
As to the rest of it, well, for one of the first times in history we are able to predict with at least a certain level of certainty a major ecological crisis shaping up. Our ancestors had these, and they often spelled catastrophe for civilizations. So why shouldn't one at least hope that nation states and international organizations might, for once, actually try to cut emissions to at least slow down the warming? After all, the solution to that problem also happens to solve some other problems, and will leave us with a goodly supply of long chain hydrocarbons whose uses go beyond running various kinds of combustion engines.
There is a lot of debate about aspects of AGW, not about AGW itself. Misrepresenting debate as some sort of lack of consensus on the general aspects of any given theory is being deceitful. That's like saying "There is a lot of debate on whether Proto-Indo-European sprang from the Kurgan culture or from Anatolia, therefore French, Hindi and Old Church Slavonic are not related languages."
Good thing satellite data isn't the only kind of temperature and climate data available. And no model is going to provide the level of accuracy you demand. Really, you don't need that level of accuracy any more than a physicist needs to count the lifespan of every single uranium atom to know uranium's halflife.
There is one single extra-Gospel source that Jesus existed, and that is Josephus. Once you strip away the 2nd and 3rd century "additions", what you get is basically "there was a Nazarene named Jesus who was a holy man and had a following, and who was put to death by the Romans."
The poster I replied to wrote:
"Goverment funded study identifies new threat. Only solution is to give up more resources and liberties to said goverment.."
Can you explain how that is a critique of the scientific merits?
Yes, like pretty much every climatologist on the planet. Certainly seems a more sensible group to turn to than some fucking halfwith AC on /.
Um, but they do have a lot to do with rain belts, and along with warming temperatures you also see those shift, which will mean increased pace of desertification.
I'm curious. Do you think the universe gives one sweet fuck about your political ideology. We can debate the scientific merits of these claims, but to attack them because they somehow collide with your political ideology is so fucking stupid I can only assume your either a moron or mentally ill.
It's hard to see such people as myth when monster international corporations and uber-rich guys like the Koch Brothers are very much behind a massive campaign to discredit AGW researchers. I can't say whether they want the climate to continue to warm. They could be more mundanely evil in not giving a sweet fuck what happens 50 or 100 years from now, so long as their net worth continues up in the short and medium term.
The problem here is that it seems rather likely that the habitable zones won't grow in size. Rather they will shift in latitude. There will be very real geopolitical ramifications to the North American and Eurasian growth zones jumping northward. Imagine the North American Grain Belt heading a few degrees north. All of a sudden, large areas currently under cultivation in the United States cease to arable, or at least cheaply arable. At the same time, Canada gains large amounts of arable land much farther north. In a few generations, you could see US food security compromised, with large amounts of the grain it needs suddenly in another sovereign country. The US will almost certainly be able to come to some accord with Canada, but other parts of the world may not be so lucky. A brief survey of historic and prehistoric migrations heavily suggests that people don't just sit on their asses and quietly die out when they can no longer get enough food and water.
In scientific circles, there is very little debate. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a PR debate instigated by fossil fuel companies. As to your last sentence, either you're wilfully lying, or you're an ignoramus.
Mark Fucking Zuckerberg. We just changed the TOS, and no we I'm coming for the other one. That's what you get for signing up with Facebook. Fucking stupid rube.
Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.
That's certainly what I would do. Helluva lot less likely to get me anally probed by a customs officers.
It's shitty, but I'm still not sure it violates the constitution, at least in the way the GP says it did.
I think I hit pretty damned close to the mark by the looks of it.
Translation: until everyone adopts my political ideology you can all go fuck yourselves, and me too!!!!
I'm going to blame Good Ol' Boys listening to Rush Limbaugh and lighting their farts on fire every time he says "Obama!"
This message brought to you the Committee to Elect Ron Paul in 2016, though if cornered, he'll disclaim he had anything to do with it, and insist he just started the organization, and really just let anybody at all make statements on his behalf.
In Communist Vietnam, Streisand's you!
I'm not clear here. Are you actually asserting that human activity cannot have an effect on the climate, or more specifically the weather? I just want to get clear what you're claim is, because, on the face of it, what you just wrote is completely false. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just ignorant, because the alternative is that you are immoral.
The US government is all for fundamental freedoms, providing your use of them can be logged, queried at will and used against you later.
Of course the guy is a shill. He was being paid by Oracle to write pro-Oracle commentary. Worse, it's not even the first time he did it. Remember all the nonsense he posted on the SCO vs. Linux battles? The guy is a dishonorable piece of shit.
I don't think it's going out too far on a limb to suggest you actually didn't read the article., the study and possibly not even the summary.
Because, of course, major mental or physical illness is a lifestyle choice.