You have an amazingly narrow and idiotic understanding of people and science. There's nothing else to say. Trust your "experts", and as they constantly try to adjust and correct for data and errors pointed out by the "unwashed/uneducated masses", realize you are in fact wrong.
If they look at a function and say "hey, how is that bounds-checked"? Then yes - that is completely valid and OK. I don't have a problem with "amateurs" checking pros - after all, we've recently see (yet again) that peer review doesn't work all to well...
So if things are so hard to measure, then how do we know they are disappearing and not growing or stable like the vast majority of other coral atoll islands?
Quite the skilled propagandist you are. ".25 of a foot" huh? Who measures seal level rises that way?
People in the US who are intelligent enough to understand simple conversions, and want to put something down that would be easily understood by most of the US visitors here (who make up the majority of visitors). I guess he could have said it was closer to 380 micro-furlongs, but a quarter of a foot is good enough.
Now, if you cannot handle the incredibly complex math of converting by a factor of 12 (feet to inches) then 25.4 (mm per inch), well, time to go and brush up on basic math before coming back to a tech-centric website.
Really? I see thousands of years with a LOT higher rate of sea-level change, some as high as 4+ meters per century, which would be about 20 times higher than the worst-case estimates for today. Rising faster than ever in geologic history? Hardly.
And, as Dr. Spencer shows, when the data doesn't match the theory - which one wins? How long do we cling to predicted results from models that don't match reality?
So if the cost of climate change abatement is more than ($18 * 0.6) about $11 per year per worker, it is actually an economic loser to try to address it. Better to "accept the loss" of 0.012 hours per week, than spend even more money to try to save that amount of economic activity.
I'm sure you say the same thing about politicians, too! Unless you have a law degree and a decade or more of experience, you have NO RIGHT to criticize any politician. Logic and reason be damned, it's all about the degrees a person has achieved. Einstein was spot-on when he responded to the 100 authors opposed to him; it would only take one to prove him wrong, there is no "strength in numbers".
Of course the climate is changing. Has been for millions of year.
Yes, but the current rate of change is unprecedented, and can not be explained by natural phenomena.
Check the graphs, one from "pre-big CO2" time and one firmly in that time. Both show the same temperature increases. One was essentially natural, one is supposedly man-made. Why are they the same?
While market share continues to slide. It's a great short-term strategy, but when there's an economic hiccup (and we're about 2-3 years overdue) and consumer consumption drops - Apple will have, essentially, nothing to offer most consumers and will see a pretty big retraction not just in market share, but in profits.
To continue making a profit, since iPhone demand is falling. Considering that iPhone sales are estimated to fall 20% to 30%, it's time to slash quite a bit of that work force - or lose a lot of money.
No, stations. ABC in Seattle or LA has a pretty different "take" on things than ABC in Boise or Louisville. Yes, those in the media is overwhelmingly leftists but I would say that is more a function of the individuals rather than a corporate "principle". Corporations - even media - tend to want to make money. Lots of those in the upper echelons lean heavily to the right and thus influence the media narrative, but it's because of the individuals, not a corporate charter.
Google search for democrat racist policy also turns up at least 3 things. If these aren't enough, I can dig deeper.
If voter photo ID is racist, then I guess you must hate: Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Guatamala, Germany, France, Australia, Greece (the birthplace of Democracy), Netherlands, Sweden, India, and nearly every other country. Where voter ID is REQUIRED. I guess they're all racist, eh?
Democrats also gerrymander districts. The oft-shouted "national vote for House!" is, in fact, false. If you look at House representatives per population you'll see that 8 of the top 10, and 14 of the top 20 States in terms of most people per representative are GOP States. Meaning that they are actually under-represented in the US House. California - oft decried as being "shorted" on Representatives - is in the bottom 40%, with more House members per resident than the average State.
Democrats have their own dog whistles, including the aforementioned racism (any more, if you disagree with the Left on anything, you're immediately branded a racist, Nazi, or both), "gun control", "Diversity" (have you seen the recent Andrew Ngo video where he's berated and assaulted by a bunch of white assholes because he's not supporting their "cause of tolerance"?), and many more.
Back to voting. How is requiring proof of identification, racist? It is incredibly explicit in the Constitution - only citizens have the right to vote. When you come into the US, you have to prove citizenship or at least ID and that you have approval to enter. When you want to draw SS, or any Government benefit, you're supposed to provide ID - including immigration/citizenship status. Why is that all OK, but for voting - where it is explicitly called for in the Constitution - not OK? Does that make Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands (and many others) racist hell-holes?
Nah, easier to say "Republicans are racist", absent any facts or logic. It's better to break people down to their gender and skin color rather than the content of their character and their ideas. Diversity is about what you look like, not what you think, according to much of the political Left in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
You have an amazingly narrow and idiotic understanding of people and science. There's nothing else to say. Trust your "experts", and as they constantly try to adjust and correct for data and errors pointed out by the "unwashed/uneducated masses", realize you are in fact wrong.
If they look at a function and say "hey, how is that bounds-checked"? Then yes - that is completely valid and OK. I don't have a problem with "amateurs" checking pros - after all, we've recently see (yet again) that peer review doesn't work all to well...
So if things are so hard to measure, then how do we know they are disappearing and not growing or stable like the vast majority of other coral atoll islands?
And the data? Or do you judge everything by examining the CV of the person? Data stands on its own - and the data is quite hard to refute.
Quite the skilled propagandist you are. ".25 of a foot" huh? Who measures seal level rises that way?
People in the US who are intelligent enough to understand simple conversions, and want to put something down that would be easily understood by most of the US visitors here (who make up the majority of visitors). I guess he could have said it was closer to 380 micro-furlongs, but a quarter of a foot is good enough.
Now, if you cannot handle the incredibly complex math of converting by a factor of 12 (feet to inches) then 25.4 (mm per inch), well, time to go and brush up on basic math before coming back to a tech-centric website.
Really? I see thousands of years with a LOT higher rate of sea-level change, some as high as 4+ meters per century, which would be about 20 times higher than the worst-case estimates for today. Rising faster than ever in geologic history? Hardly.
Yes. And? Market share continues to slide. The trend is irrefutable.
Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing. Tuvalu has added 3% more land in the last 50 years, and the Maldives, which famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to show their nation is doomed has no change in land area over the last 60 years.
And, as Dr. Spencer shows, when the data doesn't match the theory - which one wins? How long do we cling to predicted results from models that don't match reality?
To expand on that, if the median household income in the Southeast is around $50,000, and there are typically 1.4 workers per household, that would be about $18 per hour, on average. Assuming you lose 0.012 hours per week, that would be about 0.6 hours per year of work (assuming 2 weeks vacation).
So if the cost of climate change abatement is more than ($18 * 0.6) about $11 per year per worker, it is actually an economic loser to try to address it. Better to "accept the loss" of 0.012 hours per week, than spend even more money to try to save that amount of economic activity.
I'm sure you say the same thing about politicians, too! Unless you have a law degree and a decade or more of experience, you have NO RIGHT to criticize any politician. Logic and reason be damned, it's all about the degrees a person has achieved. Einstein was spot-on when he responded to the 100 authors opposed to him; it would only take one to prove him wrong, there is no "strength in numbers".
And as far as climate science goes, 95% of the models say that the data is wrong; however, as Richard Feynman so succinctly stated, if your theory (guess) disagrees with experiments/data - your theory is wrong. And in this case, the theories are pretty much wrong - at least 95% of them.
Of course the climate is changing. Has been for millions of year.
Yes, but the current rate of change is unprecedented, and can not be explained by natural phenomena.
Check the graphs, one from "pre-big CO2" time and one firmly in that time. Both show the same temperature increases. One was essentially natural, one is supposedly man-made. Why are they the same?
Check the longer-term trend. It's downward. Not a surprise it's up for the quarter when new models are released - but the long term trend is down.
Here you go.
While market share continues to slide. It's a great short-term strategy, but when there's an economic hiccup (and we're about 2-3 years overdue) and consumer consumption drops - Apple will have, essentially, nothing to offer most consumers and will see a pretty big retraction not just in market share, but in profits.
I svitdhfd yfars afo tp tie Appmf Whefl!
Hmmm... 40 KV and seawater. NOT a happy combination!
A Merry Christmas, indeed!
About 3N/m^2 per the article; that is about 1/300th of a modern jet airplane.
Could this be a sign of Apple moving production to the US I wonder?
No, it is a sign of falling iPhone demand, between 20 and 30% fewer units.
To continue making a profit, since iPhone demand is falling. Considering that iPhone sales are estimated to fall 20% to 30%, it's time to slash quite a bit of that work force - or lose a lot of money.
No, stations. ABC in Seattle or LA has a pretty different "take" on things than ABC in Boise or Louisville. Yes, those in the media is overwhelmingly leftists but I would say that is more a function of the individuals rather than a corporate "principle". Corporations - even media - tend to want to make money. Lots of those in the upper echelons lean heavily to the right and thus influence the media narrative, but it's because of the individuals, not a corporate charter.
And only a few TV stations and newspapers, as well!
Google search for democrat racist policy also turns up at least 3 things. If these aren't enough, I can dig deeper.
If voter photo ID is racist, then I guess you must hate: Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Guatamala, Germany, France, Australia, Greece (the birthplace of Democracy), Netherlands, Sweden, India, and nearly every other country. Where voter ID is REQUIRED. I guess they're all racist, eh?
Democrats also gerrymander districts. The oft-shouted "national vote for House!" is, in fact, false. If you look at House representatives per population you'll see that 8 of the top 10, and 14 of the top 20 States in terms of most people per representative are GOP States. Meaning that they are actually under-represented in the US House. California - oft decried as being "shorted" on Representatives - is in the bottom 40%, with more House members per resident than the average State.
Democrats have their own dog whistles, including the aforementioned racism (any more, if you disagree with the Left on anything, you're immediately branded a racist, Nazi, or both), "gun control", "Diversity" (have you seen the recent Andrew Ngo video where he's berated and assaulted by a bunch of white assholes because he's not supporting their "cause of tolerance"?), and many more.
Back to voting. How is requiring proof of identification, racist? It is incredibly explicit in the Constitution - only citizens have the right to vote. When you come into the US, you have to prove citizenship or at least ID and that you have approval to enter. When you want to draw SS, or any Government benefit, you're supposed to provide ID - including immigration/citizenship status. Why is that all OK, but for voting - where it is explicitly called for in the Constitution - not OK? Does that make Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands (and many others) racist hell-holes?
Nah, easier to say "Republicans are racist", absent any facts or logic. It's better to break people down to their gender and skin color rather than the content of their character and their ideas. Diversity is about what you look like, not what you think, according to much of the political Left in the US.