Sorry, which civilization collapsed due to climate change? Most that I know of collapsed due to wars, infighting, desertification as a result of over-irrigation with hard water, or politics. The Maya are the only ones I can think of, and that was likely caused by clearing of the rainforests, not by macro-scale climate change.
Also, stop using words like "denialists". It discourages critical thought, resulting in nothing but polarization and fighting such that both sides wind up ignoring the facts.
Spot on, despite being inflammatory. We do need to know what will happen to the Earth's oceans as they acidify. We should find the exact buffering capacity (which should be readily available), and see exactly where we start seeing big changes.
I would suggest you pick a topic that is less emotional for you if you want to prove bias. It could be that reality has an anti-AGW bias, and you would assume that the bias comes from the reporting rather than reality.
Yes, I am personally of the opinion that the whole thing is doubly moot, because without expanded use of nuclear, particularly LFTR technology, we will hit peak oil and see emitted hydrocarbons decline precipitously. The only thing that stands in the way of LFTR technology is the current nuclear establishment in Washington, and the idea that nuclear==bad. That attitude may slow down US development, but the Chinese are already working on building their first LFTRs, and they will be selling them to us before long--IF we don't piss them off first.
Sad that we should be at their mercy because of our own foolishness.
Uh, just because it mentions AGW does not mean it is ABOUT AGW. They are describing a different process that happens to have the opposite effect to AGW.
Glad to hear you aren't discounting the research. I was under the mistaken impression that you were. My apologies.
No, I don't think you will. Your attitude is completely wrong, and you will thus never be ready for any sort of real debate. You think calling someone a political affiliation that they actually do subscribe to is an insult, and is somehow an argument against their position. This implies that you are a fool, and not worth listening to.
I would suggest you take a break from commenting on Slashdot and spend some time growing up.
I see, so you just disagree and you hate him and belittle him for holding opinions that are different from yours. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything here.
There is a difference, in that they are different, but the article doesn't say anything about this study disproving AGW, only that it disproves the assertion that it is now hotter than it has ever been in the last X,000+ years.
I have never seen a tollway in Houston that wasn't crowded. I lived there for a goodly portion of my life. Maybe things have changed recently, but the toll roads in Houston are what helped me to form my opinion on such things.
Yes, it would be nice if people would actually do these studies, or if they have been done, post these studies rather than waving their arms around like apes. All I see is a bunch of idiots on both sides pointing out the anecdotes that support their world view.
Maybe this paper has nothing to do with AGW? Or are you saying AGW is nothing but goalseeking, and any data point that lessons the potential impact, or lessens the fear of a global apocalypse is thus unwelcome?
That wasn't the point of the paper. You interpret it as flamebait because you believe that it presents an argument against AGW. It does no such thing, but you have revealed your own bias.
I would examine this phenomenon within its historical context. Remember that they were dealing with people who had been given land by a King they no longer recognized. From that point of view, there is no conflict with the concept of the homestead and subsequent transfer of property.
If someone stole my uncle's land that belonged to me, you can bet there would be repercussions. You are just making an assumption, and a convenient one that allows you to enrich yourself at the cost of someone else. You know, like an anarcho-communist.
It doesn't? I'm pretty sure that CO2 is distributed quite evenly around the globe, so the heat forcing should be quite uniform. Even with shifts in wind patterns and such, it should be quite uniform. That is, unless a large, if not the predominant component of global warming is something that is more short lived, such as water vapor. If that were the case, then that would explain the lag in warming in the 2000's, as the world economy stagnated as a whole during that time. It also explains why some places warm more than others, as well as explaining global dimming, and why Himalayan glaciers aren't melting (far from increased water vapor), etc.
The funny thing is that we have a near infinite amount of data on humidity levels that has been recorded over the decades. If one had the resources, it should be fairly simple to put together.
It's been more than a decade since I have been able to drive on a road that wasn't under construction. I haven't been able to make it to work in the morning without having to deal with construction for the last 6-7 years, and this is in a city renowned statewide, in a state renowned nationwide as having lean budgets.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, which civilization collapsed due to climate change? Most that I know of collapsed due to wars, infighting, desertification as a result of over-irrigation with hard water, or politics. The Maya are the only ones I can think of, and that was likely caused by clearing of the rainforests, not by macro-scale climate change.
Also, stop using words like "denialists". It discourages critical thought, resulting in nothing but polarization and fighting such that both sides wind up ignoring the facts.
Spot on, despite being inflammatory. We do need to know what will happen to the Earth's oceans as they acidify. We should find the exact buffering capacity (which should be readily available), and see exactly where we start seeing big changes.
I have seen estimates that the Native population of North America was around 100 million prior to European colonization.
I would suggest you pick a topic that is less emotional for you if you want to prove bias. It could be that reality has an anti-AGW bias, and you would assume that the bias comes from the reporting rather than reality.
Good luck getting them to stop with an attitude like that one.
China was doing quite well while Europe was suffering through the Dark Ages. So was Arabia, for that matter. Most of the world, in fact.
I said it "mentions AGW", and that that "does not mean it is ABOUT AGW".
This is not a complex sentence. You should be able to understand it.
Yes, I am personally of the opinion that the whole thing is doubly moot, because without expanded use of nuclear, particularly LFTR technology, we will hit peak oil and see emitted hydrocarbons decline precipitously. The only thing that stands in the way of LFTR technology is the current nuclear establishment in Washington, and the idea that nuclear==bad. That attitude may slow down US development, but the Chinese are already working on building their first LFTRs, and they will be selling them to us before long--IF we don't piss them off first.
Sad that we should be at their mercy because of our own foolishness.
Uh, just because it mentions AGW does not mean it is ABOUT AGW. They are describing a different process that happens to have the opposite effect to AGW.
Glad to hear you aren't discounting the research. I was under the mistaken impression that you were. My apologies.
They could, but they don't. If they did, we wouldn't have half our population living in floodplains, unless the houses were made to float.
No, I don't think you will. Your attitude is completely wrong, and you will thus never be ready for any sort of real debate. You think calling someone a political affiliation that they actually do subscribe to is an insult, and is somehow an argument against their position. This implies that you are a fool, and not worth listening to.
I would suggest you take a break from commenting on Slashdot and spend some time growing up.
I see, so you just disagree and you hate him and belittle him for holding opinions that are different from yours. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything here.
So you are saying that hypocrisy is ok when you do it, just not when someone who you perceive to have a different or opposing ideology does it?
Also, your ad hominem does nothing to help your credibility. It just makes you look like a rabid dog (ie foaming at the mouth).
There is a difference, in that they are different, but the article doesn't say anything about this study disproving AGW, only that it disproves the assertion that it is now hotter than it has ever been in the last X,000+ years.
Interesting choice of epithet, there. REPUBLIC-tard. Yes, I do rather enjoy a nice constitutional republic. I guess you don't.
I have never seen a tollway in Houston that wasn't crowded. I lived there for a goodly portion of my life. Maybe things have changed recently, but the toll roads in Houston are what helped me to form my opinion on such things.
Yes, it would be nice if people would actually do these studies, or if they have been done, post these studies rather than waving their arms around like apes. All I see is a bunch of idiots on both sides pointing out the anecdotes that support their world view.
Mindcontrolled doesn't know one of the most important principles of Rationalism. Amusing.
Maybe this paper has nothing to do with AGW? Or are you saying AGW is nothing but goalseeking, and any data point that lessons the potential impact, or lessens the fear of a global apocalypse is thus unwelcome?
So, you want to throw out data that doesn't fit your model?
Perhaps you should link up with the Creationist institute?
That wasn't the point of the paper. You interpret it as flamebait because you believe that it presents an argument against AGW. It does no such thing, but you have revealed your own bias.
I would examine this phenomenon within its historical context. Remember that they were dealing with people who had been given land by a King they no longer recognized. From that point of view, there is no conflict with the concept of the homestead and subsequent transfer of property.
If someone stole my uncle's land that belonged to me, you can bet there would be repercussions. You are just making an assumption, and a convenient one that allows you to enrich yourself at the cost of someone else. You know, like an anarcho-communist.
lol, so now you are going to start going on about how much you love the founding fathers? Give me a break.
It doesn't? I'm pretty sure that CO2 is distributed quite evenly around the globe, so the heat forcing should be quite uniform. Even with shifts in wind patterns and such, it should be quite uniform. That is, unless a large, if not the predominant component of global warming is something that is more short lived, such as water vapor. If that were the case, then that would explain the lag in warming in the 2000's, as the world economy stagnated as a whole during that time. It also explains why some places warm more than others, as well as explaining global dimming, and why Himalayan glaciers aren't melting (far from increased water vapor), etc.
The funny thing is that we have a near infinite amount of data on humidity levels that has been recorded over the decades. If one had the resources, it should be fairly simple to put together.
It's been more than a decade since I have been able to drive on a road that wasn't under construction. I haven't been able to make it to work in the morning without having to deal with construction for the last 6-7 years, and this is in a city renowned statewide, in a state renowned nationwide as having lean budgets.