The most important video ever made about climate change.
-
No bikini babes so it's not important.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
Just to see whether you are up to speed: What is the significance of 1960, and why might subsequent temperatures need to be artificially adjusted? BTW: Most of the people here are, or have been, software developers, as this is the only area of expertise he lays claim to, our opinions are as valid as his. It is also self-evident that he has not read the actual code, merely the comments on it from the same blogs that I have been reading. Additionally, I doubt that he has much of a background in mathematical modelling. I guess we need Zep's input on that.
Bob Emmett
-
There's nothing more fresh and ripe than politically based hacking. I supposed if someone hacking Alex Jones emails and found him talking about how stupid people were for believing him and buying the junk off his site you'd just dismiss it as a conspiracy to smear him or something of that nature. Suppose all AWG study stopped and temperatures instead got very cold or erratic. Crops were lost, people died, etc. At what point does studying what you don't know and telling people about it make it a controversy? For you it seems when it fits your world view. From my own observations in life of family, friends, coworkers, etc I've found that people generally take the reactive approach to problems in the world. Based on my own observations, if there truly is climate change, man made or otherwise, people will wait until it's staring them in the face and after too many or the right country's people have died before something is done about it. Are humans now outside the "Circle of Life" sorta speak? Do we not have an impact on our surroundings? The obvious question to the scientists might be "Where are all those emissions going? What's absorbing it and what is the effect?"
-
There's nothing more fresh and ripe than politically based hacking. I supposed if someone hacking Alex Jones emails and found him talking about how stupid people were for believing him and buying the junk off his site you'd just dismiss it as a conspiracy to smear him or something of that nature. Suppose all AWG study stopped and temperatures instead got very cold or erratic. Crops were lost, people died, etc. At what point does studying what you don't know and telling people about it make it a controversy? For you it seems when it fits your world view. From my own observations in life of family, friends, coworkers, etc I've found that people generally take the reactive approach to problems in the world. Based on my own observations, if there truly is climate change, man made or otherwise, people will wait until it's staring them in the face and after too many or the right country's people have died before something is done about it. Are humans now outside the "Circle of Life" sorta speak? Do we not have an impact on our surroundings? The obvious question to the scientists might be "Where are all those emissions going? What's absorbing it and what is the effect?"
wolfbinary wrote:
The obvious question to the scientists might be "Where are all those emissions going? What's absorbing it and what is the effect?"
you're talking to someone who is on record as saying that the earth can support an infinite number of people and that our resources are unlimited. Where do you go in the face of such ignorance ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
The obvious question to the scientists might be "Where are all those emissions going? What's absorbing it and what is the effect?"
you're talking to someone who is on record as saying that the earth can support an infinite number of people and that our resources are unlimited. Where do you go in the face of such ignorance ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
The obvious question to the scientists might be "Where are all those emissions going? What's absorbing it and what is the effect?"
you're talking to someone who is on record as saying that the earth can support an infinite number of people and that our resources are unlimited. Where do you go in the face of such ignorance ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I know. But he's not the only one in the room who can discuss something. He doesn't understand that the balance of the emissions must be accounted for in some way. I saw a video on PBS Nova Science about the Permian Triassic mass extinction. Some scientists think it was a disease while others, what was being covered in the video, talked about a bunch of volcanoes in, what is today Russia, producing an environment where bacteria could and a few other organisms could generate a very acid environment that ended up killing 96% of all marine life and 70% of all terrestrial life. wiki entry[^]Now in the documentary they stated that the process took a while, but that doesn't mean that one isn't underway now. We could be creating such a scenario now and not realize it. That's where the science comes in. For people like CSS or Illion or even to a lesser degree their religion is their politics and world view while their priests are the people who have any remote notoriety larger than their own. No movement can stand without it's leaders. Look at how well the tea partiers are struggling and fighting amongst themselves.
-
There's nothing more fresh and ripe than politically based hacking. I supposed if someone hacking Alex Jones emails and found him talking about how stupid people were for believing him and buying the junk off his site you'd just dismiss it as a conspiracy to smear him or something of that nature. Suppose all AWG study stopped and temperatures instead got very cold or erratic. Crops were lost, people died, etc. At what point does studying what you don't know and telling people about it make it a controversy? For you it seems when it fits your world view. From my own observations in life of family, friends, coworkers, etc I've found that people generally take the reactive approach to problems in the world. Based on my own observations, if there truly is climate change, man made or otherwise, people will wait until it's staring them in the face and after too many or the right country's people have died before something is done about it. Are humans now outside the "Circle of Life" sorta speak? Do we not have an impact on our surroundings? The obvious question to the scientists might be "Where are all those emissions going? What's absorbing it and what is the effect?"
wolfbinary wrote:
Suppose all AWG study stopped and temperatures instead got very cold
The thing is son, they are falsifying data to make it as if the earth is on a steady warming trend when it is not. Its that simple.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Suppose all AWG study stopped and temperatures instead got very cold
The thing is son, they are falsifying data to make it as if the earth is on a steady warming trend when it is not. Its that simple.
-
They being who exactly? They who have published the data that says it hasn't been since 98?
Distind wrote:
They being who exactly?
Your precious changey warmy "science" wackjobs that have been manufacturing the fraudulent "definitive 'science'" that was has been smeared in the face of the world to make them believe polar bears are going to drown, babies are evil, and driving is bad.
-
Distind wrote:
They being who exactly?
Your precious changey warmy "science" wackjobs that have been manufacturing the fraudulent "definitive 'science'" that was has been smeared in the face of the world to make them believe polar bears are going to drown, babies are evil, and driving is bad.
-
The very subject gives me a vision of a little boy shouting about something to his parents or friends, "..an' it was the biggest booger ever!!!!"