Comment Re:Still no tsunami protection for cities (Score 5, Insightful) 201
Agreed. It is staggering how many people can't grasp the magnitude of what the plant was put through.
Agreed. It is staggering how many people can't grasp the magnitude of what the plant was put through.
I suggest you have a look at some actual sea level rise data.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
notice the distinct lack of an exponentially rising sea level? Also notice the rate of 3.2 mm/yr and how that is actually reducing in recent years?
I'd say that the $8,825,000,000 in gross profit last year is what keeps them in business. In case you couldn't understand all those zeros, that's $8.825 BILLION.
Millions of people are buying Justin Bieber albums too, what's your point?
Only problem is, you don't even have good correlation, so where does that leave you?
Right, because what this quote requires is context:
Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
Perhaps you should read the emails where they speak about adjusting the results to fit their desired outcome such as these:
Wilson:
Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. [...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.
Steig:
He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
Jones:
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
Haimberger:
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
Wilson:
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
The list goes on...
Don't forget, pirate population has been decreasing right along with rising temperatures, so there is a distinct correlation between a lower pirate population and an increase in temperatures.
CO2 also does not have a LINEAR relationship with temperatures. We are working with the law of diminishing returns here. but I'm sure you already knew that...
As the submitter of this story, I can honestly say that I think all those people would make TERRIBLE presidents, but it's nice to know that people from all sides of the debate can generalize and stereotype with the best of them.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the FOIA as well as governmental email addresses (which includes those of publicly funded professors and researchers).
These are publicly funded email accounts that are subject to FOI requests. This is something that was, and is, known by all those using said accounts.
There is a difference between a personal email account, and the publicly funded account of a person who is FULLY AWARE that all their emails via this account are subject to FOI requests prior to sending their first email.
yeah, because "I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year 'reconstruction'." would mean something entirely different if it was in context.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.