a) we do not know if he in fact did such.

The smartest thing is to leave data with a few individuals. Then head to a hostile nation.

b) America didn't leave him much choice. If we had some real whisper blower protections, maybe he'd be in America under house arrest. But instead, we throw such in solitary confinement.

c) China probably had most of it, and data about America spying on its own people is not all that relevant to Russia other than the public humilitation it brought.

My respect for Slashdot moderators has fallen even further....

I've written worse, granted. But the whole article seemed to be dismissing the impact cause, and declaring other causes were not evaluated and seeming to postulate a new understanding. And then, in the end, it really seemed to simply be an article questioning the carbon dating, and pointing to sedimentary record as a preferred method of dating and demonstrating an impact wiped everything out.

Huh...what?

California should build MASSIVE quantities of desalanization plants along the coast. So that we can keep the oceans properly salined. While extract massive amounts of water to turn the entire southwest into a lush green sub-tropic region, and keep sea levels in check. Start now!!!

Because history shows such great fluctuations. This is all very very normal. In fact, what history "mostly" points out, is that the 1900's were in fact an unusually calm and stable period. (ie: abnormal).

In fact, one might in fact argue that all of the pollution, CO2, etc. Had not enacted climate change, rather something far more dangerous. "Climate Stabilization".

In fact, pretty much every one has been declared NOT to be caused by global warming. Nor in excess of prior events. Except by the media and propagandists.

Today, the NY Times had a map of the U.S. And it compared 1910-1960 temperatures to 1991-2012. And exclaimed how much hotter the U.S. was.

A few things to note:

1. The traditional south around the gulf was actually cooler.

2. 1901-1960 is a mere 60years. 1991-2012 approx. 20 years. That is an extremely small section of climate, and I would argue far too small to have ANY statistical relevance.

3. Why were the years selected? Why not 1901-1955, and 1960-2010. How does 2001-2012 compare?

4. Most of the temperature increases are 1 degree. A few spots 2 degrees. Obersvations:

> the northeast is a bit warmer, but the southern gulf area is cooler. So it appears there has been some shift in circulation.
> many of the areas that have seen the most warming highly populated areas: Southern California (LA/SD), Northeast corridor (NJ/NYC/CT/RI/Boston/Portland). Alberquerque, NM....lit up in red. Granted NOT all that is lit up red corresponds to population centers but a lot sure does. Oh, and that Montana, Minnesota, etc corridor that is red at the top. Well look at a population map of Canada and you will see that nearly 90% of Canada's population lives just north of the U.S. border. So I wager that represents Canada's population growth. Yes, there are some weird anomalies in Nevada, Utah and Colorado that do not correspond well to populations. But they in fact do...if you understand that entire region is the river basin that feeds the southwest. And that California's immense consumption of water has significantly reduced the water present in those regions.

If anything, this map represents to me a clear demonstration of the heat island affect of urban areas. Something most global warming alarmists glaringly deny, but which many others have put forth evidence to substantiate. (Oh, I should point to the fact that they only deny it when it regards the U.S., they're more than willing to accept said postulation when it relates to cutting down South American rainforests. Which should be stopped. We should be using bamboo, hemp and other fast growing weeds and grasses for consumables.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...

The space shuttle Challenger exploded, because of politics, budgeting, and cutting corners.

Wait, these are the folks who thought commercial space flight was infeasible.

I'd wager that 50 years ago this was true. But we have made immense leaps in materials manufacturing. I wouldn't be surprised if we could develop nanite structured spray coatings that we could just re-spray on with each use. There are more ideas out there than NASA has considered.

Like using an off-the shelf tape measure as an extending satellite antenna.

That we do not even have two parties. Just two names for the same party. So we can be given something to yell at...

Cause it's large Tartar population, and 25% Ukrainian population wouldn't oppose. Heck, how many Russians oppose Putin in Russia. Just can get the guy unelected though.

Does what it bloody well pleases.

Mexico is a country on our border that's been near at civil war and a drug and crime mecca. So um, yes...we haven't invaded Mexico....(not sure on vice-versa)

You could build floating rafts/barges that would do this passively. As the water condensates on a clear ceiling, it can be collected and filled into the rafts baffles. Fresh water floats on saltwater. So basically this thing could be filled up, then delivered.

California is just a bunch of greedy idiots who control more of the House than any other state. So they put pressure on the other states to capitulate to them.

This should of been done 50 years ago. State of Colorado should halt the river until California dedicates funds toward this. They're the only southwestern state with this option. And they destroy the other states and cause immense environmental damage by their water greediness.

Both Central Valley region and Nevada rancher stand off, have nothing to do with protecting endangered species. Rather, it is all about killing agriculture in the southwest to free up more water for California urbanites.