Comment Re:As usual (Score 1) 71
You say that like you don't realise these extremist consider modern western culture to be the enemy.
You say that like you don't realise these extremist consider modern western culture to be the enemy.
I always suspected the same thing.
http://www.scientificamerican....
Don't be dumb.
Don't be a tool,
... last year "was not even close to be[ing] the warmest on record" according to data compiled by the two top satellite climate data sets: the Remote Sensing System (RSS) satellite data, which measure the lowest few miles of the earth's atmosphere, and data compiled by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).
ast year "was third-warmest, but barely," said UAH climate scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy.The year 2014 "was warm, but not special. The 0.01 degree Celsius difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero," Christy said.
Christy said that between 2002 and 2014, temperatures have warmed at a "statistically insignificant" rate of 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.
RSS and UAH satellite data show there has been no global warming for more than 18 years. This period, which began in October 1996 and lasted for all of 2014, is referred to as "the Great Pause. Satellite Data: 2014 'Not Even Close' to Warmest Year
If you don't like satellite data,
The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average.
Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest. 26 January 2015 - Provisional full-year global mean temperature figures show 2014 was one of the warmest years in a record dating back to 1850
and as far as the 18 years without warming,
[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade.
IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW
even the IPCC AR5 agrees.
There hasn't been any warming for 18 years, so the magical free market solution is a done deal.
Sea Salt might not be.
Global temperatures are now outside the model's 95% confidence band, that means the models have failed.
According to past predictions, The Arctic Ocean was ice free last year and there was never to be any more snow in Great Britain either.
Skeptical Science, really you couldn't find something from a reputable site? Those SS clowns delete posts they disagree with and edit articles after comments are posted. Even the IPCC AR5 acknowledges the discrepancies between the model projections and observed temperatures.
What's the sacrifice though? Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy or run on battery power? Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power? Mandating emissions inspections based on original standards at the time of manufacture on all vehicles newer than 30 years, so that gross-polluting vehicles that are not running right are either fixed or taken off the road?
Most of these things don't have all that much cost, and for some of them, they're a cost that the individual should have borne anyway.
All of the measures you've listed are too insignificant to have any real effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, it's just inconsequential feel-good posturing.
Sorry but it just doesn't scale in an economical manner, who's going to sort it out? Our county recycling center went belly-up and they used jail-inmate labor! There just isn't that much waste in agriculture to make biofuels competative, and convertables in residencial wastes is just too sparse.
Biodiesel is great stuff, good fuel, better parts cleaner/degreaser. Nontoxicity, safe but the supply is unreliable because the feedstock is valuable.
The only argument for space-based is "it's a way around NIMBY". PG&E did some serious research into it, as there's just no where in Northern California they're allowed to build a new power plant, and demand keeps rising. The main reason the plan failed is still NIMBY: They'd need a 1-block receiving station for the incoming power, and could never get that approved. Fuck California.
At some point in time, the electricity will get so expensive only the 5%ers will be able to afford to keep the lights on; about that time being a NIMBY will become as un-PC as being a Terrorist, a Racist or a child molester.. Trust me everyone will either forget about Agenda 21, or fit new power plants into it!
It also means no cellular phone reception, if you think people are pissed about not being able to share their data plan instead of paying for hotel WiFi, wait to see what happens when their cell phone will not work and they have to pay root rates for using the phone!
If your employees are using "your" network to get on the internet via WiFi, for personal crap like facebook, slashdot, personal Email, facebook ect, they should be connecting to the WiFi host located in the DMZ; connecting to a WiFi inside the private firewall is just crazy!
You mistake quantity of farm land as being equivalent valuable, which as long as you aren't farming in Manhattan is ludicrous. I can purchase 150 acres right now for less than $100k.
Dude you better buy that shit, farm acrage around here is 5 to 6 times that, and 150 acres for sale that's contigous is very rare.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
