Yep, like I said, the solution is not perfect so it needs to be rejected.

I bet you hate nuclear power even more than natural gas...

I agree totally with your idea that nuclear should actually be replacing many types of power generation as well (even eventually natural gas).

Sooooo its something of huge mass that pulls things in like they're falling down a hole and it emits no light and therefore would appear to be black.

Why can't we call this thing a black hole again?

Yeah, funny that, how one of the countries that didn't actually sign the treaty is one of the only countries that met its targets.

But shhhhh we can't say this. Natural Gas is pushing out dirty coal for power generation, but its only a good outcome and not a perfect one, so it still needs to be attacked by environmentalists.

What I really loved about the recent climate rallies was how the solution presented was hardcore socialist/communist revolution and the rooting out of capitalism. As if the solution to Climate Change was to eliminate Capitalism and everything would be fixed.

Although, if thats the case I need someone to explain to me why one of the few countries remaining on the planet with a Communist system of government is also the worst polluting country on the planet. If the marchers are correct and communism is the way to salvation, then China should be an environmental paradise, right?

Here's a fix:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00M0...

When the announcement that cuts were coming I made a comment on /. about how everyone at Microsoft would be looking over their shoulder wondering whether their job would be cut.

Howling responses insisted that no, the only jobs being cut were going to be in Finland and tied to Nokia.

Now we find out that jobs are being cut in Washington, Silicon Valley, and Fargo. Hmmm, thats a long way from Finland.

The irony is that you can only really accomplish the needed sustainability if you do NOT try to accomplish the former.

Communism and to a lesser extent Socialism always attack the rich and promise the spoils to "the people". In the end the people always end up with nearly nothing (see Venezuela).

Whereas that evil vile capitalism has only ever just pulled millions upon millions of people out of poverty, worldwide, over the past 60 years.

Now they notice that its a million comments for Net Neutrality and a few hundred for and then screw us over by:

Giving us a watered down version of Net Neutrality "regulations" that the ISPs and Carriers can drive huge trucks through

or

They just let the mask slip and enable the fast and slow lanes exactly like the ISPs and Carriers want.

This truly will make me sick. I have no hope that the Internet will be regulated as common carrier like it should be. No hope at all.

How would SpaceX man-rate Dragon if they aren't selected by NASA given that man-rating space vehicles has always been done by NASA?

You are joking, but really, how does the "Grant money for science is drying up" exist in the same country where we continually get "there are not enough people going into science" ?

There is a cognitive disconnect here. It even exists in private industry, where much much less funding is going into research as well.

Yeah, that's what I said. A pause in the increase. This means that the decade over decade increases are not becoming larger but staying the same. The rate of increase is not changing, but the temperature is increasing over time.

Sure the estimate of what could happen if it warms 4C by 2100 is a large number.

However, we are currently looking at increases in the historical record being around 0.14-0.18 degrees C per decade. Considering there are 8.5 decades left until 2100, the math says we could expect about 1.19-1.53 degrees warming by then if the decadal increase remains constant (ie. the "pause" in increases). These numbers are not 4.

To have an increase in temperature of 4 degrees C by 2100 a positive forcing feedback must take a dominant position it the climate. We have not yet found this forcing to exist. That of course doesn't mean that it doesn't but the models are predicting it and the actuals are not (as yet) showing it.

The thing with CO2 is that increases in temperature are related to doubling of the concentration in the atmosphere. That is to say that as CO2 increases, it takes more CO2 to continue to add on more increases in temperature as concentration goes up.

In the end it all relates to forcing. Is feedback positive and large or do negative feedback loops exist that respond to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (increased albedo of clouds for example)? There's lots of science and studies we need to do here. What we know now is not correct (the models aren't accurate) that means we need to search for more measures to include in them.

When you climb to the top of a plateau you are at the highest point AND you are no longer going up.

Both "pause in the increase in warming" and "x of the last y years are the warmest on record" can be true statements AT THE SAME TIME.

Yes, but the corporations don't come and shoot you if you don't choose to give them your money.

Progressives always argue against BIG corporations and they always argue FOR the largest and most powerful organization on the planet being given MORE power. Their blind faith in the state is terrifying.