The spy agency has suffered "significant" damage in its ability to monitor and capture serious organized criminals
can't they just pick up the trail again when they come out of the mosque?
The harvesting and storage of naturally occurring ice was so successful that, for a somewhat surprising amount of time, it made manufactured ice uneconomic and, for an even longer period, on-site refrigeration hardware a very niche item(even after ice manufactured on large scale ammonia based systems replaced harvested ice, it still fed the same local market of that natural ice deliveries had)..
I don't know if it was the same in the USA but my dad tells me that dry ice was used for quite a long time after electric refrigerators were available because the electric supply was unreliable. Mind you he did live in Wales!
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
Presumably they mentioned at your place of learning that to question science you need to use science, not superstition: e.g. "I don't trust this science because that scientists has a beard and he might be a hippy"
When climate alarmists stop pretending that the dispute is over the degree of human influence on climate, and how much different countries should spend to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (or other kinds!), they might start to get traction with skeptics. Also when they start acting like the situation is as bad as they claim it is.
Funny how the view of 'the dispute' is so inconsistent. You say the dispute is not about the science, yet there are denialists posting in this very thread who say that it IS: this guy , or this guy or this guy. You guys need to sit down and nut and what it is, exactly, that you have against the more commonly held position on climate. At the moment, you look like clowns.
I know that when I used an electric sous vide cooker to make pork chops for dinner last night, it was worse for the climate than if I ate raw vegetables, and better than if I grilled a slab of steak over a bonfire. I know that living in the suburbs emits more greenhouse gases than living in a tiny apartment in a big city. I am thoroughly unconvinced that forcing most people to live like the alarmists claim we should (but usually don't live themselves) will yield the claimed benefits, or be worth the costs even if the benefits would be as claimed.
If I wanted to classify your position I would call it "superstition". It is, essentially a belief that climate change is about good people and bad people. Various (curiously unnamed) people you claim are "alarmists" and are hyprocritical, and therefore the scientific basis of their position is wrong. One would think that if the science of mitigation were actually wrong, if the economic model was wrong, that you could find and demonstrate those flaws, rather than engage in bone pointing ceremonies.
Not only the data and the conclusions, the models themselves. If you use a model to analyze the data and draw some conclusions from it and this model is unable to predict phenomena correctly you can certainly become skeptic about the conclusions you drawn from it.
What phenomena?
Recently, many models were put exactly in that position.
Which models?
Calling everyone a denier because he/she express some doubts about the conclusions of a model without any decent prediction capability is certainly an abuse of language and even bullying toward legitimate skepticism.
That is not the denier position. The denier position is that a (pre-supposed) lack of correlation between model predictions and observed climate means that we can continue dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and nothing significant will happen. The deniers would have us accept their predictions about climate sensitivity whilst simultaneously claiming that science is insufficient to make predictions. The denier claim (that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will not cause significant warming) is something that ought to be handled with healthy scepticism.
Because what a lack of correlation actually means is that we can't predict what will happen if we continue our buildup of atmospheric CO2. We know there will be some effect (by thermodynamics) but can't predict the scope of it. The only logical conclusion is that to avoid potential disaster we need to stop doing that. Right Now.
If the model deniers are right and there is no correlation then what they are really saying is that we must take immediate action to mitigate the risk of disastrous warming.
Which is why we should stop dreaming about it and stark working on things that are feasible with our technology. Mass drivers, launch loops, laser propulsion, you name it.
Venus won't be of much use until we can disassemble and reassemble matter itself.
Actually, we don't need anything that exotic (matter generation) for starters. We need a universal chemical synthesizer, which can assemble chosen molecules from a set of given input compounds. Basically a very flexible chemical plant. It doesn't need to create matter, just rearrange given molecules into new molecules.
Same thing happened when they outlawed dancing.
I thought you were joking, but its true.
Some parts of it are. The higher your altitude, the less sulphuric acid you'll find.
I disagree.
Planets are just too darn hard to get on and off of.
Only if you use primitive launch technologies which require the ascent vehicle to carry all of the necessary energy and reaction mass for the ascent.
Seriously, you think that in your scenario, we'll still use rockets as the main way to get off planets?
The first thing we need is one or more ways to launch things into space where most of the energy and reaction mass is not carried by the launch vehicle.
None have proper gravity or pressure for us.
Venus could be cooled down with a solar shade in space (which could double as a power plant) and be transformed into something more habitable than its current state.
Also, some applications work in a wide range of gravity. You can have fairly normal kitchens, bathrooms, swimming pools, showers, sinks and toilets on Mars, despite only having a third of the gravity of Earth.
Err, I didnt?
The correct relationship is an inverse-square-distance (1/(d^2)) relationship. Compared to Venus, Earth is about 140% of Venus' orbital radius from the sun (and therefore gets 1.4^2 the solar irradiance) and Mars is about 240% farther from the sun (and therefore gets 2.4^2 the solar irradiance).
The numbers in the article give an inverse (not squared) relationship, which would be correct for distances, but not for solar irradiance.
Photons shouldn't be affected by magnetic fields. And the numbers given in the article correspond suspiciously well to an inverse-distance relationship.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
