Ounces and pounds are still in common usage in the UK (the country that the GP referred to!). Don't let that stand in the way of an opportunity for you to try to attack the US though. We appreciate your fresh take on the metric system!
I'm American and I've definitely heard "get in front of a problem" but I've never heard it shortened to just "get out front" as it was in the story (nor removed from context as it was). I was confused as well. Perhaps the submitter was just being idiosyncratic.
How exactly is this news? It's even on Wikipedia--the Five Eyes (FVEY, i.e., the English-speaking countries, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and the United States) share just about everything. There's also the even MORE exclusive sharing group that excludes New Zealand -- ACGU -- Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States (I believe the origins of this clique go back to some disputes around US nuclear warships berthing in New Zealand).
The arrangement is specifically designed so that, for instance, the NSA can spy on British citizens for the Brits (or vice versa) without breaking any local laws. Each country has geographic regions of specialty.
Let me guess....Cary??
So Democrats elected Regan [sic] and Schwarzenegger?
Yes, they did. You might have heard of Reagan Democrats? Did you realize that only two states voted against Reagan in 1984 (IIRC)? Schwarzenegger ran against a Republican in his first election and got well over 50% of the vote in his second election. Someone other than Republicans were voting for them!
I run a FreeBSD server and still have an old OpenBSD soekris router in service, but I would not have said that there are more FreeBSD userland installs than Linux. What are you considering FreeBSD userland--OSX?
Then when companies worked out how to circumvent this apple put out a software update to lock things down again.
Can you explain this further?
I wonder if this is related (unofficially of course) to apple's recent aggressive move over third party lightning (apples current charge/data port) cables.
What aggressive moves?
If you don't mind my asking, could you point me to which Duplin wine you like? I live in NC and have tried just a few local wines (I tried some kind of uber sweet muscadine years ago). Thus far, I haven't found anything that jumped out at me.
I think that's -- without a doubt -- a big part (IMHO anyone who denies that evolution exists should be banned from politics). I think it would be wise to consider wider trends in academia as well, however, amongst both public and private institutions.
I'm not insinuating anything, I've said it several times!
I don't believe that many climate scientists deliberately falsify data. I'm sure there are some because there are people in every field that falsify data. I do believe that when funding is dependent on grants, and grants are highly available for AGW research topics, that researchers have a completely rational motivation to find AGW in places where there is perhaps ambiguity. I'm surprised this is a controversial statement. If you work in academia, finagling to get grants is just part of life. Five years ago just about every grant request in certain branches of physics and chemistry were modified to include something about "biosensors" or "chemical sensors" because there was a huge amount of funding available for homeland security projects. That's just what goes in academia--it is what it is.
Regardless of all of this, I absolutely stand by my statement that "97% of climatologists agree," as sourced in Cook et al., is totally false.
When I was an undergrad, the Republican group at my school pulled every faculty member's political affiliation. History, Art History, Women's Studies, African American Studies, sociology, anthropology, etc, had between them a large number of faculty (100, give or take) and not one Republican--all Democrats. Engineering, computer science, math, etc were spit more much closer, and in the economics department, there were more Republicans still. Why? Ideology obviously has a great deal to do with what people choose to work on. Correlation or causation? I know what I believe.
I have no doubt that most climate scientists do believe in AGW (hesitation over the 97% claim notwithstanding). I believe there are many reasons for this.
The good news is, we should no for sure within say, 10 years. If the models are right, we should see a statistically significant change by then. If the models are wrong...? Until then (and even then, unfortunately), factions will no doubt keep arguing.
You don't have to be rude to have a discussion. If you're going to avoid any discussion of facts and substance and stick with personal attacks though, I suppose it helps. No reason to perpetuate mere mean-spiritedness.
Yeah. Who cares if cities drown, countries disappear under the ocean, and Africa starves if Tropicana can plant some orange groves in Greenland?
Yours is EXACTLY the kind of statement that makes me so uncomfortable. That is such an incredibly hysterical statement. Not even the most extreme estimates of sea rise produce anything like you say within centuries. Africa starve? 10,000 years ago the Sahara was green and wet. Maybe it will be again. There's so much uncertainty, we really, really don't know.
Republican doves were driven out of the party by 2003. And Democrats have shown their propensity for hackery since they've defended actions from their Dear Leader that would have had them in the streets if it was Bush doing the same things for the same reasons.
The Tea Party and libertarian strands of conservatism have made more traditional (paleocon if you will) noninterference conservatism more resurgent than it's been in years. The present Republican dove (nee neocon) can make some excuse by saying that "we learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan."
What the heck excuse do the Democrats have? "We did such a bang up job in Afghanistan and Iraq (plus our limited interference in Libya) that we thought we ought to help out in Syria as well! Never mind the hundred thousand that have already died, a couple hundred deaths from chemicals weapons is the red line!"
Well no, that's actually not what you accused me of initially, but ok. I think there's a pretty huge difference between the statement that "97% of climatologists agree" and "97.1% of a subset of climate papers that contained a certain set of (in my view potentially biasing) words and in which the authors made some kind of judgment call about AGW posit that humans are responsible for at least some portion of global warming." At this level of disagreement, we're down to a religious wedge issue, so I don't expect us to suddenly come to an agreement, but that's how I see it. I do not believe that mine is an unreasonable statement.
To put it more waggishly (or "partisanly" as you may see fit)--is it a surprise that papers (funded by a government that believes in AGW) discussing anthropogenic global warming believe in anthropogenic global warming?
I generally don't respond to rude ACs, so if you want another response, you can either be less rude or post as non-AC (yes, you can be a rude non-AC
Those trees have been there for MILLIONS OF YEARS. Seems they do just fine without people fertilizing them and all that. Those trees can also live over 2,000 years, not just "hundreds".. Hundreds of years is many, many different trees.
Obviously. There are a lot more trees that lives for "hundreds" of years than trees that live for "thousands" of years, however.
What is sad is your assumption that researchers are just as ignorant about plant growth as yourself.
I have very few assumptions, because I know very little! From the little that I know, tree ring growth is NOT a simple issue.