Yep, and followed the "World's (second) Largest Scale Model of the Solar System" (1:38,000,000) as we drove in.
I presume you're referring to the interglacial warm periods, as shown in this graph.
We have a very good idea of what causes those - they align nicely with orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles). And we're not due for another one - we just passed the peak of one a few thousand years back. The temperature had been dropping slowly since then (up until a century ago).
Usual selective reporting from the Daily Mail - claiming a 29% rebound from an all-time record low is somehow "proof" that global warming is overblown. The link is a year old too - this year is actually the sixth lowest in the satellite record.
Worth looking at an actual trend, rather than Daily Mail headlines.
How does the cause of past events have any bearing on the cause of this event? Is it unthinkable for there to be more than one possible cause?
GP's linked studies make a good case about past events. They say nothing about this event, which may have entirely different causes. It's pure speculation to assume either way, at this stage, and accusations of confirmation bias and "bald faced lies" only reflect on the accuser.
So because it's happened for other reasons in the past, that conclusively rules out climate change as a cause in this case? Not seeing the logic there.
Let's not jump to any conclusions here, either pro or against climate change as a cause, until we get a peer-reviewed study concerning this event. TFA is insufficient evidence, as is your link.
You're right, I should apply my critical faculties and take his own words with a big grain of salt. Clearly he's not a reputable source even concerning himself.
And that's good for Commerce, how? And Penn State?
So if I understand your logic:
1. CRU emails cleared ->
2. Climate "hoax" strengthened ->
3. Governments everywhere introduce massive new taxes "just in case" ->
4. Chamber of Commerce gets huge new budget for some reason ->
5. CoC panel members all get their fat bonus payoffs, along with all the other panels that cleared CRU ->
6. Vast global conspiracy involving government departments in most developed countries AND all major universities and scientific institutions AND their member scientists, who have all risked destroying their careers to fake all their studies and somehow share in this tax bounty - and nobody talks, no actual evidence is produced, the poor fossil fuel industry is just an innocent victim, and taxpayers around the world get stuck with a world running on renewable fuels with minimal pollution a few decades early.
Yep, makes perfect sense, far more sense than it being the fossil fuel industry that is doing their very best to deny all the evidence and sabotage any possible price on carbon, because they don't have hundreds of billions in profits and trillions more in potential assets at risk. No incentive there!!!
Citations? What evidence is there that the Department of Commerce has a financial interest in a global warming hoax, or Penn State U? Eagerly awaiting your failure to reply.
Do you have a reference for that? The first link I looked at just said
...the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.
So there could be various reasons for them to not want to share data (such as too much time & effort required) - but wanting to hide evidence against global warming, is not one of them. The GPs implied accusation that the science was fudged has been thoroughly and repeatedly disproved.
Frederick Seitz? The physicist who, in your own link, admits he took money from tobacco and oil companies? Any reason we should be listening to his opinions over the thousands of climatologists and other scientists?
That interview made very interesting reading, like where he dodges the questions of undue influence from vested interests, and instead tries to accuse the interviewer of being unduly influenced (by persons unknown), providing no evidence of his own but talking over the top of any mention of actual peer-reviewed studies. I see no reason to consider him a reputable source.
If Google would simply allow this stuff to be easily removed from an Android system
Go into the Settings/Apps list, tap any app you don't want, Uninstall any updates, and Disable it. That frees up all the writable space taken by that app, stops it from consuming CPU cycles, and hides it from your app drawer. Takes seconds, can be easily done by the average consumer, and provides all the results they're looking for.
Not enough for a power user? You don't even want it taking up bytes on your read-only
I really don't see how any of this is "being evil", especially when you compare it to the offerings of the other major mobile systems.
What angers people is that multinational corporations like Apple (and Google and many others) collect a lot of revenue from many the countries they operate in - but somehow make such tiny profits in those countries that they pay tiny taxes.
Taxpayers in those countries pay for infrastructure and services that the multinationals' local offices depend on, consumers in those countries contribute greatly to their revenues, yet see very little return in corporate taxes thanks to the profits being funnelled away to tax havens via disproportionate expenses for intangibles like internal licencing fees (for example, there's a big Google R&D office in Australia, but the results of that work are given away to Ireland and licenced back, at a cost that eats up most of Google's local profits). It's a legal loophole that governments are increasingly unwilling to tolerate.
I know you'll go far to defend Apple from any perceived attack, but the "simp(sic) truth" is that these methods of minimising tax/revenue ratio to maximise their profits deprive their host countries of tax income that is badly needed to continue providing services that all depend on, including the multinational's offices and their own employees.
There's a lot of things there you're attributing to me which I really don't think I've ever claimed or even mentioned. I don't appear to be speaking your language, and you seem to be ignoring the points I'm trying to make, so yeah, another unproductive "discussion" on the internet. All the best.
the distinction between an educated guess and a probability is zero.
If you want to put it that way, then all of science is educated guesses. Engineering too. Only maths is certain.
That is what science demands. Detachment. You either have it or you don't.
The scientific method recognises that absolute detachment is difficult, if not impossible, and endeavours to minimise that. Again, the "you have it or you don't" black & white viewpoint doesn't at all match what we see in the real world, where few if any scientists can claim to be absolutely detached from their work - but we've still been getting useful science done for centuries, despite that. Plenty of good science has been done regardless of attachment to the results - if you can be rigorous enough about your methodology. If your methods are beyond reproach, your results are too, despite any personal investment.
You are rather backed by your opinions and guesses ABOUT science... Now those opinions might be reasonable and the guesses could be educated... but they are not science.
They are not "opinions" or "guesses". They are probabilities, backed by a great deal of evidence - like virtually everything in science. Higgs Boson existence? Probability. The Big Bang? Probability. Quantum mechanics? Yeah, a lot of that. To be scientific, a theory does not have to be a certainty at all; the probability just needs to be carefully quantified, and backed by observation and/or experiment.
...you have overstated your reasonable degree of confidence on issues for political gain. This has been done repeatedly which is why many of the IPCC reports have come under such savage criticism
Citation needed. The IPCC reports all state their conclusions in probabilities, which are carefully quantified, and are backed by citations of peer-reviewed studies at every stage. The vast majority of the evidence presented in the IPCC reports has proved under very close examination to be solid (NOT absolutely certain, but of sound scientific methodology). This is why they are accepted as, not the gospel truth, but the best information on the subject that we have, by every major scientific institution and government, as well as by the great majority of scientists (and nearly all climatologists).
It is THAT which is ultimately causing most of the controversy. Not the science but rather the political solution to the science.
I do agree that this is the source of the controversy. Solutions are indeed often political, but unfortunately all too often, peoples' political views about some of the solutions contaminate their views of the science, which usually leads to claims that the science itself is being politicised. I disagree with that.
Or you must sit down and talk about solutions we can all find palatable.
If only we could do that. Unfortunately, there are still far too many strident voices still trying to undermine the science, which blocks any reasonable discussion of solutions. If those voices actually had any peer-reviewed evidence of a quality that could convince a reasonable number of experts, that would be fine, but sadly these dissenting voices tend to rely on volume instead.
I'm also of the opinion that many people misunderstand the solutions that have been proposed (for example, see all the claims that a phased transition to a carbon-neutral economy would be a disastrous burden on society, whereas many economists are seeing it as an opportunity for actually reducing the many existing external costs of carbon emissions).