Plenty of food crops are grown in greenhouses. According to this, "The 2002 Census of Agriculture estimated a total $15 billion of greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture crops sold in 2002, including [...] $1.2 billion or eight percent food crops such as tomatoes grown in greenhouses."
"Some 1800 hectares of vegetables are grown in greenhouses" in Israel.
"In Europe and Israel, essentially all of these crops [peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers, and melons] are produced in greenhouses." Source.
Have you bothered to look? [...] there are a number of models which do very well, both in terms of hindcasting and forecasting for the specific area they were created to model. Quite a few of them are overly conservative, meaning that they under-projected the deviations due to climate change.
Not according to the last chart in the article I linked to. The vast majority have vastly overestimated future warming.
I don't know of any models which assume only positive feedbacks
I never said "only."
The science behind both positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system is still a bit nascent, at least in terms of determining where the "tipping points" are, but the physics behind the feedback processes is pretty well-established at this point.
So, then which is the accurate model that "predicts" past climate so well that I should trust its predictive ability?
In the meantime, I am going to go on the premise that it is largely correct and change my lifestyle to address it, and urge others to follow suit.
After all, if climate science turns out to be completely wrong, I won't have any remorse for creating a better world as a result.
Clearly, you are not into the whole cost/benefit analysis thing, or you'd wonder if spending money to "create a better world" was worth it if it meant spending hundreds or thousands of dollars so that the average temperature 50 years was now was
I've always been more pro-science than many, but I'm still not buying the alarming projections for several reasons.
- 1. AFAIK, a grand total of zero of the IPCC-favored climate models work in retrospect. I.e., one should be able to plug in data up to (say) 1990 and get an accurate "forecast" of the climate from 1990 to today. If they can't do that, why should I believe they will be accurate about the climate 50 years from now?
- 2. This article sums up my other objection. The TL;DR version: the IPCC-favored models are based on more than a simple (and rather inarguable) "more CO2 = hotter" greenhouse effect. They all assume various kinds of positive feedback to amplify that effect. Yet, the historical record seems to show the Earth's climate is a fairly stable system, not dominated by strong positive feedback effects.
Our food crops are all massively bio-engineered. [...] They are all optimized for colder temperatures. We will may end up with greater biomass, but with less food.
So you're saying that food crops, when grown in conditions a few degrees warmer and with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will be less productive? I think operators of greenhouses would disagree with you.
I love it when reality flummoxes people by challenging their ideologies. Will the people who object to GMO foods also object if they are used to cure disease? Perhaps not on Slashdot, but I'll bet there will be a number of them elsewhere.
"Here are your new tablets, kids. They're ruggedized so that they resist breaking!"
"Now, Tommy, why did you do that? Of course smashing it against the desk will break it!"
Oh, indeed. And the story of its origin is wonderful. In 1940 the British wanted North American Aviation to produce Curtiss P-40 Warhawks under license, but NAA thought they could make a better aircraft faster. And the first P-51 rolled out 102 days after the contract was signed, and first flew 47 days after that. It took a few years of upgrades and revsions to turn it into the best piston-engined fighter of the war, but compare that initial design and development cycle to the years and even decades it takes to get anything built these days.
Interesting tech note: the P-51's distinctive radiator/oil cooler actually added speed to the plane: cool air came in the front, and the hot air exiting the back added some jet-like thrust.
You don't seem to quite understand how the world works.
I don't think you do. A civil settlement is compromise, often in many parts. Neither side gets everything they want. A confidentiality agreement is one of those potential parts. If you remove that option, the parties will simply compromise in other ways. Most likely, it means a company would offer a smaller settlement, and be more willing to go to trial.
Also, you seem to assume that anyone suing a company is in the right, and every company in the wrong. Not so.
When I got my iMac it converted my photos from my camera to some iPhoto library from which it was quite difficult to take it out in simple jpg files.
File -> Export works for me. If you want to access a bunch at a time, they're in [your user directory]/Pictures/iPhoto Library.
And for those who haven't followed link about the "obscure workaround":
To do this, simply tap and hold on the undelivered message and a “Send as Text Message” option should appear in the context menu. This works even when “Send as SMS” is disabled in your settings, allowing you to decide when you’d rather send a text message for expediency or simply leave it to wait until the recipient’s device is back online.
I'm not saying that Apple never does lock-in, but both those seem like pretty weak examples.
On the one hand, nobody wants the poor to suffer, especially poor children. And nobody wants the government to decide who has the right to have kids. On the other hand, you get more of what you subsidize, and our society pays poor people to have children. How much crime, poverty, and general misery is caused by people who should never have children, and yet have children? (Often, lots of children?) People worry about "income inequality," but here's a not-insignificant source of at least part of it.
It's tempting to condition welfare on "no more kids" (sterilization), but that's never going to fly, and feels far too totalitarian. And yet, here we are trapped in a system of positive (the bad kind) feedback: Bad parents are paid to have kids, those kids (epigenetically or otherwise) transmit the same dysfunctional traits to their kids, and so society pays for more crime and poverty and misery. I don't have an answer, but I don't think enough people see the problem. They'll just blame their political opponents or capitalism or whatever.