Hey, how's that merger going, bitches?

Ancient predictions made in CE years? STFU, moron.

Forcing Uber out of business won't stop rape by cabbies. And unless there was something that Uber could reasonably have or should have done, but neglected to do, then this is not justice but just someone looking for a payday.

What? Who are these few people who are going to get rich off a carbon tax?

There has been a lot of attention given to space weather, like solar dynamics. So far there has been no evidence that space weather is having warming effects. That doesn't mean that nobody has been looking. People have, especially in the energy industry, and so far what little evidence there is actually points in the opposite direction.

I've heard this point made a lot- we can't reduce CO2 because that means a one-world government would take my guns away and force me to be an atheist, or something.

Have any reference to that other than geoengineeringwatch? Scientists do talk about that as a possible idea but so far it remains speculative, and nobody is actually trying it. Those jet trails you see over your house are from carrying passengers. Sulfuric acid just doesn't have the money to afford the ticket prices.

(If anyone got confused by that, the "compounds" he's talking about are sulfur aerosols, not CO2.) To my knowledge the idea strikes everyone as fanciful and distasteful; it only gets discussed as a possible last ditch, desperate option. Cities would have to be pretty flooded before anyone would actually seriously consider doing that. The main argument in its favor is that one ton of sulfuric acid would be potent enough to offset the warming of about 100000 tons of CO2. That's about all that can be said for it. (FWIW, CO2 is also an acidic gas, and obviously it also "shoots the atmosphere with radiation".)

The Senate just voted 98 to 1 that the climate is changing, but refused to vote on whether humans were in any way responsible. I think that if anything qualifies as "paying honor to the creation but not the creator".

I think that's because we can see them under the streetlamp- if we're the type who even bothers to look at all.

IIRC it's 97%, not 100%. But that's still a really good consensus for a scientific theory, especially given the financial incentives for scientists to dissent.

That's definitely true- a typical CO2 molecule remains airborne for about 10,000 years before being reabsorbed. in several million years the planet will have forgotten about us, except for any mass extinction event that we might have triggered- similar to what happened during the Carboniferous period, when today's fossil fuels were actually fossilized.

Rush Limbaugh said this the day after the storm. Weathermen and climatologists aren't actually the same people. In fact most of the "skeptical scientists" that appear on TV to deny climate change are actually weathermen. But even if a weatherman can't tell you whether it's going to be warmer next week than today, he can predict with good confidence that exactly six months from now it's going to be warmer than today was. You're demanding a perfect weather forecast over every possible timescale before you'll even pull your fingers out of your ears.

Actually, climatologists are pretty irritated that they can't talk about their science in public without the discussions instantly getting mobbed by Rush Limbaugh fans. I see these articles and I figure, there might be actual scientists posting intelligent things in there somewhere, but I'm never going to find them through all this crud.

I've heard a lot about scientists who are supposedly scamming the government with a giant hoax so they can get piddling NSF grants, but this is the first I've heard about wannabe trillionaires.

But some people can. Then Tesla can get more business, they can come out with better and cheaper cars, other companies will be incentivized to sell similar cars, and someday your car will work that way too.

Say what you want about pencil pushers, they can usually do math. Most households pay about $3000 on gas per year. If you're worrying about paying $30K a year on gas taxes, that's some pretty serious driving.

No.

They obviously got the date wrong, but that doesn't mean the day will never come.

We're talking about a problem that isn't causing us difficulties in the short term but threatens to be a long term disaster. Cancer, traffic deaths, child abuse, teen smoking, alcoholism, disease, etc. are all problems in the short term as well as the long term, which is why we address them. That doesn't mean that specifically long term problems aren't worth addressing at all, especially if they need to be dealt with in the short term by their very nature. It's like saying "my kid is hungry today, I can't afford to vaccinate him- so I'll just wait until he actually gets the measles".

Maybe you thought I was actually talking about AGW, but the point I was making there was about people's views being shaped by politics.

Except for the fact that a majority of conservatives get offended by the topic simply because it was introduced to them by people they don't like. Seriously, I think he did a disservice to the environment just by getting himself associated with it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/ClimateChange-Views-RepublicanDemocratic-Gaps-Expand.aspx

Ow! That hurt!

If you want to understand why rising CO2 is a problem, try to imagine for a second what the world might be like if Al Gore hadn't made a movie about it.

It really sounds laughably desperate when the arguments have devolved to "So-and-so failed to predict the weather 30 years ago". Scientists over the years have come out with lowball estimates too, but those usually don't appear on paste sites.

This argument again? I'm so sick of having to explain why "Don't feed the bears" != "Don't feed the poor". If you feed bears, they'll learn to nag you and other people for food. If you feed the poor, they'll also learn to nag for the food, but there are good reasons why you'd maybe want a hungry poor person to ask you for food instead of having a bear ask.

Anyway, regardless of how they feel about bears, conservatives certainly don't like wolves.

You get the bends from high levels of nitrogen dissolved in blood plasma under pressure. If you move to low pressure regions near the water's surface too fast, the nitrogen is able to separate out into bubbles that get stuck in tissues and blood vessels.

These things are "round" like gas bubbles, but they're more like some sort of fake dummy cells, with a fluid interior surrounded by something that looks like a lipid bilayer made of soap-like molecules that bind together by van der Waals forces and have charged tips that interface with the surrounding water. There is no gas.

It's a badly written article- "oooh bubbles!" People should try not to write stupid shit like this, especially about vaccines. I'm already blue in the face screaming at thick skulled idiots on #CDCwhistleblowers who post crap about how vaccines cause autism because Big Pharma stuffs them with disgusting crap like dihydrogen monoxide.

Killing off hope now, instead of just characters. Well played, sir, well played.

Sometimes the debate is so politicized that even reputable sources get tainted. An example is one of the IPCC reports on climate change, where the summary (what most people and press would read) got changed for political reasons into an overly alarmist version that did not match the scientific data in the rest of the report. Quite a few contributors to that report objected to the change, and rightly so. Not because the report wasn't a cause for worry about our influence on the climate, but because such politics have no place in science. Besides, it gave opponents of the idea of AGW ammunition to dismiss the entire report, and call the integrity of the IPCC in question.