Can't fix stupid. Even at (especially at?) a university.
Can't fix stupid. Even at (especially at?) a university.
"Bikers who ride the wrong way up a one-way street or bike-lane are called salmon.
No, they are called self-centered idiots who are trying to clean out the gene pool. Nevermind that any motorist who kills a cyclist through no fault of the motorist's will still suffer emotional pain and guilt for the rest of his life, and may end up spending enormous amounts of money defending himself in civil court from...people...
Ok then: given that the sun has been shining energy on us for a very long time, and given that CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than they are now, why are we still here? Why haven't we been cooked already?
The amount of CO2 being produced by humans is minuscule compared to what the earth itself produces. It's as simple as that.
As I expected, your response is primarily dodging the questions I asked.
Answer to the first question is 0.04% or about 400 parts per million. And if you're trying to make a point about how small that number is I'll just note that a concentration in the air of just 0.025% of cyanide will kill you within minutes.
Comparing the earth's atmosphere to the human body is like comparing apples and giraffes. Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.
The rest of your questions are poorly formed as they make assumptions that aren't warranted.
No, that's completely false! The questions I asked are simple questions about simple facts! The only assumptions they imply is that they can be answered accurately. This is simply a demonstration of your irrational thinking and refusal to think outside the box you have placed yourself in. Take off your blinders.
It would be also helpful to note that for about 10,000 years since the end of the last glaciation CO2 has hovered around 280 ppm. Only recently has it risen to such a large amount.
A moment ago you said that the current level is 400 ppm. That's only a 42% increase. Also, CO2 levels in the past have been much, much higher than 400 ppm. Conclusion: 400 ppm is not "such a large amount." That's your own assumption, which reveals your own bias.
So what changed? The obvious answer is fossil fuels are being burned.
No! You have jumped--leaped!--to that conclusion! And you have the gall to accuse me of making assumptions! Your line of reasoning is completely illogical!
Your question #4 about the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase assumes that CO2 can only increase in response to temperatures and not the other way around. It's a bad assumption.
No, again, the question makes no assumption other than that it can be answered accurately! Either there is a positive lag time, a negative lag time, or no lag time. Which is it? You are the one making assumptions and refusing to look up the answer!
It's a simple lab experiment to show that CO2 can capture infrared energy so you really need to show my why that doesn't work in the atmosphere too.
No, you need to show how a "simple lab experiment" accurately reflects the enormity and complexity of the global atmosphere. A bacterium in a petri dish does not reveal a bacteria's role in a complex ecosystem. You have misplaced the burden of proof.
If you insist on ignoring scientific facts that are inconvenient to your argument then we don't really have much to talk about.
The hypocrisy is really killing me here. Are you really so blinded by your own presuppositions that you can't see it, or are you lying?
It's not unsubstantiated at all, my friend. A Park Ranger was quoted in many newspaper articles all over the Internet as saying those exact words. Google it if you don't believe me. Or is that truth too inconvenient for you? I admit, it is easier and quicker to call someone a "partisan loon" than it is to search on Google.
Actually, the data does not indicate support for the AGW hypothesis. For a start, answer these questions:
1. What percentage of the atmosphere does CO2 make up?
2. What percentage of annual global CO2 emission is produced by humans?
3. What is the margin of error in the measurement of natural CO2 production? What percentage of the total is it? How does that percentage compare to human CO2 production?
4. What is the historical lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase?
If you answer those questions correctly and still think humans are causing global warming, then we can talk about it.
Honestly, I don't get your comment at all.
1. Your first prediction doesn't "check" out at all (assuming I know what you mean by "trend up on top of preexisting cycles").
2. Your "clueing" me in amounts to, "CO2 is a greenhouse gas! And the sun is shining on us!" Thanks for that insight, Sherlock. But it doesn't prove anything whatsoever about AGW.
What do you propose will happen with the extra energy that is trapped?
What extra energy? What would "extra" energy even be? What qualifies as "extra"? And who says it's trapped? The earth is radiating energy constantly.
What are you going on about? Honestly, this nonsensical banter is what seems to pass for "evidence" and "science" nowadays, but all you're really doing is tossing around a few terms, cliches, and facts that no one argues with but which don't support the AGW hypothesis at all.
The current Slashdot quote is so appropriate: You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"
Please take a moment and research how much CO2 is produced by the earth's natural processes and how much CO2 is produced by human activity. Then please tell me what percent of the total is produced by human activity. For extra points, please compare the amount of human-produced CO2 with the margin of error of the measurement of naturally produced CO2. And to really wow us, please show how the amount of human-produced CO2 compares with the fluctuations in the amount of naturally produced CO2.
Then draw a conclusion about the risks of not reducing human produced CO2 vs. the risk of economic damage if drastic changes are forced upon the world's economies, being sure to consider the effects on individual human lives.
The first paragraph is asking for simple factual data, data which is crucial to understanding the perceived risks, yet that data is very rarely mentioned in discussions of AGW. Maybe it represents some "inconvenient truths" for those who claim the sky is falling.
but then again, you are a denier.
When you begin to label your opponents, the rational part of the argument is over.
It's heartbreaking to see irrational rants like this get modded +4 insightful. Not only is it irrational, but it's full of lies!
1. The consensus is a farce. Cook, et al was a premeditated lie. Did you fall for it?
2. Science is based on reproducible, falsifiable hypotheses. Computer models != reproducible real-world results.
3. You don't even try to disguise your irrationality, you put it on blatant display:
But as long as news media trump up some fake "let both side speaks" as if there were two side of the debate
Ah, yes, there cannot be two sides to the issue! We all agree on it! There's consensus! No one disagrees! That's unacceptable! The idea that there are dissenting opinions is just a made up lie! They're all fake! Those filthy deniers!
And that line of "reasoning" gets +4 Insightful. It's as bad as Obama ordering the Park Service to "make life as difficult for people as possible," and then asking for stories about how the Republicans made life difficult for people. Not even a hint of subtlety, but the sheep just lap it up like hungry animals.
This is why mob mentality and groupthink (i.e. "consensus") is so dangerous. It's why Constitutional amendments require supermajorities. Even hundreds of years ago, wise people recognized the dangers of fads and the "prevailing winds" of the times (actually even thousands of years ago; see e.g. Eph 4:14).
This is why we need strong, principled leadership that isn't based on whatever is popular at the time. Going along with what's popular is what led many thousands of average human beings to commit unspeakable atrocities under the leadership of evil people during World War II. But going against what was popular, against what had been done before, is what led to the creation of a nation that is founded upon a document explicitly declaring the right of all human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Some will probably complain that I'm making a nonsensical rant, bouncing from "science" to history to religion to politics--but the point is that we need to live and make judgments based on sound principles, rather than being "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."
The evidence! The models! It must be true! Someone wrote SimEarth and it shows that AGW is real, so it must be! Look at how much happier the Sims are when I spend simoleans on solar plants and fusion plants!
If only we had cheat codes for real life, we could actually pay for all that.
What's really sad is that irrational rants like yours that make literally zero logical arguments get modded +5 Insightful. Either most people really are so gullible that they fall for it, or there really is a giant conspiracy to dupe people...or both.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, and worst of all, you think that's a good thing.
The hypocrisy is killing me...wait, I mean, the planet...
1. The overwhelming majority of scientists neither endorses nor denies AGW. Cook, et al was a farce and a premeditated lie. Don't tell me you fell for it...?
2. Labeling those who disagree with you ("deniers") and using ad hominems as your argument indicates a lack of rational thought.
I have to say, seeing some random guy on
Ok, I take back point b: you clearly do care about your agenda, but you don't appear to care about seeking the truth, because it might contradict your agenda.
It's the only way to be sure.
Argh, this is worse than Web 2.0. Enormous margins, absurd amount of whitespace, poor mix of font sizes and really dumb use of gray-on-white text.
What is it with scrolling nowadays? On my 1080p monitor I can only see one or two stories on the front page without scrolling! SCROLL SCROLL SCROLL! It's going to wear out my mouse wheel. This is awful.
Comments are awful. Again, huge margins, too much whitespace, not enough use of color and separators.
Honestly, have we learned nothing from Google's recent mistakes? Apparently not, since Slashdot has now done its best to emulate Google's worst.
I implore you: Stop what you are doing. Delete this design. Delete the git repo. Delete the backups of the git repo. Fire the people who made it.
And don't ever put "beta" on anything ever again.
Honestly, the current non-beta design is still a step backwards from what Slashdot used to be. It's not just "don't fix what ain't broken"--it's "QUIT BREAKING IT!"
If Slashdot pushes this design out, I'm done with Slashdot. It'll be time to seriously make a replacement site for Slashdot and seriously put in time posting interesting stories and cultivating good comments.
Where did you obtain your data?
What is your point?