Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
There where no dire predictions made decades ago about present time.
I beg to differ. This is Hansen alone: http://themigrantmind.blogspot...
There have been tons of dire predictions, from "+2 degree global temperature" to "sea level rising by a foot" to "the polar ice caps melting by 2013" (to be fair, that one was Gore). Global warming advocates have been overpredicting for years: http://images.dailytech.com/ni...
Hardly a reason to presume he is exaggerating.
How do you figure? Have you read the literature? Have you even read the relevant IPCC section?
Methane is a feedback of CO2. If the feedback is as strong as some say then CO2 could be game over. Also, you didn't read through to the other links. Clearly scientists are doing a good job of presenting the science even in the face of those who would distort it for political ends.
I think you may have tinted glasses. I'm a lay person and I certainly didn't get the impression that the sky was falling after reading Mann's essay. Regarding the two other links - Cook isn't a climate scientist and Hanson didn't say anything about tornadoes except that he had been in one and that heat is the fuel for tornados but that we don't yet know if frequency will increase and we didn't have enough data to tell if there has been a trend. On the other hand, look at these links:
David Archer on methane increase: "Is this bad news for global warming? Not really, because the one real hard fact that we know about atmospheric methane is that it’s concentration isn’t rising very quickly. Methane is a short-lived gas in the atmosphere, so to make it rise, the emission flux has to continually increase " - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
What about that Arctic methane bomb? "Shakhova et al (2013) did not find or claim to have found a 50 Gt C reservoir of methane ready to erupt in a few years. That claim, which is the basis of the Whiteman et al (2013) $60 trillion Arctic methane bomb paper, remains as unsubstantiated as ever. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The fact that the ice core records do not seem full of methane spikes due to high-latitude sources makes it seem like the real world is not as sensitive as we were able to set the model up to be. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Here's William Connoly betting against an arctic death spiral (and trying to engage in a bet against arctic ice recovery): http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/...
Here is the head of the NASA climate team explaining why he and others publicly mocked a colleague during a presentation where the colleague suggested that we may be experiencing an arctic death spiral. His excuse seems to include the fact that he was mocking both sides (read further for examples): The negative engagement stemmed both from the “green” end (which we would characterize as “things are worse than they seem”) and from the “blue” end (“things are not as bad as they seem”). We were actively deflecting negative criticisms from both blue and green “wings” throughout both meetings. - https://drive.google.com/file/...
Good examples. For instance, in Michael Mann's piece he is correcting false representations of the IPCC report by journalists. He states: "The truth is that the impact of global warming on tornadoes remains uncertain, because the underlying science is nuanced and there are competing factors that come into play."
he goes on to say: "I pointed out to the journalist that there are two key factors: warm, moist air is favorable for tornadoes, and global warming will provide more of it. But important, too, is the amount of "shear" (that is, twisting) in the wind. And whether there will, in a warmer world, be more or less of that in tornado-prone regions, during the tornado season, depends on the precise shifts that will take place in the jet stream — something that is extremely difficult to predict even with state-of-the-art theoretical climate models."
He says that if he was a betting man he would give odds slight odds to the case for greater tornado activity: "So we've got one factor that is a toss-up, and another one that appears favorable for tornado activity. The combination of them is therefore slightly on the "favorable" side."
Very germane to this thread given that the deniers are somehow claiming that three years with low tornado activity somehow a failure of climate science. With such bad media reporting by the likes of WATTS and Muller. So yes - great examples of scientists correcting media reports that err in either direction.
none of the dire predictions has materialized. The predictions are that in FUTURE we have trouble. OFC they have not materialized that. What is your STUPID point? You had several opportunities to offer the requested counter-examples, but failed. Neither did I fail nor had I the chance. WE are at 2014 right now, not at 2050. IDIOT!
Are you not familiar with the term "moving the goalposts"? Dire predictions were made decades ago about present time that have not occurred. Why would we have any faith that the current dire predictions would then occur? They've been claiming the sky is failing as long as I can remember. And when it doesn't happen, they simply spurt out "well, wait longer...it's coming...eventually" You don't see the problem with that line of reasoning?
Well, denmark, for example, is focused on renewables. Doesn't mean they don't want to be the ones pumping up the oil and selling it. You can do other things with oil besides burning it also. I wouldn't put it past the danes to claim it as theirs and then not pump it in the name of protecting the arctic. They just might be altruistic enough.
They're not altruistic enough to leave the current oil in the ground I don't see why this oil would be different.
Sure they may delay a few years, but people tend to be a lot more altruistic when it isn't costing much. The moment I point out you're sitting on a ton of oil is the moment you start to rationalize reasons that pumping oil isn't so bad.
Yeah, it's hard to see why the article frames this as an indictment of NASA's bureaucracy, given the article explicitly says a senator from Mississippi explicitly forbid them from stopping construction. This is just another reflection of how money is more important than reason in Congress these days.
Don't worry. I'm sure congress will do the right thing and point to this wasteful spending as a reason to cut funding to NASA.
Kinda depends on what/who was there first
No it doesn't. The freeway and the side-streets are public spaces, and no one living on a public street has a right to demand that anyone else not use it as they like, so long as they follow the laws of the road. If you want a private street with no traffic, live in a private neighborhood (gated community), where the builders do spread the community cost among the homeowners. The roads were paid for by taxes collected from everyone. Your taxes don't pay for the roads directly in front of your house, and therefore you have (and rightly so) no right to dictates who can use it. Most of the road-work money comes from gasoline taxes, so its fair game.
It's legal but it's still a bit douchey. This is why cities make horrible convoluted suburbs now, to thwart this exact kind of action.
If Sony keeps doing it, their documents will be forever alive in the form of magnet links, formerly torrent file sharing technology.
They do have the the army of trained lawyers to harass mass audiences, except that newspapers have seen much badder boys coming to them with the threats.
Now, assuming Sony documents will survive, will be available for everyone, and will be commented, how exactly SONY will know which newspaper has caused an actual harm?
I think that their litigation budget will be fully depleted for several years in the future.
Actually they might have the right idea. The info the media will be most interested in is the gossipy Sony exec emails, and those things only really have legs for one news cycle.
So a lawsuit does two things, first it causes a bunch of papers to run things by the lawyers first, this could slow down some of the reporting until the news cycle has finished.
Second it gives them another related bit of news to report about, so the email contents are now part of the previous news cycle and the Sony lawsuit threat is the new news cycle.
So where are all of the officially sanctioned Christian slaves and sex slaves? That's kind of the way these discussions go. On one hand is the active and widespread activity of Isis, al Qaida, and other actors in the Muslim world, and on the other is someone pointing to a Bible verse and says, "See! See! Christians and Jews could do something like that hundreds or thousands of years ago too!" The problem at hand is what they are doing now.
So was the US not practising Christianity in the 1850s? Because there were a lot of slaves with a lot of Christian endorsements of their condition.
So is the problem Islam, or the contemporary expression of Islam in specific regions and among specific populations?
The problem with just blaming Islam as a whole is you blame a whole lot of people with beliefs completely unrelated. It would be like pointing at the Westburo Baptist Church and saying Christians are homophobic.