Casual sexism for the win.
Oh wait, that was't casual at all!
Casual sexism for the win.
Oh wait, that was't casual at all!
How much did you pay?
Why does it need to be only about the monetary value of ideas? LED bulbs cost a fortune only a couple of years ago, but their price dropped as adoption rose.
Everyone makes judgements on the value of intangibles all the time, and many people still value quality of life as high if not higher than money...except armchair economists for some reason.
Luckily some people are interested in the quality of life in the future, and have a desire to leave the world in a better state than they found it.
There's no need for me to call them, because the IPCC has never made such a claim, and the IPCC reports all suggest there has been no pause too.
Everyone agrees that the warming trend is not accelerating as fast as it was previously, but this is very very different to 'not warming'. If you can't tell the difference between 'acceleration' and 'increase', I suggest that you never ever drive a car.
The only thing I can find is an article from The Australian newspaper:
"an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian (paywalled) claims that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri agreed that there has been a 17-year pause in global temperature rises. Unfortunately we don't know exactly what Pachauri said on the subject, because Lloyd did not quote him directly".
Also, despite many requests, The Australian refuses to release a transcript, and Pachauri and the IPCC claim the paper has misquoted and misrepresented them entirely.
So, maybe you can get Dr. Curry and the IPCC to give me a call and tell me I've got it all wrong. Thanks.
You didn't link to the IPCC anywhere. You linked to something written by Richard Tol, who is an economist and ex-lead author at the IPCC, and has pretty much zero experience with scientific analysis of temperature changes. 'Lead author' is a bit of stretch too - he was heading one of the IPCC report sections dealing with an economic analysis of the impacts of global warming, His departure from the IPCC was surrounded by use of incorrect or limited data from other papers and errors in his own work.
So not a really credible source for saying 'no warming'. A link to a chart of temperature data from some peer reviewed source would be better.
I keep seeing this argument, but no one ever tells me where they get the "no warming" from. It's just not true.
Part of the reaction you might be getting is that many of these 'counter arguments' have been shown to be:
- outright fabrication
- cherry picking of data
- intentional misleading analysis
Things like the polar ice is a great example - there is a local phenomena of sea ice generation, but it doesn't refute the bigger picture of constant warming ocean and land temperatures. It is being studied by a number of teams, and will eventually expand our knowledge of the planet and its systems, but it doesn't change any of the argument to date.
I also want to say that you're not being terribly consistent when you complain others call you 'shill', and you then go on to give the 'sheeple' argument that society is being manipulated into a crisis mentality to simply sell some products. That's being hugely insulting and completely disingenuous to your skepticism. It shows the bias and lack of understanding you're investing into the sceptical position that you've decided to take.
You could take your ozone issue as an example - it wasn't just some crackpot genius marketing idea to sell new aerosol cans, it was a genuine issue that still effects everything everything in the lower southern hemisphere. It could have been catastrophic, but action was taken and the problem has stabilised (and begun to recover). I would also argue that most environmentalists are fully aware of issues like the Pacific Garbage Patch, and there are plenty of active campaigns to reduce waste in all forms. However, there is an element of relative urgency in all things, and just like you wouldn't complain to the doctor about the scratch on your arm when you need to be discussing your cancer treatment, plenty of people are naturally focusing on the perceived bigger environmental threat of global warming,
Haven't looked at average temperatures anytime recently, have you?
2014 was the warmest recorded year.
Just replying so that anyone else reading this isn't suckered in by your mistakes or ignorance:
1. Steel gets 'soft' enough between 500 and 700 DeC to lose most of its structural properties.
2. A typical fire - like something that could start in an office - can easily get to 700+ DegC. This includes the gas coming off the fire.
3. A bit of jet fuel could easily set most things inside an office building alight.
Source - I design buildings not to fall over in a fire.
Who do you sell your products/services to?
Because the entire world economy is doing just bloody great, isn't it! Not broken at all!
No actually that is all you have. There's plenty of historical evidence to indicate that temperature rise leads the atmospheric CO2 increase. The mechanism by which CO2 is theorised to retain heat is poorly understood and far from proven. Water vapour has a far higher heat capacity to act as a greenhouse gas and yet isn't accounted for in most of the models.
I see these statements all the time - unfortunatley they have become urban legend rather than having a basis in fact. Here's some reading:
Finally, I'm sitting here looking out the window watching it snow for the first time in ~70 years and have to seriously question your assumptions that the planet is even warming at all.
Here's something for this observation too - http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html
As a counterpoint for anecdotal evidence, you may want to read the news stories about record heatwaves through the US over the past month...
Isn't Squirrel just an interface? He's going to need something a little more than that - Postfix is the thing you need.
Now, having done exactly this for a long time (and having also moved everything over to Gmail for domains) I have a few observations:
- running your own email server gives you a warm inner glow and feeling of independence, but that's about it.
- check your logs daily, intrusion attempts happen constantly.
- dedicate the box to email only, that is - close down every port you don't need.
- don't run anything you don't need on that box.
- for the love of god don't run php (which might cut out squirrel mail).
- you'll need a set of good spam handlers. There's some good suggestions in posts below.
Personally, if you were really going to do this, I'd get a Mac mini. It comes with everything you need in terms of unix tools by default. It runs low power, it runs quiet. And there's slightly less chance of you getting owned. Always kep your patches up to date.
I eventually moved away from this because I got tired of being a paranoid sys-admin at home. Dealing with uptime issues also made me rethink what I was doing when email started to become critical to my finances - you'd be surprised how unreliable home dsl and power systems are when you really, really need them.
Solar doesn't require batteries. It can feed directly into the grid via an inverter. Solar panels are near 100% recyclable and most manufactures have free recycling schemes. The carbon payback from manufacturing is as low as 1 year.
You also need to stop thinking of solar as a domestic production source - that's just perverse. Solar on industrial scales is already approaching parity with coal power stations and was cheaper than nuclear last year.
And yes, yes, it doesn't produce power at night. Maybe you've heard of power storage, which is already used in many places to help balance grid loads.
There are plenty of challenges, but so many geeks have blinkers on when it comes to solar.
Let's apply free market mechanisms to nuclear power stations. Yup - awesome idea!
Global Fissile Crisis here we come...
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.