Comment Hol up (Score 1) 265
So what youâ(TM)re telling me is that employees might have different political interests than their senior executives?
Wow we ought to write that down or something.
So what youâ(TM)re telling me is that employees might have different political interests than their senior executives?
Wow we ought to write that down or something.
Yeah, youâ(TM)re right, the sensible first response to âoehey, sexism is kinda prevalent and also badâ is âoeI bet those females are lyingâ.
Well done. Good job.
Lemme guess...you have never seen a comic book.
Iâ(TM)d love for you to make that argument for Windows Mobile. Thatâ(TM)d be pretty funny.
You say "caring", I say "having integrity". But hey, you've got the only correct value system, right?
Programming isn't terribly complex.
Awesome that you think so! Now, program some realtime flight surface control software for a fly-by-wire jet and sleep well knowing that your program will never, ever, kill anyone... (Or, substitute any other safety critical software you can think of - and theres a lot!)
"Programming" (by which I really mean software engineering) is one of the most complex activities in existence...
Uh. You don't know how to spell "weird". I don't think we should take you very seriously.
Renewables are fine providing you include a continent wide grid and some local storage to even out weather fluctuations. Specifically the grid is old tech and (except for NIMBY's) very easy to implement.
That is actually completely incorrect, given that there will "10 year", "100 year" or "1000 year" weather events that lead to power outages, mass inconvenience, and people dying.
That's all aside from the fact that we're nowhere close to a "continent wide grid" in the first place.
these days we have in every sense superior renewables.
You're delusional. Wind and solar both have a huge problem with consistent supply. Wind also requires huge swathes of land, and if you want to put it in the ocean it faces severe challenges - salt corrosion and storms.
Power shortages due to over reliance on renewable technologies are inevitable - unless nuclear is in the mix in a big way.
Wind maximum capacity is pretty meaningless, I believe the average production is around 1/3 of rated.
Nuclear is a far superior power source, given it's low land use, lack of environmental impact (eyesores, noise, bird/bat kills for wind) and constant output. Nuclear plants should be built out to completely replace coal, at a minimum.
ISIS is essentially an Al-Queda in Iraq splinter that set up shop on its own.
Yes, except it "set up shop" due to failures in the 0bama foreign policy.
The last "I" stands for Iraq. They wouldn't exist today without that mess having happened.
No, the last "I" stands for "In". ISIS stands for "Islamic State In Syria". President 0 favors ISIL, "Islamic State In the Levant".
They wouldn't exist today without that mess having happened.
They wouldn't exist today if the current administration hadn't thrown away all the blood and treasure expended on Iraq by cutting and running. Regardless of his dislike for the war, he should have acted in the best interests of both America and Iraq.
The most important thing influencing policy in these datasets are the trends. Both major satellite datasets show much less of a warming trend from the mid-90's until now than the recently "adjusted" surface datasets. No doubt this is a strong El Niño, we'll see if it can beat the massive average temperature spike in 1998. It's not close so far.
It'll be interesting to see how things play out over the coming decades...
That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:
The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.
It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.
And the first satelite was launched when?
Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.
Certainly. However, since the last adjustments, the surface datasets of record have been diverging from the satellite measurements:
The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records
The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records Again
Interesting that this is taking place going into another big climate conference complete with demands for "climate justice", and also while we're on the eve of a solar Grand Minimum...
A quote from that last linked article:
Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".
Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few.
Feel disillusioned? I've got some great new illusions, right here!