We already have a standard for shortening long names. Thus
* a13n replaces 'authorization', and
* a14n replaces 'authentication'.
both of these are 1 char shorter than authz / authn, so it should greatly simply things.
More people believe in angels (46%) than warming (34%).
That's what you get for skipping stats to go out and get a smoke.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Huh? Why? Where is it?
Why are so many people trying to ban Neonics?
Look up when the patent expires on them: 2019.
What if I told you they have not been found to cause colony collapse disorder (CCD) but antifungals are that also take out the immune system leaving to the host prone to infection it could normally fend off.
It's not just the bees, this is happening to amphibians, bats, coral and in some cases man. Next time somebody tells you a gas or heat is killing corals... go look up the necropsy. No it is not, it's the damn antifungals.
http://www.plosone.org/article...
https://qz.com/107970/scientis...
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
http://www.gbr.qld.gov.au/docu... (July 2016)
http://www.gbr.qld.gov.au/docu... (May 2016)
Compare this with Cuba.
So you don't dispute sea rise has been negative for about six years?
That's a start I guess.
The rest of your argument pretty much doesn't matter after that now does it? You haven't found fault with either the data or the logic here, and merely sought clarification of one part you don't understand.
So in case you don't resistant quite what what you're looking at, here goes.
Because nominal sea was was unchanged for about 8000 years, never went up, that was an error, and six years ago flipped when ice began growing again.
Perhaps I explained that badly in my post. Please allow me to try again.
If you look at the longer term map you can see the sea rise for the past 8000 years was pretty constant. Then, six years ago it began falling. I did not try to make a graph like that with only six years but if you were t try the tool at nasa to get just the last 10 years it gives you this, at least it did with my browser, why don't you try it?
Now, there were spurious reports of "sea rise" in Miami but not, only 50 miles away, in the Florida Keys it was not rising. This was found out to be because Miami was sinking, as was Beijing, by about four inches a year because the silly fucks pumped all the groundwater out. You know how nature abhors a vacuum.
Here's the long history of sea rise:
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Look around 8000 years back. See that? That's the 33,3 century nominal sea rise.
That stopped a few years ago.
Now, if you look at the same time period in the NSIDC graph is ice, you'll see there's a corresponding uptick in sea ice:
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Ok? So uptick in ice, seas fall. Got that now?
Nore that carbon dioxide also flarlines 6 years ago.
Here's the stuff on the error in sea rise measurement in Miami:
Here's a picture of it:
http://geologylearn.blogspot.c...
Here's thr article in Nature about Florida.
http://www.nature.com/news/sou...
Here's the article about Beijing.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/73907...
Here's the Co2 flatline stuff:
2015 CO2 has flatlined.
13 March 2015 Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014, marking the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
2016 CO2 flatlined for a second year in a row.
"The IEA reports that for the second year in a row, the world economy has grown while energy-related CO2 emissionsremained flat."
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
2017 CO2 emissions remain flat for a third year.
IEA finds CO2 emissions flat for third straight year even as global economy grew in 2016 17 March 2017.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/n...
MIT Technology Review also reported the fact CO2 stopped rising as well.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/n...
It doesn't matter what you "believe". The facts are, seas a falling, ice is growing and coe flatlined years ago. if you want to argue the opposite, let's see your data (and please not another PR piece, I've read them all, let's look at data here)
There's also been no warming so far this century, so really wtrf are they talking about?
greenpeace
Dr. Patrick Moore is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a director of Greenpeace International
half
"Linda Prokopy, a Professor of Natural Resource Social Science at Purdue University, surveyed more than six thousand farmers and scientists and found widespread disagreement on human contributions to climate change. While 90 percent of scientists and climatologists surveyed thought the climate was changing, only about 50.4 percent contended that humans were the primary cause of these changes. More shocking was that just 53 percent of climatologists surveyed thought “Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities.”
"This evidence is inconvenient to the many media outlets that have endlessly repeated that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming hypothesis. Prominent outlets like NBC and The New York Times, as well as countless others, have effectively shut down debate by asserting there is no scientific debate."
lukewarmers
So, should we worry or not about the warming climate? It is far too binary a question. The lesson of failed past predictions of ecological apocalypse is not that nothing was happening but that the middle-ground possibilities were too frequently excluded from consideration. In the climate debate, we hear a lot from those who think disaster is inexorable if not inevitable, and a lot from those who think it is all a hoax. We hardly ever allow the moderate “lukewarmers” a voice: those who suspect that the net positive feedbacks from water vapor in the atmosphere are low, so that we face only 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of warming this century; that the Greenland ice sheet may melt but no faster than its current rate of less than 1 percent per century; that net increases in rainfall (and carbon dioxide concentration) may improve agricultural productivity; that ecosystems have survived sudden temperature lurches before; and that adaptation to gradual change may be both cheaper and less ecologically damaging than a rapid and brutal decision to give up fossil fuels cold turkey.
We’ve already seen some evidence that humans can forestall warming-related catastrophes. A good example is malaria, which was once widely predicted to get worse as a result of climate change. Yet in the 20th century, malaria retreated from large parts of the world, including North America and Russia, even as the world warmed. Malaria-specific mortality plummeted in the first decade of the current century by an astonishing 25 percent. The weather may well have grown more hospitable to mosquitoes during that time. But any effects of warming were more than counteracted by pesticides, new antimalarial drugs, better drainage, and economic development. Experts such as Peter Gething at Oxford argue that these trends will continue, whatever the weather.
Just as policy can make the climate crisis worse—mandating biofuels has not only encouraged rain forest destruction, releasing carbon, but driven millions into poverty and hunger—technology can make it better. If plant breeders boost rice yields, then people may get richer and afford better protection against extreme weather. If nuclear engineers make fusion (or thorium fission) cost-effective, then carbon emissions may suddenly fall. If gas replaces coal because of horizontal drilling, then carbon emissions may rise more slowly. Humanity is a fast-moving target. We will combat our ecological threats in the future by innovating to meet them as they arise, not through the mass fear stoked by worst-case scenarios.
manufactured consensus
The difference between fact ("the earth is round"), consensus ("the earth is flat") and manufactured consensus (cherry picking data to produce a "consensus" for the benefit of a few).
math
A good laymans explanation of how you're being lied to about climate.
ancient
Big data finds medieval warming period.
misinformatio
A bit of signal in a world of noise.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2...
nasa stalled
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2...
February 23, 2015 - "The past year was the warmest year on record, though their analysis has 2014 in a virtual tie with 2005 and 2010. "
When several years all tie for the warmest year it means temperature isn't increasing.
NOAA confirms:
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
It's not even warmed than last year according to them:
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Lest I be accused to cherry picking, here's ALL the data. Can you show me this "unprecedented warming" on here ot does it only show up on your cherry picked graphs? That us why are you unable to show this warming on here. Because in context is foes away. Centurial variance is 3.5 degrees, your 1.2 degrees since 1880 doesn't mean a whole lot ands it's not as if you has a five sigma proof Co2 causes warming: no such thing exists.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
So.... ya got nuttin, bub.
I call bullshit.
Ice is up, not down at both poles, while the Arctic goes up and down a but the Antarctic only increases much to the amazement of the the alarmists. Total sea ice has never gone down and is increasing presently to the point the seas are falling while the media claims or sometimes hints they're rising. Sea level was actually never rising abnormally, it's been 33,3cm/century for about 15,000 years. The gasses are methane and food for the microflora of the new tundra. We are coming out of an ice age and of course you can find thawing bits, it's just that there's more freezing bits than thawing bits by a large margin.
Sea ice.
Screenshot of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center graph of aggregate sea ice.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
South Sea Ice.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
So, the claims the "ice could be gone as early as 2015" (Gore 2009) are utterly specious; this really devalues the Nobel prize in my mind or his half of it anyway which is when he said this.
Anyway, the ice melt doesn't show up any graph. So let's look at the sat imagery NASA has at the pole.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Ok so it doesn't show up in NASA sat imagery either. What about maps?
Isn't it cool how you can get the story from a piece of the url? "arctic-sea-ice-gains-can-be-seen-on-new-government-map-of-canada"
Anyway, Canada added ice to the marine navigation maps. The US doesn't have much arctic, Greenland has more I suspect, the rest Canada and Russia have. The Russians added ice to their maps too.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
So I dunno about this "melt" it doesn't show up maps, test instruments or sat imagery.
As I said, the sea levels are falling not rising if you believe NASA.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Looks like sea level was pretty constant for th last 8000 years. Now seas have been falling for about 6 years. If they were supposed to rise abnormally I can't see where.
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u...
Here's the article in Nature from a few years ago. They figured if all this methane was coming up there would be an increase in carbon in the soil but there wasn't and they wrote up why they found out why: it's food for the emergent fora and fungi. Which makes sense, the plans and carbon all frozen together, why WOULD you have one wuthoutthe other. You freaky, nature.
"Fungi pull carbon into northern forest soils Organisms living on tree roots do lion’s share of sequestering carbon
"But scientists have not understood where exactly trees put their carbon. The issue becomes important when researchers build computer simulations that track carbon cycling."
https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...
"Small 'hot spot' responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States"
"Nasa set to investigate unexplained hotspot over the 'four corners' intersection in Southwest
Small 'hot spot' responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States
Area near the Four Corners intersection of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah covers 2,500 square miles
Hotspot predates widespread fracking in the area "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
Methane may not be what you think
(no idea why the Daily Fail was accurate for a few years in the science department, I'm as shocked as you.)
TFA is the same kind of misleading bunk that does not tell both sides of the story we've seen before. Recall that the technical definition of "pseudoscience" is ignoring negative data which TFA does splendidly. We say the same thing a few years back with the Greenland ice sheet melted in 2012:
Back before he quit to spend more time with his family Hansen would somehow get stuff like this to come out of NASA Goddard: "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt".
Ooooo,"unprecedented".
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
Well hang on if it happens every 150 years and is not even a day early, what exactly is "unprecedented"? If you call them it turns out their satellites seeing it was unprecedented. Well, um ok. It all froze a week later like it always does but you really cannot call this "fair and balanced" any more than Fox or TFA are.
Actually if you look at the math in this paper temperature anomalies of the 20th century were not in any way unusual fom temperature anomalies in the previous 8100 centuries:
http://multi-science.atypon.co...
Think about it, pick any two points on a line and you can show a positive, negative or zero slope and "prove" anything if you pick the two points correctly. For example using the noaa data post 2K you can show warming, cooling or no change *depending on what points you pick*. (The NOAA has a graphing calculator you can play with to prove this to yourself - if you can prove your opponents point with this tool as well as yours maybe the methodology was meant for demonstration to the public and not mathematical rigor, eh?
The fact they play fast and loose with the math is not confidence inspiring. Recall the statement "each of the past 10 years has been the hottest on record" - the president has actually said this (and you'll note has never used the word "pollution") but the numbers clearly show that 1989 was the hottest year and each year from 200o to 2009 was colder than the previous one. A clear decadal cooling period but still hot years this making the statement true, despite the fact it got cooler each year not warmer as they tried to infer. That's not science, that's marketing. If you have to lie about it, it's probably not true or you wouldn't need to lie you's just explain the facts. The facts are it stopped warming and we were wrong about CO2. Overall it has a positive effect, not negative and it created by an increase in temperature not vice versa. Only 4 billion years of fossils show this, argue with CERN and NASA if you disagree.
.
http://climate-math.science/.i...
http://climate-math.science/.i...
Here's ALL the temperature data all 4.5 billion years of it, so there's zero chance of cherry picking. The other point that kills the agw argument is there's no discernable human signature of warming in the thermal record. If you think there is, please point it out - it will be recognizable as a sharper slope than has ever occurred in the thermal record before.
http://climate-math.science/.i...
Co2 stopped rising years ago:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
It was higher (by 40 ppm) 200 years ago:
http://climate-math.science/.i...
(See Beck 2008).
Articles keep saying "global warming" as if it were true. It's never actually been proved true, that was a hypothesis based on some incomplete models and now have 75% error between predicted and measured temperature. Even when CO2 ose temperature declined (2000-2009) for a decade, every year being colder than the previous despite CO2 rising sharply:
In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.'
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Nah it's pretty mundane and only tells you about their stuff, how it does something complicated and patentable with something expressed by 30% of cancers. Big deal.
In 2007, Potter, Burke et al found CYP1B1 in nearly 100% of cancers.
Fitst they found Resveratrol ("red wine") killed cells with these markers (which turn the Resveratrol into potential which kills only that cell) but it wasn't strong enough to work on humans. Next they found the Salvestrol family of molecules.
Have a look for yourself how well that panned out.
Try going outside. You appear to be in a condo in Vancouver. You may be on heroin.
It's been so cold in Canada in the last three years we've broken dozens if not hundreds of cold record temperature records:
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
We've not broken one for warm/hot, just record cold.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
"Environment Canada has released its list of top weather stories over the past year, and the long winter chill took top spot."
The Great Lakes attained 92 per cent ice coverage for the first time in 35 years, sea ice was back on the East Coast and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was its thickest in 25 years."
Frost in late may/early June? Welcome to Canada, eh?
http://www.quintenews.com/2015...
Niagra falls has frozen about 7 times in 200 years. Last year and the year before were two of those times.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Plus, you know, the Arctic sea ice has grown so much - because it's unseasonabley cold and hs been for a decade according to the NOAA - that we have to redraw the maps becvause of eht INCREASE IN ARCTIC SEA ICE. There's more of it now than when "global warming" started.
I'd have to say, as a Canadian living in Canada you don't see a lot of global warming here. More like the next ice age.
One scientist who predicted this in 2008 had his work vetted by CERN and NASA and botttom line: 27 more years of this cold then it'll warm again.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
Look at the number of temperature records set for cold and hot worldwide. I believe that explains why they're so desperate to prove a hot climate record. It's because they keep trying to prove one, keep being corrected when it's pointed out it's not really a record in a field of so many cold weather records.
Can't say there's any sign of warming in Canada. The current Indian Summer, a first in a decade is not a sign the planet is warming, Sparky.
It's a 300 year old one of many branches of medicine. From that school came vaccines, ergot, caffein and many more.
Google homeopathic cocoa and click images.
"Homeopathic" is a Latin word and it has a very very specific technical meaning. Do the above search and ask yourself how does it differ from an Apple?
If you don't feel that's correct please alter Wikpedia and they'll explain it to you.
This is from the medical industry's history of vaccination, this is not from any homeopathic sources, so you just disagreed with vaccine stuff.
You did this because you don't actually know a fucking thing about the subject you're attempting to discuss with somebody who has studied it
probably for longer than you've been alive.
Always check, you may not be right ad in a post Internet ra there is no excuse for this ignorance.
I've researched this for many years. It's interesting.
I wrote this from memory, not from "google searches". I use Google scholar anyway.
You have not found an incorrect premise or any flaws in he logic. You don't like it. Ok. So fucking what?
Here's the cleaned up copy I sent to JC's people.
Vaccines, opium, digitalis and many more came from the homeopathic school. Suggest you read some medical history and stop guessing incorrectly.
Well put.
Number of people killed by homeopathy: zero.
Number of people killed by the medical system. Well, that's awkward, the medical system itself if the third leading cause of death in the United States today.
Examining the actual evidence on all sides is appropriate at this juncture.
The medical system third-leading cause of death in the United States.
Starfield B (July 2000). "Is US health really the best in the world?". JAMA 284 (4): 483–5. doi:10.1001/jama.284.4.483. PMID 10904513.
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://journals.plos.org/plosm...
What is medicine's 5 sigma? - Richard Hortonemail - DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S014... http://www.thelancet.com/journ...
Pharmecutical companies write their own "clinical reports", then bribe doctors to put their names on them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci...
Such "ghostwriting" is not uncommon at all.
Lacasse JR, Leo J (2010) Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States. PLoS Med 7(2): e1000230. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000230
http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar...
Never invest your money in anything that eats or needs repainting. -- Billy Rose
