Note how the VW emission scandal came to light thanks to US regulators. We often think of the EU being ahead of the game in this sort of thing, but European car emissions testers are private entities that compete for business. This creates an incentive to "cook the books" and give manufacturers an easy time. US regulators, on the other hand, are public entities and have no such incentive to be nice to the auto manufacturers. Hence, a stricter testing regime that uncovered a culture of corner-cutting and cheating that existed in VAG. Mark my words, VW will not be the last Euro manufacturer to have been found screwing with emissions data.
For starters, they appear to be completely different images.
Naw, they're the same image, but the name was changed to obscure the copyright violation.
Do you really think they just decide to use fixed batteries just to piss you off?
Don't be silly. They do it to force you to buy a new phone every year or two.
"Oh, is your battery holding less charge? Just buy a new phone and you'll get a new battery for FREE!"
According to a new study, X! However, most of X did not occur in reality.
So . . . "We expected to find X but didn't. Nobel Prize, please!"
Is that really the finding of this study, or is this just the typical Slashdot editorial process at work?
Loop logic can be hard to understand? If's a fucking loop.
Actually, "If" is a branch. "While" and "For" are loops.
If you could guarantee me immortality with my body frozen at 21 (or even 41), I might jump at the chance.
Even that might not be all it's cracked up to be...
Yes, and those idiot's votes count the same as yours and mind. It is amazing how many people "me too" jump on some bullshit I've already proven to be false a few times before. Hoax is the poisoning of the mind for people too stupid to do their own thinking and prefer their news in a 600x600 image square. Whoever controls these drones, controls the vote, because they are half the population.
Or to paraphrase George Carlin, think about how stupid the average person is, then remember that half the population is dumber than they are.
He basically says "It's hard to predict, and we expect more of these storms." That does nothing to contradict or clarify his assertion that "THIS IS THE RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE."
Can you not understand the difference between those two statements and how statistics and probability are involved? Are you willfully ignoring logic? If I tell you not to sit on your ass all day eating cake because you'll get fat, and then you do and stay slim all your life due to a high metabolism, have you disproven that inactivity combined with a high-carbohydrate diet cause weight gain?
"Oh yes, it's a myth!" you'll shout. Good luck with that.
Well, since you're not even bothering to quote from my actual transcript.
Oh don't even start with that. I did copy that text from your transcript and cut out the duplicated text for clarity.
"What'll probably happen is people will move - they'll move away from these areas, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper wiring and all that copper plumbing? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage it, or is somebody going to show up to loot it?"
You, on the other hand, completely made up words that he never even used. Is this what passes for intellectual honesty these days?
"If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere."
In depressed areas like those mentioned in the article I linked, people are resorting to looting copper and other metals from abandoned buildings, and this has lead to—you guessed it—all sorts of criminal activity. A descent into lawlessness? Your claim, not his.
Don't blame me for taking what he said as if he meant it.
Why must everything be paint-by-numbers? Oh right, because that's the only argument left against taking action on climate change. "We can't because . . . you wore a blue shirt today, sorry."
I sure hope they develop peer review some day!
That sounds like a fantastic PhD research topic.
Please point out the parts where he is carefully refining and adding caveats to his view?
"Individual storms are hard to predict. And so as the ocean gets bigger and the sea surface gets warmer, you would expect more of these storms." Expectation is at the heart of statistics. If you suspect a new process favors an event, you expect that event to happen more frequently.
Let's not forget that he also basically said, "If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere," too.
No, he did not. He actually said, "What'll probably happen is people will move, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage or loot it." He makes no mention of a descent into lawlessness. This is exactly what's happened in cities where the major industry has closed or moved away.
While I wish his opening line was less absolute, you are being rather disingenuous by putting words in his mouth and ignoring the full context.
Or maybe watch the video that contains his full comments? Naw, let's ignore it and look only at the one or two sentences the author decided to quote and assume they form his complete stance on the subject.
No, you just missed Martian's point entirely. Global warming is causing the sea temperature to increase which is causing the sea volume and level to increase. These are easily demonstrated with simple physics experiments. But that will only increase the size and frequency of storms probabilistically.
We may still get periods of smaller and less frequent storms even with extreme global warming just as we do today. The probability of those periods occurring, however, will decrease. The system is far too complex to point to individual events and say, "This was directly caused by X," because that event could have occurred without X, too.
All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins