Okay, so what you are saying is that over the past 150 years we've stepped up CO2 production so much that what is considered one of the largest drivers of natural climate change (the largest after orbital shifts and solar changes) is now nothing but noise... and somehow this is an argument for the denier side ?
>Greenland was much warmer in the past than it is today. I am only telling you the truth about the archeology.
Greenland is not the world. The medieval warm period was such a regional phenomenon that the global average didn't even change.
>The 'Greenland only' talking point you have doesn't match the observed evidence.
As per the scientists who debunked that one - Greenland is the only place for which a piece of data exists that remotely matches what he drew for that time period, the rest of the world was much colder than that.
This doesn't mean there haven't been other regional warm periods over time. But global averages have rarely shifted. Regional warm periods are generally offset by cold periods somewhere else.
>Have you never considered that perhaps you don't have all the data?
Oh absolutely. Considered. Investigated. Dismissed after careful scrutiny.
> have you ever considered that the people you disagree with are simply using the Scientific Method better than you are
I have - and then I studied. And it became clear that they have no evidence whatsoever, the claims they make range from deliberate deception through complete and utter fabrication, their conclusions do not follow from their premises, their claims more often than not are internally contradictory, and the data they cite is either misrepresented or flat out lied about, up and including frequently lying about what the temperature is right now, and such to-a-scientist utterly embarrasing mistakes as confusing the arctic and the antarctic.
>have you ever considered that the computer simulations of predicted change may not match reality?
I have - but it's easy to verify that most models have consistently predicted the present well within their published margins of error - and that newer models have done better than older ones (which were pretty good already) and that they openly admit what factors they don't yet model well and account for them by widening margins of error. It's also easy to find that, due to the pressure not to sound alarmist, they consistently undersell when talking to the public - generally speaking about best-case-scenarios, and that where the models deviate from reality it's because reality has been worse. Temperatures higher or ice-melt significantly faster than the press releases said.
> that perhaps the climate 'scientists' did not understand Bode's feedback model at all?
Bode's plot is an engineering principle, primarily in electrical engineering. You're claiming it has something significant to do with climate change that climate scientists have not considered. Well then the burden of evidence is on you to prove this. Go right ahead - if you're right, then you just won yourself a nobel prize. If you won't do it for millions of dollars and lifelong fame... I'll have to assume it's because you cannot, just like whatever bullshit-artist-pretending-to-be-a-scientist told you it was relevant.
So au contraire, something for you to research - since there's a fortune in it for you. Not just the nobel prize, afterward you can expect a tenured position at any university you want (nobel prize winners don't struggle to get work or tenure - lifelong job security is nice) and an endless supply of grant money from fossil fuel companies who will love you for saving their industry.
Frankly - the incentives to disprove climate change outweigh the incentives to push for it by literally lifelong fame and fortune... it's amazing that no scientist seems keen to take that fame and fortune. I can only conclude that, actually, plenty are - but none of them are actually able to do it. It tends to be hard to disprove a theory that is mostly correct.
Governmental scientific inquiry is a contradiction in terms.
Funny how most of the most egregious examples of biased science have come from corporate research. Even to the point where it has cost a lot of people their lives. But you already knew that and were just hoping your comment would slip under the radar.
Will this speed up transfers and other digital transactions?
I find it incredibly frustrating that it still takes DAYS to do some electronic transfers. After all, immediately verifiable trust should foster a speedier transaction, right...right?
Unfortunately, I doubt it...
I have no complaints with FedEx, but UPS has always been a shitty vendor.
I don't recall a single instance where they've actually required compensation, let alone refunds, be paid to someone who fell for the misleading advertising before it got pulled.
Can't you already just return stuff in the UK if it doesn't do what it says on the tin? This seems like low-hanging fruit.
Really? You're not going to bother explaining that?
Well, in any case, for people who don't want to go hunting for earlier, unmentioned discussions,
Are you going to hold their dick for them when they have to piss, too? Is this hand-holding, dick-jerking Slashdot the one you want yo participate in? Let 'em learn to internet like the rest of us. At most, give 'em a LMGTFY link (if not fuckinggoogleit, pls)
Intelligence being good for you is not the same as stupidity being bad for you.
Of course it is. Intelligence is a scale, at one end we call it stupidity and at the other we call it intelligence. Less of one is more of the other.
But correlation is required for causation. Are you suggesting intelligence is irrelevant to income-earning potential for most people?
I'm outright saying that income-earning potential is relevant to eventual performance on an IQ test. And it's not news, this is a well-known critique of IQ testing. People who use it to try to prove things usually fail.
Intelligence is a benefit as long as it doesn't impede your ability to breed. And it doesn't. It's good in all kinds of situations, even smashing things with a rock. Getting just the right smash on is aided by intelligence.
I agree with the other poster, if you really love someone, you are willing to die for them. In fact it is selfish, as you cannot imagine life without them and you do not wish to live without them.
That is a strange definition of love my friend.
I've loved many. I've been in love many times.
But when it boils down to it..to brass tacks as they say.
The ONLY person I cannot live without...is me.
I'll do all I can for those I love and my family, but die for them...is NOT one of those things.
My life is the most precious things I own. It is truly the only thing I own when it comes to it.
And if it is between you and me...I'd do everything I possibly could to make sure it was not me that died.
I'd assume nothing less from anyone one else.
In other space news, Elon Musk has announced that SpaceX will partner with Samsung to make its Mars spacecraft.
The UN says they will launch a spacecraft in LEO in 2021. Musk says he will be launching 1,000 spacecrafts to Mars to colonize the planet. Total fucking lunacy. Is everyone disconnected from reality here?
This election has everyone nervous.
Its great that you know the right way to do it and everyone else who wants to deviate is wrong.
"Knowing the right way to do it" is something beginners learn.
If you want numerical validation for your physical activity, then maybe cross-fit would be more appropriate than a serious discipline like jiu-jitsu. I guess it's just something you'd know if you'd ever seriously studied martial arts. It's qualitative, not quantitative.
And yet you still have a very very closed view that implies everyone does it for the same reasons you do.
I didn't address the reasons someone would study martial arts. I questioned that wearable fitness trackers would in any way enhance the experience.
My point is they are inappropriate device for my use case. I *don't* want to be in a position where I *have* to wear one for insurance purposes
Training at your level, you're probably so healthy that it should be pretty trivial to demonstrate to your insurance company that you're fit. Aetna covers wellness exams, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have one. If there's any question, you could always execute a gogoplata or flying omoplata on your doctor and then suggest he certify your fitness.
And who knows, implantable fitness detectors will come soon enough, though I worry that if they're made by Samsung they might explode.