Originally posted by xsDamned scientists, damned unseasonal weather, damned rising water, damned melting polar ice, damned increase in high level meteorological activity, damned computers,..........I got to tell ya, we must be the damned
The correct analogy is that your car has no warning light,
and scientist are telling you according to their computer
models - it's on.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzApparently Rolls Royce have invested a besquillion on a telemetric technology that will tell them if someone operating their Trent series jet engines are about to have a performance malfunction weeks before the posibility of that unlikely event(it is a Rolls of course) happening.
Indeed. And they know how much your tank holds, your fuel efficiency and how long you've been driving.
Drawing on established medical diagnostic technology that has been used to monitor a persons health by tracking a few well defined state variables in various locations and cavities on a persons body and from the rate of change of those variables cross matched to a data base of normalised expected results, they can tell you how you are doing;
what Rolls has done is take a Trent and strap it to a bench and run it continously and the data off this testbed will provide realtime monitoring for each aircraft that has Trent jets installed. Not only will they be able to early warn of failure but they will be able to tell exactly what aspect of performance may be in decline and offer real time optimisation data for the onboard controllers to adjust the little beauties in flight.
Now if you think its still beyond the poor much maligned scientist to predict your oil warning based on a computer projection, then you'd better keep up with the pace, or rather the rate of change with which computing power and programming skill are making leaps and bounds in detecting change of state in unsteady processes and just when you think they've reached an impasse, that will already be old news to the current state of the art.
Originally posted by kmax87We've gone way off subject so I'll keep this brief:
Individualism is the new catch cry of the powerful who would ensure that the little people get duped into giving up their assocoations and unions and any collective barganing that gives the corporations a headache. Its the rationale that says being the recipient of affirmative action is racism. Its the argument that says that the poor only have themselves to ...[text shortened]... n society.
And if you were worth a lot, you probably would'nt want it any other way either.
Unions: Never said anything about them. Personally I would never join one again, having had about as much experience of being non-union/union as it's possible for a 42 yo to have. About half my working life spent in each type of employment, but if a person needs the sense of security 'belonging' brings, go for it.
Racism: Is by definition treating someone differently based on their race. Affirmative action on the basis of race is racism. That is so black and white it burns my eyes.
The reasons for poverty are many, some common ones, corrupt totalitarian gummints, superstitions (aka; religion) bad philosophy.
Laws to only protect the wealthy and, all those that believe in freedom are "worth a lot"? Too preposterous to warrant a reply.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWe may have disagreed vehemently on time and the big bang but on this one you're spot on mate. The science is pretty watertight on CO2 and climate change. It's us that don't like the uncomfortable reality of what's actually happening around us. a) because it's scary and b) because we have to change.
The science is very sound. There is no controversy as to the cause or threat of global in the scientific community, mainly that is the vice of the media and big business. If you look at the EPICA or Vostoc ice core data you'll see an almost perfect correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature; thus, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere cannot be go ...[text shortened]... bsorbs IR radiation (it's the basis of the photosynthesis measurements I'm taking right now).
Originally posted by WajomaIf it took two hundred years to trip up and drop a particular race into a hole, your worldview seems to be 'just get over it' and after at most 40 years of affirmative action, in some places not even 20 years,that those who have been diddled should now have apologists like you come along and tell them regardless of the centuries(in some cases for some indigenous peoples) of disspossesion and abuse any positive redress is actually racism, is really beyond the pale!
We've gone way off subject so I'll keep this brief:
Unions: Never said anything about them. Personally I would never join one again, having had about as much experience of being non-union/union as it's possible for a 42 yo to have. About half my working life spent in each type of employment, but if a person needs the sense of security 'belonging' brings, ...[text shortened]... l those that believe in freedom are "worth a lot"? Too preposterous to warrant a reply.
The is a neo Uncle Tom mentality that says stop snivelling those handouts will make you welfare dependent while on the other side of town, at the big end, the wealthy smile as they adjust the terms of their trust fund, manipulate the tax system to have their financial position further enhanced and have so many tax payer funded incentives to make more money, that the notion of single unemployed mothers, who have suffered two hundred years of assimilation and acculturation as being the largest group of welfare recipients, is the biggest load of crap ever perpetrated on the modern consciousness.
Just because you dont get your welfare through an unemployment or social security/services office does not make it any less so. Any time that the government allows you not to pay the full amount according to the tax code, you have become a welfare recipient. Evrytime the Government doles out large sums of cash to the private education system, then you North shore wannabe's are welfare recipients.
So to target those who have been at the recieving end of 200 years of malicious and contemptible criminal actions and say brother, sister you are perpetuating racism by asking for compensation, makes you the worst kind of apologist. One that actually has the intellect to reason this through and accept that some actions require structural compensation.
Your continued argument that compensation for wrong based on race is racism, would be just as flawed as to deny that any form of racial distinction exists. Or that any form of disadvantage based on racial determinants exists. Or that some of the most exclusively disadvantaged areas follow racial boundaries.
Your solution says lets just forget for a moment how we got to this point okay! And now because one race has been disadvantaged we will ensure that that never happens again so from now on we will take away any favouritism based on racial qualifications.
If you really wanted to take away any advantage based purely on racial grounds, then the only true solution using your model would be to tell all the pakhia to piss off back to the old dart. If you are going to have a line drawn in the sand that says we all start from the same advantage, then advantage those who have been disadvantaged first, before you start making these clever distinctions on race.
Talk about PCness gone mad, its only 'white' people that are obsessed with the notion that people of colour may be offended about being called a particular race. In the grand scheme of things in terms of being experimented upon to be almost socially engineered out of existence or to be encouraged to disown one's own culture, do you think a 'black' or 'brown' person honestly gives a stuff about you thinking affirmitive action is racism and should by that mantra be put down?
Its so not funny that I have to laugh.
Next you will be telling us that if only the poor had a better dress sense and that they smiled more often.......
1 edit
Originally posted by xsYes, it is.
Is that so.
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/view.article.php?ArticleID=23427
Title: Global temperature change
Author(s): Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Lo K, Lea DW, Medina-Elizade M
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 103 (39): 14288-14293 SEP 26 2006
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 46 Times Cited: 0 Find Related Records Information
Abstract: Global surface temperature has increased approximate to 0.2 degrees C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 19805 in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West-East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Ninos, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within approximate to 1 degrees C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than approximate to 1 degrees C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.
1 edit
scottishinnz - read yesterday's NZ Herald - front section towards the end - Garth George rant - fecking unbelievable.
The gist is that he will happily continue pouring CO2 into the atmosphere because ... God said he will never flood the earth and as a sign of this covenant, we have the rainbow.
😲
Originally posted by treetalkThis is the sort of person who should not be allowed a vote. People who are blatantly so stupid and irresponsible should probably be neutered too.
scottishinnz - read yesterday's NZ Herald - front section towards the end - Garth George rant - fecking unbelievable.
The gist is that he will happily continue pouring CO2 into the atmosphere because ... God said he will never flood the earth and as a sign of this covenant, we have the rainbow.
😲
Originally posted by kmax87Only bad, lazy people are poor.
Its so not funny that I have to laugh.
Next you will be telling us that if only the poor had a better dress sense and that they smiled more often.......
Did you know that according to the latest estimates world fish stocks are set to be utterly depleted in some 50 years if current trends continue? Reading about how EU fishermen meet their reduced quotas (they fish as before but throw the excess overboard) I am not surprised.
Well, perhaps my views on cannibalism will ultimately be justified when there's no more bushmeat to go round...
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRoll on soylent green. Hey that might really take off you know: roll-on soylent green. The skin absorbs all the nutrients and you will then free up your gums for the wailing and gnashing of teeth!
Only bad, lazy people are poor.
Did you know that according to the latest estimates world fish stocks are set to be utterly depleted in some 50 years if current trends continue? Reading about how EU fishermen meet their reduced quotas (they fish as before but throw the excess overboard) I am not surprised.
Well, perhaps my views on cannibalism will ultimately be justified when there's no more bushmeat to go round...
Originally posted by xsFirstly the last quote in that article is pure spin:
Is that so.
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/view.article.php?ArticleID=23427
"Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour. Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation"
According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change'
Whenever the word 'Politics' occurs near to Science there should always be alarm bells ringing with regards to politicised scientific statements. Andrew Dessler fails to mention that the 'worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation' is strongly dependent on temperature. If humans affect the temperature of the atmosphere through CO2 emissions, they are going to affect this 'worldwide balance', and therefore affect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Sure we have little 'direct control' as he says, but indirectly the effect is huge.
With regards to the content of the article, it surmises that the meteorite that crashed into Siberia in 1908 'caused considerable stirring of the high levels of the atmosphere' enough to change its structure.
Firstly the actual article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510042
is purely speculatory (and not yet peer-reviewed) - it contains no mention whatsoever of any modelling studies carried out to back up its claims. The paradigm of anthropogenic CO2 emissions causing the observed warming is backed up by the most complicated computer models.
Also it makes incorrect claims: it suggests that the nuclear tests between 1940-1970 threw water up into the stratosphere from the lower troposphere, leading to the observed short cooling period. Water in the stratosphere is a very significant greenhouse gas, so the effects of these bombs if any would be warming, not cooling.
Lastly the effects of a short sharp shock to a system (such as the atmosphere) is a relatively quick reaction, followed by a dampened adjustment - certainly not the slow and steady increase proposed here. Note that this is different to something like a nuclear war causing a nuclear winter. This comes about because of the vast amount of material thrown up into the atmosphere to block out the sun. There are no vast sources of relevant water at the atmospheric levels proposed by this work that would cause a long term trend, much less cause the observed acceleration (2000-2006) 100 years later!
In answer to your question - 'is that so?': yes.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI can't rec this enough - so one will have to do.
Firstly the last quote in that article is pure spin:
[i]"Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour. Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans ...[text shortened]... (2000-2006) 100 years later!
In answer to your question - 'is that so?': yes.
Originally posted by xsAnd your point is...?
Is that so.
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/view.article.php?ArticleID=23427
Do I really need to explain to you that in order for a scientific theory to be watertight then it does not necessitate a complete 100% unanimous agreement from all scientists? Very few scientific theories (if any) have complete agreement across the board because scientists will always try and make a name for themselves with a new breakthrough that goes against the prevailing view. I read the link and he may be right but the overwhelming scientific community view is that he's probably wrong.