Posts by kirovs 84 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jul 2010
"Warmer air holds more water, so the idea that we'd see widespread desertification has little merit. "
So you make your back of the envelope model, but you call models built by real scientists who have spent decades learning and experimenting "bullshit"??? You are an idiot my friend and a poster child denier.
Let me explain my problem with your thinking. Science, unlike religion, always speaks of probabilities. Very few things are quite certain (in this Universe anyway). So let's say we have 38% (random number, just thought of reusing what idiots regularly misinterpret) to get significant effects from man-made, global warming such that people start dying in large numbers in few decades (our kids).
Here is my question to you. Would you put your kid on a plane that has only 38% chance of experiencing catastrophic event? After all it is less than 50%....
Let's put our money where our collective mouths are. I expect 20-30 years down the road if Florida and other places start sinking due to warming all global warming denyers would take a trip to this place and drown themselves.
Alternatively, if no such thing happens, all climatologists would re-train as ditch diggers, burger flippers and other glorious professions.
I know sacrifices outlined here are not equal, but so are the outcomes.
While you are correct to some degree few points are not quite true or missing the point:
Tumors do not have necessarily the same DNA. Due to the large number of generations (think how many cell divisions in the total population) mutations would be accumulating and sooner ot later you would have heterogenous cancer cell population. Actually this would be the rule, not the exception.
Also contagious cancers are know to occur only in highly inbred species (dogs, Tasmanian devil). So in humans cancer would be likely contagious among royalties and the Apalachia in Southeastern USA. Hmmm, I could mourn the Southern folks, the rest would be bad only for the yellow press.
Rape in addition to being under reported is also the most falsified accusation.
In case you did not know- Mr Assange is not charged with rape anywhere in the world. Please, unless you have actual facts of the contrary shut up.
I dislkike Assange. I think he is sleazy and unpleasant. But this is no reason to accuse him of rape without knowing the facts.
BWT shame on you for casting the stone.
I think you just won my prize for worst post I have ever seen here on theregister.
Find me a journal worthy of you. Or a publication. You said do a search and I did. Now of course those journals are not good for you.
Perhaps your search is restricted to AmercasPower publications.
Or you are just a troll.
BTW, PNAS estimates are for 1m sea level rise by the end of 2100.
Wall Street Journal? wattsupwiththat web site? This is some really serious science man! Radical! Thanks for sharing! What are you smoking by the way?
And if you actually read what James Lovelock said you will see he is not rejecting the idea of global warming. He said that he extrapolated too far.
The problem here buster is not that he could be wrong. The problem is he could be right. Maybe 50 years later. Well, if you don't give a shit about your offspring I guess you should not care...
No one predicted the end of the world. Just the death of significant piece of the mankind as more areas become uninhabitable and wars are waged over scarce resources. I am sure you have your own definition of significant. Yes, I forgot, we have the A-bombs. I guess A stands for asshole... Never mind.
Here is one of the first I pulled up:
Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008).
Then this:
Nature 453, 353-357 (15 May 2008)
Of course Nature publishes sensationalist stuff mainly, right?
Oh, here is another sensationalist one:PNAS December 22, 2009 vol. 106. PNAS is well known for its sensationalism too.
The icon is chosen because of your IQ. Spin from IPCC, good god. I am sure we can rely on your competent opinion... Go to a party or something Pierre. Somewhere where you have some credibility.
What people often failed to see is that we have a fatal crisis in the making. It may be 50 years down the road, but we will not be able just to turn around when we finally see it coming (or the 50% percent brain dead right wing ideologues).
So we should ask ourselves-what are the chance the scientific community is right? 50%? 30%? 10%?
Would you let your kid take a plane, knowing there is a 10% chance this airplane will crash?
How does this coal and oil now smell to you?
My friend you are an idiot or a recent MBA graduate. Most likely both.
Intangibles? Suppositories (haha, good one, learn English)? Yes, company websites are simply for the kicks and laughs, not for generating revenue. Yes having 15 more secretaries is good... for the unemployment statistics.
Oh, sharp eyed person? What is that- the people who pick up the most competent person for the next "rightsizing"?
This is one of the many legit issues with Linux. The problem is that if one of the gurus/devs are not affected there is a chance there will not be a bug fix. To be honest this is the reason I am going to Linux specific vendors (zareason system76) or check support/use for hardware before I buy.
There are few things I despise as much as Outlook. It is slow, counter intuitive, tries to do everything, but fails at many things.
Examples:
1. Corruptions: 3 so far this year (don't tell me there is a new version or I do something wrong, there is always an excuse).
2. No functional recurring meetings (warned not to used them, bad things happen)
3. SLOOOOOOOWWWW
4. Meetings getting lost...
5. Creating distribution lists sucks and lists are getting corrupted.
6. Filters compared to Thunderbird suck big time.
Should I go on?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
