Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: I think we should leave this group for P&S's

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: I think we should leave this group for P&S's

 
 
DRS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2008
"HEMI-Powered" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9B7942F53D4ACReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30

[...]

> I wish der Fuhrer of der Green Nazis would have stuck with the
> Internet instead of going on to invent something far more
> dangerous, the idiotic notion of global warming being caused by
> man.


You're embarrassing yourself. The IPCC's forecasts were too conservative
(for political reasons the probability that climate change is anthropogenic
was downgraded from virtually certain (P>0.99) to very likely (P>0.9)). The
forecasted effects on physical and biological systems are occurring earlier
than predicted. See "Attributing physical and biological impacts to
anthropogenic climate change", Nature, v453 n7193 pp353-357, a metastudy of
29,000 studies in the literature.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2008
DRS wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B7942F53D4ACReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30
>
> [...]
>
>> I wish der Fuhrer of der Green Nazis would have stuck with the
>> Internet instead of going on to invent something far more
>> dangerous, the idiotic notion of global warming being caused by
>> man.

>
> You're embarrassing yourself. The IPCC's forecasts were too
> conservative (for political reasons the probability that climate
> change is anthropogenic was downgraded from virtually certain
> (P>0.99) to very likely (P>0.9)). The forecasted effects on
> physical
> and biological systems are occurring earlier than predicted. See
> "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic
> climate
> change", Nature, v453 n7193 pp353-357, a metastudy of 29,000 studies
> in the literature.


All of which assume that the change is anthropogenic?

And if you really believe this then why are you using power of any
kind? Because giving up such things as computers and private jets is
for _other_ people?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DRS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2008
"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> DRS wrote:


[...]

>> You're embarrassing yourself. The IPCC's forecasts were too
>> conservative (for political reasons the probability that climate
>> change is anthropogenic was downgraded from virtually certain
>> (P>0.99) to very likely (P>0.9)). The forecasted effects on
>> physical
>> and biological systems are occurring earlier than predicted. See
>> "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic
>> climate
>> change", Nature, v453 n7193 pp353-357, a metastudy of 29,000 studies
>> in the literature.

>
> All of which assume that the change is anthropogenic?


Most do. The peer reviewed literature runs about 9 studies for versus 1
against and has done for some years.

We know, for example, that the contemporary increase in CO2 is because of
burning fossil fuels because of things like changes in the percentage of
atmospheric carbon13. We also know that climate models cannot account for
the observed trends without incorporating anthropogenic factors. Natural
factors alone are insufficient to explain the observations. That's the
point of the cited metastudy. It's about matching observational studies -
29,000 of them - with the IPCC's forecasts. Greenland's base ice is melting
earlier than predicted. Spring is coming earlier and Winter is shorter.
Climate sensitive species are migrating to areas they've never been in
before. And so forth. All predicted and all observed happening too soon
according to the predictions.

> And if you really believe this then why are you using power of any
> kind? Because giving up such things as computers and private jets is
> for _other_ people?


How do you know I don't source my electricity from carbon neutral sources?
And I assure you I don't have a private jet. In any event, it isn't
necessary to go back to the Stone Age to stop climate change, no matter how
hysterical the deniers get. It's all about balances. Industrialised
society has thrown the global carbon cycle out of equilibrium and now we
have to stop increasing our carbon output until a new equilibrium is reached
that we can live with. Even if we waved a magic wand and stopped producing
any carbon at all that process will still take a few decades but the
alternative - business as usual - will result in a new equilbrium that will
cause extreme hardship across the planet.

Anyway, I'd rather be talking about photography in here but the ideological
selfishness and stupidity of the deniers along with their pseudo-science
just gets too much sometimes. Unfortunately, their stupidity is dangerous.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
can i leave the group ranarashidali@gmail.com Computer Support 2 01-28-2009 09:01 PM
Re: I think we should leave this group for P&S's DRS Digital Photography 5 12-21-2008 07:03 AM
Re: I think we should leave this group for P&S's ray Digital Photography 12 12-19-2008 09:51 PM
Need help: Is Quick-Union-Find the right solution to this problem (Now I don't think so and I think that topological sorting should be the way to go...?) ? aredo3604gif@yahoo.com C Programming 1 04-13-2005 12:48 AM
Need help: Is Quick-Union-Find the right solution to this problem (Now I don't think so and I think that topological sorting should be the way to go...?) ? aredo3604gif@yahoo.com C Programming 0 04-12-2005 05:06 PM



Advertisments