If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I think we should leave this group for P&S's
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
DRS wrote: "Stephen Bishop" wrote in message [...] However, regardless of camera types or style of photography, forums such as these always seem to degrade to discussions of "my camera is better than yours" kinds of things. This has been true for decades, even before Al Gore invented the internet. Another urban myth. He never said that. You're quibbling over a word. More than one word. Read the article I linked to. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
I think we should leave this group for P&S's
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
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 (P0.99) to very likely (P0.9)). 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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
I think we should leave this group for P&S's
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:32:17 -0600, "HEMI-Powered"
wrote: Eric Stevens added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... Actually, POSH was how to select the coolest side of the ship when travelling backwards and forwards between England and India. So many think, but it's not so -- see Wikipedia. Now you've made me go and look up the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (NSOED). It gives three main meanings (1) a small coin (2) Nonsense, Rubbish (3) Smart, stylish, luxurious etc. It goes on to say "There is no evidence to support ... 'Port Out, Starboard Home" This was meant to be a joke on why I don't think that "alt" is an acronym, but POSH does mean that, it is just debatable what the words were meant to convey. The reason the dictionary doesn't define "port outbound, starboard inbound" is that it doesn't include obsolete definitions for terms and acronyms, only words generally considered to be current. The NSOED is compiled on a historical basis and gives all the old and obsolete usages and when they were used. There are literally tens of thousands of legitimate words in the English language that won't be found in a standard dictionary no matter how think or how new, but they can be found with some judicious Googling. If you know of any like that you should let the editors of the Oxford Dictionary know. They try to include everything. Eric Stevens |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
I think we should leave this group for P&S's
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:57:33 +1100, "DRS"
wrote: "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message DRS added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... "Stephen Bishop" wrote in message [...] However, regardless of camera types or style of photography, forums such as these always seem to degrade to discussions of "my camera is better than yours" kinds of things. This has been true for decades, even before Al Gore invented the internet. Another urban myth. He never said that. He didn't make an actual quote to that effect, but the Head Green Nazi DID take credit for the Internet's success in a number of speeches and interviews during the two Clinton campaigns and while VP. Gore is an empty suit who has no credible technical Gore's actual claim, supported by no less an Internet luminary thant Vince Cerf, was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp. education, training or ability yet people continue to bow down to him as if he were the god of technology. If the Far Left Loons attempt to force our great country down the road that Gore wants them to, as do Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Babara Boxer to name just a few, your electricity rates with quadruple, vehicle CAFE will rise to 50, maybe 60 mpg effectively legislating anything but city cars out of existance, and we'll revert to the Socialst ideas on energy that France has which mandates that people provide a percentage of their own through renewable means and that people have a quota to meet to reduce their energy year over year. Gore, Obama, and the rest of the Green Nazis really aren't interested in saving the planet, it they did, they'd listen more to scientists who truly understand the problems. He is listening to the scientists. It is a shame you clearly are not. Climatologists have been concerned about anthropegenically caused global warming for over fifty years. Bull****. Twenty years ago they were worried about cooling. The studies in the peer reviewed literature are overwhelming in their conclusions. Next you'll be denying evolution. See http://www.heartland.org/custom/semo.../pdf/22835.pdf Instead, what these clown are about is power - power over you, power to conduct social engineering using money derived by wealth redistribution. Some call this Socialism or Marxism while others call it Fascism, it is really both. Denying reality is no way to preserve liberty. Humans have created the current climate change. Humans can and should do something about it. Eric Stevens |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
I think we should leave this group for P&S's
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
[...] He is listening to the scientists. It is a shame you clearly are not. Climatologists have been concerned about anthropegenically caused global warming for over fifty years. Bull****. Twenty years ago they were worried about cooling. That myth is not supported in the peer reviewed literature. See http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...-89-9-1325.pdf. The studies in the peer reviewed literature are overwhelming in their conclusions. Next you'll be denying evolution. See http://www.heartland.org/custom/semo.../pdf/22835.pdf Ah, Fred Singer, one of the perpetrators and perpetuators of the "but they were worried about global cooling in the 1970s" myth debunked above, pretending that the 2,500 scientists of the IPCC and the 192 governmental representatives (one from every country in the world) that approved the wording of AR4, are engaged in a giant conspiracy to deprive the world of SUVs while he and his apolitical colleagues from the tobacco and Big Oil-funded right-wing think tank, the Heartland Institute, are bravely speaking out for science. As if. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why do they always leave out one feature?! | RPS | Digital Photography | 22 | August 22nd 07 08:42 PM |
Why do they always leave out one feature?! | RPS | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 10 | August 22nd 07 08:42 PM |