Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (697689)	2/7/2013 12:37:49 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576425

Fictitious ‘Hispanic Male’ Blamed After Texas Woman Accidentally Shot in the Back by Reckless Friend Neetzan Zimmerman Police in San Antonio say a group of friends panicked after one of them accidentally shot another in the back, and tried to pin the whole thing on a "Hispanic male" who never existed. Three men and two women were inside a car near the Las Colinas Apartments on Chase Hill Blvd, having just returned from picking up a gun. One of the men, a 19-year-old, was reportedly handling the weapon in a "reckless" manner when it suddenly went off, striking one of the women in the lower back. Emergency services arrived at the scene around midnight and rushed the 20-year-old to a nearby hospital where she remains in stable condition. According to investigators, the friends who rounded up told officers that the shooting took place during a robbery attempt by an Hispanic male who forced his way into their vehicle. It was ultimately revealed after hours of interrogation that the story was fabricated to cover up for one of the car's occupants. He was ultimately found hiding behind the apartment complex, and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest. [screengrab via KENS 5]

To: Bilow who wrote (697689)	2/7/2013 2:56:42 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576425

Talk about poor reasoning. >>Your first link: This paper is from 2006 and doesn't show recent deceleration in sea-level rise It point out the acceleration over a couple of decades period of time. Things can fluctuate from year to year. Which is why you take a rolling average. The second link is also an outlier. Which is why I included it. It claims a flat to decline in sea level when the others show no such thing. It shows poor reasoning which you only accept those papers who draw the conclusions you favor. >>" In addition to being a badly argued paper, it suggests that the present acceleration began in 1865 which is too long ago to be associated with CO2. Actually no, that isn't the case. By the mid-1800s coal production had been growing exponentially for decades. Now it still had decades more of exponential growth, but by 1865 it was closing in on 100 million tons of coal a year, which translates to approaching 360 million tons of CO2. >>This idea, that Greenland would melt and raise the oceans, was a big bugaboo with the alarmists. The fact of the matter is that Greenland is melting at an accelerating rate. >>However, the latest Greenland ice core shows that Greenland was 8 degrees C warmer than it is today during the Eemian. And sea level was 5-7 meters higher than it is today. No one said it will completely melt. >>So long division gives the amount of sea-level rise we'd get if all the world's glaciers melted: And that excludes Greenland and Antarctica. Mountainous and subpolar glaciers hold but a fraction of the ice. Still, 16 inches would be a big deal. >>Yet large uncertainties remain, especially for Antarctica. The good news, says Riva, is that Antarctica is not losing ice as rapidly as suggested by many recent studies. What’s more, snowfall in east Antarctica still seems to be compensating for some — but not all — of the melting elsewhere in Antarctica. It is a single study. We will see if follow on studies back it. However, it does show melting. And the WAIS, for structural reasons, could dump a lot of ice in a short period of time. >>This is cutting edge science. None of it is "settled science". I suppose it depends on how you want to define "settled". Things are always changing except for a few, well-mined areas. And there will always be outliers. It still doesn't change the fact that the bulk of the science is on the side of more melting of land-based ice. And it isn't like this is a new concept. It has been around for 7 decades or more. Google Callendar effect. What is settled and unchanging science is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Exactly how much it contributes to the green house effect that keeps the Earth's climate above -18 degrees C can be debated. But it is somewhere between 10% and 25%. Pre-industrial levels were some 270ppm. It is currently about 390ppm. The claim that this has no effect is an extraordinary claim. Which requires extraordinary proof. Just pointing out some conflicting data in a few papers is not extraordinary proof. Coming up with some mechanism by which it might be countered would be a start. But throwing up your hands and saying "it's so hard!!!", isn't. >>"Considerably less negative" means good for my side of the argument and bad for yours. Not really. You left out this part Most of this imbalance is caused by long-term ice-dynamic speed up expected to prevail in the future. You are attempting to do what the creationists tried to do in the early 1980s. They attacked evolution by picking and choosing things and twisting them to "support" their claims that evolution was controversial and weak. Similar things were done to the research which showed a link between cancer and cigarettes during the 1960s and 1970s.