raarts

30 ms·

301.
by raarts 7y ago
I am 59. I do remember the cooling scare. It was a thing and I did a project on it in elementary school. Just sayin'.
302.
by raarts 7y ago
I agree to this, but a warning is warranted here : I did read up on it. Spent six months. It turned me into a climate skeptic. Caveat emptor. EDIT : I live in the Netherlands.
303.
by raarts 7y ago
For others who arrived here, it was not 'pointed out' that I read it wrong, it was suggested that I read it wrong. The discussion continued from there, and I think I explained my point quite clearly, and I definitely did not rea
304.
by raarts 7y ago
> CO2 as a control knob of the climate is the only way to explain climatic variations observed in (at least) the past 500 million years I think you may now be stretching it: https://miro.medium.com/max/1320/0*3V
305.
by raarts 7y ago
I just noticed that you linked the summary of the report, the actual report is here: https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonito... The researchers state (page 68 - my translation): &quo
306.
by raarts 7y ago
A later study by (former IPCC) Dr Judith Curry has gone more into this [1]. And the report I referenced was even later. The comments on that page BTW make abundantly clear that scientists do not agree at all that the sea level rise is accel
307.
by raarts 7y ago
You are confusing 'sea level rise increasing' with 'sea level rise increase acceleration'. Of course when a lot of water enters the ocean sea level rises everywhere. The amount to which it rises may not be the same every
308.
by raarts 7y ago
I said 'sea level rise', not 'sea level'. Sweden was just an example of a place where sea level is dropping.
309.
by raarts 7y ago
Yes, I've had that comment more often. My standard answer is that if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere. The sea level rise itself may differ per location, but logic dictates th
310.
by raarts 7y ago
You are quoting a blog entry from 2016. The report I was referring to was from march 2019. They debunked their own blogpost.
311.
by raarts 7y ago
I never thought of family care as something that needs to be paid. Should I pay my wife for doing that work? In that case should she pay me for shouldering the burden of working hard in a job I don't like making money I don't spen
312.
by raarts 7y ago
Note that those riots were in '69, and the T was only added in the late 90s.
313.
by raarts 7y ago
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger?
314.
by raarts 7y ago
Well, I'm with you on sea level rise. I live in The Netherlands. Big part of our country is below sea level, millions of people actually. Recently Deltares, the body that advises the government on the height of our dikes released a 187
315.
by raarts 7y ago
Of course the many people calling themselves climate scientists only know about programming computer models.
316.
by raarts 7y ago
> What did you think of William Arkin's resignation letter from NBC News? Did not see that until now, but I do get bored by the unlimited barrage of anti-Trump articles that some outlets put out. Sometimes I feel like they are just
317.
by raarts 7y ago
> By focusing on how much they hate Trump, what are they not focusing on? What have they all decided has been solved off-screen that you shouldn't worry your head about? I dunno, this almost sounds like an Alex-Jones style conspirac
318.
by raarts 7y ago
The central question of this article: > So why do we continue to hear and use the same old “right” and “left” labels? > I suspect it’s because the emerging oligarchy feels safer if Americans are split along the old political battle li
319.
by raarts 7y ago
> CNN will kill youtube Given CNN'S dwindling ratings I sincerely doubt that. If anything youtube needs to rescue them.
320.
by raarts 7y ago
Although it's great to make insulin more affordable, wouldn't it be better to attack the source of the problem? In my opinion the biggest contributor to diabetes is our diet, we eat too many carbs and too little fat. Since fat del
321.
by raarts 7y ago
Punished by the legal system absolutely. Banned by court order yes.
322.
by raarts 7y ago
In the recent case Packingham v. North Carolina the Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision, decided social media to be the new public square. See this article for why banning people from social media will be impossible in the near future.
323.
by raarts 7y ago
> bulk of society does want these ideas This is completely unproven.
324.
by raarts 7y ago
The rationale is they have stupid followers who commit the actual damage. I fail to see why they aren't prosecuted. You're not anonymous on Facebook. And you shouldn't be on twitter, and youtube as well.
325.
by raarts 7y ago
If you are sent to prison at least you get out after a while. But online banning has no such provision.
326.
by raarts 7y ago
Who themselves have been recently outed for internal rampant racism and sexism.
327.
by raarts 7y ago
Because they also represent other people that have jobs. Neglecting those has already led to Trump and the international growth of right wing parties.
328.
by raarts 7y ago
Frankly I don't believe in enough people changing their behavior to make any difference. Past experience shows that the stable door only gets locked after the horse has bolted, in other words things will need to get worse before action
329.
by raarts 7y ago
I have to bring up Erin Brokovich here, very relevant for this situation and one of my favorite movies.
330.
by raarts 7y ago
It depends indeed. I faired a lot better when I went at it alone. Could be me, I just like to be the boss.

More ›