Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the Hot-Stuff dept.

NASA scientists announced Wednesday that the Earth’s average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest in nearly 140 years of record-keeping and a continuation of an unmistakable warming trend.

“The five warmest years have, in fact, been the last five years,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NASA group that conducted the analysis. “We’re no longer talking about a situation where global warming is something in the future. It’s here. It’s now.”

Over all, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2001.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/06/climate/fourth-hottest-year.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:59PM (43 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:59PM (#797467)

    No, the models are saying that climate change will cause colder temperatures now:

    https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=29887&page=1&cid=795114#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
    https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/01/27/2227254 [soylentnews.org]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=2, Insightful=2, Funny=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:08PM (42 children)

    by Snow (1601) on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:08PM (#797477) Journal

    Middle school math is far too advanced for climate change deniers.

    Let's say it together... AVERAGE global temperature is rising.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:11PM (15 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:11PM (#797480) Homepage Journal

      You should probably have a look at historical trend lines and pay special attention to what they did leading up to ice ages. It's relevant.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:13PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:13PM (#797483)
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:17PM (9 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:17PM (#797485) Journal

        You should probably have a look at historical trend lines and pay special attention to what they did leading up to ice ages. It's relevant.

        Why yes, in an unchecked warming scenario the increase in cloud albedo could end up triggering an ice age.

        Thanks for reminding us what a serious threat global warming presents!

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:28PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:28PM (#797491)

          The biggest problem is no one wants to take the real threat of climate change (obviously many very bad climatic shifts have occurred in the past) seriously now since it has been mixed up with this CO2 nuttiness. They don't want to be associated with people like that.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:05AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:05AM (#797505)

            CO2 nuttiness? Hi nutter!

            CO2 does cause a greenhouse effect along with increasing the acidity of the oceans, both very bad things right now.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:55AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:55AM (#797556)

              If climate change had been framed as a "man vs nature" thing rather than "humans bad, the solution is raising taxes", you would get a lot more people concerned about it.

              Just sayin...

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:43AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:43AM (#797576)

                well that is how it started, but nah, it doesn't matter how it is framed because the susceptible would fall prey to the oil companies' propaganda either way

                • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:58AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:58AM (#797579)

                  Your post reminds me of:

                  increase women in the workforce ->
                  increase immigrants in the workforce ->
                  increase outsourcing ->
                  increase illegal immigrants in the workforce

                  It is interesting that these wage suppression policies have all been adopted to increase "social/moral progress". Meanwhile almost no politician even mentions the federal reserve (who besides Donald Trump and Ron Paul?), and the policy to "target" a magic number of 2% inflation every year while massaging the stats to ensure wages and pensions will always lag behind prices.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @06:45PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @06:45PM (#797877)

                    Parent comment is not wrong, it's just that parent has not yet discovered Marx and Trotsky.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:53AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:53AM (#797554)

            Meh. There's no way the humans can do anything about it until they decide they're tired of living under dictatorship of the oligarchy. I look down on the pale blue dot, and I wonder why the humans are satisfied with a system that steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:17AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:17AM (#797691)

              They can't imagine better. And when some can, others will call them communists.

        • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:32PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:32PM (#797743) Homepage Journal

          Dude, don't be a dumbass. Ice ages happen on Earth, there's fuck all you can do to avoid them on any significant time scale, and we're already overdue for another. The climate change you lot keep bitching about is why we're not already in one according to the very same scientists you're pointing to for climate change data.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:54AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:54AM (#797529)

        You mean like this historical trend line?

        https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:20PM (23 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:20PM (#797486)

      AVERAGE global temperature is rising

      TFA shows it is dropping since 2016. Possibly due to Trump's tariffs and pro-coal policies. Actually I just looked at it from the perspective of "Who is US president?" and see that it rises far more than chance could explain during democratic vs republican administrations.

      But seriously. I am glad to hear the official position is still "total average temperature will continue to trend up on decade scales" then. I got concerned they were going to muddy the waters which should become very clear in a few years.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:11AM (22 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:11AM (#797510)

        Stupid Flamebait comment gets modded Flamebait.

        At least you're honest enough to reveal the extent of your stupid, unthinking partisanship.

        The problem is that "your team" is wrong about climate change, and are being manipulated by people who directly gain from fossil fuels, but at least your team get to win right?

        Stupid way to run a country if you ask me.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:23AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:23AM (#797513)

          The problem is that "your team" is wrong about climate change, and are being manipulated by people who directly gain from fossil fuels, but at least your team get to win right?

          I've never voted for a democrat or republican that I can remember.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:10AM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:10AM (#797537)

          Yep, if we needed to decide who is best for people concerned about global warming you can see it is clearly the republicans.

          The temperature has dropped (very slightly ~ 0.003 C/yr) on average during Republican presidencies, but has risen ~0.021 C/yr during Democrat administrations.

          There were actually 68 years of Democratic presidencies in this dataset and 73 of republicans. That works out to a total of ~ 1.4 C warming during democrats and 0.21 C cooling during republicans.

          https://i.ibb.co/VvmbbLk/temp-By-Pres.png [i.ibb.co]

          > # Subset to get Democrats
          > idxD = res$party == "D"
          >
          > # Average For Democrats
          > mean(res$slope[idxD], na.rm = T)
          [1] 0.02146751
          >
          > # Average for Republicans
          > mean(res$slope[!idxD], na.rm = T)
          [1] -0.003074405
          >
          > # Statistical Test
          > t.test(res$slope[idxD], res$slope[!idxD], var.equal = F)$p.value
          [1] 0.06564383

          That's the facts. I'm surprised no one has noticed this before.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:12AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:12AM (#797538)
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:34AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:34AM (#797547)

            Also, here is how it broke down by president:

            > res
                     pres party idx0 idxF    slope
            1       Hayes     R    1    2  0.09000
            2    Garfield  <NA>    2    2       NA
            3      Arthur     R    3    6 -0.07300
            4   Cleveland     D    6   18  0.01039
            5    Harrison     R   10   14 -0.03200
            6    McKinley     R   18   22  0.01100
            7   Roosevelt     R   22   30 -0.02467
            8        Taft     R   30   34  0.03100
            9      Wilson     D   34   42  0.00267
            10    Harding     R   42   44 -0.03500
            11   Coolidge     R   44   50 -0.00571
            12     Hoover     R   50   54  0.01000
            13        FDR     D   54   66  0.03418
            14     Truman     D   66   74  0.00033
            15 Eisenhower     R   74   82  0.01550
            16    Kennedy     D   82   84  0.01000
            17    Johnson     D   84   90  0.01214
            18      Nixon     R   90   95 -0.00714
            19       Ford     R   95   98  0.06500
            20     Carter     D   98  102  0.05200
            21     Reagan     R  102  110  0.01117
            22     BushHW     R  110  114 -0.02900
            23    Clinton     D  114  122  0.02767
            24      BushW     R  122  130  0.00367
            25      Obama     D  130  138  0.04383
            26      Trump     R  138  139 -0.08000

            You can see the republican data is skewed upwards by including the last two years of Hayes way back in 1880-1881. That was just the start point of the temperature data.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:59AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:59AM (#797557)

              *snort* lol! I can't even. Didn't we already have this debate about the effect the letter behind the name of the uniparty's puppet in the Oval Office has on the economy, which also seems to be a chaotic system that does not react immediately to its inputs?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:07AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:07AM (#797562)

                I don't proffer any explanation for this phenomenon, but there does seem to be something to it. I'd love to see someone take this further, not sure it is worth it to me.

                So, you think there is a lag then plot the data with the lag. I shared all that is needed in the comments here, but if you need anything else (eg the entire code to make the charts, etc) I will gladly share.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:54AM (4 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:54AM (#797555)

            That's the facts. I'm surprised no one has noticed this before.

            Confusing weather and climate.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:01AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:01AM (#797560)

              How about this (the same data as above sorted by trend)? The TOP 8 most cooling presidencies on record are all Republican:

                       pres party idx0 idxF    slope
              1       Trump     R  136  137 -0.08000
              2      Arthur     R    1    4 -0.07300
              3     Harding     R   40   42 -0.03500
              4    Harrison     R    8   12 -0.03200
              5      BushHW     R  108  112 -0.02900
              6   Roosevelt     R   20   28 -0.02467
              7       Nixon     R   88   93 -0.00714
              8    Coolidge     R   42   48 -0.00571
              9      Truman     D   64   72  0.00033
              10     Wilson     D   32   40  0.00267
              11      BushW     R  120  128  0.00367
              12     Hoover     R   48   52  0.01000
              13    Kennedy     D   80   82  0.01000
              14  Cleveland     D    4   16  0.01039
              15   McKinley     R   16   20  0.01100
              16     Reagan     R  100  108  0.01117
              17    Johnson     D   82   88  0.01214
              18 Eisenhower     R   72   80  0.01550
              19    Clinton     D  112  120  0.02767
              20       Taft     R   28   32  0.03100
              21        FDR     D   52   64  0.03418
              22      Obama     D  128  136  0.04383
              23     Carter     D   96  100  0.05200
              24       Ford     R   93   96  0.06500

              The TFA story is about the 4th warmest year on record. These presidencies each consist of at least 2 years, so each datapoint is at least double the timeframe the TFA is concerned about.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @05:40AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @05:40AM (#797626)

                Sort by total warming for each administration and just wow:

                         pres party idx0 idxF yrs    slope   total
                1      Arthur     R    1    4   3 -0.07300 -0.2190
                2   Roosevelt     R   20   28   8 -0.02467 -0.1973
                3    Harrison     R    8   12   4 -0.03200 -0.1280
                4      BushHW     R  108  112   4 -0.02900 -0.1160
                5       Trump     R  136  137   1 -0.08000 -0.0800
                6     Harding     R   40   42   2 -0.03500 -0.0700
                7       Nixon     R   88   93   5 -0.00714 -0.0357
                8    Coolidge     R   42   48   6 -0.00571 -0.0343
                9      Truman     D   64   72   8  0.00033  0.0027
                10    Kennedy     D   80   82   2  0.01000  0.0200
                11     Wilson     D   32   40   8  0.00267  0.0213
                12      BushW     R  120  128   8  0.00367  0.0293
                13     Hoover     R   48   52   4  0.01000  0.0400
                14   McKinley     R   16   20   4  0.01100  0.0440
                15    Johnson     D   82   88   6  0.01214  0.0729
                16     Reagan     R  100  108   8  0.01117  0.0893
                17 Eisenhower     R   72   80   8  0.01550  0.1240
                18       Taft     R   28   32   4  0.03100  0.1240
                19       Ford     R   93   96   3  0.06500  0.1950
                20     Carter     D   96  100   4  0.05200  0.2080
                21    Clinton     D  112  120   8  0.02767  0.2213
                22 Cleveland1     D    4    8   4  0.05600  0.2240
                23 Cleveland2     D   12   16   4  0.05900  0.2360
                24      Obama     D  128  136   8  0.04383  0.3507
                25        FDR     D   52   64  12  0.03418  0.4101

                Please someone explain this to me?

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 07 2019, @08:53PM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 07 2019, @08:53PM (#797960) Journal

                  Please someone explain this to me?

                  Easy, it's a spurious correlation. [twentytwowords.com]

                • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:52PM

                  by Gaaark (41) on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:52PM (#797987) Journal

                  Oooh...oooh...now sort by the number of times the average American took it up the ass!

                  ;)

                  --
                  --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:24AM (9 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:24AM (#797544) Journal

          The problem is that "your team" is wrong about climate change, and are being manipulated by people who directly gain from fossil fuels, but at least your team get to win right?

          So which team is fossil fuels on again? Coal is definitely on the burn baby burn theme, but Big Oil is suspiciously absent per your narrative.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:52AM (8 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:52AM (#797553)

            What do the Koch brothers deal in?

            Who funds the anti-climate change nonsense?

            Come on now.

            • (Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday February 07 2019, @04:34AM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 07 2019, @04:34AM (#797608) Journal

              What do the Koch brothers deal in?

              A lot more than just oil. The oil industry is massive yet we don't see the alleged "anti-climate change nonsense" even from the token Emmanuel Goldsteins of the oil industry.

              Who funds the anti-climate change nonsense?

              The pro-climate change nonsense. Seriously, there's almost no anti-climate change nonsense out there, whether from the Koch brothers or anyone else. But there's plenty of own goal defeats from the pro-climate change side, such as saying different things in private than in public, massive use of logic and rhetorical fallacies, research on demand, and shoehorning as much as possible into the climate change narrative. I think a lot of people are pretty resistant to that sort of transparent propaganda these days.

              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:41PM (5 children)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:41PM (#797913)

                Good Lord.

                There are none so blind as those who will not see I suppose.

                At least your team gets to win.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @12:41AM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 08 2019, @12:41AM (#798081) Journal

                  There are none so blind as those who will not see I suppose.

                  Again, where's the alleged oil business propaganda?

                  At least your team gets to win.

                  I hope so. The Chicken Littles don't deserve to win this one.

                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday February 08 2019, @01:02AM (3 children)

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday February 08 2019, @01:02AM (#798088)

                    Again, where's the alleged oil business propaganda?

                    Maybe your Search engine of choice is broken. Whatever.

                    This link is a start. [desmogblog.com]It took one search to find that.

                      This one's an opinion piece, [nbr.co.nz] from that pillar of the International Communist Movement, the National Business Review. It does however point out:

                    Exxon Mobil, for example, just lost a case where it tried to prevent investigators from Massachusetts and New York from digging into its decades-long systematic climate change denial.

                    Here's a link to the case. [nypost.com]
                    You could have found any of those yourself, but of course evidence means nothing to you does it? As long as "liberals" feel bad you're happy.

                    The thing with you climate change deniers is that you're wrong. Just like the tobacco industry spent millions claiming that smoking is harmless, the polluters are churning out propaganda, and you're lapping it up.

                    Here's another view of the wealthy industrialists who are making you sound stupid. [climateinvestigations.org]
                    Now you can tell me all about how Greenpeace has more money than the Oil, gas and coal industries combined.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @01:57AM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 08 2019, @01:57AM (#798101) Journal
                      You do realize that not a single one of those links supports your position? For example, the Heartland Institute link which shows $34 million in donations, some from oil interests, covers the period 1986 to 2019. Sure, the donations weren't evenly spread out over that time period, but what would, for example, the World Wildlife Fund (the best funded climate change advocacy non profit) look like, if it were given the same propaganda treatment? Hint, the WWF gets more per year in government funding than the Heartland Institute has received over a 30 year period, according to that link. Half the links are from clueless (or perhaps rabidly dishonest) people with opinions. For example, your quote:

                      Exxon Mobil, for example, just lost a case where it tried to prevent investigators from Massachusetts and New York from digging into its decades-long systematic climate change denial.

                      Note that no such "systematic climate change denial" was ever found. It's profoundly wrong to claim that someone is "denying" just because they did their own climate change research and well, didn't find anything of near future concern.

                      You could have found any of those yourself, but of course evidence means nothing to you does it?

                      Evidence means ability to distinguish between hypotheses. You haven't presented any facts that would show a Big Oil propaganda effort proportional to the money that they can throw at such things or that they are funding some sort of "denier" movement.

                      The thing with you climate change deniers is that you're wrong. Just like the tobacco industry spent millions claiming that smoking is harmless, the polluters are churning out propaganda, and you're lapping it up.

                      I'm not denying climate change (particularly, the actual form of climate change discussed here, anthropogenic global warming). You just are constructing straw men. Once again, we have this tiresome, fact-free accusation that climate change mitigation is being halted via imaginary, magical fossil fuel propaganda.

                      Now you can tell me all about how Greenpeace has more money than the Oil, gas and coal industries combined.

                      We could just not be stupid here instead. Greenpeace greatly outspends the Heartland Institute, the only supposed climate denier organization you bothered to mention, considering either the US or the international organizations. Yet their propaganda is remarkably ineffective. What's missing from your analysis is the dishonesty and ineffectiveness of green propaganda. People can be lied to or livelihoods be attacked only so much before they get wise to the tactics of organizations like Greenpeace.

                      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday February 08 2019, @02:46AM (1 child)

                        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday February 08 2019, @02:46AM (#798116)

                        Oh gods, this again.

                        Once again, we have this tiresome, fact-free accusation that climate change mitigation is being halted via imaginary, magical fossil fuel propaganda.

                        Nobody has ever argued that, not even close.

                        The argument is that the Oil industry funds climate change denialists and they do, and my links prove exactly that, and you know it.

                        ...Heartland Institute, the only supposed climate denier organization you bothered to mention...

                        So you were arguing there were none, now there's only one, because I won't provide you with more links. At least try to argue in good faith.

                        I'd go through the rest of your post point by point, but it's actually a sunny Friday afternoon, and I'm looking forward to a cold beer.

                        • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @03:33AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 08 2019, @03:33AM (#798124) Journal

                          The argument is that the Oil industry funds climate change denialists and they do, and my links prove exactly that, and you know it.

                          At the funding levels you describe, it's silly to care. Nor do you show what you think you show. You merely show that some climate skepticism is funded by members of the oil industry at a low level.

                          So you were arguing there were none, now there's only one, because I won't provide you with more links. At least try to argue in good faith.

                          Nonsense. I don't consider it an example. I wasn't making a universal claim. I was pointing out the obvious. The oil industry collects trillions in revenue. Where's the propaganda effort proportional to the stakes allegedly at play? Meanwhile we can point to decades of huge propaganda efforts by the pro-mitigation side.

                          As to your groundless assertion about "good faith", back at you on that. I agree that it would be pointless to provide me with more worthless links that add nothing to the discussion, but that's not a problem of lack of good faith on my part.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:09AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:09AM (#797648)

              Are you actually suggesting that the Koch Bros are funding the khallow? That khallow is taking Cock as his payment for being a shill for Kock? I, for one, did not see this coming. I assumed that khallow was one of us, a free-range libertarian, not beholden to any large petro-chemical corporations at all. But now it seems that he is joined at the dick, sucking the Kock as well as any Republican does. So sad, too bad. We expected more of you, khallow, as a Soylentil. Now nothing remains but Russians.

    • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:59AM

      by Hartree (195) on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:59AM (#797559)

      "Middle school math is far too advanced for climate change deniers."

      Counterexample: Look up Ivar Giaever. (I disagree with him, but I think he can handle algebra just fine.)

      On the other hand, he shares his Nobel with Brian Josephson who later turned to researching Yogic flying with the Maharishi.

    • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday February 07 2019, @03:37AM

      by deimtee (3272) on Thursday February 07 2019, @03:37AM (#797588) Journal

      Given what they do to the data, I'm sure that as the CO2 levels rise, if the future doesn't get warmer, then the past will get colder.

      --
      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.