Jun 13
unclezeke commented on I, Anonymous.
Screw adoption. I'm not going to spend years of my life in misery for someone else's genetic offspring.
May 8
unclezeke commented on Savage Love.
All you people diagnosing depression over the internet are complete idiots. LW1's hubby is a deadbeat. Dan's advice to move out is solid. (And here's hoping she realizes marriage to someone who behaves like this for MONTHS is a dead end.)
Apr 16
unclezeke commented on Welcome, Stoners!.
@1, you're right that weed is generally too strong. Unless you're a daily or semi-daily smoker, a few hits can knock you out of the park.
Slate Magazine agrees. Here is an article discussing how there is an underserved market for mellow (weaker) pot: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and…
Slate Magazine agrees. Here is an article discussing how there is an underserved market for mellow (weaker) pot: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and…
Feb 27
unclezeke commented on Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary: Speaking Truth to Power from Inside a Supermax Prison.
An eloquent cop killer is still a murderer by any other name. He's deplorable, and so are the people who give him attention.
Nov 14, 2012
unclezeke commented on Western Bridge Melts into the Air.
The "Post-W" economy? Impressive. I guess when the economy's still in the shitter in 2016 it'll still be Bush's fault.
Oct 10, 2012
unclezeke commented on Savage Love.
You know why Dan's advice to fake the pregnancy won't backfire?
She's going to have a "miscarriage" two weeks later! But, she'll have to take the secret to her grave if the relationship continues.
She's going to have a "miscarriage" two weeks later! But, she'll have to take the secret to her grave if the relationship continues.
Sep 12, 2012
unclezeke commented on It’s Time to Freak Out About Climate Change.
The IPCC states that we’re in for a roughly 1.2C temperature increase based on a doubling of CO2 in the next 100 years. But what about those dire predictions of hellish warming?
Climate models all rely on various "multiplier effects" in the form of clouds, etc., that conjecture positive feedback will greatly enhance the warming effect of CO2. Let me be clear: no one, not even the IPCC, disputes that the effect of CO2 alone will be fairly minimal. For warming to be a real problem, we need big multiplier effects to exist.
There isn't any good evidence for large multiplier effects. Go back and look at modeled predictions from 15 or 20 years ago. They predict higher temperatures than exist now. This is because of incorrectly stated multiplier effects. These multiplier effects remain the fundamental basis for all dire predictions that concern citizens of our fair nation today. But these multiplier effects are largely unknown (and to the extent relied upon by previous catastrophic models, simply incorrect). Dire predictions all rely on positive multipliers, but negative multipliers also exist (e.g., increase CO2 uptake into the oceans and biosphere).
While CO2 affects climate, its impact isn’t nearly as large as many think. Current temperatures are entirely within natural variation—the only difference is that we have more CO2 from mankind. What looks likely is that CO2 may raise temps slightly (e.g., 1 or 2C over 100 years.) Predictions of 3C (or insane predictions like 6C or 7C) of warming are simply unsupportable conjecture. There is no good science to support the notion that CATASTROPHIC climate change will occur. Please wipe the flecked spittle from your face, outraged reader—a computer model that makes a future prediction for 75 years from now aren’t science. These models all rely on totally unproven multiplier effects. Remember, doubling CO2 alone (which will take a LONG time) will only increase temps about 1C! And it could be even less if multiplier effects are negative, for which there is reasonable evidence (e.g. increase carbon uptake in the biosphere).
Alternative energy research should continue, as should climate research. But let's not destroy our economy and infrastructure based on rank speculation from Chicken Littles. Shouting that the sky is falling doesn't make it so. One hot summer (or a cold winter) also doesn’t mean that life as we know it is ending. We have much bigger fish to fry on this planet—combatting pollution, disease, hunger, poverty--than fighting the non-existent spectre of catastrophic manmade climate change.
So, stop freaking about 1C of warming over the next hundred years.
More...
Climate models all rely on various "multiplier effects" in the form of clouds, etc., that conjecture positive feedback will greatly enhance the warming effect of CO2. Let me be clear: no one, not even the IPCC, disputes that the effect of CO2 alone will be fairly minimal. For warming to be a real problem, we need big multiplier effects to exist.
There isn't any good evidence for large multiplier effects. Go back and look at modeled predictions from 15 or 20 years ago. They predict higher temperatures than exist now. This is because of incorrectly stated multiplier effects. These multiplier effects remain the fundamental basis for all dire predictions that concern citizens of our fair nation today. But these multiplier effects are largely unknown (and to the extent relied upon by previous catastrophic models, simply incorrect). Dire predictions all rely on positive multipliers, but negative multipliers also exist (e.g., increase CO2 uptake into the oceans and biosphere).
While CO2 affects climate, its impact isn’t nearly as large as many think. Current temperatures are entirely within natural variation—the only difference is that we have more CO2 from mankind. What looks likely is that CO2 may raise temps slightly (e.g., 1 or 2C over 100 years.) Predictions of 3C (or insane predictions like 6C or 7C) of warming are simply unsupportable conjecture. There is no good science to support the notion that CATASTROPHIC climate change will occur. Please wipe the flecked spittle from your face, outraged reader—a computer model that makes a future prediction for 75 years from now aren’t science. These models all rely on totally unproven multiplier effects. Remember, doubling CO2 alone (which will take a LONG time) will only increase temps about 1C! And it could be even less if multiplier effects are negative, for which there is reasonable evidence (e.g. increase carbon uptake in the biosphere).
Alternative energy research should continue, as should climate research. But let's not destroy our economy and infrastructure based on rank speculation from Chicken Littles. Shouting that the sky is falling doesn't make it so. One hot summer (or a cold winter) also doesn’t mean that life as we know it is ending. We have much bigger fish to fry on this planet—combatting pollution, disease, hunger, poverty--than fighting the non-existent spectre of catastrophic manmade climate change.
So, stop freaking about 1C of warming over the next hundred years.
Sep 12, 2012
unclezeke joined My Stranger Face
Sep 12, 2012
unclezeke commented on It’s Time to Freak Out About Climate Change.
Climate models uniformly exaggerate the effects of CO2 by claiming a "multiplier effect" in the form of clouds. Go back and look at modeled predictions from 15 or 20 years ago. All of them predicted higher temperatures than exist now.
CO2 definitely affects climate, but not nearly as much as many claim. Current temperatures are entirely within natural variation--the only difference is we have more CO2 from mankind. If this raises temps slightly (e.g., 1 or 2C over 100 years), so what?
Alternative energy research should continue, but let's not destroy our economy and infrastructure based on rank speculation from chicken littles. There is NO science to support the notion that CATASTROPHIC climate change will occur. In fact, recent flattening of temps indicates such theories are flat out wrong. Shouting that the sky is falling doesn't mean that it is. We have much bigger fish to fry--pollution, disease, hunger, poverty--than the idiocy of non-existent catastrophic manmade climate change.
CO2 definitely affects climate, but not nearly as much as many claim. Current temperatures are entirely within natural variation--the only difference is we have more CO2 from mankind. If this raises temps slightly (e.g., 1 or 2C over 100 years), so what?
Alternative energy research should continue, but let's not destroy our economy and infrastructure based on rank speculation from chicken littles. There is NO science to support the notion that CATASTROPHIC climate change will occur. In fact, recent flattening of temps indicates such theories are flat out wrong. Shouting that the sky is falling doesn't mean that it is. We have much bigger fish to fry--pollution, disease, hunger, poverty--than the idiocy of non-existent catastrophic manmade climate change.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
