This time is different. It's got something to do with G$$GLE's policy to charge the Gmail users who happen to use their E-Mails under the so-called "G$$GLE Workspace". I know this for sure because I use Gmail under "G$$GLE Workspace" and today I'm greeted with a message like this "Your 14 day trial period for G$$GLE Workspace has ended. If you want to use G$$GLE Workspace , start a (paid ;) subscription." All of this happened after I've been using it for more than 12 years!
Typora is fully offline and works on real files, there's no cloud dependency here AFAIK. At most you can keep files in your Google Drive/OneDrive/Dropbox syncing folder to make it "cloud".
You missed the whole point. The purpose of that scientific looking article was to convince you that climate change is caused by human activity, which in reality is not.
The climate is, has always, and will always change. The debate is not about what's causing it as much as the relative effect of contributions and remedies. Did humans turn the Sahara from a grassland to a desert? Was the fear mongering about global cooling in the 70's correct?
About global cooling: the French green party was born in the 70s over water availability and global warming. Idk where this global cooling myth came from, i tracked it down to an American weekly newspaper, but couldn't find published research about it. I've found articles about nuclear winter and on the cyclical nature of historical climate (and explanation on how we average the temperature of a century studying Antarctica ice), but nothing on a global cooling fear.
Until someone point me to a peer reviewed research paper of the 70s, i will consider anybody using this argument a grifter. Sorry, it's like the third time on this website i ask for sources and i guess I will be ignored for the third time.
For people who don't have time to research: it seems to be a newspaper hoax used by grifters.
I think it originated from Newsweek. I found others in US journals, and it didn't catch up at all in other developed countries, as it was not a scientific article (hence why i never heard of it at all growing up). I don't understand why this myth seems to be present also in the UK, my guess is that's a tabloid who dug that 70s Newsweek story and sold it to 'uninformed' (or gullible, depending on how charitable you want to be) public.
The weird thing to me is that it seems nobody's disputing the claim, as this was a "science evolve everyday" proof. Yes, everyday some new evidence are found that shake/modify our understanding of the world, but this particular story? A lie. Or at least a really controversial take. It basically said that some climate scientists believed that the earth wouldn't warm due to human activities like other believed. The consensus was still building.
But even then, no climate scientists thought human activities had no impact.
And anybody who propagate this story either is part of this group of people who 'share' without thinking (but on hacker news it's quite hard to publish without writing, thus thinking), or is a liar with an agenda. That's why I ask for scientific article every time, i know none exist because this is a hoax, and usually the liar leave the discussion.
My dim recollection (I was young at the time) is that based on known times for ice ages, it seemed to someone like we were becoming due for another one. Just based on the clock, no understanding of mechanics. More Newsweek-like.
It's a chaotic system so I think no one can really understand or predict with high confidence. That's what the math around chaos theory says anyhow. Humans tend to overestimate their abilities and impact, that's what psychology says
There are long-term, short-term natural processes as well as human processes impacting it. Even the sun has cycles which impact Earth's climate on scales we don't fully understand.
I definitely think we are not approaching ways to keep our current (preferred) climate intact the best we can. The focus seems to be more on low-impact, feel-good solutions rather than the difficult, high-impact solutions. I for one would like to see a lot more money going into R&D for H2O desalination and CO2 sequestration.
Humans have been predicting this since the Industrial Revolution. Global cooling wasn't much of a thing in the 1970's, that was a look at cycles of ice ages without much modeling behind it.
Our preferred climate is over, we're into new territory now.
have our elites shown that they are competent and trustworthy enuf to be trusted with handling global warming, oops, I mean climate change?
clearly they have not shown that...
The climate changes daily and yearly because the sun's got daily and yearly cycles. But the sun's got 100 or so years cycles, too. So the climate changes slightly over those periods, too. Period.
"Climate" typically refers to mean weather over decadal periods .. weather cycles such as El Niño | La Niña collectively make up a longer term climate condition that's been stable on average for thousands of years.
Yeah, just not long term actual traction. The impact of CO2 emissions was recognized in the 1800s and has been of increasing concern since then. It was treated as a good tbing by people who feared ice ages (and read a lot of Time).
"So you believe BBC exists ? Do your own research !".
Yes, though, I'm inclined to believe a sourced article from a major publicly founded outlet including quotes from the "accused" admiting to what they have done, over most corporate PR.
No - the claim that PR agencies were involved in climate change denial is pretty solid. It's basically their work. My point is that we should resist the renaming BS
I've just tried this app on my Mojave MacBook and it's amazing. So pleased with it. My biggest requirement was an app as simple as an RSS reader must be open source and that it's got a macOS binary. This one fulfills both and it 's got a quite nice UI too. So far I've been using NewsFire, not knowing the alternatives.
