The highest-paid director at MC can earn, by regulation, no more than 6.5 times what the lowest-paid workers take home.
Last time our PSA agreement came up for renegotiation I suggested we ask that no employee be paid more than 15 times the salary of the lowest paid staff member. At that time our CEOs salary would have just fit into that restriction.
The proposal went out to members to be voted on. The staff rejected the proposal.
Sometimes people are hard to understand.
Sadly Nature is a paid journal but the abstract is still free and provides a good summary.
We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence6. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming.
But you missed the point, I knew you could drag something up from somewhere.
The difference is always that you are motivated by greed and a casual dismissal of the lives that will be lost by your actions. You are happy to kill people so long as you get your paycheck.
I want to make something clear here, because while all this silliness has been fun, there is a reality here.
If Stamper is correct a huge number of scientists have conspired to deceive the world by ignoring data and building false models all to get extra funding. If we listen to those scientists we will make changes to the world that will cost some very rich people a lot of money, which would be unfair to those rich people.
If Stamper is wrong, as all those scientists have firmly said again and again and we ignore those scientists - then the climate will change more and the death toll will not just be a few tragedies but 10s of thousands, or if you are really pessimistic billions. Not even mentioning the cost to wildlife and ecosystems already damaged by humans.
This is NOT some silly game played for fun on blogs and discussion groups. Decisions we make now will mean life or death OR (if Stamper is right) cost some rich people some money.
Frankly I find people like Stamper disgusting, They casually discard other peoples lives for money.
It might be fun to argue with them but in the end they are drawing us into a game of nonsense where the cost of wasting time arguing with him is the lives of the next generation.
Yeah I'm angry that we waste time here on him.
Global Warming alarmists
ooo any chance you can give a blog post that dubunks the increased frequency to extreme weather events predicted by global warming model and observed over the last decade during your "flat-line".
Want to tell the families of the dead in the recent Australian weather events that their loss has been debunked.
Nah don't bother I'm sure there as many of those blogs as there are homeopaths in Auckland.
Still waiting for you to deny that you are a paid employee of big oil.
So peer reviewed scientific research is debunked by some guy on a blog site
I presume the world is also flat now and homeopathy works
I think it’s more the engineering that failed us in the first instance, not the science.
No offence but the people dying of cancer really don’t care which bit of it failed.
Both points are correct and relevant.
The problem with nuclear power IS engineering. Modern reactor designs are safer, but still produce waste.
It's like pointing out that sometimes bridges collapse and kill people. It's a tragedy for the people and families who die. But it is not necessarily a problem with bridges per se, rather a problem with making sure bridges are engineered correctly.
A more relevant argument is that we may not need nuclear power plants hence the engineering risk need not exist.
world’s surface temperature
water temperature has continued to rise - but you wouldn't know that because your employer never gave you that data when he/she hired you to spout this drivel
By the way – don’t assume the so-called consensus on CAGW is correct.
The story of plate tectonics is the story of how one man, Alfred Wegener, came up with the theory of continental drift, only to be widely opposed and mocked. Wegener challenged the earth science “consensus” of his day. And in the end, his view prevailed. Food for thought eh?
Oh good lord, this again.
Yes scientists have frequently overturned established dogma.
But what you and your ilk fail to realise (or just blindly ignore) is they do so BY PRESENTING DATA
The scientific community is not bothered by your fatuous cherry picked examples because when we look at all the data as opposed to your examples the data shows climate change is ongoing, human caused, and likely to cause great harm to life on our planet.
That your examples get recycled again and again by paid flunkies of industries that benefit by the continuation of their current polluting activities just makes it easier to treat you with the contempt you deserve.
and that somewhere probably doesn’t have good coffee
There ARE limits!
If we act decisively now, hundreds of thousands will have a dramatic
... MIGHT ...
That is the other lie, there is no evidence at all that anyone will have a drop in their standard of living. None! In fact, every initiative taken thus far has positive economic impacts and can be said to have improved the standard of living.
The economic catastrophe is a lie.