Slashdot Mirror

Interestingly, the number of teaspoons to tablespoons is different in in different countries and era of the cookbook.

The standard Australian tablespoon is 20ml, 4 teaspoons, but that we get mostly chinese made stuff now tablespoons are now mostly 15ml.
The standard tablespoon in India used by 25ml.

Just a sample: Beware of the Tablespoon

Fucking Imperial system. It's as bad as when people talk about how many miles per gallon their car gets. In Canada gas is sold in litres, and distances measured in kilometers.

So I ask them, "Is that Imperial MPG (~4.5l/Gallon) or US MPG (~3.8l/Gallon)?" And they don't even know what fucking gallon they're talking about! And the two gallons have a different number of ounces in them.

Interestingly, the number of teaspoons to tablespoons is different in in different countries and era of the cookbook.
The standard Australian tablespoon is 20ml, 4 teaspoons, but that we get mostly chinese made stuff now tablespoons are now mostly 15ml. The standard tablespoon in India used by 25ml.
Just a sample: Beware of the Tablespoon

In 2011, the average time it took a facility to conduct a refueling outage was 43 days.
24 months they must refuel,

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspo...

According to those numbers it is 95%.

Now your problem is 100% for 24x7 is a horrible plant to run your grid 100% on. the grid needs plants that load follow and according to your post nuclear does not do that.

By your criteria, Python is the wrong language, and this is intentional. See Guido van Rossum's explanation: part 1 and part 2.

By your criteria, Python is the wrong language, and this is intentional. See Guido van Rossum's explanation: part 1 and part 2.

The jetstream moving further south due to a decreasing temperature differential between a rapidly warming Arctic and the not-as-rapidly-warming lower latitudes, allowing cold air from the poles to move further south than previously.

Not a guess, as such, more like science.

Why do you say that? It's pretty clear from the article here that they took real world sites to understand real world performance issues and addressed those performance issues. What part of they explained do you think is analogous to VW?

Whenever I see HR criticised, I think of this guys hillarious real world trolling of HR.

http://multiversity.blogspot.c...

There is little doubt that the climate of the Earth is changing. Global average temperatures have gone up somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 C during the past 50-150 years. Note the almost 10x variance in these estimates from the IPCC - this is a common problem, as most climate models have large variances that are quietly dropped when alarmists get to preaching.

However, during the past 22 years, satellite measurements, widely hailed since the 1970s as far more accurate than surface measurements, have shown no statistical warming. This is a fact. Many of the faithful believers don't like it, and have been trying to present it as a lie - but you can easily run the numbers yourself, using their own data, and see it.

Okay, fair enough. Let's look at the data:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p... (looks a bit broken on my browser, but I'm assuming it'll get fixed soon)

Depending on the dataset, particularly the more accurate satellite datasets, we have many instances of 20+ years of statistically insignificant change with ever increasing emissions and ever increasing CO2 levels (regardless of source).

Now, you could argue that we should ignore certain datasets, but that begs the question of cherry picking. You could also move the goalposts to say, 30 years, but that also seems like an ad hoc special pleading.

So, given that we've got at least some instances of your falsifiability criteria observed, are you willing to accept your proposition as false?

I think you need to talk to your auditor!

Your mail server can absolutely be moved out of your Cardholder Data Environment (and thus be out of PCI scope). Unless you have a reason to be handling cardholder data on email (I can't imagine a scenario where this is viable) there's no reason for your mail server to be part of the CDE (and frankly I think you are doing PCI "wrong" if it is inside your CDE, by definition you want your scope to be minimal, not just to make the audit easier, but to reduce your attack surface).

See: http://treasuryinstitutepcidss...

Here is a link to the blog post on this, with much better info that the link in the story:

http://android-developers.blog...

https://w00tsec.blogspot.com.a...

The article in the summary doesnt list which modems are affected as i have an Arris Modem myself, but looks to be the TG862A, TG862G, and DG860A.

Also notable that a quick glance of reviews on Amazon says there is no end user support for these, they are always ISP controlled.

I stopped reading when he described a catenary as a parabola
http://mathyear2013.blogspot.c...

This is very confusing, on the one hand you say why not insist on Free Licensing for the resulting works, then you offer "rewards" of royalty free use of a certain number of photos (if they were released under a Free License then there is no question about royalties) but then say you will put up 1 day of photos under a Creative Commons BY-SA license.

So if they are truly under a Free license then why would you think you can limit the freedoms of people to use them in such a way to be able to offer more photos for royalty free use at difference reward tiers?

Here's the blog post announcement from today, so I was surprised this wasn't a Mozilla announcement giving the timing of the article.

but support for VP9 is pretty much non-existent.

I wouldn't say that's the case. Even just looking at YouTube, already by April this year more than 25 billion hours of VP9 encoded video had been watched by YouTube users.

Show me someone from the open source community who has helped and donated more towards charities than Bill Gates. Uh huh, that's what I thought.

Bill - is that you? Don't forget to lodge your claims for charitable donations - we filed it under "the spit shield fund".

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (foundation) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust. Both entities are tax-exempt private foundations that are structured as a charitable.

One good thing Bill Gates has done. Though not everyone agrees.

Thanks to Snowden and Greenwald, we know Google, and its 800lb gorilla friends Apple and Microsoft actively participated with the NSA and its PRISM program.

Bullshit. You lie and you've been called out. We do not know anything of the sort. Feel free to link to a single released document from Snowden (or any of the NSA leakers) that shows, or claims otherwise.

We know that Powerpoint slides purportedly from Snowden, that he proportedly stole from the NSA, show NSA boasting of having broken into Google. If they had to break in where was the "active participation"? And why the rapid restructuring to stop the data breach?

We know Google has lead and participated in major campaigns that threaten the wholesale spying by the NSA. And we know that despite the usual "gravitate towards evil in the name of short-term profits" that shareholder owned companies succumb to - that Google remains a company that mostly practices "enlightened self-interest" (probably helped by the type of people they employ). We believe it's more productive to cheer good work and criticise bad than the reverse (we, in this instance, does not include you).

You on the other-hand, demonstrably - know nothing (Yeah - that Bill Gates is an altruist and Google only implements security after the Snowden leaks). The reason you smell shit everywhere is not because of your superior vision and intellect - it's that your head is up your arse.

You seem like the fanboi face-painter type who refuses to consider it possible not to worship at a particular altar of commerce or technology (like shopping at a range of retailers instead of recalcitrantly spending at one only, while singing their jingle).

The comment about growth is so wrong as to be mind-boggling. Where on earth did that figure come from? Unicode 1.0.1 had more than that in the early 90s. See here for a good table with all the gory details.

I'm mad as hell to the shitty level of thinking that goes into the alarmist scifi nonsense we've seen so much off of late. I'm an old AI developer who used to do this stuff for a living (but then thought better of it) and have digged deeper into more human and philosophical issues, and I wrote this a couple of weeks ago; http://sheltered-objections.bl...

I've also got a wheat bag that you can heat up to relieve headaches. As it turns out, you can fix a USB TV tuner with it as well:
  - http://aarongnielsen.blogspot....

Apparently, if you took off the plastic casing and baked it properly in a medium oven, you could enact a more permanent fix. I haven't been game to try it, though.

Just so you know, your myth is [possibly] a myth

Which phone is that? Motorola already announced Lollipop 5.0 support for the Moto X, G, E and Droid lines

1: Edge detection. Edge detection only works well on single monitors. It really doesn't work at all if you run a VM in a window.

It works fine on multiple monitors as you have that couple of pixels at the top to "catch" the mouse as you move between displays. It also works in VM windows if you do manual mouse capture, obviously it isn't going to work if you do automatic mouse capture.

2: Apps that automatically go full screen, and many of which don't even have a windowed mode. That's a huge productivity killer, and source of errors. It kills drag/drop, but even worse, you can't have source and references visible at the same time, nor copy/paste between multiple windows.

In Windows 10 they can all be run in windowed mode.

3; No activate without auto-raise. Which now is auto-raise-and-zoom. Why won't you let me type in or paste into a window that isn't on top? It makes no sense. Do people really like to bring an entire IM session to the foreground, and, depending on the program, obscuring everything else, just to type in "ok"?

It's there, and it's simple to configure it. Most people don't want that as default behavior.

4: Inconsistent menus and windows, self-organizing depending on use. It's a support nightmare when you can't tell someone how to do something, because the menus and windows are going to be different on each user's machine. You have to shoulder-surf people to support them.

Yes we should eliminate customization so everything is the same on every system because allowing people to customize their system is too confusing for "support" to understand ... heaven forbid they use this thing we've had for years called "remote desktop".

Standard modern geek mentality "if it doesn't work the way i like it out of the box it's crap, i shouldn't have to do scary things like change settings to make it work the way i want, that's too hard".

To be brutally honest, it's not surprising that yet another genome-wide association study has failed to explain even half of the heritability of a trait / disease / condition.

There's plenty of literature out there arguing whether these studies are a waste of money or not:

* http://blog.goldenhelix.com/?p...
* http://scienceblogs.com/geneti...
* http://gettinggeneticsdone.blo...

I would have been surprised if this study did find the majority of inherited variability in height.

A better description of the Millennium Challenge comes from War Nerd's doppleganger War Tard:

In 2002, the Pentagon tried to suppress the findings of a huge US war game called "Millennium Challenge" where the US Navy (Blue Force) was pitted against a "hypothetical rogue state" (Red Force) in the Persian Gulf region. Red Force was led by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, a total bad ass, whose job was basically to play the role of the butt raped lesser nation at the hands of the mighty technology of the all powerful US Navy. Instead of following the script, this Van Riper guy went off reservation and went all asymmetrical on Blue Force's ass, an ass which consisted of a full US Navy carrier group.

      Though the rules stated both commanders could use any rule in the book, the brass didn't expect the shit Van Riper pulled. Once the war game was up and running Van Riper's force disappeared off radar. He relied on couriers instead of radio to stay in touch with his field officers. The US navy cryptographers were rendered useless in a single blow. He employed novel tactics such as coded signals broadcast from the minarets of mosques during the Muslim call to prayer, a tactic weirdly reminiscent of Paul Revere and the shot heard round the world. He even used carrier pigeons to deliver messages to some of his commanders. God I love this guy! He then launched a daring attack against the US Blue Force carrier group by hundreds of kamikaze speedboats some of which were armed with Chinese Silkworm anti ship missiles. I shit you not. The result was a carrier and two helo carriers sunk along with 13 other assorted ships, the worst defeat of the US Navy since Pearl. The Pentagon had a shit fit and scrubbed the whole exercise, dismissed Van Riper and replayed the whole thing this time making Blue Force 'win'. Basically, the navy brass pretended it never happened. Lunatics in speedboats apparently don't count and are considered 'cheats'.

http://wartard.blogspot.com.au...

You put a 5-billion-dollar aircraft carrier up against, say, five hundred incoming rockets, drones, torpedoes, remote-controlled boats, and tiny speedboats - only one of which has to be carrying explosives, the others can all be decoys there just to fuck with your radar operators - and what you have is a 5-billion-dollar submarine. Total cost of the attack, let's be extravagant and say one thousand dollars.

Developer subscriptions. Just like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, all feed based apps. So basically how the most popular sites all work. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills that this isn't already part of the various app stores.. See my blog post for mucho bullet points http://camsvirtualrealityreali...

AI can also produce a picture of a generic rabbit, or cat as the case may be.

I can see a market for this. Imagine a corporate firewall with the on-the-fly ability to filter out funny cat pictures and video.

I think Watson would be able to give it's real age by finding the information rather than recalling it, although it might get confused by progressive versions. AI can also produce a picture of a generic rabbit, or cat as the case may be.

The thing that Watson (and AI in general) has difficulty with is imagination, it has no experience of the real world so if you asked it something like what would happen if you ran down the street with a bucket of water, it would be stuck. Humans who have never run with a bucket of water will automatically visualise the situation and give the right answer, just as everyone who read the question have just done so in their mind. OTOH a graphics engine can easily show you what would happen to the bucket of water because it does have a limited knowledge of the physical world.

This is the problem with putting AI in a box labeled "Turing test", it (arrogantly) assumes that human conversation is the only definition of intelligence. I'm pretty sure Turing himself would vigorously dispute that assumption if he were alive today.

My colleague is currently designing a C65 in an FPGA, currently running at 28.9x the speed of a C64 but with lots of features still unimplemented. But even designing the hardware at that level, it will be difficult to be completely bug compatible. Particularly since he's driving 1920x1200 video over HDMI.

Yet you have the hubris to assume that scientists are missing something big enough to cause the current change we are seeing without distorting the observational data enough make it obvious they are missing something that big.

I love how Feynman put it, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" :)

In your link you conveniently choose the RSS temperature record cherry picking the one among several that most closely fits your narrative.

Play around with the link and choose any other temperature set. Make sure to click the radio button "trend plus significance". Look at all the greyed out areas past the 13 year diagonal. Unfortunately the link doesn't seem to include parameters chosen and just goes to the default...

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

The current "pause" is unsurprising to scientists.

That's quite a bold statement :)

As much as? Certainly yes. As fast? Citation, please

http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...

Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.

Some observations that would be excluded by the AGW hypothesis?
- Decrease in global average temperature
- Decrease in weather event intensity and frequency
- Cooling of the world's oceans
- Decrease in the amount of CO2 in ppm observed in the atmosphere

All good, necessary factors - however, you've got two that are arguably already observed:

1) decrease in weather event intensity and frequency

This has actually been observed, although one could make the argument that reduction in the gradient between the poles and the tropics, caused by asymmetric global warming, would generate this result.

2) Decrease in global average temperature

More specifically, it's not just a *decrease* that should be excluded, but the *lack of statistically significant increase*.

You can play with the real data here: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

You'll note that on every global dataset there, during periods of ever increasing CO2, we've had statistically insignificant warming for upwards of 16-21 years.

You don't need any such 'logical argument' to accept a hypothesis as an evidence-backed theory. Such a requirement would have stopped physics cold at the observation of the duality of light.

No it wouldn't have - the duality of light hypothesis has quite *specific* exclusions and a quite *specific* argument why the lack of those exclusions means that light must behave as both a particle and a wave.

While abductive reasoning is certainly a good place to *start* speculation in science, once you've chosen your horse, the requirements of falsifiability are non negotiable. You require:

1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

So far, you've started on #1 (arguably refuting yourself by noting falsification criteria we've already observed), but you're nowhere near meeting your affirmative burden against the null hypothesis.

Observational studies can give us correlations - science is about finding causality.

The bottom line is this, you've failed to quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement on AGW - just like an astrologer, you're making observations, but your central conceit is immune to attack because you've *designed* it as unfalsifiable. Here's what you need:

1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

As for observations, chew on this - look at the long periods of statistically insignificant warming while CO2 continues to increase:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

If this isn't excluded by your hypothesis, what is?

You say "*some* natural factors" but you offer nothing about what those other things we're not factoring in are

Of course not - I don't have the hubris to assume I know every single natural factor or how they interact with each other.

We can assume these things exist because a) we know climate changed before humanity, and b) the advent of humanity cannot logically have eliminated those non-anthropogenic drivers.

It's called the null hypothesis :)

if we were missing something as big as what would be required to be a natural cause of the current change it would be observed in data that doesn't match what our current theory predicts.

You can note the "pause" in statistically significant warming during a period of ever increasing CO2 here:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

The current predictions don't match observations. There must be something we don't understand at work. Q.E.D. :)

Quite.

The lady's labia melted to her thigh.

It was not a frivolous law suit.

I loosely based it on this: http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/...

Come on, surely on "News for Nerds" it's not going to be that hard to reach the conclusion that the subtitles are there so there's probably some way to extract them and lo, somebody (well actually there are various ones) has already created a tool to do just that.

Someone dug up some old comments by the Professor himself expressing his anger that you couldn't just ship all the climate scientists off to East Berlin. I guess he has a great sense of irony.

It's a shame that the GDR disappeared otherwise would have been able to offer one-way tickets there for these socialists. Now there's unfortunately not many orthodox countries left soon and I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I'd gladly contribute to the trip as long as it is for a one way ticket. Perhaps you could arrange a Gallup study, since it can not be ruled out that I underestimated rush to the exit5

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/...

Yeah, there's a lot of big talk about how he's an "intuitive genius specialising in fractals" and yet his art page contains only images generated by curve stitching.

I have a cousin who's done too many drugs and now thinks he can see angels and the interconnectedness of all things and that he's part of a global shamanistic spiritual uprising. That doesn't make him a maths genius.

Sure. HADCRUT Mar 1997 -> Mar 2014.

+0.398C per century.

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com....

OK, so you really don't know what carbon neutral means.

"Carbon neutral" is a mythical term. You're assuming that you understand sources and sinks at a level of detail that isn't possible.

The fact of the matter is that butterflies, like humans, are CO2 *sources*. As such, all other things held the same, their contribution will cause some (possibly and probably insignificant) warming due to the spectral properties of CO2.

Oh, it's MSU.RSS now is it? Funny how every data series on that page shows warming from 1998 to the latest data, except MSU.RSS.

Look again. *Every* data set there contains at least one 15 year instance that has no statistically significant warming.

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Click on "trend+significance" and notice what greys out. *Every* data set there has example 15 year periods with no statistically significant warming during periods of ever increasing CO2 levels.

Q.E.D. :)

You haven't thought it through - CO2 doesn't care *where* it comes from - it's spectral properties exist regardless if it came from a burning plant, outgassed from the ocean, or from the exhalation of respiration.

OK, so you really don't know what carbon neutral means. Your incorrect definition would mean that there was no such thing as carbon-neutral fuels. Yet there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Here's a rule of thumb so you don't make a ass of yourself again. If fossil products don't contribute to the carbon in a thing, it;s usually carbon-neutral.

Look at the data - http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Oh, it's MSU.RSS now is it? Funny how every data series on that page shows warming from 1998 to the latest data, except MSU.RSS.

MSU.RSS being satellite microwave data, and the NOAA paper to which refer doesn't specify that. Indeed it only mentions surface temperatures.

So, not only are you cherry picking 1998 as a start year, you also have to cherry pick a specific dataset, that wasn't the one mentioned, as all the others prove you wrong.

At that level of cherry picking there are only two possibilities. Either you know you are presenting fraudulent claims, or you are a gullible fool that listens to those that do.

You haven't thought it through. Where does the carbon in a butterfly come from? Nectar. From a plant. Where does a plant's carbon come from? CO2 in the atmosphere. It's carbon neutral.

You haven't thought it through - CO2 doesn't care *where* it comes from - it's spectral properties exist regardless if it came from a burning plant, outgassed from the ocean, or from the exhalation of respiration.

At the very least, the extraction of nectar, by butterflies, and turning it into CO2, delays sequestration of CO2 in plant matter - so while *everything* is "carbon neutral" at an arbitrary time scale, it is obviously a CO2 *source* for at least some period of time - upwards of many decades if you're to believe the warmist assertions of the cycle time for atmospheric CO2.

Says the man who can't even work out that a butterfly is carbon neutral.

Your definition of "carbon neutral" is cute, but unconvincing, and certainly doesn't put you off the hook for quoting a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW :)

Because there has been warming over the last 15 years. So it's still in the 95%, not outside it.

Look at the data - http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

By any number of temperature sets, there has been no *statistically significant warming* (which is what NOAA 2008 referenced) for periods up to 20+ years. You're *way* outside of the 95% :)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's only dishonest to cherry pick start point, but not end point? :)

Really? :)

Look, NOAA 2008 specified a falsification criteria (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/) - when searching for an *instance* of that falsification, you just need to find it *once*.

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Note, there are *plenty* of instances of statistically insignificant warming beyond 15 years.

Do you admit you've been falsified, or do you preserve your central conceit with the ad hoc special pleading that NOAA 2008 wasn't really important to your case?

Actually, I said it was a test, but not a "good test". Go back and read it.

If you're asserting it's not a "good test", then what does it matter? You found a test AGW failed. Can you find tests it *hasn't* failed? :)

Also, I said 20 years does not a decadal trend make.

No, to quote you *exactly*, you said, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend."

Two decades (20 years), last time I checked, is *not* less than 2 decades. Perhaps you count years differently? :) Or perhaps you weren't done defining "a trend"? Like Duane Gish, you left yourself some wiggle room - the statement "less than two decades doesn't make a trend" is logically compatible with "less than 31 years doesn't make a trend".

So, in your definition, does a decadal trend take 21 years? 22 years? 30 years? 100 years? Care to be precise at all, or will you continue to Gish Gallop away from actually *defending your argument*? :)

Also, I said we'd swing back to the last 20 years... and do the regression ourselves together.

So, are you now insisting that I can't just find *any* 20 year, statistically insignificant warming trend within the industrial age, but it has to be specifically cherry picked to the *last* 20 years?

Look, I showed you the data: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Are you going to argue that the dataset isn't proper? Is that the ad hoc special pleading you have left? :)

Here, from MSU.RSS, the last 20 years, minus 3 months (perhaps you'd be so generous as to grant me three months of reprieve from your cherry pick). :
Temperature Anomaly trend
Feb 1993 to Dec 2013
Rate: 0.859C/Century;
CI from -0.105 to 1.823;
t-statistic 1.747;
Temp range 0.110C to 0.289C

Statistically insignificant warming trend.

Look, if you want to argue your point (A) further, you've got to make a stand and argue with the data, or limit your specification of what AGW *precludes* with more ad hoc special pleadings. Do yourself a favor, and instead of gish galloping away, just pick one of the data sets that hasn't reached 20 years of statistically insignificant warming, and insist that *that* is your gold standard. At least then we can agree that you've come up with a test that hasn't been falsified yet - and we can come back to why we should cherry pick a dataset for your test after you've gone through more points :)

"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"

I've given you my objection, and I've given you at least *one* fairly defensible way out (pick your preferred dataset, and be prepared to defend it against the ones you don't like). You can either continue dodging specificity, or you can stake your (A) claim on a specific dataset, and move onto B. I've given you the data for trends, so go ahead, pick the one you think is the most favorable to your cause.

The count is forty-five now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eighteen for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"

You've made an argument. I made an objection. You've refused to answer.

Your argument: the following is a "good test":

(A) AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend -- measured at a decadal time-scale.

decadal is defined as at least 20 years, by your definition (Your words: "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend.")

My objection:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

We already have observations showing no statistically significant trend for 20+ years in some temperature data sets.

Your response:

Now, you could respond in any number of ways:

1) don't like the data set I've chosen
2) didn't really mean 20 years, really meant 30 years
3) didn't really mean "preclude"
4) don't care about statistical significance, just care about the trend regardless of error bars
5) didn't really mean (A), let's move on to (B)

Instead, what do we get? "Do you have any oblique awareness that you are batshit insane?" Classy, real classy :)

I know it hurts that you've used "gish gallop" as an insult, and find yourself tarred by that brush. I'm sure you didn't intend to fit the shoes of Duane Gish when you decided to use that phrase as an insult. But you did. You've bragged about how many reasons you had, and then stumbled on the very first one out of the gate - and still, post after post after post, you've got no actual reply to the criticism of your argument.

The kind of behavior you're exhibiting is why I tend to lump AGW proponents with creationists - they behave in the same way.

The count is forty-three now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at sixteen for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

" Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."[11] She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"

Like Gish, you're not only galloping, but you continue to fail to answer the objections raised :)

The shoe fits, and you're wearing four of them :)

Do you not know what a decadal trend is?

You stated, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend." - so, by your definition, at least 20 years is required.

Here's the data:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Click on "trend+significance" to see the statistically insignificant areas greyed out.

Click on MSU.RSS

Note the greyed out triangular area beneath the 19 year diagonal line to the lower right of the triangle graph. You'll note there are more than 1.7 points in that data set :)

Now, do you want to have an ad hoc special pleading against specific data sets? Are you unwilling to concede your previously stated "good test" because you doubt the data?

The count is forty-two now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at fifteen for the "constellation" question. Your Gish Gallop is reaching epic proportions :)

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

HS, with the gish gallop, arguments are dropped all at once, without giving a person a chance to respond in a reasonable manner.

Well, you went ahead and "proudly boast[ed] the number of reasons involved", instead of actually focusing on the fact that your first reason was self defeating :)

that Popper was talking about finding good tests

And your very first one you cited falsified AGW, a marvelous achievement I wish I could take credit for :)

Or are you saying you were trying to give me a list of *bad* tests for AGW? :)

Look, it's okay, I get why you're not actually answering the questions put to you - you've already argued yourself into a corner, and you're hoping that by ignoring your prima facie hypocrisy, that it'll just go away. Being ashamed is understandable - even your best way out is an admission of error, since your options are to redefine the word "preclude", or admit that your first proposed "good test" was in fact a bad one.

Here, you might like this tool when it comes to seeing how long we've gone with statistically insignificant warming:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Click on "trend+significance" - you'll note that for some datasets, we've already gone well past 20 years (decadal, in your terminology).

The count is forty now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at thirteen for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

http://abstractfactory.blogspo...