Slashdot Mirror

Especially because the terrorist in question remained in his seat the whole time

[Citation needed]

The reportage I saw (including the Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/26/flight-253-terrorism-al-qaida ) indicated he went to the toilet for 20 minutes.

I can haul four people and thousands of pounds of cargo (in addition to the thousands of pounds of truck) for around 15-18 mpg.

Except most of the time it's just you hauling nothing but your own ass around at 15mpg.
I drive my car any time I need to get something that won't fit in my side cases or backpack and last year I put 10,000 miles on the motorcycle and about 1,000 on the car.
As for pollution, anything a bike puts out is insignificant.

I'm guessing the executives / board / owners of the BBC know people in the right places and are able to intercept initiatives to change the legislation.

I think you'll find that the current system actually has quite a lot of public support and that a lot of the BBC-bashing comes from newspapers owned by certain large media groups.

Surely you jest. A large media conglomerate that owns newspapers wouldn't also own commercial satellite TV stations that would be in competition with the BBC, would it? How would one get fair views? ;-)

I'm guessing the executives / board / owners of the BBC know people in the right places and are able to intercept initiatives to change the legislation.

I think you'll find that the current system actually has quite a lot of public support and that a lot of the BBC-bashing comes from newspapers owned by certain large media groups.

Making the BBC a subscription service is the same thing as abolishing the BBC.

But it won't last forever

That much is true - eventually, as TV merges with the Internet, the only options will be to privatise the BBC or force internet users to pay the TV license.

If you want to add to the silliness: on their website they claim that you must pay the TV licensing even if you just watch DVDs or have the receiver at home but no TV set. But there you go.

Which website? The official TV Licensing website says that you need a license if you "watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.. DVDs are mentioned because DVD recorders have TV tuers.

(Whether they've botherd to tell the TV Licensing enforcer goon squad that, I don't know).

This reminds me of a recent feature in The Guardian, which calls for the preservation of a nuclear power plant in Snowdonia, Wales since it was designed by the British modernist architect Sir Basil Spence. Linky.

We already have Larry Ellison and that has not helped.
Besides they say money is sexy and look how many of the richest people in the world are there because of computers.

We're not going to have more than two parties until we change the way we vote. Our simple plurality voting system naturally leads to a two-party steady state system as surely an electron orbiting a proton leads to a hydrogen atom in the ground state. No amount of imploring, scolding, pleading or whining will change that reality.

If you really want more diverse representation, change the way we vote. Granted, a perfect voting system is impossible, but we can far better than the system we have today.

That said, I'm not sure that adding political parties will necessary end corruption. After all, the British have a multi-party proportional system and still ended up with Tony Blair and Darth Mandelson. Corruption is a different problem, and is best fought by an enthusiastic and educated public demanding sunshine laws and public campaign financing.

I just think it is very strange to pick a band that is signed to the same label as the X-Factor dude who you did not want to have this.

The big name label that you wanted to avoid getting paid is still getting paid, so did you really do anything to fight commercial music when the exact label you wanted to fight against, you just helped get more sales.

No, the pretty big fail here is coming from you, who have not read the many comments before yours that clearly state that they are not signed to the exact same label.

Rage is signed to Epic. The X-Factor dude is signed to Syco. Both labels are subdivisions of Sony/BMG

That's not a minor detail, dude. In fact, that's a pretty big fail there kids...

They are merely both signed to labels that are, ultimately, owned by Sony. And so what, unless you think all of us should be refusing to buy Sony E-Readers, games consoles and IP on the basis that Simon Cowell benefits by association?

This is not ultimately about protesting against a label. It's not even about the rat Cowell, although I'm sure he'd like to believe otherwise. It is about schadenfreude, personal preference, and the cheap laugh of getting a good, loud, totally politically incorrect song containing seventeen uses of the word 'fuck' on the Christmas charts where everybody's granny might hear it. Where the label, despite benefitting financially, do not particularly want it to be seen. If you think that the charts aren't managed as carefully as any other prime storefront placement, then you're an optimist.

There's an interesting take on what Sony's view of this might be in the comments of this (dreadful) Guardian article.

More money for RIAA, thanks facebook!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY SHIT, OK?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook

Sorry, but as a Canadian, I have to disagree with you. Since Harper took over, Canada has been actively working to scuttle any agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

And thank god for that, or are you trying to suggest that per capita pollution statistics are meaningful when comparing a country like Canada with a population of ~25 million vs India's 1+ billion?

Stop drinking the kool-aid.

You really believe that? Let's see the link.

Even this pro-Iphone article shows Apple at 0.9% for a few months ago.

Canadians on the other hand, do very little besides peacekeeping, and combing the hills of Afghanistan.

Sorry, but as a Canadian, I have to disagree with you. Since Harper took over, Canada has been actively working to scuttle any agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Let's hope more big chains offer open WiFi in the UK. They have enough money to make sure such travesties as Pub fined £8,000 for customer's illicit downloads don't happen very often, by lobbying for laws to protect open WiFi providers.

Which might one day protect you, dear reader!

It just shows you why a constitution is a good idea. The best time to make a cool decision about freedom of speech and censorship is probably not while you are nursing wounds after being attacked, but a change made now would be difficult to get reveresed in the furure. The same could happen in the UK, where I live - one event could lead to hasty loss of liberty. Oh, wait it already has.

"as you'll be told by those self-righteous conservative christians that call themselves human"

As opposed to forward thinking "empathetic" progressives such a yourself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg

Or followers of Islam: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/11/2008111201216476354.html

Then again I've never seen one of "those" "self-righteous conservative christians" make any claim that you suggest regarding rape except to be horrified by it, and to be compassionate to the victims. And given that I attended church for the first 20 years of my life and was surrounded by quite a few "self-righteous conservative christians" who oddly enough were about one quarter as self righteous as most of the "metro cool" group who have an irrational bone to pick with them I can bet 100 to 1 that my eduacted opinion of them is about 100% more accurate then your wishful thinking and tribalism.

I'm afraid your mind is lost in a maze of hatred.

And no I'm not a Christian.

(Here comes a mod down, never violate the sanctity of the two minutes of hate against evil white christians on the Internet by the oh-so rebellious middle class white set).

So which part do you disagree with? You don't feel that it's unfortunate? Or you don't believe it is reality?

I disagree with the emotive language implying that Palestinians are the only ones killing innocent civilians. Particularly given differences in death counts e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/gaza-city-fighiting-israel-un or the lack of running water for so many people

More than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water, while 4,000 homes were destroyed or badly damaged, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless; 80 government buildings were hit.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War or the ongoing dispute about construction of wells/water buildings + farming which Israel are preventing them from building (there are further links about the below, especially relating to actual construction and needs, and differences in water consumption, but no time to look them up at this moment)

According to reports, Israeli soldiers shoot towards farmers working on their lands along the buffer zone nearly every week...During Operation "Cast Lead" which ended in January 2009, private houses, workshops, cattle farms, tree groves, agricultural roads, water wells and rain-fed crop fields located within the area were demolished by the Israeli army.

So "unfortunate reality" that the poor israelis might have some bags and laptops shot given all the above, well yes, it does make me question if they have a sense of reality. Or perspective.

To respond to another post:-

Ohhh, I JUST love the "my side has it worse" game!

I'm not on anybody's side, except maybe the "let's not be hypocrites about this" side.

Given the political statements on her laptop, one wonders what kind of provocation she might have tried with the guards. I don't believe that justifies their reaction, and wouldn't be surprised if they are disciplined (which will, of course, generate zero coverage outside of Israel), but most rational people understand that baiting Israelis is a rather dangerous sport.

Damn right, this is the country that has been said to have a policy of shooting unarmed civilians by one of its own army snipers.

"Sergeant Wahid Taysir, the sniper who killed Hurndall, has already said a policy of shooting at unarmed civilians existed at the time."

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/30/israel

Ok, the guy in question may have been saying this just to save his own skin as he was on trial for murder, but the large number of people, including children, killed in Gaza last year does make you wonder if maybe he was telling the truth.

I don't generally trust analysts who have problems with decimal points.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091119-702857.html says that Sony "reported a net loss of ¥98.9 billion for the fiscal year ended last March." Which is a little different than the ¥989.9 billion reporting in this article. Especially when you consider that Sony's revenue is listed as ¥7.730 trillion on Wikipedia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/sony-japan-sales-financial-loss seems to be the actual source of the numbers, as that lists the ¥58.8 billion number as well. So I think this article was a copy/paste that went a bit wrong.

For France sure, Dunno for the rest of humanity with the Prescott Bush's history http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar and IBM's punch card machines given to the Third Reich for tracking Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Which climate skeptics are on the payroll of "big oil"

You do realize that the American Petroleum Institute not only funds the AGW thinktanks, but Exxon-Mobil actually outright offered a prize for anyone who could get a paper published that defended their positions, right? If you want a specific example, Soon and Baluinas, 2003. Here's some of their background. Half the board of Climate Research resigned in protest after Soon and Baliunas's publication, by the way. So when you see hacked emails showing scientists dissing people like them, or McIntyre, or any of that ilk, realize that the scientists *really do* think that these people are putting out garbage and have vested agendas. It's just that when speaking publicly, they usually have more tact.

Climatic temperatures were supposed to be 20 degrees hotter now than they are and agriculture will shortly become unsustainable for the population's feeding, according to what I remember being 'taught' when I was in grade school.

Six Kelvins is quite enough-- you don't need 20 Kelvins.

Climategate is also interesting from the standpoint that those who are the loudest advocates of AGW - Gavin Schmidt, Pachauri, Gore etc.. have no training in climatology. Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics, Pachauri is a railyway engineer (don't know how he became the head of the IPCC), about Gore - need I say anything?

At the same time, scientists with climate research expertise and PhDs in climatology are asked to shut up if their views don't match that of the AGW crowd. Example: Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen ..

Also, IPCC has made huge blunders - for example, BBC has just published an article that the IPCC got the dates wrong for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 300 years!! IPCC's non-existent peer review process didn't catch the error for 2 years.. and now the latest note that IPCC has been referencing papers which haven't even been peer reviewed!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

To all those who claim that there can't possibly be any sort of a conspiracy, consider that the Copenhagen summit came up with no agreements primarily because of yet another leaked document which indicated that the rich nations were secretly conspiring and writing up a draft on a policy document on carbon emission limits which went completely against the poorer nations and without following any due process.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text/

As a Brit, I was dissapointed that our Royal Air Force closed their UFO analysis division last week. I wittered in social media about how the RAF UFO division was an excellent team who investigated unidentified incursions into UK airspace, assessed them for threats, and passed on reports of possible enemy action to the rest of the UK military. The RAF UFO division was never about finding aliens, it was about assessing unidentified airborne threats.

I'm now beginning to think I should have been a lot more vocal, writing to my MP instead. What if that had been a missile launch over Scotland instead of Norway?

The Earth may well be warming, but it has warmed and cooled countless times over the millenia, and the case for AGW is certainly "not proven".

First of all: it is proven. It is well known since 100 years or longer. And we are frightened about it since the "Club of Rome" brought it to a wider attention.

? Especially when it appears after much prodding and poking that some of the data were cherry-picked, others were "adjusted", and finally, the raw data was deleted?
Do you mix something up her or do I? As far as I understood climategate the data you are talking about is not from client scientists but from AGW denial "scientists". The deniers faked data and when they got asked what is going on, stuff disappeared! Or did I get this wrong?

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

angel'o'sphere

You might enjoy this editorial: Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away

This whole "scandal" is blown out of proportion and based on smoke and mirrors.

It is based on smoke and mirrors, but it's certainly not blown out of proportions. George Monbiot addresses this point succinctly: Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away

Yes, the scientific way to silence an idiot is to ask him lots of hard questions, and let him keep the floor as long as he's able. When he can't answer those questions to the audience's satisfaction, then it's time to deliver your own answers

This is exactly why science is failing to grab the popular mind. If you do this, all you are doing is giving a smooth-talking fool all he needs to convince an audience who isn't smart enough or doesn't have enough background to know better. This is exactly what George Monbiot is talking about: Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away

George Monbiot has an incredible editorial on this:

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away

Basically, if scientist want their ideas to be respected in the public, they have to learn the art of PR. We're in the information age now; there's no way around it and no more hiding.

Which it's obviously not, because what it does is re-classify CO2 as a pollutant, which it is not.

pol.lut.ant n
:something that pollutes

pol.lute vt pol.lut.ed; pol.lut.ing
2b: to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste

The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55m years, threatening disaster for marine life and food supplies across the globe. Hmm. Maybe some man-made waste that contaminates the environment that threatens to turn the oceans into a barren wasteland could, just maybe could be justified to be called a pollutant.

but surely the concentrations of such a critical component of photosynthesis as CO2 must have some effect on yields as well

While I couldn't quote a study about the past yields, studies have shown that contrary to expectations a higher CO2 level didn't contribute much to higher yields, while other effects that result from global warming like increased temperatures and dryer soil reduces yields.

So will our attempts to "solve" the Global Warming "crisis" have other unintended consequences like ... starvation?

No, first because increasing CO2 levels are less significant than other factors, see above. Also, noone is talking about stopping global warming, that would mean stopping _all_ manmade CO2 emissions and scrubbing the atmosphere and shoving the already exhausted CO2 back underground somehow. The best we can achieve is controlled disaster management.

My cell phone and my laptop having the same IP address only matters when I want to use the INTERNET to connect the two. There are hundreds of thousands of compelling reasons to avoid doing so. In this light, it is entirely possible to provide the ENTIRE set if IPv4 addresses for mobile phone use. Wouldn't that eliminate the congestion issue?

I tried to parse what you've said 3 times and I have a guess what you might have ment, but I'm not sure. Could you please clarify?

Define for me the need to connect every device with every other device and I'd agree that we have an issue that readily needs solving.

It's not that you would want to, but that you can that's important. To be specific, to be globally addressable. It's like saying that there would be no need for the vast majority of phones to be able to call each other, noone is ever going to dial all the possible numbers. That's not the point.

If you're going dual stack, you'll be giving me an IPv4-to-IPv6 gateway

No, dual stack means you have two fully working, independent networking protocols running beside each other, IPv4 and IPv6. A gateway is something different.

Back to the topic at hand, I'd like to see a result reflected in the climate. We have already taken steps to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Assuming there really is a one-to-one link, there almost certainly has to be data to represent it. The gotcha though is if we demonstrate that CO2 reduction worked then the world is not yet doomed and suddenly the movement loses its momentum and political clout. So, in reality, we will never, ever, ever see that kind of result. Never will climate scientists ever say, 'thanks guys for all your hard work, we are out of danger now', because the moment they do the money stops coming.

There has been no steps to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere yet, all has been done is to slow the growth slightly and Copenhagen is about various blocks of countries arguing how much they want to reduce emissions compared to 1990 or 2004. That still means a lot of emissions. I'm pretty sure most people don't realise how close are we to the edge. Currently the oceans act as a huge carbon sink, but they show signs of reduced intake (along with acidifaction). At this point, things are about defining a level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that doesn't push us over the tipping point.

As far as medicine goes, I'd say the scientific community has done a pretty good job of challenging their own credibility by exploiting use conflicts of interest with pharmaceuticals. Look no further than doctors signing their names at the bottom of industry ghost written research.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/18/doctors-ghost-writing-pharmaceutical-research

Umm, seriously? Al Gore has been studying and involved with global warming research since the late 1960's. If you were to surprise Sarah Palin with this question: "what is the difference between climate and weather?" do you think she could give a satisfactory answer on the spot?

Al Gore may not be an authoritative source himself but he is one of the biggest figureheads in the fields of environmentalism and global warming research. Guess where he gets his information.

I wouldn't put it past the Israeli psyops people to pull a stunt like this.

Please follow the logic.

1. "We're taking a beating in public relations as a nation. What with the whole deliberately bombing civilians, bulldozing homes, withholding vital medical care from those who don't agree to become snitches, and perhaps the creepiest of the lot, abduction and organ harvesting. --Yes we can control the real press no problem, (have you heard those stories given full coverage in the "real" news?), but this internet nuisance. . ! It's out of our control. We tried a massive astro-turfing campaign with demonstrably false talking points (thank-you Jon Stewart for being the only guy in television land for having the gonads to point them out.) while we were bombing Palestine last holiday season, but when people are able to get together on the unrestricted internet and were able to discuss things in forum rather than simply stare at a CRT and nod like zombies, our evil toxic bullshit PR threatened to not be 100% effective. We need to control this internet!"

2. "What is the most vital, most exciting, most anticipated technological breakthrough that people closely associated with the internet have been wishing for? Ah yes. Good battery tech."

3. "Subtle message; keep us safe from repercussions resulting from our numerous crimes against humanity. (The abused sickeningly often turns into the abuser, and in the case of Israel, it's just a typical example. The West Bank IS a concentration camp.) --But just hold off for another 5 years, because if you turn on us now, you won't get these marvelous batteries which can make your laptops last forever, and did we forget to mention, they can also save the world from automotive greenhouse pollution? Copenhagen what? No that's just random timing, honest!"

4. "Profit."

Hm. Actually, now that I think my way through this, it just seems fishier and fishier. Why is the word "Israel" built into the company name? This smells of a psy-ops play for mind share. --Hardly surprising for the only country on the planet which was able to organize a giant astro-turfing campaign to bolster world-wide support for war crimes and atrocities during the so-called "Cast lead" where the IDF used phosphorus on civilian targets. For crying out loud!

Sorry, Israel. I could care less about your religion, (or any religion, for that matter), but your government is evil and like Germany, the world is letting you get away with it. Heck, worse, the US is funding the damned thing.

So, sorry, no, I don't think your oh-so-innocent battery story making headlines is what it says it is.

-FL

Good point. I find it fascinating that slashdot is quoting a web site called "iran video news" that is run out of Arizona. If this is the only source that is reporting Iran is "considering" the death penalty then why the fuck should we believe it? We already know that the United States runs an intense media propaganda network around the world, and used it domestically during the build up to the Iraq war. In terms of Iran's use of the death penalty, they are definitely more fascist than we are, and these executions should stop. At the same time, why don't we start looking at our OWN record? Wouldn't it be easier to end our own human rights transgressions before attacking those of other countries? We've imprisoned journalists, and we've executed people who were children when they committed their crimes, the mentally retarded, and have condemned to death many people who were probably innocent, so our high horse on capital punishment and the imprisonment of journalists is not particularly "high". We've also now started imprisoning without trial and even torture.

I am sad to see slashdot fall for this obvious propaganda. I thought you guys were good critical thinkers.

Like Google handing over IP address of anonymous blogger critical of Israel municipal council member.

In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."

Ignoring that carbon emissions can be dealt with through compromise (even in the worst cases) and hence are not like slavery or the spread of totalitarian ideologies, would a person with this sort of viewpoint "cook the books" when it comes to their science? Why not? When I see accusations of NASA data manipulation coupled with refusal to honor FOIA requests and highly ideological, crude public statements like the above of key officials, then it looks like a pattern of unscientific behavior to me. They can at least act like grownups.

The people trying to force carbon emission reduction need to take their time. If they're right, then a little more time will simply solidify their position further, especially since there's no urgency in the matter according to current research. If they're wrong about the need to reduce human carbon emissions, then that'll help humanity collectively. For example, Hanson has been crying "wolf" since 1989. Even if the science is determined now (I still don't believe we've shown that human activity has a significant global warming effect), it wasn't then.

Finally, there needs to be a genuine cost/benefit analysis of the possible choices, including various geoengineering options and procrastination. It doesn't have to be perfect, but I'm tired of the nebulous claims of disaster made by anthropic global warming proponents (Hanson in the linked story above claims "tens of meters" of sea level rise, but doesn't bother to say over what time period this rise occurs).

Well from my point of view as an American, the Italian legal system isn't that much better...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/03/google-trial-privacy

Believe me, It'll go nowhere

Help us, IRS! You're our only hope

"sort of privately run military aimed at safeguard local fishing rights"

Have you watched the news? The Somali pirates are hijacking cargo vessels!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/18/maersk-alabama-pirates-somalia-guards

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61708828-de19-11de-b8e2-00144feabdc0.html

That's hardly protecting local fishing rights.

Get your facts straight.

Who knows? I suspect the answer to be no: we like the physical manifestations and possessions of the famous, as if we'll gain their powers or knowledge by proximity. And for writers, I don't think it matters what OS you use, although I like OS X; it probably doesn't even matter if you use a computer, a typewriter, or a pen: what matters most is your imagination and the power of expression. Everything else is secondary.

That being said, I can see the computers of famous authors one day being of value. For one thing, check out The Guardian's series on writers' rooms. If we're interested in the rooms, I bet we'll be interested in the tools.

"That's a very poor argument. You can swap out "church" for almost any other childhood activity. For example, soccer:"

A soccer coach has less scope for compelling sodomy than does a priest representing an imaginary celestial friend.

BTW, soccer coaches aren't paying hundreds of millions of dollars in pedophilia settlement money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762878/

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/04/us/boston-archbishop-will-sell-residence-for-abuse-payout.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655265.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4147431.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3872083.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/us/catholic-priest-who-aids-church-sexual-abuse-victims-loses-job-military-chaplain.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/scandal/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

Too bad this doesn't happen more often:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/24/geoghan/index.html

"That's a very poor argument. You can swap out "church" for almost any other childhood activity. For example, soccer:"

A soccer coach has less scope for compelling sodomy than does a priest representing an imaginary celestial friend.

BTW, soccer coaches aren't paying hundreds of millions of dollars in pedophilia settlement money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762878/

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/04/us/boston-archbishop-will-sell-residence-for-abuse-payout.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655265.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4147431.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3872083.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/us/catholic-priest-who-aids-church-sexual-abuse-victims-loses-job-military-chaplain.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/scandal/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

Too bad this doesn't happen more often:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/24/geoghan/index.html

I had a friend who would eat bacon and ham who was Jewish.

I think the term that you are looking for is Jew-ish.

Yeah, that word sucks:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman
2. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10367052-16.html

"the data should be made available on the basis that public money paid for it" I agree, and so does the Guardian. Unfortunately the UK government tends to see it as: "The public paid for it, so we have a duty to get the public back the most money for it we can, none of this socialist giving it away for free!" This is why the maps of the UK cost so much, unlike in the US. So it's not so much CRU as all the UK.

This is reminiscent of the tobacco research showing that cigarettes cause lung cancer. There was incredible controversy about this, mostly because of industry funded research throwing doubt on the results. People were also saying that it was just a scare tactic.
http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PowerPoint/FundingEffect4.pdf

Just look at the larger picture of research funding involved since 1960's. Climate change was a total non-starter for most scientists years ago. The first scientists to proclaim climate change had an uphill battle to get any funding at all. The energy industry and the auto industries have a financial interest in throwing doubt on climate change, and then on whether the climate change is man-made. And they provide a lot of the current research funding motivation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

Now what motivation does a scientist have for proclaiming climate change? Scientists are ordinary people, most don't have grand agendas, they just want to get ahead with research papers and get tenure; they try to do some science. Controversy hurts researchers a lot when they get up for tenure. Climate change garners a lot of opposition, and there wasn't historically much research funding for it. What does any single researcher get for saying such a thing? A lot of grief, really.

There is very little historical motivation for any reputable scientist to manufacture a scare, all they want is research funding now, not research funding years from now. The government does not like climate change as a problem, they'd much rather the problem goes away. On the other hand there is plenty of financial motivation for many powerful industries to deny climate change. If there is a significant subset of scientists saying there is man-made climate change, we should really pay attention, as it is very likely to be true.

The point about whether it's better for you personally is not the issue. The issue is that there are millions of people who will be affected, not just you. A 1m rise in sea level (deemed possible by 2100) would destroy farmland near coastal areas ...

And that warming couldn't make new lands in Asia (Siberia) more productive as farm land?

... and cost billions to build seawalls to protect cities like London ...

Billions of dollars? Over the course of a century?

To avoid this (imagined) expense, we're being asked to pay trillions of dollars.

The point about whether it's better for you personally is not the issue. The issue is that there are millions of people who will be affected, not just you. A 1m rise in sea level (deemed possible by 2100) would destroy farmland near coastal areas, salinate fresh water supplies, displace entire populations, and cost billions to build seawalls to protect cities like London. A country like Bangladesh could lose as much as 17% of it's land.

Problems of this magnitude can only be solved by political action. The data that humans are changing the climate is quite unambiguous, despite what you've been reading above, which is focusing on a few fractions of a degree in temperature. Other measurements, such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are much more starkly descriptive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook