Slashdot Mirror

The US is not the world...

Please show me where I involved the US, or mentioned any conspiracy (although those things do exist...).

debunking AGW

Yes, there are some papers that try to 'debunk' AGW, and they themselves don't seem to be debunked themselves much.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

“My attention has just be called to a list of “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming.” A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does. ”

Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"

1. Roger Pielke Jr. falsely assumed why his papers and his father's were listed, "Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers..."

Papers can be listed for two reasons,

(1) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1)

(2) They support skeptic arguments against Alarmism defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." (Not defined or mentioned by him)

All of the Pielke's papers were listed because they support skeptic arguments against Alarmism not because they support skepticism of ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1).

Straight from the horse's mouth.

And completely refuted: Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"

The Model M is my keyboard; I shall not want.
It maketh me sit in front of my computer;
it leadeth me to caress the still keys.
It restoreth my faith in manufacturing;
it leadeth me to collect every single variety.
Yea, though I sit at a desk in a cubicle at work,
I will fear no carpal-tunnel, for thou art with me; thy clicks they comfort me.
Thou prepardest a refuge for me in the presence of cheap keyboards;
thou anointest my fingers with feedback; my productivity runneth over.
Surely ergonomics and quality shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will use my Model M forever.

And by the way: here are a few of the peer-reviewed papers by those people you claim don't exist.

"Evolution has about the same level of scientific consensus supporting it as climate change."

This is such an crazy claim, it's you who should be compared to creationists.

I have news for you, man. Evolution does not have a strong body of contrary science saying it's wrong. But AGW (which is what almost everybody really means when they say "climate change") DOES have such a body of science challenging its validity, including many peer-reviewed papers.

And that is not even close to a comprehensive list. There are also physicists who worked for NASA, and other science professionals, currently challenging the very foundations of AGW theory.

And it isn't

"all scientists across the world ... saying the same"

... in fact it is http://joannenova.com.au/2013/...">a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus". (Note: Monckton did not compile that information, he just wrote about it.)

Further, a recent survey of meteorologists found that 2 factors, "perceived consensus" and "political ideology" were the 2 primary factors in members' opinions about AGW. (The "consensus" there, by the way, is 52%.)

I could go on for ages. So... what was that about creationism again? Pardon me, but your ideology is showing. By denying the existence of the science that contradicts your point of view, it is YOU who ends up looking like the ideologue and denialist.

And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.

Some of these papers don't seriously dispute CO2-based warming. For example, the paper by Chylek et al. in JGR states in paragraph 6, "Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes a positive radiative forcing, leading to a warmer climate and a higher annual mean surface temperature." The paper is about the role of aerosols in climate forcing and how that affects climate sensitivity.

"... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."

No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.

A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.

And if you think that is somehow an anomaly, I assure you it isn't. The climate hasn't "warmed" in at least 16 years. AGW-proponent climate scientists publicly admit that they have no idea why.The reason is simple: their theory is fundamentally flawed.

The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.

Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.

Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.

And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.

There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.

"I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.

Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post."

Okay. On the outrageously infinitesimal probability that you have argued with me so frequently but missed the hundreds of links I have posted, here are just a few of them. First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.)

No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.

Then, let's see... there are so many to choose from. I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years... most of which I've linked to here. And more written down from years prior. Hey, here's one. About that "97% consensus". (Note here: this information did not come from Christopher Monckton, but he did write about it. The same points are available in more painstaking detail elsewhere. I linked to this same information from a different source a few days ago. The point being: don't try shooting the messenger. I'll just laugh at you. If you can refute the message, go ahead.)

"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"

Because, you see, according to an actual survey of AMS members, it turns out that their opinion of AGW is actually based more on their "perception of consensus" (rather than science) and their "political ideology" (rather than science). Wow. I would never would have guessed that latter. Just kidding. I most certainly would have. But isn't that what you accused ME of? What a coincidence!

If you don't like reading about it on WUWT, here is a link so you can download the paper directly from the American Meteorological Society's own website.

How about some information regarding the actual CO2-based-warming climate models?

Hmm. How about: how IPCC has deliberately mislead the public.

And more of that: "IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted..."

Yet another reason bogus claims about expensive storms have been bogus...

How 114 out of 117 climate models studied exaggerated warming by a mean of over 100% (pdf). That one is from Nature.

No dispute? Hahahaha.

Wait... this wouldn't be complete (it isn't anyway, not by a long shot) without just a hint of the boatload of evidence that Steve Goddard has been compiling about dishonest temperature information being fed to us by our erstwhile "authorities" on the matter.

Well, hell. I could do this all day. So here's a list of more references you can read for yourself, all peer-reviewed. I'm not going to count them.

I think we've covered that God was not talking about men, but of the human race, so we are past (a). If God is stingy with a single Hebrew letter, (b) is covered. Hey, who can guess at his plan, right? The only person in the world objecting to Jeanne's age is you, so I'd like to move past (d). That leaves us with (c).

This will have to be split into two, since your persistently, and apparently deliberately, disingenuous discussion approaches are annoying me into stopping my response with the first blatantly-wrong statement, which, I suppose, is the best you can hope for here. But, to be more thorough:

I think we've covered that God was not talking about men, but of the human race, so we are past (a).

You may feel you have "covered" it, but you did not in any way do so meaningfully. There is no reason from the text to conclude God -must- have meant both men and women when saying "man". The original Hebrew, if anything, directly suggests otherwise. You had zero response to using "man" and "his" in a very-similar sentence where it would be absolutely clear that men specifically are being addressed, contrary to you hinging your interpretation on what you merely assert is a gender-neutral usage with no demonstration of this. If you finally do this, we can start on all the other subpoints you need for "disproven".

If God is stingy with a single Hebrew letter, (b) is covered. Hey, who can guess at his plan, right?

Try a statement with some content here. Vague sarcasm isn't it.

The only person in the world objecting to Jeanne's age is you, so I'd like to move past (d).

Factually disproven with about 10 seconds worth of googling.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=3663&st=0

That leaves us with (c).

No, it doesn't, but if it did, your following incoherent rambling wouldn't address that one, either. God can do anything he wants, including have exceptions to what is unquestionably, merely by you reading the words, stated as being done for his own purposes. Given that being the case, -having many more- living outside of the timeframe would still not "disprove" it given what the statement actually is and implies. It simply the case that the facts pose you much more of a challenge (which you still evade, still waiting for your prediction) than you are willing to admit, as evidenced by your twists of evasion and continuing to hope that if you can successfully counterargue anything, anywhere (which you persistently don't succeed at even at that basic level) will demonstrate that "disproven" that just keeps getting farther and farther away as you ignore or poorly address point after point, -any of which- destroys your claim. A few more posts of you failing to see this, or seeing it and just deciding to lie, max, for me.

And, zero down of about 20 now, but who's counting?

An IBM Model M Soft Touch. ;) (NOT a Quiet Touch, that's just a rubber dome keyboard. A decent one, but it's still rubber dome.)

It was meant for RS/6000 workstations. IIRC, IBM's replacement parts system still recognizes the part number (8184692,) although I think it costs $180.

Alternately, I've been told that Unicomp can custom-make a greased spring keyboard for you, for an additional charge of $40. Downside is, there's no warranty on that.

Finally, you can just grease the springs yourself.

I've typed on the keyboard in that thread, and it's very quiet (for a Model M, anyway,) and the click IS somewhat softened, but it's still VERY nice.

Also, I know it's bad form to reply to myself, but you can do the spring greasing yourself.

I've closed down this forum, but it's still readable...

http://z13.invisionfree.com/OneTrueKeyboard/index.php?showtopic=34

Uh.. yeah sure http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/validify

http://s8.invisionfree.com/weaselwords/ar/t167.htm

Pretty common usage *shrug*

Bunny-hopping doesn't give you extra speed in TFC, it just makes you harder to hit. In HL2, it DOES make you go faster, but you have to time it just right (I was on the team for Half-life 2 Done Quick).

However, in CS, they purposely made it so that jumping slows you down, to make it so that bunny-hopping no longer was effective at keeping your speed up.

There's been something fishy going on at nVidia for a while.

One is nVidia's policy that *they* don't support nVidia techology; the OEMs do. They tell you if you have problems to contact your OEM. Now Apple is a big company and could conceivably do this, but many nVidia cards are made by small OEMs who slap electronics on a board and sell it. Are they going to help you with a crashing nVidia driver. And when you follow the link on the nVidia to their OEM "support partners", this is what you get:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/partner_support.html "Page not found"

nVidia has gone so far to shut down the feedback page on their website: It says "This module is still under construction." You really believe nobody at nVidia knows how to make a web feedback page?

There's a long running bug in nVidia drivers known as the nv4_disp bug. You'll be typing away on your PC, then suddenly your monitor goes blank. A few seconds later, your PC power down. This was happening to me and I though it was some perculiarity with my PC. It turns out, this is affecting a lot of people, and it has been around for many years. nVidia know about it (they mention it in passing on one of their forums), but haven't fixed it. Windows BSOD diagnoses it as an infinite loop "device driver programming error." Independently some skilled owners worked out it was a timing problem with how nVidia writes to an I/O register. If you're lucky this bug will hit you only once a week. If you're unlucky, several times a day. THIS HAS BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS, yet nVidia won't fix this damned thing!

Want to see how widespread the problem is? Google for nv4_disp. The owner of this web page says he's amazed how many hits this page gets, and theorises a lot of people are affected:

http://s13.invisionfree.com/nv4_disp/index.php?sho wtopic=10
http://byronmiller.typepad.com/byronmiller/2005/10 /stupid_windows_.html
http://www.computing.net/drivers/wwwboard/forum/49 55.html
http://www.christopherjason.com/articles/nvidia-nv 4disp-problem/
http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread27150-1.html
http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread18930. html

The most frustating thing is that nVidia do everything they can to put you off. A "under construcion" feedback page. The fob-off to their partners, with a support page that doesn't even exist. Ignored e-mail. Ignored forum questions.

One solution is of course to buy an ATI card, but if you're paid hundreds of bucks for an nVidia card, what do you do? Does anyone know how we can make nVidia fix this damned thing?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ind ex.php?s=1eb8428abab176acaf3c35bc21931864&showtopi c=2275

Have some examples. OMG I LOOKED!

I just need one good example to the contrary. SURELY if this is so feasible there is a photo of it SOMEWHERE?

In the US are in the CIA.

I'll probably get more Troll mods for this one. It's not.

http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/ 002721.html

http://invisionfree.com/forums/4th_Space_Cafe/inde x.php?showtopic=285&view=getnewpost

Anyway in a sad attempt to make this post of any merit - Blood and Shadows Oblivion forum has a decent list of tweak mods here:

http://s13.invisionfree.com/Kaleem/index.php?showf orum=16

I dunno about you, but I find immense replay value in any well-made game. A few single-player missions for HL1 and HL2. I've played through Opposing Force at least three times, Blue Shift three times, and the original HL1 countless times (both by myself and with Sven Coop). I've ran through HL2 at least five times the whole way through, and I've played individual segments countless times as well, including for the project Half-life 2 Done Quick. Hell, even on my first run through the game there were several segments that I found so fun that I used quicksave/quickload over and over. Then when Lost Coast came out, I played it three times in one night.

I doubt all this is just because I'm in the target audience for episodic content. I think that this series (as well as HL2: Aftermath) will do very well.

You should contact the legal firm of Spiro Moss Barness, etc... They are one of many firms united in a class action lawsuit about the Thompson DVD drives that were used in the Xbox. Microsoft seem to have been aware of the lack of quality in these drives as later models used different manufacturers. Despite this, if you talk to their customer service reps, they continue to ask you if your discs are dirty despite the fact you tell them you just bought the damn game.

I don't give a rat's ass about Sony's problems. I'm here to ask about the awful consumer experience I had with my original Xbox and what exactly is the truth about this new product. Here are links that show what a known issue those drives were.

http://sentientcreations.com/xboxIssues/problem.ph p

http://www.llamma.com/xbox/Repairs/xbox_dvd_repair .htm

Now there's an entire market based upon replacing your Xbox's DVD drive with a better one such as Samsung.

Microsoft's support solution: clean the disc. No matter how many times you tell them the disc is brand new, they say it's a dirty disc.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;8167

Then there was the power supply issue. A recall in which power cords were issued to cover up shoddy circuitry that could and did cause house fires. Mostly due to bad soldering. In the recall, older Xboxes were given power cords with breakers, so in the event of a short, you may burn out your Xbox but at least your house won't burn down.

http://s4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/ar/t 215.htm

So a few weeks ago we started to see Xbox 360s in demo retail models showing the dreaded Error 74. Photograph of it here.

http://joystiq.com/entry/1234000480066825/

Now we have reports of crashes that yes, are online and could be from a vocal minority, but I have never heard of or owned a console that crashes the way photographs show us is happening to the 360 - and let's remember the people complaining about it are the ones who braved the cold and the nuisance of picking one up.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/xbox-360/hours-old-an d-pgr3-crashing-like-mad-138978.php

Now apparently there is a fix in the form of suspending the power supply. People are finding it's working. Ergo, the power supply is defective. Just like the one on the original Xbox which was RECALLED.

Whatever marketing spiel Microsoft want to give, I want for them to answer one thing. What exactly is Error 74 and Error 79 - what does it mean is happening to the box. They have refused, as they did with the Thompson DVD drive, to let us know what is going wrong. Even if it isolated. Does it bode poorly for the future? Why is there a SPECIFIC error message already in the box's OS that is happening to people?

Now we know for certain that the machine is not only prone to overheating, there is an inbuilt error message related to it.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907533/

And did you hear about how the tech support person told that guy to "wipe his video cables with a soft cloth"? Too rich.

http://s9.invisionfree.com/Gamers_Chat/index.php?a ct=site

This is an underpowered aspx Wiki. See OpenWikiNG, a branch of OpenWiki for a stunning ASP version with: - WYSIWYG editor
- XML output etc etc SourceForge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openwiki-ng/ Discussion group: http://s8.invisionfree.com/OpenWikiNG/index.php?