Slashdot Mirror

I believe his point is that a great many species show very little sign of change, in spite of large-scale changes in the geological record. Evolution has poor "predictive" powers, he would argue.

Indeed, one cannot currently predict how a species may or may not evolve, since we don't really have a good understanding of gene expression. That's due primarily to a lack of understanding, not a flaw in the theory. We can foresee that one day we might be able to predict beneficial mutations given certain environmental conditions, but a great deal of research needs to fill in some gaps first.

his point would be that the ability to select from a known state is not at all the same as creating something entirely new. Selection has insufficient "creative" powers, he would argue.

Selection is not creating anything, mutation is. Selection merely weeds out the bad mutations.

For instance, see this recent announcement of a reproducible random mutation of E. Coli which enabled them to start metabolizing citrate. Once they narrow down the series of generations which led to this mutation, we'll get a clear picture of how random mutations can lead to beneficial traits and possibly speciation. It's a very exciting discovery, and the patience and effort that went into it is mind-boggling. I think this experiment will turn out to be critical to evolution and natural selection.

I think YOU need to check your reading comprehension. First of all there is not a sub-title on the article. I also checked the Journal reference

From the article:

[...]scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
[...] notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen.
[...] This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species

So here we have proof that:
- Sudden random mutation happens.
- Mutation leads to new species traits.
- Mutant offspring pass the trait to descendants.
- New species traits are functional, in this case improved ability to obtain 'food' from resources the main species cannot.

These are all critical components of evolutionary Theory, this experiment provides 4 points of proof that add validity to the Theory.
Specifically, it proves that the biological mechanism of mutation happens, and happens in a fashion that supports evolution. It also shows that mutations and new traits can cause one group to have a definite advantage/disadvantage over a group lacking the new trait, which also supports evolution.
Although this does not directly prove that Natural Selection on a large scale happens, it proves that at least in isolated ecologies it can and does happen.

As for your last point, science teaches kids to think for themselves. It is the application of logic, reason, and observed evidence, instead of taking someone else's word for something that creates independent thought. Telling kids that all science happens because the guy in the sky is pulling the strings does nothing to help independent thought; it in fact suppresses it.

also of interest may be the recent news of E. Coli evolving to metabolise citrate

clickity

Proof is in the pudding.

neither is there any concrete scientific evidence of evolution, apart from the strong surviving over the week, which can hardly be used to back up macro-evolution.

Dude, you might want to get your facts right : http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

They call it Audeo.

It was discussed here at Slashdot couple of months ago.

I saw this last week in New Scientist. You're jumping to some very flase conclusions. It has nothing to do with subliminal messages. From the linked article:

The device - dubbed MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio) - exploits the microwave audio effect, in which short microwave pulses rapidly heat tissue, causing a shockwave inside the skull that can be detected by the ears. A series of pulses can be transmitted to produce recognisable sounds.
<snip>
MEDUSA involves a microwave auditory effect "loud" enough to cause discomfort or even incapacitation. Sadovnik says that normal audio safety limits do not apply since the sound does not enter through the eardrums.

"The repel effect is a combination of loudness and the irritation factor," he says. "You can't block it out."

Am I the only one who finds it very, very scary that the "It's not torture if WE do it" Bush Administration(*) is working on technology that could be used to torture people and leave absolutely no physical evidence behind, ever?

This and the pain gun have me very, very scared for the future of our liberties.

*: To say nothing about the "It's not illegal if WE say it's not" and "You don't have the right to a free trial if WE don't say you do" and "We don't have to give up evidence unless WE want to" crap the retard king has pulled since his daddy's friends put him in power.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14250-microwave-ray-gun-controls-crowds-with-noise.html

I saw this last week in New Scientist. You're jumping to some very flase conclusions. It has nothing to do with subliminal messages. From the linked article:

The device - dubbed MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio) - exploits the microwave audio effect, in which short microwave pulses rapidly heat tissue, causing a shockwave inside the skull that can be detected by the ears. A series of pulses can be transmitted to produce recognisable sounds.
<snip>
MEDUSA involves a microwave auditory effect "loud" enough to cause discomfort or even incapacitation. Sadovnik says that normal audio safety limits do not apply since the sound does not enter through the eardrums.

"The repel effect is a combination of loudness and the irritation factor," he says. "You can't block it out."

It's more scary than cool.

The article at NewScientist says:

MEDUSA involves a microwave auditory effect "loud" enough to cause discomfort or even incapacitation. Sadovnik says that normal audio safety limits do not apply since the sound does not enter through the eardrums.

Also from NewScientist, a member of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of Illinois in Chicago who has also worked on the technique has commented that while feasible, attaining the necessary volume might involve power levels that could cause neural damage.

This was going to b ethe topic of my journal today, but now it won't be. There's a writer for the St Louis Post Dispatch that encourages looking up prospective dates on various sites. This is what was actually finished (it was going to be a long journal)

I was noodling around the various newspapers, and since I'm originally from the St. Louis arew I checked out the Post Dispatch. In it I ran across an item called The Data Diva says: Check your date out before you go out.

This nerdy looking (but not bad looking) lady, Jaimi Dowdell, seems to think that you should google your dates. I think her tinfoil hat is on too tight.

Speaking of tinfoil hats, soon you might need one for real, at least if you're going to demonstrate in front of the capitol.

But I digress. Ms. "Diva" may google, but she obviously doesn't wiki, as a diva is a singer. Anyway, she writes

That's right, friends. I background my dates
I may not have figured out how to find Mr. Right, but I can assure you that information about Mr. Wrong is everywhere. You just have to know where to look.

And I'm not just talking to the ladies. Guys, we've got closets, too. With a little work, you can get past her shoes and wardrobe to see if any skeletons are rattling around.

Right about now, some of you are probably thinking I'm just a little creepy.

Not just creepy, but seriously delusional.

Each time you buy a house, register to vote, list your phone number, etc. you leave a trail containing bits and pieces of your life. The Web site ZabaSearch crawls the online world picking up this trail from sites containing public records and other personal information.

So I looked up this zabasearch to see if I could find myself. I plugged in "steve mcgrew", my meatspace name.

No, I'm not the comedian from Colorado. There were hits; lots and lots of hits. So I narrowed it down to Illinois.

Lots of hits. Lots and lots of hits. Stephanie McGrew. Serena McGrew. Sharon McGrew. So I narrowed it down further and did an in-browser search for "Springfield". Finally it found me - from eight fucking years ago! It listed my age correctly, but had my address on reservoir. I moved out of that rented house in 2000 when I bought the house on 7th street. The house on 7th street I diaried about extensively on K5 after my marriage came apart.

There is some SERIOUSLY bad data on this site! I clicked "images" and there were a lot of images. Images of people I never met, not one of them me. This despite the fact that I've uplodaed several pics of myself to various places, including my old now-defunct domain mcgrew.info.

The comedian from Colorado was prominent in the photos. There's one of him with Dolly parton.

It says it has a home address and phone number, which it will gladly cough up for a price.

Nope. The only phone I have is a Net 10 prepaid phone. You're not going to find its number on the internet. The search site is a scam; I should sue them for slander, since it thinks I'm the comedian from Colorado, who had the web site "Steve McGrew's White Trash World".

It says it knows my income and home value. Not likely! Not if it thinks I still live on Reservoir Street.

Personally, I'd have to be a LOT harder up to go out with the sort of freak who would investigate someone before dating them, and someone dumb enough to think that you could actually learn anything about a person from the internet.

A much better version of this article can be found on the New Scientist website:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn14258-giant-rubber-snake-could-be-the-future-of-wave-power.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

The 'Anaconda' seems to float in the air and also have some sort of filter/covering to prevent marine life wandering into into b accident.

Yes, Iraq did have a nuclear program, back in the 1970s and 1980s. It didn't go well. They couldn't get any of the separation processes to work. A mid-level physicist in the program defected to the US and wrote a book about it, which gives a view of the strange world of working for Saddam Hussein. If he was annoyed at a manager, he sent them to a torture camp to be tortured for a while, then put them back to work. If they did well, he gave them one of his ex-mistresses.

Iraq tried to build calutrons, which do isotope separation in one or two steps but can process only tiny amounts of material. So it's necessary to build a large number of them to enrich enough uranium for a weapon. The US built some sizable calutron plants during WWII, but they were too slow to be useful when fed with natural uranium. They were used as a final upgrade step for uranium partially enriched in the gaseous diffusion plants. None of the other nuclear powers ever bothered much with calutrons, except little research-sized units. Iraq never actually built enough calutron capacity to accomplish much.

Iraq's yellowcake (uranium oxide, unenriched) is left over from that era. Extraction of yellowcake from raw ore is an ordinary chemical process, usually performed somewhere near the mine. It's the first and easiest step of the process, and that's as far as Iraq got.

Ok, but to clarify for some readers, "particle" does not mean corpuscular like a tennis ball, which is why the term "particle" tends to be a little misleading. In fact, it is why any "it's like a " phrase tends to fail, and why it was such a shock to discover indeterminable states to begin with. Quantum theory rests on the (unsurprising) revelation that at small scales, things are not as we have always visualized in the large, solid man-world. I don't think anyone other than Bohr was comfortable at the time with *any* explanation of some of these phenomena, even with models that were so fucking accurate.

And light does travel in wave form. Pics from a slashdot story very short while ago:
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14172-fastestever-flashgun-captures-image-of-light-wave.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14172

But it is easier to think of the quantized light in terms of... quanta! New particles, now with many new features and a money back guarantee!
Happy Independence Day!

I wonder if they found any more plutoids out there... Poor Pluto!

I wonder if this same kind of chicken little type fearmongering is the same thing that the "global warming" religion followers are doing...

Yeah, seriously. I mean, if any of the disaster scenarios that THOSE freaks were talking about were real, then wouldn't you first expect to see things like massive thawing of thermal reservoirs like the polar ice caps, permafrost, and the glaciers?

Oh, wait....

Except that none of those problems have had ANY impact with anything in my life or billions of other people's lives on this planet yet, and for the record, this kind of fearmongering IS NOT NEW!:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling (N that unlike the "Vostok ice core" chart on this page, all other "global warming" fearmongering charts stop at around 1850 when surface temperatures were first recorded on a consistent basis.)

All I am saying is that while the earth has warmed up during the past couple of hundred years, there is a lot of debate in many scientist circles as to the causes of this warming. Just because population levels and CO2 levels are up, does not imply obvious causation - correlation, sure - but not causation.

We have never run out of oil, or minerals, or noble gases, or raw earth minerals yet. Maybe we'll have to find alternatives and make do with less of those items, sure, but we'll never run out of them because the cost to acquire and use them will go up and will begin limiting who uses them and for what purposes to the point that we'll never run out - that's basic economics. (and not just monetary economic theory, I'm talking about economics of supply and demand) So whenever starts talking about running out of something, my BS meter goes off immediately because it just generally never happens... ESPECIALLY with regards to raw materials.

New Scientist had a similar article over a year ago.

What is interesting on the moon is that there appears to be loads of lava tubes in the poles. And that is were the solar energy can be used. OTH, using solar at the equator does not make much sense. You will have to provide storage, OR beam the energy to a location.

Storage isn't a hard problem. It's just inefficient and heavy. Of course, having a requirement for a two week storage system is going to crimp near term colonization activities, but there's no reason a second generation colony can't rely on energy storage methods to make it through the night.

As to uranium/thorium on mars, I was under the impression that it has not been proven that there is any quantaties there. OTH, japan recently PROVED that several spots on the moon has very high concentrations of it. High enough that if it were on earth, we would be mining it.

I thought so as well, but apparently they do know that uranium exists on Mars. From this article:

Now Jean-Christophe Sabroux from the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety in Saclay, France, says radon is the answer. Radon is produced by the radioactive decay of uranium, which is common in rocks on Earth and Mars.

I wonder if concentrations were high enough to go critical as has happened in several spots on Earth?

I was about to cry "Dupe!" but it turns out I read it in New Scientist, not slashdot.

Here's the link: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13658-brain-scanner-predicts-your-future-moves.html

If you read the articles and are damned sure, cite your sources.

I do that quite frequently here and still get modded troll. I can provide evidence until I'm blue in the face, but it doesn't matter when one is on /. surrounded by believers.

I'll take just one example from your link... The "myth" The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong by Michael Le Page. The hockey stick model was demonstrated to produce hockey stick graphs with random data. It was clearly sheer incompetence or an outright fraud. But that's not the most damning evidence.

The most damning evidence is: It never happened. The predictions made never came true. That model was created by Mann in 1999. As everyone here knows, 1998 was an abnormally hot year thanks to el nino. Mann took that anomaly and ran with it, claiming we were witnessing the beginning of runaway exponential global warming. Temperatures have only gone down since 1998.

And they better link to peer-reviewed research that supports the premise. Or we will taunt you a second time...

Who needs peer reviewed papers? Global warmers are in denial of observed reality.

30 years ago when my parents were in school they were saying we're headed to another Ice age.

No they weren't, or not in the way you think anyway. This claim is debunked in every "top 10 climate change myths" article, for example:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643

STOP!

For the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers, start here:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
It links to many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources.

If you simply just say something like "no, it doesn't have evidence" or say something that the above link disproves, (and apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) you just MIGHT be a troll.

If you read the articles and are damned sure, cite your sources. And they better link to peer-reviewed research that supports the premise. Or we will taunt you a second time...

Carry on.

Wow. I'm not trying to insult you, but is English your first language? How old are you? There's obviously something wrong with you, because you're failing to read the articles and follow the links inside.

Because you would then see the parent article: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Which then links to this article (like magic, see? tada!): Climate myths: Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

the above linked articles did neither and had no evidence connected to them.

Since *all* the articles link to peer-reviewed research, all you're doing is saying "Nuh UH!"

Where are *YOUR* links? Where is your peer-reviewed research? I provided mine.

Put up or shut up.

Wow. I'm not trying to insult you, but is English your first language? How old are you? There's obviously something wrong with you, because you're failing to read the articles and follow the links inside.

Because you would then see the parent article: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Which then links to this article (like magic, see? tada!): Climate myths: Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

the above linked articles did neither and had no evidence connected to them.

Since *all* the articles link to peer-reviewed research, all you're doing is saying "Nuh UH!"

Where are *YOUR* links? Where is your peer-reviewed research? I provided mine.

Put up or shut up.

The implications of this, as well as the causes, are still being debated. Are global warming experts just short-sighted alarmists? Are we heading for a global ice age? Or is the increase in global mean temperature having an effect on our planet?"

There isn't any debate. Read this:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

I don't care if people are tired of me posting it. I'm tired of people spouting baloney without backing it up.

I'm not sure why you were modded flamebait.

But, in any case, here's the article you should give out:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

It links to peer-reviewed research while rebutting the myths we're tired of seeing perpetuated. It doesn't guarantee the horse will drink, but you'll soon find out who is in the closet and who is simply misinformed.

For all of you who say that the polar bear population is increasing

Glad to be of service with a helpful link. Don't bother countering the deniers without a link. It turns into a "Is SO" - "Nuh UH" fest which just feeds the deniers. Shut them down with peer-reviewed research.
Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing

Wow. Just wow. You didn't bother reading or following the links, did you?

And now you're just making stuff up. How can anyone take you seriously at this point?

That is one article with little to no evidence or proof in it against millions of scientists and a pre-historic event

Millions? You're a comic genius, Mr. Borat. Funny how I have another article that refutes you.
MYTH:Many leading scientists question climate change

Put up or shut up. Link or GTFO.

Another person who doesn't bother to read.

There is no guarentee that your links are accurate

Can't really help a denier. My links follow all the way down to peer reviewed science articles. Where are yours?

You simply don't have that. Not in any of the links you presented either then or now.

Back it up. Else you're simply like a child trying to win an argument by repetitively shouting "Nah UH!"

And from the sound of this post, I'm doubtful that your able to make an informed decision yourself.

Once again, links?

There is no guarentee that your links are accurate and your presention... blah blah blah

Once again, links?

Katrina wasn't because of global warming, Mars and other planets aren't because of global warming, but you got one thing right

Wow, you need some readjustment. Right is wrong now? Yes is no? I got both of those right because they're in the articles:
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Just keep on wishing you are correct. I'll keep filling in my BINGO squares. I'm almost done for this /. article.

"We can't do anything about climate change"

I'm going to get a soda so I can spit it out on my computer screen laughing. BRB. Back! I almost choked, but I can't stop laughing.

You *do* know that's the exact title of one of the articles? Right? RIGHT? :D I mean seriously, you're just yanking my chain at this point. There's no way you could be this...

MYTH: We can't do anything about climate change

I just can't take you seriously anymore. Sir, you're a good comedian. Thanks for the laugh.

Another person who doesn't bother to read.

There is no guarentee that your links are accurate

Can't really help a denier. My links follow all the way down to peer reviewed science articles. Where are yours?

You simply don't have that. Not in any of the links you presented either then or now.

Back it up. Else you're simply like a child trying to win an argument by repetitively shouting "Nah UH!"

And from the sound of this post, I'm doubtful that your able to make an informed decision yourself.

Once again, links?

There is no guarentee that your links are accurate and your presention... blah blah blah

Once again, links?

Katrina wasn't because of global warming, Mars and other planets aren't because of global warming, but you got one thing right

Wow, you need some readjustment. Right is wrong now? Yes is no? I got both of those right because they're in the articles:
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Just keep on wishing you are correct. I'll keep filling in my BINGO squares. I'm almost done for this /. article.

"We can't do anything about climate change"

I'm going to get a soda so I can spit it out on my computer screen laughing. BRB. Back! I almost choked, but I can't stop laughing.

You *do* know that's the exact title of one of the articles? Right? RIGHT? :D I mean seriously, you're just yanking my chain at this point. There's no way you could be this...

MYTH: We can't do anything about climate change

I just can't take you seriously anymore. Sir, you're a good comedian. Thanks for the laugh.

Another person who doesn't bother to read.

There is no guarentee that your links are accurate

Can't really help a denier. My links follow all the way down to peer reviewed science articles. Where are yours?

You simply don't have that. Not in any of the links you presented either then or now.

Back it up. Else you're simply like a child trying to win an argument by repetitively shouting "Nah UH!"

And from the sound of this post, I'm doubtful that your able to make an informed decision yourself.

Once again, links?

There is no guarentee that your links are accurate and your presention... blah blah blah

Once again, links?

Katrina wasn't because of global warming, Mars and other planets aren't because of global warming, but you got one thing right

Wow, you need some readjustment. Right is wrong now? Yes is no? I got both of those right because they're in the articles:
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Just keep on wishing you are correct. I'll keep filling in my BINGO squares. I'm almost done for this /. article.

"We can't do anything about climate change"

I'm going to get a soda so I can spit it out on my computer screen laughing. BRB. Back! I almost choked, but I can't stop laughing.

You *do* know that's the exact title of one of the articles? Right? RIGHT? :D I mean seriously, you're just yanking my chain at this point. There's no way you could be this...

MYTH: We can't do anything about climate change

I just can't take you seriously anymore. Sir, you're a good comedian. Thanks for the laugh.

I would suggest your logic here is flawed or at the very least belies a bit of a gap in understanding how evolution works.

I have presented my arguments to back up my claim, which based on how evolution works. Let me try to help you understand it a bit.

Fact 1:Nature already produced another base that is never used in DNA, uracil. Understanding evolution would tell you this means that it did not do so, because there was no advantage in doing so.

Fact 2: The new bases are chemically variations of the old ones as mentioned in the New Scientist reference in the article. Makes sense too, otherwise they would not fit in the DNA chain. This means that chemical accidents over billions of years have probably already produced these bases also, but they were never used. If they had any utility in producing better organisms they would have been used. Same as utacil that had utility in RNA and was used there, but not in DNA and was not used there.

Fact 3: The new Scientist article also mentons other applications: building nanostructures, comptuting etc. There the rules are different, and possibilities exist.

Conclusion: The classical biological cycle would probably not have any use for these new bases, or they would be already in use. They are close enough to regular bases to be produced accidentally, and that is how evolution works. Again, this does not apply to nanotech. Rules are too different.

this is like giving artists new colors nobody can see are perhaps a bit closer.

Perhaps Rincewind doing a painting in octarine? (Pratchett reference, couldn't resist. Please ignore :-) But there have been new colors that are unused such as infared and UV. Artists don't use them. Why? They don't offer anything visible.

It seems far more likely that once life got going with all the support systems (RNA, tRNA, etc.) and current coding mechanisms that it would have been very difficult to "back up" and try something new.

Three basic errors in your reasoning

1. Evolution does not keep backups within organisms. An error produces a difference in a new organism and it either succeeds or (mostly) dies.

2. Evolution proceeds with unlikely events. It is the very unlikely but very fortunate errors that produce the new advantages that are multiplied over the generations and dominate. Easy of difficult does not enter into it.

3. The errors themselves are random. There are no "established" mechanisms that are exempt. The same is true for the very few fortunate errors. If they potentially exist they will happen, at any level, including the very basic support systems.

Evolutionary history is full of examples ... for what a lifeform is doing at the moment something else would be a bit better (human eye and blind spot?)

Evolution is full of tradeoffs. The one blind spot (eliminated if you move your head a bit) allows the optic nerve to be in the retina rather than in some layer below making for a faster and more compact system. Other example: Most nasal problems are a consequence of improper draining of the nose. These appeared when humans first stood erect (stop thinking that, you know what I mean :-) But again a tradeoff. There are many other advantages to being erect though (oh, go ahead, think what you like ...)

So, conclusion? If the new bases could have been used it would already have, by evolution. So they probably are not useful, in a biology and genetics context.

That's your summary, but it's obvious you didn't bother to understand the article.

You: need falsifiable hypothesis
From my link:

The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future - and indeed have successfully done so.

You: uncertainty
From my link:

Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism - that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.

You: error bars
From my link:

In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like "likely" and "very likely" in terms of percentage probability.

You: cloud modelling is error prone

Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change .

You: financial market modelling
From my link:

Of course, in some ways financial markets are much trickier to model than the climate, depending as they do on human behaviour. What's more, trading based on computer models alters the nature of the very thing you're trying to predict.

So... human behavior changes the forward prediction.

You take bullet points for your summary then refuse to explain them, as if they aren't addressed in the very article I linked. You then claim that these models aren't validated. Shame on you. Did you read it or did you just skim and not bother even following links?!

Here's another article to read from the same series (that was linked in the article I gave you, BTW)
MYTH:Chaotic systems are not predictable
And a quote from it since you likely won't read it through:

While weather and to some extent climate are chaotic systems, that does not mean that either are entirely unpredictable, as this demonstration neatly illustrates.

You: "week by week"
That's called *weather* my friend. And this article even defines climate for you:

Climate, however, is the bigger picture of a region's weather: the average, over 30 years (according to the World Meteorological Association's definition), of the weather pattern in a region. While weather changes fast on human timescales, climate changes fairly slowly. Getting reasonably accurate predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: days in the case of weather, decades in the case of climate.

In actuality, climate modelling is more important than your financial modelling. Climate modellers are striving for more accuracy all the time, and making models more and more accurate with more data sources isn't "tweaking" as it may be in your models. Plus, *lives* depend on climate models, as opposed to your financial models. Someone losing a million dollars is nothing compared with a million people losing their livelihood, or worse, their lives.

Read through the rest of the article series, and follow all the links. Be curious about science. That's my best advice.

That's your summary, but it's obvious you didn't bother to understand the article.

You: need falsifiable hypothesis
From my link:

The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future - and indeed have successfully done so.

You: uncertainty
From my link:

Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism - that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.

You: error bars
From my link:

In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like "likely" and "very likely" in terms of percentage probability.

You: cloud modelling is error prone

Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change .

You: financial market modelling
From my link:

Of course, in some ways financial markets are much trickier to model than the climate, depending as they do on human behaviour. What's more, trading based on computer models alters the nature of the very thing you're trying to predict.

So... human behavior changes the forward prediction.

You take bullet points for your summary then refuse to explain them, as if they aren't addressed in the very article I linked. You then claim that these models aren't validated. Shame on you. Did you read it or did you just skim and not bother even following links?!

Here's another article to read from the same series (that was linked in the article I gave you, BTW)
MYTH:Chaotic systems are not predictable
And a quote from it since you likely won't read it through:

While weather and to some extent climate are chaotic systems, that does not mean that either are entirely unpredictable, as this demonstration neatly illustrates.

You: "week by week"
That's called *weather* my friend. And this article even defines climate for you:

Climate, however, is the bigger picture of a region's weather: the average, over 30 years (according to the World Meteorological Association's definition), of the weather pattern in a region. While weather changes fast on human timescales, climate changes fairly slowly. Getting reasonably accurate predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: days in the case of weather, decades in the case of climate.

In actuality, climate modelling is more important than your financial modelling. Climate modellers are striving for more accuracy all the time, and making models more and more accurate with more data sources isn't "tweaking" as it may be in your models. Plus, *lives* depend on climate models, as opposed to your financial models. Someone losing a million dollars is nothing compared with a million people losing their livelihood, or worse, their lives.

Read through the rest of the article series, and follow all the links. Be curious about science. That's my best advice.

I'm not sure why I posted all that, except perhaps to demonstrate that we should be very wary of allowing politics or popular opinion to be confused with actual science.

While that's an excellent point that I also wish would be impressed onto the general public, people take this WAY too far and just dismiss everything that doesn't fit their world view.

It still seems you have some misinformation, or perhaps a lingering misunderstanding of Global Warming. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you're asserting that water vapor is more important that CO2 emissions right now.

MYTH: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Here's the parent article to the article I linked for you:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

There's a whole lot of misinformation going around. I'm not trying to target you personally. If everyone linked to good articles which cite peer-reviewed research, we'd all be better off. And right now we've got people on both ends not bothering. However, just because there are also some nuts on the anthropogenic global warming side, this does not disprove Global Warming.

I'm not sure why I posted all that, except perhaps to demonstrate that we should be very wary of allowing politics or popular opinion to be confused with actual science.

While that's an excellent point that I also wish would be impressed onto the general public, people take this WAY too far and just dismiss everything that doesn't fit their world view.

It still seems you have some misinformation, or perhaps a lingering misunderstanding of Global Warming. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you're asserting that water vapor is more important that CO2 emissions right now.

MYTH: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Here's the parent article to the article I linked for you:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

There's a whole lot of misinformation going around. I'm not trying to target you personally. If everyone linked to good articles which cite peer-reviewed research, we'd all be better off. And right now we've got people on both ends not bothering. However, just because there are also some nuts on the anthropogenic global warming side, this does not disprove Global Warming.

Obviously you didn't bother to read it or follow any links.

This one's appropriate to you:
It's all a conspiracy

Here's the main article with all the myths laid out. Not that you'll read it.
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Specifically follow the links in the sections marked
What is happening now?

  Mars and Pluto are warming too

  Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

  Polar bear numbers are increasing

  The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

  The oceans are cooling
What is going to happen?

  Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

  Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

  Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Why should I worry?

  It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

  We can't do anything about climate change

Obviously you didn't bother to read it or follow any links.

This one's appropriate to you:
It's all a conspiracy

Here's the main article with all the myths laid out. Not that you'll read it.
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Specifically follow the links in the sections marked
What is happening now?

  Mars and Pluto are warming too

  Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

  Polar bear numbers are increasing

  The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

  The oceans are cooling
What is going to happen?

  Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

  Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

  Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Why should I worry?

  It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

  We can't do anything about climate change

If the poles melt, I believe the estimate is up to a 30 meter rise.
As for "warmer in Europe":
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644

I suggest reading the entire story:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

If the poles melt, I believe the estimate is up to a 30 meter rise.
As for "warmer in Europe":
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644

I suggest reading the entire story:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Considering many places are having record ice GROWTH

MYTH: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Read the whole article.

So, the N. Pole is growing while the S. Pole is growing new ice despite a big hole in the ozone and chiken little claims of global warming.

MYTH: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Read the whole article.

Skeptics tell us that the climate models are riddled with errors, and cannot be trusted. ... How can you base environment policies on models that are shown to have such large errors?

MYTH: We can't trust computer models

Yes, absolutely. Instead of believing the propaganda from Big Oil that nothing is wrong, we should instead believe in the propaganda from political interests attempting to divert our attention from other matters and scientific communities whose funding is dependent on the support of those political interests that our doom is upon us and we must stop doing anything.

MYTH: It's all a conspiracy

As the sun will grow larger and larger, our planet is going to heat more and more, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. ... But it's a fact we can see a slight difference, and it's a fact that WE make a slight difference on climate change. But our destiny is that of our Sun

Climate Myths:
Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
We can't do anything about climate change

As the sun will grow larger and larger, our planet is going to heat more and more, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. ... But it's a fact we can see a slight difference, and it's a fact that WE make a slight difference on climate change. But our destiny is that of our Sun

Climate Myths:
Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
We can't do anything about climate change

The thing is, increased CO2 (if that was the only factor in climate change) is probably an overall boon to the biosphere. It would mean more tropical regions and more usable land in far northern latitudes.

Climate Myths:
CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

The thing is, increased CO2 (if that was the only factor in climate change) is probably an overall boon to the biosphere. It would mean more tropical regions and more usable land in far northern latitudes.

Climate Myths:
CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Mars, Pluto, and Jupiter are also warming.

Which has nothing to do with us.

30 years ago when my parents were in school they were saying we're headed to another Ice age. I still haven't seen any definitive evidence that we're not in a cycle. Our sample time is far too short.

Climate Myths:

They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

Read the articles and follow their links.