Slashdot Mirror

The above doesn't bother you in any way?

Of course it bothers me that you and your merry band of trolls keep regurgitating baseless and libelous accusations.

Would it bother you if a skeptical study falsely described its methods? I bet it would.

All good studies are skeptical, including Cook et al. 2013. Your regurgitated accusations are simply wrong, that's all. Here are a few more independent skeptical studies: Doran and Zimmerman 2009 and Anderegg et al. 2010 and Verheggen 2014. Do you see a pattern yet?

I agree that it is strange NASA is publicly endorsing this utter garbage.

That's good. Now you should consider the possibility that your "utter garbage" accusation is wrong, and NASA is right.

Problem #1: 11,944 research papers which were all specifically about climate change and human influence; they removed the 7,930 "We don't know" from the numbers... (Often, deluded opponents will claim the rejected papers had "climate" as a keyword but were not about climatology; that is false: all 11,944 papers were selected from a larger such set, and were selected because they explored human-caused climate change.)

Really? Are you absolutely sure that those peer-reviewed papers didn't just have "global climate change" or "global warming" as keywords? Because that's how C13 actually selected their sample.

You seem to be incorrectly saying that every single paper which includes those keywords is an attribution study. If you were correct, you'd be able to provide 7,930 abstract quotes saying "we don't know whether global warming is caused primarily by human activities". Is it even remotely possible that those 7,930 papers just weren't attribution studies?

Try to use your approach to estimate the consensus on plate tectonics or evolution. Are abstracts which don't explicitly state that they agree with those theories actually saying "we don't know"? If that's really your position, you must also not think there's a scientific consensus about plate tectonics or evolution.

... took count of the papers which were *definitely* certain, determined that 97% of *those* support human-caused global warming, and labeled that as 97% of *all*.

No, they labeled that as 97% of papers stating a position on the primary cause of global warming. Which is true.

Problem #2: False equivocation. They took count of the number of published papers, and claimed the ratio of published papers agreeing with a position as the ratio of *scientists*. ...

Wrong. They cited Doran and Zimmerman 2009 and Anderegg et al. 2010 and Verheggen 2014 which really are surveys of scientists.

A recent study published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." also revealed that the death rate of middle-aged, non-Hispanic white people is increasing while all other groups continue to see a decline in mortality rates.

http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

Rural white people don't need to be lectured by elitist liberal academics and BLM activists about how "privileged" they are.

"Justice is what the judge had for breakfast" isn't just a silly blurb, there was a study that showed increased parole rates for cases after lunch hours. Granted, it was probably American courts, but I doubt UK courts are equipped with enough checks and balances to avoid the fallibility of arbitrary law.

It was Israeli courts. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

There are many tipping points. Some have likely already been crossed: eg: Feldmanna and Levermanna 2015 . Lenton 2008 lists others to watch for.

The "extinction of the human race" was certainly a hyperbolic comment

Fighting hyperbole with further hyperbole doesn't really get us anywhere. Better to call it out when you see it and look to the science for answers.

There are many tipping points. Some have likely already been crossed: eg: Feldmanna and Levermanna 2015 . Lenton 2008 lists others to watch for.

The "extinction of the human race" was certainly a hyperbolic comment

Fighting hyperbole with further hyperbole doesn't really get us anywhere. Better to call it out when you see it and look to the science for answers.

I admire your effort to turn slashdot into a bastion of enlightened discussion, but it's probably futile.

Meh, if I affect one person, then it's worth it.

I'm not smart enough to know if these guys know what they are talking about.

Well, you can, it's not about smartness, it's about diligence and effort reading through heavy prose. It's kind of like a puzzle: we can untangle the web, follow the chain. The paper you linked to is measuring the damage that would be caused if an earlier paper was correct, which was this paper. That paper used a computer model (which I don't trust at all) to fill in the gaps in earlier studies which looked at historical data.

That paper actually has a decent overview of the historical data in the section titled "Paleo." I am fairly certain you can understand it.

"Did you read it on a blog somewhere?"

No. What difference does it make. I admire your effort to turn slashdot into a bastion of enlightened discussion, but it's probably futile.

http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

I'm not smart enough to know if these guys know what they are talking about.

Leslie Corrice's Hiroshima Syndrome is the best all-round source. Corrice's site is an amazing work, he has collected into one place facts as they became known, and news coverage of the events. He is particularly attuned to distortions, exaggerations and certain scenarios that have been delivered to the press chosen for their dramatic description despite a laughably low probably. And unlike just about everyone else, he strives to segregate his news reporting from his own commentary.

Some no-hype and anti-hype information sources compiled by The Actinide Age,

What actually happened, written clearly by a radiation professional and teacher, Les Corrice ... Putting Health Risks from Radiation Exposure into Context: Lessons from Past Accidents Professor Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London, April 2011 ... Also quoted in New Scientist ... The D-shuttle project comparing negligible radiation doses internationally in 2014, and its published open access paper ... Real-time radiation monitoring network for Japan. See if you can find a reading higher than this ... Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima 7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (all below detection limit in 2012) ... in Proceedings of the Japan Academy ... Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas (after 2012, will not cause detectable health impacts) ... in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Will Boisvert confirms that wild claims of Japanese thyroid cancers in 2015 are based on bad science. Dr Jonathan Kellogg summarises the academic criticism ... Tim Worstall confirms that wild claims of a single Tepco worker developing radiation cancer is mere anti-nuclear opportunism ... Articles on the mental health impacts of long term evacuation in Medical News Today and Tech Times, and the cited 2015 Lancet study ... Ocean contamination in 2012(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and in 2015(Scientific Reports) --- already comparable to natural radioactivity ...

That's the trouble with getting celebs involved... Try catagory 6 here: http://m.pnas.org/site/misc/co... that is what the excitement is about.

Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences agrees http://m.pnas.org/site/misc/co...

The work has won an prestigious prize. You are way off. http://m.pnas.org/site/misc/co...

Your thoughts on this are behind the times. http://m.pnas.org/site/misc/co...

Um... AIDS is a cancer of the immune system, and is transmissable.

There's a monkey version of the HIV virus (SIV) that is more tolerated, but also causes leukemia. There's a
cow version (Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus). There is a cat version (Feline IV).

Then there's Kaposi's sarcoma, also caused by a virus.

And the's a handy list of infectious agents that cause cancer.

But perhaps you're talking about the cancer cells themselves causing the transmission, rather than an infectious agent. These are often called clonally transmissable cancers. There's a second one that's been discovered in Tasmanian Devils. It's an active area of research. Thankfully, unlike Tasmanian Devils, we don't go around biting each other on the face or, generally, exposing our bodily fluids to each other (well ...).

This human's neural network detected zoomed in faces with black bars covering their eyes, presumably out of shame, while they struggle with and guzzle a long, pinkish-red, penis-shaped object in their mouth.

PDF (Page 2): http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

Excuse me for a moment.

Here is a page with some examples.

Here is a PDF of the paper, which has more examples.

I don't think it means much. Instead of showing that humans see better than computers, it really just shows that this one researcher is bad at programming computer vision systems. If he took his dataset, and made it a Kaggle Competition, I think someone would design a computer vision system that would do much better than his.

And here's a related reference: Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior

The REAL impact is that the rate of consumption of natural resources by 7 BILLION humans has LONG AGO surpassed the ability of the Earth to replenish itself.

Actually, we're only a quarter of the way to that point, according to PNAS.

Except that part of the study was a meta study LOOKING AT OTHER STUDIES THAT HAD ALREADY SHOW IT TO BE BENIGN.

But I'm guessing you couldn't be arsed to read what the actual study was about.

http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Where does it say that?

No, the butterflies didn't actually die from BT crops: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.full

No, the bees aren't sick: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/

No, the roundup resistant crops aren't killing other crops in Argentina. (Seriously, I don't even know how to search for such idiocy.) Crops in one field don't kill crops in another.

You get annoyed because you don't bother to be informed. http://m.pnas.org/content/112/...

Student newspapers are fun, but look at peer reviewed publications if you want to avoid your kind of confusion. http://m.pnas.org/content/112/...

Not all discrimination is bad? Then before we go any further:
1. Explain why it's morally wrong and detrimental to society for women to be discriminated against.
2. If it's wrong then give concrete examples with supporting evidence to show how women are currently being discriminated against-- no need to be exhaustive, three examples will do.

1. I'm assuming you mean discriminated against based on societal prejudices. If you mean discrimination such as giving them different bathrooms or private areas to pump breast milk then I find nothing morally wrong about that.
a. Providing equal opportunity is a moral imperative for most people in the western world, especially the United States.
b. Society is improved when every member has equal opportunity to fulfill their full potential. When someone does not fulfill their full potential because of lack of opportunity, gender roles, socio-economic factors, etc. society loses the extra benefit this person could have provided to society.
(people are not forced to meet their full potential based on a moral desire for personal freedom)

2.
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science
Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science
Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?

It is far more reasonable to just ignore the research showing these biases than to claim you cannot find the research. It doesn't take much digging.

Not all discrimination is bad? Then before we go any further:
1. Explain why it's morally wrong and detrimental to society for women to be discriminated against.
2. If it's wrong then give concrete examples with supporting evidence to show how women are currently being discriminated against-- no need to be exhaustive, three examples will do.

1. I'm assuming you mean discriminated against based on societal prejudices. If you mean discrimination such as giving them different bathrooms or private areas to pump breast milk then I find nothing morally wrong about that.
a. Providing equal opportunity is a moral imperative for most people in the western world, especially the United States.
b. Society is improved when every member has equal opportunity to fulfill their full potential. When someone does not fulfill their full potential because of lack of opportunity, gender roles, socio-economic factors, etc. society loses the extra benefit this person could have provided to society.
(people are not forced to meet their full potential based on a moral desire for personal freedom)

2.
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science
Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science
Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?

It is far more reasonable to just ignore the research showing these biases than to claim you cannot find the research. It doesn't take much digging.

Could you be so kind to actually mention that evidence that shows that "this is an overwhelmingly wrong argument", unless it's just the fact that there are more than X% of people of gender A in particular field.

While you probably won't take the time to read any of these and/or will claim all research you disagree with is biased, here you go. Most of the research where double blind tests are easily done includes using identical resumes other than the gender of the applicant. It is pretty hard to see how people still claim these biases do not exist, but here we are.

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science
Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science
Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?

Don't feel too bad when you ignore all of this, because other research also shows men evaluate the research that confirms gender bias within STEM contexts as less meritorious than do women

Could you be so kind to actually mention that evidence that shows that "this is an overwhelmingly wrong argument", unless it's just the fact that there are more than X% of people of gender A in particular field.

While you probably won't take the time to read any of these and/or will claim all research you disagree with is biased, here you go. Most of the research where double blind tests are easily done includes using identical resumes other than the gender of the applicant. It is pretty hard to see how people still claim these biases do not exist, but here we are.

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science
Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science
Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?

Don't feel too bad when you ignore all of this, because other research also shows men evaluate the research that confirms gender bias within STEM contexts as less meritorious than do women

Could you be so kind to actually mention that evidence that shows that "this is an overwhelmingly wrong argument", unless it's just the fact that there are more than X% of people of gender A in particular field.

While you probably won't take the time to read any of these and/or will claim all research you disagree with is biased, here you go. Most of the research where double blind tests are easily done includes using identical resumes other than the gender of the applicant. It is pretty hard to see how people still claim these biases do not exist, but here we are.

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science
Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science
Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?

Don't feel too bad when you ignore all of this, because other research also shows men evaluate the research that confirms gender bias within STEM contexts as less meritorious than do women

Discovery of a selective NaV1.7 inhibitor from centipede venom with analgesic efficacy exceeding morphine in rodent pain models http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

Slashdot went from being a site that loved hardcore science to one that now worships at the altar of political correctness, and this is super politically correct

You don't think the National Academy of Science is "hardcore science"?

Here is the supporting information from the peer-reviewed article, and this dope doesn't think it's "hardcore science".

http://www.pnas.org/content/su...

...makes a lot of assumptions on how the brain is supposed to be...

In science, we call this a "hypothesis." Typically we try to have one of these on hand when we intend to begin sciencing. YMMV.

Sounds more like propaganda than science to me.

Sounds like someone's suffering from PNAS envy.

... warmer weather is expected to weaken cyclonic activity, not make it stronger. Until about the end of the century, anyway. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-11-01]

No, read your own link: "It is likely - in my opinion - that manmade global warming has indeed caused hurricanes to be stronger today."

I've answered the more important question of "how much stronger?" by repeatedly showing Jane a paper by Prof. Judith Curry which concludes that "the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature".

And once again, Grinsted et al. 2012 helps to answer the question of "how much stronger?" by measuring hurricane surges back to 1923 using tide gauge instruments. This yields a homogeneous record of empirical observations which is totally independent of models and confirms that "warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years." (By the way, measuring instruments like tide gauges and thermometers aren't proxies.)

Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said: [Dumb Scientist]

I know. You just proved my point: you were contradicting yourself. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

No, those links show that I've been consistently agreeing with Dr. Landsea and the IPCC when they say that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future because of factors like wind shear. But once again, the IPCC and Dr. Landsea also agree that "the most intense cyclones" are different. That's why the "global" box at the bottom center of Fig. 14.17 has two metrics which go in different directions: Cat 1+ (metric #1) and just Cat 4/5 (metric #2). Again, that's what I've been saying for years, along with the IPCC and Dr. Landsea:

"... future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. ..."

Jane

Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?

The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".

You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.

This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.

From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.

I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.

Still looking for the pure reconstructed figures for 1900 onwards...

matched 2-3 times naturally

Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.

You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.

This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.

From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.

I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.

The way you refute a peer-reviewed study is with better peer-reviewed studies. A spam list of unreviewed opinions all written by the same handful of dissenters refutes nothing. Provide better data, or take your unfounded opinions and baseless accusations elsewhere.

The way you confirm a peer-reviewed study is with more peer-reviewed studies, conducted independently and using different lines of evidence, to see if they arrive at similar results. Like this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one, to cite a few.

Each time the anti-frackers try to justify their opposition, the are smacked down with facts.

They are like small children desperately trying any argument they can think of to stay up late or get that cookies they've been denied.

We've been using "modern" measurements for hurricanes since about 1959, which just happened to have a record storm. BUT... that year also had an El Nino. And the strong El Nino of this year again made one more likely. Nothing terribly special about that, statistically. And nothing particular connecting it to "global warming".

The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea?

If there's really "nothing particular connecting" a process that's intensified by global warming, then this year's high temperatures should be due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming. If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. Have you seen a graph of global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo)? Do you think that best-fit line through just El Ninos would have a positive or negative slope? Can you think of another metric than GMST which would reveal more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades? Do you see why these questions are relevant to your claim?

P.S. Don't worry- if you can't or won't answer these questions then I will. But first you deserve a chance to show off your scientific skills. If you won't provide a graph, will you accept a graph made by a scientist who co-authored a peer-reviewed paper with Anthony Watts?

Prior to that time, hurricanes were only actually measured at all when they made landfall. Others were only estimated from ships or from shore. Which means most of them were never measured, and in fact we actually have no idea where Patricia falls in the severity range since records began.

Grinsted et al. 2012 measured Atlantic hurricane surges back to 1923:

"Detection and attribution of past changes in cyclone activity are hampered by biased cyclone records due to changes in observational capabilities. Here we construct an independent record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on the basis of storm surge statistics from tide gauges. We demonstrate that the major events in our surge index record can be attributed to landfalling tropical cyclones; these events also correspond with the most economically damaging Atlantic cyclones. We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)."

I wonder, if you are slow, or am I so unclear... Did you not see the requirement for pairs of links? One to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation?

• Prediction in the year 2000: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
• Confirmation in the year 2013: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...

• Prediction in 1967: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibli...
• Confirmation in 2013: http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

Being told that girls are not interested in CS by teachers and parents

Bull, As a parent of a young girl NO ONE is telling her what she's interested in, other than the people constantly whining about girls not going into tech fields. Who also happen to be the people the perpetuate needless, "womenz are so harazzed".

The "resume test"

http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

Unwanted attention and comments in the workplace

What, like everyone else who's worked for more than 5 years? I have been thoroughly lambasted by co-workers and sexually harassed. It's not right, but you can't complain about not getting special treatment then bitch about being treated like everyone else. Take the issues on a case by case basis and deal with it through the HR department. Don't whine about theoretical women not getting special treatment as an excuse for why women don't go into tech.

The kind of bullshit we see on the LKML, that even some men won't put up with

Good, don't put up with it. It's volunteer work, don't like it, don't volunteer, it's that simple. In either case stop whining that people won't do things your way and go off and do things your way. I wish Matthew Garrett good luck, but I imagine his project will be just as "toxic" except in a different way and it'll be to specific people, who are "acceptable targets", rather than to everyone. I'm sure SJW Linux will be a big hit with all it's privilege checking.

The wage gap

Negligible when everything is factored in. Men work more hours, for more of their lives, with less time off for things like raising families. You can't distill life down to how many cents on a dollar a person makes.

Brogrammers

Stop making up words as an excuse to be a douche bag PC Bro

TL;DR
You are the problem in every issue you've brought out. If there's any reason women aren't going in to tech it's because people like you are making them feel unwelcome by perpetuate stereotypes, spread misinformation and mock people who don't agree, which polarizes the issue making people bitter toward actual social justice issues. The harder you push, the harder the push back is going to be.

And isn't it a bit demeaning to women to suggest that they can't make it in the world of programming if we men don't figure out a way to help them along, or become more welcoming, or whatever?

Nope. It's not about giving women an advantage, it's about giving them a level playing field where they don't have to compete on technical ability AND put up with sexist bullshit at the same time.

Do you realize the incredible advantage a competent female programmer actually has right now, with all the recent focus on getting women into coding and other tech professions? Any company would absolutely *love* to hire good female programmers, and certainly don't want to lose the ones they have.

Sadly the reality is that women are still disadvantaged when applying for jobs in STEM. The classic "resume test", where you send nearly identical resumes with male and female names with job applications demonstrates this over and over again.

http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
http://blogs.scientificamerica...

This is the same mistake Donald Trump made when he said that young black men had huge advantages. He saw some programmes to help them and assumed that they were starting from the same base as young white guys, so were now ahead. He forgot that young white guys all benefit from the greatest affirmative action program in the history of the world, namely the history of the world.

Mars is more than capable of clearing its neighborhood on its own, as seen by measures like the Stern-Levison parameter and others that have been derived from dynamics and simulation scalings. It isn't even close to being marginal.

Jupiter's Stern-Levison parameter is 1,38 million times larger than Mars's. No, Mars would not have "cleared its neighborhood"; it's well recognized in the literature that the majority of "neighborhood clearing" in our solar system was done by Jupiter and Saturn. There's lots of niggling over the exact details (here's one scenario), but there's no reputable peer-reviewed source involving orbital dynamics simulations arguing that Mars did the majority of work to clear its neighborhood. Heck, Neptune has a Stern-Levison parameter 290 times higher than Mars and it still has at least two bodies with around 1/50th the mass of Mars each in its neighborhood (and possibly even larger ones). If a 290 times greater ability to clear its neighborhood couldn't do it, why do you think Mars stands a chance on its own?

The whole "cleared the neighborhood" concept for planets is built on a bare falsehood: that the majority of them are actually responsible for clearing their own neighborhoods. The science says exactly the opposite: that the gas giants cleared the majority of bodies from our solar system.

Because some people care more about the dynamics of the planets and their orbits than what is on/in the planets. Even in geology on Earth, there are classifications for what makes up a mineral, and classifications for structures and locations they are found in.

Are you seriously trying to claim that, say, stilbite will be classified as a different mineral based on whether it occurs in Iceland or the United States? Minerals are what they are. The individual structures minerals are found in may have names (for example, the "Bakken Shale"), but those are just names. You know, like "Kuiper Belt".

Some geologists don't care where it came from as long as the make up is similar, others very much care if samples come from near the same location, even if they are very different minerals.

What on Earth are you talking about? If you're trying to say "Some scientists want to study the variety of objects in the Kuiper Belt and compare them to each other", then you already have a word for that: KBO.

You can go on and on about how dissimilar you think Jupiter and Earth are, but that doesn't change that there are metrics where they are much more similar than other rocky planets are to Earth.

You can't be serious.

You only ever linked to Skeptical Science. Your italicized quote of Ljungqvist has no reference to anywhere to prove he stated, or more importantly backed it up with anything.

The quote appears in the linked blog post and a simple Google search would have shown you that it comes from "A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE" published by the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography.

Our two-millennia long reconstruction has a well defined peak in the period 950–1050 AD with a maximum temperature anomaly of 0.6 C. The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions

Sorry, I must forgive the person you responded to for thinking the science suggested that the MWP warming in 950-1050AD equalled or exceeded mid-20th century warming, seeing as it says exactly that in the scientific journal article he linked to!

That would have been a great argument 55 years ago. In case you haven't noticed we no longer live in the 1950s, so if you want a valid understanding of climate change, you need to compare historical temperatures to temperatures from this century.

For those that read this and wonder how Ljungqvist can write this in a paper yet still post the quote you gave to a blog some place, it's because he's pulling on Michael Mann's stunt of comparing apples to oranges. You use a thermometer to measure temperatures since 1900AD and you use proxy records to estimate the temperature from before and declare that the thermometer measurements are an unprecedented trend change... Or maybe, like statisticians corrected Mann on, the proxy records lack the sensitivity and precision of thermometers and comparing the two is dishonest so you save that part for your blog postings...

Form my perspective the dishonesty here is entirely yours. The divergence between proxies and actual temperatures is an actual area of study within climate science. Your claims display a shocking level of ignorance and bias. It is a simple fact that we must compare the two because we don't have any temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer for reasons that should be obvious. Sure, temperature reconstructions are a poor substitute for actual measurements, but we can only use the best tools available.

No just stating science is about evidence and data, not votes or opinions...

Except when it's not, right? You don't only present evidence, you present carefully selected evidence and then present your opinion of the evidence. Case in point: you keep accusing other people of dishonesty, however, your accusations are not evidence of anything other than your mental condition. So why do you keep writing them?

Maybe because you can't be bothered to read the journal article I already linked. It's even written by Michael Mann, a very vehement AGW activist in addition to being a scientist so you should like him. I'll save you the trouble of reading the whole thing and note you can skip to Figure 3. As I pointed out, Mann chose note to plot the SH because the data wasn't as good. But even he acknowledges the best reconstruction(EIV) shows peaks around 1000AD, as did Ljungqvist's work...

Again, your comment lacks relevance. The figure you cited clearly shows recent temperatures exceeding the peaks around 1000 AD. The summary even states:

Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context.

Once again, it seems that you choose to ignore the entirety of the evidence so that you can focus on a tiny bit that you think supports your position, and again, even that tiny bit doesn't seem to support your views at all.

Oh how I wish people would stop quoting skepticalscience as if a blog is a scientific resource.

It's kind of sad that you can make so many errors in one sentence. I referenced Skeptical Science because they have articles explaining in more detail exactly what I was explaining. I quoted one of the authors of the paper used by the parent to that post explicitly contradicting the view presented based on that's author's paper. How I wish you wouldn't ignore things that were inconvenient to you.

You only ever linked to Skeptical Science. Your italicized quote of Ljungqvist has no reference to anywhere to prove he stated, or more importantly backed it up with anything. In Ljungqvist's peer reviewed published article that your opponent linked the article declares:
Our two-millennia long reconstruction has a well defined peak in the period 950–1050 AD with a maximum temperature anomaly of 0.6 C.
The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions

Sorry, I must forgive the person you responded to for thinking the science suggested that the MWP warming in 950-1050AD equalled or exceeded mid-20th century warming, seeing as it says exactly that in the scientific journal article he linked to!

For those that read this and wonder how Ljungqvist can write this in a paper yet still post the quote you gave to a blog some place, it's because he's pulling on Michael Mann's stunt of comparing apples to oranges. You use a thermometer to measure temperatures since 1900AD and you use proxy records to estimate the temperature from before and declare that the thermometer measurements are an unprecedented trend change... Or maybe, like statisticians corrected Mann on, the proxy records lack the sensitivity and precision of thermometers and comparing the two is dishonest so you save that part for your blog postings...

Skeptical science says exactly would you did, and most of what they say is sourced against another blog(RealClimate.org) which was at least started by a pair of actual scientists, but is still itself not subject to peer review either and really does not belong in your exhibit of evidences.

Isn't this just an ad hominem attack?

No just stating science is about evidence and data, not votes or opinions...

It's interesting, but I don't see the relevance here. It does not address the actual issue which is that no actual reconstructions show warming to actually have been higher in the past

Maybe because you can't be bothered to read the journal article I already linked. It's even written by Michael Mann, a very vehement AGW activist in addition to being a scientist so you should like him. I'll save you the trouble of reading the whole thing and note you can skip to Figure 3. As I pointed out, Mann chose note to plot the SH because the data wasn't as good. But even he acknowledges the best reconstruction(EIV) shows peaks around 1000AD, as did Ljungqvist's work...

That applies to both sides.

Potentially, but not as much as you seem to think

When people point to a 15 year stabilization of temperatures as evidence in the climate change debate, the frequent response is "that's not climate, that's weather" or "that's normal variation."

The problem is those responses are actually reasonably true. In a noisy data set like yearly temperatures, we expect there to be periods of slow temperature growth and periods of fast temperature growth due to short term variability so "that's not climate, that's weather" is true, 30 year averages are generally used to minimize year-to-year variability that can drown out the long term trend. We have had a confluence of natural factors working together to slow the surface air temperature growth over that period. Perhaps more importantly it's important to look at more than just the air temperature since the atmosphere only contains a small fraction of the heat content the earth can store.

Or when they point out evidence that it was just as warm 1000 years ago as today, it will be derisively dismissed.

That's a northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction, so it only covers half the world, and one of the authors of that paper, F. C. Ljungqvist, doesn't agree with your analysis:

Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

But then there are those on the same side who will mention a 20-100 year period because it suits their argument.

Potentially, but those are periods that are long enough to cancel out year-to-year variability, though, I can't actually remember seeing anyone use a period that was longer than 30 years. Maybe it's not that the period suits the argument but that when you look at periods longer than 20 years, the evidence strongly supports one side in this debate? If that's the case, then the people who look at and accept the evidence have little choice but to end up on the same side of this debate?

Oh how I wish people would stop quoting skepticalscience as if a blog is a scientific resource.

Skeptical science says exactly would you did, and most of what they say is sourced against another blog(RealClimate.org) which was at least started by a pair of actual scientists, but is still itself not subject to peer review either and really does not belong in your exhibit of evidences. This is is what is WRONG with the whole 'debate'. Way too many folks believe themselves to be protecting and promoting the science while waving their hands at blogs and re-hashing the summaries from them. :(

One of the scientists that started RealClimate is Michael Mann, here is his latest article on historic temperatures. Mann is (in)famous for the hockey stick graph. In his latest work here he's gone a long ways to trying to improve upon his original paper and although he only graphs the NA trend(citing that the SA data is of much lower quality), it very clearly shows temperatures as measured by proxy records matched or exceeded todays temperatures on multiple occasions in the last 2k years. He tries to down play this, but the data speaks for itself. Mann even notes himself that However, in the case of the early calibration/late validation CP

Sure, some study[1] shows that Mapuche's chicken fosils share dna with polynesian chickens.
Also Mapuches do some kind of pit oven called "curanto", pretty similar to Hawai's luau, albeit pit oven is a very old cooking method and this association is just my wild imagination.

[1] Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian introduction of Polynesian chickens to Chile

Do you understand the difference between a press release and a peer reviewed article?

Yep, I do. Since you're obviously unable to navigate the internet, here's a link to the peer reviewed study.

OK, sure. When you take a study about "differences in connectivity" in the brain, and claim it has established implications for behavior, that is vague handwaving.

Reading comprehension isn't you strong suit, is it?

The only claim I made was that there are differences in the biology of human brains based on gender, and these differences are correlated with observed behavior. You do know what correlated means, don't you? Have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? Jumping to the conclusion that I claimed gender differences in brain biology explains gender differences of cognition/behavior only speaks to your obvious bias.

Refusing to entertain the possibility that biology might play a role in the cognitive differences between men and women is the stuff of dogma. It is textbook black and white thinking, and all it shows is your devotion to some kind of social viewpoint that has nothing to do with science...it's a lot closer to religion.

Indeed, and in this case you used it to sarcastically express your unhappiness that your preferred alternative wasn't being argued. You should own it instead of backpedaling.

Backpedaling? Hardly.

I do own my statement, I just don't own your interpretation of it. My statement simply bemoans the assertion that the answer to the question has an either/or answer - contrary to the position of the person I replied to. Your continued insistence that it means something it doesn't is just plain hardheaded.

My preference is to allow for the possibility that biology may be a factor (in addition to culture) that explains observed gender differences in behavior/cognition/skills. You shut out this possibility based solely on an assumption that men and women are able to all perform tasks equally, and any observed difference to the contrary MUST be due to some kind of cultural injustice forced on women by a patriarchal society. You've closed your mind to any other possible factor that may have an influence on gender differences.

But by all means, continue to put words into the mouths of any one challenging your beliefs, continue to misrepresent their positions, continue to claim they've made arguments they haven't, and continue to clasp your hands to your ears and shout "NA! NA! NA!" when presented with inconvenient truths.

I kind of misspoke when I wrote that. The 0.2% is the difference between maximum solar forcing and minimum solar forcing in a Maunder Minimum scenario given the Sun's variability so the potential change is more like half of that.

I found several sources that seem to disagree with you:
http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ip...
https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...

For polar temperature measurements - don't forget we have satellites too. We're not relying solely on a handful of ground stations, but their measurements help confirm our satellite results.

I can't believe you're still confused about "the zeta joules". Earth has an energy budget, right? A near-constant amount of energy from the sun comes in (about 700 terawatts from memory), and a variable amount goes out. The difference in energy remains on the earth - in the atmosphere, but mostly in the oceans. Energy units are measured in joules, where a joule is one watt for one second. If we're measuring the ocean heat content in "zeta joules", that's clearly a lot of energy that is being stored. I have no idea why you find this so baffling, let alone "several other scientists".

Regarding sea level rise, look at Vermeer 2009 for example, specifically Fig 3.

You can see that not only has the sea level been rising, but the rate of change in the sea level has also been rising - and has more than tripled in recent years, due to faster ice melting.

Temps are not rising, they are flat for the past 15-20 years depending on which temp series you look at.

A rigorous statistical analysis shows the trend since 2000 is not significantly different than the trend since 1970.

Sea levels have been rising for hundreds and thousands of years, with no acceleration visible.

Sea level has been rising since the late 1800s but it was remarkably stable for the preceding 2000 years. Here's a paper about it and the abstract:

We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment. Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach, we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

Ice melting, not really. Antarctica is at a record high the past few years, and arctic ice has had a nice recover the past 2 years,

Antarctic sea ice is at record highs but the land ice continues to melt and far more land ice has melted than sea ice has formed. Arctic sea ice has come back a bit since an all time record low year in 2012 but it's an example of regression to the mean. It's still lower than any year before 2007.

You'll have to come up with something more credible than WUWT for me to give your ocean acidification claims any credence.

The Greenland ice cores show what happened in Greenland. You'd need a bit more evidence to show that change was reflected across the entire planet...

How about additional ice core evidence from Antarctica, the Canada arctic and South American mountains?

From here:

Geographic Coverage. The ice-core record of abrupt climate changes is clearest in Greenland. No other record is available that spans the same time interval with equally high time resolution, complicating interpretations. It appears, however, that ice cores from the Canadian arctic islands, high mountains in South America, and Antarctica contain indications of the abrupt changes. Dating is secure for some of the Antarctic cores.

That paper is from 2000. More recent research has further confirmed the evidence of rapid, global change within the recent geologic past.

Scientists believe things all the time. How could you possibly say otherwise?

Here is a sampling peer-reviewed scientific papers where scientists state what they believe. All I did was search Google Scholar for "we believe".

"We believe that these carcinogens have in common a ring system sufficiently planar for a stacking interaction with DNA base pairs and a part of the molecule capable of being metabolized to a reactive group: these structural features are discussed in terms of the theory of frameshift mutagenesis." http://www.pnas.org/content/70...

"We believe these data thus demonstrate unambiguously that carboxyl groups are exposed at the ends of nanotube tips, and that these groups can be covalently modified to produce probes with very distinct chemical functionalities." http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

"We believe that the material which gives the X-ray diagrams is the salt, not the free acid." http://www.nature.com/physics/...

I really like that last one. Watson and Crick weren't scientists when they had that paper published?