Slashdot Mirror

This damned plane has been a big scam from the beginning.

But, but it's Bernie Sanders's pet project! And he's a man of the Worker, errr ... People! FREE TUTITION FOR RICH KIDS! Goddamnit, no .... F35's FOR EVERYBODY!

ah, hell, forget it - it's more rational to vote for Vermin.

Social interaction, not "social media". Hunt went to someone else's event, and his speech pissed on his hosts. He lost an honorary position because he was an embarrassment. Here's the statement from the hosts, and Hunt's apology. No "social media" in sight. The world's sexists really are good at making up excuses for crappy behaviour. https://conniestlouis.files.wo...

Here's another recent example, carefully documented. Pay special attention to the attitude of some people after all the claims were retracted as false.

And here's another notable point in that scandal. I will just quote:

"It has a chilling effect on other reports of sexual harassment. Even if Team Harpy were making things up out of whole cloth, women who experience sexual harassment but haven’t recorded the whole thing on tape are going to be terrified of being sued into the streets because few harrassers are going to admit to their behavior. We need to make it easier to report harassment, not harder — given incidents at tech conferences, the US Congress, and ALA itself."

This is in response of a man, accused of sexual harassment, suing his accusers for defamation. Apparently, even if you're innocent, you shouldn't fight back because it hurts the cause! And furthermore:

"While I think Mr. Murphy should stand down for the good of the profession and in the name of providing a safer environment for people to report harassment, I think that it would be in Mr. Murphy’s own best interest to stand down. ... He should go for dropping the suit for the win. For himself and his profession. And to start building a comfort zone so we won’t have to judge anonymous allegations because people will feel free to come into the light and tell their stories."

i.e. even if you're innocent, stand down. "For the team".

What? No MRA conspiracy post? No violent invective hurled at imaginary manbabies?

Okay, okay. You want to hear a good one? I understand the MRAs have taken up the banner for noted floor-shitter Charles C Johnson. I'm wondering how this relates to Dean Esmay's oft-told story of his "red-pill moment" when he was a child and his mother forced him to take diarrhea medicine, which was when he became an MRA. I mean...Charles C Johnson. Even gamergate won't come out in support of Charles C Johnson, and they'll hop on the dick of anyone who doesn't holler at them. Old Captain Kirk himself name-checked GG - once - and they've spent the last two days posting porn on his twitter feed. So it's shocking that when asked about Charles C Johnson, they said, "naw man, we'll pass. let the MRAs mess with Charles C Johnson. Dude shit on the floor!"

Do you see a pattern here? Is there a connection between bad experiences with potty-training and becoming a men's rights activist?

Also, here is an unretouched photo of noted MRA leader Dean Esmay, which will give you an idea of how he got to be a "man who goes his own way".

https://mancheeze.files.wordpr...

There, you beta wussy MRA. Are you happy now that you made me spend 3.5 minutes typing that? Never say I don't take care of my fans. I hope you pause from jacking off into a sock long enough to thank me.

I've been running the same Windows install on my laptop for 4.5 years and it still feels quite fast to me. I installed an SSD last year, which obviously helps a lot. Prior to that there was the predictable delay whenever I launched a program that I hadn't run for a while (that wasn't in the disk cache), and now I don't even have that. I have *lots* of programs installed, but I see none of the sluggishness which you describe.

A noticeable slowdown in four weeks is quite odd, unusual, and not normal.

The problem with your report is that it is hopelessly vague. What is slow? Launching programs? Running programs? Poor frame rate in some games?

Do you have enough memory? Do you have enough CPU cores?

Three possibilities come to mind:
1) You don't have enough RAM. If so (if there aren't many GB available at all times according to task manager) then get more.
2) Your CPU is overheating. While doing performance investigations for Valve I found that a lot of game slowdowns were caused by thermal throttling: https://randomascii.wordpress....
3) Something else is wasting CPU or memory. When I did hit sluggishness a few years ago I investigated and found the buggy device driver that was clearing the system disk cache: https://randomascii.wordpress....

So no, it's definitely not normal. To figure out what is going on you need to monitor specific details about your system in order to find and fix the root cause. slow/sluggish is not an actionable bug report.

I've been running the same Windows install on my laptop for 4.5 years and it still feels quite fast to me. I installed an SSD last year, which obviously helps a lot. Prior to that there was the predictable delay whenever I launched a program that I hadn't run for a while (that wasn't in the disk cache), and now I don't even have that. I have *lots* of programs installed, but I see none of the sluggishness which you describe.

A noticeable slowdown in four weeks is quite odd, unusual, and not normal.

The problem with your report is that it is hopelessly vague. What is slow? Launching programs? Running programs? Poor frame rate in some games?

Do you have enough memory? Do you have enough CPU cores?

Three possibilities come to mind:
1) You don't have enough RAM. If so (if there aren't many GB available at all times according to task manager) then get more.
2) Your CPU is overheating. While doing performance investigations for Valve I found that a lot of game slowdowns were caused by thermal throttling: https://randomascii.wordpress....
3) Something else is wasting CPU or memory. When I did hit sluggishness a few years ago I investigated and found the buggy device driver that was clearing the system disk cache: https://randomascii.wordpress....

So no, it's definitely not normal. To figure out what is going on you need to monitor specific details about your system in order to find and fix the root cause. slow/sluggish is not an actionable bug report.

Not aliens--Nazis.

The movie "Iron Sky" was a disinformation campaign.

Remarkably, they start protesting the construction of housing again. I live in Oakland (just east of SF) and there have been protests against building new housing on EMPTY LOTS, during a housing shortage of critical proportions. People show up and start chanting "we want development without displacement!", as if displacement was caused by too much housing.

Low-income people are stupid.

The Americas, yes, not the United States of America, which is what we're talking about.

Are we? I thought, we are talking about eating vs. not eating fats and sugars.

But, fine, let's talk about Mexico — the actual source of tomatoes (actually, that may have been in modern-day Ohio), chili peppers, and chocolate. Their obesity levels are even higher than the US'... You were saying?

The law of supply and demand is a mathematical theorem.

That is absolute horseshit. The "law" of supply and demand is an untestable hypothesis, like most of neoclassical economics. It is a circular argument based more on metaphysics than mathematics.

https://fixingtheeconomists.wo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Supply and demand is the same thing. If I'm willing to buy two ice cream cones at $2/piece, one at $4/piece, and none at $6/piece; that forms a demand curve.

But the demand curve is dependent on so many other variables that the "law" is completely useless. Your demand curve has less to do with price than it does with whether or not you've seen a billboard for ice cream or it happens to be a hot day and your kids are in the back seat screaming for ice cream. Why do you think they're able to sell so much premium ice cream at $6/cone? People go to Starbucks when they can get a coffee at McDonalds. Is it because there is a smaller supply of Starbucks coffee? The argument is based on a notion of cardinal and/or ordinal utility of commodities, but neither the cardinal nor ordinal utility can be measured (or even observed). The circularity of the argument can be described as "Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility".

Neoclassical economic theory is little more than an apologia for the metastasized capitalism of the 20th century. The models require a state of grace (perfect markets) that have never existed in nature and the math is sub-par.

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.

I am not, in fact, a lawyer, but I do know how to use Google (unlike so many here). For instance, I can, without any adult help, open up my web browser, and type in http://www.google.com/ and go to a convenient search engine. In the search box for that search engine, I can type in "eula struck down as unconscionable" and click on the button labeled "Search." And get results such as

this, which talks about Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., in which Linden's TOS (specifically, the arbitration clause) is struck down as unconscionable not once, not twice, but at least three or four different times and ways ("procedural unconscionability" and "substantive unconscionability" in two different ways, and then again on the latter after Linden amended it).

Wired also covers Gatton v. T-Mobile, again on an arbitration clause, and ruled unconscionable both procedurally and substantively. Also unconscionable for prohibiting class action lawsuits, because "that form of litigation is often the only means of stopping and punishing corporate wrongdoing." It also discusses Douglas v. U.S. District Court, which is about changing the terms of a contact after it has been signed, and which was ruled unconscionable. Gatton is often cited as recognizing that all click-wrap license have an element of unconscionability that must be considered by the court.

This has a link to this", which is a ruling on McKee v. AT&T, ruing their arbitration clause unconscionable.

Note that these are the first three results on the search, and the fourth is on McKee v. AT&T again.

Also note that these are all different courts, state and federal, all over the country.

Unconscionability is an affirmative defense - the defendant has to demonstrate why the contract is unconscionable, but it does, in fact, happen, and more importantly, it took me, literally, less than ten seconds to find example (and five of that was waiting for the browser to open.)

To quote the third link, you may now feed my cats for a week.

And here it is the criminal

"When we look at the last 6,000 years, the impact of human activity on our climate is unmistakable. There are no major large natural cycles over the last 6,000 years ..." That's consistent with Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF) which shows that the world has been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.

I have little doubt that it is. So what? It is also INconsistent with even the IPCC's early temperature reconstructions. It also "conveniently" leaves out the MWP and the Little Ice Age...

Good grief. After Jane objected to my statement that "Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science," I showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements are consistent with those from the NAS and several peer-reviewed papers. I also showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements were more accurate than Jane/Lonny's repeated claims about the last 6,000 years.

As usual, in response Jane simply ignores all that and jumps to the next regurgitated contrarian talking point. Jane seems to have abandoned his objection to my statement that Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science. Now, Jane is claiming mainstream science itself is inconsistent.

Once again, Jane is fractally wrong. Long ago, I shared an IPCC graph of temperature reconstructions. Note that the axes of these temperature reconstructions are labeled with actual numbers. Despite Jane's claims, Marcott et al. 2013 isn't inconsistent with IPCC reconstructions, and both Marcott et al. and the IPCC show the MWP and the Little Ice Age.

Why does Jane dispute this? Asking Jane for a link is unpleasant and unproductive, but Jane seems to be confusing the IPCC 1990 Fig 7.1(c) hand-drawn cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Note that this cartoon cites two papers, both of which are mainly about the climate in Europe, and notes "... it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global...".

Why is Jane surprised that an actual global temperature reconstruction from 2013 isn't identical to a hand-drawn cartoon from 1990 which appears to be mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe? Maybe Jane's surprised because he used to cite the "Wegman Report" before he realized they had blatantly misrepresented this cartoon by (accidentally?) adding numbers to the scale and redrawing the curve to make it look less like a cartoon.

But Wegman's (accidental?) "mistakes" don't change the fact that it was a hand-drawn cartoon mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe, and that its axis wasn't labeled with actual numbers.

It's strange that Jane confused this unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction, because Jane often criticizes graphs with no numbers and no labels on th

They're only doing this to pin down the trademark for OCP so they can build military robots. Ronny Cox is displeased with you. Now you die.

You'll know because this is the logo: OCP

(Let's see if this is anywhere near the first post to make references to RoboCop. My money is on "no".)

... especially if you look around and find books dedicated to homeopath(et)ically treating illnesses by drawing symbols on the skin ... (my take on that book is https://antifande.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/endlich-verfugbar-medizin-zum-aufmalen/, german original)
How can ANYONE who is not rooted in the dark ages even CONSIDER such outrageous claims, be it these extremes, or the "regular" ones made by and for those extremely diluted solutions?
But then, I reckon the ones falling for that crap also believe in an all-knowing power that - albeit knowing what's best and having pre-planned everything - can be swayed into working for you if you just pray enough)

Considering the reach of government in much lesser issues, it's about time all and every governments step in and do their job!

Swift demands photographers give her all royalty rights for any pictures taken.
Here is a photographer basically calling foul on her rant.

Open Response to Taylor Swift

Not sure on this particular piece of software (though it looks handy!), but recommend you take a look at this Windows 7 OEM Activation article.

There normally is hardware magic for the OEM copies, but I'm not really sure how this one deals with SLIC.

Jane/Lonny Eachus also calls "alarmism" a hoax, but Jane could probably explain why that's totally different and out of context and blah blah blah...

Won't work. You claimed those PRIOR Twitter statements were accusations of fraud: you provided them in response to my question to you about specifically where I had claimed some "scientist" had committed fraud.

So even if I had made that accusation elsewhere, you still made a false public accusation. You should really watch that, because I also have evidence that you have done so, more than once, in a manner that was pretty obviously malicious. I also have evidence of ... well, I'll leave that aside for now. But apparently you don't learn. So just keep sticking your foot in your mouth. If you want to keep implicating yourself, I guess that's your business. I am definitely not giving you permission; it's just that I don't have a good way to stop you at this time.

Link 1 specifically mentions "BS Alarmism". Not just any old alarmism. You have a problem with that? No mention of fraud.

Link 2: No mention of "fraud" anywhere. Also, the mention that WAS made was about "rabid" alarmism. Are you an advocate of "rabid" alarmism?

Link 3: Repeat of Link 2.

Link 4: Haha. More than 3 years ago. The comment is citing someone else's accusation of fraud (in this case, Alex Rawls). For which, by the way, there is quite a bit of good evidence. Also, "looks like" is not an accusation.

Link 5: Accusation of lying is not an accusation of fraud. But again: there's lots of evidence that it's true. Why should anyone apologize for making statements that are based on strong evidence? You claim to do it all the time.

Link 6: The Cook et al. paper IS a fraud. Nobody should apologize for saying so. There is solid proof that they did not even use the methods they claimed they did in the paper. That's fraud. If you're going to try to berate me -- or anyone else -- for calling Cook et al. a fraud, I'm just going to sit here and laugh at you. And so will lots of others.

Link 7: Mention that people had been defrauded. They had, as evidenced by Cook et al. However, in that specific tweet there is no mention of any scientist. To whom did that tweet refer? Your objection is supposed to be about accusing scientists of fraud. So who specifically was being accused in that Tweet?

And presumably all these other times that Jane/Lonny Eachus repeated accusations of fraud, he never agreed with them.

No presumption is necessary, because I may or may not have agreed with tweets that quoted of others. If I didn't specifically say I agreed to some tweet, you have no genuine reason to assume that I did.

I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying?

All and all, you've come up short. You don't show ME actually accusing any SCIENTIST of fraud, unless you count Cook and Nuccitelli as "scientists" who matter in the debate. And even if you did, there is no way in hell I would retract any statement I may have made about fraud in regard to the Cook et al. 2013 "97%" paper. It's fraudulent garbage, and a reasonable, unbiased person who reads about their ACTUAL methods, say here for example, or maybe here, is not likely to come to a different conclusion. Present company possibly excepted, but then I don't consider you to be either reasonable or unbiased.

Truth is absolute defense. The only "scientists" I ever recall saying MYSELF were "frauds", were those behind the Cook and Nuccitelli 2013 paper, and that's because the paper is a fraud. There is proof they didn't use the methodologies they claimed they did in the paper. That's fraud

Clearly fake. I can tell from some of the pixels.

Okay, okay, the bottom 90% of the vehicle that gets to a translunar trajectory is real because we saw it go up and disappear. But the top 10% was faked. That makes sense.

I specifically stated that:
"'True, their objective is to get huge not healthy. But that doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.""

So once you understand that I specifically stated that, we can go beyond that to your assertion that because they have different objectives their information is likely useless for your objective. ... I really don't even know where to start with this...

Son, I am disapoint.
https://bonsteele.files.wordpr...

They have extensive empericial experimentation into matters of health, fitness, diet, metabolism, etc.

Am I suggesting people eat like meatheads? no. I'm suggesting people consider that something learned by one group of people trying to do one thing can be useful for another group of people trying to do something which is actually similar in a lot of respects though of course not fucking identical.

Both you and the meatheads are trying to control your body's reaction to food, exercise, etc. They've figured out how to turn into muscle monsters. They know how to do that. And as I said... some of them do it with all fruit diets. Literally just sitting there eating pineapples and then beating the hell out of themselves in the gym.

And they say it is different than just eating bread. So not all carbs are equal.

What i don't get is how and why these people then tryto talk back to it.

For the same reason that people talk to Eliza, Alice, and other such entities - because it makes us feel good.

We intuitively associate the machines with humanness... Even when we know we shouldn't:

  * https://philosopherdeveloper.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/the-anthropomorphization-of-computers/
  * http://www.therefinedgeek.com.au/index.php/2010/09/22/dont-anthropomorphize-computers-they-hate-it-when-you-do-that/
  * http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2013/08/06/

Also: you get to feel like part of history if the social media flunky at the the other end of the feed decides to reply to your post.

https://nicedeb.files.wordpres...

but what evidence do you have that NASA has manipulated any of their work for political reasons?

The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present. The chance of this happening randomly from correcting random faults in the data is 1 in 6 = 1 in 60-million. In other words, they couldn't me more naked about cooking this data that a great deal of Climate Science depends on to match NASA's agenda (presumably to create an artificial temperature gradient to get more "crisis" funding from the US government). For example, if you compare the raw surface data for the US vs. the cooked data, you will find that the 1930's were actually warmer than today, whereas the cooked data shows the 1930's being cooler:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

The thing about the RSS and UAH satellite data is that it is direct, full-coverage, and objective. The satellites whiz around the Earth several times a day, so every spot on the Earth is monitored pretty much in real time. This is most important for the oceans which cover 70% of the Earth where the surface observations are extremely sparse and large areas are extrapolated to conjure up quesionable numbers. Numbers that directly contradict the direct satellite observations. And other surface data sets for that matter.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

NASA's cooking of the books for the surface data is generally unknown to the public, but this round of the next, the public might just catch on.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

1) read this http://judithcurry.com/2014/07...
2) tell us whether Judith Curry is in collusion with the AGW fraud or not.
3) " they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present"
"The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend." http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

https://themodness.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/the-retail-green-light-saber-for-lazy-linux-gamer/

but what evidence do you have that NASA has manipulated any of their work for political reasons?

The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present. The chance of this happening randomly from correcting random faults in the data is 1 in 6 = 1 in 60-million. In other words, they couldn't me more naked about cooking this data that a great deal of Climate Science depends on to match NASA's agenda (presumably to create an artificial temperature gradient to get more "crisis" funding from the US government). For example, if you compare the raw surface data for the US vs. the cooked data, you will find that the 1930's were actually warmer than today, whereas the cooked data shows the 1930's being cooler:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

The thing about the RSS and UAH satellite data is that it is direct, full-coverage, and objective. The satellites whiz around the Earth several times a day, so every spot on the Earth is monitored pretty much in real time. This is most important for the oceans which cover 70% of the Earth where the surface observations are extremely sparse and large areas are extrapolated to conjure up quesionable numbers. Numbers that directly contradict the direct satellite observations. And other surface data sets for that matter.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

NASA's cooking of the books for the surface data is generally unknown to the public, but this round of the next, the public might just catch on.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

From the brief, I understand that Google took code and changed it (which may or may not be against the terms) and then redistributed it (via the SDK? the Android OS?) for developers to use.

Why not check the web first? Almost the entire case is about API copyrights.

The copyright phase consisted of several distinct claims of infringement: a nine-line rangeCheck function, several test files, the structure, sequence and organization of the Java Application Programming Interface (API), and the API documentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O....

Here is the code Google copied:

private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex {
          if (fromIndex > toIndex)
                    throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
                              ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
          if (fromIndex arrayLen)
                    throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}

https://majadhondt.wordpress.c...

It probably wasn't even copied, it was written by the same developer, who happened to use the same variable names for an uncreative piece of boiler plate code.

pastafazou: If it doesn't matter if you adjust one up or the other down, why did they choose to adjust the more accurate data up instead of the suspect data down?

Here's an answer from one of the authors:

The reason for adjusting buoy (+0.12C) rather than adjusting ship (-0.12C) is that there is no buoy observation at all before the 1970s. Therefore, it would be questionable how ship can be adjusted relative to buoy before the 1970s, if we did so. However, assuming that the adjustment to ship is -0.12C before the 1970s, our tests show that the long term temperature trends remain the same. This has been discussed in Huang et al. 2015 (J. Climate 28, 911-930, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1.)

I dispute a 15 year pause. Statistically the warming trend since 1998 is the same as the trend from before that. Here's a blog post by a statistician that examines the question of a slow down in warming from a number of angles and is unable to find any statistically significant slow down in the warming trend.

There have been some accusations that the data is being 'massaged' to get to a specific result:
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...

18 years 5 months no warming

https://wattsupwiththat.files....

CO2 above the worst case scenario from the IPCC
Warming Below the best case scenario. from the IPCC

I applaud your ability to get hysterical and while still believing people who are repeatedly wrong.

Perl 5 is still waiting for Python, Ruby to catch up on the Unicode support that Perl had in 2002. And Unicode support in Perl 5 has improved since.
Perl 6 will even have support for graphemes.

You clearly haven't read the brief, or even have a basic understanding of the case (hint: API's are not copyrighted). If Google wins, there is no such thing as copyrighted software anymore. All software with available source code, can simply be pasted into the IDE of your choice and compiled. Everything will be totally free.

Anybody who wants to know what these cases are about can just read the Wikipedia article and find more information on the web:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O....

https://majadhondt.wordpress.c...

Either you have no understanding of the case, or you are Larry Ellison's towel boy and shilling for your sugar daddy.

Wow, thanks for the query. It has all kinds of entertaining things to see [last link is barely sfw].

That's been done.

Calling a president Hitler is obligatory.

Not true. CO2 started to climb around 1800. Temperatures started to go up around 1900. https://futilitymonster.files....

The funny thing about that is an anthropogenic influence on global temperatures has only been possible since 1950, so the temperature rise earlier than 1950 weakens the anthropogenic case and strengthens the natural variation case

An easy example of this is when climate scientists refuse to make their raw data available to those that wish to challenge their findings.

Pretty much all raw data is available now. Much more so than in other fields of science. Besides, if you really wanted to challenge their findings, wouldn't you want to go out and collect your own raw data ?

Other notable issues arise when things like the famous hockeystick graph which clearly showed temperatures rising in advance of rising CO2

Not true. CO2 started to climb around 1800. Temperatures started to go up around 1900. https://futilitymonster.files....

Or when dire predictions are made (No polar ice by 2015!)

That was never consensus. Maybe a handful of scientists had that date as the earliest of a range.

obat meriang untuk ibu hamil
distributor jelly gamat palu
obat jantung bocor anak anak
obat nyeri bokong saat hamil
obat sering kencing
obat flu batuk bayi
obat nyeri lutut
obat nyeri encok
obat gusi bengkak
obat diabetes
blog jelly gamatk
kantor jelly gamat

I'm sick of all this social engineering. I just want to barf.

You mean social engineering like this?

http://www.strengthvillain.com...

https://jonathanturley.files.w...

http://thetoydetectives.com/co...

https://alanabeeblog.files.wor...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnne...

I'm sick of all this social engineering. I just want to barf.

You mean social engineering like this?

http://www.strengthvillain.com...

https://jonathanturley.files.w...

http://thetoydetectives.com/co...

https://alanabeeblog.files.wor...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnne...

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-p...

https://volcanocafe.wordpress....

http://www.volcanodiscovery.co...

http://www.andes.info.ec/en/et...

You don't understand security or computing, Kowalrus.

they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world

But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?

"We know the Earth is warming, you idiot. That's not the issue here." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.

The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.

You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

That's absurd, Jane. I've repeatedly linked to Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. Polyak et al. reconstructs Arctic sea ice back to 1870, and Kinnard et al. goes back 1,450 years.

... I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850? No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.

That's why it was so baffling when Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH d

they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world

But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?

"We know the Earth is warming, you idiot. That's not the issue here." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.

The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.

You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

That's absurd, Jane. I've repeatedly linked to Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. Polyak et al. reconstructs Arctic sea ice back to 1870, and Kinnard et al. goes back 1,450 years.

... I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850? No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.

That's why it was so baffling when Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH d

Didn't you criticize me earlier for "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", saying it was a "dick move"?

Here's another graph by Spencer that includes surface temps.

And the following:

The period covered in the SS graph is a decade shorter than that covered by the Spencer-Christy graph and looks suspiciously like cherry-picking. By starting their graph in 1990, SS can use the Mt. Pinatubo-induced cold period of 1992-93 to tilt the trend to be more positive. The Spencer-Christy graph begins at the start of the satellite record — 1979 — providing a longer and more representative period.

More importantly, SS uses global surface temperature datasets, which do not accurately represent heat content in the bulk atmosphere. In contrast, Spencer and Christy use temperature data from the tropical troposphere — the place where the models project the strongest, least ambiguous, greenhouse warming signal.

from: http://www.globalwarming.org/2...

Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer has a history of getting these graphs wrong.

Additionally, it should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". His use as an expert on climate matters is significantly diminished by that public declaration that "god will fix it for us". If his signing of that declaration is sincere, he is no longer performing scientific research.

That doesn't explain record sea ice extents at a time when it is claimed that ocean, not particularly land, temperature is increasing. I'm not trying to claim it's irrelevant. But it certainly does not seem sufficient. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

There are reasons to doubt the land ice melting connection to Antarctic sea ice, but I don't think that's one of them. I mentioned real reasons by citing Swart and Fyfe 2013, Polvani and Smith 2013 and referencing fig. 2 and fig. 4(e) from Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012 (PDF).

But ocean warming is sufficient to thin West Antarctic ice sheets, as I've explained:

"West Antarctica is among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, with an ice sheet that's vulnerable to the warming oceans because it's mainly grounded below sealevel."

"Because West Antarctica juts out into the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), those warming waters are thinning its ice sheet at an accelerating rate. ... Its ice sheet is also mainly grounded below sealevel, making it more vulnerable to the warming oceans than the East's which is mainly grounded above sealevel."

The fact that West Antarctica is mainly grounded below sealevel means that ocean warming causes rapid land ice thinning there. Also, the fact that the bedrock is deeper farther inland from the grounding line has "interesting" consequences. See Rignot et al. 2014 and Joughin et al. 2014.

Manabe was 14 years ago. Conditions have changed rather significantly in that time, as has our understanding of the geology. It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."

In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".

Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect? You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the

...antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.

Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations. Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading. And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

...antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.

Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations. Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading. And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

The science is what it is and you can't change that. But a pretty rigorous statistical analysis doesn't show any distinguishable slowdown in the warming trend.

Well, the IPCC disagrees with you in their fifth assessment report:

The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11C per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen et al., 2012). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.

Your rigorous statistical analysis doesn't look at the trend before 98 and after 98 and compare them, while the IPCC does. A linear trend at the rate from 1950-1998 would have warmed things faster than they have since 1998. That's what the IPCC says above. In your link you can clearly see the pattern. It's also true that things have continued to warm since 1998, it's just the linear average of warming from 1950-2012 is a slower warming than the linear average from 1950-1998 was. We are talking about climate and affects that span not just decades and centuries, but even millenia though so the divergence shouldn't be all that surprising.

What is more relevant and useful from it, as the IPCC goes on to note, is whether any of the existing climate models predicted the slower linear trend and if not why. Turns out 111 out of 114 overestimated the warming since 1998 and one of the biggest reasons is believed to be the already know poor understanding of clouds and water vapor.