Slashdot Mirror

" The GCMs really do not seem to work." why do you think that? they work very well. They have even lead us to make new discoveries about the climate.

" They clearly run way too hot. " no, they doi not. Another baseless statement I suspect you have no clue how models work. in general, much less in any specific field.

When I keep seeing graphics like this and and this which all show the majority of computer climate models over-prediction the current temperatures.

Hint: stop looking at graphics faked by "sceptics".

" The GCMs really do not seem to work."
why do you think that? they work very well. They have even lead us to make new discoveries about the climate.

" They clearly run way too hot. "
no, they doi not. Another baseless statement I suspect you have no clue how models work. in general, much less in any specific field.

When I keep seeing graphics like this and and this which all show the majority of computer climate models over-prediction the current temperatures.

I'm going to ask you a question. If you can not answer it, then you need to STFU and learn some science.

My turn, What is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and how much is it? for extra point don't WattsUpWithThis, Skeptical Science or Wikipedia.

Actually, it looks like this: https://wattsupwiththat.files....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

... For me, they've gone so far into the micromanagement that the game just isn't fun at all, it's tedious.

And that's exactly why I stopped playing Dwarf Fortress (when DF2010 came out). I did my best in my blog to give concrete examples of said micromanagement but it's very hard to articulate the annoyances 1) given the "cult" following this game has, and 2) to someone who has never played the game before.

It wasn't until earlier this year when I read a New York Times interview with Tarn and Zach Adams that I realised these fellows actually have a serious problem -- and it isn't DF, but (to me) explains why DF is the way it is. (Maybe it's because I'm also from the Pacific Northwest, I don't know...)

A Dutch colleague of mine paraphrased the situation some months ago: "Dwarf Fortress: where you need helper programs to actually play the game."

Thoughts are irrelevant.

Racism, which you proposed to ban earlier is exactly that — a thought... To avoid such semantic problems in the future, do try to use more precise terms.

And in civilised countries racist actions are already banned.

And the Blacks only seem to be worse off over the decades. It is not anybody's "racist action", that causes residents of government housing projects (affectionately known as "ghettos") to pee in the stairwells...

Black racism consists of the assumption that they are criminal, violent and or stupid. Theses are not the assumptions about Asians or Jews.

I'm not exactly sure, what beef American Blacks have with the Asians, but, being myself a European Jew, I do know, what anti-semites claim: we are, supposedly, thieves and cheaters (whom nobody should be hiring, of course), constantly scheming to undermine the nations we happen to live in for the sake of Israel (thus should not be hired into government either). Oh, and we use the blood of Christian babies to make matzos...

Are you going to sincerely claim, such accusations don't affect "employment opportunities"?

Which means they don't suffer the same disadvantages in the employment market that blacks do.

Nonsense. Of course, the disadvantages are the same — or worse. In Russia, for example, there were official limits on how many Jews can enter universities, how many could live outside specially-set areas. Certain trades were closed off completely. Yet, somehow, that didn't prevent the Jews from doing well back then. USSR dispensed with the official racism of the Tsars, but the sentiment remained: my own father, for example, had to go to a different city's university — in the late 1960ies — because Kyiv State University was famous for anti-Semitic admission officers. Yet, that didn't prevent him from succeeding — even he remained sufficiently bitter to move his family to the US upon the first opportunity.

Post-Soviet Russia today remains anti-Semitic (though the other ex-Soviet republics no so much), but Jews manage to strive anyway: there are industrialists (of Russian kind) and politicians in addition to the customary lawyers, doctors, and engineers. Perhaps, that's because nobody tried to be condescending to them — the way American Illiberals are towards Blacks...

Another one is "Open Carry".

Something tells me these courageous members of a well-regulated militia aren't getting any.

http://www.westernjournalism.c...

http://www.cavemancircus.com/w...

http://localtvwtvr.files.wordp...

They aren't using a discharged battery to detect explosives.

What else are they doing?

I know nearly nothing about security, but even I know that security is best applied in layers. You will never get 100% coverage from any single technology, even if such a magical thing existed. You have to adapt your security to changing threats. I have no inside knowledge as to what caused the TSA to take this step. .

Hope you also learn that value of a security measure should be compared with the inconvenience it causes. Not allowing discharged batteries is just too large in false positives, and given the difficulty in getting back one's disallowed stuff, it is surely a grab.

It's possible that it is just stupid, but in the past (shoes, liquids, etc) there has been some legitimate threat

Right - shoes and liquids surely had their batteries discharged.

Presumably they would use dogs if it was feasible

Not a falsifiable statement. Doesn't even mean anything. If you have an argument why dogs are or are not feasible - put it on the table.
Presumably, all this was feasible that is why it was done.

Remember that they have to make their rules and procedures simple enough for complete dolts to follow

One thing is clear - they don't have to make their rules and procedures convenient enough for most passengers. Battery down while travelling is very very very common. Nor do TSA have to care about security - any scheme with so many false positives quickly loses urgency in people involved in implementing the scheme. Like early Windows Vista UAC - user just clicks whatever is needed to get past the stupid dialog. TSA is even better - whatever is needed to get past them is to surrender passengers' valuables to TSA agents.

They aren't using a discharged battery to detect explosives.

What else are they doing?

I know nearly nothing about security, but even I know that security is best applied in layers. You will never get 100% coverage from any single technology, even if such a magical thing existed. You have to adapt your security to changing threats. I have no inside knowledge as to what caused the TSA to take this step. .

Hope you also learn that value of a security measure should be compared with the inconvenience it causes. Not allowing discharged batteries is just too large in false positives, and given the difficulty in getting back one's disallowed stuff, it is surely a grab.

It's possible that it is just stupid, but in the past (shoes, liquids, etc) there has been some legitimate threat

Right - shoes and liquids surely had their batteries discharged.

Presumably they would use dogs if it was feasible

Not a falsifiable statement. Doesn't even mean anything. If you have an argument why dogs are or are not feasible - put it on the table.
Presumably, all this was feasible that is why it was done.

Remember that they have to make their rules and procedures simple enough for complete dolts to follow

One thing is clear - they don't have to make their rules and procedures convenient enough for most passengers. Battery down while travelling is very very very common. Nor do TSA have to care about security - any scheme with so many false positives quickly loses urgency in people involved in implementing the scheme. Like early Windows Vista UAC - user just clicks whatever is needed to get past the stupid dialog. TSA is even better - whatever is needed to get past them is to surrender passengers' valuables to TSA agents.

The "small percentage" I mentioned was in reference to this. You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2 is widely acknowledged to be based on a geometric progression.

As I've said, we've increased CO2 by ~40% but your link refers to the CO2 rise between 1900 (290 ppm) to 2000 (369 ppm) which is an increase of ~27.24%. But we're actually living in 2014, and CO2 in real life is now at ~400 ppm because we're increasing it so rapidly that even NOAA websites rapidly go out of date. That's a ~37.93% increase even if you take "1900" to be the start of the the Industrial Revolution.

Also, climate sensitivity is logarithmic, not geometric. But it's hard to remember that our CO2 emissions are probably more rapid than any events in the last 300 million years. Even logarithmic climate sensitivity allows for accelerating warming if the CO2 concentration rises faster than exponentially. Since 1960, atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen faster than exponentially. Tamino showed this by taking the logarithm of the Mauna Loa measurements and noting a statistically significant acceleration.

We also need to keep in mind, though, what percentage that is of the overall atmosphere: (CO2 % of all atmosphere [wikimedia.org]. Which is a very small percentage indeed, even though Wikipedia puts it higher than NCDC does in the above page.

Why do we need to keep that in mind, any more than we need to keep in mind the very small percentage of alcohol or LSD in the bloodstream? The same percentage increase of ~40% also occurs when we notice that before 1850 there were ~4 kg of CO2 over each square meter of Earth's surface. Now there are ~6. We did that.

Incontrovertible? Do you believers readily accept every pro-global-warming information the media feeds you without any critical analysis whatsoever? Good lord. It's time this 97% myth was busted.

http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/cook-et-al-lie-their-faces-off/

All right, so Adelson evades the ban by paying the Times' owners $3 billion for the paper, runs his piece - indistinguishable from a full-page ad - and then sells the paper back to the owners for $3 billion less the price of a full-page ad.

What if they don't want to buy it back for that much, what if the offer is now $2 billion? What if the stock price tanked? What if a court blocks the sale for whatever reason? There are risks to both the buyer and seller that I'm comfortable having them take if that's how they want to play the game.

You're not helping your claimed problem, you're making it worse.

I simply disagree. I'll also freely acknowledge that I should not be the person to draft any kind of law like this. Hell, I wasn't even focused on campaign finance specifically, I just got behind it because Lessig is actually doing something instead of sitting around and talking like everyone else. I see his point though. If it was up to me, I would focus on 4 issues as a starting point for a fix. That paper articulates my position, or at least what it was last November. The more time passes, the more I'm starting to believe that this system is hopelessly broken and irreversibly tilted in favor of those currently in power (I'm not just talking about politicians). Maybe the fix is to abolish all political parties completely and have everyone run on their own name, I don't know. I can promise you this though: unless a substantive push for actual reform gets off the ground in this country, as soon as I can afford it I'm going to expatriate myself. I don't want to live in a hypocritical system which claims to be free but is actually ruled by money and actively tramples on everyones' rights. This country is a far, far cry from the "land of the free and home of the brave." A lot of people living here have continually shown themselves to be neither free nor brave. The people with the money have seized power for themselves, and they are willing and able to spend vast amounts of money in order to make sure that the power and freedom stays with them, at the possible cost of everyone else.

By the way, have you been reading about all of the protesting going on in Germany over the US Federal Reserve? Because I haven't seen it in the news. I've been checking Fox, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post... it's weird though, I can't find any mention of it. Like it's not even happening. Why would virtually all American media refuse to cover a story like that, wouldn't it have some sort of interest here in the US? Or worldwide media, even. I'd almost think that media around the world are controlled by the same group of people. It's almost like when small-party candidates run for office, the media virtually ignores them. Why is that? Well, I can't think about that right now, I have to keep working because I have this mortgage to pay. After work I'll stop by Wal-Mart and pick up some food, then go home and watch entertainment and sports news until I pass out. I'm sure someone else will look out for me.

WebODF uses OpenDocument Format (ODF) as the runtime document model. That means that there is 0 (zero) data conversion when loading and saving a document. It does not support OOXML, but it could load an OOXML document if it was converted to ODF. It is not clear that the same approach (style unchanged XML with CSS) could work with OOXML. Have a look with your browsers 'Inspect Element' function in the demo. The DOM is ODF XML, not HTML.

A lot of work was done on responsiveness. A mischievous edit bot is used to do heavy editing testing and a detailed benchmark is available for every build.

It's because 3D CPUs are kind of dangerous.

3D chips aren't new at all.

There was nothing wrong with TNG the television show, particularly after it found its footing and stopped trying to emulate its predecessor. The movies on the other hand.... First Contact and Nemesis were just dumbed down dark action movies. Generations ranks was one of the most insulting movies ever made. Ironically, Insurrection, which was generally panned, was the closest they got to capturing the feel of the television show. Of course, even that one collapsed under the weight of its plot contrivances and couldn't resist the temptation to dip into action movie cliches. Here's a hint Rick Berman: Jean-Luc Picard != John McClane.

Random list of TNG episodes that were way better than any the movies: The Most Toys, Who Watches the Watchers, The Survivors, The Defector, The Measure of a Man, The Wounded, First Contact (the episode, not the movie), The Drumhead, Power Play, and Sarek. That's without going to the crown jewels of TNG, imagine Yesterday's Enterprise or The Best of Both Worlds if produced with a feature film budget. Actually, perhaps it's better that we don't, because they probably would have found a way to fuck them up.

Everything that came after All Good Things was just a bad nightmare.

http://askjaenergydotcom.files...

In some sense it is not a surprise because his main work was on vibrating electromagnetic fields, and the natural modes of vibration of circular membranes is a very good way to practice the mathematics of vibrations.

CSTA K-12 CS Standards: Mapped to Common Core State Standards. BTW, Google recently hired the Executive Director of CSTA as a Computer Science Education Program Manager.

To turn off wildcard expansion permanently: Utilize the ânoglobeâ(TM) option. To set the ânoglobeâ(TM) option, please execute the below command at the BASH shell: bash-prompt#>set -o noglobe; More often, the requirement is to turn off Path name expansion. This is especially useful if a wildcard is part of an argument to a program. http://ksearch.wordpress.com/2... Use set â"f in such cases. Execute âset â"fâ(TM) as below bash-prompt#>set â"f; To reset the wildcard expansion property of the BASH Shell, execute âset +fâ(TM).

Israel has less than 760 kilometers of fence

That's one hell of a fence.

Or, conversely, it's not the fence that's the problem, it's the giant concrete wall that it's built on top of. Bonus spiderman in picture because why the fuck not.

It works in Israel because a majority of the population has no qualms with embracing apartheid. Israel, where hypocrisy is the national dish.

Israel has less than 760 kilometers of fence

That's one hell of a fence.

Or, conversely, it's not the fence that's the problem, it's the giant concrete wall that it's built on top of. Bonus spiderman in picture because why the fuck not.

It works in Israel because a majority of the population has no qualms with embracing apartheid. Israel, where hypocrisy is the national dish.

And other researchers controlled for parental income and socio-economic status, and figured out that it accounts for exactly zero of the difference between races. While family income is very significant on its own, the race gap exists at high parental income levels, at medium income levels and at low income levels.

The original 1995 data set.

Redone on the 2008 data set.

And other researchers controlled for parental income and socio-economic status, and figured out that it accounts for exactly zero of the difference between races. While family income is very significant on its own, the race gap exists at high parental income levels, at medium income levels and at low income levels.

The original 1995 data set.

Redone on the 2008 data set.

Generally I recommend leaving most warnings on. But sometimes compiler writers go completely over board.

When you use MSVC you have to do stupid stuff like this

      #define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS // WIN32:MSVC disable warning C4996: This function or variable may be unsafe.

The following compiler specific header suffices to compile code using without warnings, at highest warning level.

#pragma warning( disable: 4061 ) // enum value is not *explicitly* handled in switch
#pragma warning( disable: 4099 ) // first seen using 'struct' now seen using 'class'
#pragma warning( disable: 4127 ) // conditional expression is constant
#pragma warning( disable: 4217 ) // member template isn't copy constructor
#pragma warning( disable: 4250 ) // inherits (implements) some member via dominance
#pragma warning( disable: 4251 ) // needs to have dll-interface to be used by clients
#pragma warning( disable: 4275 ) // exported class derived from non-exported class
#pragma warning( disable: 4347 ) // "behavior change", function called instead of template
#pragma warning( disable: 4355 ) // "'this': used in member initializer list
#pragma warning( disable: 4505 ) // unreferenced function has been removed
#pragma warning( disable: 4510 ) // default constructor could not be generated
#pragma warning( disable: 4511 ) // copy constructor could not be generated
#pragma warning( disable: 4512 ) // assignment operator could not be generated
#pragma warning( disable: 4513 ) // destructor could not be generated
#pragma warning( disable: 4610 ) // can never be instantiated user defined constructor required
#pragma warning( disable: 4623 ) // default constructor could not be generated
#pragma warning( disable: 4624 ) // destructor could not be generated
#pragma warning( disable: 4625 ) // copy constructor could not be generated
#pragma warning( disable: 4626 ) // assignment operator could not be generated
#pragma warning( disable: 4640 ) // a local static object is not thread-safe
#pragma warning( disable: 4661 ) // a member of the template class is not defined.
#pragma warning( disable: 4670 ) // a base class of an exception class is inaccessible for catch
#pragma warning( disable: 4672 ) // a base class of an exception class is ambiguous for catch
#pragma warning( disable: 4673 ) // a base class of an exception class is inaccessible for catch
#pragma warning( disable: 4675 ) // resolved overload was found by argument-dependent lookup
#pragma warning( disable: 4702 ) // unreachable code, e.g. in header.
#pragma warning( disable: 4710 ) // call was not inlined
#pragma warning( disable: 4711 ) // call was inlined
#pragma warning( disable: 4820 ) // some padding was added
#pragma warning( disable: 4917 ) // a GUID can only be associated with a class, interface or namespace

Reference:

* http://alfps.wordpress.com/201...

It's an old headline too, this fucking thing has been floating around the facebook for a while. Pisses me off every time, and I'm a damned liberal.

https://hateandanger.wordpress...

I assume there was a German press release done in English, and there was issue with translating with the intended effect of "for an hour", but it was translated to "per an hour".

I don't speak German, but I can see how in places those words are interchangeable(ish).

The mathematics to arise from accepted Higgs field theory suggests the universe is currently sitting comfortably in a Higgs field energy 'valley.' To get out of this valley and up the adjacent 'hill,' huge quantities of energy would need to be unleashed inside the field.

I have no idea what the 'valley' represents, nor the 'hill' so this explanation tells me nothing.

An article by Matt Strassler that should explain more. In particular, this pic

The story about our vacuum having two 'valleys' depends crucially on no new physics existing beyond the already known fields, which is probably false.

Again, it talking about changes around the end of the 90 and the 00's, this shows a smoothing of the 20s to 40s spike in temperatures, erasing the heat wave of the 30s, and making the temperature record look like it slopes up in the 20th century, rather than spiking in the 30s, dipping in the 70s, and then climbing back up in the 90s and 00s.

You will also note that the EPA did not get the message about Global warming.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress...

wrong, they are not filtered out, instead a correction factor is applied

Steve S. Goddard has made it his career to track these "corrections" and missing data points for the USHCN (Historical Climatology Network). He has uncovered a lot of "corrections" where there should be none, and inappropriate "filling in" of missing data points. Not to mention that the "missing" data points have been overwhelmingly in areas of colder climate. He has easily 100 examples of deliberate distortion of the data in USHCN, and he has even tracked this progressive re-writing of history over the last couple of decades.

Here is just one of a great many examples.

Steve has also found many historical records that directly contradict what modern "climate scientists" have been saying about the past 200 years. And make no mistake: these are scientific papers, and government's own data he has been collecting.

Not to mention that through May of this year, not only were large parts of the Northern hemisphere experiencing record cold (including the averaged United States temperatures), but the Antarctic sea ice in the Southern hemisphere was also setting records. That is hardly my only source... I have been following the climate reports because my own region was experiencing record weather.

And please don't give me this "weather vs climate" guff, because we are discussing a single month, which is by definition weather.

It hardly seems credible that with all that world record cold virtually everywhere (except for the Pacific El Nino event), that May could have ALSO been a "record warm" month. It just doesn't add up. Just like so many of NOAA's other figures.

Somebody thinks that the temperature numbers have lately been "improved" so that they more resemble the computer modeling numbers.

The Telegraph and a denier's site. Yes, so very convincing.

SUCK IT, Denialists! We're gonna play this up until you're BEGGING for someone to come take away your gas and heat.

Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented

That's rich, from an evangelist like you. There are so many facts getting in the way of evangelizing the AGW alarmism that the alarmists have just taken to saying "Well what difference does it make? We should make all these policy changes even if it's wrong!" Really. Here are a few direct quotes for you.

Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something

Well, they do believe something. Just not catastrophic climate change, or current driver of the most recent changes. Because that was not the question, even though it's claimed that it was.

That's an assertion, not an argument.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...

Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.

Now that you've seen climate change just as fast during a period of very *small* human CO2 emissions and a period of very *large* human CO2 emissions, are you willing to give up your religion, or do you have another excuse? :)

Are you asserting that natural climate variation caused by factors other than human CO2 emissions never had an effect on animals or plants?

No. I said we haven't observed those effects on Emporer penguins before.

Natural climate variations other than human CO2 are a pretty small signal in the scheme of things. The cause of Climate change is overwhelmingly human caused. Why is this still a debate amongst the non scientitific community?

WHAT?!?!?!

Snowball Earth

The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, some time earlier than 650 Ma (million years ago).

Wow, the entire Earth was covered in ice - six hundred and fifty million years ago. Yet you believe natural changes in climate are "pretty small" compared to human induced ones?

Do you REALLY believe this: "Natural climate variations other than human CO2 are a pretty small signal in the scheme of things."

Speaking of hundreds of millions of years, This is a plot of Earth's CO2 levels and average temperature over the past 600 million years or so.

Will you look at it? And maybe actually learn something?

Well, if you won't, I'll point out a few things about the graph:

1. Average temperature now is about 12C. Average temperature most of the last 600 million years was about 22C - and that was pretty constant.
2. CO2 levels are currently at a geologically-measured EXTREME low. The only time in the past 600 million years they've even approached this low was 300 million years ago.
3. CO2 levels are all over the place - up to 7,000 ppm compared to today's 400 ppm. 2,000 ppm is more typical or "average".
4. Temperature changes do not correlate well at all with CO2 level changes. Average temperature for the most part appears to be pegged at 22C - significantly warmer than today. Of the four low-temperature "events", two are a low levels of CO2, and two are at high levels of CO2 - one at almost 5,000 ppm CO2.
5. The recent few decades of climate and CO2 changes don't even rate as noise.

Wrong. The current climate change is man-driven.

An assertion for which there's no evidence whatsoever, given that the current climate change is well within the range of natural variation. Of course you could manufacture some evidence by "adjusting" real world data, but that's not quite the same as the real thing is it.

Wrong.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...

Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.

Now that you've seen climate change just as fast during a period of very *small* human CO2 emissions and a period of very *large* human CO2 emissions, are you willing to give up your religion, or do you have another excuse? :)

Most of these problems originate from the the programmer relying on undefined behavior. If the language definition doesn't state the behavior explicitly (or if it says the behavior is undefined, or implementation specific) - don't use that "feature".
Excellent writeup by Valve's Bruce Dawson here.

You are again, mistaken:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...

Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.

Your argument is that unless something is 100% true, then it's false, which is a complete nonsense.

No, that's not my argument at all. I'm asserting that unless something is falsifiable, and has a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it isn't scientific. Even non-scientific things can be true, like love, and beauty.

For playing the science game, you require:

1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

If you'd rather simply deny the scientific method, and make bets rather than think rationally, feel free :)

As much as? Certainly yes. As fast? Citation, please

http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...

Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.

You'll have to dig a bit deeper and explain how that represents a citation that shows that global average temperature has indeed rose as fast as in modern times. Modern times, by the by, includes 1896 to 2001. We'd been burning coal and had the internal combustion engine by then for almost a century.

The gyos add complexity, and dropping a third wheel doesn't save that much space. ...

You must be thinking of something like the Peraves MonoTracer, but my impression of it is that it takes some getting used to. The C-1 will be much, much easier to deal with (not to mention better looking). As for the added complexity, the gyos make it easier to drive and don't make it prohibitively expensive ($24k, v. $104k for the monotracer), so who cares? As long as it works.

Of course not - I don't have the hubris to assume I know every single natural factor or how they interact with each other.

We can assume these things exist because a) we know climate changed before humanity, and b) the advent of humanity cannot logically have eliminated those non-anthropogenic drivers.

Yet you have the hubris to assume that scientists are missing something big enough to cause the current change we are seeing without distorting the observational data enough make it obvious they are missing something that big. That's a pretty big assumption.

Scientist of course know that climate has changed in the past and that those non-anthropogenic drivers are still operating. They have never said that they aren't. They include them in their models. They can't effectively study climate without including them.

The current predictions don't match observations. There must be something we don't understand at work. Q.E.D. :)

In your link you conveniently choose the RSS temperature record cherry picking the one among several that most closely fits your narrative. I think you need to justify what you think makes it more valid than the others.

Current observations are within the uncertainty range of model projections so you can't say they don't match. The length of time of the "pause" is not long enough to be statistically significant yet. Here is a statistical analysis that shows it isn't long enough. The model results that get presented to the public are combinations of many model runs that smooth out the variability of individual model runs but some of the individual runs do show "pauses" like the current period. The current "pause" is unsurprising to scientists.

As much as? Certainly yes. As fast? Citation, please

http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...

Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.

Some observations that would be excluded by the AGW hypothesis?
- Decrease in global average temperature
- Decrease in weather event intensity and frequency
- Cooling of the world's oceans
- Decrease in the amount of CO2 in ppm observed in the atmosphere

All good, necessary factors - however, you've got two that are arguably already observed:

1) decrease in weather event intensity and frequency

This has actually been observed, although one could make the argument that reduction in the gradient between the poles and the tropics, caused by asymmetric global warming, would generate this result.

2) Decrease in global average temperature

More specifically, it's not just a *decrease* that should be excluded, but the *lack of statistically significant increase*.

You can play with the real data here: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

You'll note that on every global dataset there, during periods of ever increasing CO2, we've had statistically insignificant warming for upwards of 16-21 years.

You don't need any such 'logical argument' to accept a hypothesis as an evidence-backed theory. Such a requirement would have stopped physics cold at the observation of the duality of light.

No it wouldn't have - the duality of light hypothesis has quite *specific* exclusions and a quite *specific* argument why the lack of those exclusions means that light must behave as both a particle and a wave.

While abductive reasoning is certainly a good place to *start* speculation in science, once you've chosen your horse, the requirements of falsifiability are non negotiable. You require:

1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

So far, you've started on #1 (arguably refuting yourself by noting falsification criteria we've already observed), but you're nowhere near meeting your affirmative burden against the null hypothesis.

Climate science is very complex so while it is in principle falsifiable in practice it is difficult if not impossible to come up with a relatively simple practical test that would falsify it in a short period of time. In the long run if the temperature/energy content of the Earth's geosystems doesn't continue to increase that would falsify AGW. Here is a blog post on the subject that contains a list of 10 things that could falsify AGW. But I expect you will reject it for some reason or another.

Nuke the whales? http://vktest.files.wordpress....

http://mikewhitmore.wordpress....

They refused to agree to the revised terms which are unnegotiable, which indies are claiming to be unfavorable.

I don't really know anything about this particular dustup between the music labels and Google, but I do know one thing: the music labels have a long and storied history of abusing their stranglehold over distribution channels for their own financial benefit. With that shoe currently on the other foot, I wonder if this isn't a bit of butthurtedness on the part of the labels that Google isn't willing to kowtow to them?

They refused to agree to the revised terms which are unnegotiable, which indies are claiming to be unfavorable.

Everyone knows that all bureaucrats are fired and new ones hired whenever the administration changes.

Not really. Take it from a professional bureaucrat.

For one, I never said Monsanto has ever sued anyone over cross-pollination; that said, don't be fooled by Mansanto's own claim that they don't take legal action against farmers. They specifically state they've never sued over "trace amounts" and state that the courts have acknowledged that they've never once sued, or threatened to sue, an organic farm. This is a far cry from claiming it's never happened, which they simply can't do, because it has. And they won.

They have also sued, and continue to sue, for seed-reuse. That is, buying more seed than you'll use this year and using the excess next year, or harvesting and using seed produced by Mansanto-seeded crop. I can't fault them for suing farmers who harvest and replant after signing an agreement stating that they will not do this, but then I ask, how do they determine whether the seed was stores or harvested? Simply put, they can't, and the result is suing people for storing seed.

Remember, if it happens just once, you can no longer say it doesn't happen. It's doubly-bad for one's reputation to not only do something others will disapprove of, but then to slyly attempt to convince them that it never happened in the first place. Mansanto has done just this, and the fact that they're full of shit is a matter of public record, so yes, I'm going to call them out on it.

Monsanto has never sued and farmers from accidental cross field issues

So this never happened?
http://thegranddisillusion.wor...

"The Schmeisers tracked down the source of the contamination. It was their neighbour who had planted GM crops in 1996 with no fence or buffer between them. Nevertheless, the Schmeisers’ seeds and plants reverted to Monsanto, and they were not allowed to use their own seeds and plants again, nor keep any profit from their canola crop in 1998."

Sacred geometry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Apples use of Golden Ratio: http://paulmmartinblog.wordpre...

I wasn't actually aware that it wasn't proven regarding brain hemisphere + function. Thanks for pointing that out, though I think you could have been less accusatory and generally like a fuckwit, as you so elequently dubbed me. Why not just denominate it to how one can refer to "creative-centric" vs. "logic-centric" thinking. Which I guess you couldn't handle on your own without being a literal-nazi.

I took the time to link those URLs for ya, since you probably didn't think of doing that for yourself, either.