Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Krauss On the Pope's Encyclical: Not Even Close?
Lasrick writes: Lawrence Krauss muses on the hoopla surrounding Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change, and finds the document lacking: 'It is ironic that while the scientific community has long tried to raise warning signals and induce action to address human-induced climate change, an encyclical from the pope on this subject is being taken by many as an ultimate call to action on this urgent issue.'
said so. so there. this religion stuff is easy.
Rothschild bankers are behind the man made climate change Psy Op
Enjoy your hockey stick graph, you serial pedophile enabler.
Comes to mind.
Who needs science when the GW cult wasn't even using it the first place.
That is no more unreasonable than any of the other proposed ways of addressing climate change. "Global carbon tax and investment in the development of new energy technologies" are as self-serving, irrational, and unrealistic as what the Pope is proposing.
Notice how everybody who proposes ways of addressing climate change agrees that people need to be coerced to live differently, but that only their own approach is selfless and benign while everybody else acts out of greed and self-interest.
More interestingly, doesn't the Pope have a direct line to God? How did it take God this long to figure out climate change was real?
Three modes of persuasion/rhetoric identified by Aristotle are ethos, pathos, and logos.
ethos is an appeal to authority or credibility
pathos is an appeal to emotions
logos is an appeal to reason
Tthe pope's statement may have enough ethos with some audiences to make an impact.
I guarantee it will be filled with fact-free posts denouncing AGW as a pseudo scientific conspiracy fronting a socialist takeover of humanity.
Any time the topic is breached, within minutes the paid troll army swings into action, manufacturing a political consensus on the orders of their paymasters.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
I'm not Catholic, so I can't say I paid particular attention to the Pope's Encyclical. But I am also not particularly interested in what some atomic scientist has to say about the encyclical, or Catholicism, or climate change for that matter.
#DeleteChrome
The Pope holds a great deal of moral authority. Scientists not so much.
I've read Laudate Si'. It's not really about the science, or arguing that AGW is true, or that biodiversity is being lost, or that pollution is killing people. It takes these things for granted but it does not marshall evidence per se.
It's main point is that AGW, true or not, is evil and must be stopped, and it ties this into social teaching by associating the consumer culture of rich countries with the exploitation and immiseration of small, poor ones; mankind's moral obligation to protect the Earth, and it asserts baldly things like "man has no right" to push a species, any species, even the smallest plankton, to extinction (Francis actually mentions plankton).
I don't hear scientists talk like this, and that's fine, it's probably not their place. But evidence isn't enough to actually move people to action, you do actually have talk about right and wrong, and why this thing is wrong and must be stopped. And Francis specifically argues against the idea that technology will one day solve this problem for us, to him the problem with the planet is 100% between people's ears, it has to do with the way modern people see the world as a resource to be exploited. Don't ask me to defend this, I think he's a little too pessimistic here, but it just continues the idea that his argument isn't about science, or technology, or even the material world, to him it's fundamentally spiritual.
And he has a point; why should we care about climate change if the Earth if it's just a ball of dirt and we can just fly a rocket to another one? Science can tell us what the planet is and where it's going, but it can't tell us if that's a good thing or not. So does Krauss think scientists should hold more moral authority than a Pope? Is that the paradox here? Should scientists teach us right and wrong?
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The Catholic Church has been pro-science for a while now.
A church almost by definition cannot be truly pro-science. Their entire MO is based on faith in unproven/unprovable things and do not readily accept questioning of that faith even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The fact that the catholic church hasn't stood in the way of science isn't the same thing as being pro-science. I think science and faith of the sort espoused by organized religion are irreconcilable to one another.
There are People in this world Who simply feel better with the Pope's theological seal of approval. Unless You can show They are growing in number faster than the general population, accept the fact You've won and should take Your ball and your trophy and head home with swagger. I know I am.
Krauss brings up points that the pope doesn't _because_ of the pope's "moral authority". For example, Krauss makes the point that contraception is a must. A large world population is simply unsustainable without doing major environmental harm (and may simply be unsustainable, period). Needless to say, the pope couldn't really go there, although he has previously said that people should have fewer children -- never mind how.
So, while I think the pope is doing much good, he is dangerously restricted by the very moral authority you mention. It's a double-edged sword.
Mssr. Krauss fails to understand what an encyclical is; essentially, a theological/ethical/moral rationale for adopting a certain perspective/action/behavior/habit, not a scientific treatise.
Whoever thinks the pope is trying to pick sides in a political debate is either genuinely insane or has trouble forming simple logical concepts. Because on the scientific overall concept it's not even a debate. The best methods for combating climate change though, are still only scientific. Politics dosent even enter in until you try to implement those methods.
Go ahead and mod me down but I'm really sick and tired of people thinking what they believe makes a crap in a biscuits difference to reality. Even though the popes statement may be lacking its a great step to get hundreds of millions of stupid people to start acting responsibly and be aware of the issue. It's just so ironic that it is a belief in faith, with no foundation in factual reality, that brings awareness to the factual reality we as a species are facing.
"Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from "nothing," Sounds Pope-ish to me.
Scientists have eliminated smallpox from the world, and we're about 5 years shy of eliminating polio. I read about new strategies for malaria each year (making stronger mosquitos that resist the malaria infection, for instance).
Muhammad Yunus is a PhD scientist who started the Grameen Bank, in 1999 had reduced poverty by 40% worldwide(*). His TED talk is interesting.
Everybody is working towards new energy sources: wind and wave, solar (in various forms), and even nuclear. There's a Hackaday prize on the theme of "save the world, build something that matters" with over 500 entries.
We're putting up cell phone towers in Africa, giving clean water to the Bangladeshi, inventing pot-in-pot refrigerators, and helping people use propane instead of charcoal (with attendant improvements in health).
I don't hear scientists talk like this, and that's fine, it's probably not their place. But evidence isn't enough to actually move people to action, you do actually have talk about right and wrong, and why this thing is wrong and must be stopped.
What the heck are you talking about?
Scientists move the world.
Clinging to some outdated religion is what holds us back.
(*) According to a Scientific American article that I am citing from memory, and my memory of the article may be flawed, and it's really old information.
It certainly can be — faith operates in a different plane, so to speak.
No it does not. Unless you have such a vague notion of faith as to make it effectively meaningless it HAS to intrude on the material plane. Furthermore religions have very detailed books and laws and traditions built around their faith and how it should dictate behavior. If there was no impact on the material world (the domain of science) then there would be no need for organized religion. Everyone would have a vague notion of something "beyond" and it would end there. But it doesn't.
It neither contradicts nor supports science, nor is it contradicted nor supported by science in return.
There is HUGE amounts of evidence that it doesn't really work like that in the real world. Organized religions cannot help but get involved in claiming all sorts of things that science can and does dispute.
The Lord's ways are neither known, nor even knowable
And yet the church claims to understand them in great detail except when it is convenient for them to claim to not know. Cannot work both ways.
Unlike Science, Religion does not need to offer predictions nor make falsifiable statements.
And yet religion regularly does make claims about things that clearly are falsifiable.
>It's just so ironic that it is a belief in faith, with no foundation in factual reality, that brings awareness to the factual reality we as a species are facing.
It didn't bring anything to the table except a call to take this issue more seriously, rather than pretending it's irrelevant because your faith doesn't consider it important. Awareness was already there, but people didn't care because some pop star/religious leader wasn't making it cool.
Giving a man with a silly hat and guilded robs, who believes in unicorns, fairies, witches, angels, devils, and gods any respect is just farcical.
Mr Bergoglio really needs to grow up and stop wasting his time and the time of others with these primitive, backward, and frankly utterly ridiculous superstitions.
Yes, he now has power as leader of a very large cult, and I'm sure he worked very hard to facilitate his rise to this position. It would be nice however, to see him use his position for something positive, like crushing the myths and fantasises of centuries of primitive, backward, coercive, warped, brutal, harmful, and regressive dogma.
Beliefs are not always voluntary. Many catholics were mentally molested as children to instil these mad beliefs. This was not a choice. Add to that the horrifying physical abuse that has been prevalent throughout the catholic church. It puzzles me why anyone pays the slightest attention to this cult, whatever the size, given that we have sensible and reasonable explanations for the world as it is, and all of their past behaviour has proven to be either severely detrimental, or utterly unhelpful, in every possible way. Inventing deities just transfers the problem of providing a reasonable explanation from being evidence driven and scientific, to the world of the fairies. Since there is no evidence of the function of any part of religious fantasy, we reach a logical dead end trying to explain it - simply because there is nothing to explain, and not cause nor effect.
I have nothing but contempt for religion, and religious belief. Once people start to impose their religious belief on others, particularly children, to me this is stepping over a red line between just being crazy, and being a mental molester. Religion is communicable, just like a disease. Religion is detrimental to host, just like a disease. Religious impact that ability to think rationally, process evidence, and follow the scientific process.
If these people really have so much faith, why don't they reject all aspects of science, and only use what their deity allegedly provides? Why are they driving around in cars, or using modern medicine, instead of faith healing?
Science can tell us what the planet is and where it's going, but it can't tell us if that's a good thing or not.
I disagree. You have to assume that people interested in their (and their offspring's) physical well being, and scientists darn well can tell us if something is good or not. (I'm not saying that's the only assumption you have to or should make, but those other assumptions can be factored in too.)
However, the scientific answer is a much more complicated calculus. The pope can just tell people to stop destroying the environment. Science gives more nuanced answers like: this amount of environmental alteration will give you a better diet/lower infant mortality rate/more material wealth/etc., but go beyond that and the opposite will happen. E.g., catching this many fish is sustainable, but catching more that that will lead to population collapse and you not catching anything -- i.e. that's a bad decision.
Is that math somehow morally empty? That's an individual's decision. Then again, the majority of humanity doesn't take their cues from the pope, so some will see his proclamations as morally empty too (although non-catholics may see logic in the pope's writing, in which case we're back to judging the morality of math).
....we'd have religious leaders making pronouncements on scientific issues..... And they were right!
It says it all through the bible, starting in genesis and running all the way through the ascension of the zombi christ to heaven Here's a start: 12 He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. 13 There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. Genesis 28:12-13
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Nazi's were religious, ...
The Nazis were in fact anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, etc. The Nazis were creating their own religion to displace these traditional ones. They had their own religious tenets, mythology, articles of faith, saints, priestly class, etc.
The fact that the Nazis worked with a church on some issues is not evidence to the contrary, no more than a treaty with the Soviet Union and a joint invasion of Poland is evidence that the Nazis were pro Communist.
How many who whine about global warming and oil companies are willing to take a bus to work or ride a bike 4 hours each way? No hands I see ...
You don't see any hands because those are ridiculous solutions. I do know people who have, for sustainability reasons, moved to densely-populated areas and sold their car -- instead choosing to use public transportation, bike, walk, etc. (They rent cars/trucks when necessary, which isn't often.) Many young people are also making this choice, although I can't vouch for all of their motives.
Yes, the suburbs and many American cities are designed so that anything except a car is an impractical way to get around (with limited exceptions). However, that doesn't mean that cars are the only solution to transportation. It simply reflects where you chose to live.
Science can tell us what the planet is and where it's going, but it can't tell us if that's a good thing or not.
This is a very insightful comment, and I hope you don't get modded down by anti-religious morons.
Umm, religions can't tell us if it's a good thing or not either. Not in any objective sense of the word that we can all agree upon. Science can tell us the effects of our actions. Religion cannot. So science CAN tell us if what is happening is a good thing at least for any non-moral sense of the term good.
Given that religion doesn't work to say anything about what we cannot know, there's nothing for religion to do now.
It doesn't answer the "why" either. It pretends it can.
God called. He said "Clean up your mess."
we need a science pope.
It's main point is that AGW, true or not, is evil and must be stopped
Since millions will suffer in some way needlessly if it is not true (due to terrible misallocation of resources), why MUST it be stopped regardless?
If that's the main point, then the whole paper means nothing in reality. It is simply the clearest sign yet that the "something must be done" cry around AGW is ONLY a religious matter, rather than scientific.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
taught at MIT-
The author of the article makes a whole bucket of inferences which are taken out of context, or are just-plain-wrong. Anyone with a 12th grade education can read the front matter and establish the foolish gerrymandering on the part of the author. Perhaps he should stick to "Theoretical Physics."
And people do in fact need to CARE about the earth and the future of humanity if this is to be solved.
I have done more real good for the Earth than most posters here will in a lifetime.
I am also strongly against the AGW madness to "do something", because I can see how none of it is based on science, only the "truthiness" flavor or science.
I can see the direction it is heading with terrible ideas that basically end in terraforming our own perfectly working Earth ecosystem.
I can also see everyone ignoring the only real danger there is to humanity, and that is an ice age - not a mild warming that improves agriculture and does little else.
I can see people distort natural changes in climate over time into terrible dangers for personal and political gain. In the end I suppose that matters little, it's just a slightly different monkey on the top of the hill at the end of the day, but the part of me that dislikes con men is unhappy to see such a large con fool so many rubes until they loose much before catching on.
If people actually cared, they would wake up and call out the charlatans. If the Pope's paper has that effect truly, it will be good though not the direction he intended.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The world is filled with religious people. You had better learn to live with them, and perhaps not put so much energy producing ever more hyperbolic strawmen, or perhaps you should flee society.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's very easy to distinguish what makes religion and science incompatible: how they determine truth. Science is empirical, religion is a combination of rationalism and 'received wisdom'. That is to say, with science truth is determined by what can be repeatedly measured, and with religion truth is determined either by rational argument building on chosen axioms, which are generally received from textual sources or from religious leaders.
It is not to say that either one is "correct"; both have their limitations. Empirical truth always has a degree of error, and with anything unmeasurable it is arguable whether it can be assigned a truth value at all -- although I will note that with any truth-finding method, it is a valid philosophy to regard the unprovable as false. Rational truth is independent of our possibly-erroneous senses, it can describe things which cannot be measured (e.g. morality), and things can be true in an absolute, provable sense. Its limitation is that you can make logically true statements which do not correspond to observable reality, especially with badly chosen axioms.
Religion, especially Catholicism, is not empirical. That does not mean that everything it considers true is automatically contradicted by empirical truth, it means that what is true from the standpoint of Catholicism is ultimately decided by faith and not by experiment. There absolutely is a conflict between these philosophies. I'm not going to make a value judgement about any of this; my choice of empiricism does not invalidate or lessen anyone else's choices, although if your choice of truth conflicts with empirical reality you're probably gonna have a bad time. I just wish that the discussion of all of this on Slashdot wasn't so sophomoric: I don't think most peoples' educations has prepared them to have a very elevated discussion on the matter. That as well is not intended to denigrate; I have no college education to speak of and my ignorance is unbounded. I think you make a wonderful, lucid, intelligent, passionate argument, which would be improved by a slightly different conceptual framework. I also agree very much with your motivation; I determined very early on that Catholicism was not for me, but I try very hard to give them their proper respect because we disagree at such a fundamental level, and even if I wanted to disrespect religion, there is never any cause to misrepresent history.
Thank you for writing, as well: whether or not we agree on all matters, I think you do credit to the community here.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
And here is a link to the encyclical in question: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
I'm an atheist, but I agree with the pope about what's in there. No need to dismiss his opinions because he doesn't talk about contraceptives or whatever, this is not what it is all about.
Like rain on your wedding day.
We have learned to live with them.
The trick is to _not_ give their religious beliefs any legal power and humor them beyond that. Before we found that, the world was a truly fucked place.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you read past the flowery language, you'll see that the Catholic Church's position is based on misogyny and the denial of women's rights to control their bodies. Mind you, so are most religions so don't think I'm bashing Catholicism particularly.
Specifically in the Catholic case, it's also highly hypocritical. We have this "divine gift" from God, yet priests are not allowed to enjoy it --- all so the Church will inherit their property, of course, rather than natural living heirs. How conveeeenient.
I am not a Catholic. I find its central tenets nonsensical. As an organization, I find the way it has systematically protected pedophiles within its ranks disgusting. I hope that, over time, it attracts fewer followers.
However, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. The church has existed for longer than essentially any other human institution, and it will outlive all of us. Hundreds of millions of people take what its leader says seriously, for good and ill. Therefore, I don't think it's particularly important what the basis of the Pope's reasoning in his encyclical is except as that reasoning is persuasive amongst those who take Catholicism seriously.
What is important is that the Pope is saying "act on climate change", which might help to push some Catholics to do so.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I really enjoy Lawrence Krauss, and Richard Dawkins, and, alas, Christopher Hitchens etc. I am an "anti-theist" and someone who has absolutely no belief in god. That being said, I have spoken at my wfe's church, cooked for their dinners, and was friends with the last pastor. He and I accepted that we had no common ground in the spiritual world, but we both agreed that community is good, and that creating friends and being good friends and neighbours is good. How could that not be? I stood up in front of the church and said I was an Atheist and that I enjoyed the community. I got applause. This is a true story.
Lawrence, Richard, an others obviously need to continue the Atheism work that they do, but they also need to understand that this was a HUGE movement by the catholic church. HUGE. The pope is a chemist. A scientist. If you judge this pope by his words and his actions, he may be the sort of man that can lead a sizeable portion of the world population in a better direction.
I think "Atheism" and "Climate Change" are separate. If this pope did not do enough, reach out. He isn't the nazi-youth that was there previously, this is a man trained in chemistry and seems earnest. I think this is the best chance science and a major religion have ever had to work together to address a real problem facing human kind. Rather than snipe at the pope for not going far enough, holy shit guys, 1 billion people claim to listen to this guy, convince him to do better.
We are already a long way down this slope. The day that the notion of consensus was picked up was the day a knife was stuck into the heart of climate science and the religion of climate science was birthed. The state of things today leaves almost no possible future I can imagine that doesn't leave this entire timeframe and 'debate' as a huge black mark on science. The number of conditions, uncertainties, and qualifiers that have been left out of statements now, not only by the press but by journal authors themselves on blogs and other media, leaves almost no future were the public can't point backwards and cry that the 'consensus' from today didn't cause extinction of corals or polar bears or wipe miles off the Floride coastline by 2050...
Why not let the pope in on it all too at this point.
Mod parent down for misrepresenting what GP wrote by dishonestly converting "just as reasonable" to "equal estimated probability". There is no reasonable argument for assigning probability either way because extrapolating backwards beyond a singularity at creation is not possible. Any assertion to the contrary is falling for the Bayesian bullshit epistemology that Popper and then other critical rationalists discredited time and again throughout the 2nd half of the 20th century. Selecting one option is no more or less reasonable than choosing another and, in the cases of those showing a preference, just reveals their biases.
While GP would have preferably written that it's just as (un)reasonable to say any one thing created the universe vs. any other thing whatsoever, rather than just mention the two ideas that he did, it's quite clear he did not intend to imply it's a dichotomy.
Both parent and GP failed to note that a creation event isn't necessary, because there is no contradiction to or evidence against a model without an initial singularity that posits an eternal pre-inflatinonary universe: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... (note that in this case, the Big Bang is not a discontinuity as in, say multiverse models where a quantum fluctuation may spawn another universe).
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
In regards to your first point, it is ENTIRELY political.
As Lomborg observed years ago, you might go to a car mechanic to determine what's wrong with your car, and a roofer to determine why your roof leaks badly but consulting a car mechanic or roofer to determine WHICH of them you should spend your precious money on fixing first would be ridiculous.
Climatologists are the guys we should be listening to about what is happening and what, if anything, we can do about it but the decision about how we prioritize our resources to improve our collective world is *entirely* & *essentially* a POLITICAL problem.
-Styopa
In regards to your first point, it is ENTIRELY political.
Climatologists are the guys we should be listening to about what is happening and what, if anything, we can do about it but the decision about how we prioritize our resources to improve our collective world is *entirely* & *essentially* a POLITICAL problem.
Scroll up that's exactly what I said. Perhaps you don't live in the USA but here the majority of people are nutters who deny basic science facts and instead believe wholeheartedly that their made up fantasy is what the world is. I need to suppress the urge to break the nose of people who say its hubris to think humans can change gods creation - these are the same nutjobs who don't believe in evolution (as if that affects the truth of it). At least this is a step in getting those extremely stupid people to change their tune, if only a little.
Climate Science, which claims to be a Science, relies on models that extrapolate from a simple bench top experiment into a system millions of times more complex and chaotic. Its proponents have no real empirical evidence to support their position and incessantly argue through appealing to authority..."these guys, with degrees and stuff, say so".
Now, they celebrate the Church joining their cause while completely missing the irony of a "science" that operates like a church, with a dogma, ceremonies, elders, and don't forget... labels non-believes Heretics.
The pope is a damned fool.
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
(No, instead you stalk/harass me instead!)
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
(No, instead you stalk/harass me instead!)
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
(No, instead you stalk/harass me instead!)
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
(No, instead you stalk/harass me instead!)
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
(No, instead you stalk/harass me instead!)
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
(No, instead you stalk/harass me instead!)
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
(No, instead you stalk/harass me instead!)
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you on it next:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course you're not: It's impossible to dispute FACT on HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
(Since they're fact in favor of hosts doing more than so-called competitors & doing more with less for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity online - which is, of course, more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Then WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, shithead? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
If you're "so-called 'better solutions'" are BETTER, & I bother you? Use them... OBVIOUSLY, asshole, you don't & you're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll, OR you have "other motivations" (see next):
* DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER, or ARE YOU A MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer that too!
I'll be waiting (but you'll avoid every question, or lie - which only makes you look stupider than ever vs. myself)
(You must be involved with 1 of those above, especially since you're TOO STUPID to EVER "get the best of me" & you know it, witness the above - & their "so-called 'solutions' are INFERIOR TO MINE on TONS of levels, evidencing their stupidity in & of itself via inferior designwork!)
APK
P.S.=> SEE Dave420 SQUIRM everybody, lol - evasions galore from him to ensue are almost guaranteed... apk
The illusion that humans can actually think is relative to the amount of energy we steal from the next generations, in order to pump up our fake ego's. When you break things down into their fundamental parts, they always fall into three pieces. This is common EVERYTHING from atoms to evolution. Politics, science and religion work as a three body system. The battles between the three gnorant entities ensure that we evolve at the proper speed, not to fast and not too slow. Evolution has a mechanical flow, we are not an intellegent species.
"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."
--George Carlin
In Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR5 Report The current status of tuning model performance notes the following, including a half dozen citations of peer-reviewed articles verifying the statement:
Model tuning aims to match observed climate system behaviour and so is connected to judgements as to what constitutes a skilful representation of the Earth’s climate. For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
For reference, TOA energy imbalance is the entire driving force of long term climate change, and models still have to hand-tune cloud parameters to get TOA energy correct.
Without getting TOA energy correct, the only thing the models are telling us is how climate components respond to changing TOA energy. They do NOT tell us the much more important element of how TOA energy will respond in the future. The current state of climate models is a necessary step to getting there, and is step forwards from the past practice of directly inserting energy when needed, but let's not go claiming we already are there. The facts and evidence state that we aren't. Any actual modellers claiming that they can predict future TOA energy, and thus macro climate trends, is being dishonest and there's a reason you don't see any of them quoted as such. Instead you see their papers quoted as the IPCC did above, and other folks are the ones coming in and crowing about the importance of the climate model's prediction without grasping the underlying factors that are still being tooled.