I'm not denying anything. Why should I? For that matter, why should I even reply to you, after you've harassed me off-topic in a thread which had absolutely nothing to do with either you, or this subject?
Learn to behave like a civilized human being, and maybe people would be more inclined to have a civil discussion with you.
But I've told you that before, many times, to no avail.
You're citing a truther page? As I said, not interested in discussing your crazy.
I don't really give a damn what you call it. I cited a website which has been signed off by over 2400 professional architects and engineers as being factually accurate.
That *IS* the expert scientific consensus on the matter. You have now confirmed your hypocrisy, and demonstrated that you don't care what the evidence is: if you don't like it you just put a pejorative label on it and deny it.
I knew that before, because I've seen you do it many times. But it's nice to have such crystal clear confirmation.
Strange, isn't it? 4 years ago someone else accused you of lying by "quote-mining" out of context. It is very clear that is exactly what you did. And there is no doubt it was you, because it's the same Blogger account and others referred to your account here on Slashdot by name.
Isn't it interesting that I pointed out exactly the same behavior here, long before I knew that page existed? I wonder. Is it just some bizarre coincidence? Or a pattern? Maybe we should ask others to vote on it.
I hope that it's clear that I have no interest in carrying on a 'conversation' with a birther and truther. That way leads to madness.
Since I have made it abundantly clear, more than once, that I am not even remotely a "birther", and those you call "truthers" are on the side of overwhelming evidence and the professional consensus, I am curious to know what your real reason is. After all, I thought you supported expert consensus views.
You also think that Obama faked his birth certificate and that 911 was an inside job. I've learned not to put too much stock in what you think.
Pure libel. I never wrote either of those things. In fact, I straightened you out on BOTH of those issues, right here on Slashdot, just a short time ago. So there is absolutely no excuse for your libel. You knew, or should have known, those statements were false when you made them just now.
For the sake of others, not you, I will repeat what I told you earlier: I have no idea where Barack Obama was born. The document on the White House website IS an altered graphic, which anyone with good graphics skills can download and check for themselves. They hardly need to take my word for it. However, as I also clearly told you before, there could be a number of legitimate reasons for that.
Neither I or they did claim or now claim it was "an inside job". That's a deliberate lie. I.e., libel.
Now I have some questions for YOU. Please do be a good boy and try to answer them honestly:
(A) Why did you respond to a perfectly civil comment with insults and deliberate lies?
(B) Why do you quote "Khayman80" so much? No "conspiracy theory" here, just an honest question. I am not claiming you are the same people, but they way you write and the way you behave are remarkably similar, and you even quote each other rather surprisingly consistently and often.
Please see my reply to the other responder above. Treaties very definitely do not supersede the Constitution or U.S. laws, except in very particular and narrow circumstances. See the link in that comment, or a few minutes on Google can prove that to you.
A treaty supersedes all of the laws of the land, which is why it requires Congress to sign off on it, instead of a President's signature.
False. The Constitution is vague on the issue, saying that both treaties and the Constitution are "the law of the land". However, it's pretty clear that the Constitution only intended for treaties to deal with issues external to the United States (such as foreign trade).
In its only (to my knowledge) ruling which dealt with this issue, in regard to internal U.S. affairs, Reid v. Covert, SCOTUS ruled that the U.S. Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
The actual "supremacy clause" in the Constitution reads thus:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
The phrases in pursuance thereof and under the authority of the United States clearly indicate that treaties may NOT supersede the Constitution. Because any such treaty, to be lawful, must be in pursuance of implementing the Constitution, and treaties must be made under the authority of the United States government, which is bound to uphold the Constitution.
So, NO. Claiming that a treaty supersedes internal U.S. laws or the Constitution is just false. It stems from a gross min-reading of the Supremacy Clause, and ignores past Supreme Court ruling on this issue.
The exception is when a State deals directly with foreign interests (such as international trade). In those cases, treaties do indeed supersede State laws on the matter, because the Federal government has all authority to deal with foreign governments and foreign trade. But that's a very narrow area.
I'm not convinced that's true. Today you can get a 128GB Micro SDHC, which is pretty darned good for storage for a mobile device. Even if it only takes 32GB (most modern devices accept at least that much), it's not a problem to carry around a few Micro SDs.
I agree in a way. 16GB of internal storage is pretty lame, unless the 64GB micro SD is seen as "native" storage.
But to keep things in perspective: Android is Java, and adds a huge amount of cruft and overhead to the underlying Linux OS. I've been wondering for a long time why we weren't seeing plain native Linux tablets, without all that Google junk.
As long as I have LibreOffice, Firefox, and a few other apps for it I'm good to go. I could wish for a more plain-Linux experience than Ubuntu, but if it has all the requisite drivers, then Ubuntu it is.
Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important
This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?
Socialism, by and large, is a bad word. Even in those countries which have made a modicum of "socialism" actually work, like the Scandinavian countries, are not as "socialist" as many Americans seem to think. Look up Sweden, Denmark, and Norway in the Economic Freedom Index. In many ways they're more capitalist than the present United States.
Further, those countries have relatively small populations (smaller than many U.S. states and even some American metropolitan areas), and they have different historical social norms than the United States.
Further yet, in the 1990s, Sweden saw that even its modest amount of "socialism" was too much, and began to reverse course, moving toward LESS of a "welfare state". In the 20-some years they had been experimenting with it, they went from world's 4th per capita GDP to 14th. Now that they have further limited their taxation and "entitlement" programs, they are way back up again.
Denmark has had similar difficulties, and has taken some of the same steps toward solution (i.e., a bit back toward capitalism).
20 years ago, socialist Russia and China were dying. They were on the verge of mass starvation again. The only thing that has saved them -- and brought them back onstage as world-class economies -- was the adoption of more capitalism.
So yeah... socialism is a bad word. It has caused more misery and killed more people than capitalism ever has. Only a few countries have ever made much of it work, and even some of those have backtracked on it. Get on Twitter and ask Garry Kasparov. He'd be happy to tell you all about it.
And p-l-e-a-s-e don't try to tell me that "Democratic Socialism" is different. Tell that to the Greeks.
Gardner's Mathematical Games columns in Scientific American used to be some of my favorite reading. Gardner published a number of books that are collections of these columns.
If you're looking at higher wattage, like the mentioned 10W, also use higher voltage like the mentioned 24V. Trying to push higher wattage through ethernet-cable-gauge wires at 5v could end up burning your house down.
Well, then, be specific. What specific data were you showing in that Wood for Trees graph? And why did you include UAH land only, when the others were all global? Are you claiming that was an accident? Or were you trying to make an impression?
My point was that you weren't showing the finished results of UAH, but some intermediate data before further processing. And I really don't think it takes a genius to figure that out from what I wrote.
You're link is to a beta version of UAH that has different adjustments.
It's the version they're using. It's "beta" only in the sense that they called out for constructive comments. There is a link to a discussion of it on the same page, if you're interested.
Which is right? The currently published one or the beta version?
Presumably the newer version. There is reason to think so.
Are you sure that satellite is the gold standard?
I never claimed that it was. But there are lots of very good reasons to believe they're better than current surface temperature datasets.
Are they really 'constant' and unchanging?
Why do you ask? I didn't say or even imply that they were. My comments were about your later statements:
And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... [woodfortrees.org]
One of my points was that your graph was messed up, because you used UAH land-only, vs RSS and UAH global (including sea). Your graph was misleading, intentionally or otherwise. I questioned your honestly not because of the uncalled-for attempts at personal slams, but because based on my past experience, my guess was (is) intentionally.
The bit about "unadjusted" was intended to mean that these curves are of instrumental data, not model outputs. Before being run through much processing. So "RSS MSU lower trop. global mean" is relatively unaltered MSU data.
We get your point that some are adjusted more. That has little to do with whether particular adjustments are proper or improper.
What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?
Why was your reply to a comment about climate change an attempt at character assassination?
As for Dumb Sci, I've been telling him for years to stop distorting my words and misrepresenting me out-of-context. But I have to ask again: why do you ask? What does it have to do with the subject at hand? Do you have a problem just addressing the subject without insulting people who may disagree?
In fact it's rather remarkable how amazingly similar you two are in that regard. Anyway:
The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements.
You already wrote that.
Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets.
Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?
What the hell are you talking about? I suggested no such thing. In fact I haven't any idea where that came from. It has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
He did in fact deride UAH and its adjustments recently.
This guy doesn't seem to have an honest bone in his body.
Unadjusted UAH might... but you already said adjustments are necessary. If so, why are you showing data before adjustments? It's meaningless for proving your point. But it's great for propaganda. Further -- and this is funny -- your had to include UAH "land only" when all the others are "global"... why? My guess is precisely to mislead, because that looks the highest.
But you're not fooling people as much as you think you are.
And why not use the adjustments calculated by the team whose job it is to do so? Especially when RATPAC and other similar models very clearly exaggerate the warming by not accounting for instrumental changes (see the link in my other reply)... so why not use the clearly superior set of adjustments (Christy, Spencer et al.) which does account for discontinuities caused by the instrumentation changes?
I doubt you should spend any time with someone who rejects radiative physics.
But I'm not one of them, so what's your problem?
Nor did I say the Twin Towers were an inside job.
And the birth certificate on the Whitehouse website IS fake. Don't take my word for it... ask anyone who has a knowledge of computer graphics download it and examine it. They'll tell you the same.
BUT -- as I have stated many times here on Slashdot -- there could be a number of perfectly legitimate reasons for that. I do not claim he was not born in America. Which is what you seem to be implying. Imagine that.
And that's where all your bullshit comes from: distortions.
As I stated before, I know you can find references. And Tamino (just as I predicted) is one of "The Usual Suspects".
However, Tamino's work does NOT refute Christy, Norris et al. 2005, or 2008. Or Christy & Spencer 2012.
And Thorne et al. 2011 says the homogenization methods used by RATPAC and similar models (the kind Tamino likes to cite) are inadequate.
I already told you, it's pointless to go there. You can look those papers up just fine if you want to, but you won't prove anything.
Slashdot Mirror
So you deny saying this?
I'm not denying anything. Why should I? For that matter, why should I even reply to you, after you've harassed me off-topic in a thread which had absolutely nothing to do with either you, or this subject?
Learn to behave like a civilized human being, and maybe people would be more inclined to have a civil discussion with you.
But I've told you that before, many times, to no avail.
Was any of that meant to convince me that a conversation with you would be in the least bit fruitful? I am no more inclined to engage with your crazy.
I didn't expect to convince you of anything. I did want to show other people what kind of person you are, and that I was right about you all along.
To put your lying-via-cherry-picked-out-of-contexting in context, as it were.
Thanks for so easily handing me the opportunity.
You're citing a truther page? As I said, not interested in discussing your crazy.
I don't really give a damn what you call it. I cited a website which has been signed off by over 2400 professional architects and engineers as being factually accurate.
That *IS* the expert scientific consensus on the matter. You have now confirmed your hypocrisy, and demonstrated that you don't care what the evidence is: if you don't like it you just put a pejorative label on it and deny it.
I knew that before, because I've seen you do it many times. But it's nice to have such crystal clear confirmation.
And why do you feel it necessary to lie? You still haven't answered that question.
Strange, isn't it? 4 years ago someone else accused you of lying by "quote-mining" out of context. It is very clear that is exactly what you did. And there is no doubt it was you, because it's the same Blogger account and others referred to your account here on Slashdot by name.
Isn't it interesting that I pointed out exactly the same behavior here, long before I knew that page existed? I wonder. Is it just some bizarre coincidence? Or a pattern? Maybe we should ask others to vote on it.
You know. Scientific, expert consensus and all that.
I think I detect a strong whiff of hypocrisy.
I hope that it's clear that I have no interest in carrying on a 'conversation' with a birther and truther. That way leads to madness.
Since I have made it abundantly clear, more than once, that I am not even remotely a "birther", and those you call "truthers" are on the side of overwhelming evidence and the professional consensus, I am curious to know what your real reason is. After all, I thought you supported expert consensus views.
Still denying basic science, I see?
Quite the contrary. But I notice you still have no sense of humor.
Errrr. I never asked you any questions.
I didn't say you had. But I certainly noticed you didn't answer mine. So will everyone else.
You also think that Obama faked his birth certificate and that 911 was an inside job. I've learned not to put too much stock in what you think.
Pure libel. I never wrote either of those things. In fact, I straightened you out on BOTH of those issues, right here on Slashdot, just a short time ago. So there is absolutely no excuse for your libel. You knew, or should have known, those statements were false when you made them just now.
For the sake of others, not you, I will repeat what I told you earlier: I have no idea where Barack Obama was born. The document on the White House website IS an altered graphic, which anyone with good graphics skills can download and check for themselves. They hardly need to take my word for it. However, as I also clearly told you before, there could be a number of legitimate reasons for that.
Second, I did not claim 9/11 "was an inside job". That's a blatant lie. My only claim was that we were not told the whole truth about it. and there are more than 2400 professional architects and engineers who agree with me.
Neither I or they did claim or now claim it was "an inside job". That's a deliberate lie. I.e., libel.
Now I have some questions for YOU. Please do be a good boy and try to answer them honestly:
(A) Why did you respond to a perfectly civil comment with insults and deliberate lies?
(B) Why do you quote "Khayman80" so much? No "conspiracy theory" here, just an honest question. I am not claiming you are the same people, but they way you write and the way you behave are remarkably similar, and you even quote each other rather surprisingly consistently and often.
Australians have a choice to either pay more for adaptation or further reduce uncertainty.
False dichotomy. For the most part, they have chosen a third option: ignore the issue and expect it won't be much of a problem.
My money is on the third option. I don't think a lot of "adaptation" will be necessary.
Please see my reply to the other responder above. Treaties very definitely do not supersede the Constitution or U.S. laws, except in very particular and narrow circumstances. See the link in that comment, or a few minutes on Google can prove that to you.
s/min-reading/mis-reading
A treaty supersedes all of the laws of the land, which is why it requires Congress to sign off on it, instead of a President's signature.
False. The Constitution is vague on the issue, saying that both treaties and the Constitution are "the law of the land". However, it's pretty clear that the Constitution only intended for treaties to deal with issues external to the United States (such as foreign trade).
In its only (to my knowledge) ruling which dealt with this issue, in regard to internal U.S. affairs, Reid v. Covert, SCOTUS ruled that the U.S. Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
The actual "supremacy clause" in the Constitution reads thus:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
The phrases in pursuance thereof and under the authority of the United States clearly indicate that treaties may NOT supersede the Constitution. Because any such treaty, to be lawful, must be in pursuance of implementing the Constitution, and treaties must be made under the authority of the United States government, which is bound to uphold the Constitution.
So, NO. Claiming that a treaty supersedes internal U.S. laws or the Constitution is just false. It stems from a gross min-reading of the Supremacy Clause, and ignores past Supreme Court ruling on this issue.
The exception is when a State deals directly with foreign interests (such as international trade). In those cases, treaties do indeed supersede State laws on the matter, because the Federal government has all authority to deal with foreign governments and foreign trade. But that's a very narrow area.
Storage is always going to be an issue.
I'm not convinced that's true. Today you can get a 128GB Micro SDHC, which is pretty darned good for storage for a mobile device. Even if it only takes 32GB (most modern devices accept at least that much), it's not a problem to carry around a few Micro SDs.
Yes, indeed. A survey of exchanges on Slashdot has determined that it's all your dishonest hot air.
I have some great answers for your points.
But I'm not going to bother responding at length to an Anonymous Coward.
Get an account.
It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop.
Yeah, the research is.
TFA says they did not establish a cause-effect relationship.
It's not a treaty, so nothing in it has the force of law.
It *IS* a treaty. An international agreement is a treaty, by definition. That's what treaty means.
However, it is only a legal treaty in the U.S. if it gets ratified by Congress. And we'd better hope that's not the case.
Further yet, there's the issue of whether a treaty can override internal U.S. laws. My money is on NO.
I agree in a way. 16GB of internal storage is pretty lame, unless the 64GB micro SD is seen as "native" storage.
But to keep things in perspective: Android is Java, and adds a huge amount of cruft and overhead to the underlying Linux OS. I've been wondering for a long time why we weren't seeing plain native Linux tablets, without all that Google junk.
As long as I have LibreOffice, Firefox, and a few other apps for it I'm good to go. I could wish for a more plain-Linux experience than Ubuntu, but if it has all the requisite drivers, then Ubuntu it is.
Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important
This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?
Socialism, by and large, is a bad word. Even in those countries which have made a modicum of "socialism" actually work, like the Scandinavian countries, are not as "socialist" as many Americans seem to think. Look up Sweden, Denmark, and Norway in the Economic Freedom Index. In many ways they're more capitalist than the present United States.
Further, those countries have relatively small populations (smaller than many U.S. states and even some American metropolitan areas), and they have different historical social norms than the United States.
Further yet, in the 1990s, Sweden saw that even its modest amount of "socialism" was too much, and began to reverse course, moving toward LESS of a "welfare state". In the 20-some years they had been experimenting with it, they went from world's 4th per capita GDP to 14th. Now that they have further limited their taxation and "entitlement" programs, they are way back up again.
Denmark has had similar difficulties, and has taken some of the same steps toward solution (i.e., a bit back toward capitalism).
20 years ago, socialist Russia and China were dying. They were on the verge of mass starvation again. The only thing that has saved them -- and brought them back onstage as world-class economies -- was the adoption of more capitalism.
So yeah... socialism is a bad word. It has caused more misery and killed more people than capitalism ever has. Only a few countries have ever made much of it work, and even some of those have backtracked on it. Get on Twitter and ask Garry Kasparov. He'd be happy to tell you all about it.
And p-l-e-a-s-e don't try to tell me that "Democratic Socialism" is different. Tell that to the Greeks.
Gardner's Mathematical Games columns in Scientific American used to be some of my favorite reading. Gardner published a number of books that are collections of these columns.
Highly recommended.
If you're looking at higher wattage, like the mentioned 10W, also use higher voltage like the mentioned 24V. Trying to push higher wattage through ethernet-cable-gauge wires at 5v could end up burning your house down.
What are you talking about?
Well, then, be specific. What specific data were you showing in that Wood for Trees graph? And why did you include UAH land only, when the others were all global? Are you claiming that was an accident? Or were you trying to make an impression?
My point was that you weren't showing the finished results of UAH, but some intermediate data before further processing. And I really don't think it takes a genius to figure that out from what I wrote.
You're link is to a beta version of UAH that has different adjustments.
It's the version they're using. It's "beta" only in the sense that they called out for constructive comments. There is a link to a discussion of it on the same page, if you're interested.
Which is right? The currently published one or the beta version?
Presumably the newer version. There is reason to think so.
Are you sure that satellite is the gold standard?
I never claimed that it was. But there are lots of very good reasons to believe they're better than current surface temperature datasets.
Are they really 'constant' and unchanging?
Why do you ask? I didn't say or even imply that they were. My comments were about your later statements:
And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... [woodfortrees.org]
One of my points was that your graph was messed up, because you used UAH land-only, vs RSS and UAH global (including sea). Your graph was misleading, intentionally or otherwise. I questioned your honestly not because of the uncalled-for attempts at personal slams, but because based on my past experience, my guess was (is) intentionally.
It should look more like this.
The bit about "unadjusted" was intended to mean that these curves are of instrumental data, not model outputs. Before being run through much processing. So "RSS MSU lower trop. global mean" is relatively unaltered MSU data.
We get your point that some are adjusted more. That has little to do with whether particular adjustments are proper or improper.
Are you sure you're not a 911 truther? http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?
Why was your reply to a comment about climate change an attempt at character assassination?
As for Dumb Sci, I've been telling him for years to stop distorting my words and misrepresenting me out-of-context. But I have to ask again: why do you ask? What does it have to do with the subject at hand? Do you have a problem just addressing the subject without insulting people who may disagree?
In fact it's rather remarkable how amazingly similar you two are in that regard. Anyway:
The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements.
You already wrote that.
Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets.
Wrong. Tamino does make it quite clear, quite publicly that he disapproves of the adjustments made to UAH.
Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?
What the hell are you talking about? I suggested no such thing. In fact I haven't any idea where that came from. It has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
He did in fact deride UAH and its adjustments recently.
This guy doesn't seem to have an honest bone in his body.
Unadjusted UAH might... but you already said adjustments are necessary. If so, why are you showing data before adjustments? It's meaningless for proving your point. But it's great for propaganda. Further -- and this is funny -- your had to include UAH "land only" when all the others are "global"... why? My guess is precisely to mislead, because that looks the highest.
But you're not fooling people as much as you think you are.
And why not use the adjustments calculated by the team whose job it is to do so? Especially when RATPAC and other similar models very clearly exaggerate the warming by not accounting for instrumental changes (see the link in my other reply)... so why not use the clearly superior set of adjustments (Christy, Spencer et al.) which does account for discontinuities caused by the instrumentation changes?
So let's just knock off the BS, and show them what UAH actually shows for current temperatures.
No hottest year. Not even close. And remember it's only as high as it was, because of El Nino... weather, not climate.
But as weather effects go, it's a big one. And when this big El Nino goes away, we're in for La Nina. Typically 2-3 years of cooler temperatures.
I suspect Layzej, like Tamino and pals, are trying to push the "OMG hottest year ever" message now, while they have a chance, and before it cools off.
I doubt you should spend any time with someone who rejects radiative physics.
But I'm not one of them, so what's your problem?
Nor did I say the Twin Towers were an inside job.
And the birth certificate on the Whitehouse website IS fake. Don't take my word for it... ask anyone who has a knowledge of computer graphics download it and examine it. They'll tell you the same.
BUT -- as I have stated many times here on Slashdot -- there could be a number of perfectly legitimate reasons for that. I do not claim he was not born in America. Which is what you seem to be implying. Imagine that.
And that's where all your bullshit comes from: distortions.
As I stated before, I know you can find references. And Tamino (just as I predicted) is one of "The Usual Suspects".
However, Tamino's work does NOT refute Christy, Norris et al. 2005, or 2008. Or Christy & Spencer 2012.
And Thorne et al. 2011 says the homogenization methods used by RATPAC and similar models (the kind Tamino likes to cite) are inadequate.
I already told you, it's pointless to go there. You can look those papers up just fine if you want to, but you won't prove anything.