You nailed nothing. I am not a "birther", or other kind of conspiracy nut. The problems with NOAA temperature adjustments (like TOBS for just one example) are well documented. No conspiracy necessary. Just incompetence.
Keynesian economics is more about controlling money's value through plain old supply and demand i.e. Government can cause inflation by spending at a deficit, reducing taxes and pumping money into the economy. The country was in a depression caused by deflation in the 1930's, so FDR's spending at deficts to fund Public works worked. The inverse would be that Government can cause deflation by increasing taxes, reducing spending and paying down the debt with inflated money. During the Carter Administration, they tried to fix an inflationary recession by miss-applying Keynesian economics and increased defict spending with disasterous results.
Currently with inflation at 1.5 - 2, the budget should be balanced and taxes moderate.
You're trying to teach your mistaken notions about economics to the wrong person.
Keynesian economics is largely about government interventionism. This is primarily what separates it from more objective macroeconomic theory.
And even mainstream economists today reject the idea that FDR brought the country out of the depression. On the contrary... many say he prolonged it for as much as 10 unnecessary years. His own Treasury secretary thought he was crazy.
You were responding to someone who derided "trickle-down". The problem being that the same school of thought that was responsible for "trickle-down" is still advising the President and the Fed.
You mentioned that Obama was a "constitutional scholar", and implied we should be more angry over that than over some actor. My point was that we should be at least as leery of Obama's economics as Reagan's. (And in fact, the Keynesian economics is not working any better now than it did then.)
I'm just not going to take it very seriously if it's yet another "adjusted" dataset from NOAA. There are too many demonstrated problems with their "adjustments".
Besides, the father of "trickle-down", Art Laffer, was a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian economist (and still is). Which means that he was a card-carrying member of the same group of nutjobs who are still advising the Fed (and the Feds) on economics.
Didn't work then. Doesn't work now. (Not just trickle-down, I mean Keynesian interventionist economics.)
I just get a laugh about how today's Liberals think the current administration's economics are going to save us all, when in reality it's all the same shit, different day.
Yes it was. And you're still spreading Dr. Latour's civilization-paralyzing Slayer misinformation:
You are implying that my stance on AGW is because of politics? Hahahaha! That's a hoot.
And re: Latour, your argument is just asinine. Especially from someone who claims to be a physicist. First, your bathtub analogy is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. The plate has no influence whatever on the state of the whole system. You are neglecting the (physically) largest part of it, which is the outside wall.
You are neglecting other things as well. For example, you're conflating electrical power with "emissive power" or irradiance, which are different things, in different units. Sheesh. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right.
So I gave that much away. And you still didn't deserve it. Further, you are still denying the S-B law, though you continue to deny that you're denying it.
And there is more. I haven't given away anything that you should not have been able to easily figure out yourself. One has to wonder why you didn't.
But here's the kicker: it is abundantly obvious that the things you have done were NOT done for purposes of saving "civilization". Because if they were, you'd have taken them to the doorstep of the people who are actually responsible for dessiminating them to the public, rather than someone in a completely different field on Slashdot. Gotcha. Your intention has merely been to smear me, by whatever cheating means you have managed to come up with. The evidence is all over Slashdot. Look in a mirror, man.
And if you really are dying, I will leave you with this parting gift:
Despite your obsession, and the extent of your research, I still know things you don't. Why do you think I've felt free to be so glib? I've been watching you make a fool of yourself, ever since you revealed what a despicable human being you are (again, just my opinion of course, but I've had some confirmation).
My advice to go do something more worthwhile was sincere. Because if you don't, after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was.
That's not a threat in any way, it's just a description of the truth. I haven't been attacking YOU, it has all been coming FROM you. And this topic on Slashdot is just one more example that anybody can see. I have defended myself where I felt it to be necessary, but NOBODY else on this Earth has made it necessary. Just you. I haven't tracked you down and harassed you. You have done that to me. I haven't made a habit of jumping in to other conversations, just to try to humiliate YOU. But you have done so to me. Etc., etc ad nauseum.
So get stuffed. I am far beyond tired of your incessant BULLSHIT. If you want to contemplate something before you die, I would suggest starting with meditating on why you have been such an incorrigibly rude, insufferable human being who makes a habit out of maliciously harassing others. Was it your own upbringing?
Condescendingly lecturing a veteran like this was wrong:
I made a mistake and admitted it. Are you trying to claim that you don't make mistakes? You won't even dare to have your analysis of Spencer's thought experiment be seen by someone who actually has a degree in chemistry or physics, and some familiarity with the issue.
No, after delt0r answered, you insisted he must not have understood your point. After I repeated delt0r's point, you claimed that you had got yourself sorted out already and accused me of butting in and insulting you.
Re-hashing old shit which has been explained to you before. I made a mistake and admitted it. Yes, I argued at first, but I found out I was wrong and explicitly said so. YOU don't think my admission was good enough for your taste. Too damned bad. I still admitted it.
Because you're galloping faster than any Gish Gallop I've ever seen, and because despite your protests you seldom accept refutations for longer than about 5 minutes anyway.
Nope. You are conflating 2 different arguments here, which has been one of the hallmarks of your own arguments. Not my problem.
I probably don't have more than about a month to live, so I'm obsessing over my legacy. The misinformation you're spreading seems like the biggest current threat to humanity, so I'll spend my final days debunking you.
Hahaha. First, I don't believe you, and second, you'd have to do a lot better than this. And if I were you I'd pick something more worthy to spend my final time on, than personally attacking someone who has done nothing to you but be a victim of your vicious character attacks for years. I have already brought this to the attention of an attorney, who referred me to another because it's not his specialty. Further action is pending.
One disturbing possibility is that you can't experience shame, which is why I'm trying to figure out why you're shamelessly posing as a woman. Maybe the way you were raised could help answer this question.
I experience shame just fine, when I have something genuine to be ashamed about. You haven't shown me any. Do you honestly expect me to feel shame over arguments with YOU? Jesus, you have an amazing ego. Narcissus would be proud.
And digging up 3 mentions of the same story on Twitter, some from 5 years ago, and some 2 years apart? Man, that must have taken some digging. Yes, I did check them out, which took quite a while by the way, so I know. You obviously have a serious (and possibly dangerous) obsession to be poring over someone else's records this way. I repeat: if you really believe we are the same people, then why doesn't the word "stalking" occur to you? Internet stalking is a crime in California. And you can bet that, as I have said before, I am keeping records. You may not like me but at least I am not a social criminal like some people I could name.
But I am curious: why have you collected those 3 mentions of one story, which was obviously intended to be humorous? Of course you left the humor part out, didn't link to that, which was just as obviously intentional on your part, and again one of your consistent habits: taking things out of context, and pasting them together to give a false impression.
I also wonder why you have a habit of linking to archives, or indirect links to other links, rather than the originals. I suspect that it is to prevent others from following the information stream, and seeing what the conversation was really about.
I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.
The ocean is warming. To disprove this you linked to a site that concedes the ocean is warming. Good job.
The ocean is always warming. Somewhere. And cooling elsewhere. There are known natural cycles. So yes, the ocean may be warming in some areas, but let's go back to context: OP was about deep warming that stores away supposed anthropogenic warming. The author of the article I linked to says it isn't so.
So... nice attempt to move the goalposts, but it didn't work. AGW theory refuted. Again.
It bothers me a lot when I see people shouting "abandon all hope". It's not that bad.
Still, I would like to see Firefox getting more of its revenue from sources other than Google. Maybe the Firefox Phone will go a long way to realizing that.
On the other hand, I found tiles on the new page useful, if only marginally. I would prefer to be able to turn off the ads and still use the tiles. But if I must turn them all off to do away with the ads, I will.
I almost forgot: Chromium is hardly a major player in the browser market.
Firefox is important, and we should support it. But I don't think supporting it via ads is the best way to go.
I have no obligation to prove every statement I make to you on Slashdot. In fact I have very good personal reasons for not wanting to tell you: I don't want to give you an opportunity to try to bullshit your way out of yet another aspect of your antisocial behavior. No fear: the records are safe.
In fact, the more I read of these old streams, the more I've found where I was actually correct. (Like the one on bicycle stability for instance.) I have a copy of that paper right here and it says I was correct.
Etc. Funny how when I say I'm done putting up with your bullshit, you try to ad-hominem me into replying more. You're weird, guy.
But I really am done putting up with your bullshit. Your attempts to shame me haven't been coming off too well, you know.
Although I have kept records of some of your comments, why do you expect I would have them handy? Not everybody shares your particular brand of obsession.
I don't keep links to all your past comments at hand, or generally bother to search for them, for 2 reasons: (1) I just don't care much about you or past shit you've written, with one exception but I don't particular want to discuss that. And (2) unlike you, I'm just not that kind of weirdo. I have better uses for the records I keep.
See, there you go again. Out of context links to things said long ago, in some kind of half-assed attempt to prove something.
Just a brief sample: GPS. Turned out that the people who were arguing with me were wrong, but I was wrong too. Although I assert that I was closer than they were. My statement that three satellites were sufficient to triangulate a point space (given arbitrarily fine precision) was correct. Others were arguing that it requires 4. It turns out GPS uses a minimum of 4, but the 4th is a ground station (not satellite) used to correct for errors, not necessary for the basic triangulation.
So that wasn't nonsense. In fact not only was I essentially correct about the geometry, I was the one who found the actual answer to that one and told everyone else.
Let's see... Rossi. At no time did I say the Rossi affair was not a hoax. I mentioned that he had sold one or two of his devices (and he had sold at least one). What of it? The U.S. navy has been looking into similar LENR reactions for decades, as have other scientists. That's a fact. Go ahead, try to refute it. In fact what I said about Rossi was wait and see.
YOUR problem is that you claim these things are nonsense, but you haven't disproved a single one of them. Why not?
It's ad-hominem. Plain and simple. By presenting these things (which YOU can nonsense, out of context), you are merely making yet another attempt at character assassination. I am not impressed.
Oh... and I was only partly wrong about the NATO rounds. The originals were exactly as I described them. It turned out that the UN declared the standard rounds too deadly, so they were changed to be heavier with a steel insert. I wasn't wrong, my information was just old. I hadn't known about the change, which occurred around 1980 or so.
So sure, I've made some small errors. And admitted them when I did. But that is only a minority of links above, which you are apparently trying to claim are all "nonsense". Like the beta decay: after some initial confusion I asked how the oscillations take place, and someone answered. I admitted that I was wrong.
You don't see the comments where I admitted I was wrong in your links above, do you? Why is that? No need to answer: the obvious answer is again that this is not an attempt at presenting factual information, it's simply an attempt to make me look bad, using underhanded (and illegitimate) tactics. Not to mention that in a lot of it I wasn't wrong at all, you just think I was.
But like I said before: this kind of shit is exactly what I have learned to expect from you.
One last thing, to anybody else who has bothered to wade through all his bullshit: ask yourselves why he's keeping a record of ALL the comments I made on Slashdot over a period of years that he thinks were wrong. Do YOU do that to people? No, you don't, do you? That's because YOU are probably a normal human being, who doesn't stalk or obsess over strangers.
(5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100 meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of 0.5ÂC in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have data);
(6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO, decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
(7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.
If you read the whole article, he very explicitly says that the climate is NOT experiencing anthropogenic warming. Based on his pile of peer-reviewed papers (see his list of references).
If you want to argue the matter, then go argue with him. If you want to refute his references, then do so. I'm just reporting what he said. It's kind of pointless to argue with me about it.
That has nothing to do with measuring ocean heat content. That is just the opinion of some guy on the internet regarding the implications of increased ocean heat content. Someone who is apparently not that familiar with the concept of conservation of energy.
Hilarious. Yeah, just "some guy" on the internet. Well, let's see:
Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Hawaii, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years.... author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences.
Right. Just some guy. And yes, his article DOES address heat content. And has about 40 references. (I didn't count.)
Typical warmist ad-hominem bullshit. "I've never heard of him so he must be an idiot and wrong."
There wasn't any "evidence". It was an AC who jumped into the conversation, in EXACTLY the same way you and khayman80 do. Using some of the very same phraseology, and the timing was (yet again) very weirdly coincidental. Further, khayman80 is known to have used sock-puppet accounts, and even admitted it to me once. (He doesn't seem to realize that, but there is a record of it.)
So no, bringing up an AC sock-puppet is not really evidence of anything, since it is known that khayman80 has used them.
Yet, here I sit in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, surrounded by papers (peer-reviewed, I guess I should add) which conclude:
(1) For the past two decades at least, and possibly for the past seven decades, the Earthâ(TM)s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no net change;
(2) there should have been a sizable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric radiative forcing during that time, but there wasnâ(TM)t. That must mean that a suite of compensatory feedbacks overwhelmed the âoegreenhouseâ impetus for warming; implying, therefore,
(3) that the planet will not warm from any man-produced increases in CO2; indicating
(4) any increases in temperature will likely fit the global trend of +0.048ÂC/decade, that is, about 0.5ÂC this centuryâ" the rate of warming that has existed since the Little Ice Age, centered around 1750 in Europe, South America, and China; suggesting
(5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100 meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of 0.5ÂC in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have data);
(6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO, decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
(7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.
The article said that Levitus made unwarranted assumptions. Further, quote:
To single out one variable, namely radiation through the atmosphere and the associated âgreenhouse effect,â(TM) as being the primary driving force of atmospheric and oceanic climate, is a simplistic and absurd way to view the complex interaction of forces between the land, ocean, atmosphere, and outer space.
Simplistic and absurd. Gee, where have I seen that before? Oh, yeah. Your other posts here.
That's not the winning argument you think it is. Even across the Atlantic I know enough of US Constitutional history and law to know that this is in fact a driver for expanding Federal power. The prime example? Fourteenth Amendment.
I agree with mrex here: you show an abominably bad understanding of US history.
I don't think you're disagreeing as much as you seem to think you are.
What mi was saying was that the Federal government is guilty of vast overreach, using the Commerce Clause as a thin "justification". He was saying that it is an expansion of power. But he was going further and saying that in most cases it actually is unconstitutional expansion.
Interstate highways are not a great example, because they are by their nature interstate and so the Commerce Clause indisputably applies. And a lot of people don't seem to remember that they're actually called "Interstate Transportation and Defense Highways". The defense part is no small part.
BUT... I think we all agree that this still didn't justify the Federal government effectively holding tax money hostage until the states agreed to their extortion and mandated speed limits throughout the country (except for Montana, at least for a long time). Most highways are actually not Interstates, and the Federal government has no real jurisdiction there. It was extortion plain and simple. And I have a problem with the Federal government using my money to extort taxpayers.
Slashdot Mirror
You nailed nothing. I am not a "birther", or other kind of conspiracy nut. The problems with NOAA temperature adjustments (like TOBS for just one example) are well documented. No conspiracy necessary. Just incompetence.
Keynesian economics is more about controlling money's value through plain old supply and demand i.e. Government can cause inflation by spending at a deficit, reducing taxes and pumping money into the economy. The country was in a depression caused by deflation in the 1930's, so FDR's spending at deficts to fund Public works worked. The inverse would be that Government can cause deflation by increasing taxes, reducing spending and paying down the debt with inflated money. During the Carter Administration, they tried to fix an inflationary recession by miss-applying Keynesian economics and increased defict spending with disasterous results.
Currently with inflation at 1.5 - 2, the budget should be balanced and taxes moderate.
You're trying to teach your mistaken notions about economics to the wrong person.
Keynesian economics is largely about government interventionism. This is primarily what separates it from more objective macroeconomic theory.
And even mainstream economists today reject the idea that FDR brought the country out of the depression. On the contrary... many say he prolonged it for as much as 10 unnecessary years. His own Treasury secretary thought he was crazy.
It seems pretty obvious to me.
You were responding to someone who derided "trickle-down". The problem being that the same school of thought that was responsible for "trickle-down" is still advising the President and the Fed.
You mentioned that Obama was a "constitutional scholar", and implied we should be more angry over that than over some actor. My point was that we should be at least as leery of Obama's economics as Reagan's. (And in fact, the Keynesian economics is not working any better now than it did then.)
Correction: some time tomorrow or over the weekend. Not in the morning. I have other things to do.
I'll answer in the morning. You haven't demonstrated what you think you have.
I'm just not going to take it very seriously if it's yet another "adjusted" dataset from NOAA. There are too many demonstrated problems with their "adjustments".
Besides, the father of "trickle-down", Art Laffer, was a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian economist (and still is). Which means that he was a card-carrying member of the same group of nutjobs who are still advising the Fed (and the Feds) on economics.
Didn't work then. Doesn't work now. (Not just trickle-down, I mean Keynesian interventionist economics.)
I just get a laugh about how today's Liberals think the current administration's economics are going to save us all, when in reality it's all the same shit, different day.
Yes it was. And you're still spreading Dr. Latour's civilization-paralyzing Slayer misinformation:
You are implying that my stance on AGW is because of politics? Hahahaha! That's a hoot.
And re: Latour, your argument is just asinine. Especially from someone who claims to be a physicist. First, your bathtub analogy is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. The plate has no influence whatever on the state of the whole system. You are neglecting the (physically) largest part of it, which is the outside wall.
You are neglecting other things as well. For example, you're conflating electrical power with "emissive power" or irradiance, which are different things, in different units. Sheesh. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right.
So I gave that much away. And you still didn't deserve it. Further, you are still denying the S-B law, though you continue to deny that you're denying it.
And there is more. I haven't given away anything that you should not have been able to easily figure out yourself. One has to wonder why you didn't.
But here's the kicker: it is abundantly obvious that the things you have done were NOT done for purposes of saving "civilization". Because if they were, you'd have taken them to the doorstep of the people who are actually responsible for dessiminating them to the public, rather than someone in a completely different field on Slashdot. Gotcha. Your intention has merely been to smear me, by whatever cheating means you have managed to come up with. The evidence is all over Slashdot. Look in a mirror, man.
Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY.
And if you really are dying, I will leave you with this parting gift:
Despite your obsession, and the extent of your research, I still know things you don't. Why do you think I've felt free to be so glib? I've been watching you make a fool of yourself, ever since you revealed what a despicable human being you are (again, just my opinion of course, but I've had some confirmation).
My advice to go do something more worthwhile was sincere. Because if you don't, after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was.
That's not a threat in any way, it's just a description of the truth. I haven't been attacking YOU, it has all been coming FROM you. And this topic on Slashdot is just one more example that anybody can see. I have defended myself where I felt it to be necessary, but NOBODY else on this Earth has made it necessary. Just you. I haven't tracked you down and harassed you. You have done that to me. I haven't made a habit of jumping in to other conversations, just to try to humiliate YOU. But you have done so to me. Etc., etc ad nauseum.
So get stuffed. I am far beyond tired of your incessant BULLSHIT. If you want to contemplate something before you die, I would suggest starting with meditating on why you have been such an incorrigibly rude, insufferable human being who makes a habit out of maliciously harassing others. Was it your own upbringing?
I see. It was I who misunderstood what you were saying.
Example of this "dogma" you claim?
Condescendingly lecturing a veteran like this was wrong:
I made a mistake and admitted it. Are you trying to claim that you don't make mistakes? You won't even dare to have your analysis of Spencer's thought experiment be seen by someone who actually has a degree in chemistry or physics, and some familiarity with the issue.
No, after delt0r answered, you insisted he must not have understood your point. After I repeated delt0r's point, you claimed that you had got yourself sorted out already and accused me of butting in and insulting you.
Re-hashing old shit which has been explained to you before. I made a mistake and admitted it. Yes, I argued at first, but I found out I was wrong and explicitly said so. YOU don't think my admission was good enough for your taste. Too damned bad. I still admitted it.
Because you're galloping faster than any Gish Gallop I've ever seen, and because despite your protests you seldom accept refutations for longer than about 5 minutes anyway.
Nope. You are conflating 2 different arguments here, which has been one of the hallmarks of your own arguments. Not my problem.
I probably don't have more than about a month to live, so I'm obsessing over my legacy. The misinformation you're spreading seems like the biggest current threat to humanity, so I'll spend my final days debunking you.
Hahaha. First, I don't believe you, and second, you'd have to do a lot better than this. And if I were you I'd pick something more worthy to spend my final time on, than personally attacking someone who has done nothing to you but be a victim of your vicious character attacks for years. I have already brought this to the attention of an attorney, who referred me to another because it's not his specialty. Further action is pending.
One disturbing possibility is that you can't experience shame, which is why I'm trying to figure out why you're shamelessly posing as a woman. Maybe the way you were raised could help answer this question.
I experience shame just fine, when I have something genuine to be ashamed about. You haven't shown me any. Do you honestly expect me to feel shame over arguments with YOU? Jesus, you have an amazing ego. Narcissus would be proud.
And digging up 3 mentions of the same story on Twitter, some from 5 years ago, and some 2 years apart? Man, that must have taken some digging. Yes, I did check them out, which took quite a while by the way, so I know. You obviously have a serious (and possibly dangerous) obsession to be poring over someone else's records this way. I repeat: if you really believe we are the same people, then why doesn't the word "stalking" occur to you? Internet stalking is a crime in California. And you can bet that, as I have said before, I am keeping records. You may not like me but at least I am not a social criminal like some people I could name.
But I am curious: why have you collected those 3 mentions of one story, which was obviously intended to be humorous? Of course you left the humor part out, didn't link to that, which was just as obviously intentional on your part, and again one of your consistent habits: taking things out of context, and pasting them together to give a false impression.
I also wonder why you have a habit of linking to archives, or indirect links to other links, rather than the originals. I suspect that it is to prevent others from following the information stream, and seeing what the conversation was really about.
I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.
I'm not in the slightest confused. Or amb
The ocean is warming. To disprove this you linked to a site that concedes the ocean is warming. Good job.
The ocean is always warming. Somewhere. And cooling elsewhere. There are known natural cycles. So yes, the ocean may be warming in some areas, but let's go back to context: OP was about deep warming that stores away supposed anthropogenic warming. The author of the article I linked to says it isn't so.
So... nice attempt to move the goalposts, but it didn't work. AGW theory refuted. Again.
It bothers me a lot when I see people shouting "abandon all hope". It's not that bad.
Still, I would like to see Firefox getting more of its revenue from sources other than Google. Maybe the Firefox Phone will go a long way to realizing that.
On the other hand, I found tiles on the new page useful, if only marginally. I would prefer to be able to turn off the ads and still use the tiles. But if I must turn them all off to do away with the ads, I will.
I almost forgot: Chromium is hardly a major player in the browser market.
Firefox is important, and we should support it. But I don't think supporting it via ads is the best way to go.
Unwilling.
I have no obligation to prove every statement I make to you on Slashdot. In fact I have very good personal reasons for not wanting to tell you: I don't want to give you an opportunity to try to bullshit your way out of yet another aspect of your antisocial behavior. No fear: the records are safe.
In fact, the more I read of these old streams, the more I've found where I was actually correct. (Like the one on bicycle stability for instance.) I have a copy of that paper right here and it says I was correct.
Etc. Funny how when I say I'm done putting up with your bullshit, you try to ad-hominem me into replying more. You're weird, guy.
But I really am done putting up with your bullshit. Your attempts to shame me haven't been coming off too well, you know.
Although I have kept records of some of your comments, why do you expect I would have them handy? Not everybody shares your particular brand of obsession.
I don't keep links to all your past comments at hand, or generally bother to search for them, for 2 reasons: (1) I just don't care much about you or past shit you've written, with one exception but I don't particular want to discuss that. And (2) unlike you, I'm just not that kind of weirdo. I have better uses for the records I keep.
That isn't what I said, so it isn't my logic in question here.
See, there you go again. Out of context links to things said long ago, in some kind of half-assed attempt to prove something.
Just a brief sample: GPS. Turned out that the people who were arguing with me were wrong, but I was wrong too. Although I assert that I was closer than they were. My statement that three satellites were sufficient to triangulate a point space (given arbitrarily fine precision) was correct. Others were arguing that it requires 4. It turns out GPS uses a minimum of 4, but the 4th is a ground station (not satellite) used to correct for errors, not necessary for the basic triangulation.
So that wasn't nonsense. In fact not only was I essentially correct about the geometry, I was the one who found the actual answer to that one and told everyone else.
Let's see... Rossi. At no time did I say the Rossi affair was not a hoax. I mentioned that he had sold one or two of his devices (and he had sold at least one). What of it? The U.S. navy has been looking into similar LENR reactions for decades, as have other scientists. That's a fact. Go ahead, try to refute it. In fact what I said about Rossi was wait and see.
YOUR problem is that you claim these things are nonsense, but you haven't disproved a single one of them. Why not?
It's ad-hominem. Plain and simple. By presenting these things (which YOU can nonsense, out of context), you are merely making yet another attempt at character assassination. I am not impressed.
Oh... and I was only partly wrong about the NATO rounds. The originals were exactly as I described them. It turned out that the UN declared the standard rounds too deadly, so they were changed to be heavier with a steel insert. I wasn't wrong, my information was just old. I hadn't known about the change, which occurred around 1980 or so.
So sure, I've made some small errors. And admitted them when I did. But that is only a minority of links above, which you are apparently trying to claim are all "nonsense". Like the beta decay: after some initial confusion I asked how the oscillations take place, and someone answered. I admitted that I was wrong.
You don't see the comments where I admitted I was wrong in your links above, do you? Why is that? No need to answer: the obvious answer is again that this is not an attempt at presenting factual information, it's simply an attempt to make me look bad, using underhanded (and illegitimate) tactics. Not to mention that in a lot of it I wasn't wrong at all, you just think I was.
But like I said before: this kind of shit is exactly what I have learned to expect from you.
One last thing, to anybody else who has bothered to wade through all his bullshit: ask yourselves why he's keeping a record of ALL the comments I made on Slashdot over a period of years that he thinks were wrong. Do YOU do that to people? No, you don't, do you? That's because YOU are probably a normal human being, who doesn't stalk or obsess over strangers.
(5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100 meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of 0.5ÂC in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have data);
(6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO, decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
(7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.
If you read the whole article, he very explicitly says that the climate is NOT experiencing anthropogenic warming. Based on his pile of peer-reviewed papers (see his list of references).
If you want to argue the matter, then go argue with him. If you want to refute his references, then do so. I'm just reporting what he said. It's kind of pointless to argue with me about it.
That has nothing to do with measuring ocean heat content. That is just the opinion of some guy on the internet regarding the implications of increased ocean heat content. Someone who is apparently not that familiar with the concept of conservation of energy.
Hilarious. Yeah, just "some guy" on the internet. Well, let's see:
Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Hawaii, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. ... author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences.
Right. Just some guy. And yes, his article DOES address heat content. And has about 40 references. (I didn't count.)
Typical warmist ad-hominem bullshit. "I've never heard of him so he must be an idiot and wrong."
There wasn't any "evidence". It was an AC who jumped into the conversation, in EXACTLY the same way you and khayman80 do. Using some of the very same phraseology, and the timing was (yet again) very weirdly coincidental. Further, khayman80 is known to have used sock-puppet accounts, and even admitted it to me once. (He doesn't seem to realize that, but there is a record of it.)
So no, bringing up an AC sock-puppet is not really evidence of anything, since it is known that khayman80 has used them.
And your point is?
Do you have a particular argument to refute? If so, why didn't you refute it long ago?
Oh, that's right. You aren't very good at refutation. I forgot.
Yet, here I sit in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, surrounded by papers (peer-reviewed, I guess I should add) which conclude:
(1) For the past two decades at least, and possibly for the past seven decades, the Earthâ(TM)s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no net change;
(2) there should have been a sizable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric radiative forcing during that time, but there wasnâ(TM)t. That must mean that a suite of compensatory feedbacks overwhelmed the âoegreenhouseâ impetus for warming; implying, therefore,
(3) that the planet will not warm from any man-produced increases in CO2; indicating
(4) any increases in temperature will likely fit the global trend of +0.048ÂC/decade, that is, about 0.5ÂC this centuryâ" the rate of warming that has existed since the Little Ice Age, centered around 1750 in Europe, South America, and China; suggesting
(5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100 meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of 0.5ÂC in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have data);
(6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO, decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
(7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.
To single out one variable, namely radiation through the atmosphere and the associated âgreenhouse effect,â(TM) as being the primary driving force of atmospheric and oceanic climate, is a simplistic and absurd way to view the complex interaction of forces between the land, ocean, atmosphere, and outer space.
Simplistic and absurd. Gee, where have I seen that before? Oh, yeah. Your other posts here.
That's not the winning argument you think it is. Even across the Atlantic I know enough of US Constitutional history and law to know that this is in fact a driver for expanding Federal power. The prime example? Fourteenth Amendment.
I agree with mrex here: you show an abominably bad understanding of US history.
I don't think you're disagreeing as much as you seem to think you are. What mi was saying was that the Federal government is guilty of vast overreach, using the Commerce Clause as a thin "justification". He was saying that it is an expansion of power. But he was going further and saying that in most cases it actually is unconstitutional expansion.
Interstate highways are not a great example, because they are by their nature interstate and so the Commerce Clause indisputably applies. And a lot of people don't seem to remember that they're actually called "Interstate Transportation and Defense Highways". The defense part is no small part.
BUT... I think we all agree that this still didn't justify the Federal government effectively holding tax money hostage until the states agreed to their extortion and mandated speed limits throughout the country (except for Montana, at least for a long time). Most highways are actually not Interstates, and the Federal government has no real jurisdiction there. It was extortion plain and simple. And I have a problem with the Federal government using my money to extort taxpayers.