You don't just "find it very interesting". You have jumped to the conclusion that several people who disagree with you must all be the same person. That's just nutty.
Really? Can you point out where I have said this to other people? Hint: no, you can't, because I haven't. You're the only one doing this.
As I've explained many times before: having issues with certain documents does not equal claiming that Obama was born elsewhere.
Further, it turns out that you are ignorant of reasons I've turned up (and mentioned before) why such alterations might actually have perfectly legitimate reasons behind them. No conspiracy necessary.
But no; you ignore those and only post those things, out of context, in order to make me appear to be a "birther" when I have explained to you several times that I don't claim to have any idea where Obama was born, and don't claim that those documents are evidence that he was born elsewhere. Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". I don't fit that category.
You take comments out of context that seem to support your argument, but when taken IN context, together with other statements I have clearly made, the "birther" claim is shown to be false.
And you know this, because I have explained it to you repeatedly. So your tirade above is nothing more than a sneaky form of lying.
And it's really interesting how you're always there to jump in and defend "Laysej". Clone? Sock-puppet?
You'll have to do better than that. The raw data does not show this, unless like the Levitus paper you're willing to draw conclusions from localized data and ignore the rest of the world. Which, it must be said, is a technique warmists are rather famous for. It's a form of lying. Like saying the current drought in California is "climate".
No, but I find it very interesting that both of you have the same mannerisms, you're the only two who have written certain things to me, or used certain phrases, and usually about the same subjects. Not to mention the often "fortuitous" timing of your comments.
If you're not a sock-puppet, then you're a clone. And that's very far from a compliment.
I'm not too interested in you conspiracy theories (for instance your wacky theories on Obama's birth cirtificate: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...).
Ad-hominem at its best. Of course that's what I have learned to expect from "Laysej", otherwise known as "khayman80". Someone who seems actually proud to be running sock-puppet accounts on Slashdot. So... what does "conspiracy theory" have to do with one person's bad paper? Are YOU suggesting that there is some kind of "conspiracy" going on? I didn't. In fact I have several times described here on Slashdot how a situation can look like "conspiracy" to some people without there actually being any conspiracy. So the only person suggesting ANYTHING about "conspiracy" here is you.
The 97% consensus paper has been replicated numerous times.
Hah! Has it really? By whom? Are you referring to Naomi Oreskes, who was also blatantly guilty of selection bias?
This "97%" figure came from a selected subset of the respondents, who were only 29% of those surveyed. And the subjective selection process was not even remotely valid or even scientific. Objective interpretation of the same data came up with a figure more like 0.5%.
Cook's paper is an even bigger joke than Oreskes' paper was. And so is the work of Cook's friend and collaborator Lewandowski.
You won't have the records prepared to hand over beforehand, but you will probably go do so after contemplating the alternative.
Just no.
The situation under discussion was one in which there was no probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. Sorry, but I do not roll over for police "fishing expeditions". People who do are one of the primary things that has been wrong with this country. If you don't stand up for your rights, you are likely to lose them.
Recommending that people bend over and just take it is part of the problem. YOU can get stuffed, too.
The "theory" that says that ENSO has no long term effect is conservation of mass/energy.
No, it isn't. You can't take one and conflate it with the other without something connecting them.
This recent theory says heat is stored in the deep oceans. I purely cyclical ENSO would have no effect, but this paper is claiming that the deep storage DOES have an effect on climate.
In essence, if there is any INCREASE or DECREASE in total stored energy, it does have an effect, even if it is cyclical in nature. It only has "no effect" when the entire energy budget remains the same.
By arguing that it has no effect, you are arguing that the paper this whole discussion about is also of no consequence.
and "scientists" are now trying to stuff the missing heat from failed computer models into the only place they can, which is similarly flawed computer models with "heat" trapped deep in the oceans, orginally, convient because there was limited historic data, but now this flaw is turning out to be equally untrue. Plus, the whole CERN Climategate docs.
Did you mean UEA?
In any case, trying to pretend the heat is "trapped" deep in some ocean is the only desperate move they have left to try to claim their models have any real validity.
I'm far from an expert but the drought conditions out west are certainly telling something.
That's weather, not climate. Plus, even factoring in the hot & dry SW, according to the raw data the "lower 48" of the U.S. still experienced one of the coldest years on record so far.
Globally, catastrophic weather events are at a much lower level than they were 10 or even 20 years ago.
The site has a science bias. It publishes articles written by scientists. Obviously this doesn't play well for those interested in the various narratives spun by Watts Up with That.
You mean science like the Cook "97%" survey they supported and cited, which was such a laughable parody of responsible statistics that a middle-schooler could show it to be invalid?
Let's not overstate this. The account given by Bingo is a good one, and on the facts it shows two law enforcement officers just doing their job: gathering background information, and they're doing it in a way to minimise the hassle for the ordinary member of public they're interviewing. Bingo mentions no powerplays beyond them identifying themselves as LEOs.
Yeah. And if I were just a small-time user of some bitcoin service, my "preparing" for questioning by law enforcement would be to get ready to tell them to get stuffed if they got pushy.
The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.
You don't know that it has no long-term effects on the trend. ENSO hasn't been understood long enough. THEORETICALLY, it may be true, but it sure as hell isn't proven. Even now it is not well understood... which was part of my point.
If you can't model climate over 10 years, you can't model it over 100. No reliable advance predictor of ENSO is known. Now they're saying there is a longer-term trend that they can't predict, either. At least so far. Which throws an even bigger wrench into the works.
But what's really funny is how this definition of "long term" changes with the temperature! Not all that long ago, warmists were saying "A trend has to be 10-12 years before it can be called 'climate'." But once the "pause" -- I'm being polite -- was about 16 years long they started saying 20 years, and 30 years. It's hilarious.
This "pause" is one month away from being 18 years long... only 1 year shy of the entire warming trend since 1979, which is what everybody was screaming about in the first place.
Yes, I've seen the "evidence". Probably a lot more of it than you. But unlike most folks, I've seen the evidence on both sides of the aisle. The evidence for warming was never very convincing and has become less so as time has turned up new evidence.
In ALL human societies, men prefer women younger than themselves that are physically attractive, which correlates with fertility. In ALL human societies, women prefer men with high social status, and greater resources.
As a generalization, this is true enough. So, I will amend my comment. They might be genetic factors, but they aren't overt physical factors. The fact that males tend to be older when they mate is not a matter of sexual maturity, which generally comes long before then.
Not necessarily. The major threat to children in primitive hunter gatherer societies is not predators but hunger. By staying smaller during their formative years, they reduce the amount of calories need to survive.
This. Also, it takes time to learn the vast amount of information that it takes for a human being to really be smart enough to manipulate its environment... which evolution has obviously selected for. Chimps, for example, often actually outpace human learning for up to 2 years, but then humans continue to learn while the chimp rapidly levels off. Keeping resource use to a low level during this long learning phase is likely a long-term survival trait.
Also it should be noted that another factor in humans' slow growth is already known: humans can only have babies with brains so big, before birth becomes a very big problem. So a longer period is needed for the human brain to grow to its adult size.
But the selection pressures are different on boys and girls. Girls are generally able to procreate as soon as they reach puberty. But boys need to wait till they are older, and have built up social status. So it makes sense for girls to mature faster, and that is what happens. Look at a group of kids in 4th or 5th grade, and the girls are several inches taller than the boys.
It is more accurate to say that boys and girls mature at different rates.
If you adjust for the probable influence of estrogen mimics in our current environment, human females start to mature sexually before males do, but actually finish their sexual maturation later. You are referring more to social factors than genetic: often males need to be older to establish themselves in order to semi-permanently mate, but that is not the same things as physical sexual maturity needed to procreate.
It sure was said to be stupid by a boatload of people on Slashdot when the rest of us tried to say it really was a slippery slope.
I have a feeling a lot of people will be looking back at what many of them call "crazy conspiracy theory" today when some of those things turn out to be real, too.
Of course many of them really are just crazy conspiracy theory. But not all of them. Real conspiracies can exist and have existed throughout history.
But there's another thing that some people don't account for: a lot of people, operating under the same (often but not always) erroneous assumptions or misinformation, can make it look like there is a conspiracy when it's really not conspiracy at all. Just a lot of people making the same mistakes.
This just illustrates that government attempts at "surveillance" of their own citizens can be used against them, and actually constitute a very serious national security risk.
If they don't start getting that through their heads (which they really should have by now), they're in for a very serious surprise.
Fuck off. Everything you posted IS COMPETITION. Dropbox refuses to compete. They offer 2 tiers and ridiculous prices. If they had offered me a 30GB plan I would have jumped at it but my money is no good to them. Instead I would have to beg for "extra" space and game the system. So FUCK dropbox. They wont offer what I want so I've gone elsewhere. Thats called competition.
It is NOT "competition" if the big boys are "dumping" their services at below cost in order to gain market share. Dumping is an anti-competitive practice which is illegal for very good reasons.
I don't know if technically dumping a service at below cost is illegal the same way as product dumping is, but if it isn't it should be. It is not competition, it is the exact OPPOSITE.
Mandatory panic! Alert the police! Search EVERYTHING! Connect the dots! Personally, I blame the teacher for not sufficiently explaining the limits of the assignment.
I doubt very much the reaction would have been the same if he'd written that he did it with bow & arrow.
As far as I am concerned, it was the school's actions that were criminal. First, censorship is not the business of schools. Second, they called the police over a non-crime. They didn't even have a reasonable suspicion that any crime had been committed.
It's one thing to say "no guns in school". It's quite another to ban any mention of them. This isn't China.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't just "find it very interesting". You have jumped to the conclusion that several people who disagree with you must all be the same person. That's just nutty.
Really? Can you point out where I have said this to other people? Hint: no, you can't, because I haven't. You're the only one doing this.
As I've explained many times before: having issues with certain documents does not equal claiming that Obama was born elsewhere.
Further, it turns out that you are ignorant of reasons I've turned up (and mentioned before) why such alterations might actually have perfectly legitimate reasons behind them. No conspiracy necessary.
But no; you ignore those and only post those things, out of context, in order to make me appear to be a "birther" when I have explained to you several times that I don't claim to have any idea where Obama was born, and don't claim that those documents are evidence that he was born elsewhere. Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". I don't fit that category.
You take comments out of context that seem to support your argument, but when taken IN context, together with other statements I have clearly made, the "birther" claim is shown to be false.
And you know this, because I have explained it to you repeatedly. So your tirade above is nothing more than a sneaky form of lying.
And it's really interesting how you're always there to jump in and defend "Laysej". Clone? Sock-puppet?
Shut the fuck up you imbecile. If you can't even accept a birth certificate your head is so far up your own rectum no one can hear you.
Yes, we've observed you playing the "La la la la, can't hear you" game for quite some time now.
Who is "we"?
Yeah, right. So you indirectly cite Levitus as the basis for your argument.
You'll have to do better than that. The raw data does not show this, unless like the Levitus paper you're willing to draw conclusions from localized data and ignore the rest of the world. Which, it must be said, is a technique warmists are rather famous for. It's a form of lying. Like saying the current drought in California is "climate".
[google needed]
This ain't Wikipedia. The information is easy enough to find.
Another conspiracy theory?
No, but I find it very interesting that both of you have the same mannerisms, you're the only two who have written certain things to me, or used certain phrases, and usually about the same subjects. Not to mention the often "fortuitous" timing of your comments.
If you're not a sock-puppet, then you're a clone. And that's very far from a compliment.
No, I am not a "birther", as I have explained many times here on Slashdot, in some detail.
Do you always believe what other people say, as long as it fits your pre-conceived notions?
I'm not too interested in you conspiracy theories (for instance your wacky theories on Obama's birth cirtificate: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...).
Ad-hominem at its best. Of course that's what I have learned to expect from "Laysej", otherwise known as "khayman80". Someone who seems actually proud to be running sock-puppet accounts on Slashdot. So... what does "conspiracy theory" have to do with one person's bad paper? Are YOU suggesting that there is some kind of "conspiracy" going on? I didn't. In fact I have several times described here on Slashdot how a situation can look like "conspiracy" to some people without there actually being any conspiracy. So the only person suggesting ANYTHING about "conspiracy" here is you.
The 97% consensus paper has been replicated numerous times.
Hah! Has it really? By whom? Are you referring to Naomi Oreskes, who was also blatantly guilty of selection bias?
This "97%" figure came from a selected subset of the respondents, who were only 29% of those surveyed. And the subjective selection process was not even remotely valid or even scientific. Objective interpretation of the same data came up with a figure more like 0.5%.
Cook's paper is an even bigger joke than Oreskes' paper was. And so is the work of Cook's friend and collaborator Lewandowski.
You won't have the records prepared to hand over beforehand, but you will probably go do so after contemplating the alternative.
Just no.
The situation under discussion was one in which there was no probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. Sorry, but I do not roll over for police "fishing expeditions". People who do are one of the primary things that has been wrong with this country. If you don't stand up for your rights, you are likely to lose them.
Recommending that people bend over and just take it is part of the problem. YOU can get stuffed, too.
The "theory" that says that ENSO has no long term effect is conservation of mass/energy.
No, it isn't. You can't take one and conflate it with the other without something connecting them.
This recent theory says heat is stored in the deep oceans. I purely cyclical ENSO would have no effect, but this paper is claiming that the deep storage DOES have an effect on climate.
In essence, if there is any INCREASE or DECREASE in total stored energy, it does have an effect, even if it is cyclical in nature. It only has "no effect" when the entire energy budget remains the same.
By arguing that it has no effect, you are arguing that the paper this whole discussion about is also of no consequence.
and "scientists" are now trying to stuff the missing heat from failed computer models into the only place they can, which is similarly flawed computer models with "heat" trapped deep in the oceans, orginally, convient because there was limited historic data, but now this flaw is turning out to be equally untrue. Plus, the whole CERN Climategate docs.
Did you mean UEA?
In any case, trying to pretend the heat is "trapped" deep in some ocean is the only desperate move they have left to try to claim their models have any real validity.
I'm far from an expert but the drought conditions out west are certainly telling something.
That's weather, not climate. Plus, even factoring in the hot & dry SW, according to the raw data the "lower 48" of the U.S. still experienced one of the coldest years on record so far.
Globally, catastrophic weather events are at a much lower level than they were 10 or even 20 years ago.
The site has a science bias. It publishes articles written by scientists. Obviously this doesn't play well for those interested in the various narratives spun by Watts Up with That.
You mean science like the Cook "97%" survey they supported and cited, which was such a laughable parody of responsible statistics that a middle-schooler could show it to be invalid?
Cable service in my area has been out a lot lately. Usually for only short periods.
A technician told me they are making network changes "because Comcast bought us". Apparently nobody told him it wasn't a done deal.
Let's not overstate this. The account given by Bingo is a good one, and on the facts it shows two law enforcement officers just doing their job: gathering background information, and they're doing it in a way to minimise the hassle for the ordinary member of public they're interviewing. Bingo mentions no powerplays beyond them identifying themselves as LEOs.
Yeah. And if I were just a small-time user of some bitcoin service, my "preparing" for questioning by law enforcement would be to get ready to tell them to get stuffed if they got pushy.
Pardon me. For the sake of accuracy, I must add that it depends on what dataset you are looking at. It is somwhere between 13 1/2 years and 18 years.
The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.
You don't know that it has no long-term effects on the trend. ENSO hasn't been understood long enough. THEORETICALLY, it may be true, but it sure as hell isn't proven. Even now it is not well understood... which was part of my point.
If you can't model climate over 10 years, you can't model it over 100. No reliable advance predictor of ENSO is known. Now they're saying there is a longer-term trend that they can't predict, either. At least so far. Which throws an even bigger wrench into the works.
But what's really funny is how this definition of "long term" changes with the temperature! Not all that long ago, warmists were saying "A trend has to be 10-12 years before it can be called 'climate'." But once the "pause" -- I'm being polite -- was about 16 years long they started saying 20 years, and 30 years. It's hilarious.
This "pause" is one month away from being 18 years long... only 1 year shy of the entire warming trend since 1979, which is what everybody was screaming about in the first place.
Yes, I've seen the "evidence". Probably a lot more of it than you. But unlike most folks, I've seen the evidence on both sides of the aisle. The evidence for warming was never very convincing and has become less so as time has turned up new evidence.
In ALL human societies, men prefer women younger than themselves that are physically attractive, which correlates with fertility. In ALL human societies, women prefer men with high social status, and greater resources.
As a generalization, this is true enough. So, I will amend my comment. They might be genetic factors, but they aren't overt physical factors. The fact that males tend to be older when they mate is not a matter of sexual maturity, which generally comes long before then.
I highly recommend the Penn & Teller "Bullshit" episode "Holier Than Thou", which was partly about Mother Teresa.
I'm not sure if it's the whole episode but here's a link.
Not necessarily. The major threat to children in primitive hunter gatherer societies is not predators but hunger. By staying smaller during their formative years, they reduce the amount of calories need to survive.
This. Also, it takes time to learn the vast amount of information that it takes for a human being to really be smart enough to manipulate its environment... which evolution has obviously selected for. Chimps, for example, often actually outpace human learning for up to 2 years, but then humans continue to learn while the chimp rapidly levels off. Keeping resource use to a low level during this long learning phase is likely a long-term survival trait.
Also it should be noted that another factor in humans' slow growth is already known: humans can only have babies with brains so big, before birth becomes a very big problem. So a longer period is needed for the human brain to grow to its adult size.
But the selection pressures are different on boys and girls. Girls are generally able to procreate as soon as they reach puberty. But boys need to wait till they are older, and have built up social status. So it makes sense for girls to mature faster, and that is what happens. Look at a group of kids in 4th or 5th grade, and the girls are several inches taller than the boys.
It is more accurate to say that boys and girls mature at different rates.
If you adjust for the probable influence of estrogen mimics in our current environment, human females start to mature sexually before males do, but actually finish their sexual maturation later. You are referring more to social factors than genetic: often males need to be older to establish themselves in order to semi-permanently mate, but that is not the same things as physical sexual maturity needed to procreate.
It sure was said to be stupid by a boatload of people on Slashdot when the rest of us tried to say it really was a slippery slope.
I have a feeling a lot of people will be looking back at what many of them call "crazy conspiracy theory" today when some of those things turn out to be real, too.
Of course many of them really are just crazy conspiracy theory. But not all of them. Real conspiracies can exist and have existed throughout history.
But there's another thing that some people don't account for: a lot of people, operating under the same (often but not always) erroneous assumptions or misinformation, can make it look like there is a conspiracy when it's really not conspiracy at all. Just a lot of people making the same mistakes.
This just illustrates that government attempts at "surveillance" of their own citizens can be used against them, and actually constitute a very serious national security risk.
If they don't start getting that through their heads (which they really should have by now), they're in for a very serious surprise.
Fuck off. Everything you posted IS COMPETITION. Dropbox refuses to compete. They offer 2 tiers and ridiculous prices. If they had offered me a 30GB plan I would have jumped at it but my money is no good to them. Instead I would have to beg for "extra" space and game the system. So FUCK dropbox. They wont offer what I want so I've gone elsewhere. Thats called competition.
It is NOT "competition" if the big boys are "dumping" their services at below cost in order to gain market share. Dumping is an anti-competitive practice which is illegal for very good reasons.
I don't know if technically dumping a service at below cost is illegal the same way as product dumping is, but if it isn't it should be. It is not competition, it is the exact OPPOSITE.
Mandatory panic! Alert the police! Search EVERYTHING! Connect the dots! Personally, I blame the teacher for not sufficiently explaining the limits of the assignment.
I doubt very much the reaction would have been the same if he'd written that he did it with bow & arrow.
As far as I am concerned, it was the school's actions that were criminal. First, censorship is not the business of schools. Second, they called the police over a non-crime. They didn't even have a reasonable suspicion that any crime had been committed.
It's one thing to say "no guns in school". It's quite another to ban any mention of them. This isn't China.
Just for the record, you are my favorite imbecile.
How does it feel to have an imbecile demonstrate you to be wrong on both of the points you tried to make?