Yeah. That's what I mean, because the "Global Cooling" thing was media sensationalism just as much as the "Global Warming is the End of the World" thing is now. Of course, the media is never wrong about these things, which is why SARS killed everybody.
I know that only indicates atlantic hurricanes, but it was easy to find. If you have something that shows world-wide hurricane activity, I would be happy to modify my opinion.
What I see in the ACE index is a roughly downward trend from 1950 to 1970, things level off, then in 95 a significant increase, without a trend leading into it. I assume you will tell me if you see something different.
Breaking the global temperatures into the same sections, from 1950 to 1970 is either level or barely increasing temperature, from 1970 to 1995 is pronounced and near constant increase, and this trend continues from 1995 to now.
From this I can conclude that if temperatures stay the same, Hurricanes are above average. If temperatures increase, hurricanes are below average. And finally, if temperatures increase, hurricanes are above average.
What a stunningly significant correlation. I mean, clearly Hurricanes are caused by global warming. How could I ever have doubted.
How about because you can put a chart showing hurricane activity (decrease, hold, then increase) on top of a chart showing mean global temperature (steady increase) and there is no correlation over the past 60 years. Would that do it?
How about because global warming is supposed to tend to increase temperatures more in the places that are currently cold, and less in places that are warm, which would tend to lower the difference in temperature extremes, and hurricanes/storms are caused by temperature (/pressure) differences, not just temperature. Would that do it?
How about the increased number of climate events like "El Niño," which seem to reduce the number of hurricanes. The same news I have heard say "more hurricanes, OH NOES!" also say "more El Niño's, OH NOES!"
Maybe because I just feel like playing devil's advocate. How about that, do you think that would do it?
You are right. Allow me to rephrase my statement: There were zero continental U.S. hurricane landfalls in the 2006 season.
I was assuming that the "more active than usual" hurricane seasons comment was indicating a correlation to global warming, despite the lack of a long term trend in that direction, because of media sensationalism regarding Katrina, and I wrote my response based on that assumption.
I was also under the impression that in the pacific they were typhoons or something, not hurricanes, and looking into it I see that near the US they are indeed still hurricanes.
The point still stands; there is little justification to a link between global warming and increased hurricane activity.
As much as I hate to sound like I'm defending the stupid documentary, people who "deny the science on climate change" are not even close to the same boat as creationists or flat-earthers.
Flat-earthers can prove themselves wrong with 2 sextants and a friend, or by using "American Practical Navigator" by Bowditch, among many other possibilities. Things easily accessible to anybody with a calculator and a library or a marine hardware store. Flat-earthers are exceedingly rare and inexcusably stupid. Although maybe not rare enough.
Creationists . . . I don't even know where to start. Creationism is more reasonable than Flat-earth theory, but not much. The only real defense there is it is hard to make your own experiments to test evolution. You could see how you are a combination of your parents and extrapolate from there. I suppose you could take a weak antibiotic once a month until you develop some resistant bacteria or something, but that is a whole different variety of bad idea.
How is any individual supposed to measure global climate change? Assuming they don't have access to a world-wide network of observatories and whatnot. Last I checked, most people don't. Factor in things like urban heat island effect and local weather variations, and things become even more difficult for the amateur scientist. Add in that the sea level is changing both at a slow enough rate that people don't personally notice it (maybe in places with extremely small tide action?) and the fact that sea level charts matched against global temperature charts don't correlate the way you would expect (sea level has been rising at a pretty much constant rate over the last 120 years, while temperature has decreased for 10 years or more at least 4 times).
I believe that there is indeed global warming, and I suspect that people are at the very least part of the cause, but I can't personally convince myself to care about it, one way or the other. Stop it? Meh. Slow it down? Meh. Reverse it? Well, that seems like a bad idea, but still; meh.
You mean like last year . . . with the total of 0 hurricanes. Damn youze Global Warming, I'll get you for that! I think you'll find that over the past few years the average number of hurricanes may be unusual, but it isn't unusually high.
I know trying to make a point on forums is futile, but there is a strong argument that when the amendment was written "regulated" meant equipped, and the militia was all male citizens capable of bearing arms in defense of the state.
It is not unreasonable to suggest modification to the contemporary meaning of these terms, but current gun control/ownership laws do not attempt to set boundaries on what constitutes a militia, which in the last gun ownership case ruled upon by the supreme court meant pretty much everybody. Without a new definition for militia in place, most restrictions, like concealed carry permit requirements, could very easily be ruled unconstitutional. As far as what guns the militia is allowed to have, the laws tend to focus on the most militarily useful guns, which is at odds with the idea of a self-equipped militia. Not to mention that the supreme court did say that the government could only restrict the ownership of guns that would have no use in war, which specifically focused on sawed-off shotguns for whatever reason.
Paraphrased, as far as the constitution is concerned, everybody who can vote is part of the militia, and they can have any combat effective gun they can afford. An X day waiting period, background check beyond current voter registration, or limitations of weapons based on rate of fire or magazine capacity are unconstitutional so far as they prevent the militia (read: you, probably) from being well regulated.
{sarcasm} Now I win, so change your mind. {/sarcasm}
How much precision do you demand before something correct becomes accurate? Or rather, how much precision do you demand before something accurate becomes accurate? Accuracy is important, and in this case questionable, but for their point the precision was not important.
Not to be accusatory, but if you don't know the difference between precision and accuracy you should either invest in a dictionary, or stop being a pedantic ass. I clearly chose dictionary.
You may not get hurt or grow hair on your palms, but did you know that 100% of the people who have been in or watched porn will eventually die? 100%. Frightening.
I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I suspect more porn watchers die every year than smokers and fat people combined.
Republicans may be guilty of this, but don't be fooled into thinking the Democrats, or any other political party for that matter, are innocent.
And those are some ridiculously arbitrary dates you chose. The US was practically founded on the idea that our side was right because it was our side, and if you can think of any war in record that didn't have that as the cause, one way or another, you probably just haven't looked into it enough. It's practically the human condition, you anonymous, specious ass.
Should we even be surprised if Frosty didn't actually say anything printed in the article? It isn't like newspapers are infallible, and the dude seems too absolutely perfect for the position of "fundamentalist attempting to stand in the way of progress." As for the rest of TFA, requiring a school to show both sides of what is still a controversial issue(if you don't think it is, you haven't been reading many postings here) should surprise nobody, and apparently this was established policy anyway.
If Global Warming Caused by Greenhouse Gas is scientific fact, where is the control for the experiment that determined this? How can we even hope to establish a causal link without one, especially in a system as complex as our own climate? Taken in view of the scientific fact of The New Ice Age in the 70's, which was, of course, going to kill us all and caused by the use of fossil fuels, one has to wonder if climatologists just get bored and lonely every now and then.
Even assuming CO2 from human controlled devices is causing global warming, is there any reason to think it isn't already too late to stop it (rather than the arbitrary 10 years Gore gives), or that it won't be good for humanity in the long run? I'm not saying there is no global warming, I'm not saying it isn't caused by CO2 emissions and methane (or whatever), and I'm not saying it is going to bring in a time of plenty, but I am wondering what drives people to call what is still a controversial issue scientific fact. Who can know with any kind of certainty what the climate is going to be doing 30 years from now based on the 100 years of relatively accurate global climate data we've accumulated. Other than Al Gore or Frosty McPsyco, I mean.
[sarcasm]Or the government could just stop requiring everybody from ages 5 to 16 to attend church, or give people the opportunity to choose which church they attend.[/sarcasm]
When I start up my atheist church I don't want to be required to give equal time to those stupid damned agnostics or the spaghetti monster cult, so how about we just start taxing churches instead?
As far as I know there were mouse/keyboard combos for xbox and PS2, I assume there is a similar set of products for this generation's offerings.
As far as the compiler goes, you're on your own; I don't do much programming, and none for/on consoles. I understand the PS3 runs linux, and as long as you aren't compiling programs that need 3d acceleration it should serve your purpose. If all you want to do is make games, and 3d is important to you , I understand that although a pain in the ass for some, XNA seems to work sufficiently on the 360.
Could the system tell the difference between tape and conditions simply too dark to get a reliable image? When you check your blind spot will it stop the car? What if you're wearing reflective sunglasses? The difference could be whether it is being designed for general use or for problem drivers only, as a replacement for the integrated breathalyzer currently in use.
It sounds to me like this would be a more permanent solution, which indicates that it would be for general use. That being the case, I would assume that a system failure would give the benefit of the doubt to the driver. I could, however, be wrong on either count, in which case you would almost certainly be correct. The article wasn't too great for particulars, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that it never moved beyond concept stage anyway.
But this is all beside the point; don't you know that duct tape fixes everything?
Actually, they did perform scientific studies of their own, although this was not the focus of the article. In addition to that they engaged in the PR campaign [read: dickery] you talked about.
We could debate the scientific validity of any studies funded by Exxon regarding global warming, but hopefully it would be a short debate ending in "decide on a case by case basis, based on methodology and peer revue" or something on those lines. Just because it's funded by a partisan doesn't mean it's wrong.
Personally, I suspect global warming is caused by CO2 emissions among other things, and I would like to see the bickering between the UCS and Exxon continue until it's too late. Then we can observe global warming taking place, and eventually its aftereffects, and we'll know who was right, and give them a pat on the back. That would be very scientific of us; think of the advances that would initiate in our global climate models.
As far as saving the planet from the large meteor of global warming; meh. If it was a large meteor, we wouldn't be able to do anything but get it greasy with astronaut guts. Or oil driller guts, depending on which implausible, silly movie we chose to emulate, and you know that's what we would do (Bush). As it is, what kind of doomsday scenario ends in raised water levels (estimates range from less than 20ft to greater than 400ft, I favor 20), 7 kelvin warmer global climate average, and the potential extinction of polar bears and arctic penguins? All is lost, woe be unto us.
I'm still trying to get over the idea that atheism is some kind of unifying ideology. It isn't like there is some big atheist service on Sunday where we all congregate and discuss how glad we are there isn't a god. Or give praise to our sweet dark lord Athia.
To be fair, when an atheist purports dickery, it is because they, personally, are a dick. When a Religious Person does it, it is unfailingly the religion's fault, and then the word fundamentalist is used and somebody throws a chair. If you are going to look for why people do terrible things, it is probably best to go a bit deeper than religion, or lack thereof.
I would tend to argue that religion is just a tool that was/is used to gain mass support quickly. Atheism, which does not bring people together in the same way religions do . . . doesn't work so well in that regard. Fortunately for evil despots everywhere, a strong government can do the job religion used to do with nearly the same level of efficiency.
One other thing. I don't know if Hitler was a self proclaimed Atheist or not, but the man believed in the divine power of both God and Jesus, which tends to tell me he wasn't an actual atheist. You see, an atheist, by definition, doesn't believe in god, and somebody who believes in any god, even one they write the rules for themselves, isn't an atheist.
And don't even get me started about Jesus telling Christians to engage in fratricide or patricide if their family is non-believers. I'd quote that one out for you, but you probably know the Bible well enough I don't need to, right? "it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents." Sure, and it gives a remarkably convenient definition for innocent too. "Innocent == People who agree with me, and aren't standing so close to the people who don't that the bombs kill them too." But if religion weren't flexible, it wouldn't be much of a tool, would it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. That's what I mean, because the "Global Cooling" thing was media sensationalism just as much as the "Global Warming is the End of the World" thing is now. Of course, the media is never wrong about these things, which is why SARS killed everybody.
e mperature_Record.png _ 1950-2004_RGB.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NOAA_ACE_index
I know that only indicates atlantic hurricanes, but it was easy to find. If you have something that shows world-wide hurricane activity, I would be happy to modify my opinion.
What I see in the ACE index is a roughly downward trend from 1950 to 1970, things level off, then in 95 a significant increase, without a trend leading into it. I assume you will tell me if you see something different.
Breaking the global temperatures into the same sections, from 1950 to 1970 is either level or barely increasing temperature, from 1970 to 1995 is pronounced and near constant increase, and this trend continues from 1995 to now.
From this I can conclude that if temperatures stay the same, Hurricanes are above average. If temperatures increase, hurricanes are below average. And finally, if temperatures increase, hurricanes are above average.
What a stunningly significant correlation. I mean, clearly Hurricanes are caused by global warming. How could I ever have doubted.
How about because you can put a chart showing hurricane activity (decrease, hold, then increase) on top of a chart showing mean global temperature (steady increase) and there is no correlation over the past 60 years. Would that do it?
How about because global warming is supposed to tend to increase temperatures more in the places that are currently cold, and less in places that are warm, which would tend to lower the difference in temperature extremes, and hurricanes/storms are caused by temperature (/pressure) differences, not just temperature. Would that do it?
How about the increased number of climate events like "El Niño," which seem to reduce the number of hurricanes. The same news I have heard say "more hurricanes, OH NOES!" also say "more El Niño's, OH NOES!"
Maybe because I just feel like playing devil's advocate. How about that, do you think that would do it?
You are right. Allow me to rephrase my statement: There were zero continental U.S. hurricane landfalls in the 2006 season.
I was assuming that the "more active than usual" hurricane seasons comment was indicating a correlation to global warming, despite the lack of a long term trend in that direction, because of media sensationalism regarding Katrina, and I wrote my response based on that assumption.
I was also under the impression that in the pacific they were typhoons or something, not hurricanes, and looking into it I see that near the US they are indeed still hurricanes.
The point still stands; there is little justification to a link between global warming and increased hurricane activity.
As much as I hate to sound like I'm defending the stupid documentary, people who "deny the science on climate change" are not even close to the same boat as creationists or flat-earthers.
Flat-earthers can prove themselves wrong with 2 sextants and a friend, or by using "American Practical Navigator" by Bowditch, among many other possibilities. Things easily accessible to anybody with a calculator and a library or a marine hardware store. Flat-earthers are exceedingly rare and inexcusably stupid. Although maybe not rare enough.
Creationists . . . I don't even know where to start. Creationism is more reasonable than Flat-earth theory, but not much. The only real defense there is it is hard to make your own experiments to test evolution. You could see how you are a combination of your parents and extrapolate from there. I suppose you could take a weak antibiotic once a month until you develop some resistant bacteria or something, but that is a whole different variety of bad idea.
How is any individual supposed to measure global climate change? Assuming they don't have access to a world-wide network of observatories and whatnot. Last I checked, most people don't. Factor in things like urban heat island effect and local weather variations, and things become even more difficult for the amateur scientist. Add in that the sea level is changing both at a slow enough rate that people don't personally notice it (maybe in places with extremely small tide action?) and the fact that sea level charts matched against global temperature charts don't correlate the way you would expect (sea level has been rising at a pretty much constant rate over the last 120 years, while temperature has decreased for 10 years or more at least 4 times).
I believe that there is indeed global warming, and I suspect that people are at the very least part of the cause, but I can't personally convince myself to care about it, one way or the other.
Stop it? Meh.
Slow it down? Meh.
Reverse it? Well, that seems like a bad idea, but still; meh.
You mean like last year . . . with the total of 0 hurricanes. Damn youze Global Warming, I'll get you for that!
I think you'll find that over the past few years the average number of hurricanes may be unusual, but it isn't unusually high.
I know trying to make a point on forums is futile, but there is a strong argument that when the amendment was written "regulated" meant equipped, and the militia was all male citizens capable of bearing arms in defense of the state.
It is not unreasonable to suggest modification to the contemporary meaning of these terms, but current gun control/ownership laws do not attempt to set boundaries on what constitutes a militia, which in the last gun ownership case ruled upon by the supreme court meant pretty much everybody. Without a new definition for militia in place, most restrictions, like concealed carry permit requirements, could very easily be ruled unconstitutional. As far as what guns the militia is allowed to have, the laws tend to focus on the most militarily useful guns, which is at odds with the idea of a self-equipped militia. Not to mention that the supreme court did say that the government could only restrict the ownership of guns that would have no use in war, which specifically focused on sawed-off shotguns for whatever reason.
Paraphrased, as far as the constitution is concerned, everybody who can vote is part of the militia, and they can have any combat effective gun they can afford. An X day waiting period, background check beyond current voter registration, or limitations of weapons based on rate of fire or magazine capacity are unconstitutional so far as they prevent the militia (read: you, probably) from being well regulated.
{sarcasm} Now I win, so change your mind. {/sarcasm}
And if you don't believe file-sharing is a problem, that makes you a Holocaust denier, you anti-semitic bastard.
How much precision do you demand before something correct becomes accurate? Or rather, how much precision do you demand before something accurate becomes accurate? Accuracy is important, and in this case questionable, but for their point the precision was not important.
Not to be accusatory, but if you don't know the difference between precision and accuracy you should either invest in a dictionary, or stop being a pedantic ass. I clearly chose dictionary.
You may not get hurt or grow hair on your palms, but did you know that 100% of the people who have been in or watched porn will eventually die? 100%. Frightening.
I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I suspect more porn watchers die every year than smokers and fat people combined.
Porn kills.
Describes all politics since ever.
Republicans may be guilty of this, but don't be fooled into thinking the Democrats, or any other political party for that matter, are innocent.
And those are some ridiculously arbitrary dates you chose. The US was practically founded on the idea that our side was right because it was our side, and if you can think of any war in record that didn't have that as the cause, one way or another, you probably just haven't looked into it enough. It's practically the human condition, you anonymous, specious ass.
Should we even be surprised if Frosty didn't actually say anything printed in the article? It isn't like newspapers are infallible, and the dude seems too absolutely perfect for the position of "fundamentalist attempting to stand in the way of progress." As for the rest of TFA, requiring a school to show both sides of what is still a controversial issue(if you don't think it is, you haven't been reading many postings here) should surprise nobody, and apparently this was established policy anyway.
If Global Warming Caused by Greenhouse Gas is scientific fact, where is the control for the experiment that determined this? How can we even hope to establish a causal link without one, especially in a system as complex as our own climate? Taken in view of the scientific fact of The New Ice Age in the 70's, which was, of course, going to kill us all and caused by the use of fossil fuels, one has to wonder if climatologists just get bored and lonely every now and then.
Even assuming CO2 from human controlled devices is causing global warming, is there any reason to think it isn't already too late to stop it (rather than the arbitrary 10 years Gore gives), or that it won't be good for humanity in the long run? I'm not saying there is no global warming, I'm not saying it isn't caused by CO2 emissions and methane (or whatever), and I'm not saying it is going to bring in a time of plenty, but I am wondering what drives people to call what is still a controversial issue scientific fact. Who can know with any kind of certainty what the climate is going to be doing 30 years from now based on the 100 years of relatively accurate global climate data we've accumulated. Other than Al Gore or Frosty McPsyco, I mean.
[sarcasm]Or the government could just stop requiring everybody from ages 5 to 16 to attend church, or give people the opportunity to choose which church they attend.[/sarcasm]
When I start up my atheist church I don't want to be required to give equal time to those stupid damned agnostics or the spaghetti monster cult, so how about we just start taxing churches instead?
I use my PC monitor with my console too.
As far as I know there were mouse/keyboard combos for xbox and PS2, I assume there is a similar set of products for this generation's offerings.
As far as the compiler goes, you're on your own; I don't do much programming, and none for/on consoles. I understand the PS3 runs linux, and as long as you aren't compiling programs that need 3d acceleration it should serve your purpose. If all you want to do is make games, and 3d is important to you , I understand that although a pain in the ass for some, XNA seems to work sufficiently on the 360.
Could the system tell the difference between tape and conditions simply too dark to get a reliable image? When you check your blind spot will it stop the car? What if you're wearing reflective sunglasses? The difference could be whether it is being designed for general use or for problem drivers only, as a replacement for the integrated breathalyzer currently in use.
It sounds to me like this would be a more permanent solution, which indicates that it would be for general use. That being the case, I would assume that a system failure would give the benefit of the doubt to the driver. I could, however, be wrong on either count, in which case you would almost certainly be correct. The article wasn't too great for particulars, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that it never moved beyond concept stage anyway.
But this is all beside the point; don't you know that duct tape fixes everything?
Then you wash your hands. . . or wear gloves.
I guess the idea is that drunk people are too retarded to do that. Or tape over the camera that monitors their pupils.
Foolproof system they've worked out there. Cheers.
Actually, they did perform scientific studies of their own, although this was not the focus of the article. In addition to that they engaged in the PR campaign [read: dickery] you talked about.
We could debate the scientific validity of any studies funded by Exxon regarding global warming, but hopefully it would be a short debate ending in "decide on a case by case basis, based on methodology and peer revue" or something on those lines. Just because it's funded by a partisan doesn't mean it's wrong.
Personally, I suspect global warming is caused by CO2 emissions among other things, and I would like to see the bickering between the UCS and Exxon continue until it's too late. Then we can observe global warming taking place, and eventually its aftereffects, and we'll know who was right, and give them a pat on the back. That would be very scientific of us; think of the advances that would initiate in our global climate models.
As far as saving the planet from the large meteor of global warming; meh. If it was a large meteor, we wouldn't be able to do anything but get it greasy with astronaut guts. Or oil driller guts, depending on which implausible, silly movie we chose to emulate, and you know that's what we would do (Bush). As it is, what kind of doomsday scenario ends in raised water levels (estimates range from less than 20ft to greater than 400ft, I favor 20), 7 kelvin warmer global climate average, and the potential extinction of polar bears and arctic penguins? All is lost, woe be unto us.
I think I'll be over here, continuing my apathy.
I'm still trying to get over the idea that atheism is some kind of unifying ideology. It isn't like there is some big atheist service on Sunday where we all congregate and discuss how glad we are there isn't a god. Or give praise to our sweet dark lord Athia.
To be fair, when an atheist purports dickery, it is because they, personally, are a dick. When a Religious Person does it, it is unfailingly the religion's fault, and then the word fundamentalist is used and somebody throws a chair. If you are going to look for why people do terrible things, it is probably best to go a bit deeper than religion, or lack thereof.
I would tend to argue that religion is just a tool that was/is used to gain mass support quickly. Atheism, which does not bring people together in the same way religions do . . . doesn't work so well in that regard. Fortunately for evil despots everywhere, a strong government can do the job religion used to do with nearly the same level of efficiency.
One other thing. I don't know if Hitler was a self proclaimed Atheist or not, but the man believed in the divine power of both God and Jesus, which tends to tell me he wasn't an actual atheist. You see, an atheist, by definition, doesn't believe in god, and somebody who believes in any god, even one they write the rules for themselves, isn't an atheist.
And don't even get me started about Jesus telling Christians to engage in fratricide or patricide if their family is non-believers. I'd quote that one out for you, but you probably know the Bible well enough I don't need to, right? "it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents." Sure, and it gives a remarkably convenient definition for innocent too. "Innocent == People who agree with me, and aren't standing so close to the people who don't that the bombs kill them too." But if religion weren't flexible, it wouldn't be much of a tool, would it?