Good point, but is this actually available, or is it a "viral" marketing ploy? And even if it is available, are that many people who would otherwise have bought the game going to download and play it? I am looking forward to buying it on steam when it's released.
I enjoyed Far Cry, Crysis and Crysis Warhead. The last of those 3 was particularly good.
I paid for all 3 (the latter two on Steam).
Honestly, how many people are actually going to download these who would otherwise have bought the game? I don't think it's all that many, given release is only a month or so away.
They've changed all passwords due to the attack (I got a fresh, random one). I have a vague worry that my email address will turn up somewhere I don't want it to, but apart from that there's no other useful personal information on my profile, which, when I come to think of it is kind-of ironic for a dating site:p.
Guess what, I didn't say there wasn't any warming. I said the warming we have experienced is well within the bounds of natural variation and therefore is nothing we can do anything about.
So, you admit the polar bear population is healthy and can easily see that this has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the fact that man is shooting them less. Congratulations, you're now a denier.
I'm not a right-winger, as I make clear on James Dellingpole's blog whenever he puts down his AGW pen and starts attacking social policy.
Secondly, I'm not sure where you get your "thousands of scientists" from. As far as I know, the consensus science is produced by a few dozen at most, with the rest unwilling to criticise for fear of destroying their careers. Many institutions and departments are dependent on global warming alarmist money to continue operating. It is hardly surprising all papers have to include "because of man-made CO2" in them in order to get published, is it?
This is no different to the great Ozone scam which, it turns out, is an entirely naturally occurring feature of the atmosphere and almost nothing whatsoever to do with man-made CFC's. Eventually science gets it right. But the proponents of the Great Alarm never apologise for their previous, erroneous assertions, despite the billions that get spent because of them.
Who was it who said science progresses one funeral at a time?
Sorry, but polar bear population is at an all-time high. In the Davis Strait area, for example, it's increased from around 850 in 1980 to over 2,100 today.
Similarly, coral reefs and associated sea-life are more threatened by fishing practices than they are by anything else. Ocean acidification is the next great scam. Life-forms like corals will rapidly adapt to small changes in ocean PH, as they have been doing for hundreds of millions of years, unless you're suggesting ocean PH has been the same, to within tenths of a unit, for all of that time.
The problem you're exhibiting is generally called a discontinuous mind You're simply parroting everything you've read on alarmist websites, without actually thinking it through for yourself, or following up your references.
Yes, I did link to Watts - but rather, the point was to link to an article about edit wars at Wikipedia and the fact that the main editor warrior had been banned by Wikipedia, which he has (it was a 6 month I believe). There aren't many AGW sections at wikipedia that weren't edited by him.
Sorry, I meant 1940 to 1980, during the "global cooling" scare.
The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole
That doesn't compare the first half with the second, it compares the second with the entire period. Given the stasis/cooling from 1930 to 1950, it's hardly surprising that this is the case. It also choses 1906 as the starting point and 2005 as the end point. Why? Presumably it's been edited by William Connolley.
I have an open mind about string theory because it hasn't generated any testable predictions and may well be unfalsifiable. AGW is similar, isn't it, so you've unwittingly chosen an excellent example with which to make my point.
Did you look at the graphs? Do you see any acceleration in the rate of change? Is there a greater rate of change between 1900 and 1940 as that between 1950 and 1990? No, there isn't.
Of course China are gearing up - they can make vast profits from gullible Western consumers like you.
I'm not sure what you mean by scientifically ignorant. It was Trenbreth, an IPCC lead scientist, who told us he would like to invert the hypothesis and null hypothesis in climate science. It was Michael Mann who used erroneous statistically "tricks" in his work. It was Keith Briffa who got a warming signal from one single tree at Yamal, carefully hidden in the data. It was Steig who erroneously smoothed Antarctic peninsula data across the whole continent. It was the IPCC who used WWF press releases in their so-called "scientific" reports. All of this was peer reviewed and press-released and trumpeted by you gullible idiots.
Satellite altimetry is somewhat unique in that many adjustments must be made to the raw range measurements to account for atmospheric delays (ionosphere, troposphere), ocean tides, variations in wave height (which can bias how the altimeter measures sea level), and a variety of other effects. In addition, the sea level measurements can be affected by the method used to process the altimeter waveforms, and by the techniques and data used to compute the orbit of the satellite. Early releases of the satellite Geophysical Data Records (GDRs) often contain errors in the raw measurements, the measurement corrections, and the orbit estimates." Nerem et al also mentions other major problems such as drift in the TOPEX microwave radiometer, a change from the original TOPEX altimeter to the back-up altimeter in 1999 "due to degradation in the original instrument" which had "different electronics" from the original resulting in divergent measurements which had to be "corrected'.
The term "peer review" used to be indicative of some kind of quality control. These days it simply means that your work has passed vetting by the warmists.
Slashdot Mirror
The word "concern" in science basically means they are concerned that they get more funding, rather than concerned about the hole.
Good point, but is this actually available, or is it a "viral" marketing ploy? And even if it is available, are that many people who would otherwise have bought the game going to download and play it? I am looking forward to buying it on steam when it's released.
I enjoyed Far Cry, Crysis and Crysis Warhead. The last of those 3 was particularly good. I paid for all 3 (the latter two on Steam). Honestly, how many people are actually going to download these who would otherwise have bought the game? I don't think it's all that many, given release is only a month or so away.
They've changed all passwords due to the attack (I got a fresh, random one). I have a vague worry that my email address will turn up somewhere I don't want it to, but apart from that there's no other useful personal information on my profile, which, when I come to think of it is kind-of ironic for a dating site :p.
Very clever. Mod Up.
... or perhaps I was watching a different movie....
Guess what, I didn't say there wasn't any warming. I said the warming we have experienced is well within the bounds of natural variation and therefore is nothing we can do anything about.
So, you admit the polar bear population is healthy and can easily see that this has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the fact that man is shooting them less. Congratulations, you're now a denier.
You consistently fail to make any kind of point, so I expect you aren't taken very seriously either.
I'm not a right-winger, as I make clear on James Dellingpole's blog whenever he puts down his AGW pen and starts attacking social policy.
Secondly, I'm not sure where you get your "thousands of scientists" from. As far as I know, the consensus science is produced by a few dozen at most, with the rest unwilling to criticise for fear of destroying their careers. Many institutions and departments are dependent on global warming alarmist money to continue operating. It is hardly surprising all papers have to include "because of man-made CO2" in them in order to get published, is it?
This is no different to the great Ozone scam which, it turns out, is an entirely naturally occurring feature of the atmosphere and almost nothing whatsoever to do with man-made CFC's. Eventually science gets it right. But the proponents of the Great Alarm never apologise for their previous, erroneous assertions, despite the billions that get spent because of them.
Who was it who said science progresses one funeral at a time?
Sorry, but polar bear population is at an all-time high. In the Davis Strait area, for example, it's increased from around 850 in 1980 to over 2,100 today.
Similarly, coral reefs and associated sea-life are more threatened by fishing practices than they are by anything else. Ocean acidification is the next great scam. Life-forms like corals will rapidly adapt to small changes in ocean PH, as they have been doing for hundreds of millions of years, unless you're suggesting ocean PH has been the same, to within tenths of a unit, for all of that time.
The problem you're exhibiting is generally called a discontinuous mind You're simply parroting everything you've read on alarmist websites, without actually thinking it through for yourself, or following up your references.
Unsubstantiated assertions. Statements of belief, not fact.
Sorry, when I say good, I mean Excellent.
Unsubstantiated assertion. I regularly get moderator points here and have good karma. End of story.
Yes, I did link to Watts - but rather, the point was to link to an article about edit wars at Wikipedia and the fact that the main editor warrior had been banned by Wikipedia, which he has (it was a 6 month I believe). There aren't many AGW sections at wikipedia that weren't edited by him.
Sorry, I meant 1940 to 1980, during the "global cooling" scare.
That doesn't compare the first half with the second, it compares the second with the entire period. Given the stasis/cooling from 1930 to 1950, it's hardly surprising that this is the case. It also choses 1906 as the starting point and 2005 as the end point. Why? Presumably it's been edited by William Connolley.
You need a primer in confirmation and publication bias.
Are you saying CO2 is harmful to the biosphere? I think you're probably laughing because you're a lunatic.
I have an open mind about string theory because it hasn't generated any testable predictions and may well be unfalsifiable. AGW is similar, isn't it, so you've unwittingly chosen an excellent example with which to make my point.
Did you look at the graphs? Do you see any acceleration in the rate of change? Is there a greater rate of change between 1900 and 1940 as that between 1950 and 1990? No, there isn't.
Since 1850? That would imply their shrinkage is nothing to do with man-made CO2, wouldn't it?
I'm not arguing it isn't changing. It's always changing. Here's the Vostok graph and here's the Greenland graph. Notice anything?
Of course China are gearing up - they can make vast profits from gullible Western consumers like you.
I'm not sure what you mean by scientifically ignorant. It was Trenbreth, an IPCC lead scientist, who told us he would like to invert the hypothesis and null hypothesis in climate science. It was Michael Mann who used erroneous statistically "tricks" in his work. It was Keith Briffa who got a warming signal from one single tree at Yamal, carefully hidden in the data. It was Steig who erroneously smoothed Antarctic peninsula data across the whole continent. It was the IPCC who used WWF press releases in their so-called "scientific" reports. All of this was peer reviewed and press-released and trumpeted by you gullible idiots.
You are the one who needs a scientific education.
The term "peer review" used to be indicative of some kind of quality control. These days it simply means that your work has passed vetting by the warmists.
You seem pretty upset he made that comment. It doesn't make your side look very clever, does it?