Oh man, the prosecution of Don Siegleman brings to mind the kind of kangaroo courts that the Soviet Union used to run. I'm simply astonished that it's reached the point it has. What a miscarriage of justice.
If your work is paid for with government money then your data and methods should be public (which it is) but how you got there is not that important. The quality of the final work is what matters.
Fact: Sometimes you fight just as a matter of principle.
Mann's published work is all you need to judge the quality of his science. Nothing else really matters. If you can discredit his science* then you have nothing.
*And no, the Hockey Stick Graph controversy has done nothing to discredit his science. It has been borne out by multiple other studies since 1998 by (mostly) different researchers using different sets of proxies. Despite some imperfect statistics in the original paper it has held up well in the ensuing time.
You are confusing data that Phil Jones at the CRU deleted (which was a copy, the original data is still available from original sources) with Michael Mann. The data and methods for Mann's original "Hockey Stick Graph" are located here.
IOW they wanted to do some quote mining. If there is fraud in any of Michael Mann's scientific work then it's right out there in the open in his published works. Nobody's had much luck in discrediting that (despite the Hockey Stick Graph controversy) so now they're looking for material for personal attacks like trying to associate him with the scandal in the Penn State football program.
The change in the carbon 12/carbon 13 ratio in the atmosphere is a direct fingerprint of human derived CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are depleted in C13 because the plants that they came from preferred the lighter C12 isotope. The increase in the C12/C13 ratio is direct evidence that the source is fossil fuels.
The only place Michael Mann's scientific practices are considered dubious in the the right wind denialosphere. There have been any number of investigations of him by competent authorities (part of the conspiracy in your book) that have turned up nothing. His original hockey stick graph has been borne out by more than a dozen studies using different data since it came out. If you can't attack the science attack the mann.
No raw data has been destroyed, only working copies that were no longer needed. The original raw data that everyone is so exercised about at EAU was data they got from different national weather services around the world and are still available from the original sources.
But then those truths don't fit your worldview so I doubt you'll listen to me.
There is something of a data set that can be used for climate models, but such models certainly aren't perfect and have a whole bunch of assumptions in them that deserve questioning as well, particularly because the predictions of those models are frequently unreliable.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand climate models. They essentially don't use data. They are not exercises in statistical curve fittings. As much as possible they use the actual physical relations derived from studying climate. Climate data is only useful to climate models for comparing to climate model output. For the most part climate models are doing a decent job.
How much is caused by our CO2 emissions versus our considerable water vapor emissions? Is it really wise to "fix" the problem with solutions that often replace CO2 with more water vapor?
This is a late reply but I had to respond.
It is impossible for water vapor to be a driver of global warming because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly regulated by temperature. If the level of water vapor rises too high it will rather quickly precipitate out of the atmosphere in the form of rain, snow or dew. If it gets low it will evaporate into the atmosphere from available sources of water and atmospheric levels will rise.
On the other hand CO2 remains a gas at any temperature normally encountered on the Earth so the level of it remains relatively stable. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle balances carbon between the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the biosphere (with a minor contribution from the geosphere). By adding CO2 to the atmosphere we are adding carbon to the active carbon cycle thus increasing carbon in all of those spheres.
In answer to your first question scientists estimate that humans are responsible for 80-120% of the temperature change that's occurred in the past 40 years.
The site should make it clear on the front page that they are an independent PAC not directly associated with the candidate. None of this fine print bullshit.
Another fact is the people who own corporations don't lose any of their personal rights by virtue of that ownership. Instead it's more like they get additional rights through the corporation.
I'm not advocating for closed source, I'm advocating for a system where it doesn't matter because you can always count the original hard copy ballot manually.
If a recount becomes necessary it will almost always only be needed for one race. You don't have to recount every ballot item so it really isn't that bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh man, the prosecution of Don Siegleman brings to mind the kind of kangaroo courts that the Soviet Union used to run. I'm simply astonished that it's reached the point it has. What a miscarriage of justice.
If your work is paid for with government money then your data and methods should be public (which it is) but how you got there is not that important. The quality of the final work is what matters.
Fact: Sometimes you fight just as a matter of principle.
Mann's published work is all you need to judge the quality of his science. Nothing else really matters. If you can discredit his science* then you have nothing.
*And no, the Hockey Stick Graph controversy has done nothing to discredit his science. It has been borne out by multiple other studies since 1998 by (mostly) different researchers using different sets of proxies. Despite some imperfect statistics in the original paper it has held up well in the ensuing time.
If you want a full account of Mann's battles in the climate wars read his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
You are confusing data that Phil Jones at the CRU deleted (which was a copy, the original data is still available from original sources) with Michael Mann. The data and methods for Mann's original "Hockey Stick Graph" are located here.
IOW they wanted to do some quote mining. If there is fraud in any of Michael Mann's scientific work then it's right out there in the open in his published works. Nobody's had much luck in discrediting that (despite the Hockey Stick Graph controversy) so now they're looking for material for personal attacks like trying to associate him with the scandal in the Penn State football program.
It isn't Mann who kept the emails but the University of Virginia.
You can't very well dust CO2 for fingerprints.
The change in the carbon 12/carbon 13 ratio in the atmosphere is a direct fingerprint of human derived CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are depleted in C13 because the plants that they came from preferred the lighter C12 isotope. The increase in the C12/C13 ratio is direct evidence that the source is fossil fuels.
I imagine modern "chronometers" are electronic with time corrections via satellite. But plenty of folks will still want to do it old school.
he's specifically asking about the hi-tech stuff, which a sextant is not.
It certainly was the highest of tech at one time. It still has to be made with very high precision. which is easier nowadays.
Hmm... I wonder if you could make a hybrid crossbow/spear gun. Then you could us it for protection and fishing too.
Yeah, cannons were my first thought too. But then I reconsidered and now think RPGs would probably be just as good and more versatile.
I think you could make the case that a lot of that happened in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants.
Will the left get behind the gas industry?
Considering that natural gas only slows down the problem but doesn't eliminate it then it's only a stopgap measure on the way to carbon neutrality.
LOL, talk about conspiracy.
The only place Michael Mann's scientific practices are considered dubious in the the right wind denialosphere. There have been any number of investigations of him by competent authorities (part of the conspiracy in your book) that have turned up nothing. His original hockey stick graph has been borne out by more than a dozen studies using different data since it came out. If you can't attack the science attack the mann.
No raw data has been destroyed, only working copies that were no longer needed. The original raw data that everyone is so exercised about at EAU was data they got from different national weather services around the world and are still available from the original sources.
But then those truths don't fit your worldview so I doubt you'll listen to me.
There is something of a data set that can be used for climate models, but such models certainly aren't perfect and have a whole bunch of assumptions in them that deserve questioning as well, particularly because the predictions of those models are frequently unreliable.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand climate models. They essentially don't use data. They are not exercises in statistical curve fittings. As much as possible they use the actual physical relations derived from studying climate. Climate data is only useful to climate models for comparing to climate model output. For the most part climate models are doing a decent job.
Here are a couple of FAQ's from one of the major climate modelers for your edification:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/
How much is caused by our CO2 emissions versus our considerable water vapor emissions?
Is it really wise to "fix" the problem with solutions that often replace CO2 with more water vapor?
This is a late reply but I had to respond.
It is impossible for water vapor to be a driver of global warming because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly regulated by temperature. If the level of water vapor rises too high it will rather quickly precipitate out of the atmosphere in the form of rain, snow or dew. If it gets low it will evaporate into the atmosphere from available sources of water and atmospheric levels will rise.
On the other hand CO2 remains a gas at any temperature normally encountered on the Earth so the level of it remains relatively stable. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle balances carbon between the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the biosphere (with a minor contribution from the geosphere). By adding CO2 to the atmosphere we are adding carbon to the active carbon cycle thus increasing carbon in all of those spheres.
In answer to your first question scientists estimate that humans are responsible for 80-120% of the temperature change that's occurred in the past 40 years.
Amen brother, who knows if some of this super PAC money is coming from foreign interests or not.
The site should make it clear on the front page that they are an independent PAC not directly associated with the candidate. None of this fine print bullshit.
Another fact is the people who own corporations don't lose any of their personal rights by virtue of that ownership. Instead it's more like they get additional rights through the corporation.
If corporations are people, can they get married?
A corporate merger is kind of like marriage. The question is it like a gay marriage or a straight marriage?
But they do have somewhat different definitions of good and evil.
I'm not advocating for closed source, I'm advocating for a system where it doesn't matter because you can always count the original hard copy ballot manually.
How about a shark with a laser jumping over the \.?
If a recount becomes necessary it will almost always only be needed for one race. You don't have to recount every ballot item so it really isn't that bad.
I believe you thought he was replying to maxwell demon's response instead of spire3661. His was a serious reply to a serious post.