since you, the warmist, just mistook the deniers for the warmists...
Whoosh....
"That report" had a handful of factual errors in the WG2 section, dealing with the likely consequences of climate change, but no mistakes at all have been identified in the crucial WG1 section, where the veracity of anthropogenic global warming is firmly established. This despite it being one of the most closely-examined scientific reports of our time.
You are treating end results as fact without letting other scientists check your work.
Much of the WG1 data is in fact publicly available. I don't see any systematic analysis papers by reputable scientists challenging WG1's conclusions, only bloggers with an agenda presenting cherry-picked numbers and anecdotes as if they were somehow expecting to be taken seriously. Strangely enough, the thousands of climatologists who have systematically analysed climate data from a variety of unrelated sources and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals almost universally agree with WG1's conclusions. So on which side of the debate is the science fail, exactly?
Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, since your flamebait was modded as such early on this time. You did better when your rants were subjective opinions; it's not working out for you so well since you tried challenging the scientific conclusions of the nearly all the relevant experts on the planet.
Actually, philosophers believed the sun revolved around the earth (some philosophers, anyway). The belief didn't fall into the realm of science until the invention of the telescope made these hypotheses testable through direct observation.
And that's the key difference here. It's not about intelligence or even education. Climatologists have been observing the climate for decades, and their conclusions are backed by extensive data, corroborated in multiple ways. Denialists are almost universally far less informed.
Science is of course not perfect. But to imply that decades of observation does not help a scientist reach a substantially more correct conclusion than a lay person with a few cherry-picked facts and a different opinion, is to dismiss observable reality as irrelevant, and to ignore the countless advances the scientific process has given us.
All our views are based on faith - mine, yours, the media and bloggers, the politicians and the general public.
The only people in this world whose views are not based in faith are the people who have actually viewed the data, and who have studied the field sufficiently to make the most valid interpretations of said data. We call these people "climatologists", and guess what? The overwhelming majority of them agree: AGW is Real, and it is a Big Problem.
My own study inclines me to agree with them, but that is neither here nor there. Since I don't have the experience to judge sufficiently for myself, I choose to have faith in the consensus of virtually all the experts in the field, and not in the ramblings of uninformed and frequently obviously wrong armchair bloggers.
how is it rational to believe in a conclusion based on data they will not let you see?
How is it rational to instead believe the only possible alternative conclusion; that 98.5% of climatologists must be deliberately falsifying their conclusions in a global conspiracy to mislead the public for nefarious but unstated purposes?
These IPCC errors? They affect some implications, not the cause or the many other implications of AGW. CRU's data, their methodologies, their peer-review process? All vindicated by three independent inquiries. Any other inaccuracies you were thinking of?
If you want to challenge the mountain of good science that's been done on AGW, you're going to have to use better science, certainly more than vague, sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations. Though that seems sufficient for all too much of the public today.
The CRU methodology has been completely cleared by three independent inquiries comprised of experts in the field, and their data fully vindicated.
Claims that the integrity of the data has been "lost somehow" show a lack of understanding of the statistical analysis methods used throughout the physical sciences. Claims that are all the more ironic when coming from the denialist crowd, whose accusations of "faked science" are riddled with obvious selection bias (exhibit A: the "cooling decade" argument referenced by the GP).
The IPCC report contains over six thousand factual assertions. Only 3 or 4 have been shown to be inaccurate, and they're all to do with the implications of GW. Not one of the assertions supporting the causes of AGW have been demonstrated to be inaccurate.
The errors in your comment show a serious lack of quality in your own research, and it sounds more like you've been believing in someone rather than trusting and verifying.
The effect certainly exists (I've experienced it myself, though only for a matter of seconds), but it remains doubtful as to how significant it is. There are various medical studies that confirm the resiliency of human vision to this type of effect, but it seems no studies have been found or cited that show any lasting problems (with the possible exception of this informal commercial Sega report that Mark was involved in, if it's ever verified).
My take is, if you're a cautious type, there's no need to rush your kids into these things - it's just one form of entertainment, after all. Further study certainly wouldn't hurt. OTOH, artificial stereopsis has been around for literally hundreds of years (some French painter invented the parallax barrier method in 1692) with no reported long-term effects since then. Anecdotally, others here have mentioned viewing stereo material day in, day out for years with no ill effects either, so if there are any ill effects they're probably subtle.
For those that missed it, here is the original pearl of wisdom from our beloved Minister of Miscommunication, the Right Honorable Stephen Conroy, may he continue to protect us from
spams, scams and the internet portal until we can finally vote him out of office.
That's plain old evaporative cooling, and doesn't work too well in humid climates. TFA describes a method that combines evaporative and dessicative cooling in a novel way, without that disadvantage.
It's absurd to complain about any one security feature not being 100% effective
Can we complain if it has a false-positive rate of 99.3%? That's got to raise the costs significantly for all concerned.
this program seems to have caught more criminals that doing nothing at all would have
Since this method is so inefficient, with no evidence yet that it's actually fulfilling its stated purpose, perhaps we should be looking at other methods that might be more effective for the cost in time & money.
We've long known that hydrocarbons can occur without biogenesis - and finding new sources of them, or methane on Titan, isn't any sort of revelation despite media labels like "game-changer".
However, as far as I'm aware we've never found any abiogenic petroleum - long-chain, more complex hydrocarbons (primarily paraffins and cycloalkanes) than the much simpler/smaller hydrocarbons like methane. It's possible abiogenic petroleum exists of course, but it's never been discovered in commercially-significant quantities, certainly.
The Science Daily article you cite is interesting, and contains some bold claims from Stockholm researchers, but they appear to be based solely on simulations to date. When/if they can show their simulations match reality (e.g by drilling where their simulations indicate, and discovering quantities of petroleum lacking in biotic markers), then that might be considered a "game-changer".
Yes, that's right. As I said, "public benefit" is NOT the same as "giving it away for free". Or do you think making 802.11a/g/n *possible* is not a benefit to the public? If CSIRO has their way, we'll have to pay slightly more for it, but the public still gets all the benefits of faster wifi.
And I think you're sadly misguided if you think the web is all being given away for free (see: copyright, advertising, subscription sites and paywalls), or that nobody's complaining about not getting their fair share (see: News Corp, and Viacom vs YouTube, just to name a couple).
He suggested making the highest level of Android a distributable framework, like.NET
I thought Java was a distributable framework, like.NET. And I doubt every.NET runtime (including Mono etc) is completely bug-free either.
And Google have already said they planned to spin off components of the OS, where possible, to make updating those components much easier.
Look, you make a fair point about dealing with different hardware and different bugs, and I sympathise, but these sort of time/market tradeoffs are nothing new, especially on popular platforms (Windows and Linux PCs, Macs too, huge varieties of graphics hardware, memory, CPU speeds, screen resolutions, OS versions, driver versions, blah blah - I run into it too). The only way to avoid it is to buy into a single, locked-down platform (like e.g. a specific game console) - which risks stagnation, and limits your market.
Oh for.. look, how do you propose to make e.g. a GPS tracking app run on a device that doesn't have GPS? (yes, I'm aware all Android devices must have GPS) How is allowing apps to use specialised hardware on Android any worse than allowing apps to use the compass on an iPhone 3GS, but not on a 3G? or camera apps on an iPhone but not an iPod?
The only way to avoid fragmentation as you define it is to have one unchanging, stagnant piece of hardware that only runs one version of the OS, on one network from one vendor. Even Apple doesn't do that.
So you're saying, you want *more* fragmentation, is that it?
Let me suggest Windows Mobile. Wide range of hardware, all sorts of screen sizes and resolutions, non-phone devices - should meet all your requirements, does it not?
Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit.
All the research CSIRO does is for the public's benefit. That doesn't mean they have to give it away free to the entire world, after Australian taxpayers funded it.
Nor are CSIRO "vetoing" anyone from implementing wifi - they're simply asking for a reasonable royalty for the work they did. The lawsuits only started after companies knowingly used CSIRO's technology over other, inferior alternatives, and refused for years to licence it. I doubt many of these companies actually signed contracts with CSIRO, but they certainly and knowingly chose to use the technology that CSIRO developed, then ignored any request for the compensation they knew was owed. The fact that these companies are now settling for significant sums of money instead of fighting it out in court means they know they're in the wrong, and always were.
I'm not even sure why you think this is a software patent. References to "data processing" components are only part of the patent, and there's lots of descriptions of tranceivers hubs, error correction and demodulation techniques, circuit switching and circuit diagrams.
Slashdot Mirror
since you, the warmist, just mistook the deniers for the warmists...
Whoosh....
"That report" had a handful of factual errors in the WG2 section, dealing with the likely consequences of climate change, but no mistakes at all have been identified in the crucial WG1 section, where the veracity of anthropogenic global warming is firmly established. This despite it being one of the most closely-examined scientific reports of our time.
You are treating end results as fact without letting other scientists check your work.
Much of the WG1 data is in fact publicly available. I don't see any systematic analysis papers by reputable scientists challenging WG1's conclusions, only bloggers with an agenda presenting cherry-picked numbers and anecdotes as if they were somehow expecting to be taken seriously. Strangely enough, the thousands of climatologists who have systematically analysed climate data from a variety of unrelated sources and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals almost universally agree with WG1's conclusions. So on which side of the debate is the science fail, exactly?
Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, since your flamebait was modded as such early on this time. You did better when your rants were subjective opinions; it's not working out for you so well since you tried challenging the scientific conclusions of the nearly all the relevant experts on the planet.
Actually, philosophers believed the sun revolved around the earth (some philosophers, anyway). The belief didn't fall into the realm of science until the invention of the telescope made these hypotheses testable through direct observation.
And that's the key difference here. It's not about intelligence or even education. Climatologists have been observing the climate for decades, and their conclusions are backed by extensive data, corroborated in multiple ways. Denialists are almost universally far less informed.
Science is of course not perfect. But to imply that decades of observation does not help a scientist reach a substantially more correct conclusion than a lay person with a few cherry-picked facts and a different opinion, is to dismiss observable reality as irrelevant, and to ignore the countless advances the scientific process has given us.
Even with only 5% royalties and six years, that's apparently still a six-figure sum.
Wouldn't have guessed they were still averaging $333K+ a year in royalties. I can see why these aging rockers tend to fight for copyright extensions.
All our views are based on faith - mine, yours, the media and bloggers, the politicians and the general public.
The only people in this world whose views are not based in faith are the people who have actually viewed the data, and who have studied the field sufficiently to make the most valid interpretations of said data. We call these people "climatologists", and guess what? The overwhelming majority of them agree: AGW is Real, and it is a Big Problem.
My own study inclines me to agree with them, but that is neither here nor there. Since I don't have the experience to judge sufficiently for myself, I choose to have faith in the consensus of virtually all the experts in the field, and not in the ramblings of uninformed and frequently obviously wrong armchair bloggers.
how is it rational to believe in a conclusion based on data they will not let you see?
How is it rational to instead believe the only possible alternative conclusion; that 98.5% of climatologists must be deliberately falsifying their conclusions in a global conspiracy to mislead the public for nefarious but unstated purposes?
These IPCC errors? They affect some implications, not the cause or the many other implications of AGW. CRU's data, their methodologies, their peer-review process? All vindicated by three independent inquiries. Any other inaccuracies you were thinking of?
If you want to challenge the mountain of good science that's been done on AGW, you're going to have to use better science, certainly more than vague, sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations. Though that seems sufficient for all too much of the public today.
The CRU methodology has been completely cleared by three independent inquiries comprised of experts in the field, and their data fully vindicated.
Claims that the integrity of the data has been "lost somehow" show a lack of understanding of the statistical analysis methods used throughout the physical sciences. Claims that are all the more ironic when coming from the denialist crowd, whose accusations of "faked science" are riddled with obvious selection bias (exhibit A: the "cooling decade" argument referenced by the GP).
The IPCC report contains over six thousand factual assertions. Only 3 or 4 have been shown to be inaccurate, and they're all to do with the implications of GW. Not one of the assertions supporting the causes of AGW have been demonstrated to be inaccurate.
The errors in your comment show a serious lack of quality in your own research, and it sounds more like you've been believing in someone rather than trusting and verifying.
One-eyed viewers get half a headache.
Mark has been talking about "binocular dysphoria" for some time now (e.g. Wired article from 1994). Thing is, it seems nobody else is.
The effect certainly exists (I've experienced it myself, though only for a matter of seconds), but it remains doubtful as to how significant it is. There are various medical studies that confirm the resiliency of human vision to this type of effect, but it seems no studies have been found or cited that show any lasting problems (with the possible exception of this informal commercial Sega report that Mark was involved in, if it's ever verified).
My take is, if you're a cautious type, there's no need to rush your kids into these things - it's just one form of entertainment, after all. Further study certainly wouldn't hurt. OTOH, artificial stereopsis has been around for literally hundreds of years (some French painter invented the parallax barrier method in 1692) with no reported long-term effects since then. Anecdotally, others here have mentioned viewing stereo material day in, day out for years with no ill effects either, so if there are any ill effects they're probably subtle.
For those that missed it, here is the original pearl of wisdom from our beloved Minister of Miscommunication, the Right Honorable Stephen Conroy, may he continue to protect us from spams, scams and the internet portal until we can finally vote him out of office.
This guy is an expert in antenna design from Aalborg University, and predicted this two weeks ago.
That works for me.
That's plain old evaporative cooling, and doesn't work too well in humid climates. TFA describes a method that combines evaporative and dessicative cooling in a novel way, without that disadvantage.
Also this system will never work with twitch gaming, like unreal tournament.
I'd certainly agree, yet UT3 is on the list of launch games, so they seem to think it's good enough.
All depends on your net connection, and your standards.
that doesn't make it suck any less.
This clown Conroy's views are not representative of the general public (I didn't vote for him </python>)
It's straight to the top of the "priority watch list" for you, Spain.
Only if they can specify their preferred serving size.
It's absurd to complain about any one security feature not being 100% effective
Can we complain if it has a false-positive rate of 99.3%? That's got to raise the costs significantly for all concerned.
this program seems to have caught more criminals that doing nothing at all would have
Since this method is so inefficient, with no evidence yet that it's actually fulfilling its stated purpose, perhaps we should be looking at other methods that might be more effective for the cost in time & money.
We've long known that hydrocarbons can occur without biogenesis - and finding new sources of them, or methane on Titan, isn't any sort of revelation despite media labels like "game-changer".
However, as far as I'm aware we've never found any abiogenic petroleum - long-chain, more complex hydrocarbons (primarily paraffins and cycloalkanes) than the much simpler/smaller hydrocarbons like methane. It's possible abiogenic petroleum exists of course, but it's never been discovered in commercially-significant quantities, certainly.
The Science Daily article you cite is interesting, and contains some bold claims from Stockholm researchers, but they appear to be based solely on simulations to date. When/if they can show their simulations match reality (e.g by drilling where their simulations indicate, and discovering quantities of petroleum lacking in biotic markers), then that might be considered a "game-changer".
Yes, that's right. As I said, "public benefit" is NOT the same as "giving it away for free". Or do you think making 802.11a/g/n *possible* is not a benefit to the public? If CSIRO has their way, we'll have to pay slightly more for it, but the public still gets all the benefits of faster wifi.
And I think you're sadly misguided if you think the web is all being given away for free (see: copyright, advertising, subscription sites and paywalls), or that nobody's complaining about not getting their fair share (see: News Corp, and Viacom vs YouTube, just to name a couple).
He suggested making the highest level of Android a distributable framework, like .NET
I thought Java was a distributable framework, like .NET. And I doubt every .NET runtime (including Mono etc) is completely bug-free either.
And Google have already said they planned to spin off components of the OS, where possible, to make updating those components much easier.
Look, you make a fair point about dealing with different hardware and different bugs, and I sympathise, but these sort of time/market tradeoffs are nothing new, especially on popular platforms (Windows and Linux PCs, Macs too, huge varieties of graphics hardware, memory, CPU speeds, screen resolutions, OS versions, driver versions, blah blah - I run into it too). The only way to avoid it is to buy into a single, locked-down platform (like e.g. a specific game console) - which risks stagnation, and limits your market.
Oh for.. look, how do you propose to make e.g. a GPS tracking app run on a device that doesn't have GPS? (yes, I'm aware all Android devices must have GPS) How is allowing apps to use specialised hardware on Android any worse than allowing apps to use the compass on an iPhone 3GS, but not on a 3G? or camera apps on an iPhone but not an iPod?
The only way to avoid fragmentation as you define it is to have one unchanging, stagnant piece of hardware that only runs one version of the OS, on one network from one vendor. Even Apple doesn't do that.
So you're saying, you want *more* fragmentation, is that it?
Let me suggest Windows Mobile. Wide range of hardware, all sorts of screen sizes and resolutions, non-phone devices - should meet all your requirements, does it not?
Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit.
All the research CSIRO does is for the public's benefit. That doesn't mean they have to give it away free to the entire world, after Australian taxpayers funded it.
Nor are CSIRO "vetoing" anyone from implementing wifi - they're simply asking for a reasonable royalty for the work they did. The lawsuits only started after companies knowingly used CSIRO's technology over other, inferior alternatives, and refused for years to licence it. I doubt many of these companies actually signed contracts with CSIRO, but they certainly and knowingly chose to use the technology that CSIRO developed, then ignored any request for the compensation they knew was owed. The fact that these companies are now settling for significant sums of money instead of fighting it out in court means they know they're in the wrong, and always were.
I'm not even sure why you think this is a software patent. References to "data processing" components are only part of the patent, and there's lots of descriptions of tranceivers hubs, error correction and demodulation techniques, circuit switching and circuit diagrams.