What does his confidence in his position have to do with my position? Do you want to suggest that I should trust him if he seems to be confident? If so, I consider it a ridiculous suggestion. I also consider it silly to try to conclude anything about Global Warming from Pachauri's behaviour. "Not Science" if ever I saw one.
There was an enormous goof-up, and they want me to believe them, they have to take measures to ensure such goof-ups won't be repeated. I don't see any satisfactory measures taken.
These are all predicted as a consequence of GW, A or not.
They are not predicted as a consequence of GW, they can be predicted as a consequence of the chaotic nature of earth's climate. Anyone can predict that there will be places where there will be above average snow, other places where there will be below average snow. Some places with colder winters, other places with warmer winters. Some places with hotter summers, other places with summers less so.
The only significant verifiable predictions will be time and place specific predictions. Which the climate "scientists" admit is impossible to make. Please let me know of a single accurate prediction by climate scientists. Except when they jump on events after the facts, and claim that this is what AGW theory predicts.
All this, while the onus of proof solely lies on their shoulders.
This rules out any testable/falsifiable hypothesis and hence scientific-ness of the theory. In a few decades, another "expert" will come along who will spout forth his own untestable hypothesis.
I'm sure the geologists will love to hear that what they're doing isn't science. After all, they deal with stuff that happens over millions or even billions of years.
You are quite talented at quoting out of context. Even if the "context" stares right in your face, mentioned as the next sentence. I am producing it again above, in bold this time.
It really depends on how much you care what the planet is going to be like in 50 or 100 years or longer.
Showing your talent again. This was an answer to your statement "There's too much randomness in the weather". Given the randomness that you admit, even if you care a lot about the future 50-100 years away, what certainty do you have of the result? Throwing the present in a vague hope of future?
Surely you can imagine a situation where a small decrease in water vapor is enough to reduce (but not eliminate) the temperature increases over the last decade
I can imagine that. But I can't imagine someone saying:
The effects from the water vapor are small compared to those of CO2
Show that the record of *global average* temperature over the last century that has been reported in the literature has systematic errors that account for most of the warming.
Falsification doesn't mean having to refute any straw man caricature of a hypothesis anyone can dream up
Funny. You are the one coming up with straw man caricatures. GP asked about AGW, and you are talking about falsifiability of GW.
whilst I have not seen proof that god does not exist, I have seen plenty of evidence that could lead to such a conclusion.
I am yet to see any such evidence. Care to share some?
Regardless, it's not a question of lack of existence, it's a question of the cause of it, and the effects of it. The existence of it as a long term trend is largely settled.
By existence, I meant existence of AGW. This was for your statement "... or at least not a man made problem... "
Evidence or ultimately proof of both of these things either for or against are perfectly valid.
Not sure what this means. You said you see no evidence against lack of AGW. Now you say evidence for both sides are perfectly valid. Totally confused.
But my main point was, onus of proof is on AGW proponents. Because it is a non-trivial statement.
I hereby hypothesize that kloozeborgs cause global warming. Please come up with evidence against this, if you want to deny this statement.
You had removed essential variables. I added them back. I don't deny that I added variables to the calculation, I deny that I just added variables to the calculation.
You still use the basic gravity model for the main calculation
You have a strange definition of "main". Without the elasticity model, you would have absolutely no idea how much the ball would rise. Or even that it would rise at all. How can any calculation that ignores this, be the "main" calculation?
In fact, gravity is not involved in the ball's bouncing at all. Remove gravity. Now if by any other means, the ball had acquired the speed to hit a surface, elasticity model could alone have accounted for its bounce. In fact, if present, gravity accounts for the ball slowing down again after the bounce.
We have a model that is the basis for the calculations. However this time there are millions of variables and we don't fully understand all of them yet. We need to do more climate science to improve our accuracy.
Right. So let us talk about AGW being a fact, and preventive measures costing trillions of dollars, and/or affecting millions of livelihoods after we do fully understand all of them.
My position is similar i.e. I am close to the fence, but on the opposite side. I see that proponents of AGW are often doing things like:
1. Leaking emails about cooking data. 2. Pachauri admits to major goof-up but yet takes it coolly. Such a major goof-up should have at least caused some member(s) to be fired, Pachauri to resign, public declaration of major shifts in evidence citing norms. No such hurricane was seen within IPCC. 3. All data leads to conclusion of AGW. Harsher winters, bigger hurricanes, more snow, less snow.
All this while onus of proof rests solely on them. AGW is an extraordinary claim and hence requires extraordinary proof. It is also a claim that requires capital to be spent now, affecting livelihood of lot of people.
Opponents of AGW are simply saying that maybe it would have happened anyway, like earth has been changing for billions of years.
By all accounts the maximum thickness of the arctic ice sheets is decreasing rapidly.
So temperatures must be falling, right? In summers, ice melts slowly as usual. In winters, it is colder than it earlier used to be, and hence there is less water vapour to freeze and hence less ice.
While giving the respect to the complexity, I would also withhold my approval (as much as it counts) of trillions of dollars to be spent on prevention of anthropogenic global warming. Wouldn't you?
In addition, I would also remain non-committal about the certainty of AGW. How about you?
Unless you know the impact details (primarily related to material and structures of bodies in contact) you cannot calculate the height that it will bounce up using the gravity models.
In other words, in the absense of elasticity models, gravity models cannot predict that the ball will rise.
Anyone who says that global warming will do anything specific on a time scale of less than decades is probably not a climatologist.
This rules out any testable/falsifiable hypothesis and hence scientific-ness of the theory. In a few decades, another "expert" will come along who will spout forth his own untestable hypothesis.
There's too much randomness in the weather to get anything useful from single observations;
But just not enough randomness not to spend trillions of dollars in preventing global warming?
you've decided to trust those who consistently provide zero evidence for their claim that global warming is not a problem, or at least not a man made problem,
Hypothesis about lack of existence does not require proof. Have you seen any proof that God does not exist? I think not. No proof about non-existence of God proves that God exists?
When you're looking at a TFT screen, you are, effectively, staring at a rather bright lamp. It's not like we've just found out recently that this kind of thing is not good for the eyes.
Most devices with TFT screens let you lower the brightness of the backlight. So the assumption of a "bright lamp" is absolutely unjustified.
You can further lower the light reaching your eyes by using a black background and a light coloured text colour. This way, effectively less light reaches the eyes with TFTs than paper books (or e-ink). When reading e-ink, you have less control over the light reaching your eyes than in TFTs, so maybe you jumped on to your common sense without thinking.
and this is going to become more evident as we enter the age of computing appliances for everyday people.
Exactly. But we are not everyday people, we are geeks. No one is denying Steve Jobs' genius, but his opinion on gadgets does not interest geeks because Jobs caters to non-geeks.
Look at ipod, iphone, ipad. All give less options than other devices of comparable features, less configurable, less tweakable. Details, personal configurations, tweaking things to suit oneself : these are things geeks are interested in. So those devices are not for geeks. Though even geeks may want to play a non-geek in some aspects of life: that is fine. But users of most Apple products cannot be said to be geeks in that aspect of their gadget usage.
India has none of the advantages with warming that Russia has. Vast majority of India struggles with heat more than cold weather. Further significant warming will make it near inhabitable.
all (ONCE AND FOR ALL!!) that there is no global climate change
Strawman. Though, I agree it is simple to argue against the idiot who says that there is no climate change and I am not surprised you chose to do the simple thing.
There was climate change a billion years ago, and there is ongoing climate change today. Just don't pretend that you, or IPCC, or anyone else know the nature of climate change. Or can predict it reliably, that your precision of their prediction is worth the economic strain.
"Most Indians see any limitation on their CO2 emissions as retarding their development due to a problem that is created largely by the now-developed nations, in the last century"
yes, and that's the problem. Yes other countries contributed to it first. The fact is that doesn't matter. It's everyone's issue.
But those now-developed nations are now, - developed. Largely because of the pollution they inflicted on the atmosphere 100-200 years ago. So not only are they primarily responsible for most of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, their today's per-capita emissions are much larger than India and China's; they are also more capable of solving the issues. So it very much matters. Clean up your own shit.
So suppose global warming is proven. Ok, no problem. I don't care, I will be comfortable at 2 degree celcius higher temperature after 300 years. Then comes impact of that global warming, which are used to scare laymen. E.g. large cities going under water, agriculture screwed up etc. You are saying any scenarios can be imagined and public can be threatened with them, without them being scientifically proven to be implications of global warming. This is idiotic.
Then comes "how to avert it". I see no reason to exempt this from scientific process either. You could say worship this new God you have created, it will avert Global Warming. I would want scientific proofs that it will indeed avert the global warming, because steps taken to avert global warming might affect my livelihood. Maybe increased prices, inconvenience of day-to-day life etc.
So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone, it's not a terribly huge burden. For a bunch of people who make their living *writing*, what's the big deal in saying, "Hey Goog, don't upload my books. Thanks, Chief Breaks Like The Wind"?
Who gave you (Or Google, or US district court, or anyone) the authority to decide what is or is not a huge burden without giving the copyright-holders a hearing?
If not for RH (and SuSE, Novell, etc), most datacenters would not be running Solaris or HPUX, but Windows Servers
Why do you say this? I feel if you want to switch away from linux, only logical alternatives are HPUX and Solaris. I have found Windows Servers to seriously lack performance scalability, especially in I/O. Most "large" servers run some form of unix. In my experience, Windows Server is mostly popular with small/mid size servers, or servers that have other reasons to go with MS.
Apple now make more profit with their iphone, than Nokia do with ALL their phones.
Wow, that is some statement without substantiation. In FY 2008, Nokia* alone had more profits(5 billion) than whole of Apple** (4.83 billion) put together. So the statement about iphone getting more profits than Nokia is going to need some serious substantiation. Except, of course, that you are just a fanboy spouting non-sense, which is the default assumption given the gap between your statements and substantiation.
Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
No idea where counting came into picture here.
Is it because of the people you hang around with that you are going through all this?
Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
1. I wrote a post pointing out that there is a contract between Google and the user, albeit not a legal one
You did nothing of this sort. You ranted about some mistaken notion of "theft".
2. The respondent said there is no contract 3. I correctly stated that he did not know what the word contract means
He was right. He used the definition number 2 of "contract" from dictionary.reference.com, which is in legal context. There is indeed no "legal contract". No reason to get angry now that your idiocy-&-arrogance has been exposed.
4. Out of hundreds of thousands of Slashdot.......
Is it because of your life that you say "Out of hundreds of thousands of Slashdot..." ?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is to say, he's confident in his position
What does his confidence in his position have to do with my position? Do you want to suggest that I should trust him if he seems to be confident? If so, I consider it a ridiculous suggestion. I also consider it silly to try to conclude anything about Global Warming from Pachauri's behaviour. "Not Science" if ever I saw one.
There was an enormous goof-up, and they want me to believe them, they have to take measures to ensure such goof-ups won't be repeated. I don't see any satisfactory measures taken.
These are all predicted as a consequence of GW, A or not.
They are not predicted as a consequence of GW, they can be predicted as a consequence of the chaotic nature of earth's climate. Anyone can predict that there will be places where there will be above average snow, other places where there will be below average snow. Some places with colder winters, other places with warmer winters. Some places with hotter summers, other places with summers less so.
The only significant verifiable predictions will be time and place specific predictions. Which the climate "scientists" admit is impossible to make. Please let me know of a single accurate prediction by climate scientists. Except when they jump on events after the facts, and claim that this is what AGW theory predicts.
All this, while the onus of proof solely lies on their shoulders.
This rules out any testable/falsifiable hypothesis and hence scientific-ness of the theory. In a few decades, another "expert" will come along who will spout forth his own untestable hypothesis.
I'm sure the geologists will love to hear that what they're doing isn't science. After all, they deal with stuff that happens over millions or even billions of years.
You are quite talented at quoting out of context. Even if the "context" stares right in your face, mentioned as the next sentence. I am producing it again above, in bold this time.
It really depends on how much you care what the planet is going to be like in 50 or 100 years or longer.
Showing your talent again. This was an answer to your statement "There's too much randomness in the weather". Given the randomness that you admit, even if you care a lot about the future 50-100 years away, what certainty do you have of the result? Throwing the present in a vague hope of future?
Surely you can imagine a situation where a small decrease in water vapor is enough to reduce (but not eliminate) the temperature increases over the last decade
I can imagine that. But I can't imagine someone saying:
The effects from the water vapor are small compared to those of CO2
Show that the record of *global average* temperature over the last century that has been reported in the literature has systematic errors that account for most of the warming.
Falsification doesn't mean having to refute any straw man caricature of a hypothesis anyone can dream up
Funny. You are the one coming up with straw man caricatures. GP asked about AGW, and you are talking about falsifiability of GW.
whilst I have not seen proof that god does not exist, I have seen plenty of evidence that could lead to such a conclusion.
I am yet to see any such evidence. Care to share some?
Regardless, it's not a question of lack of existence, it's a question of the cause of it, and the effects of it. The existence of it as a long term trend is largely settled.
By existence, I meant existence of AGW. This was for your statement " ... or at least not a man made problem ... "
Evidence or ultimately proof of both of these things either for or against are perfectly valid.
Not sure what this means. You said you see no evidence against lack of AGW. Now you say evidence for both sides are perfectly valid. Totally confused.
But my main point was, onus of proof is on AGW proponents. Because it is a non-trivial statement.
I hereby hypothesize that kloozeborgs cause global warming. Please come up with evidence against this, if you want to deny this statement.
that's just adding variables to the calculation
You had removed essential variables. I added them back. I don't deny that I added variables to the calculation, I deny that I just added variables to the calculation.
You still use the basic gravity model for the main calculation
You have a strange definition of "main". Without the elasticity model, you would have absolutely no idea how much the ball would rise. Or even that it would rise at all. How can any calculation that ignores this, be the "main" calculation?
In fact, gravity is not involved in the ball's bouncing at all. Remove gravity. Now if by any other means, the ball had acquired the speed to hit a surface, elasticity model could alone have accounted for its bounce. In fact, if present, gravity accounts for the ball slowing down again after the bounce.
We have a model that is the basis for the calculations. However this time there are millions of variables and we don't fully understand all of them yet. We need to do more climate science to improve our accuracy.
Right. So let us talk about AGW being a fact, and preventive measures costing trillions of dollars, and/or affecting millions of livelihoods after we do fully understand all of them.
My position is similar i.e. I am close to the fence, but on the opposite side. I see that proponents of AGW are often doing things like:
1. Leaking emails about cooking data.
2. Pachauri admits to major goof-up but yet takes it coolly. Such a major goof-up should have at least caused some member(s) to be fired, Pachauri to resign, public declaration of major shifts in evidence citing norms. No such hurricane was seen within IPCC.
3. All data leads to conclusion of AGW. Harsher winters, bigger hurricanes, more snow, less snow.
All this while onus of proof rests solely on them. AGW is an extraordinary claim and hence requires extraordinary proof. It is also a claim that requires capital to be spent now, affecting livelihood of lot of people.
Opponents of AGW are simply saying that maybe it would have happened anyway, like earth has been changing for billions of years.
By all accounts the maximum thickness of the arctic ice sheets is decreasing rapidly.
So temperatures must be falling, right? In summers, ice melts slowly as usual. In winters, it is colder than it earlier used to be, and hence there is less water vapour to freeze and hence less ice.
The effects from the water vapor are small compared to those of CO2
One of the most wrong statements in comments for this article. Water vapour leads greenhouse effect by a wide margin. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases
Give a bit of respect to the complexity here.
While giving the respect to the complexity, I would also withhold my approval (as much as it counts) of trillions of dollars to be spent on prevention of anthropogenic global warming. Wouldn't you?
In addition, I would also remain non-committal about the certainty of AGW. How about you?
No, and in other word(s) nope.
Unless you know the impact details (primarily related to material and structures of bodies in contact) you cannot calculate the height that it will bounce up using the gravity models.
In other words, in the absense of elasticity models, gravity models cannot predict that the ball will rise.
Anyone who says that global warming will do anything specific on a time scale of less than decades is probably not a climatologist.
This rules out any testable/falsifiable hypothesis and hence scientific-ness of the theory. In a few decades, another "expert" will come along who will spout forth his own untestable hypothesis.
There's too much randomness in the weather to get anything useful from single observations;
But just not enough randomness not to spend trillions of dollars in preventing global warming?
but it looks to me that there is some melting of himalayan glaciers
But lack of melting also proves Global Warming
you've decided to trust those who consistently provide zero evidence for their claim that global warming is not a problem, or at least not a man made problem,
Hypothesis about lack of existence does not require proof. Have you seen any proof that God does not exist? I think not. No proof about non-existence of God proves that God exists?
When you're looking at a TFT screen, you are, effectively, staring at a rather bright lamp. It's not like we've just found out recently that this kind of thing is not good for the eyes.
Most devices with TFT screens let you lower the brightness of the backlight. So the assumption of a "bright lamp" is absolutely unjustified.
You can further lower the light reaching your eyes by using a black background and a light coloured text colour. This way, effectively less light reaches the eyes with TFTs than paper books (or e-ink). When reading e-ink, you have less control over the light reaching your eyes than in TFTs, so maybe you jumped on to your common sense without thinking.
and this is going to become more evident as we enter the age of computing appliances for everyday people.
Exactly. But we are not everyday people, we are geeks. No one is denying Steve Jobs' genius, but his opinion on gadgets does not interest geeks because Jobs caters to non-geeks.
Look at ipod, iphone, ipad. All give less options than other devices of comparable features, less configurable, less tweakable. Details, personal configurations, tweaking things to suit oneself : these are things geeks are interested in. So those devices are not for geeks. Though even geeks may want to play a non-geek in some aspects of life: that is fine. But users of most Apple products cannot be said to be geeks in that aspect of their gadget usage.
India has none of the advantages with warming that Russia has. Vast majority of India struggles with heat more than cold weather. Further significant warming will make it near inhabitable.
all (ONCE AND FOR ALL!!) that there is no global climate change
Strawman. Though, I agree it is simple to argue against the idiot who says that there is no climate change and I am not surprised you chose to do the simple thing.
There was climate change a billion years ago, and there is ongoing climate change today. Just don't pretend that you, or IPCC, or anyone else know the nature of climate change. Or can predict it reliably, that your precision of their prediction is worth the economic strain.
"Most Indians see any limitation on their CO2 emissions as retarding their development due to a problem that is created largely by the now-developed nations, in the last century"
yes, and that's the problem. Yes other countries contributed to it first. The fact is that doesn't matter. It's everyone's issue.
But those now-developed nations are now, - developed. Largely because of the pollution they inflicted on the atmosphere 100-200 years ago. So not only are they primarily responsible for most of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, their today's per-capita emissions are much larger than India and China's; they are also more capable of solving the issues. So it very much matters. Clean up your own shit.
Why is impact exempt from peer review?
So suppose global warming is proven. Ok, no problem. I don't care, I will be comfortable at 2 degree celcius higher temperature after 300 years. Then comes impact of that global warming, which are used to scare laymen. E.g. large cities going under water, agriculture screwed up etc. You are saying any scenarios can be imagined and public can be threatened with them, without them being scientifically proven to be implications of global warming. This is idiotic.
Then comes "how to avert it". I see no reason to exempt this from scientific process either. You could say worship this new God you have created, it will avert Global Warming. I would want scientific proofs that it will indeed avert the global warming, because steps taken to avert global warming might affect my livelihood. Maybe increased prices, inconvenience of day-to-day life etc.
So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone, it's not a terribly huge burden. For a bunch of people who make their living *writing*, what's the big deal in saying, "Hey Goog, don't upload my books. Thanks, Chief Breaks Like The Wind"?
Who gave you (Or Google, or US district court, or anyone) the authority to decide what is or is not a huge burden without giving the copyright-holders a hearing?
If not for RH (and SuSE, Novell, etc), most datacenters would not be running Solaris or HPUX, but Windows Servers
Why do you say this? I feel if you want to switch away from linux, only logical alternatives are HPUX and Solaris. I have found Windows Servers to seriously lack performance scalability, especially in I/O. Most "large" servers run some form of unix. In my experience, Windows Server is mostly popular with small/mid size servers, or servers that have other reasons to go with MS.
Apple now make more profit with their iphone, than Nokia do with ALL their phones.
Wow, that is some statement without substantiation. In FY 2008, Nokia* alone had more profits(5 billion) than whole of Apple** (4.83 billion) put together. So the statement about iphone getting more profits than Nokia is going to need some serious substantiation. Except, of course, that you are just a fanboy spouting non-sense, which is the default assumption given the gap between your statements and substantiation.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.
No idea where counting came into picture here.
Is it because of the people you hang around with that you are going through all this?
1. I wrote a post pointing out that there is a contract between Google and the user, albeit not a legal one
You did nothing of this sort. You ranted about some mistaken notion of "theft".
2. The respondent said there is no contract
3. I correctly stated that he did not know what the word contract means
He was right. He used the definition number 2 of "contract" from dictionary.reference.com, which is in legal context. There is indeed no "legal contract". No reason to get angry now that your idiocy-&-arrogance has been exposed.
4. Out of hundreds of thousands of Slashdot .......
Is it because of your life that you say "Out of hundreds of thousands of Slashdot ..." ?