I love how the summary, and all the google haters are completely ignoring this little tidbit of the TOS "Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services"
You know, that part where they tell you that if you don't make it public then they can't use it however the fuck they see fit.
You do realize that the term "global warming" implies that it is global right? The sea ice in the Arctic has indeed been on a decline in the satellite era, however, during that same time period, the sea ice in the Antarctic, you know, at the other end of the planet, has been increasing. uh oh.
That doesn't even cover the fact that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from various sources which predate the satellite era which suggest that there has been as little or even less ice in the Arctic as there is now. Uh oh.
The Backstreet Boys have apparently sold over 150 million records. Does make them better artists than Paul McCartney or Luciano Pavarotti at 100 million, Santana at 80 million, Bob Dylan at 70 million, or Pearl Jam at a measly 60 million?
More to the point, if metric is so fucking awesome... then why do none of the advocates use metric time, and insist on relying on the imperial system of time-keeping, hmmm?
Please do me a favour and have the Earth orbit the sun in a number of days which is a factor of 10 instead of 365.25 and while you are at it, adjust the moon's orbit around earth to also be a factor of ten for the number of times it orbits in a year instead of 12. If you could get right on that it would be appreciated so that we can use that metric time you are talking about.
but your whole reasoning for doing so was to prove that they are a bunch of crackpots that don't discuss science, only propaganda, and that they only talk to "Republican ideologues terrified of any government intervention is the free market". But when given examples to the contrary you hide behind the semantics of a specific thing you are looking for.
Either you stand behind your assertion that Watts et al don't know what they are talking about in the face of evidence to the contrary and look the fool, or you could simply admit that while not all discussion that takes place there is of the utmost importance, they at least allow for open dialogue and do discuss science. It's up to you.
hsthompson69: I'm "pretty impressed by the references of Watts and his guest posters" microbox: "point out ANYTHING substantial that Watts gets right." hsthompson69: here's something [provides a specific link] microbox: yeah but I said "substantial" so I reject your factual evidence hsthompson69: Here's another example [provides another link] microbox: yeah but I still reject your factual evidence because I don't think it's a big deal...
Basically hsthompson69 could provide a plethora of smaller issues that all counter the general CAGW stance on things and you would just keep rejecting them because you are looking for a single catch all "smoking gun". What if, just maybe, all the smaller aspects sum up to "break the science" as you seem to think they should.
Your original argument was essentially that Watts is a crackpot, and when shown he isn't, you make excuses.
The best thing about WUWT that is that they don't censor. They allow for open debate, on every article. Their policies are clear, such as stay on topic, and don't be a name calling dick. Follow those simple rules and you are free to openly debate each topic. The same can not be said for sites like realclimate where nearly all dissenting comments are removed from existence.
Judge: Would the prosecution please provide evidence that the document in question is authentic and was produced within the Heartland Institute.
Prosecution: We can't your honour.
Judge: ummmmmm...
Prosecution: yeah, we know it looks totally different than all the other documents, in style, formatting, and because it was scanned where as the others are printed directly to PDF. And we know that it reads completely unprofessionally, but we were really just hoping you would take our word for it. We're really good guys, trust us.
I find it hilarious that your generic Google image search managed to support your point so unbelievably well. The second result that I saw was this photograph, which is of a "London Bus photographed in the mid 1990's in north east London, highlighted in full color reproduction against a black and white background" http://www.zazzle.com/london_bus_spot_colour_on_black_white_background_card-137838509666484240
It just makes this ruling by the judge absolutely insane.
Quick, give me a copyright on "a photograph of a person's face where they are the central subject and both the foreground and background are out of focus" JACKPOT!
You clearly missed the fact that even though they have been terrible this past year (if not longer), and have lost a tonne of market share, they have ZERO debt and are wildly profitable.
actually, if you could read you would have seen that GRAVITY, not human beings picked the winners. perhaps the number of digits in your/. UID represents how far you have evolved from yeast...
I'd say that the $8,825,000,000 in gross profit last year is what keeps them in business. In case you couldn't understand all those zeros, that's $8.825 BILLION.
Right, because what this quote requires is context:
Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
Perhaps you should read the emails where they speak about adjusting the results to fit their desired outcome such as these:
Wilson: Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. [...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.
Steig: He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
Jones: This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
Haimberger: It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
Wilson: any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
Osborn: Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
Don't forget, pirate population has been decreasing right along with rising temperatures, so there is a distinct correlation between a lower pirate population and an increase in temperatures.
CO2 also does not have a LINEAR relationship with temperatures. We are working with the law of diminishing returns here. but I'm sure you already knew that...
As the submitter of this story, I can honestly say that I think all those people would make TERRIBLE presidents, but it's nice to know that people from all sides of the debate can generalize and stereotype with the best of them.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the FOIA as well as governmental email addresses (which includes those of publicly funded professors and researchers).
Slashdot Mirror
I love how the summary, and all the google haters are completely ignoring this little tidbit of the TOS "Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services"
You know, that part where they tell you that if you don't make it public then they can't use it however the fuck they see fit.
if only the sea level rise would agree with your "uh oh"
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
You do realize that the term "global warming" implies that it is global right? The sea ice in the Arctic has indeed been on a decline in the satellite era, however, during that same time period, the sea ice in the Antarctic, you know, at the other end of the planet, has been increasing. uh oh.
That doesn't even cover the fact that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from various sources which predate the satellite era which suggest that there has been as little or even less ice in the Arctic as there is now. Uh oh.
The Backstreet Boys have apparently sold over 150 million records. Does make them better artists than Paul McCartney or Luciano Pavarotti at 100 million, Santana at 80 million, Bob Dylan at 70 million, or Pearl Jam at a measly 60 million?
large sales figures != quality product
just as
low sales figures != low quality product
More to the point, if metric is so fucking awesome... then why do none of the advocates use metric time, and insist on relying on the imperial system of time-keeping, hmmm?
Please do me a favour and have the Earth orbit the sun in a number of days which is a factor of 10 instead of 365.25 and while you are at it, adjust the moon's orbit around earth to also be a factor of ten for the number of times it orbits in a year instead of 12. If you could get right on that it would be appreciated so that we can use that metric time you are talking about.
but your whole reasoning for doing so was to prove that they are a bunch of crackpots that don't discuss science, only propaganda, and that they only talk to "Republican ideologues terrified of any government intervention is the free market". But when given examples to the contrary you hide behind the semantics of a specific thing you are looking for.
Either you stand behind your assertion that Watts et al don't know what they are talking about in the face of evidence to the contrary and look the fool, or you could simply admit that while not all discussion that takes place there is of the utmost importance, they at least allow for open dialogue and do discuss science. It's up to you.
Here is a recap of what just took place here:
hsthompson69: I'm "pretty impressed by the references of Watts and his guest posters" ...
microbox: "point out ANYTHING substantial that Watts gets right."
hsthompson69: here's something [provides a specific link]
microbox: yeah but I said "substantial" so I reject your factual evidence
hsthompson69: Here's another example [provides another link]
microbox: yeah but I still reject your factual evidence because I don't think it's a big deal
Basically hsthompson69 could provide a plethora of smaller issues that all counter the general CAGW stance on things and you would just keep rejecting them because you are looking for a single catch all "smoking gun". What if, just maybe, all the smaller aspects sum up to "break the science" as you seem to think they should.
Your original argument was essentially that Watts is a crackpot, and when shown he isn't, you make excuses.
The best thing about WUWT that is that they don't censor. They allow for open debate, on every article. Their policies are clear, such as stay on topic, and don't be a name calling dick. Follow those simple rules and you are free to openly debate each topic. The same can not be said for sites like realclimate where nearly all dissenting comments are removed from existence.
Judge: Would the prosecution please provide evidence that the document in question is authentic and was produced within the Heartland Institute.
Prosecution: We can't your honour.
Judge: ummmmmm...
Prosecution: yeah, we know it looks totally different than all the other documents, in style, formatting, and because it was scanned where as the others are printed directly to PDF. And we know that it reads completely unprofessionally, but we were really just hoping you would take our word for it. We're really good guys, trust us.
Judge: ummmmmm... No.
iPad X will be three atoms thick, with a protective coating of Higgs bosons on both sides, hand made by people in China with desktop LHCs.
wouldn't they be SHCs?
I find it hilarious that your generic Google image search managed to support your point so unbelievably well. The second result that I saw was this photograph, which is of a "London Bus photographed in the mid 1990's in north east London, highlighted in full color reproduction against a black and white background"
http://www.zazzle.com/london_bus_spot_colour_on_black_white_background_card-137838509666484240
It just makes this ruling by the judge absolutely insane.
Quick, give me a copyright on "a photograph of a person's face where they are the central subject and both the foreground and background are out of focus"
JACKPOT!
You clearly missed the fact that even though they have been terrible this past year (if not longer), and have lost a tonne of market share, they have ZERO debt and are wildly profitable.
Except that they have no debt, and despite losing market share, they are still fantastically profitable.
actually, if you could read you would have seen that GRAVITY, not human beings picked the winners. perhaps the number of digits in your /. UID represents how far you have evolved from yeast...
Don't forget about Al "the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees" Gore. He's got one too!
Agreed. It is staggering how many people can't grasp the magnitude of what the plant was put through.
I suggest you have a look at some actual sea level rise data.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
notice the distinct lack of an exponentially rising sea level? Also notice the rate of 3.2 mm/yr and how that is actually reducing in recent years?
I'd say that the $8,825,000,000 in gross profit last year is what keeps them in business. In case you couldn't understand all those zeros, that's $8.825 BILLION.
Millions of people are buying Justin Bieber albums too, what's your point?
Only problem is, you don't even have good correlation, so where does that leave you?
Right, because what this quote requires is context:
Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
Perhaps you should read the emails where they speak about adjusting the results to fit their desired outcome such as these:
Wilson:
Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. [...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.
Steig:
He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
Jones:
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
Haimberger:
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
Wilson:
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
The list goes on...
Don't forget, pirate population has been decreasing right along with rising temperatures, so there is a distinct correlation between a lower pirate population and an increase in temperatures.
CO2 also does not have a LINEAR relationship with temperatures. We are working with the law of diminishing returns here. but I'm sure you already knew that...
As the submitter of this story, I can honestly say that I think all those people would make TERRIBLE presidents, but it's nice to know that people from all sides of the debate can generalize and stereotype with the best of them.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the FOIA as well as governmental email addresses (which includes those of publicly funded professors and researchers).
These are publicly funded email accounts that are subject to FOI requests. This is something that was, and is, known by all those using said accounts.