In the instance of global warming, scientists have disproved a few crazy theories and they have shown the data, but crackpots do not listen to evidence; that's why they are crackpots in the first place. The fact that you either haven't sought out or accepted the available proof shows that you're not really much interested in the truth yourself. This is not the fault of scientists; they've upheld their half of the bargain. You have to be open to the evidence.
Be careful to not confuse computer model output with data. The two are not the same thing. Also don't forget about a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, the null hypothesis.
not so fast. You give the global warming scare story too much credit by calling it a theory. It doesn't even have that status as the data (and let's make it clear that computer model output does NOT equal data) does not support the hypothesis. To date, the null hypothesis has yet to be ruled out. Until it is, the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis will never be a theory.
For the record, I am not some right-wing talking head. I am just a supporter of actually employing the scientific method.
Please cut me a 12 foot long 2x4 into 10 equal lengths. so that is 14.4 inches. Oh wait, we don't use decimal points, they are the devil, so how many 32nds do we need?
So, if we are discussing distances, and I say that something is 15 kilometers away, you are going to be confused and have to wait that extra 0.3 seconds to know that I am talking about distance in meters, and not weight in grams? How slow are the brains of Americans that they can't judge the unit based on context.
Also, You do realize that "klick" and "key" are slang terms, not proper abbreviations right?
And your complaint is that a gram is small and a kilogram is bigger and roughly equal to 2.2 pounds. So if I want to talk about something heavy, I use kg, and something light, I talk about grams, and the brain can quickly and immediately not only know that by referring to grams that I am talking small, but also precisely how it compares to something measurable, such as a single kilogram. But if you are talking ounces and pounds, ok, so what was the conversion factor again? Was this one a factor of 12 like inches and feet, no wait, this one was 16. let me instantly do that math in my head. I have 0.316 pounds, so that is... let me think... carry the 1... right, 5.056 ounces. Phew, that was so much easier than moving a decimal place.
As for the remark about a litre being a cubic decimeter, do you propose that the density of water be changed to accommodate a scale that is more to your liking? You could also simply state that a cubic meter is equal to 1000 litres. But you are probably right, the brain can comprehend so much easier that 1 quart is equal to 57.75 cubic inches.
Now, as for the freedom thing. People are always free to use whatever they want. People that use FOSS, tend to use it because it works better, AND because it has a freedom to it. Not only are people free to use the metric system, it works better too. I would argue that fear of change is a much bigger reason for the resistance than a choice of freedom.
Ok, many of these are cool, but since when is a stereoscopy, for use with aerial photography in this case, a CIA secret? Stereoscopes date back to at least the 30's and stereo pairs that can actually be viewed in 3D with the naked eye have been around almost as long as there has been film to capture pictures. Compared to a bug that is the size and has the function of an actual bug, this item should not have been anywhere near the list, especially since it was not developed by the CIA.
The majority of real world observational/empirical evidence suggests that the scary stories of doom that are associated with the theory of AGW are either far overblown, or they are the exact opposite of reality.
So what makes more sense, that a 4.5 billion year old planet that has been both much hotter and much colder that it is today, and has also had CO2 levels that are much higher and much lower than they are today, is on a runaway course to extinction as told to us by computer models which are trying to reduce the entire earth's climate system into a mathematical equation...
...or...
the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, and we are simply in one of those cycles as demonstrated by most of the empirical evidence?
With regards to the second part of your statement: The exact same applies. The data we have compiled so far have now been scrutinised so much that we can consider them solid facts - the climate is in fact changing, and the only reasonable explanation so far is that human activities cause this. As far as I can see, the only scientists that are "sceptical" of this, are the wishful thinkers. I mean, even Lomborg, hailed as the prophet of climate scepticism, is now saying explicitly that he believes human are causing climate change. That ought to speak with some authority to the sceptics, I would have thought.
Um, no.
First off, you are correct that the climate is in fact changing. It has been changing for approximately 4.5 billion years, otherwise known as the approximate age of the earth. "Climate change" is a redundant term. Climate is changing, it always has, and always will. What you are trying to refer to is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The buzz term was changed to "Climate Change" so that weather and climactic events which aren't associated with warming could be used as more scare stories to keep the dollars flowing.
Second, the "data" that has been compiled which supports the theory of man-made climate change is not data. It is model output. Model output should never be confused with data. Real world, observational data shows that there hasn't been any significant warming for 15 years or so, and during that time, CO2 has continued to climb. The theory of CO2 / anthropogenic global warming did not predict this, nor can it account for it. Keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, and if you were trying to support the theory of AGW, it would be good to have at least some loose correlation, unfortunately for the warmists, correlation looks pretty bad.
Third, the warming of the past century can be completely explained by natural variations of the numerous cycles that the earth and sun go through. The null hypothesis has never been disproved by any research done to date, and as such, is still the most likely cause
Why is it that we want to be "carbon neutral" again? Is it because those dastardly plants are increasing their growth rates and we are in fear of being taken over by plant based life forms?
towing the line, and spouting FUD is not something I am a fan of either, in any direction, be it pointed at MS, Linux, or otherwise, however posting a comment filled with expletives and bigoted remarks is completely unnecessary. The fact that I am getting modded "troll" while the comment I replied to which contains the words "cocksucker" and "Slashfag" is being modded insightful is simply ridiculous.
let me expand it for you as you appear to be new to the interwebs and cowardly anonymous.
I agree with this statement above. I do not feel the need to elaborate as the statement to which I am referring summarizes my position on the topic adequately.
The current theory does a TERRIBLE job of explaining current warming. The scientific method requires you to re-examine your hypothesis if observational data does not support the current hypothesis. The observational data has been wildly different from the computer models that the entire theory is based on and yet no one is re-examining the hypothesis.
Take a look at past climate on a geologic time scale and you will quickly realize that we are not seeing any sort of extreme warming. This should lead one to employ Occam's razor, that the most simple answer is likely to be correct. In this case, since what we are experiencing is within the bounds of what has occurred in the past, it is likely natural.
Those "toxic chemicals" and "plastics going into the oceans" don't have anything to do with global warming. Habitat destruction can have an effect. But increased CO2 in the atmosphere due mostly to human use of fossil fuel is the primary cause of global warming. Therefore it is something to pay attention to.
Fail
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere due mostly to human use of fossil fuel is theorized to be the primary cause of global warming.
There is a big difference. My point was that AGW is a theory, it hasn't been proven. There is an excellent chance that everything we are seeing with the climate is completely within the realm of natural variation. It has also not been proven that a warmer world is a worse world; i.e. a warmer world may be a better place to live (history supports this theory).
What is fact however is that toxic substances in our soils, water, and air are having acute and chronic health effects on humans. I would much rather focus money on cleaning up the planet and making it a safer place to live based on verifiable and proven science OR alternatively focus on adapting to a warmer future, rather than spend billions trying to prevent something that we may very well have zero control over.
Slashdot Mirror
In the instance of global warming, scientists have disproved a few crazy theories and they have shown the data, but crackpots do not listen to evidence; that's why they are crackpots in the first place. The fact that you either haven't sought out or accepted the available proof shows that you're not really much interested in the truth yourself. This is not the fault of scientists; they've upheld their half of the bargain. You have to be open to the evidence.
Be careful to not confuse computer model output with data. The two are not the same thing. Also don't forget about a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, the null hypothesis.
not so fast. You give the global warming scare story too much credit by calling it a theory. It doesn't even have that status as the data (and let's make it clear that computer model output does NOT equal data) does not support the hypothesis. To date, the null hypothesis has yet to be ruled out. Until it is, the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis will never be a theory.
For the record, I am not some right-wing talking head. I am just a supporter of actually employing the scientific method.
Yeah, that makes so much sense, so if I am worried about freezing temperatures, I need to know the temperature relative to 32. Makes so much sense.
Using 0 as a reference point would just be CRAZY!
Please cut me a 12 foot long 2x4 into 10 equal lengths. so that is 14.4 inches. Oh wait, we don't use decimal points, they are the devil, so how many 32nds do we need?
So, if we are discussing distances, and I say that something is 15 kilometers away, you are going to be confused and have to wait that extra 0.3 seconds to know that I am talking about distance in meters, and not weight in grams? How slow are the brains of Americans that they can't judge the unit based on context.
Also, You do realize that "klick" and "key" are slang terms, not proper abbreviations right?
And your complaint is that a gram is small and a kilogram is bigger and roughly equal to 2.2 pounds. So if I want to talk about something heavy, I use kg, and something light, I talk about grams, and the brain can quickly and immediately not only know that by referring to grams that I am talking small, but also precisely how it compares to something measurable, such as a single kilogram. But if you are talking ounces and pounds, ok, so what was the conversion factor again? Was this one a factor of 12 like inches and feet, no wait, this one was 16. let me instantly do that math in my head. I have 0.316 pounds, so that is... let me think... carry the 1... right, 5.056 ounces. Phew, that was so much easier than moving a decimal place.
As for the remark about a litre being a cubic decimeter, do you propose that the density of water be changed to accommodate a scale that is more to your liking? You could also simply state that a cubic meter is equal to 1000 litres. But you are probably right, the brain can comprehend so much easier that 1 quart is equal to 57.75 cubic inches.
Now, as for the freedom thing. People are always free to use whatever they want. People that use FOSS, tend to use it because it works better, AND because it has a freedom to it. Not only are people free to use the metric system, it works better too. I would argue that fear of change is a much bigger reason for the resistance than a choice of freedom.
Ok, many of these are cool, but since when is a stereoscopy, for use with aerial photography in this case, a CIA secret? Stereoscopes date back to at least the 30's and stereo pairs that can actually be viewed in 3D with the naked eye have been around almost as long as there has been film to capture pictures. Compared to a bug that is the size and has the function of an actual bug, this item should not have been anywhere near the list, especially since it was not developed by the CIA.
The majority of real world observational/empirical evidence suggests that the scary stories of doom that are associated with the theory of AGW are either far overblown, or they are the exact opposite of reality.
So what makes more sense, that a 4.5 billion year old planet that has been both much hotter and much colder that it is today, and has also had CO2 levels that are much higher and much lower than they are today, is on a runaway course to extinction as told to us by computer models which are trying to reduce the entire earth's climate system into a mathematical equation...
...or...
the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, and we are simply in one of those cycles as demonstrated by most of the empirical evidence?
With regards to the second part of your statement: The exact same applies. The data we have compiled so far have now been scrutinised so much that we can consider them solid facts - the climate is in fact changing, and the only reasonable explanation so far is that human activities cause this. As far as I can see, the only scientists that are "sceptical" of this, are the wishful thinkers. I mean, even Lomborg, hailed as the prophet of climate scepticism, is now saying explicitly that he believes human are causing climate change. That ought to speak with some authority to the sceptics, I would have thought.
Um, no.
First off, you are correct that the climate is in fact changing. It has been changing for approximately 4.5 billion years, otherwise known as the approximate age of the earth. "Climate change" is a redundant term. Climate is changing, it always has, and always will. What you are trying to refer to is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The buzz term was changed to "Climate Change" so that weather and climactic events which aren't associated with warming could be used as more scare stories to keep the dollars flowing.
Second, the "data" that has been compiled which supports the theory of man-made climate change is not data. It is model output. Model output should never be confused with data. Real world, observational data shows that there hasn't been any significant warming for 15 years or so, and during that time, CO2 has continued to climb. The theory of CO2 / anthropogenic global warming did not predict this, nor can it account for it. Keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, and if you were trying to support the theory of AGW, it would be good to have at least some loose correlation, unfortunately for the warmists, correlation looks pretty bad.
Third, the warming of the past century can be completely explained by natural variations of the numerous cycles that the earth and sun go through. The null hypothesis has never been disproved by any research done to date, and as such, is still the most likely cause
yeah, I replied that to the wrong comment, ignore me.
whoosh
Why is it that we want to be "carbon neutral" again? Is it because those dastardly plants are increasing their growth rates and we are in fear of being taken over by plant based life forms?
You must mean ocean de-alkalinization. The oceans are basic, not acidic, and they are also a giant buffer solution
Can you hear me now?
Hot Dog, we have a...
too long; didn't read? or incapable of understanding do to lower than average intelligence?
towing the line, and spouting FUD is not something I am a fan of either, in any direction, be it pointed at MS, Linux, or otherwise, however posting a comment filled with expletives and bigoted remarks is completely unnecessary. The fact that I am getting modded "troll" while the comment I replied to which contains the words "cocksucker" and "Slashfag" is being modded insightful is simply ridiculous.
perhaps a switch to decaf is in order.
wow, over-react much?
let me expand it for you as you appear to be new to the interwebs and cowardly anonymous.
I agree with this statement above. I do not feel the need to elaborate as the statement to which I am referring summarizes my position on the topic adequately.
--Physicists may scoff at the thought people allowed to walk among the living who don't know what a Planck value is.-- I scoffs @ the writers grammer.
I'm sure you meant writer's grammar with the appropriate apostrophe in writer's and an "a" in grammar and not an "e"
this ^
If the current theory does a "reasonably good job" explain this: http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/
The current theory does a TERRIBLE job of explaining current warming. The scientific method requires you to re-examine your hypothesis if observational data does not support the current hypothesis. The observational data has been wildly different from the computer models that the entire theory is based on and yet no one is re-examining the hypothesis.
Take a look at past climate on a geologic time scale and you will quickly realize that we are not seeing any sort of extreme warming. This should lead one to employ Occam's razor, that the most simple answer is likely to be correct. In this case, since what we are experiencing is within the bounds of what has occurred in the past, it is likely natural.
Those "toxic chemicals" and "plastics going into the oceans" don't have anything to do with global warming. Habitat destruction can have an effect. But increased CO2 in the atmosphere due mostly to human use of fossil fuel is the primary cause of global warming. Therefore it is something to pay attention to.
Fail
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere due mostly to human use of fossil fuel is theorized to be the primary cause of global warming.
There is a big difference. My point was that AGW is a theory, it hasn't been proven. There is an excellent chance that everything we are seeing with the climate is completely within the realm of natural variation. It has also not been proven that a warmer world is a worse world; i.e. a warmer world may be a better place to live (history supports this theory).
What is fact however is that toxic substances in our soils, water, and air are having acute and chronic health effects on humans. I would much rather focus money on cleaning up the planet and making it a safer place to live based on verifiable and proven science OR alternatively focus on adapting to a warmer future, rather than spend billions trying to prevent something that we may very well have zero control over.
First off, the fact that you use the term deniers should mean that you are dismissed.
Secondly, I suggest you get off your high horse and actually follow the money you allude to with your ad hominem attack.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/