Holy Shit Batman! Those are your two options. All good or all evil? How about this as option number 3:
3) He really believes in this "freedom and openness at all costs," thing. He is a zealot perhaps, but an idealistic one. He really thinks that the best thing for the world is to have no secrets that all information from any source should be public for all to see. His personal life however, is a total fucking mess. He is a sex addict who likes BDSM "games" and degrading sex with as many partners as possible. He sleeps with any female that moves whether it is free or paid sex, but his partners are not always (or rarely) prepared for his level of aggressiveness. The only redeeming value in his otherwise pathetic attention whore sex addict life is his idealistic zealotry for freedom and openness from governments at all costs.
You know someone who is flawed but has a redeeming quality somewhere. This is not a Disney fairytale where the choices are Prince Charming, Wicked Witch, or background scenery.
I'm not here to defend Gates or the OLPC project, but most critiques I read about Gate's foundation fail to pose the question of "is 'x' better now because of the Gate's Foundation donation or not?" In other words you are free to disagree with his motives and implementation, but don't kid yourself, giving 10 million dollars to a school tech. lab and mandating Windows is still a better outcome for the school and its students than not having 10 million dollars and using an old tech lab with computers that still may be running Windows.
I got a free steam copy with purchase of a new i7 860. Seriously though, having to be online, register a ubisoft account, login every time I play the game, and remain online while playing for a single player game is ridiculous.
If Ubisoft want me to ever buy another one of their games (and I'm a big Tom Clancy game fan) then the DRM will have to go away or change significantly from this non-sense. Especially since I know it would take all of 20minutes or so to find, download, and install a cracked version of the game for free with less hassle.
I don't claim to be the pulse of the nation, but I am one customer who will no longer be a customer. I don't think I'm particularly unique in this regard.
The realclimate.org moderators/article authors are th same ones implicated in the CRU email scandal.
It's not cheap propaganda when their internal emails reveal that they (1) manipulated their own data to justify their results (and publicly denied it I might add); (2) discussed ways to prevent skeptics from publishing in peer reviewed journals; (3) denied FOI requests;(4) asked colleagues to delete emails containing information requested in FOI requests; said they would rather delete their data then give it to a skeptic for an audit;*5) internally knew that the hockey stick graphs was bogus and saying as much as early as 2004; (6) making sure that only "approved" individuals would peer review their papers to assure the message would remain unchallenged; (7) purposefully withholding information from the IPCC that didn't match their published data.
The list goes on and on. Yes, I did spend all weekend reading through the emails, and what I found was disgusting.
The emails do not disproves AGW. They simply demonstrate that a small subset of eco-warriors perverted the scientific method to advance their own beliefs and successfully controlled what information was presented to the public through the peer review process.
The point isn't whether or not the globe has been warmer or colder. The point is that on the average changes to climate happens relatively slowly and that apparently we've kicked things into high gear. Given the fact that we are still highly dependent on the climate to sustain ourselves, any sudden change should give people some pause.
Even if you don't think anthropogenic forcings are contributing, the rapid rise in temperatures should at least get people thinking about what the effects of rapid climate change on our lives. Turning food production areas into deserts and having pest show up in areas where there are no natural predators are just two problems that could happen (hence the research into the consequences).
No doubt the planet has been warm or colder in the past. But what's important is how a warmer planet will impact our livelihood in the immediate future.
~X~
I think you are missing the point with this post. Your previous posts have been highly in favor of AGW, which is simply me stating a fact, not a pejorative.
However, now you are claiming that even if he doesn't believe in AGW he should be concerned about the effect of warming on our survival. While that is a very valid point, if he doesn't believe in AGW then cap and trade/carbon offest/economic reorganization to the tune of Trillions of Dollars is not in his best interest of preparing for a warmer planet.
If humans are not contributing to warming (a big if) then what good will altering manufacturing/production/energy patterns have in a newly warmed world?
(1) internally they disregarding the hockey graph as inaccurate as early as 2004 (almost 6 years ago!)
(2) the small group had a list of "known quantities" that peer reviewed each other's papers (i.e., groupthink with no outside influences).
(3) they actively worked to sabotage skeptic papers and journals that published skeptic papers because of "backlash that could hurt the community".
(4) the emails very clearly say that they will not release their data to skeptics under any circumstances regardless of FOI requests that they are legally mandated to respond to. One goes so far as to ask his colleagues to delete emails that deal with the subject being discussed. (that is real scholarly and scientific of him)
(5) One also says that he would "delete the data before handing it over" to a skeptic.
If that is how you view science and the scientific method than I weep for science.
I just want good science. I don't care what the results say to confirm or deny AGW, but the "scientific" methods revealed in the emails boggles the mind and is very disheartening, to say the least. The only loser in this whole episode is science.
I see your guardian article and raise you with this NASA image of average land and ocean temperatures. Image.
You will please take note that since about 2003 the graph is trending down meaning decreasing temperatures.
Does this prove or disprove AGW? of course not! I'm not a denier; I just don't like to see people cherry picking a result and claiming that we face economic DOOM (anti-AGW) or day after tomorrow DOOM (AGW).
AGW proponents are quick to point out local and hemishpereical weather variations that do not apply to a global mean, but then turn around and point to the southern hemisphere ice pack as spelling doom for the world. Even while different parts of both antarctic and arctic icepack are thickening.
To diverage off topic a bit --several small islands around Greenland in 1950 were not connected to the mainland via ice. Between 1960 and 2003(?) the islands were covered and connected by ice. Now once again they are not covered by ice and that is evidence of DOOM? No.
I am not a denier, but I do tolerate pervasion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible. If AGW is real then these people have done a huge disservice to the entire global community.
Whoops. Should read...I do not tolerate perversion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible for the perversion.
The "trick" email is only one such email and flippantly dismissing it does you no credit. The significance of the leaked emails is not the claim that AGW is a hoax. That is nonsense. The significance of the emails is that they demonstratively prove that a small subset of scientists from leading universities have perverted the scientific method to promote their own eco-warrior beliefs about global warming. I would sincerely hope that Slashdot readers would defend the scientific method first and foremost above dogma.
Here is the shortlist:
(A more complete list can be found at: Bishop Hill) or (you can search the emails yourself at: An Elegant Chaos )
(1) Regarding the "trick" that you are so quick to dismiss. The quote below was taken from this thread at RealClimate.org)
"Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.
Mike Mann’s response speaks for itself. (by the way RealClimate.org is run/moderated by Mike Mann --not the most reliable source given these emails).
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."
(2) Purposefully denying, lying, and deleting emails and information that were requested in a Freedom of Information Act request. Hiding information on the grounds that the other party only wants to find faults with it.???? Really? What about the idea behind repeating results and falsifying hypothesis. Isn't that what science is all about.
(3) Calling contacts at the BBC to find out why a skeptic article was allowed to be published.
(4) Basing the "hockey stick" graph on 14 hand picked tree samples as proxys to 1960 and smoothing the average flat, then using real temperature data forward in time with padding to project an upward trend, but not the same smoothing used on the pre-1960 numbers. (by the way trees only cover roughly 15% of the earth. Taking 14 samples from that already small sample area does not make for "global" evidence)
(5) Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick back in 2004.
(6) Truncating data to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.
(7) Admitting to each other that they cannot account for the lack of warming in recent years.
(8) Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has. Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.
(9) Only having papers reviewed by a list of "known quantities" that will give favorable reviews. At the same time making sure that skeptical papers cannot get published in legitimate journals. So, they say publicly that if skeptics were practising "real" science they would be peer reviewed, but behind the scenes they were doing everything in their power to prevent published of any skeptic papers. For a scienti
My understanding is that the 5 computers are segregated into two groups: One group of 2 and one group of 3. Each group is programmed in a different language and all 5 computers are programmed by different companies.
That's not entirely true. The Nazi's were damn close to taking Moscow, but Hitler mistakenly committed a majority of his forces to Stalingrad, believing that a victory in Stalingrad would be a PR victory over Stalin. This blunder cost the Germany dearly. Also, Hitler pushed too fast, even by blitzkrieg standards without properly supporting the supply lines, and Hitler split his forces further by sending troops to towards the Middle East rather than completely consolidating on Stalingrad or Moscow.
Nuclear is too expensive to maintain, even though other countries have been doing it successfully for decades, but the U.S. has been concerned about the Middle East and South America since the 1950s. International policy has been concerned about the petrodollar and controlling oil supplies. First Desert Storm under Bush, Sr. then Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, Jr. Now Global Warming.
Yeah fossil fuels haven't cost us anything at all.
I like wind and solar power, but nuclear can provide the power we need to move away from fossil fuels today! rather than 15-20 years from now when wind and solar is mature and ready for wide-scale deployment. Why does this have to be a zero sum game? Can't we switch to nuclear today and still invest heavily in development and deployment of wind, wave, and solar technologies?
When I argue for nuclear power, and I do, I am not saying we shouldn't be investing in and developing other sources of energy like wind, solar, or (as a dream) fusion. Wind and solar are not mature enough as technologies to replace our current methods of producing power, but nuclear can.
Also, Three Mile Island wasn't a disaster and lumping it with Chernobyl usually means a person doesn't understand either incident and is only parroting what they read in [insert fav. news source here]. Chernobyl was a dangerous design even in the 1970s and modern nuclear reactors failsafe, as in the reaction cannot continue in a failure mode. Chernobyl is simply not possible using modern reactors.
This is not nuclear VS. wind, wave, solar. This is nuclear VS. fossil fuels. Nuclear is easily the superior option to supply our current power needs, WHILE we further develop wind, wave, and solar energy technologies into the future.
Yeah, nuclear is a disaster waiting to happen with all the "Evil Terrorists"(TM) out there......oh, wait, HALF OF EUROPE is powered by nuclear power. I wonder why Germany hasn't been nuked by terrorists or had to deal with nuclear waste in its water supply???? hmm....quick, we need a new FUD excuse to bash nuclear power.
(I swear I'm not a troll, but for some people ignorance must be bliss!!!)
Unless you are seriously proposing that today, in 2009, we would build a nuclear reactor similar to Chernobyl, which was KNOWN to be flawed and inherently dangerous back in 1977(?) when it was commissioned --unless that is your proposal, continually harping about the damages and destruction from Chernobyl does nothing except spread FUD and promote ignorance of the one power source currently working that can provide all our power needs, until Something Better Comes Along (TM).
Modern reactors designs all have multiple, redundant, overlapping failsafe designs, that as the name "failsafe" implies...fail...safe... The reaction cannot continue in a failure mode. A Chernobyl type accident is simply not possible with modern designs. I won't even say this knowledge was learned the "hard way" because it was known back in the seventies that Chernobyl was a dangerous design.
I don't have a link, so I'll leave that to someone else, but last I checked an MP3 player didn't cost $250 dollars to make. That cost is simply what the market will bear, in large part thanks to HUGE advertising budgets. Apple makes a hefty profit off of the iPod and to think that Microsoft is losing money on a $150 Zune is crazy!
However, even if someone proves me wrong about the costs, Microsoft could give the damn things away and still not hurt their bottom line.
We -know- there's a limited amount of fuel in the world. We don't "know" that there is a limited amount of "fuel" in the world. What we consider to be fuel changes overtime. First we had wood (biomass), then dams and windmills, then we added electricity, then coal, then oil, then nuclear, then solar and wind-farms, now we're investigating Hydrogen and other alternative "fuels," which have the benefit of reducing carbons or being carbon free. We also keep discovering new ways to extract oil from the earth opening up new possiblities and extending how long oil will last (NOT a good thing, IMHO).
The U.S. people should absolutely want to move to a new fuel source that has lower or no carbon emissions for environmental reasons and should want to cut the lifeline with OPEC for political and environmental reasons. Energy independence is a wonderful thing, especially if its environmentally responsible as well, but using the populist argument/scare tactic of "we're going to run out of fuel; the apocalypse is upon us, oh no!" is every-bit as harmful to rational debate as the big oil companies who run ads about happy children and oil making the future brighter.
Actually, I'm a Political Science and History Degree holder, working on my masters, and I'm a Libertarian. Maybe that just speaks to the sad state of the U.S. education system. I won't disagree with you on that, but....
The "problem" is that the government recognizes a corporation as an individual. Please show me where Libertarians list a core tenant being "large, conglomerated corporations should be fully protected under the law as an individual." I know that the word libertarian is so vague as to be nearly meaningless, but you're certainly not helping the matter.
Look if the law changed to not allow corporations protection as individuals that would do next to nothing to Libertarian ideals. Libertarians believe in the individual freedoms, to (in my opinion) the extreme in some cases, but nothing in the party doctrine states that corporations MUST be allowed the status and rights of an individual.
While I won't disagree with you that the handling of Iraq reeks of incompetence NOT conspiracies to seem incompetent, lets not forget the great length that powerful men have gone to in order to mask the truth. Gonzales made himself out to be a total incompetent idiot in front of Congress to avoid blame and hide the truth. In his case "appearing incompetent" was the ideal solution. Another prime example would be Nixon "revising" history by altering White House Documents and creatively writing his memoirs.
As usual the slashdot tag line is misleading at best. The EPA is adjusting the MPG rating for ALL NEW CARS IN 2008. The system will take into account cold engine starts, increased stop and go traffic, the use of AC, and higher speed limits than the old 70s 55MPH national standard. ALL CARS will see their fuel ratings drop in 2008, but hybrids will be affected the most. So you can create and believe as many conspiracy theories as you want, but know that all cars are effected.
It's already been said once before but doesn't seem to be sinking it. So let me say it again....
regardless of the legality of posting the AACS Key online, Digg does not have to take down any information until they are presented with a legal notice.
Once Digg has been served a legal notice then they can decide the proper course of action, such as removing the offending materials. Slashdot has fought at least two such cases that I know of, and in each case the offending materials were removed only after the materials "legal owner" requested it. Slashdot didn't just decide to remove the content just because....
Digg has every right to not want to be sued, but what they have done goes way beyond the DMCA.
I couldn't agree more that if college students don't like the TOS of University Network Access then they should get their own internet. However, until the PUBLICLY FUNDED Universities offer alternatives (i.e., competition) to their internet services then we have a problem.
I'm all for schools maintaining a research network where they can enforce and do anything they want, and a separate "campus" network for students that pays the market rate. I pay more than $30K a year to attend school, and it pisses me off that my internet activities are restricted by the University. A decent cable internet connection here costs $39.00 a month. For the 8 months or so that I'm at school that amounts to roughly $320. If all this bandwidth bullshit amounts to an extra $320 to the school, then they're welcome to take the $320 and fuck off. I pay 5 times that amount in mandatory fees. Also, if I'm doing something illegal than arrest me, but don't assume that I'm a criminal because I use torrents.
Just touching a gun doesn't cause insanity, and applying for a CCW permit and carrying a concealed weapons does not turn a person into Rambo. Most civilians, whether they have a weapon or not, do not run to the scene of a shooting to try and get their shots in too. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason that allowing CCW holders to carry on-campus should be equated with the school holding an all campus rally giving away guns to everyone who has a student ID card.
For the record, I fully support the military, the defense budget, and guns; however, it's been my experience that those with "military training" are more aggressive and more prone towards violence, guns or not, then an average person. Everyone I know who joined the military became far more aggressive, looking for fights sometimes, than they ever were before. So a town full of ex-military carrying guns doesn't sound as safe to me, but who am I. I've been lucky and never had to shoot a person, so what do I know...
Let me clarify my earlier post. I agree that this guy was as you say "evil, evil, evil." The shootings were nobody's direct fault except his own. I fully endorse personal responsibility, and I'm glad he saved us a trial by shooting himself. However, to ignore the effects that society and culture can have on a nation suggests a profound lack of historical insight. I think most people would be amazed at what they would be capable of doing given the right circumstances or motivations, be it for good or evil. The fourteen Crusades against Islam (although everyone was slaughtered in the Holy Land) were based on large-spread, societal, religious influences. There is the overused example of Nazi Germany and the societal influences leading towards WWII. Another prime example is Communist China during the 1960s and the Red Guard --mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, peasants, intellectuals, military officers, and land owners all committed atrocious acts of cruelty and depravity towards one another for an 'ideal.' Societal forces are very powerful, although I always believe that people are responsible for their own actions. There is always a choice --even if both options suck, but I digress.
Let me put it another way. Guns have been readily available for centuries with less restrictions than we currently have, but school shootings seem to have peaked since the late 80s with the majority taking place in the 90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massac res. So what is it about the past two decades that has made the "Evil People" go after schools? When I ask what has happened in society to make a person want to kill those around them at schools, I'm not looking to assign blame to society. I just want to know what changed. Unless every school shooting since the Bath shooting in 1927 is a copycat, there must be a prescribed set of events or circumstances or mental states (other than 'crazy') that make a person want to murder their classmates. Moreover, if school massacres are not widespread overseas in other Western countries (which I have no reliable statistics on) than what is it about U.S. culture,life, or society that encourages violence or aggression towards others?
First off, as far as the gun debate goes, this tragedy will further divide the masses. No matter what I write here people against guns will still be against guns. I feel it necessary to point out that only a small percent of the population takes the time and effort to obtain a CCW permit. The school allowing CCW holders to carry on-campus would not suddenly put guns in the hands of every drunken college student, contrary to the opinions outlined above. Doesn't work that way, sorry.
However, the bigger issue here is not gun-control. The bigger issue is what is wrong with our society that makes a person want to kill innocents around them? The gun is simply a means to an end. Sure we can outlaw guns, but other means will be used. The string of school shootings over the past decade is a sign of a larger problem amongst the United States today. I don't have the answer as to why people are doing these things, but the "why" is what we need to understand, not the "how." The "how" is the easy part and can change to fit different circumstances. What makes the United States so different from the rest of the countries in the world that our kids want to go shoot up a school?
I don't know the answer, but it is an important question that needs to be closely examined.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy Shit Batman! Those are your two options. All good or all evil? How about this as option number 3:
3) He really believes in this "freedom and openness at all costs," thing. He is a zealot perhaps, but an idealistic one. He really thinks that the best thing for the world is to have no secrets that all information from any source should be public for all to see. His personal life however, is a total fucking mess. He is a sex addict who likes BDSM "games" and degrading sex with as many partners as possible. He sleeps with any female that moves whether it is free or paid sex, but his partners are not always (or rarely) prepared for his level of aggressiveness. The only redeeming value in his otherwise pathetic attention whore sex addict life is his idealistic zealotry for freedom and openness from governments at all costs.
You know someone who is flawed but has a redeeming quality somewhere. This is not a Disney fairytale where the choices are Prince Charming, Wicked Witch, or background scenery.
I'm not here to defend Gates or the OLPC project, but most critiques I read about Gate's foundation fail to pose the question of "is 'x' better now because of the Gate's Foundation donation or not?" In other words you are free to disagree with his motives and implementation, but don't kid yourself, giving 10 million dollars to a school tech. lab and mandating Windows is still a better outcome for the school and its students than not having 10 million dollars and using an old tech lab with computers that still may be running Windows.
I got a free steam copy with purchase of a new i7 860. Seriously though, having to be online, register a ubisoft account, login every time I play the game, and remain online while playing for a single player game is ridiculous.
If Ubisoft want me to ever buy another one of their games (and I'm a big Tom Clancy game fan) then the DRM will have to go away or change significantly from this non-sense. Especially since I know it would take all of 20minutes or so to find, download, and install a cracked version of the game for free with less hassle.
I don't claim to be the pulse of the nation, but I am one customer who will no longer be a customer. I don't think I'm particularly unique in this regard.
The realclimate.org moderators/article authors are th same ones implicated in the CRU email scandal.
It's not cheap propaganda when their internal emails reveal that they (1) manipulated their own data to justify their results (and publicly denied it I might add); (2) discussed ways to prevent skeptics from publishing in peer reviewed journals; (3) denied FOI requests;(4) asked colleagues to delete emails containing information requested in FOI requests; said they would rather delete their data then give it to a skeptic for an audit;*5) internally knew that the hockey stick graphs was bogus and saying as much as early as 2004; (6) making sure that only "approved" individuals would peer review their papers to assure the message would remain unchallenged; (7) purposefully withholding information from the IPCC that didn't match their published data.
The list goes on and on. Yes, I did spend all weekend reading through the emails, and what I found was disgusting.
The emails do not disproves AGW. They simply demonstrate that a small subset of eco-warriors perverted the scientific method to advance their own beliefs and successfully controlled what information was presented to the public through the peer review process.
You're missing the point.
The point isn't whether or not the globe has been warmer or colder. The point is that on the average changes to climate happens relatively slowly and that apparently we've kicked things into high gear. Given the fact that we are still highly dependent on the climate to sustain ourselves, any sudden change should give people some pause.
Even if you don't think anthropogenic forcings are contributing, the rapid rise in temperatures should at least get people thinking about what the effects of rapid climate change on our lives. Turning food production areas into deserts and having pest show up in areas where there are no natural predators are just two problems that could happen (hence the research into the consequences).
No doubt the planet has been warm or colder in the past. But what's important is how a warmer planet will impact our livelihood in the immediate future.
~X~
I think you are missing the point with this post. Your previous posts have been highly in favor of AGW, which is simply me stating a fact, not a pejorative.
However, now you are claiming that even if he doesn't believe in AGW he should be concerned about the effect of warming on our survival. While that is a very valid point, if he doesn't believe in AGW then cap and trade/carbon offest/economic reorganization to the tune of Trillions of Dollars is not in his best interest of preparing for a warmer planet.
If humans are not contributing to warming (a big if) then what good will altering manufacturing/production/energy patterns have in a newly warmed world?
If you read the emails you would see that:
(1) internally they disregarding the hockey graph as inaccurate as early as 2004 (almost 6 years ago!)
(2) the small group had a list of "known quantities" that peer reviewed each other's papers (i.e., groupthink with no outside influences).
(3) they actively worked to sabotage skeptic papers and journals that published skeptic papers because of "backlash that could hurt the community".
(4) the emails very clearly say that they will not release their data to skeptics under any circumstances regardless of FOI requests that they are legally mandated to respond to. One goes so far as to ask his colleagues to delete emails that deal with the subject being discussed. (that is real scholarly and scientific of him)
(5) One also says that he would "delete the data before handing it over" to a skeptic.
If that is how you view science and the scientific method than I weep for science.
I just want good science. I don't care what the results say to confirm or deny AGW, but the "scientific" methods revealed in the emails boggles the mind and is very disheartening, to say the least. The only loser in this whole episode is science.
You will please take note that since about 2003 the graph is trending down meaning decreasing temperatures.
Does this prove or disprove AGW? of course not! I'm not a denier; I just don't like to see people cherry picking a result and claiming that we face economic DOOM (anti-AGW) or day after tomorrow DOOM (AGW).
AGW proponents are quick to point out local and hemishpereical weather variations that do not apply to a global mean, but then turn around and point to the southern hemisphere ice pack as spelling doom for the world. Even while different parts of both antarctic and arctic icepack are thickening.
To diverage off topic a bit --several small islands around Greenland in 1950 were not connected to the mainland via ice. Between 1960 and 2003(?) the islands were covered and connected by ice. Now once again they are not covered by ice and that is evidence of DOOM? No.
I am not a denier, but I do tolerate pervasion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible. If AGW is real then these people have done a huge disservice to the entire global community.
Whoops. Should read...I do not tolerate perversion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible for the perversion.
The "trick" email is only one such email and flippantly dismissing it does you no credit. The significance of the leaked emails is not the claim that AGW is a hoax. That is nonsense. The significance of the emails is that they demonstratively prove that a small subset of scientists from leading universities have perverted the scientific method to promote their own eco-warrior beliefs about global warming. I would sincerely hope that Slashdot readers would defend the scientific method first and foremost above dogma.
Here is the shortlist:
(A more complete list can be found at: Bishop Hill) or (you can search the emails yourself at: An Elegant Chaos )
(1) Regarding the "trick" that you are so quick to dismiss. The quote below was taken from this thread at RealClimate.org)
"Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.
Mike Mann’s response speaks for itself. (by the way RealClimate.org is run/moderated by Mike Mann --not the most reliable source given these emails).
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."
Now go re-read the email about the "trick". email in question
(2) Purposefully denying, lying, and deleting emails and information that were requested in a Freedom of Information Act request. Hiding information on the grounds that the other party only wants to find faults with it.???? Really? What about the idea behind repeating results and falsifying hypothesis. Isn't that what science is all about.
(3) Calling contacts at the BBC to find out why a skeptic article was allowed to be published.
(4) Basing the "hockey stick" graph on 14 hand picked tree samples as proxys to 1960 and smoothing the average flat, then using real temperature data forward in time with padding to project an upward trend, but not the same smoothing used on the pre-1960 numbers. (by the way trees only cover roughly 15% of the earth. Taking 14 samples from that already small sample area does not make for "global" evidence)
(5) Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick back in 2004.
(6) Truncating data to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.
(7) Admitting to each other that they cannot account for the lack of warming in recent years.
(8) Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has. Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.
(9) Only having papers reviewed by a list of "known quantities" that will give favorable reviews. At the same time making sure that skeptical papers cannot get published in legitimate journals. So, they say publicly that if skeptics were practising "real" science they would be peer reviewed, but behind the scenes they were doing everything in their power to prevent published of any skeptic papers. For a scienti
My understanding is that the 5 computers are segregated into two groups: One group of 2 and one group of 3. Each group is programmed in a different language and all 5 computers are programmed by different companies.
That's not entirely true. The Nazi's were damn close to taking Moscow, but Hitler mistakenly committed a majority of his forces to Stalingrad, believing that a victory in Stalingrad would be a PR victory over Stalin. This blunder cost the Germany dearly. Also, Hitler pushed too fast, even by blitzkrieg standards without properly supporting the supply lines, and Hitler split his forces further by sending troops to towards the Middle East rather than completely consolidating on Stalingrad or Moscow.
Mod Parent UP please!!
Nuclear is too expensive to maintain, even though other countries have been doing it successfully for decades, but the U.S. has been concerned about the Middle East and South America since the 1950s. International policy has been concerned about the petrodollar and controlling oil supplies. First Desert Storm under Bush, Sr. then Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, Jr. Now Global Warming.
Yeah fossil fuels haven't cost us anything at all.
I like wind and solar power, but nuclear can provide the power we need to move away from fossil fuels today! rather than 15-20 years from now when wind and solar is mature and ready for wide-scale deployment. Why does this have to be a zero sum game? Can't we switch to nuclear today and still invest heavily in development and deployment of wind, wave, and solar technologies?
When I argue for nuclear power, and I do, I am not saying we shouldn't be investing in and developing other sources of energy like wind, solar, or (as a dream) fusion. Wind and solar are not mature enough as technologies to replace our current methods of producing power, but nuclear can.
Also, Three Mile Island wasn't a disaster and lumping it with Chernobyl usually means a person doesn't understand either incident and is only parroting what they read in [insert fav. news source here]. Chernobyl was a dangerous design even in the 1970s and modern nuclear reactors failsafe, as in the reaction cannot continue in a failure mode. Chernobyl is simply not possible using modern reactors.
This is not nuclear VS. wind, wave, solar. This is nuclear VS. fossil fuels. Nuclear is easily the superior option to supply our current power needs, WHILE we further develop wind, wave, and solar energy technologies into the future.
Yeah, nuclear is a disaster waiting to happen with all the "Evil Terrorists"(TM) out there......oh, wait, HALF OF EUROPE is powered by nuclear power. I wonder why Germany hasn't been nuked by terrorists or had to deal with nuclear waste in its water supply???? hmm....quick, we need a new FUD excuse to bash nuclear power. (I swear I'm not a troll, but for some people ignorance must be bliss!!!)
Unless you are seriously proposing that today, in 2009, we would build a nuclear reactor similar to Chernobyl, which was KNOWN to be flawed and inherently dangerous back in 1977(?) when it was commissioned --unless that is your proposal, continually harping about the damages and destruction from Chernobyl does nothing except spread FUD and promote ignorance of the one power source currently working that can provide all our power needs, until Something Better Comes Along (TM).
Modern reactors designs all have multiple, redundant, overlapping failsafe designs, that as the name "failsafe" implies...fail...safe... The reaction cannot continue in a failure mode. A Chernobyl type accident is simply not possible with modern designs. I won't even say this knowledge was learned the "hard way" because it was known back in the seventies that Chernobyl was a dangerous design.
I don't have a link, so I'll leave that to someone else, but last I checked an MP3 player didn't cost $250 dollars to make. That cost is simply what the market will bear, in large part thanks to HUGE advertising budgets. Apple makes a hefty profit off of the iPod and to think that Microsoft is losing money on a $150 Zune is crazy!
However, even if someone proves me wrong about the costs, Microsoft could give the damn things away and still not hurt their bottom line.
The U.S. people should absolutely want to move to a new fuel source that has lower or no carbon emissions for environmental reasons and should want to cut the lifeline with OPEC for political and environmental reasons. Energy independence is a wonderful thing, especially if its environmentally responsible as well, but using the populist argument/scare tactic of "we're going to run out of fuel; the apocalypse is upon us, oh no!" is every-bit as harmful to rational debate as the big oil companies who run ads about happy children and oil making the future brighter.
Actually, I'm a Political Science and History Degree holder, working on my masters, and I'm a Libertarian. Maybe that just speaks to the sad state of the U.S. education system. I won't disagree with you on that, but....
The "problem" is that the government recognizes a corporation as an individual. Please show me where Libertarians list a core tenant being "large, conglomerated corporations should be fully protected under the law as an individual." I know that the word libertarian is so vague as to be nearly meaningless, but you're certainly not helping the matter.
Look if the law changed to not allow corporations protection as individuals that would do next to nothing to Libertarian ideals. Libertarians believe in the individual freedoms, to (in my opinion) the extreme in some cases, but nothing in the party doctrine states that corporations MUST be allowed the status and rights of an individual.
While I won't disagree with you that the handling of Iraq reeks of incompetence NOT conspiracies to seem incompetent, lets not forget the great length that powerful men have gone to in order to mask the truth. Gonzales made himself out to be a total incompetent idiot in front of Congress to avoid blame and hide the truth. In his case "appearing incompetent" was the ideal solution. Another prime example would be Nixon "revising" history by altering White House Documents and creatively writing his memoirs.
As usual the slashdot tag line is misleading at best. The EPA is adjusting the MPG rating for ALL NEW CARS IN 2008. The system will take into account cold engine starts, increased stop and go traffic, the use of AC, and higher speed limits than the old 70s 55MPH national standard. ALL CARS will see their fuel ratings drop in 2008, but hybrids will be affected the most. So you can create and believe as many conspiracy theories as you want, but know that all cars are effected.
It's already been said once before but doesn't seem to be sinking it. So let me say it again....
regardless of the legality of posting the AACS Key online, Digg does not have to take down any information until they are presented with a legal notice.
Once Digg has been served a legal notice then they can decide the proper course of action, such as removing the offending materials. Slashdot has fought at least two such cases that I know of, and in each case the offending materials were removed only after the materials "legal owner" requested it. Slashdot didn't just decide to remove the content just because....
Digg has every right to not want to be sued, but what they have done goes way beyond the DMCA.
I'm all for schools maintaining a research network where they can enforce and do anything they want, and a separate "campus" network for students that pays the market rate. I pay more than $30K a year to attend school, and it pisses me off that my internet activities are restricted by the University. A decent cable internet connection here costs $39.00 a month. For the 8 months or so that I'm at school that amounts to roughly $320. If all this bandwidth bullshit amounts to an extra $320 to the school, then they're welcome to take the $320 and fuck off. I pay 5 times that amount in mandatory fees. Also, if I'm doing something illegal than arrest me, but don't assume that I'm a criminal because I use torrents.
/end rant
For the record, I fully support the military, the defense budget, and guns; however, it's been my experience that those with "military training" are more aggressive and more prone towards violence, guns or not, then an average person. Everyone I know who joined the military became far more aggressive, looking for fights sometimes, than they ever were before. So a town full of ex-military carrying guns doesn't sound as safe to me, but who am I. I've been lucky and never had to shoot a person, so what do I know...
Let me put it another way. Guns have been readily available for centuries with less restrictions than we currently have, but school shootings seem to have peaked since the late 80s with the majority taking place in the 90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massa
First off, as far as the gun debate goes, this tragedy will further divide the masses. No matter what I write here people against guns will still be against guns. I feel it necessary to point out that only a small percent of the population takes the time and effort to obtain a CCW permit. The school allowing CCW holders to carry on-campus would not suddenly put guns in the hands of every drunken college student, contrary to the opinions outlined above. Doesn't work that way, sorry. However, the bigger issue here is not gun-control. The bigger issue is what is wrong with our society that makes a person want to kill innocents around them? The gun is simply a means to an end. Sure we can outlaw guns, but other means will be used. The string of school shootings over the past decade is a sign of a larger problem amongst the United States today. I don't have the answer as to why people are doing these things, but the "why" is what we need to understand, not the "how." The "how" is the easy part and can change to fit different circumstances. What makes the United States so different from the rest of the countries in the world that our kids want to go shoot up a school? I don't know the answer, but it is an important question that needs to be closely examined.