It would be interesting to see the effects of a hit on Wernicke's area... shutting off nothing but grammatical morphemes, as well as pitch, rhythm and tone, might be a funnier video.;)
Very true. Models I've looked at from the EPA going back roughly 100,000 years show us in a warmer period (yet still within a natural range) and, of course, CO2 levels through the roof. However, with so many different data sets floating around out there (not to mention so many different opinions, as illustrated by this post), you do make an excellent point.
"So who do you believe?" Perhaps Global Warming has become one of the first of many issues calling for true scientific research and ending up with a populace of "believers" and "non-believers," similar to religious debates. Yes, it is scientists who have made all the models. But they, perhaps prematurely, have allowed the general public to start forming opinions about an issue that even they themselves cannot seem to agree upon.
With the Internet becoming a primary source for so many people, allowing the public access to data almost as fast as most scientists, something along the lines of the Global Warming debate was bound to occur sooner or later: becoming polarized before those "in the know" have had a chance to fully understand it.
Actually, a quick look at scotese.com will show that someone who fails to site any source for his data made a website that shows that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with. I could go and make a website with lots of fancy graphs and graphics too... but if I don't cite sources for the data, then it doesn't mean a damn thing.
The number one problem with the Internet is, after all, users believing that everything posted on it is true.
Slashdot Mirror
What to get him for retirement? Ooh, I know! A Mac. ;)
It would be interesting to see the effects of a hit on Wernicke's area... shutting off nothing but grammatical morphemes, as well as pitch, rhythm and tone, might be a funnier video. ;)
I'd love to know how much Microsuck paid you to call a subscription service a "killer feature." Killer waste of money, maybe.
Very true. Models I've looked at from the EPA going back roughly 100,000 years show us in a warmer period (yet still within a natural range) and, of course, CO2 levels through the roof. However, with so many different data sets floating around out there (not to mention so many different opinions, as illustrated by this post), you do make an excellent point. "So who do you believe?" Perhaps Global Warming has become one of the first of many issues calling for true scientific research and ending up with a populace of "believers" and "non-believers," similar to religious debates. Yes, it is scientists who have made all the models. But they, perhaps prematurely, have allowed the general public to start forming opinions about an issue that even they themselves cannot seem to agree upon. With the Internet becoming a primary source for so many people, allowing the public access to data almost as fast as most scientists, something along the lines of the Global Warming debate was bound to occur sooner or later: becoming polarized before those "in the know" have had a chance to fully understand it.
Hmm. A method that yields completely different numbers than other methods. There is a word for that. It's called inorrect.
Actually, a quick look at scotese.com will show that someone who fails to site any source for his data made a website that shows that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with. I could go and make a website with lots of fancy graphs and graphics too... but if I don't cite sources for the data, then it doesn't mean a damn thing.
The number one problem with the Internet is, after all, users believing that everything posted on it is true.