"Who are you going to believe - fat cats with strong financial interest in doing nothing to halt CO2 production, or imkpartial scientists whose career and reputation rests on the validity of their findings, models, and predictions?"
Well, certain well respected scientists (Dr. S. Fred Singer) have a healthy scepticism towards many claims of global warming.
Second, scientists tend not to be impartial either. I work with them all the time (I'm a graduate geology student at the Ohio State University). Their success is dependent upon funding and publishing, validity and accuracy much less so. What do you think is more likely to get funding-screaming human induced global warming is going to destroy us all or saying that we don't really know how humans are/or if they are influencing global warming?
Finally, I am perfectly qualified to judge whether a model is bad. If you have a basic understanding of models, their limits, and science, you can do it too. It is fairly easy to point out errors in a model (it is much more difficult to determine if it is good). Does it account for all of the variables (never seen one that could or did)? If it doesn't, can they prove it isn't important? Can it predict the past? If it can't, then how can it predict the future? Etc.
Aside from the fact that global temperature rise (or lack of it) depends upon where you take the measurements (surface vs satellite sensor), there is this little thing I learned in statistics
Correlation does not equal causation.
Just because you can correlate the number of girl scouts and the number of alcoholics, doesn't mean one caused the other.
Regarding federal funding, this falls under the "general welfare" statement in Article I. I believe the Supreme Court has said something on this matter. You know, the Court that interprets the Consititution?
Concerning some of the offtopic points:
Amendment 16 allows for an income tax. Was ratified by the US States I believe.
Regarding state rights. They don't have any in reality. There was a little war concerning that idea. I think it was called the Civil War.
Oh, by the way, just a bit of sarcasm in these remarks!
The average consumer wrongly assumes that the MHz rating actually means something. This is why it is emphasized in ads. Your average (ignorant) consumer will find it hard to believe that a slower MHz can actually be faster. Try explaining this to something not familiar with computers.
If this rating makes the typical (ignorant) consumer believe that two processors of different speeds actually perform the same (assuming they really do...), this will benefit them.
Remember, most people who buy computers do not read computer magazines or search the web before buying. They do not post to slashdot much less read the comments.
While it is often the case that "knowing the subject material has very little to do with knowing how to teach the subject material", you can't teach the material without knowing it well. A couple of classes doesn't work very well.
On the other hand, having a teaching certificate doesn't mean you know how to teach!
Re:Good, The New Workers need to unionise.
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 1
0xA wrote "What good will a union do for these people?"
Maybe you should have read the article you linked to:
"It's going to cost them a great deal in the short term to put the savings through," said Michael Dean, analyst with Merrill Lynch in London. "They still have to pay blue collar workers they lay off 95 percent of their wages."
How many places pay you 95% of your wages until the end of your contract if you are laid off?
`The United States is way off meeting its targets,'' said Watson. ``A country like China has done more, in my opinion, than a country like the United States to move forward in economic development while remaining environmentally sensitive.''
Yea right.
First, exactly how is replacing coal with natural gas supposed to reduce greenhous gases? It won't.
Second, know anywhere in the US that has air pollution as bad as China's worst? And what the hell does smog have to do with global warming. There is a difference.
Third, what about population. How much environmental damage is that causing (farming encourages methane production...).
Can you say clueless journalists...
"and the US starts to really work on reducing emissions"
I do believe that the US has really worked on reducing emissions. In any case, what emissions are you talking about? Making a coal plant emit less sulfur won't reduce CO2 production. Actually sulfur will reduce global temperatures (volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Pinatubo's). In any case most plants have been retrofitted or are burning cleaner coal. Coal doesn't "pollute" any worse than the internal combustion engine, hydropower, natural gas, etc. It just depends what "pollutants" you want.
You are correct that nuclear power plants won't release CO2. However they have large problems of their own (where to store the waste-hell it's easier to get a nuclear plant built than store the waste, when something really bad happens lots of environmental damage occurs, etc.) Don't know too many people who want to have one built near them (NIMBY or BANANA are acronyms that come to mind...)
"Next you have the more technical spammer, who has an array of fake credit card numbers, false names, false addresses, and so on."
Maybe ISP's should be a little more careful before they accounts are opened.
It should be possible to tell if the credit card number is fake (gee, maybe check with the CC company).
If false information is used then the ISP should report them to the police.
I suspect that if they did this, part of the spam problem would disappear....
I too saw a picture of the ballot. It was only confusing if you weren't paying attention.
If someone didn't take the time and effort to understand who they you were voting for and how to do so, there is no sense whining about it later.
I think it is called taking responsibility for your actions.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I guess the answer would be no....
"Who are you going to believe - fat cats with strong financial interest in doing nothing to halt CO2 production, or imkpartial scientists whose career and reputation rests on the validity of their findings, models, and predictions?"
Well, certain well respected scientists (Dr. S. Fred Singer) have a healthy scepticism towards many claims of global warming.
Second, scientists tend not to be impartial either. I work with them all the time (I'm a graduate geology student at the Ohio State University). Their success is dependent upon funding and publishing, validity and accuracy much less so. What do you think is more likely to get funding-screaming human induced global warming is going to destroy us all or saying that we don't really know how humans are/or if they are influencing global warming?
Finally, I am perfectly qualified to judge whether a model is bad. If you have a basic understanding of models, their limits, and science, you can do it too. It is fairly easy to point out errors in a model (it is much more difficult to determine if it is good). Does it account for all of the variables (never seen one that could or did)? If it doesn't, can they prove it isn't important? Can it predict the past? If it can't, then how can it predict the future? Etc.
Aside from the fact that global temperature rise (or lack of it) depends upon where you take the measurements (surface vs satellite sensor), there is this little thing I learned in statistics
Correlation does not equal causation.
Just because you can correlate the number of girl scouts and the number of alcoholics, doesn't mean one caused the other.
They may not be now.
But what is to stop them in the future if they so desire?
Or in other words,
"Fusion, the energy source of the future...and always will be..."
Wow!
Someone actually has a clue about what needs to be done!
I agree completely.
So many incorrect facts, so little time.
You need to re-read the Constitution I'm afraid.
Regarding federal funding, this falls under the "general welfare" statement in Article I. I believe the Supreme Court has said something on this matter. You know, the Court that interprets the Consititution?
Concerning some of the offtopic points:
Amendment 16 allows for an income tax. Was ratified by the US States I believe.
Regarding state rights. They don't have any in reality. There was a little war concerning that idea. I think it was called the Civil War.
Oh, by the way, just a bit of sarcasm in these remarks!
The average consumer wrongly assumes that the MHz rating actually means something. This is why it is emphasized in ads. Your average (ignorant) consumer will find it hard to believe that a slower MHz can actually be faster. Try explaining this to something not familiar with computers.
If this rating makes the typical (ignorant) consumer believe that two processors of different speeds actually perform the same (assuming they really do...), this will benefit them.
Remember, most people who buy computers do not read computer magazines or search the web before buying. They do not post to slashdot much less read the comments.
While it is often the case that "knowing the subject material has very little to do with knowing how to teach the subject material", you can't teach the material without knowing it well. A couple of classes doesn't work very well.
On the other hand, having a teaching certificate doesn't mean you know how to teach!
0xA wrote "What good will a union do for these people?"
Maybe you should have read the article you linked to:
"It's going to cost them a great deal in the short term to put the savings through," said Michael Dean, analyst with Merrill Lynch in London. "They still have to pay blue collar workers they lay off 95 percent of their wages."
How many places pay you 95% of your wages until the end of your contract if you are laid off?
`The United States is way off meeting its targets,'' said Watson. ``A country like China has done more, in my opinion, than a country like the United States to move forward in economic development while remaining environmentally sensitive.'' Yea right. First, exactly how is replacing coal with natural gas supposed to reduce greenhous gases? It won't. Second, know anywhere in the US that has air pollution as bad as China's worst? And what the hell does smog have to do with global warming. There is a difference. Third, what about population. How much environmental damage is that causing (farming encourages methane production...). Can you say clueless journalists...
"and the US starts to really work on reducing emissions"
I do believe that the US has really worked on reducing emissions. In any case, what emissions are you talking about? Making a coal plant emit less sulfur won't reduce CO2 production. Actually sulfur will reduce global temperatures (volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Pinatubo's). In any case most plants have been retrofitted or are burning cleaner coal. Coal doesn't "pollute" any worse than the internal combustion engine, hydropower, natural gas, etc. It just depends what "pollutants" you want.
You are correct that nuclear power plants won't release CO2. However they have large problems of their own (where to store the waste-hell it's easier to get a nuclear plant built than store the waste, when something really bad happens lots of environmental damage occurs, etc.) Don't know too many people who want to have one built near them (NIMBY or BANANA are acronyms that come to mind...)
"Next you have the more technical spammer, who has an array of fake credit card numbers, false names, false addresses, and so on."
Maybe ISP's should be a little more careful before they accounts are opened.
It should be possible to tell if the credit card number is fake (gee, maybe check with the CC company).
If false information is used then the ISP should report them to the police.
I suspect that if they did this, part of the spam problem would disappear....
I too saw a picture of the ballot. It was only confusing if you weren't paying attention.
If someone didn't take the time and effort to understand who they you were voting for and how to do so, there is no sense whining about it later.
I think it is called taking responsibility for your actions.