The crux of AGW is that GHGs trap heat and increasing GHGs increases the amount of heat that is trapped. The amount of heat can be calculated and that amount is sufficient to raise the Earth's temps by the observed amount -- around 1C. So far. What deniers seem to postulate is that something else has caused the current rise in temps. What also must be postulated then would be a mechanism to finesse away the calculated increase in heat. Some vague hand-waving about "cycles" just doesn't cut it. That's an enormous amount of heat. There ought to be a specific mechanism involved. Over-turning in the oceans. Increases in cloud cover. What mechanism can both negate the increase in heat trapped by human-supplied GHGs and then turn around and raise the atmospheric temps by the observed amount?
slashdot contains half the climate change deniers and about 90% of the technologically-savvy deniers. And any response that grumps about climate change gets modded up. Idiotic.
The article mentioned the possibility of climate change -- which is only rational. A story about a machine gun murder of a couple of diners in Sicily would probably speculate on the possibility of Mafia involvement, too. But the mere mention of the possibility draws the deniers' backs up like cats on a fence.
Deniers don't even know what they're denying anymore. The physics? The extent? The human response? It's apparently enough for them to simply scoff at the phenomenon without specifying what exactly they're scoffing at.
Seriously, could Hollywood once--just for like a year--come out with only original semi-risky ventures?
How risky do you want? "Rachel Getting Married"? "Synecdoche, New York"? Do you support movies aimed at adults?
The rotten one this go around is Alaska. Stevens was ~11% down in polls prior to the election and GOP candidates were down generally. Then, sacre bleu!, the GOP pulls out surprise wins across the board.
I think the point of this story is that Obama won because the press favored him.
That may be the point of the story, unfortunately the problem with that is that it's insane. ACORN, Willam Ayers, Jeremiah Wright. The linkage: all heavily reported and absolutely nothing there.
Chance one or two word in that last statement, and I think you can describe what Obama is working towards
Well, that's the GOP cant, isn't it? Republican virtue and Democratic mania. Too bad history doesn't quite bear that out. What is it? 10 trillion in debt and 80% of that under Reagan and the Bushes. And most of the rest while Clinton was bringing the huge Reagan/Bush deficits under control. There isn't the legendary equivalence of rotten stewardship. Reagan ran under "government is bad" mantra so Republicans proceeded to run exceptionally rotten governments. Government really can be rotten if that's what you're planning on doing. We've had rotten presidents before, and recently, but the last GOP guys (and particularly George W ) set about putting rotten guys everywhere. It needn't always be that way and it sure wasn't the rule prior to the last 3 GOP administrations. What happened to Republicans? It's absolutely bizarre. It's been pegged to the anti-intellectualism of the Christian Right, but I'm not sure that's entirely it. I think the Holy Roller crowd gave the usual Republican plutocracy thugs cover and so the clever guys have just run with it. The breeding of the two interests -- money and religion -- has just produced a monster.
There's plenty of evidence that the 2004 Ohio election wasn't kosher. Like criminal convictions.
Easy assertions of "both sides do it" awaits evidence that both sides, in fact, do it.
and the responsible fiscal spending he desired overall.
It is to laugh. A good caustic horse laugh. There's 0 evidence beyond McCain's hobbyhorse about earmarks that McCain has any interest in fiscal responsibility. His tax plans and defense spending plans would have created enormous deficits.
Rising temps aren't the only by-product of CO2 emissions: they're changing the ocean's pH. And not that slowly.
Engineering's fine, but global engineering? without any clear idea of its side-effects? When there's another possibility for action? Sounds like lots of people are addicted to their cars.
The entity in AI must have a stake in the outcome of its "intelligence". No consequence to the answer? No intelligence.
The burden of consequence creates what Hofstadter refers to as "soul".
Oil production records indicate the decline. There's a difference between saying something and showing something.
And it's apparent that you get the irony of your Che quote, but I'll just make it explicit: without a damning of the Gitmo trials from you, you're in the position of endorsing the policies which you ridicule in Communists.
I'll go with waiting for science to get all the facts right and remove political/personal agendas.
Uh huh. In what other endeavor is it required to "get all the facts right." before action is taken? People usually act with enough of the facts to feel confident. A demand for "getting all" is simply a request to keep the status quo. An obvious political agenda.
(How did such a trivial position get rated 5 and "insightful"? Oh, wait. I'm going to go with the guess that whoever judged it "insightful" shared the position.)
We reached Peak Oil back in 2005.
Peak Oil: when discoveries don't match what's taken out of the ground.
One of the ad hoc tests of the theory is how quickly opponents refer to the people with the evidence as "loonies". It's axiomatic that there's only so much oil and that it will end some day. A good way to gauge whether or not we've passed the peak is to actually look at production records and see if the production has declined. According to Kenneth Deffeyes, the chief academic petrologist in the country before his retirement, production peaked in the 4th quarter of 2005.
----
You quote Che, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
I wonder if Che would see the irony of the trials in Gitmo.
Posts can already be traced via ip numbers. If comments on the internet were enough to ire our overlords, there's nothing currently that could stop them from rounding "malefactors" up and sending them to Gitmo. (Or whatever.)
If spoofing an ip became too common, that too would be dealt with. Simply claiming anonymity doesn't make you anonymous.
So poor artists with their luxury hotel rooms, first-class plane seats, 50 foot long limousines and multi million dollar contracts can't stand tour pressure? Too bad. Makes me cry.
You describe a vanishingly small number of artists.
Most music piracy is like stealing money from a busker's cap. The pirate begrudges the artist his pennies.
The contentious issue between Intelligent Design and Science isn't Creation. It's Evolution. Creation is outside the domain of Science. ID wants to mix the issue up, but Creation is irrelevant to Evolution.
Intelligent Design primarily wants to argue from ignorance: "I don't understand the processes behind this phenomenon, therefore God." That's not the strongest rhetoric possible, and it definitely isn't Science.
Good programmers are largely self-taught.
Good anything is largely self-taught, but I went got a liberal arts degree from X and my son went to a prestigious engineering school. I've been a programmer since before he was born, but I'm reduced to asking leading questions and stating the obvious when we talk about his programming projects. He may continue to teach himself, but he got far better grounding in CS at a 1st rate engineeering school.
The.9-1 male-female ratio at a liberal arts college is not to be sneezed at. Compare and contrast with the 4-1 ratio at the engineering school. (In one of the majors, you're talking maybe 5-10 women. Guess which major and win a pony.)
Slashdot Mirror
The crux of AGW is that GHGs trap heat and increasing GHGs increases the amount of heat that is trapped. The amount of heat can be calculated and that amount is sufficient to raise the Earth's temps by the observed amount -- around 1C. So far. What deniers seem to postulate is that something else has caused the current rise in temps. What also must be postulated then would be a mechanism to finesse away the calculated increase in heat. Some vague hand-waving about "cycles" just doesn't cut it. That's an enormous amount of heat. There ought to be a specific mechanism involved. Over-turning in the oceans. Increases in cloud cover. What mechanism can both negate the increase in heat trapped by human-supplied GHGs and then turn around and raise the atmospheric temps by the observed amount?
Maybe a really loud sneer can manage it.
slashdot contains half the climate change deniers and about 90% of the technologically-savvy deniers. And any response that grumps about climate change gets modded up. Idiotic.
The article mentioned the possibility of climate change -- which is only rational. A story about a machine gun murder of a couple of diners in Sicily would probably speculate on the possibility of Mafia involvement, too. But the mere mention of the possibility draws the deniers' backs up like cats on a fence.
Deniers don't even know what they're denying anymore. The physics? The extent? The human response? It's apparently enough for them to simply scoff at the phenomenon without specifying what exactly they're scoffing at.
Seriously, could Hollywood once--just for like a year--come out with only original semi-risky ventures?
How risky do you want? "Rachel Getting Married"? "Synecdoche, New York"? Do you support movies aimed at adults?
Doomsday? Howzabout eternal, slow, remorseless decay without regard to good or evil.
The rotten one this go around is Alaska. Stevens was ~11% down in polls prior to the election and GOP candidates were down generally. Then, sacre bleu!, the GOP pulls out surprise wins across the board.
I think the point of this story is that Obama won because the press favored him. That may be the point of the story, unfortunately the problem with that is that it's insane. ACORN, Willam Ayers, Jeremiah Wright. The linkage: all heavily reported and absolutely nothing there.
Chance one or two word in that last statement, and I think you can describe what Obama is working towards
Well, that's the GOP cant, isn't it? Republican virtue and Democratic mania. Too bad history doesn't quite bear that out. What is it? 10 trillion in debt and 80% of that under Reagan and the Bushes. And most of the rest while Clinton was bringing the huge Reagan/Bush deficits under control. There isn't the legendary equivalence of rotten stewardship. Reagan ran under "government is bad" mantra so Republicans proceeded to run exceptionally rotten governments. Government really can be rotten if that's what you're planning on doing. We've had rotten presidents before, and recently, but the last GOP guys (and particularly George W ) set about putting rotten guys everywhere. It needn't always be that way and it sure wasn't the rule prior to the last 3 GOP administrations. What happened to Republicans? It's absolutely bizarre. It's been pegged to the anti-intellectualism of the Christian Right, but I'm not sure that's entirely it. I think the Holy Roller crowd gave the usual Republican plutocracy thugs cover and so the clever guys have just run with it. The breeding of the two interests -- money and religion -- has just produced a monster.
There's plenty of evidence that the 2004 Ohio election wasn't kosher. Like criminal convictions. Easy assertions of "both sides do it" awaits evidence that both sides, in fact, do it.
and the responsible fiscal spending he desired overall.
It is to laugh. A good caustic horse laugh. There's 0 evidence beyond McCain's hobbyhorse about earmarks that McCain has any interest in fiscal responsibility. His tax plans and defense spending plans would have created enormous deficits.
So much easier for me to use than perl. I presume the modern unix user prefers perl.
Rising temps aren't the only by-product of CO2 emissions: they're changing the ocean's pH. And not that slowly.
Engineering's fine, but global engineering? without any clear idea of its side-effects? When there's another possibility for action? Sounds like lots of people are addicted to their cars.
The entity in AI must have a stake in the outcome of its "intelligence". No consequence to the answer? No intelligence. The burden of consequence creates what Hofstadter refers to as "soul".
Uh huh. I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you of something you don't want to be convinced of.
c.f. "They have Moses and the Prophets." Luke 16:29
Yes on both counts.
Plenty of evidence. Do you want a recitation of it?
Oil production records indicate the decline. There's a difference between saying something and showing something.
And it's apparent that you get the irony of your Che quote, but I'll just make it explicit: without a damning of the Gitmo trials from you, you're in the position of endorsing the policies which you ridicule in Communists.
I'll go with waiting for science to get all the facts right and remove political/personal agendas.
Uh huh. In what other endeavor is it required to "get all the facts right." before action is taken? People usually act with enough of the facts to feel confident. A demand for "getting all" is simply a request to keep the status quo. An obvious political agenda.
(How did such a trivial position get rated 5 and "insightful"? Oh, wait. I'm going to go with the guess that whoever judged it "insightful" shared the position.)
I wonder why CO2 keep accumulating in the atmosphere at an increased rate?
We reached Peak Oil back in 2005. Peak Oil: when discoveries don't match what's taken out of the ground. One of the ad hoc tests of the theory is how quickly opponents refer to the people with the evidence as "loonies". It's axiomatic that there's only so much oil and that it will end some day. A good way to gauge whether or not we've passed the peak is to actually look at production records and see if the production has declined. According to Kenneth Deffeyes, the chief academic petrologist in the country before his retirement, production peaked in the 4th quarter of 2005.
----
You quote Che, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara I wonder if Che would see the irony of the trials in Gitmo.
Posts can already be traced via ip numbers. If comments on the internet were enough to ire our overlords, there's nothing currently that could stop them from rounding "malefactors" up and sending them to Gitmo. (Or whatever.)
If spoofing an ip became too common, that too would be dealt with. Simply claiming anonymity doesn't make you anonymous.
You describe a vanishingly small number of artists. Most music piracy is like stealing money from a busker's cap. The pirate begrudges the artist his pennies.
You've got yourself a movie there. No science, but you've got yourself a movie. And a grudge.
The contentious issue between Intelligent Design and Science isn't Creation. It's Evolution. Creation is outside the domain of Science. ID wants to mix the issue up, but Creation is irrelevant to Evolution.
Intelligent Design primarily wants to argue from ignorance: "I don't understand the processes behind this phenomenon, therefore God." That's not the strongest rhetoric possible, and it definitely isn't Science.
Biden is a total tool.
He's been behind so many handouts to the financial services sector that it's meaningless to count. He's a waste of the name Democrat.
Thanks, Delaware.
Good programmers are largely self-taught.
.9-1 male-female ratio at a liberal arts college is not to be sneezed at. Compare and contrast with the 4-1 ratio at the engineering school. (In one of the majors, you're talking maybe 5-10 women. Guess which major and win a pony.)
Good anything is largely self-taught, but I went got a liberal arts degree from X and my son went to a prestigious engineering school. I've been a programmer since before he was born, but I'm reduced to asking leading questions and stating the obvious when we talk about his programming projects. He may continue to teach himself, but he got far better grounding in CS at a 1st rate engineeering school.
The