It just astonishes me how many places these Russian troll farms end up.
Just like magic, indeed!. It is pretty impressive how much effort they put into the trolling and disinformation campaigns. Almost like the spam model. Throw out much shit, and some is likely to stick. But hey, it worked after a fashion. Probably not much longer, but they are not stupid, so who knows the next volley.
But there is a pattern and a style here that even make me wonder about some of the AGW deniers. While there are plenty of home-grown deniers, there are definitely two different approaches to them. One askes questions, the other does the division tactics. This is only conjecture at this point.
I'd like to hear more technical information about the issue and whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of installing *any* antivirus software...
The main reason you have to run anti-software sits between the keyboard and the chair, and runs a common sense blocker plug-in.
Perhaps anti-virus wouldn't be even necessary if there were less users infected with anti-intelligence.
Well, As much as I agree that a lot of users aren't all that smart, I don't want to delve too deeply into victim blaming. I've seen some pretty smart people fall for some well crafted, and even not so well crafted exploits.
...I don't think anybody really believes they can trust antivirus software or any other software for that matter.
What's that? The main reason couldn't hear you, they were busy installing a Beyonce flash player. Yeah, of course it's legit...
Yeah, because nice straw man. Plenty enough people get pwned without being a dumb pop culture addict who spends all their time on FB looking to share shit.
Besides, we aren't even talking about that person. There almost certainly isn't much of interest to state actors on their phone or computer. The particular case in question was a contractor who committed mortal sin number one of storing classified data on his home computer, and was using Kaspersky's AV software. Of course, and adversarial nation will be interested in that. I'd bet he never installed the proverbial Beyonce or even Adele' App. 8^)
As a normal user in the West, I far more fear my own government's agencies, be it FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ, DGSE, BND, whatever, than a foreign agency far away: the domestic agency can actually directly harm me, fine me, incarcerate me, etc. than some agency in a country on another continent. And they have actually far more reason to do all that to me.
Why do they have a reason to harm you? That's pretty interesting. The question is of course, since you have in essence said that you have a reason to be fearful of everything in the US, does it not make sense to move to Russia, where there is nothing to be afraid of?
Dooooood! The internet is not a secure place, it is designed to not be secure, it is designed to spread out data. Almost any alterations made to it to make it actually secure would destroy it.
The lesson is, if you are doing anything illegal on a computer connected to the internet, you are excercising maximum foolishness. It is both sad and amusing that after all these years, so many people don't get it.
I'd like to hear more technical information about the issue and whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of installing *any* antivirus software.
In the end, it is largely a matter of trust.. If your AV provider has access It's Software, it pretty much has access to your whole computer. 99 percent of us could use any AV software out there, and it would be no problem. We don't really have anything the proverbial "they" have interest in.
Now that other 1 percent..... If you have something on your computer that the "they" are interested in, you might have a problem. If you have say, kiddie pr0n on it, you have the local groups who might be really interested, and the external country might be interested in that if it serves as a fine blackmail path if you have access to something they might like - think a person who has a clearance and a pedi-problem. Man, you can probably get them to do anything you want.
Now if you are a person who is a weapons grade dumfuk, like Harold Thomas Martin who was storing classified data on his personal computer, and "protected" by Kaspersky, well, you have a shitload of problems once caught. He was caught by Israeli hackers who found Kaspersky doing just this. Hell, they hit the jackpot with that asshole.
Yes, and thankfully their FUD doesn't work anymore.
Kaspersky is popular because it wins at independent tests run by experts. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and their parrots should either hire some real security experts, people who can understand low level code, or simply keep being laughable.
If they believe that Kaspersky is trying to access sensitive information and send anything related to it through the Internet, they should prove it through its function, not because a spy told you so. Such as Kaspersky dealing with Stuxnet on a technical level instead of silly stories about espionage.
Your virus software has to have root level access to every file on your system. If you want to access all the files on a computer clandestinely, providing AV software is a fine way to do it. Your AV software provider better be a friend. Now for your demands for a smoking gun, look up Harold Thomas Martin III.
Some security companies are being told to only provide U.S. products
Given the choice between Kaspersky and the FSB vs Symantec Endpoint Security, I'd feel better protected by Kaspersky + FSB.
True, I was really pissed when Arris and Symantec activated SEP without my permission, and wouldn't allow me access to the internet unless I clicked to allow them access to the kingdom.
Took a few phone calls to both to clear that up.
But protection isn't the issue here with Kaspersky.
So what we have is the idea that Kaspersky is great, and all of the concerns about it are lies. That Israel is lying, the USA is lying, that the owner who is/was KGB and other executives who are FSB at Kaspersky are an exception to the rule that once you are in that world, you never leave that world, and that when you give a program where you give the providers of the program the keys to the kingdom, that given the background of th eactors, that they won't exploit what you gave them permission to exploit? https://www.extremetech.com/in...
It all boils down to a matter of trust. I take it that you trust the Russians and the FSB/KGB much more than you trust anyone in the USA? I surely don't, and the concerns about Kaspersky have been around a lot longer than Hillary's emails.
So we ended up with the lose-lose of banning DDT and still ending up with the outcome she predicted.
Now what?
Umm, no we didn't. Neonicotinoids are almost certainly the cause of this, has nothing to do with DDT. DDT, which for some halfassed reason is championed by some as the holy grail of insect killers, a majick chemical that no insect will ever develop immunity to, because majick!
DDT was retired because birds were susceptible to it, laying thinner and thinner shells until they would crack under their own weight. Not sure how old you are, but when I was a kid in the early 1960's, it was so rare to see a hawk or other raptor, to the point that if we saw one while out in the car, we'd often stop because it was exciting. Hellava price to pay for a chemical that the insects will develop resistance to, just like weeds have developed resistance to Roundup.
Under some emergency stopgap circumstances, we can use DDT. Just not regularly. Don't want resistance built up to it. Just like old school penicillin, we're saving it. Because once those two are no longer effective, we are well and truly fucked. Just not in the fun way.
I would gladly destroy every bee on earth if I could sit outside without spraying a ton of chemicals on myself to prevent mosquito bites carrying disease.
I agree that mosquitoes are despicable vermin. Most bugs have some purpose in the grand cycle, and I leave them alone so long as they stay outside where they belong. But I have to ask, just what the hell is the place of mosquitoes in the scheme?! Yes, if the price was agreeable, I would support the 100% elimination of this bug forever.
Or ticks! Little cocksucers latch onto you and can even screw you up big time, via lyme disease and one even carries some disease that makes a person allergic to meat.
Tip - I don't know if you know about Picardin, but its a tick and mosquito repellent that is as effective as DEET. And it doesn't melt plastic or make you feel like a greaser - like DEET - either. I use Picardin all the time.
Is the Thames freezing over in London, with ice thick enough to hold fairs on it, multiple times with a peak in the 17th century, evidence enough for you?
Not at all. That is fake news. Unless you can show the verified data from someone who was there and will swear on the holy Bible, I'm not going to believe it. That's silly, because the Thamnkes could never freeze over. All an old wives tale, told over and over again until it reaches legendary proportions.
Well there is a great controversy and I refuse to believe that such an impossible thing ever happened. And thos people reporting the little ice age were asshole liberals anyhow.
I will continue to deny because my denial trumps any ginned up proof you can offer. All fake news put out by Ice age alarmists!
This is the part that gets me. Any specific local example is enough to prove your stance, but a specific local example is not enough to disprove your stance. If you are a denier, then record lows in a specific city is enough to "prove" that global warming isn't real, while record highs in another city is "just an abnormality" and not proof that global warming exists. Alarmists will point to the specific city with record highs and declare global warming real while writing off the city with record colds as "just local".
What you are describing is the political ideology based people. On either side. They will walk in lockstep with with they are told to think.
What to do about that? I don't know. I suspect it might be the actuarial tables in the end.
Every single spot on earth experiences weather. any given day, week or year, every single spot experiences weather. Cold year in some spot? Weather. Warm year in some spot? Weather.
Several years of non average cold or warm weather in any spot. Hmmm - interesting. Decades? Now we are talking climate.
As well, when temperatures are taken from all of these spots over a length of time, the places eperiencing a colder than normal year oa a warmer than normal year really tend to average out over the year. So an increase or decrease in average temperatures in any year is very interesting.
When decades go by and the trend globally is still warmer, deniers have to start coming up with differential hypotheses to explain why this is not anomalous. So far their taking a political stance would make Trofim Lysenko beam with pride, secure in the knowledge that politics and especially ideology can always defeat science still carries the day. But only until mother nature bitch slaps us into defeat.
So the long refuted cherry picking of once not fully understood data, and "Michael Mann is an asshole" comments only serves as proof to those who have no intention of disbelieving what their owners tell them to believe. Stay true, deniers, your will will bend the laws of physics into submission. So how about denying the existence of earthquakes, tornados and hurricanes - and you will save the world billions, as each disappears.
Well, 300 years ago Europe was in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It'd be interesting to know if the Sphinx snow patch melted sometimes during the warmer period before the Little Ice Age, but we do not know, since data is missing.
Prove that there was a little ice age. Their temperature measurements were crude, and otherwise it is just stories. Unless we have the exact data, it is just impossible to give it any credence, amitrite?
Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
Climate data goes further back obviously, but the problem is that data varies a lot in consistency, accuracy, frequency, space span.
It is like sea serpents, old data, and giant oarfishes, modern data, or krakens, old data, and giant squids, modern data: yes, you have data going back for centuries, but that data is really sketchy and totally useless if you want to infer species distribution, behavioural differences etc. through time.
It's too bad that the argument from personal incredulity doesn't account for smart people who can figure out the differences. Because the smart folks didn't believe in sea serpents or Kraken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The first more modern style measurements of temperature started in the 1600's by Florentine scientists - including Galileo. Cruder temperature measurements were available before, but are of dubious value.
So no, there are no calibrated temperature measurements back to the beginning of time. And there doesn't need to be. That is because there are other ways to extrapolate data. Certain minerals form only under certain conditions, and radioactive data and geological data can infer temperatures. Ice cores can give atmospheric content. Tree rings can give clues. Put them all together, and you can get a reasonably clear picture of what is happening.
Now since the age of reasonably accurate temperature readings, it is as clear as beer pee that localized temperatures are not global temperatures, and that when taken overall, the temperatures on average are running higher than they have been. And any one place is not the whole. And smart folks can figure that stuff out from the clues.
Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.
So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.
Exactly. The measurements are not as accurate as present day measurements, but were accurate enough to get some good science done. That belief system is quite adept at cherry picking, and seems to think that science started with Thomas Edison, and before that, we knew nothing.
If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize,
And we already know they are, because they are repeatedly being surprised; everything is happening faster than expected by all but the most pessimistic models. (Even most of them are being outpaced by reality.)
I think that methane has been released more quickly than expected. And methane is much more powerful of an energy retention agent than CO2.
it has only happened because Trump became president in January.
Man, he takes credit for everything, doesn't he?
Well, he comes from a family of immigrants from that neck of the woods, you know. We'll have to watch Pat Robertson on the 700 Club for the straight scoop.
We just started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft last year???
No, but since they haven't seen a storm like that since 1939, current reporting implies it's never happened before. And depending on what network you're watching, it has only happened because Trump became president in January. Try to keep up. That wasn't a storm that hit Puerto Rico, it's all part of his genocide plan. You can tell, because a politician said so.
By golly, I must say that it's pretty impressive to selectively quote even from the summary, then ignore even that to say that your enemies have a one year attention span, then use your completely made up bizzare strawman to exonerate your man Trump from no claim anyone other that a communist alternate ego of Pat Robertson would make.
It's really quite simple
And by the way, are you really saying that because they reported that "since 1939" thing, that it means "never happened before"?
Are you really implying that when teh press reports that X number of people killed in such and such, in the worst fighting since last month, that they are saying that a war that might have been going on for years didn't start until last week.
But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
You had to read the 1939 part, but did you miss the sentence before it?
For a storm in the Atlantic basin, this is the farthest east that a major hurricane has been recorded during the satellite era of observations. Additionally, it was the farthest north, at 35.9 degrees north, that an Atlantic major hurricane has existed this late in the year since 1939.
Unfortunately that turns science upside down by setting an unfalsifiable hypothesis as the null hypothesis. You cannot prove that radiation exposure is safe. You can expose 1000 people to the equivalent of 20 CT scans, and if their long-term cancer rate is the same as unexposed people, the nay-sayers can always argue "no you're wrong, it was just luck that none of them got cancer" or "those people weren't a random sample" or a myriad of other possible explanations why your data is wrong.
There are some experiments that provide major ethics issues. Under your proper science scenario, one turns science upside down - I presume you mean that is unacceptable - if controlled tests are not preformed.
The problem of course, to satisfy your demand for such. Humans must be exposed to carefully calibrated doses of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and also tested for various routes of exposure.
Then we average out the effects on each group. Since different people are likely to have different reactions in the same group, we need to average it out if we are to give a strict number.
A simple ranking might be "no effect", "recoverable with no obvious effect ", "recoverable with permanent effects", and "he ded"
What we have done, since those silly liberals don't want to reenact those wonderful tests where tehy injected people with plutonium to find out what happened.
I would note that in addition to the above, that the USA and Soviet Union performed quite a few tests, some that our Slashdot nuc lovers will probably get erections over, such a sfeeding orphans radioactive mile, irradiating prisoners balls to see if they will have deformed kids after release, some children were injected with radioactive material as well, althought I was told those kids were going to die anyhow.
I won't bore you with any more, but if you actually want to look it up, there is a lot of information on human teasing.
So anyhow, are you volunteering yourself, wife children or parents to get randomly assigned to one or another groups for testing?
For science to work properly, the null hypothesis has to be falsifiable. The assumption has to be that increased radiation exposure is safe. And only when you find experimental evidence that a certain level of radiation exposure is dangerous, do you reject that hypothesis at that radiation level.
When the neutered Secretary of State says diplomacy will continue with North Korea until the first bomb drops, and the EPA comes out with revised radiation levels that ups the ante from before, I start to worry.
This was the first thing to pop into my mind as well.With both Dear Leaders waving their nuclear dicks at each other. Rumor has it that Kelly is there to tackle our Dear Leader when he tries to implement the launch codes.
You'll know shit's getting real when school students see this video again https://www.youtube.com/watch?... So don't worry folks, them old nuclear firecrackers can't hurt you as long as you follow the rules!
What you describe is only possible with "front running" where an actor can intercept orders before they are placed on the queue and made publicly available.
You don't trade.
Of course. You seem to understand how it works, but want to deny it.
Slashdot Mirror
It just astonishes me how many places these Russian troll farms end up.
Just like magic, indeed!. It is pretty impressive how much effort they put into the trolling and disinformation campaigns. Almost like the spam model. Throw out much shit, and some is likely to stick. But hey, it worked after a fashion. Probably not much longer, but they are not stupid, so who knows the next volley.
But there is a pattern and a style here that even make me wonder about some of the AGW deniers. While there are plenty of home-grown deniers, there are definitely two different approaches to them. One askes questions, the other does the division tactics. This is only conjecture at this point.
Could you get someone that knows "American" to rewrite that for ya, Mikhail?
I'd like to hear more technical information about the issue and whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of installing *any* antivirus software...
The main reason you have to run anti-software sits between the keyboard and the chair, and runs a common sense blocker plug-in.
Perhaps anti-virus wouldn't be even necessary if there were less users infected with anti-intelligence.
Well, As much as I agree that a lot of users aren't all that smart, I don't want to delve too deeply into victim blaming. I've seen some pretty smart people fall for some well crafted, and even not so well crafted exploits.
...I don't think anybody really believes they can trust antivirus software or any other software for that matter.
What's that? The main reason couldn't hear you, they were busy installing a Beyonce flash player. Yeah, of course it's legit...
Yeah, because nice straw man. Plenty enough people get pwned without being a dumb pop culture addict who spends all their time on FB looking to share shit.
Besides, we aren't even talking about that person. There almost certainly isn't much of interest to state actors on their phone or computer. The particular case in question was a contractor who committed mortal sin number one of storing classified data on his home computer, and was using Kaspersky's AV software. Of course, and adversarial nation will be interested in that. I'd bet he never installed the proverbial Beyonce or even Adele' App. 8^)
As a normal user in the West, I far more fear my own government's agencies, be it FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ, DGSE, BND, whatever, than a foreign agency far away: the domestic agency can actually directly harm me, fine me, incarcerate me, etc. than some agency in a country on another continent. And they have actually far more reason to do all that to me.
Why do they have a reason to harm you? That's pretty interesting. The question is of course, since you have in essence said that you have a reason to be fearful of everything in the US, does it not make sense to move to Russia, where there is nothing to be afraid of?
Dooooood! The internet is not a secure place, it is designed to not be secure, it is designed to spread out data. Almost any alterations made to it to make it actually secure would destroy it.
The lesson is, if you are doing anything illegal on a computer connected to the internet, you are excercising maximum foolishness. It is both sad and amusing that after all these years, so many people don't get it.
I'd like to hear more technical information about the issue and whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of installing *any* antivirus software.
In the end, it is largely a matter of trust.. If your AV provider has access It's Software, it pretty much has access to your whole computer. 99 percent of us could use any AV software out there, and it would be no problem. We don't really have anything the proverbial "they" have interest in.
Now that other 1 percent..... If you have something on your computer that the "they" are interested in, you might have a problem. If you have say, kiddie pr0n on it, you have the local groups who might be really interested, and the external country might be interested in that if it serves as a fine blackmail path if you have access to something they might like - think a person who has a clearance and a pedi-problem. Man, you can probably get them to do anything you want.
Now if you are a person who is a weapons grade dumfuk, like Harold Thomas Martin who was storing classified data on his personal computer, and "protected" by Kaspersky, well, you have a shitload of problems once caught. He was caught by Israeli hackers who found Kaspersky doing just this. Hell, they hit the jackpot with that asshole.
For Chriissakes the ACs are Russians
Of course they are. But its fun to troll the trolls. And remarkably ineffective any more.
Yes, and thankfully their FUD doesn't work anymore.
Kaspersky is popular because it wins at independent tests run by experts. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and their parrots should either hire some real security experts, people who can understand low level code, or simply keep being laughable.
If they believe that Kaspersky is trying to access sensitive information and send anything related to it through the Internet, they should prove it through its function, not because a spy told you so. Such as Kaspersky dealing with Stuxnet on a technical level instead of silly stories about espionage.
Your virus software has to have root level access to every file on your system. If you want to access all the files on a computer clandestinely, providing AV software is a fine way to do it. Your AV software provider better be a friend. Now for your demands for a smoking gun, look up Harold Thomas Martin III.
You're welcome, Boris.
Some security companies are being told to only provide U.S. products
Given the choice between Kaspersky and the FSB vs Symantec Endpoint Security, I'd feel better protected by Kaspersky + FSB.
True, I was really pissed when Arris and Symantec activated SEP without my permission, and wouldn't allow me access to the internet unless I clicked to allow them access to the kingdom.
Took a few phone calls to both to clear that up.
But protection isn't the issue here with Kaspersky.
So what we have is the idea that Kaspersky is great, and all of the concerns about it are lies. That Israel is lying, the USA is lying, that the owner who is/was KGB and other executives who are FSB at Kaspersky are an exception to the rule that once you are in that world, you never leave that world, and that when you give a program where you give the providers of the program the keys to the kingdom, that given the background of th eactors, that they won't exploit what you gave them permission to exploit? https://www.extremetech.com/in...
It all boils down to a matter of trust. I take it that you trust the Russians and the FSB/KGB much more than you trust anyone in the USA? I surely don't, and the concerns about Kaspersky have been around a lot longer than Hillary's emails.
IIRC ticks are arachnids, and even if they aren't, they are certainly not winged insects.
True - I was responding to Glitch!'s comment about useless insects though.
So we ended up with the lose-lose of banning DDT and still ending up with the outcome she predicted.
Now what?
Umm, no we didn't. Neonicotinoids are almost certainly the cause of this, has nothing to do with DDT. DDT, which for some halfassed reason is championed by some as the holy grail of insect killers, a majick chemical that no insect will ever develop immunity to, because majick!
DDT was retired because birds were susceptible to it, laying thinner and thinner shells until they would crack under their own weight. Not sure how old you are, but when I was a kid in the early 1960's, it was so rare to see a hawk or other raptor, to the point that if we saw one while out in the car, we'd often stop because it was exciting. Hellava price to pay for a chemical that the insects will develop resistance to, just like weeds have developed resistance to Roundup.
Under some emergency stopgap circumstances, we can use DDT. Just not regularly. Don't want resistance built up to it. Just like old school penicillin, we're saving it. Because once those two are no longer effective, we are well and truly fucked. Just not in the fun way.
I would gladly destroy every bee on earth if I could sit outside without spraying a ton of chemicals on myself to prevent mosquito bites carrying disease.
I agree that mosquitoes are despicable vermin. Most bugs have some purpose in the grand cycle, and I leave them alone so long as they stay outside where they belong. But I have to ask, just what the hell is the place of mosquitoes in the scheme?! Yes, if the price was agreeable, I would support the 100% elimination of this bug forever.
Or ticks! Little cocksucers latch onto you and can even screw you up big time, via lyme disease and one even carries some disease that makes a person allergic to meat.
Tip - I don't know if you know about Picardin, but its a tick and mosquito repellent that is as effective as DEET. And it doesn't melt plastic or make you feel like a greaser - like DEET - either. I use Picardin all the time.
Prove that there was a little ice age.
Is the Thames freezing over in London, with ice thick enough to hold fairs on it, multiple times with a peak in the 17th century, evidence enough for you?
Not at all. That is fake news. Unless you can show the verified data from someone who was there and will swear on the holy Bible, I'm not going to believe it. That's silly, because the Thamnkes could never freeze over. All an old wives tale, told over and over again until it reaches legendary proportions.
See how denialism works?
by-century totals are: 15th 2, 16th 5, 17th 10, 18th 6, 19th 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs http://www.historic-uk.com/His...
Well there is a great controversy and I refuse to believe that such an impossible thing ever happened. And thos people reporting the little ice age were asshole liberals anyhow.
I will continue to deny because my denial trumps any ginned up proof you can offer. All fake news put out by Ice age alarmists!
This is the part that gets me. Any specific local example is enough to prove your stance, but a specific local example is not enough to disprove your stance. If you are a denier, then record lows in a specific city is enough to "prove" that global warming isn't real, while record highs in another city is "just an abnormality" and not proof that global warming exists. Alarmists will point to the specific city with record highs and declare global warming real while writing off the city with record colds as "just local".
What you are describing is the political ideology based people. On either side. They will walk in lockstep with with they are told to think.
What to do about that? I don't know. I suspect it might be the actuarial tables in the end.
Every single spot on earth experiences weather. any given day, week or year, every single spot experiences weather. Cold year in some spot? Weather. Warm year in some spot? Weather.
Several years of non average cold or warm weather in any spot. Hmmm - interesting. Decades? Now we are talking climate.
As well, when temperatures are taken from all of these spots over a length of time, the places eperiencing a colder than normal year oa a warmer than normal year really tend to average out over the year. So an increase or decrease in average temperatures in any year is very interesting.
When decades go by and the trend globally is still warmer, deniers have to start coming up with differential hypotheses to explain why this is not anomalous. So far their taking a political stance would make Trofim Lysenko beam with pride, secure in the knowledge that politics and especially ideology can always defeat science still carries the day. But only until mother nature bitch slaps us into defeat.
So the long refuted cherry picking of once not fully understood data, and "Michael Mann is an asshole" comments only serves as proof to those who have no intention of disbelieving what their owners tell them to believe. Stay true, deniers, your will will bend the laws of physics into submission. So how about denying the existence of earthquakes, tornados and hurricanes - and you will save the world billions, as each disappears.
Well, 300 years ago Europe was in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It'd be interesting to know if the Sphinx snow patch melted sometimes during the warmer period before the Little Ice Age, but we do not know, since data is missing.
Prove that there was a little ice age. Their temperature measurements were crude, and otherwise it is just stories. Unless we have the exact data, it is just impossible to give it any credence, amitrite?
Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
Climate data goes further back obviously, but the problem is that data varies a lot in consistency, accuracy, frequency, space span. It is like sea serpents, old data, and giant oarfishes, modern data, or krakens, old data, and giant squids, modern data: yes, you have data going back for centuries, but that data is really sketchy and totally useless if you want to infer species distribution, behavioural differences etc. through time.
It's too bad that the argument from personal incredulity doesn't account for smart people who can figure out the differences. Because the smart folks didn't believe in sea serpents or Kraken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The first more modern style measurements of temperature started in the 1600's by Florentine scientists - including Galileo. Cruder temperature measurements were available before, but are of dubious value.
So no, there are no calibrated temperature measurements back to the beginning of time. And there doesn't need to be. That is because there are other ways to extrapolate data. Certain minerals form only under certain conditions, and radioactive data and geological data can infer temperatures. Ice cores can give atmospheric content. Tree rings can give clues. Put them all together, and you can get a reasonably clear picture of what is happening.
Now since the age of reasonably accurate temperature readings, it is as clear as beer pee that localized temperatures are not global temperatures, and that when taken overall, the temperatures on average are running higher than they have been. And any one place is not the whole. And smart folks can figure that stuff out from the clues.
Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.
So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.
Exactly. The measurements are not as accurate as present day measurements, but were accurate enough to get some good science done. That belief system is quite adept at cherry picking, and seems to think that science started with Thomas Edison, and before that, we knew nothing.
If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize,
And we already know they are, because they are repeatedly being surprised; everything is happening faster than expected by all but the most pessimistic models. (Even most of them are being outpaced by reality.)
I think that methane has been released more quickly than expected. And methane is much more powerful of an energy retention agent than CO2.
How do you know they weren't just toadying up to Obama?
Because oil companies outlast presidents, and they wouldn't have compromised their position just to buddy up to one of them.
Plus the Kenyan terror baby was maybe not even an adult when they figured the truth out, then hid it.
Man, he takes credit for everything, doesn't he?
Well, he comes from a family of immigrants from that neck of the woods, you know. We'll have to watch Pat Robertson on the 700 Club for the straight scoop.
We just started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft last year???
No, but since they haven't seen a storm like that since 1939, current reporting implies it's never happened before. And depending on what network you're watching, it has only happened because Trump became president in January. Try to keep up. That wasn't a storm that hit Puerto Rico, it's all part of his genocide plan. You can tell, because a politician said so.
By golly, I must say that it's pretty impressive to selectively quote even from the summary, then ignore even that to say that your enemies have a one year attention span, then use your completely made up bizzare strawman to exonerate your man Trump from no claim anyone other that a communist alternate ego of Pat Robertson would make.
It's really quite simple And by the way, are you really saying that because they reported that "since 1939" thing, that it means "never happened before"?
Are you really implying that when teh press reports that X number of people killed in such and such, in the worst fighting since last month, that they are saying that a war that might have been going on for years didn't start until last week.
But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
You had to read the 1939 part, but did you miss the sentence before it?
For a storm in the Atlantic basin, this is the farthest east that a major hurricane has been recorded during the satellite era of observations. Additionally, it was the farthest north, at 35.9 degrees north, that an Atlantic major hurricane has existed this late in the year since 1939.
Hope this helps.
Unfortunately that turns science upside down by setting an unfalsifiable hypothesis as the null hypothesis. You cannot prove that radiation exposure is safe. You can expose 1000 people to the equivalent of 20 CT scans, and if their long-term cancer rate is the same as unexposed people, the nay-sayers can always argue "no you're wrong, it was just luck that none of them got cancer" or "those people weren't a random sample" or a myriad of other possible explanations why your data is wrong.
There are some experiments that provide major ethics issues. Under your proper science scenario, one turns science upside down - I presume you mean that is unacceptable - if controlled tests are not preformed.
The problem of course, to satisfy your demand for such. Humans must be exposed to carefully calibrated doses of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and also tested for various routes of exposure.
Then we average out the effects on each group. Since different people are likely to have different reactions in the same group, we need to average it out if we are to give a strict number.
A simple ranking might be "no effect", "recoverable with no obvious effect ", "recoverable with permanent effects", and "he ded"
What we have done, since those silly liberals don't want to reenact those wonderful tests where tehy injected people with plutonium to find out what happened.
I would note that in addition to the above, that the USA and Soviet Union performed quite a few tests, some that our Slashdot nuc lovers will probably get erections over, such a sfeeding orphans radioactive mile, irradiating prisoners balls to see if they will have deformed kids after release, some children were injected with radioactive material as well, althought I was told those kids were going to die anyhow.
I won't bore you with any more, but if you actually want to look it up, there is a lot of information on human teasing.
So anyhow, are you volunteering yourself, wife children or parents to get randomly assigned to one or another groups for testing? For science to work properly, the null hypothesis has to be falsifiable. The assumption has to be that increased radiation exposure is safe. And only when you find experimental evidence that a certain level of radiation exposure is dangerous, do you reject that hypothesis at that radiation level.
When the neutered Secretary of State says diplomacy will continue with North Korea until the first bomb drops, and the EPA comes out with revised radiation levels that ups the ante from before, I start to worry.
This was the first thing to pop into my mind as well.With both Dear Leaders waving their nuclear dicks at each other. Rumor has it that Kelly is there to tackle our Dear Leader when he tries to implement the launch codes.
You'll know shit's getting real when school students see this video again https://www.youtube.com/watch?... So don't worry folks, them old nuclear firecrackers can't hurt you as long as you follow the rules!
Does the Pixel even COME with a USB-C 3.5 mm Adapter? If not, then that IS unconscionable!
Apple INCLUDES:
1. A Lightning-based version of their standard included Headset.
2. A Lightning 3.5 mm Adapter.
If Google doesn't supply the equivalent with their phone, then where is the nerd outrage on /. ???
Their hatred for the iPhone is intense enough to overcome truth.
No, you are simply wrong.
What you describe is only possible with "front running" where an actor can intercept orders before they are placed on the queue and made publicly available.
You don't trade.
Of course. You seem to understand how it works, but want to deny it.