Are you trying to say that if you had a clearance that you would sell the details of what you were working on to Assaunge or Putin? Or any other agencies tht offered you the money? Or would you give it away for free?
A simple yes or no will suffice. I'm really, really interested in the answer to that question.
If you don't answer, I'll take that as a yes.
Yes I'm an aspie, yes I still identify as such even though DSM-V says I should identify as "autism spectrum"
Some of us, myself included, consider the people who are claimed to be Asperger's as differently abled.
The problem with the Autism speaks crowd is that they are falling prey to a desire to have an "epidemic" and want to include as many people as possible.
When in fact, we all have traits that might put us in one group or another. For analogies, we can try the concept of lining everyone on earth from lightest to darkest skin pigmentation and ask people to find an exact spot to identify their race. You cannot do it.
I have the ability to concentrate on a single subject intensely and for a long period of time, presumably an Asperger's trait. I am also athletic and socialized, presumably not. I'm just a little differently abled. So are you.
I think these are general talking points and they don't prove anything either way.
But I don't understand the claim that it is basic physics.
The basic physics behind this all is energy. A body in orbit around an energy source like the sun will receive energy from the star. This energy transfer might be used to perform work, or heat. A body such as Mercury, which gets a lot of energy for the sun, but has no storage other than it's rocky surface, will show huge differences between it's daytime temperature of 700 Kelvin, and it's nighttime temperature of 100 Kelvin. The amount of insolation that Mercury receives is understood, and the temperatures observed let us know what is the physical attributes of the planet.
The earth also receives solar insolation, but something is different. The earth has an average temperature that does not have the wild excursions that Mercury has, and also is higher than expected. Something is different. There is residual internal radioactive decay based heat but on the surface that is negligible except for localized sources like volcanos. So how is it that the night time temperatures on earth do not plunge like they do on Mercury?
First thing is that the rotational period of the Earth is much higher. A person on Mercury would only see one day every two years. But without some property that retains energy, every place on earth would freeze every night.
What is another big difference between Earth and Mercury? I'll cut to the chase here - atmosphere. The atmosphere consists of several different gases. Mostly Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and Carbon Dioxide, and Water vapor.
As it turns out, by virtue of basic experiments, Water vapor turns out to have a lot of energy absorption. And by experiment, add roughly between 40 to 70 percent of the energy retention ability of the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide between 10 ant 26 percent, Methane between 5 and 10 percent, and Ozone between 3 and 7 percent. This is all verifiable by experiment and is reproducible.
Note that water vapor has a strong local variation, and that CO2 is actually not as strong a greenhouse gas as many others. Methane is more powerful in energy retention. It is a bit of a wild card at this point because recent large releases were not accounted for in earlier models. It also degrades in the atmosphere sooner thant CO2 - although it's still not considered short term.
There are also gases known as anti-greenhouse gases, that have less transmittance of energy inbound than outbound, which is to say that they act to release more energy to space than they retain in energy. These typically come from volcanic eruptions, and in the form of sulfur aerosols. Nasty stuff, sulfuric acid. This is a short term effect, since the Sulfuric acid eventually rains out.
Now from basic experiments we come to comparing the laboratory effects to real life effects. They compare pretty nicely. So well in fact, that it takes an extraordinary effrot to refute them with any credence. The observed effects line up with the theory, which lines up with the observed data in the geologic order. and across more than one discipline.
Is it possible that there is no such thing as global warming by increased amount of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Absolutely possible. But a whole hellava lot of basic physics would have to be discarded and rewritten. The situation is very simlar toYoung earth creationists. Ya gotta have something to replace all of the physics that must be abandoned and replace it with something else that looks exactly like the abandoned physics, except for that one single thing you don't believe in
The Russians are a strange bunch in this matter. On the one hand many of them are right wing religious nuts, on the other hand the very same people glorify the soviet past which was neither. I sort of understand where it is coming from, but it is strange nonetheless.
Yes it is odd. Then again, so is presumed conservatives electing a person who as closely as we can tell amid the conflicting statements - not a conservative at all. Even appointed a Leninst to the security council http://www.snopes.com/bannon-l... who I suspect got tossed off it because of issues getting a security clearance.
Then again, in Newspeak America, perhaps Lenin = conservative?
You must be right. The leftists here on slashdot hate what you said and have already modded you down.
Are the Russians leftists? How about the climate change deniers? Hell if someone posts on those matters, they are set upon like wildebeest.
But that doesn't fit your addiction fot confirmation bias, does it Tovaritsch?
You see, if you step out of your buibble for just a moment, you might come to realize that on teh internetz, any posting expressing an opinion is immediately set upon by those who must attempt to crush that opinion. So it isn't leftists, it isn't right wing, its how shit happens. It's people, not party. It's just like Fox News and the bubble are the right wing equivalent of SJW safe spaces. You can go back in the bubble now, its more comfy in there.
The climate is one of the biggest ethical and moral issues facing humanity.
Now a question is, what is the biggest motivator to ethically minded scientists, money or morals?
Given the heavy moral weight resting on climate scientists and their work, do you think they can remain objective about all data and findings?
Being humans, some will and some won't. Does not change the laws of physics however. Certainly we understand what happens to morality when money is involved. And if an immoral person goes into a field like climate science, which is currently being eliminated in one country of note, the idea that they are doing it for money is amusing to say the least.
As well, you do realize that the scientist doesn't pocket that money. You have someone hwo is making a decent, but in most cases doesn't fit into Mitt Romney's version of middle class. Above 250K per annum. There is a lot more money at present by becoming a politician and taking the baksheesh from the industries that want the denial.
Regardless, that's science versus corrupt politica as is openly practiced. Physics won't change.
Treat all questions with a cold hard gaze, uncaring about whether any finding and its interpretation, regardless of whether the interpretation supports or hinders the consensus view?
All questions? Should I have to prove to everyone on earth that the sun is not a burning lump of coal? Or spend years to debunking the theory of Anaxagoras? Then again and again and again, not actually accomplishing anything, but paitently answering peopel who have no intention of believing - only hindering me?
The onus is on the questioner at some point. It is trivially easy to prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that you can as a human, release sequestered Carbon dioxide into the experiment (all it takes is introducing the gases form a vinegar and baking soda reaction into the enclosure, and measure the resulting change in heat retention.
What is more, if there is anything I don't understand, I can work my way backwards to the basic principles to verify them.
It is not rocket science that human judgement is always prone to bias, no matter how smart and learned people are.
As for money, I'd expect the world's energy supply is going to be big money and big business no matter which companies provide the energy and regardless of where the energy comes from and in what form. We are not talking about the mating habits of an obscure rare beetle.
And I note, we could round up the scientists, put them in a closed room and kill them with Carbon Dioxide gas, and search out and kill anyone that agrees with the scientists, and it wouldn't change the basic laws of physics. All the money in the world isn't going to change that, and not believing in science will not change it either.
You didn't even read to the end of the summary, it seems. The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes..
They are suing because the child has the wrong genes because of the mistake.
I'm thinking of the Old lady who swallowed a fly song here.
No, if we're staying legal here, men can only offer to have sex with women. He can't make her have sex, he can't make her stop taking birth control, he can't prevent her from getting an abortion.
women can't make men pregnant
But they can make men pay child support, even if he never wanted kids, even if he never consented to sex. Can you at least admit that that isn't fair?
Nope, they won't. Dead lock that the OP will bring up another wrong of men as a counterpoint. Unknowingly, they help create the present day toxicity towards males, as all males get tarred and feathered according to the actions of some of us. But there is a real problem when doing that.
There is a present day problem of "Where have all the good men gone?" as women hit their 30's and want to start raising a family. And it's a big problem as a fair number of men are opting out of wife and family, and it turns out to be the analytical and thinking men who are more likely to be a "good man".
Oddly enough, the reaction to this is an attempted shaming of men as not growing up, being selfish, which makes a weird mix with the other accusations thrown at them of being rapists deadbeats and the whole litany of problems men cause.
Which of course, just exacerbates the problem. Sex and marriage and family are actually options for a person, not legal requirements.
The legal system for child support came about because plenty of "real fathers" were only too willing to abandon their families when the going got rough or a more winsome piece of ass drifted on by.
Is someone questioning the reality of deadbeat dads?
The problem, such as it is - is that the pendulum has swung the other way, and in a weird and counterproductive direction. You can leave and divorce your spouse because you found that she decided to create a child with another man, and you will be responsible to pay support for their child. The courts are very upfront about this, actual paternity is irrelevant.
You can simply be a sperm donor, and become responsible for child support.
So the legal system has taken the problem of deadbeat dads, and turned it into a different problem as increasing numbers of men choose to opt out of procreation and marriage.
Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.
That's speculation. The only KNOWN thing is that the authors of the papers perpetrated fraud to get peer reviewed and published. No research has been done into replicating methodology, experiments, or results.
So if you are agreeing with me, fine. If you are disagreeing with me, try reading what I wrote again.
If a middle school teacher or a museum curator can't manage not alienating people, try employing a magician.
I suggest getting all our science information off of politicians who are paid for their votes and beliefs. Hard to go wrong that way, and its proven by history to be the only sure fire path to the truth.
Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.
If they didn't do the peer review, it's probably because the work wouldn't survive it.
That doesn't account for laziness. We don't know if the work itself was bad. I'm suspicious it might be, but it needs reviewed properly.
Climate models are huge and complex, only a few people can truly claim to understand them. They're not lab experiments where you can easily isolate causes and exclude other factors or extrapolate how the ecosystem will respond. There's huge local variations in climate that people use as proof or counter-proof because this year was particularly cold or warm without any validity as a global phenomenon.
Deniers often do claim that the weather outside their window is enough data to refute AGW. I have no doubt that they might have a little problem understanding the modes and the data.
But you and I both know that isn't the real issue. I don't hear anything about radioactivity not being real, and that nucs are some other process is involved. its just accepted. We don't hear much about cosmology, even though it isn't remotely as settled as the greenhouse effect, and there are some pretty active controversies going on, and not many people understand it.
Its money, and who's ox is gored, and who is getting paid for their vote, and inertia, and how somehow the laws of physics has become affiliated with a political party or not. Where once upon a time, not many years ago, the greenhouse effect was believed by most, and how now, scientists are scrambling to save climate data before it is destroyed http://www.businessinsider.com... Who knew that in 21st Century America, that science could become illegal?
That said, just because there's a lot of detail we're working on doesn't mean there's much doubt about the big picture. Take evolution for example, we're still doing tons of research into the exact mechanisms that create and divide species but there's no real scientific competition from creationism or lamarckism that genetics isn't real. "Survival of the fittest" does work as a one-liner summary.
The greenhouse effect is clearly real, if Earth had no atmosphere it would have a surface temperature of -18C instead of +14C.
So when they're talking about trying to keep the temperature change because of human activity under 2C we're really talking about a <10% change in the effect. We are just a small part of a pretty big puzzle of how this all works.
It is small in some respects, rather large in others. In addition, there are some wild cards such as methane released by warming: http://www.natureworldnews.com...
I do not see an adjustment for obesity. People who drink artificially sweetened beverages typically are overweight and therefore trying to lose weight. Other studies have shown that that doesn't actually happen, presumably because it doesn't affect actual caloric intake (i.e., they just ingest more other stuff). So, since obese people are more likely to suffer cardiovascular events, and obese people are more likely to drink artificially sweetened beverages, it stands to reason that artificially sweetened beverages -- of all types -- will be associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular events.
Exactly. And a point that doesn't seem to have been taken into account anyhwhere in the study. That's like a study on the health effects of people who work with radioactive substances, and eliminating radium exposure form the study.
More immediate funding is at stake, more groupthink applies, it will be decades before others can prove you wrong, and unlike falsified cancer research, people won't die because you misdirected searcher.
There's more money in cancer medication than climate science.
But if you don't want to wait decades, you can simply make a competing model that matches past observations, but predicts a different outcome, and publish it.
Exactly. Now that climate research is being actively suppressed, and even the word is verboten, and the leader of the free world wants the names and workplaces of all of the scientists who don't agree with the USA's now official truth that Climate change is a plot by the Chinese - exactly what awesome advantager to the climate scientists have?
Now that politics and ideology have once again shown that the laws of physics are no match for the triumph of will, in much the same way as communism proved that Lysenkoism was the correct science over thouroughly debunked genetics.
Sounds more like the start of a good old fashioned pogrom than the evilz scientizzzs taking over the world.
If cancer research is affected by incidents like this, what's to say that climate science isn't similarly affected?
Pay no attention to the research assistant behind the curtain!
As long as humans are involved, there will be fraud along the way. But there is one beg difference between science and the religio-political world. We seek out and correct our fraud and errors. And once the fraud is exposed, the perp is a pariah,
as opposed to the other world where they are often re-elected or otherwise rewarded.
Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.
As for AC's hand wringing, climate science is not cancer research, with obscure aspects only a few people know anything about. The physics is out there, the data can be perused by anyone, it's like permanent peer review.
In fact, if we want to see intellectual fraud vis-à-vis climate science, we need only look at the denialists work. We'll have to give some rope here, because denialists tend not to publish actual papers, but "publish" on line denial.
But you do the same process. You look at the claims and walk them back to the source. You look at the graphs and check for accuracy and graphic tricks. You check references - although in denialist work, there are not many. You also check timeliness. In an ongoing field of research like climate science, is the latest data being used?
So AC need not worry, climate scientists are acutely aware of the political scrutiny of their work, and are very very careful.
This flying car won't fit in my garage, won't travel down the highway (or any road for that matter), won't land at the grocery store and pick up milk.
It only works if you live at an airport and your house backs up to the runway.
Unfortunately, this is going to be like an autonomous taxi. We probably won't be able to get one.
The fuck is a coalroller? Why the hell treat me as such for stating an observation of mine?
Coalrolling is an activity performed by some deisel vehicle owners, who alter their (usually trucks) to put out large amounts of smoke when they see people in cars like the Prius, which gets good gas mileage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Apparently this puts the roller in a superior intellectual place.
I have no idea if you are a coal roller or not - I certainly hope not. But the concept of people going out of there way to use vehicles that put out more pollutants than is legal, just reminded me of the silly practice. Regardless, it assumes that the person in the Prius is some sort of timid thing who will just shy away. The most crazy conservative itchy trigger finger guy I know drove a Prius. He liked the technology. If someone rolled coal on him, they would probably find he took a second amendment solution on them. Sad, yet perhaps fortunately, the tortured soul has passed on.
Why am I even bothering!?
OH THE HORROR
Chillaxe brother, it was mere jest.
I do joke, or at least I will until someone takes a second amendment solution on me.
Stevia, Xylitol, and Monk Fruit are not artificial. there are probably some others on your list too but these were the ones I knew of offhand.
I suppose it depends on how you classify natural. Looking up how Stevia is made you put the leaves of the plant in hot water, then pas it through a resin, which traps the glycosides, after which you wash it with alcohol, then heat it to remove the alcohol.
It's natural in the same way that cocaine is natural.
As a side note, Stevia is a member of the chrysanthemum family, which is the source of pyrethrum insecticide. Also a natural substance.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole fscking subthread is flamebait, you dumbass Russicans. You won, but you are so fragile.
A simple yes or no will suffice. I'm really, really interested in the answer to that question. If you don't answer, I'll take that as a yes.
There is actually no such thing anymore according to the DSM V :D
http://www.parents.com/health/...
That's because Asperger's became one of those things like gluten allergies. très chic! Suddenly everyone has it
Mostly it's just that "burger" sounds more flattering than "hole".
Damn - best laugh of the day!
Yes I'm an aspie, yes I still identify as such even though DSM-V says I should identify as "autism spectrum"
Some of us, myself included, consider the people who are claimed to be Asperger's as differently abled.
The problem with the Autism speaks crowd is that they are falling prey to a desire to have an "epidemic" and want to include as many people as possible.
When in fact, we all have traits that might put us in one group or another. For analogies, we can try the concept of lining everyone on earth from lightest to darkest skin pigmentation and ask people to find an exact spot to identify their race. You cannot do it.
I have the ability to concentrate on a single subject intensely and for a long period of time, presumably an Asperger's trait. I am also athletic and socialized, presumably not. I'm just a little differently abled. So are you.
I think these are general talking points and they don't prove anything either way.
But I don't understand the claim that it is basic physics.
The basic physics behind this all is energy. A body in orbit around an energy source like the sun will receive energy from the star. This energy transfer might be used to perform work, or heat. A body such as Mercury, which gets a lot of energy for the sun, but has no storage other than it's rocky surface, will show huge differences between it's daytime temperature of 700 Kelvin, and it's nighttime temperature of 100 Kelvin. The amount of insolation that Mercury receives is understood, and the temperatures observed let us know what is the physical attributes of the planet.
The earth also receives solar insolation, but something is different. The earth has an average temperature that does not have the wild excursions that Mercury has, and also is higher than expected. Something is different. There is residual internal radioactive decay based heat but on the surface that is negligible except for localized sources like volcanos. So how is it that the night time temperatures on earth do not plunge like they do on Mercury?
First thing is that the rotational period of the Earth is much higher. A person on Mercury would only see one day every two years. But without some property that retains energy, every place on earth would freeze every night.
What is another big difference between Earth and Mercury? I'll cut to the chase here - atmosphere. The atmosphere consists of several different gases. Mostly Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and Carbon Dioxide, and Water vapor.
As it turns out, by virtue of basic experiments, Water vapor turns out to have a lot of energy absorption. And by experiment, add roughly between 40 to 70 percent of the energy retention ability of the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide between 10 ant 26 percent, Methane between 5 and 10 percent, and Ozone between 3 and 7 percent. This is all verifiable by experiment and is reproducible.
Note that water vapor has a strong local variation, and that CO2 is actually not as strong a greenhouse gas as many others. Methane is more powerful in energy retention. It is a bit of a wild card at this point because recent large releases were not accounted for in earlier models. It also degrades in the atmosphere sooner thant CO2 - although it's still not considered short term. There are also gases known as anti-greenhouse gases, that have less transmittance of energy inbound than outbound, which is to say that they act to release more energy to space than they retain in energy. These typically come from volcanic eruptions, and in the form of sulfur aerosols. Nasty stuff, sulfuric acid. This is a short term effect, since the Sulfuric acid eventually rains out.
Now from basic experiments we come to comparing the laboratory effects to real life effects. They compare pretty nicely. So well in fact, that it takes an extraordinary effrot to refute them with any credence. The observed effects line up with the theory, which lines up with the observed data in the geologic order. and across more than one discipline.
Is it possible that there is no such thing as global warming by increased amount of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Absolutely possible. But a whole hellava lot of basic physics would have to be discarded and rewritten. The situation is very simlar toYoung earth creationists. Ya gotta have something to replace all of the physics that must be abandoned and replace it with something else that looks exactly like the abandoned physics, except for that one single thing you don't believe in
The Russians are a strange bunch in this matter. On the one hand many of them are right wing religious nuts, on the other hand the very same people glorify the soviet past which was neither. I sort of understand where it is coming from, but it is strange nonetheless.
Yes it is odd. Then again, so is presumed conservatives electing a person who as closely as we can tell amid the conflicting statements - not a conservative at all. Even appointed a Leninst to the security council http://www.snopes.com/bannon-l... who I suspect got tossed off it because of issues getting a security clearance.
Then again, in Newspeak America, perhaps Lenin = conservative?
There is actually no such thing anymore according to the DSM V :D
http://www.parents.com/health/...
That's because Asperger's became one of those things like gluten allergies. très chic! Suddenly everyone has it
You must be right. The leftists here on slashdot hate what you said and have already modded you down.
Are the Russians leftists? How about the climate change deniers? Hell if someone posts on those matters, they are set upon like wildebeest.
But that doesn't fit your addiction fot confirmation bias, does it Tovaritsch? You see, if you step out of your buibble for just a moment, you might come to realize that on teh internetz, any posting expressing an opinion is immediately set upon by those who must attempt to crush that opinion. So it isn't leftists, it isn't right wing, its how shit happens. It's people, not party. It's just like Fox News and the bubble are the right wing equivalent of SJW safe spaces. You can go back in the bubble now, its more comfy in there.
The climate is one of the biggest ethical and moral issues facing humanity.
Now a question is, what is the biggest motivator to ethically minded scientists, money or morals?
Given the heavy moral weight resting on climate scientists and their work, do you think they can remain objective about all data and findings?
Being humans, some will and some won't. Does not change the laws of physics however. Certainly we understand what happens to morality when money is involved. And if an immoral person goes into a field like climate science, which is currently being eliminated in one country of note, the idea that they are doing it for money is amusing to say the least.
As well, you do realize that the scientist doesn't pocket that money. You have someone hwo is making a decent, but in most cases doesn't fit into Mitt Romney's version of middle class. Above 250K per annum. There is a lot more money at present by becoming a politician and taking the baksheesh from the industries that want the denial.
Regardless, that's science versus corrupt politica as is openly practiced. Physics won't change.
Treat all questions with a cold hard gaze, uncaring about whether any finding and its interpretation, regardless of whether the interpretation supports or hinders the consensus view?
All questions? Should I have to prove to everyone on earth that the sun is not a burning lump of coal? Or spend years to debunking the theory of Anaxagoras? Then again and again and again, not actually accomplishing anything, but paitently answering peopel who have no intention of believing - only hindering me?
The onus is on the questioner at some point. It is trivially easy to prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that you can as a human, release sequestered Carbon dioxide into the experiment (all it takes is introducing the gases form a vinegar and baking soda reaction into the enclosure, and measure the resulting change in heat retention.
What is more, if there is anything I don't understand, I can work my way backwards to the basic principles to verify them.
It is not rocket science that human judgement is always prone to bias, no matter how smart and learned people are.
As for money, I'd expect the world's energy supply is going to be big money and big business no matter which companies provide the energy and regardless of where the energy comes from and in what form. We are not talking about the mating habits of an obscure rare beetle.
And I note, we could round up the scientists, put them in a closed room and kill them with Carbon Dioxide gas, and search out and kill anyone that agrees with the scientists, and it wouldn't change the basic laws of physics. All the money in the world isn't going to change that, and not believing in science will not change it either.
You didn't even read to the end of the summary, it seems. The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes. .
They are suing because the child has the wrong genes because of the mistake.
I'm thinking of the Old lady who swallowed a fly song here.
men can make women pregnant
No, if we're staying legal here, men can only offer to have sex with women. He can't make her have sex, he can't make her stop taking birth control, he can't prevent her from getting an abortion.
women can't make men pregnant
But they can make men pay child support, even if he never wanted kids, even if he never consented to sex. Can you at least admit that that isn't fair?
Nope, they won't. Dead lock that the OP will bring up another wrong of men as a counterpoint. Unknowingly, they help create the present day toxicity towards males, as all males get tarred and feathered according to the actions of some of us. But there is a real problem when doing that.
There is a present day problem of "Where have all the good men gone?" as women hit their 30's and want to start raising a family. And it's a big problem as a fair number of men are opting out of wife and family, and it turns out to be the analytical and thinking men who are more likely to be a "good man".
Oddly enough, the reaction to this is an attempted shaming of men as not growing up, being selfish, which makes a weird mix with the other accusations thrown at them of being rapists deadbeats and the whole litany of problems men cause.
Which of course, just exacerbates the problem. Sex and marriage and family are actually options for a person, not legal requirements.
The legal system for child support came about because plenty of "real fathers" were only too willing to abandon their families when the going got rough or a more winsome piece of ass drifted on by.
Is someone questioning the reality of deadbeat dads?
The problem, such as it is - is that the pendulum has swung the other way, and in a weird and counterproductive direction. You can leave and divorce your spouse because you found that she decided to create a child with another man, and you will be responsible to pay support for their child. The courts are very upfront about this, actual paternity is irrelevant.
You can simply be a sperm donor, and become responsible for child support.
So the legal system has taken the problem of deadbeat dads, and turned it into a different problem as increasing numbers of men choose to opt out of procreation and marriage.
"It's like permanent peer review"
So it's as good as open source software then? That changes everything. ;)
Just about!
Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.
That's speculation. The only KNOWN thing is that the authors of the papers perpetrated fraud to get peer reviewed and published. No research has been done into replicating methodology, experiments, or results.
So if you are agreeing with me, fine. If you are disagreeing with me, try reading what I wrote again.
If a middle school teacher or a museum curator can't manage not alienating people, try employing a magician.
I suggest getting all our science information off of politicians who are paid for their votes and beliefs. Hard to go wrong that way, and its proven by history to be the only sure fire path to the truth.
Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself.
So it turned out the papers weren't really peer reviewed at all. So much for science then. Good they were retracted.
Yes, it was good they were retracted. That's science working to expose the people who don't follow the rules.
Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.
If they didn't do the peer review, it's probably because the work wouldn't survive it.
That doesn't account for laziness. We don't know if the work itself was bad. I'm suspicious it might be, but it needs reviewed properly.
Climate models are huge and complex, only a few people can truly claim to understand them. They're not lab experiments where you can easily isolate causes and exclude other factors or extrapolate how the ecosystem will respond. There's huge local variations in climate that people use as proof or counter-proof because this year was particularly cold or warm without any validity as a global phenomenon.
Deniers often do claim that the weather outside their window is enough data to refute AGW. I have no doubt that they might have a little problem understanding the modes and the data.
But you and I both know that isn't the real issue. I don't hear anything about radioactivity not being real, and that nucs are some other process is involved. its just accepted. We don't hear much about cosmology, even though it isn't remotely as settled as the greenhouse effect, and there are some pretty active controversies going on, and not many people understand it.
Its money, and who's ox is gored, and who is getting paid for their vote, and inertia, and how somehow the laws of physics has become affiliated with a political party or not. Where once upon a time, not many years ago, the greenhouse effect was believed by most, and how now, scientists are scrambling to save climate data before it is destroyed http://www.businessinsider.com... Who knew that in 21st Century America, that science could become illegal?
That said, just because there's a lot of detail we're working on doesn't mean there's much doubt about the big picture. Take evolution for example, we're still doing tons of research into the exact mechanisms that create and divide species but there's no real scientific competition from creationism or lamarckism that genetics isn't real. "Survival of the fittest" does work as a one-liner summary.
The greenhouse effect is clearly real, if Earth had no atmosphere it would have a surface temperature of -18C instead of +14C.
And yet, people will differ http://www.energycentral.com/c... http://blog.nosuchthingasgreen...
So when they're talking about trying to keep the temperature change because of human activity under 2C we're really talking about a <10% change in the effect. We are just a small part of a pretty big puzzle of how this all works.
It is small in some respects, rather large in others. In addition, there are some wild cards such as methane released by warming: http://www.natureworldnews.com...
I do not see an adjustment for obesity. People who drink artificially sweetened beverages typically are overweight and therefore trying to lose weight. Other studies have shown that that doesn't actually happen, presumably because it doesn't affect actual caloric intake (i.e., they just ingest more other stuff). So, since obese people are more likely to suffer cardiovascular events, and obese people are more likely to drink artificially sweetened beverages, it stands to reason that artificially sweetened beverages -- of all types -- will be associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular events.
Exactly. And a point that doesn't seem to have been taken into account anyhwhere in the study. That's like a study on the health effects of people who work with radioactive substances, and eliminating radium exposure form the study.
More immediate funding is at stake, more groupthink applies, it will be decades before others can prove you wrong, and unlike falsified cancer research, people won't die because you misdirected searcher.
There's more money in cancer medication than climate science.
But if you don't want to wait decades, you can simply make a competing model that matches past observations, but predicts a different outcome, and publish it.
Exactly. Now that climate research is being actively suppressed, and even the word is verboten, and the leader of the free world wants the names and workplaces of all of the scientists who don't agree with the USA's now official truth that Climate change is a plot by the Chinese - exactly what awesome advantager to the climate scientists have?
Now that politics and ideology have once again shown that the laws of physics are no match for the triumph of will, in much the same way as communism proved that Lysenkoism was the correct science over thouroughly debunked genetics. Sounds more like the start of a good old fashioned pogrom than the evilz scientizzzs taking over the world.
Scott Adams would like a word with you
I've received my comeuppance, by no less than the ultimate authority on all things.
If cancer research is affected by incidents like this, what's to say that climate science isn't similarly affected?
Pay no attention to the research assistant behind the curtain!
As long as humans are involved, there will be fraud along the way. But there is one beg difference between science and the religio-political world. We seek out and correct our fraud and errors. And once the fraud is exposed, the perp is a pariah, as opposed to the other world where they are often re-elected or otherwise rewarded.
Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.
As for AC's hand wringing, climate science is not cancer research, with obscure aspects only a few people know anything about. The physics is out there, the data can be perused by anyone, it's like permanent peer review.
In fact, if we want to see intellectual fraud vis-à-vis climate science, we need only look at the denialists work. We'll have to give some rope here, because denialists tend not to publish actual papers, but "publish" on line denial.
But you do the same process. You look at the claims and walk them back to the source. You look at the graphs and check for accuracy and graphic tricks. You check references - although in denialist work, there are not many. You also check timeliness. In an ongoing field of research like climate science, is the latest data being used?
So AC need not worry, climate scientists are acutely aware of the political scrutiny of their work, and are very very careful.
Humans are idiots.
I'm trying to imagine the texting based accidents. Things happen so much more quickly at flying speeds.
This flying car won't fit in my garage, won't travel down the highway (or any road for that matter), won't land at the grocery store and pick up milk. It only works if you live at an airport and your house backs up to the runway.
Unfortunately, this is going to be like an autonomous taxi. We probably won't be able to get one.
The fuck is a coalroller? Why the hell treat me as such for stating an observation of mine?
Coalrolling is an activity performed by some deisel vehicle owners, who alter their (usually trucks) to put out large amounts of smoke when they see people in cars like the Prius, which gets good gas mileage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Apparently this puts the roller in a superior intellectual place.
I have no idea if you are a coal roller or not - I certainly hope not. But the concept of people going out of there way to use vehicles that put out more pollutants than is legal, just reminded me of the silly practice. Regardless, it assumes that the person in the Prius is some sort of timid thing who will just shy away. The most crazy conservative itchy trigger finger guy I know drove a Prius. He liked the technology. If someone rolled coal on him, they would probably find he took a second amendment solution on them. Sad, yet perhaps fortunately, the tortured soul has passed on.
Why am I even bothering!?
OH THE HORROR
Chillaxe brother, it was mere jest.
I do joke, or at least I will until someone takes a second amendment solution on me.
That was also a joke,
Stevia, Xylitol, and Monk Fruit are not artificial. there are probably some others on your list too but these were the ones I knew of offhand.
I suppose it depends on how you classify natural. Looking up how Stevia is made you put the leaves of the plant in hot water, then pas it through a resin, which traps the glycosides, after which you wash it with alcohol, then heat it to remove the alcohol.
It's natural in the same way that cocaine is natural.
As a side note, Stevia is a member of the chrysanthemum family, which is the source of pyrethrum insecticide. Also a natural substance.
Here's a link about the different alternative sweeteners https://cspinet.org/new/201312...
We can scare ourselves out of eathing if we try hard enough.