Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so.
You've already failed to comprehend. Maybe before you post a big-assed TL;DR, you take the time to know something about the subject your are blathering on about.. that way when we don't bother reading what you said, at least what you said applied to the subject.. even if we didn't read it.
You touched on but I think you missed the #1 biggest winner for high end GPU's as it pertains to most GPGPU stuff.. convolution.
It is not an exaggeration to call these things super-convolvers, excelling at doing large-scale pairwise multiply-and-add's on arrays of floats, which can be leveraged to do more specific things like large matrix multiplication in what amounts to (in practice) sub-linear time. A great many different problem sets can be expressed as a series of convolutions, including neural networks, navier stokes, fourier, signal filtering, cross-correlation, and so on and on..
You don't even want to hide how incredibly dumbfuckingblindedly biased you are?
Heres a tip. Stop paying attention to sites that moderate content by deleting dissenting opinions, run by people who delete data in order to hide problems with their work, and even plots to ruin the credibility of peer reviewed journals that publish articles with dissenting views.
When was the last time any of these guys actually performed the scientific method? Instead of doing science, they fuck around in another discipline (statistics) which they arent properly schooled in.. and who do they hide their methods from? People with math degrees.
Based on the knowledge we have, there isglobal warming going on, you can argue all you want, but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that.
Not according to the leading climatologists when they talk in private. Instead they discuss how worried that they have no explanation for why real world temperature measurements are going down, rather than up.
Models are for suckers compared to the value of real world measurements.. and these guys are trying to come up with something, anything, that will explain the global decrease in MEASURED temperatures over the last decade in the context of maintaining the global warming theory.
And I quote an email from Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann in August of this year:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
CERES is a project to measure earths radiative output... that is.. how much energy is leaving the system.
This is an admission that (a) its not warming, and (b) we dont have a fucking clue how much radiation leaves the system, or even how it is doing so.br
Hey dipshit, a climate change skeptic (McIntrye) found an error in nasa's GISS data and forced NASA to restate the facts of the matter, that 1998 was NOT the hottest year on record.. thats record belongs to 1934, and 3 of the 5 hottest were before 1940.
The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.
What is the minimum set of real world observations that might falsify the AGW theory?
Is there such a set? If it rains more then thats global warming but if it rains less then thats global warming too. If there is less ice over there then thats global warming but if there is more ice over there then thats global warming too. If there are more hurricanes this year then thats global warming, but if there are less hurricanes this year than thats global warming too.
Its been cooling since 1998 but thats not enough, and no other observations are allowed to invalidate global warming because global warming supposedly explains all of them.
..or we can research one of the cheap methods to control global climate that we already know are feasible. It's called Geoengineering and is actively being ignored by the likes of the IPCC, which seems dead-set on control over carbon emissions instead of control over climate (why would that be?)
If a section is more noisy than another for a known reason, then you have an expected variance with which to work with and can act on the data within the realm of that expected variance. Dealing with how the data differs from that expected variance, and so forth.
You don't just skip over inconvenient data.
This is why dipshit earth scientists shouldn't be doing statistics. Thats right, all of these guys are doing statistics, not science, yet not one of them is a statistics expert.
Yes. Researchers were calling it Climate Change before 1998.
You don't find it a tad bit odd that a decade of cooling, while CO2 continues to rise at an ever increasing rate, does not falsify the theory of AGW?
Prior to Global Warming is was Global Cooling. Yes, Global Cooling was never made as big a deal of.. but maybe that was because it started getting warmer before the theory could pick up momentum. Calling it Climate Change is hedging the bet, as in lets not make the same mistake twice by actually pick a direction.
Its clearly an unfalsifiable theory that we've got here today. Direct instrumental observations for a decade don't agree with the theory, but thats just not enough to falsify it.
If they take public money for the purposes of doing the work, then YES we do need to send them to prison. Thats MY money. Thats YOUR money. Thats OUR money.
For your theory #1, the current data doesn't fit. Its been cooling for a decade and there is even an email about it with one of those guys asking the other what they should do about the current evidence, with a hint that the instrumental record (direct observations!) must be wrong.
Thats how deeply they feel about maintaining their position. They have real data, direct observations of temperature, that disagrees with their theory and their thinking is that the direct observations must be wrong... but all that tree ring and ice core stuff must be right, of course.
Yes, there is an email about those thousands. Perhaps you should read about how one of these guys gave instructions to another to not check any credentials when gathering their list of thousands. Saying that they can't afford to wait, that they must get as many names as possible out before Kyoto.
The people these emails are from (and its not that many, really) are the same people that keep repeating "consensus." These people cite each others research while recommending that each other play the role of peer reviewer for the journals.
The guys in these emails don't do science, but they do publish a lot. What they (Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wang, Hansen, and a few others) do is they take other peoples data, then do shit with it.. but wont tell anyone but themselves what they are doing with it and they never use all of the data and wont tell you which data they used. Mostly what they do should boil down to STATISTICS, but none of these guys are expert statisticians. Not a single one of them.
These guys run various climate-related panels, institutions, and so forth (such as the IPCC, the NOAA,..) because they publish more than anyone else in the field. They can publish more because they dont actually do that whole pesky scientific method shit like going out and collecting ice cores, measuring tree rings, digging holes, or checking up on the global surface station network.
Have they been caught red handed? Probably. They have certainly been caught obstructing freedom of information requests (with a group of them emailing each other making sure they ALL deleted their shit.) Will this matter? Probably not. Politicians don't give a shit whats true and whats not. Global Warming is a chance to regulate everybody on the planet.
Well, first off, the world gov are all pushing CO2 emissions as being the big thing.
Of course they are. All economic activity emits CO2. This is the next big power grab, and it will create the largest system of back scratching and kickbacks this world has ever seen... and may ever see. It really and truly doesnt get any bigger than this, folks.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so.
You've already failed to comprehend. Maybe before you post a big-assed TL;DR, you take the time to know something about the subject your are blathering on about.. that way when we don't bother reading what you said, at least what you said applied to the subject.. even if we didn't read it.
Opera Mini is not freeware. Its a product which is sold to the manufacturers of cellphones and so forth.
You touched on but I think you missed the #1 biggest winner for high end GPU's as it pertains to most GPGPU stuff.. convolution.
It is not an exaggeration to call these things super-convolvers, excelling at doing large-scale pairwise multiply-and-add's on arrays of floats, which can be leveraged to do more specific things like large matrix multiplication in what amounts to (in practice) sub-linear time. A great many different problem sets can be expressed as a series of convolutions, including neural networks, navier stokes, fourier, signal filtering, cross-correlation, and so on and on..
You don't even want to hide how incredibly dumbfuckingblindedly biased you are?
Heres a tip. Stop paying attention to sites that moderate content by deleting dissenting opinions, run by people who delete data in order to hide problems with their work, and even plots to ruin the credibility of peer reviewed journals that publish articles with dissenting views.
When was the last time any of these guys actually performed the scientific method? Instead of doing science, they fuck around in another discipline (statistics) which they arent properly schooled in.. and who do they hide their methods from? People with math degrees.
Let me google that for you
Hey lazy dipshit
let me google that for you
For the record, realclimate is run by one of the very people with emails in the liberated data, and he is very very worried.
Efforts to control climate change require the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Yeah... there can't be any other way.. right? Its got to be through the largest system of kickbacks and back scratching ever devised.
Based on the knowledge we have, there isglobal warming going on, you can argue all you want, but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that.
Not according to the leading climatologists when they talk in private. Instead they discuss how worried that they have no explanation for why real world temperature measurements are going down, rather than up.
Models are for suckers compared to the value of real world measurements.. and these guys are trying to come up with something, anything, that will explain the global decrease in MEASURED temperatures over the last decade in the context of maintaining the global warming theory.
And I quote an email from Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann in August of this year:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
CERES is a project to measure earths radiative output... that is.. how much energy is leaving the system.
This is an admission that (a) its not warming, and (b) we dont have a fucking clue how much radiation leaves the system, or even how it is doing so.br
Why are you misrepresenting the consensus you have as one that predicts a catastrophe?
You do realize that the location of these things is near building and stuff, so pretty much not representative of even local temperatures?
Yeah.. about that sigh of yours
Nickel and water eh?
Do realize that nickel is toxic to marine life?
Hey dipshit, a climate change skeptic (McIntrye) found an error in nasa's GISS data and forced NASA to restate the facts of the matter, that 1998 was NOT the hottest year on record.. thats record belongs to 1934, and 3 of the 5 hottest were before 1940.
hey moron quoting old invalidated new, click here
The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.
What is the minimum set of real world observations that might falsify the AGW theory?
Is there such a set? If it rains more then thats global warming but if it rains less then thats global warming too. If there is less ice over there then thats global warming but if there is more ice over there then thats global warming too. If there are more hurricanes this year then thats global warming, but if there are less hurricanes this year than thats global warming too.
Its been cooling since 1998 but thats not enough, and no other observations are allowed to invalidate global warming because global warming supposedly explains all of them.
Editors don't evaluate papers for merit. Editors evaluate papers for profitability. Its up to peer reviewers to evaluate papers for merit.
In short, you are wrong.
..or we can research one of the cheap methods to control global climate that we already know are feasible. It's called Geoengineering and is actively being ignored by the likes of the IPCC, which seems dead-set on control over carbon emissions instead of control over climate (why would that be?)
Oh yes, data produced by Hansen. Try replicating that table using the original data which is also available at the NOAA.
I dare ya.
If a section is more noisy than another for a known reason, then you have an expected variance with which to work with and can act on the data within the realm of that expected variance. Dealing with how the data differs from that expected variance, and so forth.
You don't just skip over inconvenient data.
This is why dipshit earth scientists shouldn't be doing statistics. Thats right, all of these guys are doing statistics, not science, yet not one of them is a statistics expert.
Don't forget that they intentionally (allegedly, but come on.. it must have been) broke Intel Atom support in OS X as well
Yes. Researchers were calling it Climate Change before 1998.
You don't find it a tad bit odd that a decade of cooling, while CO2 continues to rise at an ever increasing rate, does not falsify the theory of AGW?
Prior to Global Warming is was Global Cooling. Yes, Global Cooling was never made as big a deal of.. but maybe that was because it started getting warmer before the theory could pick up momentum. Calling it Climate Change is hedging the bet, as in lets not make the same mistake twice by actually pick a direction.
Its clearly an unfalsifiable theory that we've got here today. Direct instrumental observations for a decade don't agree with the theory, but thats just not enough to falsify it.
If they take public money for the purposes of doing the work, then YES we do need to send them to prison. Thats MY money. Thats YOUR money. Thats OUR money.
For your theory #1, the current data doesn't fit. Its been cooling for a decade and there is even an email about it with one of those guys asking the other what they should do about the current evidence, with a hint that the instrumental record (direct observations!) must be wrong.
Thats how deeply they feel about maintaining their position. They have real data, direct observations of temperature, that disagrees with their theory and their thinking is that the direct observations must be wrong... but all that tree ring and ice core stuff must be right, of course.
You can't make this shit up.
Are you really telling us that you reject papers only because they contain data that does not fit the prevailing theory?
Well holy fucking shit. That other poster is right, you are a fucking scumbag.
Yes, there is an email about those thousands. Perhaps you should read about how one of these guys gave instructions to another to not check any credentials when gathering their list of thousands. Saying that they can't afford to wait, that they must get as many names as possible out before Kyoto.
..) because they publish more than anyone else in the field. They can publish more because they dont actually do that whole pesky scientific method shit like going out and collecting ice cores, measuring tree rings, digging holes, or checking up on the global surface station network.
The people these emails are from (and its not that many, really) are the same people that keep repeating "consensus." These people cite each others research while recommending that each other play the role of peer reviewer for the journals.
The guys in these emails don't do science, but they do publish a lot. What they (Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wang, Hansen, and a few others) do is they take other peoples data, then do shit with it.. but wont tell anyone but themselves what they are doing with it and they never use all of the data and wont tell you which data they used. Mostly what they do should boil down to STATISTICS, but none of these guys are expert statisticians. Not a single one of them.
These guys run various climate-related panels, institutions, and so forth (such as the IPCC, the NOAA,
Have they been caught red handed? Probably. They have certainly been caught obstructing freedom of information requests (with a group of them emailing each other making sure they ALL deleted their shit.) Will this matter? Probably not. Politicians don't give a shit whats true and whats not. Global Warming is a chance to regulate everybody on the planet.
Well, first off, the world gov are all pushing CO2 emissions as being the big thing.
Of course they are. All economic activity emits CO2. This is the next big power grab, and it will create the largest system of back scratching and kickbacks this world has ever seen... and may ever see. It really and truly doesnt get any bigger than this, folks.