Show me some facts and I will gladly accept them. You said some things, such as "same thing with cell phones..." but you've given me no facts to back it. I hope you're not just spewing a skeptical opinion from an ignorant assumption... Like I replied in another part of this discussion, I am a scientist and I will gladly accept any facts or research to support the cellphones/cancer stuff. I have a cell phone and something of that nature would be important for me to know.
Unfortunately there are no facts. I'm arguing for the sake of REASON here. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but based on everything we know so far it isn't probable at all.
Please give me some facts. Some reliable research. I can't find any and I would appreciate it greatly.
The big bang is still hitting us with EMR. The sun. Power lines. Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet. Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere. And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.
And your cell phone is more powerful than all of those from the point of view of your body. In almost every case, its in use and you are physically touching it.
Also, all radio signals are analog. They may carry digital data on top of the signal, but all radio signals are analog.
You're worried about Cigarettes which have been studied for years, but you blow off cell phone concerns, which haven't even been around long enough to hold a valid study on, seems rather premature to me.
EMR has been around long enough to study, and cell phones have a measurable amount of EMR.
There are numerous studies to show the FACTS relating to cigarettes, and so that is definitely and clearly important. And, like I said, there are NO FACTS on cell phones.
Be skeptic. Take note. Give it time and do longer studies. But as it stands, there is no REASON to be afraid here. No REASON for a warning.
I would define the word 'reason', but I might get modded troll for it. I hope you know what it means to have a reason.
I understand those things. It is good to point those out, as they are relevant. But with that said, I will echo your last line there... there isn't any data to establish any real danger here at all.
And as I saw one person replied to you, what you've suggested is easily quantifiable and can thus be looked at for somewhat-safe interpretations and theories.
WARNING: IF YOU HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES, OR DO NOT BELIEVE YOU DO, BUT HAVE BEEN TOLD YOU HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES, READING THIS THREAD MAY TRIGGER A STRANGE UNEXPLAINED PSYCHOTIC RESPONSE INVOLVING THE KILLING OF FRIENDS AND STRANGERS, AND POSSIBLY YOURSELF. READER BEWARE! (This is explained later)
You're an Anonymous Coward, and I don't normally reply to these because for all I know i'm just talking into thin air... I have no way of knowing if you understood or are even listening anymore.
But because it is important for me to clear this up, I will reply. ----
The REASON, which I thought was quite clear in my post, that there doesn't need to be a warning label is that there is NO SIGNIFICANT FACTS to make the risk any more than zero.
I'm not in denial here, I'm a scientist. I love facts and would gladly appreciate being provided with reliable sources to show me why I should get rid of my cell. Believe me, I want to know these things too.
But with that said, if everything tells me its ok and NOTHING tells me it isn't, well its hard to justify a warning for that. If that were the case, you'd have to put warnings on EVERYTHING simply because we can imagine a possibility, with or without any necessity for EVIDENCE.
I make some words capital for a reason, because they are important. It is 'possible' for my response in this to somehow trigger a psychotic experience in a reader, who may then go on a killing rampage ending in suicide... Do I need to put a warning on this post?
WARNING: READING ENGLISH TEXT IN BLACK FONT WITH WHITE BACKGROUND, PROJECTED FROM LCD AND CRT MONITORS MAY LEAD TO PERMANENT VISION IMPAIRMENT. READ WITH CAUTION, MY RESPONSE MAY BE HURTING YOU.
WARNING: READING WHILE DRINKING OR CONSUMING EDIBLES MAY BE DANGEROUS; BY DISTRACTION, ONE MAY ENCOUNTER A SITUATION OF INHALATION OF FLUID AND DRWON, OR POSSIBLY NOT FULLY MASTICATE THE CONSUMABLE, CREATING A CHOKING HAZARD. IF YOU ARE EATING, READ WITH CAUTION. ---
And while some of the sarcastic examples I gave may actually have even a smidgeon of actual fact to validate them (note the cellphone/cancer data does not exist), they hardly necessitate a warning label.
Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.
Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.
They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning..
I agree. A search for published science (from university library resources) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.
What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not. Since then, no published work for or against. ---
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I'm definitely guessing it isn't probable and that I'll need a lot more FACTS before I'm going to believe this...
Why?
The big bang is still hitting us with EMR. The sun. Power lines. Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet. Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere. And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.
Also the EMR from cell phones is noted to not be able to break chemical bonds. That means it cannot damage any molecules in your body, including DNA. ----
As it stands, I'm much more worried about our diet, our environment, our politics, our use of resources, and things like Cigarettes.... but that is because I have a set PRIORITY that puts the most SERIOUS things at the top of the list.
What is more likely to kill you? Cell phone (maybe) caused brain tumors (as rare as that probably is, if at all), or congestive heart failure from poor diet. Or what about a car accident? Hell, we're not even taking the effects of hormone interference from manmade substances like BPA seriously, despite having wide areas of affect on sperm count and immasculation due to accumulation in water supplies.
Cell phone brain tumors are in the least of my worries.
How large an area is a zip code in the states? I think in the UK if a company publicly released sensitive data about a people with their birthday and postcode attached there'd be outrage. Muppets.
Exactly. How about my information between me and the company just stays that way? How about I get a little respect from the people who I pay money to?
I would *always* rather pay more for something, knowing that the seller will respect me (honor warranty, replace item, PROTECT MY DATA, etc).
Why play stupid stunts to generate stimulation and end up screwing people when you could just run an honest business?
Let me guess... the american expectation of cheapness drives it.... We want EVERYTHING, and we want it for a dollar. Why are cellphones tied to plans? We want the unit to be cheap. Why is everything manufactured half-assed and unreliable? We need it made in china to meet our price points. Why are our foods full of GMO, hormones, antiboitics, and preservatives? We want more food and we want it cheap, that way we can afford a cell phone and a bunch of plastic toys....
So there is a 2 part disease here. Cheapness-fueled mega consumerisim, and corporate/business greed. We don't need so much crap, and businesses don't need to keep pushing for MORE profits.
Its our own fault. We just won't admit it because its too hard to look in the mirror and say "I buy tons of crap with my money and I don't really know why."
Everyone is a layman in fields other than his own.
My point exactly.
I wouldn't trust that either, but I think you might be misinformed on what may actually have happened. You should know, though, that just because one argument may not be reliable (as you have skepticism for the 'science') does not validate the other side of the argument.
A recent anonymous hacker hacked the hackings of hackery into the datas of the database datastores of the NASA research on the topic that is subject at hand.
Several NASA e-mails indicate that there was an argument at the coffee machine that did not go well and that one of the arguers, Bob Shandley, said something to the tune of 'booshit there ain't not organic matter on the moon!'.
While most would consider a discussion at the coffee machine unofficial and casual, many are fueled in their skepticism of NASA as a whole; they reason that if Bob could be so bold and deny the recent data, that there must be a serious level of corruption within NASA that may even bring into question the validity of the moon landing.
Mary Jenkins, a Washington Elementary fourth Grader is quoted saying "Well. If the guy says something isn't true but it is true. Well then he's lying. And my mom says liars hang out with liars, and so.. well... NASA is full of liars. We never landed on the moon."
Attempts to contact the Obama administration for comment on the topic have yielded no results. We assume the silence is likely due to cooperation between the administration and NASA to coverup the extreme level of non-science going on at NASA, regarding Bob Shandley's coverup.
Thousands rallied against corruption and conspiracy outside the Austin, TX NASA launchpad on Friday; a day of high expectations set for the launch of NASA's new the Eagle II rocket. People from all walks of life stood through the cold and dry afternoon in protest with signs like "IF BOB WON'T, I WON'T" and "WHAT IS BOB HIDING".
One protester standing a mere 400 feet from the Eagle II, who wishes to remain anonymous is quoted with the observation "That rocket doesn't even have a red tip. Chances are it's not even a real rocket, this is probably some 3d projection or something. Those damn NASA scientists are so full of lies and tricks we cannot trust them!"
After the recent uncovering of Bob's coffee-machine side argument, the world is clearly up in arms and now standing in disbelief of everything NASA.
Next at 5: Are America's youth getting dumber? New research indicates widespread failure in critical thinking, mathematics, and basic sciences among public school students. Check back for more in a half hour for more details.
My reply is simply a +1 to back your CRITICISM of the CREDIBILITY of the source of this information. There is a big difference between an ad hominem and a serious inquiry. You also pointed to some interesting FACTS to make your CRITICISM more clear and RATIONAL.
Thanks. (I'm into science, so I appreciate logic, rational argument, and truth. You would think a person who knows what 'ad hominem' even indicates would know how to apply critical thinking... guess not)
Where is their peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal? Is that too "sciencey"? Why do people with no credentials insist that their claims merit as much attention as carefully researched and reviewed investigations?
They insist because they do not know. They do not know because they insist that they don't need to. It's a perpetuating result of the opinionated layman.
I urge all skeptics to become climate scientists. It requires the mere effort of education. I can assure you that many opinionated layman are pissed off at this very comment and insist that I don't make any sense right now.
I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?
Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?
Both are good questions. And to the latter, I would say it is likely because most of our peers, politicians, and people involved in everything we do in life, do not understand these specific things to any degree to which they can make better INFORMED decisions about them. Most people don't understand what is going on in most sciences, but develop opinions on it anyway; in turn, we shape our cultures and politics in a somewhat similar form (yes, the corps will influence politics heavily with their lobbying/influence, no need to reply to me with that obvious fact). Education, or lack of in this case, is what is key here. The more people know, the better decisions they can make. In even a quick look at so many things that have value/importance to our lives, one can easily discern the impact of the layman's assumption on the field as a whole.
I think people need to realize that when they post stuff online, that it is the 'real world' and not a virtual world where actions don't matter.
Good point. And I will develop that point further that I think people need to realize that when they READ stuff online that it may not have been intended in the tone or purpose to which the reader may immediately assume.
You will notice that people often classify statements as (sarcasm) on the internet to ensure they are understood, though many do not think to do so (and are often misunderstood as a product).
I've spent my whole reading of this topic under the assumption that it was akin to the common exaggerated expression "...I could kill xxx..." where xxx is some frustrating or disliked thing in life. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they were wrong. I do think it would have been more effective to attempt communication and explanation before taking such serious action.
If the device and system didn't even exist when the laws were written, then how in the hell can the laws apply at all?
I'm simply saying that the law and intent of the law had no knowledge of this device and/or its components, systems, data, etc, and thus there is no way to interpret or discern from the law that it had any purpose in this matter.
I'm also not saying that anything new should be lawless. Quite possibly I am suggesting that our laws should be kept modernized, in current language, and reauthorized by necessary powers (like congress, etc --- whoever passed/made the older version).
I'm sick and tired of seeing all these crazy incidents where strange and outright wrong interpretations and charges are being made. That myspace harassment case was one of them. This case, regarding search and seizure, also seems to apply.
Get with it lawmakers and officers! Let us know what you expect and plan to do before charging us and impacting our lives in unexpected ways simply because you've been too lazy to keep your job and duties CURRENT. Yes, I can call cops and lawmakers lazy. I was in service to our country, too, but I didn't go home when more work was needed; I did my effin job!
It isn't clear. I just told you why, and reasoned my analysis of your poor argument.
Me come with something? It was you who was required to provide evidence of your claims. In review of even your own resources it was clear you are confused. I even provided the evidence from your own links that is contradictory to your false analysis.
If it isn't convincing, already, that your analysis of your cherry-picked data is, in itself, cherry-picked and obviously wrong --- well then I can't really destroy your poor argument any further and you'll just have to keep staring into space wondering why everyone thinks you're nuts.
-There is no difference it is all in adjustments. -There is a difference, 0.2 deg C -The reasons for adjustments, though well made and to most people understandable, are not valid and thus no adjustment or account for measurement changes is necessary. ------ And yet you've only, and quite selectively (called cherry picking) addressed one major resource, the USHCN. And in your own analysis of that data you contradict your previous assumption based on that selective acknowledgement of data.
You're also, unlike most people, somehow compelled to believe that all of those adjustments were not necessary and have no reasonable use. While I will disagree with you outright, and that the adjustments are well reasoned on the site you linked me to, even if that whole adjustment is made, there is still a positive value.
You're just full of it. You cherry pick data sources, you misrepresent the information that is IN those sources, and then you, without your own reasoning, dismiss widely explained and understandable rationale for adjustment of data.
I suggested another resource of relative information. In your reply you're clearly ignoring that. This is why you should not trust your own beliefs in this and why nobody else should, either.
GTFO. And you wonder why skeptics like you get labeled as pseudo-scientists. YOU ARE!
(By the way, I am a scientist and I appreciate your bringing the adjustment values to light in my own view of the related information. This will key in on my own skepticism to make sure adjustments are well rationalized and, if anything, do not synthesize an exacerbation of the fact)
A recent publication in the Journal of Climate, Oct 2009 (Vol22, Issue 19, p5175-5204) titled "Probabilistic Forecast for Twenty-First-Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (Without Policy) and Climate Parameters." May be of interest to you. MIT has developed a much more robust and comprehensive prediction model that is more encompassing than IPCC models. Please access this resource.
From their projections, by 2100, the 5/95% flanking temperatures to the mean are about 3.5-7.4 deg C. And though their data is from a different set of measurement and such, this would be worth noting when, for example, you feel a need to decrease a given value by 0.5... 3 deg C is still a big number.
From your USHCN link, I was able to deduce that their adjustments for specific changes in local measurement environments accounts for.5 deg C. Lets assume that those adjustments were unnecessary (though it appeared they had well rationalized them). Even if we were to assume we could apply a reduction of all projected models (not the USHCN, whose actual projections are not mentioned in your link, only the difference), it would still not reduce the value to zero. In the articles I skimmed even just today, the current warming effects are estimated to be 0.8-1.4 degrees C. Subtract 0.5 and you've still got warming. Like I said, though, the adjustments were actually noted on your link for reasonable purposes, and the actual projections of the USHCN are not mentioned, only the difference.
I think it is clearly rational to adjust for differences that are caused by altered measurement conditions. It is always important to account for as many impacting variables and changes in science.
I just dug around some more on ncdc.noaa.gov and they are reporting that the last decade 2000-2010 (nearly done) shows a 0.54 deg C increase over the 20th century average (which itself has a value that is higher than expected due to the latter half of the century). And so even if we can assume (i don't think we can, though) that it is ok to discard all those rationalized adjustments, there is still an increase.
You said a lot of things but you didn't reference me to a real reliable resource that could factually and evidently discredit all that I have already read in various journals for years. You say 'this isn't going to fool anybody' but what is your point? You wrote so many things and yet you couldn't do what I asked of you, and you'll just keep talking and saying stuff without anything more than your own words.
Sorry, I just can't accept this. I do have a university level of access to journals. Direct me and I am willing to learn. The problem, I wonder, is that I fear for your sake that the more published scientific research I dig up the more I will believe it. I've been directed to the pubs by vaccine skeptics. I've been directed to them for capital punishment data. And now, if you will please oblige me with some references I will do you the respect of looking them up and reading them.
Yeah - and the part that's not numbers is the only part that supports the AGW hypothesis. It's not supported by the raw data except in the cases where over the past year the raw data has been adjusted to do so, which makes it not "raw".
Prove it. I don't believe you. How much should I bet that you won't prove it, or even reply, or will link me to a non-reliable source?
Slashdot Mirror
Show me some facts and I will gladly accept them. You said some things, such as "same thing with cell phones..." but you've given me no facts to back it. I hope you're not just spewing a skeptical opinion from an ignorant assumption... Like I replied in another part of this discussion, I am a scientist and I will gladly accept any facts or research to support the cellphones/cancer stuff. I have a cell phone and something of that nature would be important for me to know.
Unfortunately there are no facts. I'm arguing for the sake of REASON here. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but based on everything we know so far it isn't probable at all.
Please give me some facts. Some reliable research. I can't find any and I would appreciate it greatly.
And your cell phone is more powerful than all of those from the point of view of your body. In almost every case, its in use and you are physically touching it.
Also, all radio signals are analog. They may carry digital data on top of the signal, but all radio signals are analog.
You're worried about Cigarettes which have been studied for years, but you blow off cell phone concerns, which haven't even been around long enough to hold a valid study on, seems rather premature to me.
EMR has been around long enough to study, and cell phones have a measurable amount of EMR.
There are numerous studies to show the FACTS relating to cigarettes, and so that is definitely and clearly important. And, like I said, there are NO FACTS on cell phones.
Be skeptic. Take note. Give it time and do longer studies. But as it stands, there is no REASON to be afraid here. No REASON for a warning.
I would define the word 'reason', but I might get modded troll for it. I hope you know what it means to have a reason.
I understand those things. It is good to point those out, as they are relevant. But with that said, I will echo your last line there... there isn't any data to establish any real danger here at all.
And as I saw one person replied to you, what you've suggested is easily quantifiable and can thus be looked at for somewhat-safe interpretations and theories.
WARNING: IF YOU HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES, OR DO NOT BELIEVE YOU DO, BUT HAVE BEEN TOLD YOU HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES, READING THIS THREAD MAY TRIGGER A STRANGE UNEXPLAINED PSYCHOTIC RESPONSE INVOLVING THE KILLING OF FRIENDS AND STRANGERS, AND POSSIBLY YOURSELF. READER BEWARE! (This is explained later)
You're an Anonymous Coward, and I don't normally reply to these because for all I know i'm just talking into thin air... I have no way of knowing if you understood or are even listening anymore.
But because it is important for me to clear this up, I will reply.
----
The REASON, which I thought was quite clear in my post, that there doesn't need to be a warning label is that there is NO SIGNIFICANT FACTS to make the risk any more than zero.
I'm not in denial here, I'm a scientist. I love facts and would gladly appreciate being provided with reliable sources to show me why I should get rid of my cell. Believe me, I want to know these things too.
But with that said, if everything tells me its ok and NOTHING tells me it isn't, well its hard to justify a warning for that. If that were the case, you'd have to put warnings on EVERYTHING simply because we can imagine a possibility, with or without any necessity for EVIDENCE.
I make some words capital for a reason, because they are important. It is 'possible' for my response in this to somehow trigger a psychotic experience in a reader, who may then go on a killing rampage ending in suicide... Do I need to put a warning on this post?
WARNING: READING ENGLISH TEXT IN BLACK FONT WITH WHITE BACKGROUND, PROJECTED FROM LCD AND CRT MONITORS MAY LEAD TO PERMANENT VISION IMPAIRMENT. READ WITH CAUTION, MY RESPONSE MAY BE HURTING YOU.
WARNING: READING WHILE DRINKING OR CONSUMING EDIBLES MAY BE DANGEROUS; BY DISTRACTION, ONE MAY ENCOUNTER A SITUATION OF INHALATION OF FLUID AND DRWON, OR POSSIBLY NOT FULLY MASTICATE THE CONSUMABLE, CREATING A CHOKING HAZARD. IF YOU ARE EATING, READ WITH CAUTION.
---
And while some of the sarcastic examples I gave may actually have even a smidgeon of actual fact to validate them (note the cellphone/cancer data does not exist), they hardly necessitate a warning label.
Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.
Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.
They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning. .
I agree. A search for published science (from university library resources) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.
What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not. Since then, no published work for or against.
---
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I'm definitely guessing it isn't probable and that I'll need a lot more FACTS before I'm going to believe this...
Why?
The big bang is still hitting us with EMR. The sun. Power lines. Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet. Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere. And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.
Also the EMR from cell phones is noted to not be able to break chemical bonds. That means it cannot damage any molecules in your body, including DNA.
----
As it stands, I'm much more worried about our diet, our environment, our politics, our use of resources, and things like Cigarettes.... but that is because I have a set PRIORITY that puts the most SERIOUS things at the top of the list.
What is more likely to kill you? Cell phone (maybe) caused brain tumors (as rare as that probably is, if at all), or congestive heart failure from poor diet. Or what about a car accident? Hell, we're not even taking the effects of hormone interference from manmade substances like BPA seriously, despite having wide areas of affect on sperm count and immasculation due to accumulation in water supplies.
Cell phone brain tumors are in the least of my worries.
How large an area is a zip code in the states? I think in the UK if a company publicly released sensitive data about a people with their birthday and postcode attached there'd be outrage. Muppets.
Exactly. How about my information between me and the company just stays that way? How about I get a little respect from the people who I pay money to?
I would *always* rather pay more for something, knowing that the seller will respect me (honor warranty, replace item, PROTECT MY DATA, etc).
Why play stupid stunts to generate stimulation and end up screwing people when you could just run an honest business?
Let me guess... the american expectation of cheapness drives it.... We want EVERYTHING, and we want it for a dollar. Why are cellphones tied to plans? We want the unit to be cheap. Why is everything manufactured half-assed and unreliable? We need it made in china to meet our price points. Why are our foods full of GMO, hormones, antiboitics, and preservatives? We want more food and we want it cheap, that way we can afford a cell phone and a bunch of plastic toys....
So there is a 2 part disease here. Cheapness-fueled mega consumerisim, and corporate/business greed. We don't need so much crap, and businesses don't need to keep pushing for MORE profits.
Its our own fault. We just won't admit it because its too hard to look in the mirror and say "I buy tons of crap with my money and I don't really know why."
Oh yeah, the fact that we get exactly the same comment everytime a fast computer + GPU is mentioned shouldn't stop the next moron from posting it.
Its so horrible. Oh god they must pay. MOD THEM DOWN! MOD THEM DOWN!
hows those lemons?
Everyone is a layman in fields other than his own.
My point exactly.
I wouldn't trust that either, but I think you might be misinformed on what may actually have happened. You should know, though, that just because one argument may not be reliable (as you have skepticism for the 'science') does not validate the other side of the argument.
This is perfect for you.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1481246&cid=30469186
A recent anonymous hacker hacked the hackings of hackery into the datas of the database datastores of the NASA research on the topic that is subject at hand.
Several NASA e-mails indicate that there was an argument at the coffee machine that did not go well and that one of the arguers, Bob Shandley, said something to the tune of 'booshit there ain't not organic matter on the moon!'.
While most would consider a discussion at the coffee machine unofficial and casual, many are fueled in their skepticism of NASA as a whole; they reason that if Bob could be so bold and deny the recent data, that there must be a serious level of corruption within NASA that may even bring into question the validity of the moon landing.
Mary Jenkins, a Washington Elementary fourth Grader is quoted saying "Well. If the guy says something isn't true but it is true. Well then he's lying. And my mom says liars hang out with liars, and so.. well... NASA is full of liars. We never landed on the moon."
Attempts to contact the Obama administration for comment on the topic have yielded no results. We assume the silence is likely due to cooperation between the administration and NASA to coverup the extreme level of non-science going on at NASA, regarding Bob Shandley's coverup.
Thousands rallied against corruption and conspiracy outside the Austin, TX NASA launchpad on Friday; a day of high expectations set for the launch of NASA's new the Eagle II rocket. People from all walks of life stood through the cold and dry afternoon in protest with signs like "IF BOB WON'T, I WON'T" and "WHAT IS BOB HIDING".
One protester standing a mere 400 feet from the Eagle II, who wishes to remain anonymous is quoted with the observation "That rocket doesn't even have a red tip. Chances are it's not even a real rocket, this is probably some 3d projection or something. Those damn NASA scientists are so full of lies and tricks we cannot trust them!"
After the recent uncovering of Bob's coffee-machine side argument, the world is clearly up in arms and now standing in disbelief of everything NASA.
Next at 5: Are America's youth getting dumber? New research indicates widespread failure in critical thinking, mathematics, and basic sciences among public school students. Check back for more in a half hour for more details.
My reply is simply a +1 to back your CRITICISM of the CREDIBILITY of the source of this information. There is a big difference between an ad hominem and a serious inquiry. You also pointed to some interesting FACTS to make your CRITICISM more clear and RATIONAL.
Thanks. (I'm into science, so I appreciate logic, rational argument, and truth. You would think a person who knows what 'ad hominem' even indicates would know how to apply critical thinking... guess not)
Where is their peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal? Is that too "sciencey"? Why do people with no credentials insist that their claims merit as much attention as carefully researched and reviewed investigations?
They insist because they do not know. They do not know because they insist that they don't need to. It's a perpetuating result of the opinionated layman.
I urge all skeptics to become climate scientists. It requires the mere effort of education. I can assure you that many opinionated layman are pissed off at this very comment and insist that I don't make any sense right now.
So be it. Life is strange.
Become a peer. All you have to do is get an education. Quit being a lazy skeptic and man up. Become a climate scientist. I dare you.
I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?
Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?
Both are good questions. And to the latter, I would say it is likely because most of our peers, politicians, and people involved in everything we do in life, do not understand these specific things to any degree to which they can make better INFORMED decisions about them. Most people don't understand what is going on in most sciences, but develop opinions on it anyway; in turn, we shape our cultures and politics in a somewhat similar form (yes, the corps will influence politics heavily with their lobbying/influence, no need to reply to me with that obvious fact). Education, or lack of in this case, is what is key here. The more people know, the better decisions they can make. In even a quick look at so many things that have value/importance to our lives, one can easily discern the impact of the layman's assumption on the field as a whole.
slashdot mods are often, as I observe, sour and pissy skeptics. even if it is humorous to them they will knock it for lack of something else to bash.
-1 troll
lol. exactly
I think people need to realize that when they post stuff online, that it is the 'real world' and not a virtual world where actions don't matter.
Good point. And I will develop that point further that I think people need to realize that when they READ stuff online that it may not have been intended in the tone or purpose to which the reader may immediately assume.
You will notice that people often classify statements as (sarcasm) on the internet to ensure they are understood, though many do not think to do so (and are often misunderstood as a product).
I've spent my whole reading of this topic under the assumption that it was akin to the common exaggerated expression "...I could kill xxx..." where xxx is some frustrating or disliked thing in life. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they were wrong. I do think it would have been more effective to attempt communication and explanation before taking such serious action.
slashdot mods are often, as I observe, sour and pissy skeptics. even if it is humorous to them they will knock it for lack of something else to bash.
ASUS.
I didn't even RTFA, i just WTFV
x2
lets see the video.
nineeleven
nine... ... eleven...
NINES AND ELEVENS!
If the device and system didn't even exist when the laws were written, then how in the hell can the laws apply at all?
I'm simply saying that the law and intent of the law had no knowledge of this device and/or its components, systems, data, etc, and thus there is no way to interpret or discern from the law that it had any purpose in this matter.
I'm also not saying that anything new should be lawless. Quite possibly I am suggesting that our laws should be kept modernized, in current language, and reauthorized by necessary powers (like congress, etc --- whoever passed/made the older version).
I'm sick and tired of seeing all these crazy incidents where strange and outright wrong interpretations and charges are being made. That myspace harassment case was one of them. This case, regarding search and seizure, also seems to apply.
Get with it lawmakers and officers! Let us know what you expect and plan to do before charging us and impacting our lives in unexpected ways simply because you've been too lazy to keep your job and duties CURRENT. Yes, I can call cops and lawmakers lazy. I was in service to our country, too, but I didn't go home when more work was needed; I did my effin job!
It isn't clear. I just told you why, and reasoned my analysis of your poor argument.
Me come with something? It was you who was required to provide evidence of your claims. In review of even your own resources it was clear you are confused. I even provided the evidence from your own links that is contradictory to your false analysis.
If it isn't convincing, already, that your analysis of your cherry-picked data is, in itself, cherry-picked and obviously wrong --- well then I can't really destroy your poor argument any further and you'll just have to keep staring into space wondering why everyone thinks you're nuts.
Bye nutjob.
So wait... This is what you've told me
-There is no difference it is all in adjustments.
-There is a difference, 0.2 deg C
-The reasons for adjustments, though well made and to most people understandable, are not valid and thus no adjustment or account for measurement changes is necessary.
------
And yet you've only, and quite selectively (called cherry picking) addressed one major resource, the USHCN. And in your own analysis of that data you contradict your previous assumption based on that selective acknowledgement of data.
You're also, unlike most people, somehow compelled to believe that all of those adjustments were not necessary and have no reasonable use. While I will disagree with you outright, and that the adjustments are well reasoned on the site you linked me to, even if that whole adjustment is made, there is still a positive value.
You're just full of it. You cherry pick data sources, you misrepresent the information that is IN those sources, and then you, without your own reasoning, dismiss widely explained and understandable rationale for adjustment of data.
I suggested another resource of relative information. In your reply you're clearly ignoring that. This is why you should not trust your own beliefs in this and why nobody else should, either.
GTFO. And you wonder why skeptics like you get labeled as pseudo-scientists. YOU ARE!
(By the way, I am a scientist and I appreciate your bringing the adjustment values to light in my own view of the related information. This will key in on my own skepticism to make sure adjustments are well rationalized and, if anything, do not synthesize an exacerbation of the fact)
A recent publication in the Journal of Climate, Oct 2009 (Vol22, Issue 19, p5175-5204) titled "Probabilistic Forecast for Twenty-First-Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (Without Policy) and Climate Parameters." May be of interest to you. MIT has developed a much more robust and comprehensive prediction model that is more encompassing than IPCC models. Please access this resource.
From their projections, by 2100, the 5/95% flanking temperatures to the mean are about 3.5-7.4 deg C. And though their data is from a different set of measurement and such, this would be worth noting when, for example, you feel a need to decrease a given value by 0.5... 3 deg C is still a big number.
From your USHCN link, I was able to deduce that their adjustments for specific changes in local measurement environments accounts for .5 deg C. Lets assume that those adjustments were unnecessary (though it appeared they had well rationalized them). Even if we were to assume we could apply a reduction of all projected models (not the USHCN, whose actual projections are not mentioned in your link, only the difference), it would still not reduce the value to zero. In the articles I skimmed even just today, the current warming effects are estimated to be 0.8-1.4 degrees C. Subtract 0.5 and you've still got warming. Like I said, though, the adjustments were actually noted on your link for reasonable purposes, and the actual projections of the USHCN are not mentioned, only the difference.
I think it is clearly rational to adjust for differences that are caused by altered measurement conditions. It is always important to account for as many impacting variables and changes in science.
I just dug around some more on ncdc.noaa.gov and they are reporting that the last decade 2000-2010 (nearly done) shows a 0.54 deg C increase over the 20th century average (which itself has a value that is higher than expected due to the latter half of the century). And so even if we can assume (i don't think we can, though) that it is ok to discard all those rationalized adjustments, there is still an increase.
What say ye?
You said a lot of things but you didn't reference me to a real reliable resource that could factually and evidently discredit all that I have already read in various journals for years. You say 'this isn't going to fool anybody' but what is your point? You wrote so many things and yet you couldn't do what I asked of you, and you'll just keep talking and saying stuff without anything more than your own words.
Sorry, I just can't accept this. I do have a university level of access to journals. Direct me and I am willing to learn. The problem, I wonder, is that I fear for your sake that the more published scientific research I dig up the more I will believe it. I've been directed to the pubs by vaccine skeptics. I've been directed to them for capital punishment data. And now, if you will please oblige me with some references I will do you the respect of looking them up and reading them.
Yeah - and the part that's not numbers is the only part that supports the AGW hypothesis. It's not supported by the raw data except in the cases where over the past year the raw data has been adjusted to do so, which makes it not "raw".
Prove it. I don't believe you. How much should I bet that you won't prove it, or even reply, or will link me to a non-reliable source?