Published or Unpublished is not a reliable indicator of quality or reliability. Google Andrew Wakefield for a great example of published rubbish.
Am I understanding you correctly here? "Because the foundation of the world's scientific knowledge has failed at times before, its worthless and we should trust random things written by people with no credentials that no experts in the field have reviewed as much as everything else"?
I just wrote on a napkin, "The world is flat". Clearly that's as good as peer-reviewed science because of Andrew Wakefield.
Not that it'd even matter anyway, as meteorologists aren't climatologists, and actually deal with very different phenomena. It's the difference between a biologist and a paleontologist.
In the one paper Watts' name is on that's been published (see above), they actually reach the conclusion that there is no statistical difference in means between poor and good stations according to Watts' own dataset.
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications.
Which had already been determined. I'm amazed that Watts was willing to put his name on a paper that basically undercuts his entire premise and says the same thing as papers he's been railing against for ages. Check out the lead author's summary of the paper, in particular the Q and A section. Although my favorite quote is:
we found that the global average surface temperature may be higher than what has been reported by NCDC and others as a result in the bias in the landscape area where the observing sites are situated.
Wow, Watts, you sure shot things out of the park with that one!
The issue is not *that* the climate is changing. It's the *rate* of change that's the issue. And sorry, but choosing between an AC posting a random website, and "the scientific process", I'm going to go with "the scientific process".
To elaborate on the problem, I started reading the "paper" and he's outright misleading right on the first page. He says that siting in peer-reviewed works showed an effect on minimum temperatures but no effect on the mean. The actual papers show a small increase in minimum temperatures, but a much larger *decrease* in maximum temperatures. I'm also noticing in the paper him mixing in peer-reviewed cites with non-peer-reviewed cites without even commenting on the fact that he's doing so, which is a huge no-no.
Basically, his previous work not having shown what he claimed it showed after the peer-reviewed process got ahold of it, he simply changed his formula until it showed a different result. Which will almost certainly get likewise ripped up.
Here's the reality of the situation. The many papers published on the subject of the land record and all of their reviewers are not idiots ignorant of Watts' rogue genius. The issues that he "raises" have been discussed and analyzed for ages. Because of these issues, nobody just takes the raw data and submits it as a result. There are all sorts of calculations to detect biases and compensate for them, and all of these adjustments are analyzed with higher-precision real-world data to see how well they work, as well as cross-correlated with totally different lines of measurement. One study, to pick a random example among many, broke the data down between windy days and calm days, as the urban heat island effect dramatically diminishes on windy days. The calm results were then compared with the windy results to see if they reached the same conclusion.
Of course, it should be obvious that Watts is wrong just by even a rudimentary look at the surface warming trends. Notice where they're strongest, generally? Sparsely populated areas. We're supposed to believe that the extreme warming of Siberian or Canadian tundra is due to a "urban heat island effect" not visible in, for example, New York, Tokyo, London or Los Angeles?
Needless to say, you don't just have to judge based on your eyes; this has been statistically analyzed and published as well.
If it's public, then stop shouting and screaming and pointing fingers like little children and act like a proper scientist and show where it's flawed, if it is.
Which is exactly what the peer-review process does. Which is why you never trust non-peer-reviewed work. I can write whatever I want about anything, make it look like a paper, and then send it out to the media. Which is precisely what happened here.
you would have taken the odd FTL results from the Italian physicists to be true
You're walking down precisely the opposite road. Even one peer-reviewed paper on "remarkable claims" isn't enough - that's just the start of a process that can only be confirmed by a series of followup studies, spawning a process that can lead to dozens or hundreds of papers before one can feel confident in the truth of the matter.
This here is *zero* published results.
Science has checking and verifying results as a major part of itself.
And the scientific process is the peer-review process, which this has not undergone, and will almost certainly fail like Watts' other "work". If he even bothers actually submitting it instead of just saying that he's going to.
It's not peer-reviewed. Everything else he's submitted for peer review on the matter of climate change has been ripped to shreds; why should this be any different?
No, he's a well known denier (probably *the* most well known among lay people). He's not a climatologist; he's a local meteorologist for a small Fox affiliate in southern California. And this is unpublished, and will almost certainly be ripped to shreds when it gets submitted, like most of the other trash he submits. He's funded by the Heartland Institute (a conservative organization that takes industry money and uses it to push various forms of denial of interest to them, including things like global warming denial (funded by Koch Industries), denial of the links between tobacco and cancer (funded by Philip-Morris), etc.)
Fucking retarded editor. I want to murder you for this.
Fine, except that he's hiding deep inside a dungeon in Death Mountain, and to get access to it, you'll need to collect the pieces of a sacred relic of power from different dungeons scattered across the land...
And that matters toward this case how...? The UK is 10 times the US lackey as Sweden, *and* would have to approve any secondary-extradition from Sweden anyway.
Read the judge's ruling for the actual facts on the case as presented in sworn testimony.
Not a single thing that you wrote is accurate, whether it's been "stated" by Assange fanboys or not. Read the judge's ruling on the case, which was upheld by the British high court.
Because it would be illegal to guarantee that. Just like the UK couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't send him to the USA either. Both countries have extradition treaties with the US. The ridiculous thing about the "Sweden is a setup" argument is that the UK is 10 times as much of a US lackey in these sort of regards as Sweden is, *and* the UK would have to re-approve a secondary extradition anyway. He'd be far safer in Sweden against the US than in the UK.
Again, read the judge's ruling. It should be required reading for anyone who wants to discuss this issue, as it goes into the actual evidence.
Which is what court hearings are for. And, gee, what do you know, there have been two, both of which found the charges against Assange credible and caught Assange's defense team (which people like you are getting their information from) lying in sworn statements.
and let's hope you can forgive your rapist, for he was overwhelmed by hormones...
Everything you wrote in your previous post was wrong. Posting a line from the end of the article, quoting only the defense, is *not* the same as reading the accusations. Heck, that's merely even a summary; what you should be reading is the court ruling on the case. Which is pretty devastating against the defense's arguments, I should add, in particular on these claims by Assange's defense team that you quoted. His lawyer was caught deliberately lying, contradicting both himself in his sworn statements and his phone records, and was so nervous that he rushed out of the courtroom.
The fact that "rape" cases in Sweden are 8 times higger than in Denmark, gives us all the info we need about these crap cases and feministocracy Sweden is becoming
Do you realize how weird your argument is, rating a place's progress on feminism *positively* correlated with the number of rapes?
To wrap that up...
In its conclusion, Amnesty blames "deeply rooted patriarchal gender norms" of Swedish family life and sexual relationships as a "major societal flaw" and a reason for the continued prevalence of violence against women in Sweden.
To continue:
Well, this guy's penins, must be 1 in 5 bilions, cause it willingly seems to be able to "do something" to condoms and rip them at its own will.
You realize that Assange is not a quadruple amputee, right? And amazing that you managed to miss... well, the entire rest of that article, including him pinning her down, her only consenting to protected sex in order to avoid him having unprotected sex with her against her will, her feeling so unsafe afterwards because of the "violent sex" (as she referred to it to a friend that night) that she moved out of her own apartment until he left, etc. And that's just one of the two women.
Of course, knowing how people tend to shut out any conflicting information once they've made up their mind, I'm pretty sure you won't even view the actual accusations, so I'm not sure why I bothered fetching the links.
From the information submitted by the Swedish prosecutor, 4. feb 2011:
B. The aim of the EAW
5. Julian Assange's surrender is sought in order that he may be subject to criminal proceedings.
6. A domestic warrant for the respondant's arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offenses outlined on the EAW.
7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
One of the key findings of the lower court judge (whose ruling was upheld by the high court), after examining all the evidence: "Looking at all the evidence in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an "accused" person and is wanted for prosecution."
Read the ruling (which anyone commenting on the subject should have to read first). In particular, start at "Offence 1" on page 22. Of course, I think the key quote is right before that:
"The framework list is ticked for "Rape"" (concerning the arrest warrant)
Slashdot Mirror
Am I understanding you correctly here? "Because the foundation of the world's scientific knowledge has failed at times before, its worthless and we should trust random things written by people with no credentials that no experts in the field have reviewed as much as everything else"?
I just wrote on a napkin, "The world is flat". Clearly that's as good as peer-reviewed science because of Andrew Wakefield.
Not that it'd even matter anyway, as meteorologists aren't climatologists, and actually deal with very different phenomena. It's the difference between a biologist and a paleontologist.
In the one paper Watts' name is on that's been published (see above), they actually reach the conclusion that there is no statistical difference in means between poor and good stations according to Watts' own dataset.
Wow, he managed to get one through in 2011? Totally missed that. Probably because it actually doesn't say what he's been claiming in non-peer-reviewed research:
Which had already been determined. I'm amazed that Watts was willing to put his name on a paper that basically undercuts his entire premise and says the same thing as papers he's been railing against for ages. Check out the lead author's summary of the paper, in particular the Q and A section. Although my favorite quote is:
Wow, Watts, you sure shot things out of the park with that one!
Who mentioned the holocaust?
You're denying something. That makes you a denier. Aka, a practicer of denialism. It's a technical term; deal with it.
Of course the climate is always changing.
The issue is not *that* the climate is changing. It's the *rate* of change that's the issue. And sorry, but choosing between an AC posting a random website, and "the scientific process", I'm going to go with "the scientific process".
To elaborate on the problem, I started reading the "paper" and he's outright misleading right on the first page. He says that siting in peer-reviewed works showed an effect on minimum temperatures but no effect on the mean. The actual papers show a small increase in minimum temperatures, but a much larger *decrease* in maximum temperatures. I'm also noticing in the paper him mixing in peer-reviewed cites with non-peer-reviewed cites without even commenting on the fact that he's doing so, which is a huge no-no.
Basically, his previous work not having shown what he claimed it showed after the peer-reviewed process got ahold of it, he simply changed his formula until it showed a different result. Which will almost certainly get likewise ripped up.
Here's the reality of the situation. The many papers published on the subject of the land record and all of their reviewers are not idiots ignorant of Watts' rogue genius. The issues that he "raises" have been discussed and analyzed for ages. Because of these issues, nobody just takes the raw data and submits it as a result. There are all sorts of calculations to detect biases and compensate for them, and all of these adjustments are analyzed with higher-precision real-world data to see how well they work, as well as cross-correlated with totally different lines of measurement. One study, to pick a random example among many, broke the data down between windy days and calm days, as the urban heat island effect dramatically diminishes on windy days. The calm results were then compared with the windy results to see if they reached the same conclusion.
Of course, it should be obvious that Watts is wrong just by even a rudimentary look at the surface warming trends. Notice where they're strongest, generally? Sparsely populated areas. We're supposed to believe that the extreme warming of Siberian or Canadian tundra is due to a "urban heat island effect" not visible in, for example, New York, Tokyo, London or Los Angeles?
Needless to say, you don't just have to judge based on your eyes; this has been statistically analyzed and published as well.
Which is exactly what the peer-review process does. Which is why you never trust non-peer-reviewed work. I can write whatever I want about anything, make it look like a paper, and then send it out to the media. Which is precisely what happened here.
You're walking down precisely the opposite road. Even one peer-reviewed paper on "remarkable claims" isn't enough - that's just the start of a process that can only be confirmed by a series of followup studies, spawning a process that can lead to dozens or hundreds of papers before one can feel confident in the truth of the matter.
This here is *zero* published results.
And the scientific process is the peer-review process, which this has not undergone, and will almost certainly fail like Watts' other "work". If he even bothers actually submitting it instead of just saying that he's going to.
It's not peer-reviewed. Everything else he's submitted for peer review on the matter of climate change has been ripped to shreds; why should this be any different?
No, he's a well known denier (probably *the* most well known among lay people). He's not a climatologist; he's a local meteorologist for a small Fox affiliate in southern California. And this is unpublished, and will almost certainly be ripped to shreds when it gets submitted, like most of the other trash he submits. He's funded by the Heartland Institute (a conservative organization that takes industry money and uses it to push various forms of denial of interest to them, including things like global warming denial (funded by Koch Industries), denial of the links between tobacco and cancer (funded by Philip-Morris), etc.)
Actual published, peer-reviewed work analyzing his "work" has reached precisely the opposite conclusion.
Who the heck would write a whole Slashdot article about un-peer-reviewed results? Geez...
Fine, except that he's hiding deep inside a dungeon in Death Mountain, and to get access to it, you'll need to collect the pieces of a sacred relic of power from different dungeons scattered across the land...
Wow, what a deal!
And that matters toward this case how...? The UK is 10 times the US lackey as Sweden, *and* would have to approve any secondary-extradition from Sweden anyway.
Read the judge's ruling for the actual facts on the case as presented in sworn testimony.
Not a single thing that you wrote is accurate, whether it's been "stated" by Assange fanboys or not. Read the judge's ruling on the case, which was upheld by the British high court.
Because it would be illegal to guarantee that. Just like the UK couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't send him to the USA either. Both countries have extradition treaties with the US. The ridiculous thing about the "Sweden is a setup" argument is that the UK is 10 times as much of a US lackey in these sort of regards as Sweden is, *and* the UK would have to re-approve a secondary extradition anyway. He'd be far safer in Sweden against the US than in the UK.
Again, read the judge's ruling. It should be required reading for anyone who wants to discuss this issue, as it goes into the actual evidence.
Which is what court hearings are for. And, gee, what do you know, there have been two, both of which found the charges against Assange credible and caught Assange's defense team (which people like you are getting their information from) lying in sworn statements.
People like you are the problem.
Everything you wrote in your previous post was wrong. Posting a line from the end of the article, quoting only the defense, is *not* the same as reading the accusations. Heck, that's merely even a summary; what you should be reading is the court ruling on the case. Which is pretty devastating against the defense's arguments, I should add, in particular on these claims by Assange's defense team that you quoted. His lawyer was caught deliberately lying, contradicting both himself in his sworn statements and his phone records, and was so nervous that he rushed out of the courtroom.
Wow, then we should all be so lucky as to move to Lesotho, where there's double the rape rate as in Sweden. What a feminist paradise! But then again, given that only 5-10% of rapes in Sweden are reported and Sweden has the lowest conviction rate on rape in Europe, I guess that helps improve its "feministocracy", right?
Do you realize how weird your argument is, rating a place's progress on feminism *positively* correlated with the number of rapes?
To wrap that up...
To continue:
You realize that Assange is not a quadruple amputee, right? And amazing that you managed to miss... well, the entire rest of that article, including him pinning her down, her only consenting to protected sex in order to avoid him having unprotected sex with her against her will, her feeling so unsafe afterwards because of the "violent sex" (as she referred to it to a friend that night) that she moved out of her own apartment until he left, etc. And that's just one of the two women.
Wow, the Assange fanboy echo-chamber has jumped the shark with this one! Are aliens going to get involved next?
You clearly didn't read a single thing I said or linked. So why even bother?
Because of this.
Of course, knowing how people tend to shut out any conflicting information once they've made up their mind, I'm pretty sure you won't even view the actual accusations, so I'm not sure why I bothered fetching the links.
From the information submitted by the Swedish prosecutor, 4. feb 2011:
One of the key findings of the lower court judge (whose ruling was upheld by the high court), after examining all the evidence: "Looking at all the evidence in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an "accused" person and is wanted for prosecution."
Read the ruling (which anyone commenting on the subject should have to read first). In particular, start at "Offence 1" on page 22. Of course, I think the key quote is right before that:
"The framework list is ticked for "Rape"" (concerning the arrest warrant)
That is not in the slightest bit accurate. Or, for a more concise but less referenced version, here.