First of all, thanks a lot for your change of tone.
I don't consider myself a denier. A skeptic maybe, and for sure someone with doubts, asking myself questions, reading sites, and comparing opinions. Reading times and times again that some are absolutely 100% sure that we'd have X degree more in Y years just doesn't add up after all I read. There's no consensus. And in Science (with a big S), there's no "majority": we don't vote for the theory we like, someone got to prove what he says against the theories of others. Did you know that in the beginning of the 20th century, there was a majority of scientists saying that plate tectonics and the theory of the movements of continents, creating earthquakes and volcano, was just wrong? Now there's not even one scientist to deny this theory. It's only when there's not even one reasonably minded scientist to (dis)proof (and not (dis)agree because otherwise we call that politics and not Science) that we can safely admit a theory as a fact. This is far from being the case on the IPCC model, which is highly controversial. Anyway, let's stop digressing.
Yourself, you may have not talked about policy. But others did and it bothers me. We all heard about a carbon tax, and a cap-and-trade system. If we want such a system to be useful, we got to know how much CO2 we are allowed to emit, so that it wouldn't further the issues that some climatologists talked about. But we can't, as we don't have such numbers. Even if we did, I think a "market" of CO2 would be the worst thing to do. I don't thing it would work to reduce emissions at all. Then it would be a lot more efficient to make new laws to have electric cars on the streets, with some incentives like (thanks to taxes) an artificially high petrol price. But nothing like it is happening. And electric cars replacing polluting ones are so obviously what we should all do, GW or not, simply because of the pollution we have in major cities. Still, we hear endless debates about CO2 taxes, and none about the solutions. I'm sad when I see that.
Now, the effect of CO2 on earth heating. The theory is that the earth's heat would be trapped, as you wrote, and that radiation would be reduced. It does work on paper, and in fact, it's the same effect as with another very important element on earth: vapor! Yes, gas water has a green-house effect as well (on different wave length, and the cooling or heating of earth depends on other parameters, like the color of the cloud which can or can't well reflect the suns heat, but globally, it does a greenhouse effect). Should we ban water then? Hell, when you ask on the street about "dihydrogen monoxide" some say yes because they are morons who don't understand what H2O is... (Anyway, that last one was only for fun.)
The issue with the CO2 trapping heat theory is that we can very easily observe that: we have satellite all over the place around earth, and measuring the radiation isn't hard (I wouldn't be able to explain exactly how, but let's admit it is easy to tell, ok? If you don't agree with that, I'll google for it...). As the CO2 emission levels have never been as high as now, we should be able to actually tell. But what the satellites are telling is a completely different story as the "model". Yes, there's a small reduction of earth radiation, but it's barely doing anything that could in a distant future hurt anyone. That is a very simple fact, not a very complicated model! So the positive feedback loop is there, but it's not as effective as previously thought.
As for the hockey stick graph, you pointed out exactly what hurts. It has been designed with drastic results in the mind of the population, and it doesn't show the middle age minimum, nor many events in the last millennium.
Models are what they are: models and not observation. I did bother trying to understand the models. But modeling the entire earth climate is all but an easy job, and just saying "models are showing that" isn't enough. Current observation is that since 1998 or 2002 (depe
The difference between "denier" and "denialist" is that a "denier" just some who denies, but the construct "denialist" from "denial" + "ist" is meant to convey someone who is an ideological advocate of denial, which is exactly what I meant. Your comparison of economic predictions and weather predictions to climate predictions are indicative of someone who has dismissed the other side's argument without first comprehending it. That's beyond "denying" it's what one might term, "denialism".
It's simple: if people don't agree with you, they are "ists", have ideologies and can't be trusted. Great! You must also think that there are darwinists and that evolution is an "ism" as well. Unfortunately, this isn't how science work.
Because that question assumes that there is some direct and immediate relationship between CO2 emissions and average temperature, but there isn't. The model has to account for all kinds of delayed responses and positive and negative feedback loops.
It's a shame then, because if we don't have the relation between CO2 and average temperature, then how can we even think about doing any kind of policy, like they were trying to make in Copenhagen ?
There are thousands and thousands of years of proxy data for a myriad of various variables such as global temperature, solar output, CO2 levels, and many more. The scientific hypothesis is that all of those parameters influence (and may be influenced by) other parameters in a way that can be described by a mathematical model. Such a model has been constructed, which accurately predicts the temperature response to changes in the other variables no matter where in the thousands and thousands of years that you try it. This means there are not too many variables to make that prediction. The fact that the model, when applied over that last couple millenia and more, fits, means precisely that how the variables interact is known to a very high degree.
Reading past data shows exactly the opposite of what you are saying. When temperature rise, CO2 gets higher concentrations later. None of your models are working for that... Oh, but maybe you're talking about the Mikael Man's proxy data that lead to the hockey stick graph? If you trust in that, then don't bother: you're the most "ist" of them all (and a fucking lying sack of shit who choose the studies he likes, and ignore all the others).
by someone who doesn't appear to bother to understand the science behind that which he's ridiculing. If you are offended that I implied that you must be uneducated on these matters, consider that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming ignorance instead of malevolence. If you aren't uneducated, the only other option seems to be "lying sack of shit".
Right, I'm stupid, I don't know the science, I'm uneducated, or eventually I'm a lying sack of shit. Well done!!! I'm done with this. I don't know why I'm loosing my time with such a jerk as you are. Please don't reply.
I love the words "Climate change denialists" put together. As if there was anyone to deny that there is climate, or that it change...
When we talk about economic predictions in a century, this is an image to let you understand, but maybe, to reach your level and make you undestand, I should find a car analogy which you would have more chances to understand? Predictions for the climate in one century are really foolish, and that nobody is capable of doing that, simply because there is too many parameters. Yet, everything is based on it. Just like when I hear about what kind of economy we'll have in 2050, it makes me laugh to listen to people that pretend they are capable of knowing.
Now, let's go back to the facts. On the very simple question "how much temperature increase for a doubling of the CO2 emissions", none of the so called "climatologists" are capable enough to give a valid, definitive answer. They just yell about their model that can predict what will happen in one century, yet they were never able to answer correctly that very important question, which all of their theory is based upon. And that's what we should remember: currently, there's a vast uncertainty. People like you should be called "scientific uncertainty denialists" (that is, if the word denialists existed, in fact it's denier, but people love to change science into politics, which is what you are doing here...). Sure, it's not easy to admit it, but we should never the less know that we don't know much.
Now go on, call me uneducated, use the word "fuck" and "nobody gives a shit" if you think that helps people forget about the biggest factor of them all, which completely renders the model as either invalid or as a totally insignificant variable. Truth is, you and me don't know how much the CO2 emissions are influential on climate. And neither are many people at the IPCC (or elsewhere) that pretend they do.
So, they realize that the sun output is very important, but then they still think that it's not important... Very cleaver indeed! Anyway, the issue is that they are always reasoning with a MODEL, to do predictions for the future which never happened, when having a look in the past is in fact enough. Also, they risk themselves in predicting temperatures in one century, even though we aren't even capable of knowing what the weather will be like in 2 weeks, or even a trend for the next season. It's like predicting what will be the economy in 1 century. No fullish economist does such prediction. But in climatology, yes, they can. Frankly, I don't buy in such crystal ball predictions...
On the curve you're showing, nothing of the events everyone know are showing. Not even the 1998 event. Plus the curve stops a bit after 2000, missing the recent temperatures. Anyway, even if we had to trust that curve (which I don't, given the others I saw before), it is showing a trend of less than 1 degree change in one century, which is quite fine!!!
How can one be so dumb to believe that the sun has no influence on how much heat we got on earth? You can give me as many silly numbers and studies, I just wont believe such crap. Go ahead and call people denials, heretics or whatever if you like, but having half a brain is enough to understand the obvious!
If you really want to go on that silly reasoning, and don't want to read a graph which might help to see a trend, then:
If 2010 tied 1998, then there we're all good, it's not warming up when the CO2 level have never been so high!:)
Your data are either showing nothing (stopping just right after 2000, when it's commonly admitted that temperature stopped to rise after 1998-2002, depending how you read curves), or showing local temperatures (USA only). And when it shows just a bit on the period that we are talking about (eg: 1998 - 2010), then it shows little to no rise at all.
Also, it's highly debatable to use the monthly average of (any kind of) average temperature on a given surface. That's basic thermodynamics: you should account energy, not temperature. But everyone is just using temperature because nobody understand this simply principle...
Not to forget as well, the NASA, half of the MIT (the other half is on the other side), and the famous university of East Anglia are the 3 famous members of the IPCC that have been pointed out as the most alarmist kind and the most "we got it right but you don't and we are right because we are IPCC" kind of jerks.
Last, denying that there was no warming over the last 10 years is simply completely stupid. Everyone admits it. People aren't debating that fact, even at the IPCC.
Cleaning the air of polluted area really IS a major issue. The thing is, this "Global Warming Hoax" as you say, might well make us forget the important bit, which is all the other types of pollutions (if only CO2 is a pollutant, which is currently the debate...). One of the major argument really is that we should focus on water supply and air quality, and waste management, which we aren't doing at all.
So, basically, you are saying that Climatologists don't predict what the sun will do, and the sun is the biggest factor? Well, if that is the case, shouldn't Climatologists review all of their prediction, and include this major factor in their calculation?
I don't know for others, but for me, sparkleshare.org advertises for an IPv6 on it's DNS, but yet, htere's no v6 connectivity to it (traceroute stops in the AMIX).
If you liked FreeBSD, the kernel, but didn't like the userland, why don't you take the good of both worlds, and install Debian kfreebsd, which is Debian, but running the FreeBSD kernel?
That's a very common mistake. Creating money from debt is also creates inflation. When a banker lend you 10, he has only 1 in asset. Then the 10 are spent in the economy, and eventually makes it to a banker, who can create even more debt with it. At the end, with the fractional reserve system, it can create 100 times more inflation asking Goldman/JPMorgan for a loan, than when the government prints money directly.
Exactly the same way, someone can burn someone-else bank notes... It makes no difference. The money is removed from the market, and overall, this deflates the currency (and make someone unhappy in the process).
And then someone will use "123456" as passphrase (I didn't take that one randomly, this really IS the most used password), or have a trojan with a key-logger, get both key and passphrase stolen, and your back to square one. No, the current system is perfect: you have a file, and you are responsible for it. Nothing prevents you to use a cloud-based backup system with a keypaired encryption to store your wallet.dat, if you like it this way!
What you are asking for is called... PGP (or GPG if you like it more this way). There's projects like http://www.fsij.org/gnuk/ that could help using an external device to store the key, and have only 3 trials before the cryptographic key is erased. Like many pointed out, technology is out there, you just need to use it...
What you just wrote is also valid for any other type of good or currency. This might well happen with the USD if it continues on the slippery slopes it is right now. Have you ever considered that in one year, the amount of USD just *doubled*? What if the amount of debt + interest of it is already bigger than the principal, which might already well be the case?
Except that China is creating debt free money, so it doesn't make sense at all. Oh, and I forgot to mention: China owns most of the US debt and a large amount of the debts in EUR as well, if you didn't know...
Bullshit! The price for going to Beijing from Shanghai with this fast train is from 400 to 1700 Yuan, which is expensive, but far from being twice the price. On my last trip to Beijing (from Shanghai), the cheapest air ticket I could find was 1200 Yuan.
Now for this Wuhan to GuangZhou, I've just check on http://english.ctrip.com/ (which gets you the lowest fairs). What you find is 280 yuan for the ticket, plus 190 of airport taxes, which makes it 470 Yuan in total, or just 1 yuan more than your above price. That is without counting the cost of traveling from city center to airport. Frankly, don't trust US journalist, I'm quite sure that they can't even read what's on http://www.huochepiao.com./ Because doing a quick check, the price is 490 Yuan, not 469!
Could you please explain everyone how this is possible, when China is capable of creating money as it is pleased to. Yes, China can make debt free money, because the People's Bank of China has the power of creating it. According to its site, the PBC is responsible for "Issuing the Renminbi and administering its circulation" and is directly acting upon the orders of the central party. So, if they can make money when they want, how they want, how is this exactly creating debt? In what way having a state debt (which I don't believe exist) is an issue when you can create more money, debt free?
Seems you didn't understand how the bitcoin mining is working. Increasing the calculation power isn't an issue. Please read the FAQ/Howtos. Also, why are you talking about the Chinese government? That doesn't make sense, and it only exposes you as a "stupid American (tm)"...
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, thanks a lot for your change of tone.
I don't consider myself a denier. A skeptic maybe, and for sure someone with doubts, asking myself questions, reading sites, and comparing opinions. Reading times and times again that some are absolutely 100% sure that we'd have X degree more in Y years just doesn't add up after all I read. There's no consensus. And in Science (with a big S), there's no "majority": we don't vote for the theory we like, someone got to prove what he says against the theories of others. Did you know that in the beginning of the 20th century, there was a majority of scientists saying that plate tectonics and the theory of the movements of continents, creating earthquakes and volcano, was just wrong? Now there's not even one scientist to deny this theory. It's only when there's not even one reasonably minded scientist to (dis)proof (and not (dis)agree because otherwise we call that politics and not Science) that we can safely admit a theory as a fact. This is far from being the case on the IPCC model, which is highly controversial. Anyway, let's stop digressing.
Yourself, you may have not talked about policy. But others did and it bothers me. We all heard about a carbon tax, and a cap-and-trade system. If we want such a system to be useful, we got to know how much CO2 we are allowed to emit, so that it wouldn't further the issues that some climatologists talked about. But we can't, as we don't have such numbers. Even if we did, I think a "market" of CO2 would be the worst thing to do. I don't thing it would work to reduce emissions at all. Then it would be a lot more efficient to make new laws to have electric cars on the streets, with some incentives like (thanks to taxes) an artificially high petrol price. But nothing like it is happening. And electric cars replacing polluting ones are so obviously what we should all do, GW or not, simply because of the pollution we have in major cities. Still, we hear endless debates about CO2 taxes, and none about the solutions. I'm sad when I see that.
Now, the effect of CO2 on earth heating. The theory is that the earth's heat would be trapped, as you wrote, and that radiation would be reduced. It does work on paper, and in fact, it's the same effect as with another very important element on earth: vapor! Yes, gas water has a green-house effect as well (on different wave length, and the cooling or heating of earth depends on other parameters, like the color of the cloud which can or can't well reflect the suns heat, but globally, it does a greenhouse effect). Should we ban water then? Hell, when you ask on the street about "dihydrogen monoxide" some say yes because they are morons who don't understand what H2O is... (Anyway, that last one was only for fun.)
The issue with the CO2 trapping heat theory is that we can very easily observe that: we have satellite all over the place around earth, and measuring the radiation isn't hard (I wouldn't be able to explain exactly how, but let's admit it is easy to tell, ok? If you don't agree with that, I'll google for it...). As the CO2 emission levels have never been as high as now, we should be able to actually tell. But what the satellites are telling is a completely different story as the "model". Yes, there's a small reduction of earth radiation, but it's barely doing anything that could in a distant future hurt anyone. That is a very simple fact, not a very complicated model! So the positive feedback loop is there, but it's not as effective as previously thought.
As for the hockey stick graph, you pointed out exactly what hurts. It has been designed with drastic results in the mind of the population, and it doesn't show the middle age minimum, nor many events in the last millennium.
Models are what they are: models and not observation. I did bother trying to understand the models. But modeling the entire earth climate is all but an easy job, and just saying "models are showing that" isn't enough. Current observation is that since 1998 or 2002 (depe
The difference between "denier" and "denialist" is that a "denier" just some who denies, but the construct "denialist" from "denial" + "ist" is meant to convey someone who is an ideological advocate of denial, which is exactly what I meant. Your comparison of economic predictions and weather predictions to climate predictions are indicative of someone who has dismissed the other side's argument without first comprehending it. That's beyond "denying" it's what one might term, "denialism".
It's simple: if people don't agree with you, they are "ists", have ideologies and can't be trusted. Great! You must also think that there are darwinists and that evolution is an "ism" as well. Unfortunately, this isn't how science work.
Because that question assumes that there is some direct and immediate relationship between CO2 emissions and average temperature, but there isn't. The model has to account for all kinds of delayed responses and positive and negative feedback loops.
It's a shame then, because if we don't have the relation between CO2 and average temperature, then how can we even think about doing any kind of policy, like they were trying to make in Copenhagen ?
There are thousands and thousands of years of proxy data for a myriad of various variables such as global temperature, solar output, CO2 levels, and many more. The scientific hypothesis is that all of those parameters influence (and may be influenced by) other parameters in a way that can be described by a mathematical model. Such a model has been constructed, which accurately predicts the temperature response to changes in the other variables no matter where in the thousands and thousands of years that you try it. This means there are not too many variables to make that prediction. The fact that the model, when applied over that last couple millenia and more, fits, means precisely that how the variables interact is known to a very high degree.
Reading past data shows exactly the opposite of what you are saying. When temperature rise, CO2 gets higher concentrations later. None of your models are working for that... Oh, but maybe you're talking about the Mikael Man's proxy data that lead to the hockey stick graph? If you trust in that, then don't bother: you're the most "ist" of them all (and a fucking lying sack of shit who choose the studies he likes, and ignore all the others).
by someone who doesn't appear to bother to understand the science behind that which he's ridiculing. If you are offended that I implied that you must be uneducated on these matters, consider that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming ignorance instead of malevolence. If you aren't uneducated, the only other option seems to be "lying sack of shit".
Right, I'm stupid, I don't know the science, I'm uneducated, or eventually I'm a lying sack of shit. Well done!!! I'm done with this. I don't know why I'm loosing my time with such a jerk as you are. Please don't reply.
I love the words "Climate change denialists" put together. As if there was anyone to deny that there is climate, or that it change...
When we talk about economic predictions in a century, this is an image to let you understand, but maybe, to reach your level and make you undestand, I should find a car analogy which you would have more chances to understand? Predictions for the climate in one century are really foolish, and that nobody is capable of doing that, simply because there is too many parameters. Yet, everything is based on it. Just like when I hear about what kind of economy we'll have in 2050, it makes me laugh to listen to people that pretend they are capable of knowing.
Now, let's go back to the facts. On the very simple question "how much temperature increase for a doubling of the CO2 emissions", none of the so called "climatologists" are capable enough to give a valid, definitive answer. They just yell about their model that can predict what will happen in one century, yet they were never able to answer correctly that very important question, which all of their theory is based upon. And that's what we should remember: currently, there's a vast uncertainty. People like you should be called "scientific uncertainty denialists" (that is, if the word denialists existed, in fact it's denier, but people love to change science into politics, which is what you are doing here...). Sure, it's not easy to admit it, but we should never the less know that we don't know much.
Now go on, call me uneducated, use the word "fuck" and "nobody gives a shit" if you think that helps people forget about the biggest factor of them all, which completely renders the model as either invalid or as a totally insignificant variable. Truth is, you and me don't know how much the CO2 emissions are influential on climate. And neither are many people at the IPCC (or elsewhere) that pretend they do.
So, they realize that the sun output is very important, but then they still think that it's not important... Very cleaver indeed! Anyway, the issue is that they are always reasoning with a MODEL, to do predictions for the future which never happened, when having a look in the past is in fact enough. Also, they risk themselves in predicting temperatures in one century, even though we aren't even capable of knowing what the weather will be like in 2 weeks, or even a trend for the next season. It's like predicting what will be the economy in 1 century. No fullish economist does such prediction. But in climatology, yes, they can. Frankly, I don't buy in such crystal ball predictions...
On the curve you're showing, nothing of the events everyone know are showing. Not even the 1998 event. Plus the curve stops a bit after 2000, missing the recent temperatures. Anyway, even if we had to trust that curve (which I don't, given the others I saw before), it is showing a trend of less than 1 degree change in one century, which is quite fine!!!
Again, NO. Watch the fucking graph and stop the propaganda!
How can one be so dumb to believe that the sun has no influence on how much heat we got on earth? You can give me as many silly numbers and studies, I just wont believe such crap. Go ahead and call people denials, heretics or whatever if you like, but having half a brain is enough to understand the obvious!
This doesn't help. Read the general trend by seeing the graph, it's much more helpful than such silly facts.
If you really want to go on that silly reasoning, and don't want to read a graph which might help to see a trend, then: :)
If 2010 tied 1998, then there we're all good, it's not warming up when the CO2 level have never been so high!
Your data are either showing nothing (stopping just right after 2000, when it's commonly admitted that temperature stopped to rise after 1998-2002, depending how you read curves), or showing local temperatures (USA only). And when it shows just a bit on the period that we are talking about (eg: 1998 - 2010), then it shows little to no rise at all.
Also, it's highly debatable to use the monthly average of (any kind of) average temperature on a given surface. That's basic thermodynamics: you should account energy, not temperature. But everyone is just using temperature because nobody understand this simply principle...
Not to forget as well, the NASA, half of the MIT (the other half is on the other side), and the famous university of East Anglia are the 3 famous members of the IPCC that have been pointed out as the most alarmist kind and the most "we got it right but you don't and we are right because we are IPCC" kind of jerks.
Last, denying that there was no warming over the last 10 years is simply completely stupid. Everyone admits it. People aren't debating that fact, even at the IPCC.
Cleaning the air of polluted area really IS a major issue. The thing is, this "Global Warming Hoax" as you say, might well make us forget the important bit, which is all the other types of pollutions (if only CO2 is a pollutant, which is currently the debate...). One of the major argument really is that we should focus on water supply and air quality, and waste management, which we aren't doing at all.
So, basically, you are saying that Climatologists don't predict what the sun will do, and the sun is the biggest factor? Well, if that is the case, shouldn't Climatologists review all of their prediction, and include this major factor in their calculation?
I don't know for others, but for me, sparkleshare.org advertises for an IPv6 on it's DNS, but yet, htere's no v6 connectivity to it (traceroute stops in the AMIX).
If you liked FreeBSD, the kernel, but didn't like the userland, why don't you take the good of both worlds, and install Debian kfreebsd, which is Debian, but running the FreeBSD kernel?
That's a very common mistake. Creating money from debt is also creates inflation. When a banker lend you 10, he has only 1 in asset. Then the 10 are spent in the economy, and eventually makes it to a banker, who can create even more debt with it. At the end, with the fractional reserve system, it can create 100 times more inflation asking Goldman/JPMorgan for a loan, than when the government prints money directly.
Exactly the same way, someone can burn someone-else bank notes... It makes no difference. The money is removed from the market, and overall, this deflates the currency (and make someone unhappy in the process).
And then someone will use "123456" as passphrase (I didn't take that one randomly, this really IS the most used password), or have a trojan with a key-logger, get both key and passphrase stolen, and your back to square one. No, the current system is perfect: you have a file, and you are responsible for it. Nothing prevents you to use a cloud-based backup system with a keypaired encryption to store your wallet.dat, if you like it this way!
What you are asking for is called ... PGP (or GPG if you like it more this way). There's projects like http://www.fsij.org/gnuk/ that could help using an external device to store the key, and have only 3 trials before the cryptographic key is erased. Like many pointed out, technology is out there, you just need to use it...
What is this Internet thing where there's only porn and child porn? Let's block all sites, just in case.
What you just wrote is also valid for any other type of good or currency. This might well happen with the USD if it continues on the slippery slopes it is right now. Have you ever considered that in one year, the amount of USD just *doubled*? What if the amount of debt + interest of it is already bigger than the principal, which might already well be the case?
It is also backed by the fact you can pay your taxes with it.
Except that China is creating debt free money, so it doesn't make sense at all. Oh, and I forgot to mention: China owns most of the US debt and a large amount of the debts in EUR as well, if you didn't know...
Bullshit! The price for going to Beijing from Shanghai with this fast train is from 400 to 1700 Yuan, which is expensive, but far from being twice the price. On my last trip to Beijing (from Shanghai), the cheapest air ticket I could find was 1200 Yuan.
Now for this Wuhan to GuangZhou, I've just check on http://english.ctrip.com/ (which gets you the lowest fairs). What you find is 280 yuan for the ticket, plus 190 of airport taxes, which makes it 470 Yuan in total, or just 1 yuan more than your above price. That is without counting the cost of traveling from city center to airport. Frankly, don't trust US journalist, I'm quite sure that they can't even read what's on http://www.huochepiao.com./ Because doing a quick check, the price is 490 Yuan, not 469!
Could you please explain everyone how this is possible, when China is capable of creating money as it is pleased to. Yes, China can make debt free money, because the People's Bank of China has the power of creating it. According to its site, the PBC is responsible for "Issuing the Renminbi and administering its circulation" and is directly acting upon the orders of the central party. So, if they can make money when they want, how they want, how is this exactly creating debt? In what way having a state debt (which I don't believe exist) is an issue when you can create more money, debt free?
Seems you didn't understand how the bitcoin mining is working. Increasing the calculation power isn't an issue. Please read the FAQ/Howtos. Also, why are you talking about the Chinese government? That doesn't make sense, and it only exposes you as a "stupid American (tm)" ...