Essentially all scientific papers that it is possible to tell whether or not they support the consensus view unambiguously support the consensus view. That's what has been shown. This would not happen if there was any meaningful debate within the scientific community on this subject.
As for the link you offered, that's a survey of meteorologists, not climate scientists. Nearly all climate scientists do, indeed, support global warming unambiguously (and if they are actively working, they are even more likely to support it).
Do what, specifically? What criteria do yo think will produce a significant number of papers which support the view that either global warming isn't happening, humans aren't causing it, or it isn't a serious problem?
1. Since civilization began, humanity has not faced sea level rise of this magnitude.
2. Ports that have been drowned tend to fare very poorly. And now we're talking about nearly every port city in the entire world having severe problems. The impact will not be pretty.
3. Water vapor is a fast feedback. It is responsible for amplifying the effect of CO2. It isn't a forcing in and of itself, and thus cannot be said to be responsible for the current 0.7C temperature rise.
It was soon shown that Oreskes' "study" was in fact a textbook example of cherry-picking. She had searched the database for papers that included the phrase "global climate change". Only those were included in her analysis. The problem with that being that at the time, only papers that were ABOUT the effects of greenhouse gas warming mentioned the phrase "global climate change" at all. So, in effect, she selected out of the scientific literate just the papers about greenhouse global warming, and then conclude that they all agreed about greenhouse global warming! How surprising!
The fact was, of course, that the majority of climate papers were not about greenhouse warming and never mentioned the subject at all. But those weren't counted.
The phrase "global climate change" does not specify whether the paper is supporting or disagreeing with the consensus view. It's a neutral phrase. It's just a way of limiting the papers to only those that are on-topic. Why do you think limiting to only on-topic papers was a bad thing?
I can guarantee you that there is no possible selection criteria that would result in a significant number of peer-reviewed papers that claim that global warming isn't happening, that humans aren't causing it, or that global warming isn't quite dangerous. I'm sure you can find some, but they won't come anywhere close to the number that support global warming.
Sea levels are set to rise by a meter or more by the end of the century, and the frequency of both droughts and strong storms has already increased dramatically. No, these are not good things.
Also, we only need about 2.2C of warming or so for all of Greenland to melt (though it will take a few centuries to do so). Greenland melting means sea level rise of about seven meters. That's going to drown a lot of cities.
This isn't necessary at all. It's entirely possible for there to only be an appreciable amount of EM radiation at the desired destination. So you can actually lower the noise floor for everybody else versus today's systems. In fact, because the destination signals are spatially-localized, your only limitation on how many devices you can put on the same network is the size of the localized waveform.
The primary concern I have is how they're going to accurately determine the position, and how they're going to accurately factor in obstacles such as buildings and especially vehicles in computing the required EM waveform. I suppose it might work if they make use of some sort of feedback mechanism that continuously updates the waveform based upon information from the phone about the signals it is receiving, but those updates would have to be extremely fast for it to work in a moving vehicle.
Yup. I'm sure there are lots of neat shortcuts you can make with reactive programming. But once the complexity grows beyond a certain level, it's going to be hell to debug.
So it's like pretty much everything else software-related: it depends upon the situation. For situations where reactive programming permits a simple implementation, it's pretty great. Otherwise, not so much.
It's certainly possible to do. But I don't think it works very well. The problem is that in introducing a graphical design, you introduce additional constraints on the design that are extremely artificial and are only due to the schematic nature. When designing circuits this isn't an extra constraint, because the final product has those exact same constraints.
I've also found graphical UI's for generating programs or parts of programs to be much more cumbersome and slower to work with than scripting languages.
Actually, I'm not so sure it's a huge problem. Even with a good amount of security work, I bet dedicated hackers will be able to find holes. Either way, having a way to alert drivers about nearby cars will almost certainly save far, far more lives than the relatively tiny number of malicious hackers that would seek to panic drivers by feeding them false information.
What privacy concerns do you think are relevant for short-range communication of speed, location, and potentially dimensions? I mean, these are things that are effectively available by looking at the car.
You really think banging your head against this wall is going to work? They post more detailed numbers further down:
The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. n54 They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody.
I see you ignored the last sentence. To continue, the next couple of paragraphs:
Family service officers, probate judges, and appellate judges all say that giving primary consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent is in the best interests of children. In practice, however, it appears that as soon as physical custody is contested, any weight given to a history of primary caretaking disappears. Mothers who have been primary caretakers throughout the child's life are subjected to differential and stricter scrutiny, and they may lose custody if the role of primary caretaker has been assumed, however briefly and for whatever reason, by someone else.
Two other aspects of child custody determination raised concern for us. The presumption in favor of shared legal custody that is currently held by many family service officers can result in the awarding of shared legal custody in inappropriate circumstances. We also found that abuse targeted at the mother is not always seen as relevant to custody and visitation decisions. Our research indicates that witnessing, as well as personally experiencing, abuse within the family causes serious harm to children.
We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.
To be fair this is in a single state, but I don't see why this pattern would be very different across states.
It would be nice if you wouldn't try to argue against Hawking by posting meaningless nonsense.
All that your statements have told me is that you have don't even have a cursory understanding of the important issues with the research surrounding black holes, and you also haven't been following the recent discussions about firewalls.
And why, precisely, would the women have guessed that the contract where the sperm donor voided all parental rights would have somehow been not sufficient?
This is false. Women normally get custody because men rarely pursue it. When men do pursue custody, and custody is contested, they're more likely to get custody than women are.
Saying every mother who is single is a disease is appallingly misogynist. So yes, erroneous absolutely deserves the label of misogynist. You do too, AC, for defending his shit.
erroneous had some good points, too, right up until he started trying to claim single mothers are a disease.
So, you think Hawking is attention-grabbing because somebody else said they are, "Hawking Surfaces"? Come on.
Hawking is a well-respected scientist who still does good work in theoretical physics. And this paper is quite good. It is a pretty radical re-thinking of black holes that, if it holds up to further scrutiny, will be considered a very important insight.
I don't think that people will stop calling these objects black holes, but he is absolutely correct in that if this idea holds up, it is a statement that classical black holes do not exist. This doesn't say that extremely dense objects very much like black holes don't exist. But it does say that some of the important, defining features of black holes simply aren't accurate.
That's because you're not thinking about the other benefits.. More buses means less traffic which means fewer road lanes are required. It also means less maintenance on the roads, less pollution, and less fuel use. Because of all these external benefits, public transportation really should be free or nearly free for passengers: more people riding public transportation is a net gain for the city. Overall, money is saved in lowered road construction and maintenance and lower fuel/vehicle costs for passengers.
Sure, but they're likely to be especially economical and helpful to traffic at precisely those times that traffic is the heaviest. And as far as traffic is concerned, the crossover is likely closer to n=3 or so, as that's primarily a function of the size of the vehicle. The crossover for fuel economy is likely at a higher n.
That said, a modest tax on these private bus lines is perfectly reasonable and I fully support it. They are making use of a limited resource (bus stops), after all. And while it may make traffic better in the city overall, it surely does make things worse at those bus stops.
Slashdot Mirror
Except surveys of climate (and related) scientists have been done as well, and they show very similar numbers.
Once again, your survey wasn't a survey of scientists at all, let alone climate scientists.
Essentially all scientific papers that it is possible to tell whether or not they support the consensus view unambiguously support the consensus view. That's what has been shown. This would not happen if there was any meaningful debate within the scientific community on this subject.
As for the link you offered, that's a survey of meteorologists, not climate scientists. Nearly all climate scientists do, indeed, support global warming unambiguously (and if they are actively working, they are even more likely to support it).
If the paper doesn't mention climate change, how are you going to determine whether or not the paper is in support of the consensus view?
Do what, specifically? What criteria do yo think will produce a significant number of papers which support the view that either global warming isn't happening, humans aren't causing it, or it isn't a serious problem?
1. Since civilization began, humanity has not faced sea level rise of this magnitude.
2. Ports that have been drowned tend to fare very poorly. And now we're talking about nearly every port city in the entire world having severe problems. The impact will not be pretty.
3. Water vapor is a fast feedback. It is responsible for amplifying the effect of CO2. It isn't a forcing in and of itself, and thus cannot be said to be responsible for the current 0.7C temperature rise.
The phrase "global climate change" does not specify whether the paper is supporting or disagreeing with the consensus view. It's a neutral phrase. It's just a way of limiting the papers to only those that are on-topic. Why do you think limiting to only on-topic papers was a bad thing?
I can guarantee you that there is no possible selection criteria that would result in a significant number of peer-reviewed papers that claim that global warming isn't happening, that humans aren't causing it, or that global warming isn't quite dangerous. I'm sure you can find some, but they won't come anywhere close to the number that support global warming.
Sea levels are set to rise by a meter or more by the end of the century, and the frequency of both droughts and strong storms has already increased dramatically. No, these are not good things.
Also, we only need about 2.2C of warming or so for all of Greenland to melt (though it will take a few centuries to do so). Greenland melting means sea level rise of about seven meters. That's going to drown a lot of cities.
This isn't necessary at all. It's entirely possible for there to only be an appreciable amount of EM radiation at the desired destination. So you can actually lower the noise floor for everybody else versus today's systems. In fact, because the destination signals are spatially-localized, your only limitation on how many devices you can put on the same network is the size of the localized waveform.
The primary concern I have is how they're going to accurately determine the position, and how they're going to accurately factor in obstacles such as buildings and especially vehicles in computing the required EM waveform. I suppose it might work if they make use of some sort of feedback mechanism that continuously updates the waveform based upon information from the phone about the signals it is receiving, but those updates would have to be extremely fast for it to work in a moving vehicle.
Yup. I'm sure there are lots of neat shortcuts you can make with reactive programming. But once the complexity grows beyond a certain level, it's going to be hell to debug.
So it's like pretty much everything else software-related: it depends upon the situation. For situations where reactive programming permits a simple implementation, it's pretty great. Otherwise, not so much.
But...but...socialism!
It's certainly possible to do. But I don't think it works very well. The problem is that in introducing a graphical design, you introduce additional constraints on the design that are extremely artificial and are only due to the schematic nature. When designing circuits this isn't an extra constraint, because the final product has those exact same constraints.
I've also found graphical UI's for generating programs or parts of programs to be much more cumbersome and slower to work with than scripting languages.
Actually, I'm not so sure it's a huge problem. Even with a good amount of security work, I bet dedicated hackers will be able to find holes. Either way, having a way to alert drivers about nearby cars will almost certainly save far, far more lives than the relatively tiny number of malicious hackers that would seek to panic drivers by feeding them false information.
What privacy concerns do you think are relevant for short-range communication of speed, location, and potentially dimensions? I mean, these are things that are effectively available by looking at the car.
Undeniable? Only in fantasy bullshit MRA land.
Amazing how you can think that decades of laws written almost entirely by men would somehow marginalize men.
For example:
To be fair this is in a single state, but I don't see why this pattern would be very different across states.
It would be nice if you wouldn't try to argue against Hawking by posting meaningless nonsense.
All that your statements have told me is that you have don't even have a cursory understanding of the important issues with the research surrounding black holes, and you also haven't been following the recent discussions about firewalls.
And why, precisely, would the women have guessed that the contract where the sperm donor voided all parental rights would have somehow been not sufficient?
This is false. Women normally get custody because men rarely pursue it. When men do pursue custody, and custody is contested, they're more likely to get custody than women are.
Saying every mother who is single is a disease is appallingly misogynist. So yes, erroneous absolutely deserves the label of misogynist. You do too, AC, for defending his shit.
erroneous had some good points, too, right up until he started trying to claim single mothers are a disease.
So, you think Hawking is attention-grabbing because somebody else said they are, "Hawking Surfaces"? Come on.
Hawking is a well-respected scientist who still does good work in theoretical physics. And this paper is quite good. It is a pretty radical re-thinking of black holes that, if it holds up to further scrutiny, will be considered a very important insight.
I don't think that people will stop calling these objects black holes, but he is absolutely correct in that if this idea holds up, it is a statement that classical black holes do not exist. This doesn't say that extremely dense objects very much like black holes don't exist. But it does say that some of the important, defining features of black holes simply aren't accurate.
That's because you're not thinking about the other benefits.. More buses means less traffic which means fewer road lanes are required. It also means less maintenance on the roads, less pollution, and less fuel use. Because of all these external benefits, public transportation really should be free or nearly free for passengers: more people riding public transportation is a net gain for the city. Overall, money is saved in lowered road construction and maintenance and lower fuel/vehicle costs for passengers.
Sure, but they're likely to be especially economical and helpful to traffic at precisely those times that traffic is the heaviest. And as far as traffic is concerned, the crossover is likely closer to n=3 or so, as that's primarily a function of the size of the vehicle. The crossover for fuel economy is likely at a higher n.
That said, a modest tax on these private bus lines is perfectly reasonable and I fully support it. They are making use of a limited resource (bus stops), after all. And while it may make traffic better in the city overall, it surely does make things worse at those bus stops.