eh, I should have* deleted the shooting people in the head bit. I'm just getting very tired or people assuming the ignorance is a valid as someone knowledge.
Between AGW and Evolution denials, manufactured controversies, and the known effort to discredit science, and people like you who have no clue what science is it gets very frustrating.
It isn't selection bias. Why do you think it is? IT is another prediction shown to be correct. AGW is happening, right now. That is a fact. frankly, if we don't do something soon, I'm going to make it my mission to shoot every person creating fake controversy in the head.
Your point would have been valid in 1990. After this much time? it isn't and the comic you link isn't relevant unless you add 31 more years with of data points.
BY keeping a fake controversy going, people don't have to think about their religious beliefs, and industry doesn't have to change as fast..right now.
I agree with you. We have gone from 'interesting weather, but it could be erratic behavior' to ' It's changing and we better be thinking about how to deal with it'.
" I bet you would show that the temperature rise pretty much is spot on with the rise in geomagnetic activity from the sun, " no, you wouldn'ty. This is knwon data, these comparisons have been done.
Climate change is ON TOP OIF change in temperature from the sun.
When the sun was 'cooler' our temperature didn't rise as fast, but it did rise. Under you premise we would expect it to return to previous temperatures, it didn't.
You idea is provable wrong.
"was in high school in the 70's, they were talking about a mini ice age" And? IT's not 1970 anymore. we have a lot more data. I know this will be hard for you to grasp, because it require 2 thoughts.
1) Matter is being spewed into the air. This matter blocks some light. This is what the cooling talk in the media was about in the 70s.
2) Some of it is CO2. This traps the heat. With me so far?
The effect from trapping the heat is stronger then the effect of the 'dimming'. This is known and proven.
Why people thing the media and 'general societal knowledge' is 100% correct is beyond me. Basing an opinion from something you heard in high school in the 70s is just fucking stupid. YOU ARE BEING STUPID.
Of course, I am assuming you are correct about hearing about 'mini ice age' I don't remember that from high school in the 70s, no one who makes that claim can show citation of that ever being said. Not that it matter when we have so much data confirming the global warming theory.
Many have. And you don't have a chance of erratic behaviors that account for 30 years of confirming data.
Sure, if this was 1987 we could say that, not anymore.
Of course Climate change is a fact, and that humans are the primary instigators is also a fact.
Too bad religious assholes create ignorance, destroy scientific credibility, and spread the false ides of 'controversy' about anything that doesn't jive with there ignorant belief.
Maybe the thing you should do is try to understand how science works?
"well... y'know what? even brownian motion gets it right if there's enough molecules. the trick is in being able to spot the one molecule that pops out at the right place at the right time, and this is no different, really."
Don't confuse bad reporting, and uninformed opinion with actual prediction.
The paper is a good one, and it's predictions has stood up to time. Along with several others.
I'm sure some yahoo some where made the outlandish claim the water will rise a foot. I will also be he wasn't an expert or he was taken out of context.
This story it pretty horrible. The reporting of the issue as well as people like you.
A) This story talks about a few individual studies. A study is interesting, but a series of studies is needed. any 1 study can be flawed.
B) Not all studies are the same. Depending on what the goal is, or the experience of the people running it. This is also known.
C) The conclusions of studies can be wrong. Usually because the person putting the paper together doesn't understand the statistics, or doesn't see a flaw in the data presentation.
D) Yes, something there is fraud. However it's usually found out pretty quick.
Those are some of the key reasons multiple independent studies need to be done. From what I can tell, this guy grab many individual studies, as oppose to the body of evidence as a whole.
People have less faith in science right now because the media propagates the myth that someone ignorance is just as valued as someones knowledge. Couple that with the media jumping on any individual study, tossing it on the TV and acting as if it's definitive finding that will change the world tomorrow. They need to mention more often that it can take year of research to bring something to market.
"Cynically, why would anyone try and 'cure' cancer when you can keep the gravy train of research papers and expensive drugs going?" That's more naive then Cynical.
The answer is: Money. Think about what happens if a 'cure' for cancer was found.
A) Stock price shoot up. B) The board gets richer. C) The C*O get big fat bonuses.
Do you really think the board and CEO gives a rats ass about the next board member or CEO? Why would they put off making a big bonus to the next management team? IN a world run on annual and qtr. reports, there is no reason to put it of.
D) Competition. If you bury it, that means your competitors are likely to find it. That's a huge fucking risk with no gain.
E) You still make money from selling the cure because people will still get cancers. Hell it cold cost them a penny, and they could charge 10 grand and people would be happy, and it would still be cheaper for the insurance company.
" It all goes into one black hole, never to be seen again. " Just because you don't follow the money doesn't mean it's not accountable. A lot of charities are horrible, but I'm not sure why you expect your 10 bucks in and of itself would make a noticeable impact.
Yep, another thread of poster whining about a non problem. You can turn all of that off. They would rather be haters then take 2 minute to figure out how to use the product they have. IT's like listening to old people be angry because their VCR flashes 12.
Ah, another post from some who has no idea why he hates google.
All the hate generate toward Google regarding there recent changes is bullshit. A bunch of whiner who don't even know what they are talking about. The changes made it better, gave the users more power, and made it easier to understand.
"And if you do, just cut/paste the url and send it" That reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother about mail 17 years ago. Where my mother said:
"If you want to tell someone something, you just pick up the phone and call them."
" one might wonder why Google has to push their own social network instead of working on open protocols for sharing."
Because getting involved in another persons project is a fucking nightmare.
Could you imagine if Google showed up and starting putting in changes? The open project would freak out about how Google is taking them over, and how they lost control.
Pretty much everything you said about porn is wrong. Just so you know.
" That's why its arguable that virtually every breakthrough in computer graphics has been developed and paid for first by porn aficionados then gamers." Wow, that old canard. It's false. The pron industry is a wide industry*. Meaning a lot of people get into it*. That is why it gets onto new media. That industry doesn't create new technology, they don't support new technology, they go on all technology. The past is littered with failed technologies that had porn on them.
"Porn is just an outward manifestation of a society that hasn't dealt with its emotional or cultural baggage" no, porn is masturbatory fantasy.
"and that it should be a "small" but important part of all our lives. "
Porn isn't really the best place for that. What you see is what's best for the camera angle, not necessarily the most pleasurable OTOH, practice, practice, practice;)
Slashdot Mirror
", arguing the change would have disastrous consequences for programmers,"
So?
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
He heard some ignoramus on some show like 'in search of', or some such say it one time. Then his friend talked about it while stoned. hence, frenzy.
eh, I should have* deleted the shooting people in the head bit. I'm just getting very tired or people assuming the ignorance is a valid as someone knowledge.
Between AGW and Evolution denials, manufactured controversies, and the known effort to discredit science, and people like you who have no clue what science is it gets very frustrating.
*should of? should have? I get those confused.
It isn't selection bias. Why do you think it is? IT is another prediction shown to be correct. AGW is happening, right now. That is a fact.
frankly, if we don't do something soon, I'm going to make it my mission to shoot every person creating fake controversy in the head.
Your point would have been valid in 1990. After this much time? it isn't and the comic you link isn't relevant unless you add 31 more years with of data points.
BY keeping a fake controversy going, people don't have to think about their religious beliefs, and industry doesn't have to change as fast..right now.
I agree with you. We have gone from 'interesting weather, but it could be erratic behavior' to ' It's changing and we better be thinking about how to deal with it'.
Look at the jet stream and ocean temperatures.
" I bet you would show that the temperature rise pretty much is spot on with the rise in geomagnetic activity from the sun, "
no, you wouldn'ty. This is knwon data, these comparisons have been done.
Climate change is ON TOP OIF change in temperature from the sun.
When the sun was 'cooler' our temperature didn't rise as fast, but it did rise. Under you premise we would expect it to return to previous temperatures, it didn't.
You idea is provable wrong.
"was in high school in the 70's, they were talking about a mini ice age"
And? IT's not 1970 anymore. we have a lot more data.
I know this will be hard for you to grasp, because it require 2 thoughts.
1) Matter is being spewed into the air. This matter blocks some light. This is what the cooling talk in the media was about in the 70s.
2) Some of it is CO2. This traps the heat. With me so far?
The effect from trapping the heat is stronger then the effect of the 'dimming'. This is known and proven.
Why people thing the media and 'general societal knowledge' is 100% correct is beyond me. Basing an opinion from something you heard in high school in the 70s is just fucking stupid. YOU ARE BEING STUPID.
Of course, I am assuming you are correct about hearing about 'mini ice age' I don't remember that from high school in the 70s, no one who makes that claim can show citation of that ever being said. Not that it matter when we have so much data confirming the global warming theory.
Many have.
And you don't have a chance of erratic behaviors that account for 30 years of confirming data.
Sure, if this was 1987 we could say that, not anymore.
Of course Climate change is a fact, and that humans are the primary instigators is also a fact.
Too bad religious assholes create ignorance, destroy scientific credibility, and spread the false ides of 'controversy' about anything that doesn't jive with there ignorant belief.
Maybe the thing you should do is try to understand how science works?
"well... y'know what? even brownian motion gets it right if there's enough molecules. the trick is in being able to spot the one molecule that pops out at the right place at the right time, and this is no different, really."
seriously, you sound like an idiot.
Tell me about it. I read the paper when it came out.
Don't confuse bad reporting, and uninformed opinion with actual prediction.
The paper is a good one, and it's predictions has stood up to time. Along with several others.
I'm sure some yahoo some where made the outlandish claim the water will rise a foot. I will also be he wasn't an expert or he was taken out of context.
Since I actual know a lot of scientists, and can say you are full of bullshit.
A) proving something wrong is worth more money and recognition.
I would make the same choice most scientists make, the honest one.
Sure, you would cheat to get ahead, but stop seeing that in everyone else.
The problem here is that for some reason he expected single studies to be 100% accurate.
Oh, and if what you said is true(it isn't) then we would be reading about it.
And finally: I'ts an article, don't expect to to be a very good reflection of whats going on.
This story it pretty horrible. The reporting of the issue as well as people like you.
A) This story talks about a few individual studies. A study is interesting, but a series of studies is needed. any 1 study can be flawed.
B) Not all studies are the same. Depending on what the goal is, or the experience of the people running it. This is also known.
C) The conclusions of studies can be wrong. Usually because the person putting the paper together doesn't understand the statistics, or doesn't see a flaw in the data presentation.
D) Yes, something there is fraud. However it's usually found out pretty quick.
Those are some of the key reasons multiple independent studies need to be done. From what I can tell, this guy grab many individual studies, as oppose to the body of evidence as a whole.
People have less faith in science right now because the media propagates the myth that someone ignorance is just as valued as someones knowledge. Couple that with the media jumping on any individual study, tossing it on the TV and acting as if it's definitive finding that will change the world tomorrow. They need to mention more often that it can take year of research to bring something to market.
"Cynically, why would anyone try and 'cure' cancer when you can keep the gravy train of research papers and expensive drugs going?"
That's more naive then Cynical.
The answer is: Money.
Think about what happens if a 'cure' for cancer was found.
A) Stock price shoot up.
B) The board gets richer.
C) The C*O get big fat bonuses.
Do you really think the board and CEO gives a rats ass about the next board member or CEO? Why would they put off making a big bonus to the next management team? IN a world run on annual and qtr. reports, there is no reason to put it of.
D) Competition. If you bury it, that means your competitors are likely to find it. That's a huge fucking risk with no gain.
E) You still make money from selling the cure because people will still get cancers. Hell it cold cost them a penny, and they could charge 10 grand and people would be happy, and it would still be cheaper for the insurance company.
" It all goes into one black hole, never to be seen again. "
Just because you don't follow the money doesn't mean it's not accountable. A lot of charities are horrible, but I'm not sure why you expect your 10 bucks in and of itself would make a noticeable impact.
Yep, another thread of poster whining about a non problem. You can turn all of that off. They would rather be haters then take 2 minute to figure out how to use the product they have.
IT's like listening to old people be angry because their VCR flashes 12.
Ah, another post from some who has no idea why he hates google.
All the hate generate toward Google regarding there recent changes is bullshit. A bunch of whiner who don't even know what they are talking about. The changes made it better, gave the users more power, and made it easier to understand.
"And if you do, just cut/paste the url and send it"
That reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother about mail 17 years ago. Where my mother said:
"If you want to tell someone something, you just pick up the phone and call them."
Just thought I would share with you, grand pa.
" one might wonder why Google has to push their own social network instead of working on open protocols for sharing."
Because getting involved in another persons project is a fucking nightmare.
Could you imagine if Google showed up and starting putting in changes? The open project would freak out about how Google is taking them over, and how they lost control.
Why would they ask someone who won't even bother to read the simplest article? Yu're the kind of person I hope they NEVER ask.
That are not doing this, they drew up plans, and then halted it.
This will never launch; however nuclear power solved the problems of using satellites, solar and balloons.
control, response, and range.
Pretty much everything you said about porn is wrong. Just so you know.
" That's why its arguable that virtually every breakthrough in computer graphics has been developed and paid for first by porn aficionados then gamers."
Wow, that old canard. It's false. The pron industry is a wide industry*. Meaning a lot of people get into it*. That is why it gets onto new media. That industry doesn't create new technology, they don't support new technology, they go on all technology. The past is littered with failed technologies that had porn on them.
"Porn is just an outward manifestation of a society that hasn't dealt with its emotional or cultural baggage"
no, porn is masturbatory fantasy.
"and that it should be a "small" but important part of all our lives. "
why small?
*giggity
Similar to drug dealers in new your.
New York had the problem of drug dealers fighting over a corner, and shooting each other, bystanders and making NY look like a horrible place to go.
SO they cracked down on street dealers. The did not have a zero tolerance against drugs, just selling on the street.
All the dealers started dealing from their homes. Which stopped the shooting, cleaned up the street. Drug use remains about the same.
I wonder why they just didn't make prostitution illegal outside a brothel and regulate the brothels?
Excpt it isn't just about 'cointrol' it's abouit shoving religion down peoples throats; a whole different mind set.
Porn isn't really the best place for that. What you see is what's best for the camera angle, not necessarily the most pleasurable ;)
OTOH, practice, practice, practice
The more you know.
I'm sorry, I'm going to be pedantic here.
Correlation doesn't imply* causation.
'correlation isn't causation' isn't correct because it's an absolute, when in fact sometimes correlation IS causation.
*imply in the statistical sense.