I'll try to be more clear and complete in presenting my point, because once again you didn't get it, or you ignored it.
Knowing who funds the site is useful and important information for the readers of Slashdot. It helps them understand that they will only get a very limited, and highly selective subset of the research there.
There are valid peer reviews papers at the website you refer to, but the web site only includes the bits and pieces of the research that support it's very specific Exxon friendly point of view. It tends to exclude peer reviewed papers that provide evidence that is not in Exxon's financial interests.
It wraps all of this in highly prejudicial language, branding all those who oppose the website's point of view as 'extremist' and 'alarmist'. The co2science website does this while pretending to be objective and attempting to hide the fact that it's funded by Exxon and the Mellon-Scaife fortunes.
I'm not attempting to address the validity of individual papers at the site. I have no doubt that some of them are good and contribute in part to the larger body of knowledge. Again, it's the context that slashdot readers need to be aware of, or they may be misled into believing that the website presents a balanced picture.
The SkepticalScience.com is a better source because it's honest about it's purpose, takes a broader view, and does not exclude references to valid peer reviewed studies based on the outcomes of the studies.
Yes, the fact co2science is funded by the oil industry is very relevant to its credibility. Using the words you used toward Wikipedia, you should be wary of trusting Co2science about AGW.
This fact has no bearing on whether or not I understand how science works. Your personal attack on me is itself a case of "attacking the messenger", hence the delicious irony!
Water alone is not a source of energy. You suggest solar and wind electricity to separate the hydrogen.
The process of using electricity to separate hydrogen from oxygen, storing hydrogen, then burning it for power it is less efficient than simply using batteries and running cars directly from electricity.
According to this article (http://asunews.asu.edu/20080229_pizzarello), an un-contaminated meteorite was was found to have amino acids with mixed chirality, but with a bias towards the left-handed (up to 15%), not the 50%-50% suggested in the article linked in the submission. So to some extent, this supports what you said.
Even so, the technique described in the submitted article could work. It's all about signal to noise. If some feature of a planet reflects vastly more chiral bias than a rocky moon or asteroid in the same system, that could indicate that it harbors life.
Tice's claim is that organizations identified for exclusions were actually being targeted for full collection...
In the countdown interview Tice describes his job as identifying groups via metatdata so they can more accurately be excluded from full collection of communications content.
Tice says he learned: for the groups he was analyzing (such as journalists, etc), all communication content was being collected rather than excluded, which is illegal.
He also expressed his understanding that the NSA doesn't have the capacity to save all data for all communications. When he learned that they were saving full data for the groups he identified for exclusion, he said "it didn't make sense". His conclusion was that they must be using his work to specifically target those groups rather than to exclude them.
Thanks to Miro, I have the full show. The interview starts around minute 28 of "MSNBC - Countdown". He invited him back for todays show as well.
That said, if there was anythig to astrology I'd have gotten laid Friday night. I look at horoscopes for the humor value, and one Friday said "a home cooked meal will provoke a romp in the sack". Too damned bad astrology is bullshit! The problem is that you thought the prediction applied to you. I'm happy to say your that your astrological prediction was quite accurate.
My prediction: Raul liberalizes emigration from Cuba which, of course, helps major league baseball. The new Cuban baseball players drive the American players out of their jobs. Since the Americans don't have health insurance any more, they head to Cuba to deal with their lingering elbow and shoulder injuries. This triggers a slump in the US medical industry causing massive nurse layoffs, plummeting medical prices, and finally culminating in the complete collapse of the US health care system. Then Stan recruits Micheal Moore to try to fix things, Kenny dies because he can't get to Cuba, and Cartman accidentally saves the day while pursuing yet another amoral narcissistic scheme. Then we all learn something. Yeah. That's it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll try to be more clear and complete in presenting my point, because once again you didn't get it, or you ignored it.
Knowing who funds the site is useful and important information for the readers of Slashdot. It helps them understand that they will only get a very limited, and highly selective subset of the research there.
There are valid peer reviews papers at the website you refer to, but the web site only includes the bits and pieces of the research that support it's very specific Exxon friendly point of view. It tends to exclude peer reviewed papers that provide evidence that is not in Exxon's financial interests.
It wraps all of this in highly prejudicial language, branding all those who oppose the website's point of view as 'extremist' and 'alarmist'. The co2science website does this while pretending to be objective and attempting to hide the fact that it's funded by Exxon and the Mellon-Scaife fortunes.
I'm not attempting to address the validity of individual papers at the site. I have no doubt that some of them are good and contribute in part to the larger body of knowledge. Again, it's the context that slashdot readers need to be aware of, or they may be misled into believing that the website presents a balanced picture.
The SkepticalScience.com is a better source because it's honest about it's purpose, takes a broader view, and does not exclude references to valid peer reviewed studies based on the outcomes of the studies.
What a deliciously ironic reply!
Yes, the fact co2science is funded by the oil industry is very relevant to its credibility. Using the words you used toward Wikipedia, you should be wary of trusting Co2science about AGW.
This fact has no bearing on whether or not I understand how science works. Your personal attack on me is itself a case of "attacking the messenger", hence the delicious irony!
It's ironic that you cite co2science.org after raising doubts about using Wikipedia as a source. First, co2science evidently wants to hide who's behind them:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/co2science.org
Second, the website is funded by Exxon/Mobil and by the Mellon oil fortune through the Sara Scaife foundation:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change/funders
Co2science's latest focus of obfuscation is the "medieval warm period". For better, and more honest context on that topic, see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
The real tectonic shift comes when the online episode make more money overall than the prime time TV showing.
Water alone is not a source of energy. You suggest solar and wind electricity to separate the hydrogen.
The process of using electricity to separate hydrogen from oxygen, storing hydrogen, then burning it for power it is less efficient than simply using batteries and running cars directly from electricity.
Quantum Mechanics is involved in everything!
(Except maybe gravity. And there's a good chance it's involved in that as well.)
According to this article (http://asunews.asu.edu/20080229_pizzarello), an un-contaminated meteorite was was found to have amino acids with mixed chirality, but with a bias towards the left-handed (up to 15%), not the 50%-50% suggested in the article linked in the submission. So to some extent, this supports what you said.
Even so, the technique described in the submitted article could work. It's all about signal to noise. If some feature of a planet reflects vastly more chiral bias than a rocky moon or asteroid in the same system, that could indicate that it harbors life.
Tice's claim is that organizations identified for exclusions were actually being targeted for full collection...
In the countdown interview Tice describes his job as identifying groups via metatdata so they can more accurately be excluded from full collection of communications content.
Tice says he learned: for the groups he was analyzing (such as journalists, etc), all communication content was being collected rather than excluded, which is illegal.
He also expressed his understanding that the NSA doesn't have the capacity to save all data for all communications. When he learned that they were saving full data for the groups he identified for exclusion, he said "it didn't make sense". His conclusion was that they must be using his work to specifically target those groups rather than to exclude them.
Thanks to Miro, I have the full show. The interview starts around minute 28 of "MSNBC - Countdown". He invited him back for todays show as well.
My prediction:
Raul liberalizes emigration from Cuba which, of course, helps major league baseball. The new Cuban baseball players drive the American players out of their jobs. Since the Americans don't have health insurance any more, they head to Cuba to deal with their lingering elbow and shoulder injuries. This triggers a slump in the US medical industry causing massive nurse layoffs, plummeting medical prices, and finally culminating in the complete collapse of the US health care system. Then Stan recruits Micheal Moore to try to fix things, Kenny dies because he can't get to Cuba, and Cartman accidentally saves the day while pursuing yet another amoral narcissistic scheme. Then we all learn something. Yeah. That's it.
More like:
Democrats: Regulation of big corporations often good.
Republicans: Regulation that protects big corporations mostly good.
This still makes NN more likely to be supported by the democrats, though with Google and Amazon in favor, it should attract a few republicans as well.
Considering their proximity to NSA headquarters, maybe they have a different concept of "locked down".