Well, if it has to be monotonic, then it works both ways. It hasn't been warming continuously for the past "40-50 years," either.
If the reference time unit was a decade, then it has. Decade-over-decade for 40-50 years. Though I suppose if we zoom out and use the millennium as our unit, then you're probably right, it probably has been warming millennium-over-millennium for the past 20 millennia or so.
Yep. You're right. A group of fringe wackos whom nobody takes seriously somehow managed to control an entire branch of scienc
Pretty much, yes.
because a conspiracy theory is the only way to explain the lack of debate
Not all conspiracy theories are wrong. But just in case you weren't aware, even the IPCC admits it isn't about the environment, it's about wealth redistribution:
“We must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore” – Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official.
Don't you feel a little foolish now? I would if I were you.
No. How does the IPCC control every single scientist with expertise in climate? Does every single one of them work for the IPCC?
After all, statistics says that if one flips a coin 10 times, one will get around 5 heads and 5 tails.
I would like to know where you took statistics. If you did a single trial of 10 coin flips and got 8 heads and 2 tails, would you regard statistics as a debunked science?
No, the Theory of Evolution does not do that. But, it does say that if one takes two isolated communities and puts each under different and contradicting pressures, the communities will select for different traits and THAT can be tested.
Yes, and climate change theory says that if you add more greenhouse gases to a system then the temperature of the system will rise on average over time, and THAT can be tested. It just doesn't say by how much, in a decade.
People claim that climate change is settled science, and it seems to me that settled science should be able to predict a temperature change over a decade, especially when there is allegedly so much data.
Yes. The science that says AGW is occurring is settled. That doesn't mean we have a precise model for how fast it will occur. Having a big-picture question settled and having a precise model are two very different things. It is no way implied by something being "settled science" that it should be able to make a specific type of prediction with a specified amount of data.
Seriously, why can't they just publish a table that says if a decade from now the CO2 level is x, then the increase in temperature should have changed by y?
Because there are literally thousands of confounding factors, and that's just counting ones that are identified. They probably could publish a table saying that if a decade from now the CO2 level is x and nothing else changes, the increase in temperature will be y, but then things will change, like the number of sunspots or the number of farting cows (methane is also a greenhouse gas) or the amount of heat people generate heating their homes or the acreage of plant biomass or goodness knows what else, and their prediction won't apply anymore, but everyone will make hay with how it was wrong and fail to appreciate the unmet assumption.
I hope you're joking. They regularly state that the science is settled(along with flappy talking heads), and thus know all.
What does stating "that the science is settled" have to do with how specifically their model can predict the future? Besides which, I don't know of a single climate scientist who has said "the science is settled." That's not how science works and any scientist in any field who believes things are finally settled should turn in their science card. I have, on the other hand, heard many of them point out how much more evidence there is for AGW than against. Nothing wrong with that, because it's true.
...with a guy whose name sounds so much like "bastard"? With your luck he would turn out to be Satan in disguise and would use his powers to manipulate global temperature and win the bet, then claim he'd won the right to turn Earth into an inferno (metaphorical, he already owns the literal one) for all eternity.
"The global average temperature has been warming for 40-50 years."
It's been warming for much more than that. 20,000 years ago, there was 2,000 feet of ice above the spot where I'm sitting.
Yes, but not continuously. It cooled heading into the Little Ice Age, for example.
If a climatologist accepts his bet and loses, what does it prove? That a climatologist isn't a meteorologist, and I think we knew that already.
Well, it would also prove that there is one climatologist in the world dumb enough to think he's also a meteorologist. I'm assuming the intelligence of the climatologists is what's keeping them from taking the wager.
There is no debate, because the chicken littles AGWers are shills for the enviromental wacko socialists. The lack of debate is magnified by pointy heads in academia who think they are smarter than everyone else. It is about as meaningful as the exact number of crickets are chirping tonight.
Yep. You're right. A group of fringe wackos whom nobody takes seriously somehow managed to control an entire branch of science. It's just like how the atheist lobby completely controls biology, right? How do they manage to do that? Who knows, but they must have a way, because a conspiracy theory is the only way to explain the lack of debate!
How you got modded "insightful" for a post that absolutely no insight at all is beyond me.
Apparently quite a bit about how the real world works is beyond you.
If there's no debate, then the global warming high priests will be all too happy to take up his wager.
Unless their theories don't make predictions that specific. It's perfectly possible to have a theory which is undisputed but whose predictions are long-range and apply to the big picture. Tell me, does the theory of evolution by natural selection allow you to predict how long it will take for speciation to occur again within Homo sapiens?
In contrast, handwriting and fonts that are more challenging to read signal to the brain that the content of the message is important and worth remembering, experts say.
I don't know who these experts are or why they say that, but for me handwriting and fonts that are more challenging to read signal to the brain that the content isn't worth reading because it's too much trouble, causing me to stop reading and go do something else.
Not directly, and not in light drinkers, but wait:
"Alcohol can lead indirectly to the death of brain cells in chronic, heavy alcohol users whose brains have adapted to the effects of alcohol, where abrupt cessation following heavy use can cause excitotoxicity leading to cellular death in multiple areas of the brain." Maybe next time RTFL before you use it to support such a broad assertion.
I know, I'm much more disappointed in myself knowing that than when I could blame my current lack of brightness on past ethanol-fueled fun.
Depending on how much ethanol was fueling your fun, you still might be able to use that excuse.
However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.
Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.
I don't know about anybody else, but that thing you just said is beyond easy and simple comprehension to my mind...
It doesn't use https, so that password is going over the net completely unencypted. Don't rely on it remaining secret. Do not use the same password that you also use for services that matter, like banking or private email.
Firstly, I don't think failing to realize that non-https connections are vulnerable to hackers is the same as giving the government permission to spoof the site you were trying to log in to and steal your password. People should be blamed for being stupid, but that doesn't mean government deserves no blame for being shifty.
Secondly, false. Facebook uses https for sending passwords. You can see this by going to the FB front page and viewing page source, then look at the code for the login button.
Besides which, my response was to icebike who seemed to think TFA was about people's profiles being spied on, when in fact it's about government actively spoofing parts of a site to get information that was never "on facebook in the first place."
Heh.. I saw an ad for a TV program on last week, and part of the description was "and the tips you literally cannot live without!"
I missed the show, yet am still alive. I think the presenter may have been slightly over-zealous with his usage of the term "literally".
On the contrary! Clearly, your continued animate existence just means that you already know all of those tips. You took a big risk though, man. If by chance there had been just one tip in there that you hadn't already been aware of, whoosh, curtains for you!
If it were private, your information wouldn't be on facebook in the first place.
Yeah, who in their right mind would give their Facebook password to Facebook? Clearly when you type it in the little box with the dots instead of letters it means you don't want it to be private anymore.
The Fourth Amendment is a joke today. I know it, the government knows it, and apparently you didn't get the memo.
Far from failing to get the memo, I'm pretty sure OP intended to use irony to make just that point. How else do you explain the clearly tongue-in-cheek "Of course not!" in the post title?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if it has to be monotonic, then it works both ways. It hasn't been warming continuously for the past "40-50 years," either.
If the reference time unit was a decade, then it has. Decade-over-decade for 40-50 years. Though I suppose if we zoom out and use the millennium as our unit, then you're probably right, it probably has been warming millennium-over-millennium for the past 20 millennia or so.
Pretty much, yes.
Not all conspiracy theories are wrong. But just in case you weren't aware, even the IPCC admits it isn't about the environment, it's about wealth redistribution:
Don't you feel a little foolish now? I would if I were you.
No. How does the IPCC control every single scientist with expertise in climate? Does every single one of them work for the IPCC?
After all, statistics says that if one flips a coin 10 times, one will get around 5 heads and 5 tails.
I would like to know where you took statistics. If you did a single trial of 10 coin flips and got 8 heads and 2 tails, would you regard statistics as a debunked science?
No, the Theory of Evolution does not do that. But, it does say that if one takes two isolated communities and puts each under different and contradicting pressures, the communities will select for different traits and THAT can be tested.
Yes, and climate change theory says that if you add more greenhouse gases to a system then the temperature of the system will rise on average over time, and THAT can be tested. It just doesn't say by how much, in a decade.
People claim that climate change is settled science, and it seems to me that settled science should be able to predict a temperature change over a decade, especially when there is allegedly so much data.
Yes. The science that says AGW is occurring is settled. That doesn't mean we have a precise model for how fast it will occur. Having a big-picture question settled and having a precise model are two very different things. It is no way implied by something being "settled science" that it should be able to make a specific type of prediction with a specified amount of data.
Seriously, why can't they just publish a table that says if a decade from now the CO2 level is x, then the increase in temperature should have changed by y?
Because there are literally thousands of confounding factors, and that's just counting ones that are identified. They probably could publish a table saying that if a decade from now the CO2 level is x and nothing else changes, the increase in temperature will be y, but then things will change, like the number of sunspots or the number of farting cows (methane is also a greenhouse gas) or the amount of heat people generate heating their homes or the acreage of plant biomass or goodness knows what else, and their prediction won't apply anymore, but everyone will make hay with how it was wrong and fail to appreciate the unmet assumption.
I hope you're joking. They regularly state that the science is settled(along with flappy talking heads), and thus know all.
What does stating "that the science is settled" have to do with how specifically their model can predict the future? Besides which, I don't know of a single climate scientist who has said "the science is settled." That's not how science works and any scientist in any field who believes things are finally settled should turn in their science card. I have, on the other hand, heard many of them point out how much more evidence there is for AGW than against. Nothing wrong with that, because it's true.
Yeah.
This is just going to boil down to both of them showing each other their penises.
It's probably just as accurate to put it like this, but more entertaining.
What, did he kill Kenny or something?
Not Kenny, but maybe Kennyi.
...with a guy whose name sounds so much like "bastard"? With your luck he would turn out to be Satan in disguise and would use his powers to manipulate global temperature and win the bet, then claim he'd won the right to turn Earth into an inferno (metaphorical, he already owns the literal one) for all eternity.
"The global average temperature has been warming for 40-50 years." It's been warming for much more than that. 20,000 years ago, there was 2,000 feet of ice above the spot where I'm sitting.
Yes, but not continuously. It cooled heading into the Little Ice Age, for example.
If a climatologist accepts his bet and loses, what does it prove? That a climatologist isn't a meteorologist, and I think we knew that already.
Well, it would also prove that there is one climatologist in the world dumb enough to think he's also a meteorologist. I'm assuming the intelligence of the climatologists is what's keeping them from taking the wager.
There is no debate, because the chicken littles AGWers are shills for the enviromental wacko socialists. The lack of debate is magnified by pointy heads in academia who think they are smarter than everyone else. It is about as meaningful as the exact number of crickets are chirping tonight.
Yep. You're right. A group of fringe wackos whom nobody takes seriously somehow managed to control an entire branch of science. It's just like how the atheist lobby completely controls biology, right? How do they manage to do that? Who knows, but they must have a way, because a conspiracy theory is the only way to explain the lack of debate!
How you got modded "insightful" for a post that absolutely no insight at all is beyond me.
Apparently quite a bit about how the real world works is beyond you.
If there's no debate, then the global warming high priests will be all too happy to take up his wager.
Unless their theories don't make predictions that specific. It's perfectly possible to have a theory which is undisputed but whose predictions are long-range and apply to the big picture. Tell me, does the theory of evolution by natural selection allow you to predict how long it will take for speciation to occur again within Homo sapiens?
In contrast, handwriting and fonts that are more challenging to read signal to the brain that the content of the message is important and worth remembering, experts say.
I don't know who these experts are or why they say that, but for me handwriting and fonts that are more challenging to read signal to the brain that the content isn't worth reading because it's too much trouble, causing me to stop reading and go do something else.
Actually alcohol doesn't kill brain cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
Not directly, and not in light drinkers, but wait: "Alcohol can lead indirectly to the death of brain cells in chronic, heavy alcohol users whose brains have adapted to the effects of alcohol, where abrupt cessation following heavy use can cause excitotoxicity leading to cellular death in multiple areas of the brain." Maybe next time RTFL before you use it to support such a broad assertion.
I know, I'm much more disappointed in myself knowing that than when I could blame my current lack of brightness on past ethanol-fueled fun.
Depending on how much ethanol was fueling your fun, you still might be able to use that excuse.
However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.
Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.
I don't know about anybody else, but that thing you just said is beyond easy and simple comprehension to my mind...
That's kind of silly question isn't it? It's a Web browser. People use it browse the Web, obviously. Duh.
Because, obviously, the web consists of only one site which can only be interacted with in one way. Duh.
It doesn't use https, so that password is going over the net completely unencypted. Don't rely on it remaining secret. Do not use the same password that you also use for services that matter, like banking or private email.
Firstly, I don't think failing to realize that non-https connections are vulnerable to hackers is the same as giving the government permission to spoof the site you were trying to log in to and steal your password. People should be blamed for being stupid, but that doesn't mean government deserves no blame for being shifty.
Secondly, false. Facebook uses https for sending passwords. You can see this by going to the FB front page and viewing page source, then look at the code for the login button.
Besides which, my response was to icebike who seemed to think TFA was about people's profiles being spied on, when in fact it's about government actively spoofing parts of a site to get information that was never "on facebook in the first place."
Heh.. I saw an ad for a TV program on last week, and part of the description was "and the tips you literally cannot live without!"
I missed the show, yet am still alive. I think the presenter may have been slightly over-zealous with his usage of the term "literally".
On the contrary! Clearly, your continued animate existence just means that you already know all of those tips. You took a big risk though, man. If by chance there had been just one tip in there that you hadn't already been aware of, whoosh, curtains for you!
Is the bear Catholic?
Do Priests shit in the woods?
Do fish molest altar boys in the water?
There are dumb statements. This is one.
Fixed that for you.
Clue:
If it were private, your information wouldn't be on facebook in the first place.
Yeah, who in their right mind would give their Facebook password to Facebook? Clearly when you type it in the little box with the dots instead of letters it means you don't want it to be private anymore.
Obviously, the government took them.
Yeah, the Tunisian government. We know they do that sort of thing.
The Fourth Amendment is a joke today. I know it, the government knows it, and apparently you didn't get the memo.
Far from failing to get the memo, I'm pretty sure OP intended to use irony to make just that point. How else do you explain the clearly tongue-in-cheek "Of course not!" in the post title?
It's news to me! I only read Slashdot for the pictures.
You must mean the pictures of Hanny van Arkel.
Brilliant!