Like windmills, PV solar (and arguably, thermal solar), this will use a ton of capital (in multiple dimensions -- energetic, costs, and materials) to harvest very diffuse energy. The cries to subsidize installation -- and possibly operational -- costs will start almost immediately.
... where to get off on multi-trillion dollar decisions.
This is a whitewash. Like the other recent "investigation", they didn't bother asking any of the IPCC's substantive critics what was wrong with their methods, failed to observe that, years after the Wegman report, that their recommendations still hadn't been heeded, and that fundamental problems with process, data, and code remain.
It's not "knee-jerk" because the government has a monopoly on force. The government can take your property without compensation and throw you in jail, courses of action denied to insurance companies and banks.
This person is a "heretic"? Only among people who value their privacy. She sounds more to me like a typical apologist for Big Brother.
... if tablets were an actual market? Where's the customer base for this? If tablet computing, and not the mobile expertise, is the justification for that price, they're really crazy.
As Climategate showed, it's entirely possible to fix studies if enough pressure is applied to the peer review process. Has anyone looked into the studies "proving" that cellphone use and higher accident rates are highly correlative? It makes sense that they might be intuitively true, but some group of people that might be talking without a hands-free device are now using one. So, shouldn't that have had a positive effect on accidents, even if not all the people out there were following the law?
Nokia has no compelling smart phone offering, and that's where the market is headed. Their current market share -- yes, the largest of any single manufacturer -- is somewhat immaterial on that basis alone.
the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.
Here, there's this thing called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it.
This is nothing more than some dingbat whose business it isn't to insert his nose where it don't belong. Once you accept his premise, spammers can also force changes in Google etc. rankings based on their own notion of "relevance". ("see? We have tons of this keyword in our page. We MUST be relevant!")
In response to the readme file. Yes, the coding is bad. They aren't fudging the data though.
Tryagain. They misrepresent their ability to estimate temperatures with proxies. They remove inconvenient data that fails to show their hypothesis panning out.
I don't know what to call that, but "science" isn't it.
What really bothers me about the complaints around the emails is that none of them (as I understand it) come close to proving that findings were deliberately falsified to point to one conclusion over another.
Lomborg recounts: "In April 1989 the Los Angeles Times interviewed a number of top-environmentalists about their view on cold fusion. With the assumption that the technology would be cheap and clean, Jeremy Rifkin nevertheless thought 'It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet.' Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet's resources, to destroy its fragile balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste."
Slashdot Mirror
should be painfully obvious: where does that subsidy come from? Why, yes, from economic activity derived from burning fossil fuels.
We should be looking at truly sustainable energy solutions, not scams.
We will know an energy source is working properly when politicians seek to tax it.
Like windmills, PV solar (and arguably, thermal solar), this will use a ton of capital (in multiple dimensions -- energetic, costs, and materials) to harvest very diffuse energy. The cries to subsidize installation -- and possibly operational -- costs will start almost immediately.
... but I've already commented and haven't had mod points in months, maybe years.
... where to get off on multi-trillion dollar decisions.
This is a whitewash. Like the other recent "investigation", they didn't bother asking any of the IPCC's substantive critics what was wrong with their methods, failed to observe that, years after the Wegman report, that their recommendations still hadn't been heeded, and that fundamental problems with process, data, and code remain.
It's not "knee-jerk" because the government has a monopoly on force. The government can take your property without compensation and throw you in jail, courses of action denied to insurance companies and banks.
This person is a "heretic"? Only among people who value their privacy. She sounds more to me like a typical apologist for Big Brother.
... if tablets were an actual market? Where's the customer base for this? If tablet computing, and not the mobile expertise, is the justification for that price, they're really crazy.
Scratch the Green, find the Red beneath.
As Climategate showed, it's entirely possible to fix studies if enough pressure is applied to the peer review process. Has anyone looked into the studies "proving" that cellphone use and higher accident rates are highly correlative? It makes sense that they might be intuitively true, but some group of people that might be talking without a hands-free device are now using one. So, shouldn't that have had a positive effect on accidents, even if not all the people out there were following the law?
Le Guin is one of my least favorite writers. This reminds me why.
The Corporation as a legal person started in 1844.
What's that? The iPhone 3GS moved 1.6 million phones during its first week of sales?
Oh. Never mind.
Nokia has no compelling smart phone offering, and that's where the market is headed. Their current market share -- yes, the largest of any single manufacturer -- is somewhat immaterial on that basis alone.
Here, there's this thing called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it. This is nothing more than some dingbat whose business it isn't to insert his nose where it don't belong. Once you accept his premise, spammers can also force changes in Google etc. rankings based on their own notion of "relevance". ("see? We have tons of this keyword in our page. We MUST be relevant!")
Man, Oregon has some wack laws, then.
Actually, it was earlier this year in the East Bay Express .
Try again. They misrepresent their ability to estimate temperatures with proxies. They remove inconvenient data that fails to show their hypothesis panning out. I don't know what to call that, but "science" isn't it.
The GP poster clearly misses the big point here. Cherry picking data is not science.
Maybe you should try actually reading them, then.
a state-run media is exactly what they're calling for. Craven fools.
Do not have mod points, but this comment deserves up mods.
Where's Silverlight for Linux?
Wolfram Alpha will patent the idea of Italian restaurants, too.
Or, what's the easiest way to get both right-of-way AND water rights? Uh huh, have the government condemn miles upon miles of land from everyone in the way.
IBM means "more and stupider".
Ergo, Rifkin is a real idiot.