Authors, including authors of cartoons, tend to spend most of their time thinking, so they're a fairly good profession for spawning visionaries quite regularly.
IMO he should have spent more time thinking about his cartoon strip, which (back in the day) had one that was funny, interesting, or insightful out of every few hundred.
Actually lots of idiots are in total denial. Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".
It's seasonal, and one of the reasons for the increase is increased precipitation (caused by, you guessed it, global warming). The sea there is actually warmer, and the land ice is shrinking. In short, this is only interesting if you need facts with superficial interpretations that can "refute" global warming to the uninformed masses.
p.s. - I notice in another skepticalscience link that gw deniers have joined evolution deniers in invoking the second law of thermodynamics as "proof that it couldn't happen". As if scientists are ignorant of the 2LoT.
Really if you want to see pseudoscience in action take a good look at all the assumptions behind cosmology and astronomy. Redshift = distance is an ASSUMPTION and Edwin Hubble himself was the first to point that out. Or start being honest enough to teach students that LOTS of biologists as well as physicists like Sir Hoyle have valid doubts about the theory of evolution, and no they are not creationists. Their main problem with evolution being that it is so often presented as settled established fact when it really has a lot of serious problems that need to be worked out. Just saying that is some kind of heresy in most English-speaking areas. Truth is many scientists would love to replace evolution with a better theory.
Every hypothesis is "an assumption". But some stand up to scrutiny and offer a lot of explanatory value.
As for evolution, what you said isn't heresy - it's a claim that you didn't try to back up.
Roughly one in three American adults believes in telepathy, ghosts, and extrasensory perception," wrote a trio of scientists in a 2012 issue of the Astronomy Education Review.
Yes we must use government institutions to regulate what people believe! If we start young we can change the next generation.
That's one spin you could put on it.
Another choice is "How is a country full of people that believe nonsense going to survive the 21st Century?"
There is a great deal of pseudoscience belief on both sides of the isle. The left has irrational beliefs on nuclear power, GMO foods, etc.
You're trying to pee in the punch with a "both sides do it" argument. The not-so-subtle difference is that "the left" doesn't deny that nuclear power and GM foods exist. To paraphrase the famous saying, everyone is entitled to their own policy opinions, but not to their own realities.
But then the Republicans aren't generally as bad as they get a rap for. Their only substantial reality-denying party positions are on evolution and global warming, and both of those are for easily understandable political reasons (the former too keep the dwindling numbers of the faithful faithful, the latter to please their corporate masters).
It''s called "telegraphic speech", as if the writer didn't want to pay for the extra characters.
Newspapers do it for space: the bigger the typeface, the less room for text.
I suspect it carries over to internet articles because of cognitive side-effects: if every headline was a complete sentence they would take more effort on the readers' part. You want something that will instantly grab (or lose) a reader's attention without any mental effort on their part.
(Look at how many people don't RTFA, or even RTFSummary. Full sentences would lead to people who don't even RTFHeadline.)
However, telegraphic speech can cause problems for readers.
Climate change is inevetible and most ultimately dictated by the same orbital changes that bring us the "ice ages."
The second part of that claim is *utterly* falsified by the science. Temperatures are moving in the wrong direction: you'd expect global cooling as we exit the current interglacial.
It amazes me that so many Slashdotters are trying to convince the world that change isn't coming, rather than trying to figure out how they can get richer than Bill Gates by founding a startup for mitigation technologies.
"pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed."
This has been asserted since 1985. And you can convince yourself that it's utterly false, if you assume that the actual floods, drought, conflict, and economic damage are caused by something else.
[Actually I don't know of any conflicts attributable to GW yet. But both the US military and US national security agencies have concluded that GW is their biggest threat for this century. Some people can't afford to ignore the facts.]
Slashdot Mirror
Authors, including authors of cartoons, tend to spend most of their time thinking, so they're a fairly good profession for spawning visionaries quite regularly.
IMO he should have spent more time thinking about his cartoon strip, which (back in the day) had one that was funny, interesting, or insightful out of every few hundred.
So what's the possessive plural for "glasses"?
Actually lots of idiots are in total denial.
Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".
It's seasonal, and one of the reasons for the increase is increased precipitation (caused by, you guessed it, global warming).
The sea there is actually warmer, and the land ice is shrinking.
In short, this is only interesting if you need facts with superficial interpretations that can "refute" global warming to the uninformed masses.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
p.s. - I notice in another skepticalscience link that gw deniers have joined evolution deniers in invoking the second law of thermodynamics as "proof that it couldn't happen". As if scientists are ignorant of the 2LoT.
Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.
You know the saying: the proper role of government is to help the rich get richer faster than they would without it.
Really if you want to see pseudoscience in action take a good look at all the assumptions behind cosmology and astronomy. Redshift = distance is an ASSUMPTION and Edwin Hubble himself was the first to point that out. Or start being honest enough to teach students that LOTS of biologists as well as physicists like Sir Hoyle have valid doubts about the theory of evolution, and no they are not creationists. Their main problem with evolution being that it is so often presented as settled established fact when it really has a lot of serious problems that need to be worked out. Just saying that is some kind of heresy in most English-speaking areas. Truth is many scientists would love to replace evolution with a better theory.
Every hypothesis is "an assumption". But some stand up to scrutiny and offer a lot of explanatory value.
As for evolution, what you said isn't heresy - it's a claim that you didn't try to back up.
Roughly one in three American adults believes in telepathy, ghosts, and extrasensory perception," wrote a trio of scientists in a 2012 issue of the Astronomy Education Review.
Yes we must use government institutions to regulate what people believe! If we start young we can change the next generation.
That's one spin you could put on it.
Another choice is "How is a country full of people that believe nonsense going to survive the 21st Century?"
Roughly one in one Slashdotter believes in FTL travel, wormhole travel, colonizing the universe... That's any better?
I guess that means I'm not a Slashdotter, because I don't believe any of those things exist (or are possible).
(Too bad...)
There is a great deal of pseudoscience belief on both sides of the isle. The left has irrational beliefs on nuclear power, GMO foods, etc.
You're trying to pee in the punch with a "both sides do it" argument. The not-so-subtle difference is that "the left" doesn't deny that nuclear power and GM foods exist. To paraphrase the famous saying, everyone is entitled to their own policy opinions, but not to their own realities.
But then the Republicans aren't generally as bad as they get a rap for. Their only substantial reality-denying party positions are on evolution and global warming, and both of those are for easily understandable political reasons (the former too keep the dwindling numbers of the faithful faithful, the latter to please their corporate masters).
Like Prolog, where anything you can't prove is taken to be false?
Yeah, they would have gotten so much better a deal on gay rights if they had supported McCain & Palin.
Is there any empirical evidence that information can't be destroyed?
If not, what would be the consequences of just ditching the law(?) that creates the paradox?
The 4th Amendment's warrant requirement only applies when there is an expectation of privacy.
And if they can get the data, there's no expectation of privacy.
Circular reasoning at its best.
Don't you know you have to use monkeys if you want to type Shakespeare?
But neither party is interested in ending the intrusive, ineffective "War on Drugs".
This argument is completely counter to our criminal justice system
Law enforcement personnel don't think about these things the same way the rest of us do.
It''s called "telegraphic speech", as if the writer didn't want to pay for the extra characters.
Newspapers do it for space: the bigger the typeface, the less room for text.
I suspect it carries over to internet articles because of cognitive side-effects: if every headline was a complete sentence they would take more effort on the readers' part. You want something that will instantly grab (or lose) a reader's attention without any mental effort on their part.
(Look at how many people don't RTFA, or even RTFSummary. Full sentences would lead to people who don't even RTFHeadline.)
However, telegraphic speech can cause problems for readers.
The problem is that when the crew deliberately turns it off or it fails, what are you going to do?
Why does the crew have the capability of turning essential equipment off?
Mod up pleeze. This story has turned into the orgy that fuels the spree US media wants to be.
They were hoping a little blonde girl would be kidnapped or murdered, but they had to settle for a missing airplane mostly full of foreigners.
And with it missing at sea, they can't even pose a teddy bear in photos of the wreckage.
They usually post something to drive up hits on weekends. This weekend global warming, next weekend evolution.
Tomorrow we'll be back to Tesla and Bitcoin.
Climate change is inevetible and most ultimately dictated by the same orbital changes that bring us the "ice ages."
The second part of that claim is *utterly* falsified by the science. Temperatures are moving in the wrong direction: you'd expect global cooling as we exit the current interglacial.
You forgot to mention which side you're accusing of spreading FUD.
It amazes me that so many Slashdotters are trying to convince the world that change isn't coming, rather than trying to figure out how they can get richer than Bill Gates by founding a startup for mitigation technologies.
This ain't the Slashdot it used to be.
"pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed."
This has been asserted since 1985.
And you can convince yourself that it's utterly false, if you assume that the actual floods, drought, conflict, and economic damage are caused by something else.
[Actually I don't know of any conflicts attributable to GW yet. But both the US military and US national security agencies have concluded that GW is their biggest threat for this century. Some people can't afford to ignore the facts.]