You link to recommended viewing distances, not picture-resolutions. If you meant a particular article, you should've dispensed with the sarcasm, and linked to it directly.
a video format that offers next to nothing to watch, that can't be streamed on most broadband connections or fit onto Blu-ray discs and which can't even be properly appreciated unless you get a set too big to fit in many living rooms.
These are all temporary problems — including even the living room sizes.
But the human eye has its limits too. What's the actual N, beyond which we, the humans — even those with the sharpest eyes — can no longer distinguish between N and 2N pixels per inch?
So, by your theory, more than 50% of the US-govt-sponsored studies during the Bush administration should have been anti-climate-change.
Not true at all. You pretend to misunderstand the very concept of the "conflict of interest". Whoever is in charge of an institution, for its employees to conclude, that their work is pointless and overvalued is to issue themselves a pink slip. Worse, it also means, their entire choice of profession is (almost) meaningless. Few people are capable of it — and climate scientists aren't any better at it, than anyone else. Hence the frantic resistance...
Meanwhile, consider this — none of the theories you are alluding to would be acceptable for American financial institutions.
The folks who used to work for Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers would like to laugh (and cry) at this obviously false statement.
The regulations I'm referring to were introduced after those names have collapsed. "Obviously false" my tail.
The problem is that the best way to falsify is to run a different experiment with different subjects
Which is just another way for you to admit, it is not, in fact, falsifiable. You've accepted — and confirmed — this fact, you are just trying to explain why. And the "why" is irrelevant... The few falsifiable statements that have been made, have already been falsified — indeed, I offered a link to one, more are easily available. I've requested citations to the counter-examples, which you — despite replying twice already — have been unable to provide. I will not reply again, until I see the list of link-pairs I described above...
But that doesn't make them unscientific.
The person starting this thread claimed, "climate science" is equally scientific to the perfectly falsifiable field of medicine — and denounced everyone, who accepts medical treatments like vaccines while rejecting climate scientists' recommendations, as hypocritical. That statement was bullshit, because medical researchers actually do follow scientific method. Climate researchers do not — whether it is due to some fault of theirs, or the very nature of their domain, is irrelevant.
Whether this makes them completely unscientific or just less scientific, is a matter of semantics — but it certainly makes their conclusions less reliable than those of other disciplines (such as medicine). Hence, rejecting or questioning them is not at all "anti-science".
The "raw data" showed a higher temperature rise, due to the effects of increased industrialization near recording stations, so they had to "massage" it to remove that flaw
Thank you for confirming my statement — that massaging did take place. I'm not saying, it was not necessary — I was just pointing out, that it was done by programs written by fallible humans, who had the same conflict of interest I keep bringing up. They had all the incentive to "hide the decline" — such as by subtly altering the software or tweaking the calibration constants in it until the resulting figures confirmed, what they (or their bosses) wanted to see.
They also attempted to hide the raw data, and even destroyed some of it. Had scientists working for "Big Tobacco" or "Big Oil" been caught at any of such, their credibility would've been destroyed forever — why you'd give the "Big Government" scientists a pass, escapes me.
People who disprove well-known and accepted theories are extremely famous, and often rich.
Yeah? Please, name the hero, who became famous and well-off by disproving the scientific consensus, on which the "war on fat" was waged? Mind you, that war did not have the vast government-paid research institutions attached to it, who'd fear for their survival. Unlike the climate quacks.
Also, most climate scientists are not getting rich.
They are earning a comfortable living, which will disappear for most of them, if the underlying assumptions — that Global Warming is an imminent threat facing humanity — are even questioned, much less disproven. The conflict of interest is obvious.
So if you are a "distrust people who are getting the money" kind of person, you should probably distrust those who are making record profits.
I'm well aware of the conflict of interest of any researcher paid by a company, whose product may lose demand based on the researcher's conclusions. This thread, however, is about a different group of people with their own conflict of interest. Please, don't change the subject.
Some theories do it pretty accurately, and some do it less accurately.
Funny, that you continue making these claims without offering any citations — despite an explicit request for some... Meanwhile, consider this — none of the theories you are alluding to would be acceptable for American financial institutions. Had a bank's models come up with predictions so far apart from reality, the bank wouldn't be able to buy back stocks, pay bonuses to executives, etc.
The problem isn't that the experiments are not falsifiable, it's that the time frames are too long and we don't really have dozens of planets where we can run 300-year-long double-blind tests, so any experiments on climate will be hard to falsify soon enough to be useful. That sucks, but it doesn't mean we should throw up our hands
What it does mean, however, is that the theory is not scientific. As in "not confirmed by scientific method". It does not, of course, disprove it — but it does remove the "scientific" mantle from it. And therefore, questioning it is not automatically tantamount to "rejecting science", contrary to an assertion made by aepervius above.
guess we'll pretend that the teamperatures and sea levels are not rising
Are they? The only evidence of the rise comes from the folks at NASA and NOAA (and similar government institutions in other countries), who have the above-discussed conflict of interest.
And before you say "but raw data!" — don't. The raw data is imperfect, so they massage it with their own software"to bring it closer to pristine"... Ha-ha...
There is no "two side" of the coins for some stuff
That's true. For some stuff. But "climate science" is not part of it. Or, maybe, it is — and we simply ought to apply tar-and-feathers to the quacks professing to be "climate scientists".
they are free to present peer reviewed article showing climate science wrong
All of the "peers" you are talking about are drawing their salaries from the governments. US alone spends four times more on "climate research" today, than we did in 1993.
Even if one of these guys does have the results you want, no peer will vouch for it, because such results will mean, 75% of them will need to look for new jobs. It is called conflict of interest — and it works the same way, whether the study's subject is "is pasta good for you" or "do we need to ban farting".
No, for it to be accepted as valid science, a discipline needs to not only explain the past, but also predict the future. Internet is full of failed predictions by these people (my personal favorite), but there aren't any successful ones...
Are you aware of any? Please, post pairs of links: one link in each pair going to a meaningful prediction, another — to it coming true (within, say, 20% of the predicted value, if quantifiable). To qualify, the linked-to articles must be a few years apart from each other.
Would you accept somebody denigrating vaccination [...] the same to climate science
Wow... So, medicine and climate are disciplines in the same standing with you? One could be more wrong than you are, but it is difficult...
Because you're applying US constitutional law to EU laws?
You referred to human rights — the kind, all human being posses regardless of where they live. Right to privacy is not among them. Nor is the Freedom of Speech, actually, but modern societies all pretend to support it...
That said, corporations don't have the exact same set of rights as a human being does either.
That is subject to quite a bit of a debate, actually.
But we don't have to engage in it, because CNN, National Inquirer, New York Times, and Facebook are all corporations. So, if a media company can publish whatever it pleases, including a pictorial obtained from a paparazzi against the subject's will, then certainly Facebook can do what it wants with the information handed to it voluntarily. End of story.
The topic is neither the pasta, nor even the consensus. The topic is conflict of interest. If you are hired by someone interested in a certain conclusion, your confirming of the conclusion is tainted.
You can't pick and choose. The links I cited claim, that the First Amendment protects everybody's right to publish whatever they feel like publishing. To wit:
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments
The only possible exception to the above are things, one explicitly promised (such by signing an NDA, or giving an oath) not to publish... Which Facebook did not.
Most of climate research is overlapping with other research that we want to continue, such as historic climate reconstruction, weather modelling, and earth observation.
All of it only deemed necessary because of the fears of the Global Warming, err, Climate Change. Should these fears subside, the funding will go back to, say, the levels of the 1993, the bubble will deflate and 75% of the people involved in climate science today will have to look for new jobs...
why is the current Trump administration not telling these scientists to produce the results they want?
Because conflict of interest is more subtle than that... Trump is not relevant here — as I say, if they conclude, climate-fears are overblown, they'll lose their jobs Trump or not...
Except that their salaries do not depend on getting certain results.
Yeah, right. Suppose for a second, they conclude, there is no danger of climate change — for how much longer after arriving at that conclusion will they continue getting those salaries?
What those and many other stories failed to note, however, was that three of the scientists behind the study in question had financial conflicts as tangled as a bowl of spaghetti, including ties to the world's largest pasta company
So what?.. Nearly all of the "climate scientists" draw their salaries from government institutions. Yet, we aren't supposed to question their "consensus" affirming the need for the governments to expand, as tainted by the obvious conflict of interest...
There is nothing to apologize for. If newspapers assert the right — both legal and ethical — to publish state secrets they obtain as a result of somebody's felony, and the courts agree, how can Facebook (or anyone else) be denied the right to or even reprimanded for publishing personal information given to it willingly?
OTOH, municipal broadband has consistently kicked private offering's asses
Citations needed.
in spite of having to fight lawsuits
Local governments wield undue powers over Internet-service provision. To allow them to compete with private providers is to enable corruption on an even worse scale. There is nothing magical about it — the same group of people setting up the local ISP could do it regardless of whether they are incorporated as a private entity or a town government's department. If they "kick ass" as the latter, that's evidence, that something did not let them do the same as a former. Socialism tends to cause this kind of corruption because it reduces (and eventually eliminates) competition.
Care to point to a fully private service that doesn't suck or cost too much for most people using public transit?
We do not have private public transit, unfortunately. I wish we did, but we don't — not in the US. Tokyo has competing subway lines, but American cities do not — not in the traditional sense. But, if you count Uber and Lyft, then your request is answered. They are cheap and people prefer them so strongly:
One study included surveys of 944 ride-hailing users over four weeks in late 2017 in the Boston area. Nearly six in 10 said they would have used public transportation, walked, biked or skipped the trip if the ride-hailing apps weren’t available.
big-government socialists blame them for the ever dropping popularity of public transit:
“Ride sharing is pulling from and not complementing public transportation”
Now, try WiFi on the government-owned Amtrak for a personal preview of what government-provided Internet-service will be like. Meanwhile, privately-offered LTE consistently works. Oh, yes, it costs more — but you were willing to excuse poor performance by inadequate funding, so, yeah, pay more for the LTE.
So, yes, the point stands — whatever government does, is done poorly. So poorly, people even suggesting, yet another aspect of our lives should be handled by the kind and omniscient government instead of by greedy and selfish KKKapitali$sts, should be strongly suspected of not just stupidity and ignorance, but of criminal conspiracy to defraud the rest of us too.
And last, but the most germane to the topic, the glorious Municipal WiFi — which sucked so bad, it got abolished by most, whoattempted it
Yeah, let's build even more success on that glorious track-record — all the while letting the governments know even more about our online behavior and policing any misbehavior not as ToS-violations, but as civil infractions. What can possibly go wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
So, Google wants to continue being "encouraged" to do, what it already thinks is a good idea...
The day had come, when 1080p is denounced as "jaggy" and "aliased" :)
You link to recommended viewing distances, not picture-resolutions. If you meant a particular article, you should've dispensed with the sarcasm, and linked to it directly.
These are all temporary problems — including even the living room sizes.
But the human eye has its limits too. What's the actual N, beyond which we, the humans — even those with the sharpest eyes — can no longer distinguish between N and 2N pixels per inch?
Not true at all. You pretend to misunderstand the very concept of the "conflict of interest". Whoever is in charge of an institution, for its employees to conclude, that their work is pointless and overvalued is to issue themselves a pink slip. Worse, it also means, their entire choice of profession is (almost) meaningless. Few people are capable of it — and climate scientists aren't any better at it, than anyone else. Hence the frantic resistance...
The regulations I'm referring to were introduced after those names have collapsed. "Obviously false" my tail.
Which is just another way for you to admit, it is not, in fact, falsifiable. You've accepted — and confirmed — this fact, you are just trying to explain why. And the "why" is irrelevant... The few falsifiable statements that have been made, have already been falsified — indeed, I offered a link to one, more are easily available. I've requested citations to the counter-examples, which you — despite replying twice already — have been unable to provide. I will not reply again, until I see the list of link-pairs I described above...
The person starting this thread claimed, "climate science" is equally scientific to the perfectly falsifiable field of medicine — and denounced everyone, who accepts medical treatments like vaccines while rejecting climate scientists' recommendations, as hypocritical. That statement was bullshit, because medical researchers actually do follow scientific method. Climate researchers do not — whether it is due to some fault of theirs, or the very nature of their domain, is irrelevant.
Whether this makes them completely unscientific or just less scientific, is a matter of semantics — but it certainly makes their conclusions less reliable than those of other disciplines (such as medicine). Hence, rejecting or questioning them is not at all "anti-science".
Thank you for confirming my statement — that massaging did take place. I'm not saying, it was not necessary — I was just pointing out, that it was done by programs written by fallible humans, who had the same conflict of interest I keep bringing up. They had all the incentive to "hide the decline" — such as by subtly altering the software or tweaking the calibration constants in it until the resulting figures confirmed, what they (or their bosses) wanted to see.
They also attempted to hide the raw data, and even destroyed some of it. Had scientists working for "Big Tobacco" or "Big Oil" been caught at any of such, their credibility would've been destroyed forever — why you'd give the "Big Government" scientists a pass, escapes me.
Un
Yeah? Please, name the hero, who became famous and well-off by disproving the scientific consensus, on which the "war on fat" was waged? Mind you, that war did not have the vast government-paid research institutions attached to it, who'd fear for their survival. Unlike the climate quacks.
They are earning a comfortable living, which will disappear for most of them, if the underlying assumptions — that Global Warming is an imminent threat facing humanity — are even questioned, much less disproven. The conflict of interest is obvious.
I'm well aware of the conflict of interest of any researcher paid by a company, whose product may lose demand based on the researcher's conclusions. This thread, however, is about a different group of people with their own conflict of interest. Please, don't change the subject.
Funny, that you continue making these claims without offering any citations — despite an explicit request for some... Meanwhile, consider this — none of the theories you are alluding to would be acceptable for American financial institutions. Had a bank's models come up with predictions so far apart from reality, the bank wouldn't be able to buy back stocks, pay bonuses to executives, etc.
What it does mean, however, is that the theory is not scientific. As in "not confirmed by scientific method". It does not, of course, disprove it — but it does remove the "scientific" mantle from it. And therefore, questioning it is not automatically tantamount to "rejecting science", contrary to an assertion made by aepervius above.
Are they? The only evidence of the rise comes from the folks at NASA and NOAA (and similar government institutions in other countries), who have the above-discussed conflict of interest.
And before you say "but raw data!" — don't. The raw data is imperfect, so they massage it with their own software "to bring it closer to pristine"... Ha-ha...
That's true. For some stuff. But "climate science" is not part of it. Or, maybe, it is — and we simply ought to apply tar-and-feathers to the quacks professing to be "climate scientists".
All of the "peers" you are talking about are drawing their salaries from the governments. US alone spends four times more on "climate research" today, than we did in 1993.
Even if one of these guys does have the results you want, no peer will vouch for it, because such results will mean, 75% of them will need to look for new jobs. It is called conflict of interest — and it works the same way, whether the study's subject is "is pasta good for you" or "do we need to ban farting".
No, for it to be accepted as valid science, a discipline needs to not only explain the past, but also predict the future. Internet is full of failed predictions by these people (my personal favorite), but there aren't any successful ones...
Are you aware of any? Please, post pairs of links: one link in each pair going to a meaningful prediction, another — to it coming true (within, say, 20% of the predicted value, if quantifiable). To qualify, the linked-to articles must be a few years apart from each other.
Wow... So, medicine and climate are disciplines in the same standing with you? One could be more wrong than you are, but it is difficult...
What if I told you, "climate science" is not even falsifiable — by the some practitioners' own admissions?
And custom code without any skill too. Woo-hoo!
You referred to human rights — the kind, all human being posses regardless of where they live. Right to privacy is not among them. Nor is the Freedom of Speech, actually, but modern societies all pretend to support it...
That is subject to quite a bit of a debate, actually.
But we don't have to engage in it, because CNN, National Inquirer, New York Times, and Facebook are all corporations. So, if a media company can publish whatever it pleases, including a pictorial obtained from a paparazzi against the subject's will, then certainly Facebook can do what it wants with the information handed to it voluntarily. End of story.
The topic is neither the pasta, nor even the consensus. The topic is conflict of interest. If you are hired by someone interested in a certain conclusion, your confirming of the conclusion is tainted.
But not CNN's right to talk about prostitutes peeing on Trump?..
You can't pick and choose. The links I cited claim, that the First Amendment protects everybody's right to publish whatever they feel like publishing. To wit:
The only possible exception to the above are things, one explicitly promised (such by signing an NDA, or giving an oath) not to publish... Which Facebook did not.
Just what the pasta-makers would tell you about the research in TFA.
All of it only deemed necessary because of the fears of the Global Warming, err, Climate Change. Should these fears subside, the funding will go back to, say, the levels of the 1993, the bubble will deflate and 75% of the people involved in climate science today will have to look for new jobs...
Because conflict of interest is more subtle than that... Trump is not relevant here — as I say, if they conclude, climate-fears are overblown, they'll lose their jobs Trump or not...
Europe is an embarrassment. Yes, I am an American.
Yeah, right. Suppose for a second, they conclude, there is no danger of climate change — for how much longer after arriving at that conclusion will they continue getting those salaries?
Conflict of interest is conflict of interest...
So what?.. Nearly all of the "climate scientists" draw their salaries from government institutions. Yet, we aren't supposed to question their "consensus" affirming the need for the governments to expand, as tainted by the obvious conflict of interest...
Nothing in this topic is about "human rights". Irrelevant much?
Not even from the citizens, who are traitors and secretly work for the state's adversaries?
Sorry, that's like saying, if you did nothing wrong, you shouldn't have anything to fear from your information being disclosed...
Bradley Manning, for one, was not a "whistle blower". He just wanted to impress a boyfriend.
There is nothing to apologize for. If newspapers assert the right — both legal and ethical — to publish state secrets they obtain as a result of somebody's felony, and the courts agree, how can Facebook (or anyone else) be denied the right to or even reprimanded for publishing personal information given to it willingly?
Hey, at least, he realizes, there is a bubble — with many people inside it. That's progress, no?
He raised awareness so now the healing can begin...
Citations needed.
Local governments wield undue powers over Internet-service provision. To allow them to compete with private providers is to enable corruption on an even worse scale. There is nothing magical about it — the same group of people setting up the local ISP could do it regardless of whether they are incorporated as a private entity or a town government's department. If they "kick ass" as the latter, that's evidence, that something did not let them do the same as a former. Socialism tends to cause this kind of corruption because it reduces (and eventually eliminates) competition.
We do not have private public transit, unfortunately. I wish we did, but we don't — not in the US. Tokyo has competing subway lines, but American cities do not — not in the traditional sense. But, if you count Uber and Lyft, then your request is answered. They are cheap and people prefer them so strongly:
big-government socialists blame them for the ever dropping popularity of public transit:
Now, try WiFi on the government-owned Amtrak for a personal preview of what government-provided Internet-service will be like. Meanwhile, privately-offered LTE consistently works. Oh, yes, it costs more — but you were willing to excuse poor performance by inadequate funding, so, yeah, pay more for the LTE.
So, yes, the point stands — whatever government does, is done poorly. So poorly, people even suggesting, yet another aspect of our lives should be handled by the kind and omniscient government instead of by greedy and selfish KKKapitali$sts, should be strongly suspected of not just stupidity and ignorance, but of criminal conspiracy to defraud the rest of us too.
Yeah, because all of the earlier governmental undertaking proved so superior to private enterprises. To wit:
Yeah, let's build even more success on that glorious track-record — all the while letting the governments know even more about our online behavior and policing any misbehavior not as ToS-violations, but as civil infractions. What can possibly go wrong?
Selling Anything Before It's Ready Could Backfire For Anyone
Of course, now it looks more like an Onion's headline, but that is, in itself, a hint...
And how is that illegal? If someone shows me your photo, and tells me the names of everyone pictured, why can't I "monetize" this knowledge?