David Horowitz used to write for Salon. Camille Paglia still does, and frequently defends Sarah Palin. The trouble with Salon's subscriber base was that it was mostly liberal, and offended at the notion of paying to be insulted.
Yeah, god forbid I say I don't want to read a website that runs stories I'm not interested in.
That's an absurd criterion. I don't want to read a website that runs stories I'm not interested in to the exclusion of anything else, but I don't expect 100 percent of a website to be of potential interest.
I'm not sure that it's in the best interest of the scientific community to lower rates on obsolete papers, and increase them on higher quality, cutting edge papers.
Some of the health care proposals tax elective cosmetic surgery. Since women elect to have cosmetic surgery more often than men, it's could be argued that the burden of paying for national health care will fall disproportionally on women. If you don't care for Feminism, don't read broadsheet. If you don't care for serious feminism, stick to Jezebel.
Probably not in their target audience. A "Salon" is a gathering of intellectuals. Salon.com falls (well) short of that, but most sites do. The closest it comes, in style, is when Camille Paglia "holds court".On the other hand, seeing Paglia's courtiers prostrate themselves in fawning display is... an acquired taste... at best.
It's sort of like Slate. More bookish, more liberal.
On a DVD, if something's out of focus, it could be because of the cinematography, or it could be because the DVD doesn't have enough bits. On a bluray, if something's out of focus, it's probably because the director of photography intended it to be out of focus. Water looks a bit more realistic. Animation looks a bit sharper.
On a smaller screen, these are all subtleties, and don't jump out at the viewer unless edge enhancement is added-- which tends to bother viewers with larger screens. Too much processing can also make skin look like plastic.
You just posted a graph.One graph. And getting to the page that embedded that graph was circuitous-- it was not a matter of just chopping the url properly. No matter.
The problem is that stations were moved, often from city centers to airports. The corrections are an attempt to reconcile the microclimate of the first site with the microclimate of the second in order to produce a continuous climate record. This sort of datasplicing is what drove Ian Harris up the wall. Are you sure you want the raw data?
That's just a graph. The science behind the graph is detailed here. Well, you'll probably have to dig into the references to understand all the science, but it's summarized nicely on that page.
The data is corrected for time of day, urban heat island effects, and changes in measuring technique.
Look closer. They actually *replaced* the inconveniently truthful proxy data with instrument measurements to get the fitting they wanted. That's not a 'trick'. That's plain fraud.
So if I wanted to know what the temperature is at this very moment, I should leave my thermometer behind and instead take a core sample?
Every once and while, some apologist for AGW theories suggests that "even if the projections aren't as bad as we feared " combatting the global climate crisis will provide institutional support for global governance...." I wish they'd stop assuming that "making decisions as a planet" is a good thing. It's conspiracy bait.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you should work on your writing skills. Does "only" clarify or obscure your intended point?
read his post -- articles from 1995+ are free
Not free-- subsidized by his wife's university affiliation.
Indeed. How does this square with Jimmy Wales's attestation of himself as "objectivist to the core?"
seems pretty well supported to me.
David Horowitz used to write for Salon. Camille Paglia still does, and frequently defends Sarah Palin. The trouble with Salon's subscriber base was that it was mostly liberal, and offended at the notion of paying to be insulted.
Yeah, god forbid I say I don't want to read a website that runs stories I'm not interested in.
That's an absurd criterion. I don't want to read a website that runs stories I'm not interested in to the exclusion of anything else, but I don't expect 100 percent of a website to be of potential interest.
I'm not sure that it's in the best interest of the scientific community to lower rates on obsolete papers, and increase them on higher quality, cutting edge papers.
He's probably right in assuming that the potential Salon readership overlaps with the Guardian's american readership.
Some of the health care proposals tax elective cosmetic surgery. Since women elect to have cosmetic surgery more often than men, it's could be argued that the burden of paying for national health care will fall disproportionally on women. If you don't care for Feminism, don't read broadsheet. If you don't care for serious feminism, stick to Jezebel.
Probably not in their target audience. A "Salon" is a gathering of intellectuals. Salon.com falls (well) short of that, but most sites do. The closest it comes, in style, is when Camille Paglia "holds court".On the other hand, seeing Paglia's courtiers prostrate themselves in fawning display is... an acquired taste ... at best.
It's sort of like Slate. More bookish, more liberal.
480i NTSC is pretty awful. 480i component video? not so much.
Criterion discs list for $40, but then most of their DVDs listed for $40. Disney blurays ("Up","Monsters Inc", etc. ) list for $45.99...
Turn down your sharpness.
No country for old men had a fine script. It looks pretty spectacular on bluray.
On a DVD, if something's out of focus, it could be because of the cinematography, or it could be because the DVD doesn't have enough bits. On a bluray, if something's out of focus, it's probably because the director of photography intended it to be out of focus.
Water looks a bit more realistic. Animation looks a bit sharper.
On a smaller screen, these are all subtleties, and don't jump out at the viewer unless edge enhancement is added-- which tends to bother viewers with larger screens. Too much processing can also make skin look like plastic.
You just posted a graph.One graph. And getting to the page that embedded that graph was circuitous-- it was not a matter of just chopping the url properly. No matter.
This plot shows that most of the discrepancy comes from the Station History Adjustment Program detailed in Karl and Williams 1987. I don't have a subscription to the Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology though.
The problem is that stations were moved, often from city centers to airports. The corrections are an attempt to reconcile the microclimate of the first site with the microclimate of the second in order to produce a continuous climate record. This sort of datasplicing is what drove Ian Harris up the wall. Are you sure you want the raw data?
I'm sorry, your analysis is flawed.
That's just a graph. The science behind the graph is detailed here. Well, you'll probably have to dig into the references to understand all the science, but it's summarized nicely on that page.
The data is corrected for time of day, urban heat island effects, and changes in measuring technique.
Its purpose then and now was to rebut Steve McIntyre's pioneering analysis on the Hockey Stick.
What exactly did McIntyre pioneer? Has McIntyre actually produced a temperature reconstruction?
Look closer. They actually *replaced* the inconveniently truthful proxy data with instrument measurements to get the fitting they wanted. That's not a 'trick'. That's plain fraud.
So if I wanted to know what the temperature is at this very moment, I should leave my thermometer behind and instead take a core sample?
And why should we trust you, anonymous coward? Are you hiding skeletons in your closet?
I wish that all you Law and Order freaks would stop trying to shoehorn scientific debate into some sort of trial by jury.
Life is not a Daubert test.
Every once and while, some apologist for AGW theories suggests that "even if the projections aren't as bad as we feared " combatting the global climate crisis will provide institutional support for global governance...." I wish they'd stop assuming that "making decisions as a planet" is a good thing. It's conspiracy bait.
Who?
Well, this is a probe, being conducted by people with legal training, into the intricacies of a past scientific discussion
Sounds a bit like Johnson's Darwin's Black Box-- a lawyer challenging biology on his own ground.