Just looking at a list and calling the 900 plus scientific papers "lies" because you don't like a few of the sources is a logical "straw man" fallacy. My statement never has been that the science is conclusive about AGW. I am a skeptic. My assertion is that there are well respected scientist doing peer reviewed research that do not agree with or state there isn't enough research to make a decision about AGW.
Because actual scientists in a field are doing actual research on the topic, and they have been through all the debates and reviews and all that.
Of course, that still doesn't mean that some scientists in a field can't be dishonest scumbags who consciously spread falsehoods about their field because of their political or religious beliefs.
Case in point. Notice how you are referring to things like speeches and blog posts rather than actual scientific papers?
And as I pointed out above, there are always some scientists within a field who sadly let their ideology cloud their minds.
Your statements here belie an arrogance that is inappropriate. You over simply a complex issue by essentially stating that all skeptics do not have any peer reviewed work, or are intentionally misleading people. Here is a website full of scientists with the correct qualifications that disagree with the AGW establishment with peer reviewed papers. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
My only critique of your statement is that you equivocate the term "evolution". I agree that the stanchest creationist believes in micro-evolution they do not agree in macro-evolution two entirely different concepts
When I deployed to Iraq we were given the option of getting Anthrax vaccinations. As expected almost no one volunteered. About six months laterr we were "voluntold". I am now immunized against Anthrax if I touch it. If I breath Anthrax I'm still fucked. Totally worth the cancer I'm gonna get 15 years from now
Again I will restate the obvious. Being incorrect does not make you a troller. You claim that he has intentionally stated bad information. You have no proof that he intentionally did any such thing. You should admit that you have an opinion of his posting, and that opinion is not based on any empirical evidence. You are a poor moderator if you think that you have some sort of metaphysical understanding of other people's posts.
There are plenty of skeptics of AGW that have doctorates and other sorts of science qualifications.
I'm sorry, but who cares? It doesn't matter if you are Einstein himself if you deny simple and basic scientific facts, such as the observed warming and the human impact.
Being a scientist in one field does not make you an expert in another.
Why do you assume that scientist that disagree must necessarily be in a different field? A little bit of a superiority complex maybe? Here is a list of scientists that are skeptics AND possessing the required pedigrees
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a 2007 blog post:"[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect.... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[43] Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris) said in a 2006 newspaper article:"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[44] Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University said in a 2003 essay for the George C. Marshall Institute:"[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 C.... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[45] John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC said in a 2009 Energy and Environment paper with David Douglass: "...the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.... The global warming hypothesis states that there are positive feedback processes leading to gains g that are larger than 1, perhaps as large as 3 or 4. However, recent studies suggest that the values of g is much smaller."[46] Also in a 2009 opinion piece: "...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[47] Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory said in a 2002 magazine article: "Carbon dioxide should not be conside
It isn't trolling, so why are you calling it that? There is a specific reason why slashdot doesn't have an "incorrect information" mod option. Stop abusing the moderator position
mod up! a well thought out post. Just because you disagree does not mean you can mod down! This is a perfect example of how left wing nut jobs deal with people who disagree with them. If the data presented isn't something they like they will use ad hominem attacks and try to censor anything they disagree with.
Not saying right wing nut jobs are any better. They do the same damn thing
Why in the hell is this post considered insightful? Don't you realize that this ad hominem statement lend absolutely nothing to this discussion? There are plenty of skeptics of AGW that have doctorates and other sorts of science qualifications. Just because you don't drink the coolade and hop on the bus that gives the most government funding to your pet product doesn't mean you want to kill babies and bomb random towns. You are an ignorant prick.
My dev team despised the fact that add-ons would break so often that we had to switch from Firefox because no matter how useful the web development tool was we knew it wouldn't work in about a month or so. Firefox should be honest about its business plan and simply remove the add-on functionality. I am one of those people that started using Chrome because of Firefox's constant "updates"
How is the government knowing your DNA sequencing a violation of privacy? Can it be used to get into you bank account? How about tracking your current location or what you might do with your free time? As far as I can figure the only thing any government can do with your DNA sequence is use it to compare against other DNA sequences. I would appreciate it if someone could give me an example of how DNA could be used for violating privacy.
Problem is it would give the baddies a heads up that someone was coming.
In my experience I don't think the "baddies" would have known anything. Our UAVs were the RAVEN variant. It was recently shown on Acts of Valor. Its a pretty small airplane that operates on a battery power source. When it reaches an altitude of 300ft (100m) you can't hear it.
It might have helped but UAVs were allocated to the shooters. I was just a simple support guy. If a satellite was already flying overhead and all I had to do was download the images to my SIPPER computer it would have helped.
I was in OIF 06-08 and I would have loved to have this intel a couple times. Once I was sent out to recover a vehicle that had been blown up, and due to terrain requirements, I had to take a road that hadn't been traveled on for some eight months. Consequently we didn't know it was heavily defended with IEDs and had huge ditches from rain runoff (pretty common in desert environments). It took my convoy about 24 hours to travel 5 kilometers because we had to improvise material to fill in the holes enough for the trucks to travel over. The satellite coverage wouldn't have helped with the IEDs but it might have helped give me a better idea of the road conditions.
Another time I was leading a convoy of about 30 vehicles and the route I chose had been blocked by another unit the previous day. It can be an emotional event to turn around that many vehicles in some Iraqi towns.
We have a lot of social and cultural focuses which are pushing against education and general intelligence. Those need to be remedied in some way.
I think our problem runs much deeper than a simple education problem. We live in a society that preaches that all opinions are equally valid and equally true. Further we teach that there is no social foundation for morality other than "we evolved this way". Then with the next breath we say "do good things". Good things like doing well in school, taking care of the family, obeying traffic laws ect. When our children ask why what can we say other than "because society demands it". What if they are different from society? What if their evolution took a different path? In short there is no decent moral ground to stand on in this society. We truly believe that our interests are more important than others. We desire short term gain over long term goals. Every problem we have in society at this point is rooted in the fact that our own personal desires take precedence over anything else.
Our own oort cloud goes almost half the way to Alpha Centari A
It's regularly assumed that the Oort cloud exists, but there isn't any empirical data supporting this assumption. IMHO it seems to be circular reasoning to say comets exist because of the Oort cloud, and the Oort cloud exists because there are comets.
Has anyone actually observed the Oort cloud? Is it even possible to observe it?
I think you're the only one who got the joke. I've never even tried to pick up a girl in a bar. When I go to a bar I am only concerned that the bar has a good selection of micro-breweries
I have no issues making eye contact and being bold and assertive in a bar. I can even talk in detail about the implementation of a hyper-drive and shield modulation and yet I have never been able to take a woman home! Obviously you are wrong.
You do realise that manned spacecraft tend to be rigorously tested first? The first moon landing was done by the 11th Apollo craft for a reason, you know.
Do you realize that everyone came within a hairs breadth of dying on the 13th Apollo mission? Oh yeah, everyone DID die on the space shuttle challenger AND Columbia. Also, don't forget the entire Apollo 1 crew died in a fire on the ground. Sure it's tested, but that doesn't mean it's safe.
There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary
Slashdot Mirror
in fact here is a link to a great opinion piece that best describes my opinion:
http://solberg.snr.missouri.edu/gcc/LupoMOMed.pdf
Just looking at a list and calling the 900 plus scientific papers "lies" because you don't like a few of the sources is a logical "straw man" fallacy. My statement never has been that the science is conclusive about AGW. I am a skeptic. My assertion is that there are well respected scientist doing peer reviewed research that do not agree with or state there isn't enough research to make a decision about AGW.
Because actual scientists in a field are doing actual research on the topic, and they have been through all the debates and reviews and all that.
Of course, that still doesn't mean that some scientists in a field can't be dishonest scumbags who consciously spread falsehoods about their field because of their political or religious beliefs.
Case in point. Notice how you are referring to things like speeches and blog posts rather than actual scientific papers?
And as I pointed out above, there are always some scientists within a field who sadly let their ideology cloud their minds.
Your statements here belie an arrogance that is inappropriate. You over simply a complex issue by essentially stating that all skeptics do not have any peer reviewed work, or are intentionally misleading people. Here is a website full of scientists with the correct qualifications that disagree with the AGW establishment with peer reviewed papers. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
My only critique of your statement is that you equivocate the term "evolution". I agree that the stanchest creationist believes in micro-evolution they do not agree in macro-evolution two entirely different concepts
When I deployed to Iraq we were given the option of getting Anthrax vaccinations. As expected almost no one volunteered. About six months laterr we were "voluntold". I am now immunized against Anthrax if I touch it. If I breath Anthrax I'm still fucked. Totally worth the cancer I'm gonna get 15 years from now
Again I will restate the obvious. Being incorrect does not make you a troller. You claim that he has intentionally stated bad information. You have no proof that he intentionally did any such thing. You should admit that you have an opinion of his posting, and that opinion is not based on any empirical evidence. You are a poor moderator if you think that you have some sort of metaphysical understanding of other people's posts.
I'm sorry, but who cares? It doesn't matter if you are Einstein himself if you deny simple and basic scientific facts, such as the observed warming and the human impact.
Being a scientist in one field does not make you an expert in another.
Why do you assume that scientist that disagree must necessarily be in a different field? A little bit of a superiority complex maybe?
Here is a list of scientists that are skeptics AND possessing the required pedigrees
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a 2007 blog post:"[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[43] ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[45] ... The global warming hypothesis states that there are positive feedback processes leading to gains g that are larger than 1, perhaps as large as 3 or 4. However, recent studies suggest that the values of g is much smaller."[46] Also in a 2009 opinion piece: "...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[47]
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris) said in a 2006 newspaper article:"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[44]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University said in a 2003 essay for the George C. Marshall Institute:"[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 C.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC said in a 2009 Energy and Environment paper with David Douglass: "...the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory said in a 2002 magazine article: "Carbon dioxide should not be conside
It isn't trolling, so why are you calling it that? There is a specific reason why slashdot doesn't have an "incorrect information" mod option. Stop abusing the moderator position
mod up! a well thought out post. Just because you disagree does not mean you can mod down! This is a perfect example of how left wing nut jobs deal with people who disagree with them. If the data presented isn't something they like they will use ad hominem attacks and try to censor anything they disagree with.
Not saying right wing nut jobs are any better. They do the same damn thing
another classic slashdot example of "I disagree so I'll call it trolling".
oh great another ad hominem attack from a dogmatic retard
Why in the hell is this post considered insightful? Don't you realize that this ad hominem statement lend absolutely nothing to this discussion? There are plenty of skeptics of AGW that have doctorates and other sorts of science qualifications. Just because you don't drink the coolade and hop on the bus that gives the most government funding to your pet product doesn't mean you want to kill babies and bomb random towns. You are an ignorant prick.
Is it anymore painfully simple than "our current climate change is caused by human causes?"
My dev team despised the fact that add-ons would break so often that we had to switch from Firefox because no matter how useful the web development tool was we knew it wouldn't work in about a month or so. Firefox should be honest about its business plan and simply remove the add-on functionality. I am one of those people that started using Chrome because of Firefox's constant "updates"
I want a hard drive with some frikin' lasers!!!!!
How is the government knowing your DNA sequencing a violation of privacy? Can it be used to get into you bank account? How about tracking your current location or what you might do with your free time? As far as I can figure the only thing any government can do with your DNA sequence is use it to compare against other DNA sequences. I would appreciate it if someone could give me an example of how DNA could be used for violating privacy.
Problem is it would give the baddies a heads up that someone was coming.
In my experience I don't think the "baddies" would have known anything. Our UAVs were the RAVEN variant. It was recently shown on Acts of Valor. Its a pretty small airplane that operates on a battery power source. When it reaches an altitude of 300ft (100m) you can't hear it.
It might have helped but UAVs were allocated to the shooters. I was just a simple support guy. If a satellite was already flying overhead and all I had to do was download the images to my SIPPER computer it would have helped.
I was in OIF 06-08 and I would have loved to have this intel a couple times. Once I was sent out to recover a vehicle that had been blown up, and due to terrain requirements, I had to take a road that hadn't been traveled on for some eight months. Consequently we didn't know it was heavily defended with IEDs and had huge ditches from rain runoff (pretty common in desert environments). It took my convoy about 24 hours to travel 5 kilometers because we had to improvise material to fill in the holes enough for the trucks to travel over. The satellite coverage wouldn't have helped with the IEDs but it might have helped give me a better idea of the road conditions.
Another time I was leading a convoy of about 30 vehicles and the route I chose had been blocked by another unit the previous day. It can be an emotional event to turn around that many vehicles in some Iraqi towns.
We have a lot of social and cultural focuses which are pushing against education and general intelligence. Those need to be remedied in some way.
I think our problem runs much deeper than a simple education problem. We live in a society that preaches that all opinions are equally valid and equally true. Further we teach that there is no social foundation for morality other than "we evolved this way". Then with the next breath we say "do good things". Good things like doing well in school, taking care of the family, obeying traffic laws ect. When our children ask why what can we say other than "because society demands it". What if they are different from society? What if their evolution took a different path? In short there is no decent moral ground to stand on in this society. We truly believe that our interests are more important than others. We desire short term gain over long term goals. Every problem we have in society at this point is rooted in the fact that our own personal desires take precedence over anything else.
mod ^ funny
It's regularly assumed that the Oort cloud exists, but there isn't any empirical data supporting this assumption. IMHO it seems to be circular reasoning to say comets exist because of the Oort cloud, and the Oort cloud exists because there are comets.
Has anyone actually observed the Oort cloud? Is it even possible to observe it?
I think you're the only one who got the joke. I've never even tried to pick up a girl in a bar. When I go to a bar I am only concerned that the bar has a good selection of micro-breweries
I have no issues making eye contact and being bold and assertive in a bar. I can even talk in detail about the implementation of a hyper-drive and shield modulation and yet I have never been able to take a woman home! Obviously you are wrong.
You do realise that manned spacecraft tend to be rigorously tested first? The first moon landing was done by the 11th Apollo craft for a reason, you know.
Do you realize that everyone came within a hairs breadth of dying on the 13th Apollo mission? Oh yeah, everyone DID die on the space shuttle challenger AND Columbia. Also, don't forget the entire Apollo 1 crew died in a fire on the ground. Sure it's tested, but that doesn't mean it's safe.
There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary