Oil companies paying researchers? How many billions have institutions been given in grants by politicians, desiring as they were justification for their energy security policies? The fact of the matter is that you're confusing science in general with climate science, which is infested with NGOs and other political interests (unlike say, physics). Just how many non-peer reviewed NGO paper were in AR4? About half of the references, it turned out.
Global Climate Change has become the consensus position of Climatologists the same way that Evolution has become the consensus position of Biologists
No, not in the same way. If Darwin's theory had come from a computer model and it turned out his computer model didn't match real world observations, nobody would believe it. Strangely exactly the same situation is present with catastrophic AGW and everybody seems to believe it. They believe it because it's their politics, not because it's actually true, for the same reason that creationists don't believe in evolution even though it is actually true.
You're quite right and that is why you'll be down-voted on Slashdot. Indeed, this is what the journal said:
We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”.
That's right. It wasn't a question of whether they were correct or not. Simply shedding doubt on the paradigm is enough. This is the very essence of censorship.
The Precautionary Principle is bullshit. The Law of Unintended Consequences beats it every time. State planning and control has failed wherever it's been tried. Reams of regulation that nobody fully understands also creates a mess that's impossible to police and also creates such a financial burden on new entrants to the market that competition effectively ceases. We see this in financial services which has (in the UK at least) 10,000 pages of regulation. I guarantee that not a single legislator passing judgement on these plans and controls has ever read them in full, or understands them in their entirety.
What a stupid comment blue trane. If you want to see how good nationalised industries are at managing infrastructure, just look at the UK in the 1970's. What this article doesn't tell you is that no gas network will always be 100% leak free. It's the same with water. What corporations do (that government utilities don't) is try to find the optimal point between economic benefit and infrastructure quality. They'll also innovate their way out of problems if there's a strong economic case for doing so. The only time this doesn't happen is when they become effective monopolies, which is what you're implying they should become with government control.
Depends what the endgame is. If you imagine a world where each person has his own personal robot/s that could go out to work for him, then he would be entitled to retain the fruits of that labour? My robot would probably have better social skills than me, for sure, and if that's what's holding me back, he'd probably be more successful than I am.
I could spend my days in a virtual reality machine chasing Tricia Helfer around in a Cylon Raider.
$6,000 per seat would be the full MSDN. If developers are upgrading, it's a couple of hundred dollars. Businesses like this come and go and they mostly go because they get cash flow problems, and they mostly get cash flow problems because they spend a lot of it on bullshit.
How do you measure the "need" for something that is free? The arguments here are so tortuous they're insane. "I haven't got any money and I haven't got any food - give me a food bank voucher please". Who's going to say no? Give me all of your... people who don't manage their budgets very well...
People started using food banks when food banks were introduced, which was years ago under Labour. The more food banks there are, the more people there will be using them to get free food. This is precisely what's happened. Given that the number of people using food bans rose under Labour too, was and still is simply a function of the number of new food banks being opened, it's a bit bloody idiotic for you to suggest it's Ian Duncan Smith's fault.
Very hard to get studies that go against the dominant paradigm published. For example:
We submitted these findings sequentially to Science Magazine, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. The editor of Science Magazine replied that the results were not of sufficient general interest, suggested we submit the work to a specialty journal, and declined to proceed with external scientific review. Nature also rejected the paper without external scientific review, for reasons that we considered spurious. Nature Climate Change initially rejected the paper, but after some discussion the paper was assigned to a senior editor and reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Given the context of their comments, both reviewers appeared to be climate modelers.
No they don't. They express my exasperation with the cretinous stupidity of all greens and their bibulous lies and misrepresentations. So you know, you can fuck off too.
A computer model with no skill is not "research". It's a curiosity. Get back to me with some actual data, but only if it hasn't been through the AGW "adjustment" sausage machine to make it look far worse than it actually is.
It's getting warmer. The warming is well within the range of natural variation. Michael Man is a liar and bodged up a graph, known as the Hockey Stick, to make the warming look unprecedented. The graph is now considered to be junk science. Yet here you are, still promoting the same enormous bollocks. Give it a rest.
Really, is there nothing that a few tenths of a degree of warming cannot do? Now we have stronger winds, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Is it even predicted by the theory? Well, what isn't.
I'm not wriggling, I'm simply pointing out that there's no evidence of an increase in "extreme events" either globally or locally in my country (UK). An increase in extreme weather is predicted by computer models that have so far shown zero skill. Indeed, the number of hurricanes and typhoons has actually decreased over the last 30 years.
As for earthquakes, I'm sure someone is submitting a paper to Nature on how CO2 causes those too, right now, and no doubt it will fly through peer review.
What prolonged droughts? Scientists predict more precipitation at the same time other scientists predict more droughts. The former is responsible for the greening of the Sahara. All I know about their models is that they're a pile of utter bilge.
All weather is chaotic and current weather is no more chaotic than past weather. The only thing that is more chaotic are the vainglorious attempts by various activists, NGOs and interest green business people to get publicity. Still, regardless of the facts of the matter, as long as nobody gets killed we're having fun laughing at them all.
Slashdot Mirror
Oil companies paying researchers? How many billions have institutions been given in grants by politicians, desiring as they were justification for their energy security policies? The fact of the matter is that you're confusing science in general with climate science, which is infested with NGOs and other political interests (unlike say, physics). Just how many non-peer reviewed NGO paper were in AR4? About half of the references, it turned out.
No, not in the same way. If Darwin's theory had come from a computer model and it turned out his computer model didn't match real world observations, nobody would believe it. Strangely exactly the same situation is present with catastrophic AGW and everybody seems to believe it. They believe it because it's their politics, not because it's actually true, for the same reason that creationists don't believe in evolution even though it is actually true.
That's right. It wasn't a question of whether they were correct or not. Simply shedding doubt on the paradigm is enough. This is the very essence of censorship.
The Precautionary Principle is bullshit. The Law of Unintended Consequences beats it every time. State planning and control has failed wherever it's been tried. Reams of regulation that nobody fully understands also creates a mess that's impossible to police and also creates such a financial burden on new entrants to the market that competition effectively ceases. We see this in financial services which has (in the UK at least) 10,000 pages of regulation. I guarantee that not a single legislator passing judgement on these plans and controls has ever read them in full, or understands them in their entirety.
What a stupid comment blue trane. If you want to see how good nationalised industries are at managing infrastructure, just look at the UK in the 1970's. What this article doesn't tell you is that no gas network will always be 100% leak free. It's the same with water. What corporations do (that government utilities don't) is try to find the optimal point between economic benefit and infrastructure quality. They'll also innovate their way out of problems if there's a strong economic case for doing so. The only time this doesn't happen is when they become effective monopolies, which is what you're implying they should become with government control.
Depends what the endgame is. If you imagine a world where each person has his own personal robot/s that could go out to work for him, then he would be entitled to retain the fruits of that labour? My robot would probably have better social skills than me, for sure, and if that's what's holding me back, he'd probably be more successful than I am.
I could spend my days in a virtual reality machine chasing Tricia Helfer around in a Cylon Raider.
$6,000 per seat would be the full MSDN. If developers are upgrading, it's a couple of hundred dollars. Businesses like this come and go and they mostly go because they get cash flow problems, and they mostly get cash flow problems because they spend a lot of it on bullshit.
Indeed, if I were an investor in this company, I would be quite angry. If he's spending his own money then whatever...
No, I'm not alright. I'm being taxed to death in order to pay for a welfare state supporting many people who're taking the piss.
How do you measure the "need" for something that is free? The arguments here are so tortuous they're insane. "I haven't got any money and I haven't got any food - give me a food bank voucher please". Who's going to say no? Give me all of your ... people who don't manage their budgets very well ...
People started using food banks when food banks were introduced, which was years ago under Labour. The more food banks there are, the more people there will be using them to get free food. This is precisely what's happened. Given that the number of people using food bans rose under Labour too, was and still is simply a function of the number of new food banks being opened, it's a bit bloody idiotic for you to suggest it's Ian Duncan Smith's fault.
Oh dear. The link you've posted shows LABOUR MPs laughing during the debate, not Tory MPs.
You utter fool.
With reference to analysis of Vostok series. Still, here's the Vostok temperature graph and here's the Greenland temperature graph. Do you see unprecedented present day warming, or do you see current temperatures being well within the range of natural variation?
With respect to the laws of Thermodynamics, climate sensitivity is low, as the IPCC are slowly admitting.
"Simulations" - get it? SIMULATIONS. Models with no skill being used to make predictions. The horror!
No they don't. They express my exasperation with the cretinous stupidity of all greens and their bibulous lies and misrepresentations. So you know, you can fuck off too.
A computer model with no skill is not "research". It's a curiosity. Get back to me with some actual data, but only if it hasn't been through the AGW "adjustment" sausage machine to make it look far worse than it actually is.
When you say long term, you mean short term, because 30, 60, 100 years are fucking short term with respect to climatological processes. So shut it.
It's getting warmer. The warming is well within the range of natural variation. Michael Man is a liar and bodged up a graph, known as the Hockey Stick, to make the warming look unprecedented. The graph is now considered to be junk science. Yet here you are, still promoting the same enormous bollocks. Give it a rest.
As it would have been in any case, as sea level has been rising by a few mm a year since records began.
Oh fuck off you spastic. RealClimate is funded by a PR company with links of Al Gore.
Really, is there nothing that a few tenths of a degree of warming cannot do? Now we have stronger winds, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Is it even predicted by the theory? Well, what isn't.
I'm not wriggling, I'm simply pointing out that there's no evidence of an increase in "extreme events" either globally or locally in my country (UK). An increase in extreme weather is predicted by computer models that have so far shown zero skill. Indeed, the number of hurricanes and typhoons has actually decreased over the last 30 years.
As for earthquakes, I'm sure someone is submitting a paper to Nature on how CO2 causes those too, right now, and no doubt it will fly through peer review.
I didn't say "no droughts", I implied, "well within range of natural variation".
What prolonged droughts? Scientists predict more precipitation at the same time other scientists predict more droughts. The former is responsible for the greening of the Sahara. All I know about their models is that they're a pile of utter bilge.
All weather is chaotic and current weather is no more chaotic than past weather. The only thing that is more chaotic are the vainglorious attempts by various activists, NGOs and interest green business people to get publicity. Still, regardless of the facts of the matter, as long as nobody gets killed we're having fun laughing at them all.