No, it's a computer model. A compute model is often (in engineering for example) a conceptual representation of real entities. However in many cases the model is more a conceptual representation of the biases and assumptions of the people who made it, being unreal in that sense. It isn't science and math isn't science either.
The idea that ultimately there's nothing here indicates (though you might not know it) the presence of what Cairns-Smith called "the bomb in the basement of modern physics" and the difference between the thing in itself and the thing as it appears. Physics is good for the latter but has nothing to say about the former.
What "polluter's subsidies" are you talking about precisely? Also are you serious? A subsidy is money taken from tax payers and handed out to business or individuals. Are you suggesting that taking that money and giving it to renewables, i.e. simply exchanging one set of greedy bastards with another, is going to make even the tinniest difference to average Joe's bills? Are you suggest shifting the burden from average Joe's energy bill to his tax bill?
Sometimes Guardian readers are too thick to debate with.
That's the most amazing thing to me, compared to here in the UK. I get 20 days paid holiday a year and my company is not considered the most enlightened when it comes to this. I know people who get 30. I also work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. As a software developer I can't imagine staying an extra 3 hours a day just to make it up to the US average and actually getting any more work done than I do now. I mean my brain is burnt out by around 4pm in any case.
It's actually worse than that. They "adjust" the past record to make it look cooler and therefore to make current temperatures look even more "unprecedented". NOAA has done this with the US land temperature record with gusto.
Also, you'll get modded down for doubting AGW here on slashdot. It's a wedge issue for Marxists you see.
I don't think you can have it both ways (though of course you will try to). If climate change is within the bounds of natural variation (which it is) then you have absolutely no justification for asserting that it's man-made. This is the fundamental error in your thinking. Worse, you put forward no fact that would falsify the hypothesis that it is man-made, which makes your assertion unscientific as well.
An assertion for which there's no evidence whatsoever, given that the current climate change is well within the range of natural variation. Of course you could manufacture some evidence by "adjusting" real world data, but that's not quite the same as the real thing is it.
Agree. They've probably gone to find new breeding grounds to get away from all of the biologists and global warming botherers who keep disturbing them.
I think you're exhibiting what's generally known as "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind". If you want to draw distinctions or count and categorise things, be my guest. But to define "success" you have to make some very specific assertions that when you look at them more closely, often turn out to be value judgements and nothing more than that. Every single living thing alive today is a spectacular success, having as they do, 4 billion year old antecedents from Cold Smoker cell inhabitant to Blue Whale.
Not by any measure, no. Eukaryotes are more complex, able to generate more energy in proportion to their surface area (having mitochondria allows them to generate energy internally rather than having to rely on whatever can pass across their outer cell wall) and managed to write the complete works of Shakespeare. Eukaryotes can also perform some tricks that no prokaryotes can as well, such as phagocytosis. And given that eukaryotes are effectively little colonies of prokaryotes, the distinction is somewhat moot in any case.
They don't make contact with us because we are not intelligent life.
You speak for yourself.
The people on our planet seem to only be interested in killing and dominating each other
Yes. It's likely that any species that has evolved through a process of evolution by natural selection will exhibit these traits. If you look out of your window, you'll find that with the exception of certain symbiotic relationships between species, absolutely everything out there is trying to dominate everything else. It's the reason a tree might grow to 60 feet in height.
Slashdot Mirror
You're also full of shit boorack. Sitting in Moscow being paid 5p per comment? What a sad life you lead.
You're full of shit erik.
No it's not testable. I don't know where you get the idea that it is.
No, it's a computer model. A compute model is often (in engineering for example) a conceptual representation of real entities. However in many cases the model is more a conceptual representation of the biases and assumptions of the people who made it, being unreal in that sense. It isn't science and math isn't science either.
The idea that ultimately there's nothing here indicates (though you might not know it) the presence of what Cairns-Smith called "the bomb in the basement of modern physics" and the difference between the thing in itself and the thing as it appears. Physics is good for the latter but has nothing to say about the former.
Yes, that's because we've sent all of our "polluting" (note: carbon dioxide isn't pollution) industries to China, along with a lot of jobs and wealth.
What "polluter's subsidies" are you talking about precisely? Also are you serious? A subsidy is money taken from tax payers and handed out to business or individuals. Are you suggesting that taking that money and giving it to renewables, i.e. simply exchanging one set of greedy bastards with another, is going to make even the tinniest difference to average Joe's bills? Are you suggest shifting the burden from average Joe's energy bill to his tax bill?
Sometimes Guardian readers are too thick to debate with.
Haha, the stupidity. What happens in practice? Off-shoring and job losses. Same thing in Europe.
I would have included Herb Sutter. But maybe that's just my C++ bias.
Not lied so much as made use of computer models that bear no relation whatsoever to reality. There's a lot of it about in environmental "science".
Indeed. Or perhaps the stuff wasn't there in the first place.
A software project that actually ends? What kind of crazy company do you work for?
I think I would give up my 20 days to get paid twice as much. At least for a few years, or until I'd paid off my mortgage.
You don't need a union to GTFO of your job and go work somewhere else where the pay and conditions are more suited to the kind of lifestyle you want.
That's the most amazing thing to me, compared to here in the UK. I get 20 days paid holiday a year and my company is not considered the most enlightened when it comes to this. I know people who get 30. I also work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. As a software developer I can't imagine staying an extra 3 hours a day just to make it up to the US average and actually getting any more work done than I do now. I mean my brain is burnt out by around 4pm in any case.
Yes, there's no question that cannot be truthfully answered with a cursory googling is there Ginger.
It's actually worse than that. They "adjust" the past record to make it look cooler and therefore to make current temperatures look even more "unprecedented". NOAA has done this with the US land temperature record with gusto.
Also, you'll get modded down for doubting AGW here on slashdot. It's a wedge issue for Marxists you see.
I don't think you can have it both ways (though of course you will try to). If climate change is within the bounds of natural variation (which it is) then you have absolutely no justification for asserting that it's man-made. This is the fundamental error in your thinking. Worse, you put forward no fact that would falsify the hypothesis that it is man-made, which makes your assertion unscientific as well.
An assertion for which there's no evidence whatsoever, given that the current climate change is well within the range of natural variation. Of course you could manufacture some evidence by "adjusting" real world data, but that's not quite the same as the real thing is it.
Hoax is the wrong word to use. A better phrase would be "malicious deception".
Agree. They've probably gone to find new breeding grounds to get away from all of the biologists and global warming botherers who keep disturbing them.
It's Hanlon's Razor.
They have absolutely no problem finding your tax records when you're in arrears, alas.
I think you're exhibiting what's generally known as "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind". If you want to draw distinctions or count and categorise things, be my guest. But to define "success" you have to make some very specific assertions that when you look at them more closely, often turn out to be value judgements and nothing more than that. Every single living thing alive today is a spectacular success, having as they do, 4 billion year old antecedents from Cold Smoker cell inhabitant to Blue Whale.
Not by any measure, no. Eukaryotes are more complex, able to generate more energy in proportion to their surface area (having mitochondria allows them to generate energy internally rather than having to rely on whatever can pass across their outer cell wall) and managed to write the complete works of Shakespeare. Eukaryotes can also perform some tricks that no prokaryotes can as well, such as phagocytosis. And given that eukaryotes are effectively little colonies of prokaryotes, the distinction is somewhat moot in any case.
You speak for yourself.
Yes. It's likely that any species that has evolved through a process of evolution by natural selection will exhibit these traits. If you look out of your window, you'll find that with the exception of certain symbiotic relationships between species, absolutely everything out there is trying to dominate everything else. It's the reason a tree might grow to 60 feet in height.