Up in Canada where the Kyoto wealth transfer plan (that's what it is, make no mistake) was ratified, we had a quite simple statement told to us: if we stopped every train, plane, and automobile in the entire country tomorrow, we STILL wouldn't meet the Kyoto targets (which is something like 30-40% below where we are now).
So yes, cars are a part of it, but they are NOT the "things holding you up" here.
And if somebody could provide links on this, I'd be grateful.
I have my "editable" one in the native format, and just do a "save as" for.doc if I'm sending it to someone. Then unfortunately I need to go re-open my actual.odf file, which is a pain.
Honestly, what I'd like (and might be available, I haven't looked) is the option to automatically save in multiple formats whenever you push the save key. If it automatically "worked" in.odf, but was always exporting along the way to both.doc and.pdf, that'd be ideal for me.
Guess you have to write it in assembly. Oh wait, that uses an assembler/linker, which is a vulnerability.
Output the bits directly? Well what if your output program is actually a trojan that reads all bitstreams and STILL puts a backdoor in?
Maybe there's a way to probe the bus to directly enter in the bitstream manually? Oh but wait, what about the BIOS or the architecture of the chip itself?
Because you know, Xeon performance is SO much different than the Core arch processors.
Oh ya, it's worse a lot of the time, so paying tons more makes SOOO much sense.
I took the same # of cores at "relatively" close clock speeds. You want to try to do better, go ahead, as I gave you the link to the store I took it from. It still doesn't explain the MASSIVE discrepancies (ie: Apple is hosing you) of the other components too.
>Take whatever specs your mac is and build one comparable from Dell or wherever
yes, this has been done. over and over. and either Apple wins bit a little bit or loses by a little bit.
so how about YOU show us the numbers that say otherwise? You say it "loses by a little bit"? $2000 is "a little bit"? I just priced up a Mac Pro on the Apple Store (Canada) and a normal PC from my local store, Memory Express.
First, the apple store one: Two 2.66GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon 4GB Memory (4x1GB) 500GB 7200rpm SATA 3Gb/s HDD ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (The QuadroFX was $1680 MORE, and no x2xxx or nvidia 8xxx series available at all) Optical - One 16x Superdrive Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse Mac OSX - English
Total: $4092.00
And the Memory Express one: Processor : Intel Core(TM)2 Quad Processor Q6600 2.4GHz w/ 2x4MB Cache 1 $299.95 CPU Heatsink / Fan : Intel Retail Heatsink and Fan 1 $0.00 Motherboards : eVGA nForce 680i LT SLI w/ DualDDR2 800, 7.1 Audio, Gigabit Lan, 1394, Dual PCI-E x16 SLI 1 $219.95 Memory : Kingston HyperX 2GB PC2-6400 Low Latency Dual Channel DDR2 Kit (2 x 1GB, NVIDIA SLI-Ready) 2@$169.95=$339.90 Case : Antec P180B Advanced Super Mid Tower, Black 1 $144.95 Power Supplies : Antec TruePower Quattro 850W Power Supply 1 $194.95 Hard Drives 1 : Seagate 500GB Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache 1 $119.95 Optical Drive 1 : LG Super Multi DVD Writer 18x18x10 DVD +/-RW Dual-Layer, SATA w/ Lightscribe, Black (OEM) 1 $39.95 Video Cards : Sapphire Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB PCI-E w/ Dual DVI, TV-Out 1 $189.95 Keyboards : Microsoft Ergonomic Value Pack, Keyboard and Mouse, OEM 1 $49.95 Operating System : Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64 (64-bit) DVD, OEM, 1-Pack 1 $214.95 Assembly : Please Assemble Hardware + Load my O/S 1 $70.00 Email Quote
Sub-Total: $1884.45
GST: $113.07
Total Cost: $1997.52
Alberta Recyling Fee(For residents of Alberta only): $10.00
Total(With Recyling Fee) (For residents of Alberta only): $2008.12
So take the difference between these (roughly) equivalent systems: $4092-$2008=$2084
Yes you can buy TWO of the custom systems for the price you can buy an apple with! And that's even counting that I put a better mobo and power supply in the custom one than really necessary (I should have picked a cheaper ATI-based mobo & smaller PSU), so shave off another $100 at least. And go through the menu at the apple store to see how MUCH the upgrades were. It is really nuts. It was $839 to go from 1GB to 4GB of RAM, which is just stupid. And the HDD upgrade from 250 to 500GB was twice as much as the entire 500GB drive for the custom system. This is all discounting the fact you can't GET a good graphics card for the Apple, like any 8800-series card, which is why I picked the "best for non-insane prices" at the mac store, then took the closest equivalent at my local store.
I couldn't get a whole lot closer with the limited options Apple gives at its site, but the bottom line is clear: Apple is at LEAST 2x as expensive on high-end machines, and you'd be nuts to go with them if you're looking for performance. I was seriously considering buying a Mac for my next computer and probably dual-booting to windows for games (with bootcamp)... then I priced one out like this and promptly dismissed the idea. Apple MIGHT be able to compete on the low-end or on laptops, but on the high end they're insane if they want people to pay these prices.
What about my bandwidth? They're trying to say I'm OBLIGATED to take everything on their page, not just the parts I'm requesting. I can assure you that I'm requesting their content, not the ads. They're forcing unnecessary bandwidth requirements (and slow load times) upon me by their advertising.
Agreed, but see, that's precisely what they don't want to admit. If you admit that there's a right answer, it's only a matter of time before someone notices that the right answer contradicts your deeply cherished position, and THEN how do you cling to power? You start claiming "scientific consensus" and that "the debate is over" to distract from your totally debunked position. Throwing in a healthy amount of innuendo about Big Oil payoffs (even when completely false) also doesn't seem to hurt.
Assuming the created energy could not be destroyed after being created (which if did happen would by definition be conservation ), then you would no longer need to worry about global warming causing climate change. Instead, all you need to do is sit around and wait for the inevitable methaphorical (and possibly real) explosion that will occur when all that 'free' energy can no longer be contained. That created energy is still energy and assuming it isn't destroyed, your energy pool has increased permanently. Think weapon of mass destruction, except this time it will be right under Bush's feet (though he might still not be able to find it). Honestly, no one should want a perpetual motion machine. I wouldn't worry too much about that case in the "what-if" scenario. Firstly, the earth receives a LOT of energy from the Sun every second. And a lot of that is radiated back into space. If there were more energy produced "locally" a lot of the excess would do the same anyways.
Sure if you go into the cosmic sense, in trillions (or more) years, then I really have no idea, but I wouldn't be terribly concerned about the side-effects of dumping the little amount of energy humankind needs into the environment (little in comparison to the amount dumped in by the sun).
That's about the only part of it that is comforting to me: they're using their own investment money, or rather that they're NOT using government money. If people want to waste their own money, go at it. Fight "the man" (or whatever) with it. Prove a lot of the science throughout history has been wrong. Take your pick of goal. As long as it's YOUR money not mine! If they're right (which I HIGHLY doubt), then they'll be the richest people anywhere. If they're wrong, it'll come out as a scam sooner or later. Either way, not my money, and I can't do a lot about it either way anyways, so why stress about it?
The only disturbing part to me is the "need" of many here to defend existing accepted physics theory. Personally I'm of the idea that if the existing laws are so great, they can stand up for themselves. Which I have little doubt is EXACTLY what will happen here. But a scientist must be willing to accept that anything that they "knew" could be wrong. A mountain of evidence and independent verification (many times over) will be needed to overturn anything so fundamental to our understanding of the world, but if it's done, I think that's great. Really I do, because it means that there's more to learn, and hopefully it'll bring about even more exciting discoveries.
But I don't expect it. It'll probably be proven to be a huge error or a deliberate fabrication. Any way it plays out, I'm just glad that it's private money, not mine!
You also have the debate as to whether they were a distributor or merely a Vendor. If Staples carries a boxed copy of RHEL, they're not bound by the GPL anymore than they're bound by the EULA for Windows for carrying Vista.
Since it wasn't a Microsoft-Branded product, and was in their "Marketplace" area, not their downloads, they probably haven't incurred any liabilities at all. Beyond that, if somebody put it up without approval then they aren't liable to be bound by it. It's like if some random guy at MS signed a contract saying that his company gives up all patent rights now and in the future. It wouldn't hold water because it wasn't authorized by anyone with the authority to authorize that. This falls under the same sort of thing.
Why would they de-bundle a piece of software that costs them nothing to re-produce (bundle) in the first place? Customers are eating it up at the current price point as is. I guess that's true. It's not like the old days of cartridges where each one was a non-trivial amount of money (the electronics itself inside the cartridge). With dvds (which is what Wii games are printed on) it's literally pennies per game. I wouldn't be surprised if it cost more to print the manual and sleeve than to manufacture & press the DVD itself.
Considering one of the main "pick up and play" games for the Wii is Wii Sports itself, I see it as highly unlikely that they'll de-bundle that anytime soon. Eventually it'll happen, but not soon IMO.
There is controversy over whether solar cells produce more energy than it takes to make them. The energy payback time of a solar panel, assuming a working lifetime of around 40 years, is anywhere from 1 to 20 years (usually under five)[2] depending on the type and where it is used (see net energy gain). This means solar cells can be net energy producers meaning they generate more energy over their lifetime than the energy expended in producing them.[3][4] According to some experts studying the question, solar cells do generate positive net energy when the energy consumption of manufacturing and distribution are taken into account.[5]
So yes, this depends highly on the materials used and manufacturing process as to whether the energy payback is an issue or not. 1-20 years? Let's hope this technology is on the low end of that scale.
Also, two more issues came up that I forgot in my original post:
Exotic Materials: The materials advertised in this article are not... common. I highly doubt this helps either the mass production price, or the long-term availability of such.
Lifetime: How long does a panel actually last? Few manufactured items of any kind have infinite lifespans. Is the manufactured solar cell "stable" chemically/physically? This ties in slightly to my old heat/cold question, but when stressed by weather, will it hold up?
Most of my questions are challenges to be overcome, not "Death knells" to trying. But they're also things to be aware of when anything's announced with too much enthusiasm.
Efficiency: This article talks about brightnesses of 100 suns. Well what about 1 sun? Or fraction of that (cloudyness)? Are these efficiencies realized then too? If not, does the technology still work at or near where that is?
Power cost: I've seen it said that many solar cells don't give back the energy required to manufacture them. By that I mean, acquiring the materials (mining, etc), refining them, and manufacturing them all take energy. How many days/months/years would it take to "pay back" the cost of manufacture, in energy?
Temperature performance differences: How does it perform in low (or high) temperatures? A lot of us live in places where it gets cold for long periods of the year. This also has the associated problems with snow build-up, and getting that OFF of the panels.
Monetary cost: How much will this cost at the consumer level, for which wattages? How big would they have to be to cover some typical consumer usages?
Power storage: With solar, it all eventually comes back to storing the power, as they obviously don't operate in darkness. So how much would the batteries cost (initially, and in maintenance) to make this a viable power solution? How much wattage would you need to have enough "storage" for nighttime? Or more practically, for a few cloudy/rainy days in a row?
Some of these issues are universal to ANY solar technology, but some of them are specific to this as well. All need real answers.
Undetectable? We have seen evidence of this effect first-hand when we have witnessed volcanic eruptions. And yet EVERY time temperature decreases BEFORE CO2 decreases, there MUST have been some "other" effect. WITHOUT FAIL there was something else causing it. And they're not detected yet? Must just not have found them yet. They MUST be there since the theory is infallible. Riiiight.
Otherwise, let the adults talk. Btw, your Ad hominem attacks really add to your arguments too. Keep at them.
Actually, they specifically discuss the results of aerosols mitigating the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially in the case of volcanic eruption.
If you were looking to make your argument even weaker, you just succeeded, by basically saying "When evidence doesn't agree with our theory, propose undetectable explanations as to why it didn't obey, still preserving our theory." There's ALWAYS a reason (without evidence) as to why "some other factor" caused any major aberrations pointed out, and not that the actual theory is WRONG. Look at it with a critical eye and you'll see it's ALWAYS there. It is never said "this doesn't agree with the predictions we are making for the future, and we dont' know why" but hedges on their knowledge. You KNOW you are getting a shyster explanation when they appear to try to know "everything" and "always" have an explanation when it becomes even more obvious that they are talking out of their asses.
This "reference list" you mention completely marginalizes any theories not in agreement to its line. It says they are "very complex" or that there are "many factors" in play on anything that doesn't jive with their agenda. For example, in the "it was warmer in the medieval warm period" one, and how vineyards were common, it says (yes I'm paraphrasing) "well wine production is higher today than then, so obviously it's at least as warm now." Umm, modern agriculture techniques don't help at all? And not to mention that your statement there contradicts the evidence that is relied on in other sections about being able to profile historical temperatures?
Also the most glaring is any section that mentions the LAG between temperatures and CO2 concentrations. They even STATE that there's a lag BOTH ways, but then try and marginalize the findings by saying "well we know it's a greenhouse gas, therefore it is causing the effect" even when the "effect" is 800 years before the cause.
Not to mention completely ignoring the largest damning piece of evidence: lack of accelerated upper atmospheric warming. All of the climate models that predict warming also predict that the upper atmosphere will warm FASTER than the lower, since that's where the gases are that are absorbing the extra energy. We warm from the top-down due to greenhouse gases (GHGs). But that's NOT HAPPENING. The data SHOWS that it is warming at EXACTLY the same rate as the lower atmosphere, which completely proves that GHGs are NOT the current warming cause.
I do also believe that our "Global Warming" is just another planetary cycle of which has been occurring for million/billions of years prior to the existence of the first human. Your belief or otherwise is irrelevant to what is actually occurring. If you have contrary evidence, then start writing papers. You have to get published first, which basically doesn't happen. The existing establishment doesn't want their money train to stop rolling in. Just link the words "Climate Change" into the title of ANY research topic and BOOM: instant funding.
IANAL. I thought it was? Or rather, I thought that as long as your lawyer was good enough, anything you didn't like that another said was slander(if spoken) or libel(if printed)?
You're right about that one. My bad, it did say CDs in the article, not DVDs, though I agree with your final line as well, not that it should really matter about numbers. Having them at all is reprehensible.
Slashdot Mirror
Screw cars that will parallel park themselves, if they can make cars that navigate those abominations that are Traffic Circles, I'd buy THAT!
Up in Canada where the Kyoto wealth transfer plan (that's what it is, make no mistake) was ratified, we had a quite simple statement told to us: if we stopped every train, plane, and automobile in the entire country tomorrow, we STILL wouldn't meet the Kyoto targets (which is something like 30-40% below where we are now).
So yes, cars are a part of it, but they are NOT the "things holding you up" here.
And if somebody could provide links on this, I'd be grateful.
I have my "editable" one in the native format, and just do a "save as" for .doc if I'm sending it to someone. Then unfortunately I need to go re-open my actual .odf file, which is a pain.
.odf, but was always exporting along the way to both .doc and .pdf, that'd be ideal for me.
Honestly, what I'd like (and might be available, I haven't looked) is the option to automatically save in multiple formats whenever you push the save key. If it automatically "worked" in
Guess you have to write it in assembly. Oh wait, that uses an assembler/linker, which is a vulnerability.
Output the bits directly? Well what if your output program is actually a trojan that reads all bitstreams and STILL puts a backdoor in?
Maybe there's a way to probe the bus to directly enter in the bitstream manually? Oh but wait, what about the BIOS or the architecture of the chip itself?
Paranoia can only go so far.
Because you know, Xeon performance is SO much different than the Core arch processors.
Oh ya, it's worse a lot of the time, so paying tons more makes SOOO much sense.
I took the same # of cores at "relatively" close clock speeds. You want to try to do better, go ahead, as I gave you the link to the store I took it from. It still doesn't explain the MASSIVE discrepancies (ie: Apple is hosing you) of the other components too.
yes, this has been done. over and over. and either Apple wins bit a little bit or loses by a little bit.
so how about YOU show us the numbers that say otherwise? You say it "loses by a little bit"? $2000 is "a little bit"? I just priced up a Mac Pro on the Apple Store (Canada) and a normal PC from my local store, Memory Express.
First, the apple store one:
Two 2.66GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon
4GB Memory (4x1GB)
500GB 7200rpm SATA 3Gb/s HDD
ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (The QuadroFX was $1680 MORE, and no x2xxx or nvidia 8xxx series available at all)
Optical - One 16x Superdrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse
Mac OSX - English
Total: $4092.00
And the Memory Express one:
Processor : Intel Core(TM)2 Quad Processor Q6600 2.4GHz w/ 2x4MB Cache 1 $299.95
CPU Heatsink / Fan : Intel Retail Heatsink and Fan 1 $0.00
Motherboards : eVGA nForce 680i LT SLI w/ DualDDR2 800, 7.1 Audio, Gigabit Lan, 1394, Dual PCI-E x16 SLI 1 $219.95
Memory : Kingston HyperX 2GB PC2-6400 Low Latency Dual Channel DDR2 Kit (2 x 1GB, NVIDIA SLI-Ready) 2@$169.95=$339.90
Case : Antec P180B Advanced Super Mid Tower, Black 1 $144.95
Power Supplies : Antec TruePower Quattro 850W Power Supply 1 $194.95
Hard Drives 1 : Seagate 500GB Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache 1 $119.95
Optical Drive 1 : LG Super Multi DVD Writer 18x18x10 DVD +/-RW Dual-Layer, SATA w/ Lightscribe, Black (OEM) 1 $39.95
Video Cards : Sapphire Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB PCI-E w/ Dual DVI, TV-Out 1 $189.95
Keyboards : Microsoft Ergonomic Value Pack, Keyboard and Mouse, OEM 1 $49.95
Operating System : Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64 (64-bit) DVD, OEM, 1-Pack 1 $214.95
Assembly : Please Assemble Hardware + Load my O/S 1 $70.00
Email Quote
Sub-Total: $1884.45
GST: $113.07
Total Cost: $1997.52
Alberta Recyling Fee(For residents of Alberta only): $10.00
Total(With Recyling Fee) (For residents of Alberta only):
$2008.12
So take the difference between these (roughly) equivalent systems: $4092-$2008=$2084
Yes you can buy TWO of the custom systems for the price you can buy an apple with! And that's even counting that I put a better mobo and power supply in the custom one than really necessary (I should have picked a cheaper ATI-based mobo & smaller PSU), so shave off another $100 at least. And go through the menu at the apple store to see how MUCH the upgrades were. It is really nuts. It was $839 to go from 1GB to 4GB of RAM, which is just stupid. And the HDD upgrade from 250 to 500GB was twice as much as the entire 500GB drive for the custom system. This is all discounting the fact you can't GET a good graphics card for the Apple, like any 8800-series card, which is why I picked the "best for non-insane prices" at the mac store, then took the closest equivalent at my local store.
I couldn't get a whole lot closer with the limited options Apple gives at its site, but the bottom line is clear: Apple is at LEAST 2x as expensive on high-end machines, and you'd be nuts to go with them if you're looking for performance. I was seriously considering buying a Mac for my next computer and probably dual-booting to windows for games (with bootcamp)... then I priced one out like this and promptly dismissed the idea. Apple MIGHT be able to compete on the low-end or on laptops, but on the high end they're insane if they want people to pay these prices.
What about my bandwidth? They're trying to say I'm OBLIGATED to take everything on their page, not just the parts I'm requesting. I can assure you that I'm requesting their content, not the ads. They're forcing unnecessary bandwidth requirements (and slow load times) upon me by their advertising.
With a pipe, there ARE two ends to it you know.
So where are the Rainbow Worlds then? Or do they only point toward the center of the Galaxy?
And I'm sure as soon as the democrats come in they'll restore it all too right?
Oh wait...
Sure if you go into the cosmic sense, in trillions (or more) years, then I really have no idea, but I wouldn't be terribly concerned about the side-effects of dumping the little amount of energy humankind needs into the environment (little in comparison to the amount dumped in by the sun).
This team has their own investment money.
That's about the only part of it that is comforting to me: they're using their own investment money, or rather that they're NOT using government money. If people want to waste their own money, go at it. Fight "the man" (or whatever) with it. Prove a lot of the science throughout history has been wrong. Take your pick of goal. As long as it's YOUR money not mine! If they're right (which I HIGHLY doubt), then they'll be the richest people anywhere. If they're wrong, it'll come out as a scam sooner or later. Either way, not my money, and I can't do a lot about it either way anyways, so why stress about it?The only disturbing part to me is the "need" of many here to defend existing accepted physics theory. Personally I'm of the idea that if the existing laws are so great, they can stand up for themselves. Which I have little doubt is EXACTLY what will happen here. But a scientist must be willing to accept that anything that they "knew" could be wrong. A mountain of evidence and independent verification (many times over) will be needed to overturn anything so fundamental to our understanding of the world, but if it's done, I think that's great. Really I do, because it means that there's more to learn, and hopefully it'll bring about even more exciting discoveries.
But I don't expect it. It'll probably be proven to be a huge error or a deliberate fabrication. Any way it plays out, I'm just glad that it's private money, not mine!
Since it wasn't a Microsoft-Branded product, and was in their "Marketplace" area, not their downloads, they probably haven't incurred any liabilities at all. Beyond that, if somebody put it up without approval then they aren't liable to be bound by it. It's like if some random guy at MS signed a contract saying that his company gives up all patent rights now and in the future. It wouldn't hold water because it wasn't authorized by anyone with the authority to authorize that. This falls under the same sort of thing.
Considering one of the main "pick up and play" games for the Wii is Wii Sports itself, I see it as highly unlikely that they'll de-bundle that anytime soon. Eventually it'll happen, but not soon IMO.
So yes, this depends highly on the materials used and manufacturing process as to whether the energy payback is an issue or not. 1-20 years? Let's hope this technology is on the low end of that scale.
Also, two more issues came up that I forgot in my original post:
- Exotic Materials: The materials advertised in this article are not... common. I highly doubt this helps either the mass production price, or the long-term availability of such.
- Lifetime: How long does a panel actually last? Few manufactured items of any kind have infinite lifespans. Is the manufactured solar cell "stable" chemically/physically? This ties in slightly to my old heat/cold question, but when stressed by weather, will it hold up?
Most of my questions are challenges to be overcome, not "Death knells" to trying. But they're also things to be aware of when anything's announced with too much enthusiasm.- Efficiency: This article talks about brightnesses of 100 suns. Well what about 1 sun? Or fraction of that (cloudyness)? Are these efficiencies realized then too? If not, does the technology still work at or near where that is?
- Power cost: I've seen it said that many solar cells don't give back the energy required to manufacture them. By that I mean, acquiring the materials (mining, etc), refining them, and manufacturing them all take energy. How many days/months/years would it take to "pay back" the cost of manufacture, in energy?
- Temperature performance differences: How does it perform in low (or high) temperatures? A lot of us live in places where it gets cold for long periods of the year. This also has the associated problems with snow build-up, and getting that OFF of the panels.
- Monetary cost: How much will this cost at the consumer level, for which wattages? How big would they have to be to cover some typical consumer usages?
- Power storage: With solar, it all eventually comes back to storing the power, as they obviously don't operate in darkness. So how much would the batteries cost (initially, and in maintenance) to make this a viable power solution? How much wattage would you need to have enough "storage" for nighttime? Or more practically, for a few cloudy/rainy days in a row?
Some of these issues are universal to ANY solar technology, but some of them are specific to this as well. All need real answers.Actually, they specifically discuss the results of aerosols mitigating the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially in the case of volcanic eruption.
If you were looking to make your argument even weaker, you just succeeded, by basically saying "When evidence doesn't agree with our theory, propose undetectable explanations as to why it didn't obey, still preserving our theory." There's ALWAYS a reason (without evidence) as to why "some other factor" caused any major aberrations pointed out, and not that the actual theory is WRONG. Look at it with a critical eye and you'll see it's ALWAYS there. It is never said "this doesn't agree with the predictions we are making for the future, and we dont' know why" but hedges on their knowledge. You KNOW you are getting a shyster explanation when they appear to try to know "everything" and "always" have an explanation when it becomes even more obvious that they are talking out of their asses.This "reference list" you mention completely marginalizes any theories not in agreement to its line. It says they are "very complex" or that there are "many factors" in play on anything that doesn't jive with their agenda. For example, in the "it was warmer in the medieval warm period" one, and how vineyards were common, it says (yes I'm paraphrasing) "well wine production is higher today than then, so obviously it's at least as warm now." Umm, modern agriculture techniques don't help at all? And not to mention that your statement there contradicts the evidence that is relied on in other sections about being able to profile historical temperatures?
Also the most glaring is any section that mentions the LAG between temperatures and CO2 concentrations. They even STATE that there's a lag BOTH ways, but then try and marginalize the findings by saying "well we know it's a greenhouse gas, therefore it is causing the effect" even when the "effect" is 800 years before the cause.
Not to mention completely ignoring the largest damning piece of evidence: lack of accelerated upper atmospheric warming. All of the climate models that predict warming also predict that the upper atmosphere will warm FASTER than the lower, since that's where the gases are that are absorbing the extra energy. We warm from the top-down due to greenhouse gases (GHGs). But that's NOT HAPPENING. The data SHOWS that it is warming at EXACTLY the same rate as the lower atmosphere, which completely proves that GHGs are NOT the current warming cause.
Your belief or otherwise is irrelevant to what is actually occurring. If you have contrary evidence, then start writing papers. You have to get published first, which basically doesn't happen. The existing establishment doesn't want their money train to stop rolling in. Just link the words "Climate Change" into the title of ANY research topic and BOOM: instant funding.
The Mythbusters already proved that the fingerprint scanners are ridiculously easy to defeat. Why are people still promoting this?
IANAL. I thought it was? Or rather, I thought that as long as your lawyer was good enough, anything you didn't like that another said was slander(if spoken) or libel(if printed)?
You're right about that one. My bad, it did say CDs in the article, not DVDs, though I agree with your final line as well, not that it should really matter about numbers. Having them at all is reprehensible.