That's an interesting idea. Ideally damage it before hand. Just keep a smashed USB drive handy and say the key file is on that... "Wait, what did you do to it?!"
That's pretty solid. Where to keep the real key file though?
I've seen people with encrypted volumes... the issue is that they tend to keep them in their unlocked state. That is, encrypted but mounted and readable. If you cut power to the system the data would be safe but they use their encrypted data so often that it is hard to say it doesn't exist.
A certain amount of this might require physically isolating sensitive information and making it difficult to find PHYSICALLY in the event of problems. Obviously encrypt it as well but really your goal here should be to not let them get it. If the data is on a thumb drive they don't have then maybe that will deter them.
Stand up. Hold your right hand out at a 90 degree angle from your body. Close your four fingers so that only your thumb sticks out. Rotate your elbow so that your hand is behind your back. Place your hand on the chair behind you thumb side up. And slowly sit on your thumb.
And which Islamic country is not a dictatorship you complete fucking halfwit?
The closest thing to a republic they have is Turkey. And that is only as stable as it is because the guy that founded it, Ataturk, AGREED WITH ME!
By Turkish law, Burkas/Hijabs are illegal for example. And the military is not only allowed to be responsible for keeping their government secular by force of arms. That is, the people can elect an islamic leader and the Turkish army will remove them from power and call new elections.
That is what an islamic republic looks like. It takes regular displays of military force just to keep them from acting like crazy people. And that is in the opinion of their own fucking people.
And when I simply acknowledge reality... I'm a bad guy, eh?
Tell me smart guy... how should they run their societies and not instantly turn into theocratic hell holes? Educate me, halfwit.
Oh and in case this was not clear, can you show me something with this model or any other that was validated? It is one thing for a model to be made it is another for it to actually work.
As to the virtue of the green house effect studied on its own, the issue is that the atmosphere just might not work that way.
The issue I was fixating on was the observation that at equal pressures the atmosphere's of the planets in our solar system are not that different from the earth. There are differences but I think we can safely attribute the 50 degree difference in Venus's atmosphere at 1 bar to the fact that it is a lot close to the Sun.
From what I can see, and I am not a scientist that has spent his life studying such things, the influence of CO2 or any other chemical composition appears dubious with the most relevant factor being the mass of the atmosphere itself, the size of the radiating surface into space, and the distance from the Sun.
I think I am correct in saying that a vacuum is a good insulator and every planet is in a pretty good vacuum.
Does CO2 effect things? I'm sure it does really. From my short experience living in this universe, pretty much everything effects everything. Butterflies flapping their wings and such. But the amount of our atmosphere that is CO2 is relatively small. By the mass of the entire atmosphere it really doesn't make up much. And the increases we have made to it through burning sequestered fossil fuels is tiny when compared to the mass of the atmosphere itself. I have a hard time seeing why it would make a difference.
I am familiar with the painted window analogy as well as the more then a decade of cartoon descriptions I've been fed over the years from advocates.
I pride myself on thinking for myself and not just accepting things no matter how much some people presume to lay social and political pressure on me to simply agree with them.
As to the way science works as you described it... That is sort of how everything is done. When you design something, you do it the same way. You have a concept, then a sketch, then you do some calculations, and then you get into the nitty gritty of how it all fits together down to the last relevant detail.
However, my understanding of science was that there were tests of the validity of the system for it to be called science. Otherwise you could make up anything.
As to the models, I'd like you to look at something. I've looked at your website so I know a little about you. I am an IT administrator at a large company. I also write proprietary programs to manage certain systems. I also have an endless series of hobbies. I built an aquaponics system a few months ago for example. Unlike you, I no longer write poetry. Though I did once for school... and some of it wasn't horrible. Just trying to build a little rapport here so that we can have a decent discussion. You understand. I've also ordered your fictional book about crossing Mars.
This is the sort of thing that throws up ugly red flags in my mind and tends to make me a bit dubious about AGW in general.
I also note that a lot of people say things like "the debate is over" or "shut up and accept whatever"... In my mind, those sorts of statements sound like evasion rather then standing as any kind of convincing argument.
I have a mind like an IRS audit. I am by nature and professional vocation... extremely anal. Things line up or they're wrong. I am not saying things have to be perfectly precise. Just accurate within the bounds of the nature. Something deviates from that and it gets investigated.
So, in summary, could you respond to the observation that our planetary neighbors have similar temperatures at equal pressures. Including Mars by the way. I think if you go up about 30km in Earth's atmosphere you've got the same pressure and nearly identical temperature conditions.
In addition, I'd like your opinion of that article from the Register. Note the Register is not a political publication but rather a tech publication. It is what passes for news in my world. I try to avoid the major papers since they neither cover subjects that interest me nor are written with my demographic in mind.
... Very simply, either have someone in your IT department or an outside consultant hack your system or compromise it in some way.
Then task the department to deal with it.
Let us say your fake attacker gets a hold of some admin passwords? Or they slip a remote access program through your security? Something like that. Then task the department to solve the problem and then make the system harder to compromise.
Ultimately what needs to happen is that systems need to be compartmentalized so that the compromising of one system does not lead to the compromising of EVERYTHING. That in and of itself is hugely helpful.
And then keep in mind the distinction between system security in areas that you don't care about and system security in areas you do.
So for example, if there is a part of the system that deals with non-sensitive information that you honestly don't care about then the security there doesn't need to be that stiff. And if we're talking about credit card records or private company memos then clearly that needs to be secured tight.
The problem has been that all these systems tend to be linked such that if you can compromise the low security area you have access to everything. Compartmentalize the systems so that that doesn't happen and then tailor each security system to be reasonable for what it is securing. That means amongst other things not annoying users with security theater for things they don't need to worry about.
The security systems need to be well designed, fluid, and effective.
One thing which I'd like to see implemented more in operating systems is whitelisting systems. That is, instead of trying to keep on top of every bit of bad code you instead make a list of all good code. Any time bad code wants to run, it has to be verified by the IT department. Here someone will say "what about scripts"... you can white list scripts too guys. Don't be silly. You have the system keep an international record of the name and precise to the bit size of every valid script as well as some sort of hash value. And then when a script wants to run, it has to have the same file name, file size, and hash value. Am I missing something here? Someone is doubtless going to say I didn't think of one thing or another. I accept and welcome your criticism in advance, gents. we all need to listen to each other and come up with some good solutions here together.
I didn't say the seas didn't rise. I said rather that YOU don't know why they've risen. And without a validated climate model... I am right.
You don't KNOW why the oceans went up. And without knowing you can't cite a cause.
What is more you don't know how much farther they'll go since you don't know why they went up in the first place.
What we're looking at is about 7 inches of sea rise per year right now. That is the empirical fact. And I'm not denying facts. What I am asking for is for claims of being able to predict the future to be validated.
Come back to me with a working model or admit you you presume to represent your opinion as science... so I can laugh at you.
First, let me say that it is always nice to talk with someone that is accomplished and likely knows a lot about a lot of things. Respect beyond typical internet crap slinging must be shown in this case.
Second, I thank you for actually answering my question directly. You are the first and so far only person to do that. That makes your reply though stoic very special.
In response to your citation, doing just a little investigation into the model, it appears to make some rather odd assumptions that probably make it incapable of actually modeling climate on earth with any accuracy.
The first thing I notice in it is that cloud cover is fixed. As clouds have a big impact on solar absorption I don't know if that is a reasonable assumption to make. While i am sure it simplifies calculations it probably makes them inaccurate.
The second thing is that relative humidity is fixed. I don't see why that is reasonable either. Possibly you can defend that choice.
The third thing is that oceans and ice cover on oceans is not calculated. Ice again generally reduces solar absorption and oceans are more then a source of moisture to the climate.
Respectfully, do you know of this model ever being empirically tested against a random empirical climate data set?
One thing I have noticed is that some climate models will make use plug variables. Effectively the model will be constrained to only output conditions within so many percent of known climate conditions at the known climate period. That means the systems in those cases are not modeling the climate since the correct answers are fed literally into the model rather then derived.
The model you're citing is unlikely to include anything of that nature. These cheats are often employed in more current computer models.
I was able to get a copy of your citation in full and am looking at it now. But I was not able to find any evidence it was ever employed to actually predict or model anything under falsifiable conditions.
If there are dozens of models that have been verified emperically and shown to be able to accurately predict climate conditions using historical data... not merely "they'll predict things in the future when I am dead"... then cite one.
You say it is so easy... then you don't do it. When you ask me to do easy things, I do them. Because it is easy. Saying you're not going to bother because it is too easy is just posturing and obvious posturing at that.
As to what I find offensive, you don't know me well enough to offend me. As I said at the start, your faction is so buys projecting images of demons on your rivals that you don't actually know anything about them. I am a cartoon to you. A cartoon that isn't even accurate to a caricature of myself.
I clearly didn't find your comparison to an oil shill to be offensive. Did you note that? I said rather that I'd happily cash the check. Contrary to offending me, it was something I happily embraced without any fussing about it.
Does that fit your model of someone like me? Here you might be thinking I am really that cartoon demon your ideology likes to paint over all its rivals. I'm not. I'm just not someone that takes your world view especially seriously.
I come from a different philosophical tradition then you. One that is if anything a good deal more ancient and complicated then your own. This continuing attempt to gain the moral or intellectual high ground is futile. I know where I stand and I know where you stand.
But because I don't think you realize it yet, I want you to engage in a frank discussion without further pretense. In doing this, I hope that I can if only for a moment breach the cognitive dissonance that shields your mind from enlightenment.
I await your choice. I am not stupid and I am not a fool and I am not a demon. Let us talk.
As to a model of what, clearly a model of your mother having sex with me last night.
You deserve that response for asking a completely fucking stupid question. Obviously a climate model. Ask more offensively stupid questions and I'll respect with proportional contempt.
As to being an oil shill, I wish. Then I would still say what I believe and get paid for my trouble.
Let us not pretend there are a lot of people on the pro side that would say what they're saying for free... but they are getting paid... aren't they? Yes they are. From the scientists that exist in climate change departments that wouldn't have a tenth of the funding without AGW hysteria to the activists that support a life style parasiting off of donations, to the politicians that get votes and campaign contributions for saying things you want to hear, to the various financial interests that sell products that support your green economy.
Both sides get paid. I'm just sad I don't. I'd totally cash that check.
As to Europe cutting emissions, they're also in a deep recession. So... that's fucking shocking.
As to cynical libertarians, sure... and communists step into to make sure the market does the right thing too... they're probably cynical libertarians too.
Radical islamists that kill children are probably just cynical progressives. Right?
As to Russia boardering on Fascism, facism is typically left wing actually.
National Socialists were facist after all... and they were also socialists.
Can we dispense with existing political definitions? They've been twisted and perverted by too many corrupt people to make any logical sense any more.
Why don't you say what you believe, and I'll counter with what I believe.
Tabula Rasa. For the purposes of this discussion, you're not a crypto communist using environmental issues to achieve long term political an ideological goals. And I'm not whatever the hell you think I am.
As to guns in faces, if I ignore your policies what are you going to send after me? The police? And what will they do?
We can have a good discussion. But if your policies rely on coercion rather then concensus and cooperation... then I'm going to label them as such. Your policies require and justify violence against people.
And what you do not grasp is that your ability to actually threaten me or the rest of the planet with such violence is empty. You can't even threaten me anymore credibly. Your policies are collapsing in the US. And beyond our national political spheres, your policies are a joke that the leaders of those lands play along with as an adult plays along with the games of a child.
They take you not seriously at all. Because you can't credibly threaten them.
The only reason you have gotten as far as you have in our societies is that you can credibly threaten many of us. But we are no less intelligent or powerful then you. And you can't keep that gun pressed against our head 24 hours a day. The barrel slips to the right or the left for a moment and we're gone. Which is why the Keystone pipeline is getting built.
That is what happens when your policies are based on threats of violence. You either convince us and speak to us as one man speaks to another in friendship. Or you are an enemy to be outwitted and outlasted.
Choose. Are you so addicted to threats of violence that you can truly see no other options besides pointing guns at people? If so... you make me sad.
Validated means it is tested under empirical falsifiable conditions and found to be able to accurately either model or predict climate conditions.
As to pro or anti... I'd prefer for things to not be political which would mean the pro and anti would go away. But people refuse to put their fucking politics away so I'm going to poor water on any fire I see. The people that seem most interested in making this politcal are the Pro side. They want to exclude all criticism and suppress all contrary opinion. They presume to morally judge rather then scientifically argue against anyone that contradicts them.
And for that reason, counter political arguments must be brought to bear to shut such arguments down.
I don't like doing it... there is just no other option. I keep getting told "a majority of these people agree" which is not a scientific argument. I also get told "who are you" which is not a scientific argument. And then I get "you're only disagreeing because you want to support a rival political faction" which is also not a scientific argument.
And to all these things I have to respond with a political counter point. When told that "x people agree" I point out the political and financial entanglements. I also point out that much of their opinion is filtered and approved by politicians. When asked "who am I" I counter by asking who they are themselves? After all, if I am unworthy then why are they worthy? And when told I only say a thing to support a political faction, I point out that the same can be leveled at the opposition as easily leading to mutual political annihilation. Mutually Assured Destruction is something communists have always respected. Still works against their Diet and Lite equivalents.
Also you really should compare Mars to earth at equal pressures.
If you go up about 30km in earth's atmosphere you get about to the same temperature I think. I'd have to look at the graphs again. But at around that level the temperature swings between about 1 F in the sun and about -200 F at night. On mars, the temperatures swing from about 1 F in the day and about -170 F at night.
See a fucking pattern? It is atmospheric density that dictates temperature to a far greater degree then just about anything else. The chemical composition of that atmosphere does not appear to especially matter.
The gray line on that graph is 1 atmosphere of pressure. The orange line is 98 degrees F.
They're not 50km apart. They're 50km from the surface. I never said that Venus had an earth like environment at its surface. I said it had an earth like temperature at around 1 atmosphere.
Keep in mind, Venus is also a good deal closer to the Sun. If it matched earth temperature at 1 atmosphere then it would mean contrary to warming the planet, your mix of gases would be cooling the planet.
The point I was making is that all these worlds including Mars enjoy temperatures NEAR earth's atmospheric norms at one atmosphere and the biggest contributor beyond that appears to be their proximity to the star.
The CO2 doesn't appear to be doing anything to make Venus hotter then it would be if it had any other mix of gases. A nitrogen oxygen atmosphere would probably be all but identical if were as dense as Venus' and were as close to the star.
That was my point. People on your side like to point at Venus and say "that is what the earth would be like with run away global warming"... and its bullshit. Venus has a much denser atmosphere. That is why it is why it is so much hotter. Not because of CO2 and methane.
If ISIS were the only example you'd have a point. But then its all over the place.
And I'll note further that the elements in Turkey, Kurdistan, and Egypt that are fighting against these people agree with me that Islam needs to reform.
I didn't say the Indians were mellow. I said to the contrary that the Hindus had HAD IT with islam. They're not alone.
Islam is on poor terms with literally ALL of its neighbors.
No one that lives next to an islamic country has good relations with them. Find me exceptions and even if you do find an exception, I will show it is the exception that proves the rule.
From Africa, to Europe, to west Asia, to middle asia, to east asia... problems with everyone.
I dare you to contradict me. Double dog dare with mustard on top. Do it.
That country's current government was founded by a fellow by the name of Ataturk. And he agrees with both me and the Egyptian president.
I am not a bigot. I stand with evidence behind me and the good consenting opinion of prominent statesmen from within their society.
What do you have behind you?
Nothing.
You are the bigot. You are the one that is prejudiced. You prejudge ME. You can't accept that your world view is wrong and so you're going to just run around labeling people like me as Heretics, unbelievers, and infidels.
Open your little beady eyes. This is reality. I don't like it anymore then you do. But it is here and it is real.
As to your claim that all radicalism is the fault of western imperialism, that is kind of cool. So what you're saying is that the reason they are the way they are is because we made them that way.
Dos that little theory go both ways? Because we did nice things for South Korea. Can we assume that all their modernity and accomplishments are really ours? Like... could I go to South Korea and tell them to bow down to the awesomeness of my country because we gave them everything they have?
Or does your stupid little theory only flow one way? Bet it does. I bet it only is kept in place so long as to blame us for things and then the instant the same theory might show we did nice things for someone you'll hypocritically and arbitrarily use a different standard.
Guess what, we're not responsible for their radicalism. Look at Eastern Europe. Similar situation and yet not so much suicide bombing and death to the infidel... right? So your little idea is garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting idea. Ideally damage it before hand. Just keep a smashed USB drive handy and say the key file is on that... "Wait, what did you do to it?!"
That's pretty solid. Where to keep the real key file though?
I've seen people with encrypted volumes... the issue is that they tend to keep them in their unlocked state. That is, encrypted but mounted and readable. If you cut power to the system the data would be safe but they use their encrypted data so often that it is hard to say it doesn't exist.
A certain amount of this might require physically isolating sensitive information and making it difficult to find PHYSICALLY in the event of problems. Obviously encrypt it as well but really your goal here should be to not let them get it. If the data is on a thumb drive they don't have then maybe that will deter them.
You mad, AC?
Sounds like you're mad.
Stand up.
Hold your right hand out at a 90 degree angle from your body.
Close your four fingers so that only your thumb sticks out.
Rotate your elbow so that your hand is behind your back.
Place your hand on the chair behind you thumb side up.
And slowly sit on your thumb.
And spin. :-)
An interesting idea for sure. I think we definitely need to make it harder for them find the information encrypted or not in the first place.
And which Islamic country is not a dictatorship you complete fucking halfwit?
The closest thing to a republic they have is Turkey. And that is only as stable as it is because the guy that founded it, Ataturk, AGREED WITH ME!
By Turkish law, Burkas/Hijabs are illegal for example. And the military is not only allowed to be responsible for keeping their government secular by force of arms. That is, the people can elect an islamic leader and the Turkish army will remove them from power and call new elections.
That is what an islamic republic looks like. It takes regular displays of military force just to keep them from acting like crazy people. And that is in the opinion of their own fucking people.
And when I simply acknowledge reality... I'm a bad guy, eh?
Tell me smart guy... how should they run their societies and not instantly turn into theocratic hell holes? Educate me, halfwit.
Every day a little gladder.
I get what you're saying but that is not constructive. We need a plausible means to deny the key.
Their attack is ultimately coming through the legal system. So we need to think about what works in a court of law.
If we can find reasonable ways to forget keys then we can reasonably claim to have forgotten them.
We generally agree then.
For example, lets say we don't have just one password that secures everything but thousands.
Then we can... OOPs forget it when ever the government asks and we don't want to share.
Oh and in case this was not clear, can you show me something with this model or any other that was validated? It is one thing for a model to be made it is another for it to actually work.
As to the virtue of the green house effect studied on its own, the issue is that the atmosphere just might not work that way.
The issue I was fixating on was the observation that at equal pressures the atmosphere's of the planets in our solar system are not that different from the earth. There are differences but I think we can safely attribute the 50 degree difference in Venus's atmosphere at 1 bar to the fact that it is a lot close to the Sun.
From what I can see, and I am not a scientist that has spent his life studying such things, the influence of CO2 or any other chemical composition appears dubious with the most relevant factor being the mass of the atmosphere itself, the size of the radiating surface into space, and the distance from the Sun.
I think I am correct in saying that a vacuum is a good insulator and every planet is in a pretty good vacuum.
Does CO2 effect things? I'm sure it does really. From my short experience living in this universe, pretty much everything effects everything. Butterflies flapping their wings and such. But the amount of our atmosphere that is CO2 is relatively small. By the mass of the entire atmosphere it really doesn't make up much. And the increases we have made to it through burning sequestered fossil fuels is tiny when compared to the mass of the atmosphere itself. I have a hard time seeing why it would make a difference.
I am familiar with the painted window analogy as well as the more then a decade of cartoon descriptions I've been fed over the years from advocates.
I pride myself on thinking for myself and not just accepting things no matter how much some people presume to lay social and political pressure on me to simply agree with them.
As to the way science works as you described it... That is sort of how everything is done. When you design something, you do it the same way. You have a concept, then a sketch, then you do some calculations, and then you get into the nitty gritty of how it all fits together down to the last relevant detail.
However, my understanding of science was that there were tests of the validity of the system for it to be called science. Otherwise you could make up anything.
As to the models, I'd like you to look at something. I've looked at your website so I know a little about you. I am an IT administrator at a large company. I also write proprietary programs to manage certain systems. I also have an endless series of hobbies. I built an aquaponics system a few months ago for example. Unlike you, I no longer write poetry. Though I did once for school... and some of it wasn't horrible. Just trying to build a little rapport here so that we can have a decent discussion. You understand. I've also ordered your fictional book about crossing Mars.
On topic, I'd like you to look at something:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
This is the sort of thing that throws up ugly red flags in my mind and tends to make me a bit dubious about AGW in general.
I also note that a lot of people say things like "the debate is over" or "shut up and accept whatever"... In my mind, those sorts of statements sound like evasion rather then standing as any kind of convincing argument.
I have a mind like an IRS audit. I am by nature and professional vocation... extremely anal. Things line up or they're wrong. I am not saying things have to be perfectly precise. Just accurate within the bounds of the nature. Something deviates from that and it gets investigated.
So, in summary, could you respond to the observation that our planetary neighbors have similar temperatures at equal pressures. Including Mars by the way. I think if you go up about 30km in Earth's atmosphere you've got the same pressure and nearly identical temperature conditions.
In addition, I'd like your opinion of that article from the Register. Note the Register is not a political publication but rather a tech publication. It is what passes for news in my world. I try to avoid the major papers since they neither cover subjects that interest me nor are written with my demographic in mind.
Respectfully yours.
*tips hat*
... Very simply, either have someone in your IT department or an outside consultant hack your system or compromise it in some way.
Then task the department to deal with it.
Let us say your fake attacker gets a hold of some admin passwords? Or they slip a remote access program through your security? Something like that. Then task the department to solve the problem and then make the system harder to compromise.
Ultimately what needs to happen is that systems need to be compartmentalized so that the compromising of one system does not lead to the compromising of EVERYTHING. That in and of itself is hugely helpful.
And then keep in mind the distinction between system security in areas that you don't care about and system security in areas you do.
So for example, if there is a part of the system that deals with non-sensitive information that you honestly don't care about then the security there doesn't need to be that stiff. And if we're talking about credit card records or private company memos then clearly that needs to be secured tight.
The problem has been that all these systems tend to be linked such that if you can compromise the low security area you have access to everything. Compartmentalize the systems so that that doesn't happen and then tailor each security system to be reasonable for what it is securing. That means amongst other things not annoying users with security theater for things they don't need to worry about.
The security systems need to be well designed, fluid, and effective.
One thing which I'd like to see implemented more in operating systems is whitelisting systems. That is, instead of trying to keep on top of every bit of bad code you instead make a list of all good code. Any time bad code wants to run, it has to be verified by the IT department. Here someone will say "what about scripts"... you can white list scripts too guys. Don't be silly. You have the system keep an international record of the name and precise to the bit size of every valid script as well as some sort of hash value. And then when a script wants to run, it has to have the same file name, file size, and hash value. Am I missing something here? Someone is doubtless going to say I didn't think of one thing or another. I accept and welcome your criticism in advance, gents. we all need to listen to each other and come up with some good solutions here together.
Cheers.
As I said, I believe in being nice but not in being a door mat. I believe in common courtesy but not allowing people to take advantage of me.
Islam has crossed this line. At least in the case of about 20 percent of their population. Which is not a small minority.
You're inferring that he's only cynically saying this to undermine political rivals and otherwise doesn't believe it.
That is attack on the credibility of my citation which if validated would would undermine my position.
I responded by defending my citation and attempting to undermine you.
Quid pro quo, no?
I didn't say the seas didn't rise. I said rather that YOU don't know why they've risen. And without a validated climate model... I am right.
You don't KNOW why the oceans went up. And without knowing you can't cite a cause.
What is more you don't know how much farther they'll go since you don't know why they went up in the first place.
What we're looking at is about 7 inches of sea rise per year right now. That is the empirical fact. And I'm not denying facts. What I am asking for is for claims of being able to predict the future to be validated.
Come back to me with a working model or admit you you presume to represent your opinion as science... so I can laugh at you.
First, let me say that it is always nice to talk with someone that is accomplished and likely knows a lot about a lot of things. Respect beyond typical internet crap slinging must be shown in this case.
Second, I thank you for actually answering my question directly. You are the first and so far only person to do that. That makes your reply though stoic very special.
In response to your citation, doing just a little investigation into the model, it appears to make some rather odd assumptions that probably make it incapable of actually modeling climate on earth with any accuracy.
The first thing I notice in it is that cloud cover is fixed. As clouds have a big impact on solar absorption I don't know if that is a reasonable assumption to make. While i am sure it simplifies calculations it probably makes them inaccurate.
The second thing is that relative humidity is fixed. I don't see why that is reasonable either. Possibly you can defend that choice.
The third thing is that oceans and ice cover on oceans is not calculated. Ice again generally reduces solar absorption and oceans are more then a source of moisture to the climate.
Respectfully, do you know of this model ever being empirically tested against a random empirical climate data set?
One thing I have noticed is that some climate models will make use plug variables. Effectively the model will be constrained to only output conditions within so many percent of known climate conditions at the known climate period. That means the systems in those cases are not modeling the climate since the correct answers are fed literally into the model rather then derived.
The model you're citing is unlikely to include anything of that nature. These cheats are often employed in more current computer models.
I was able to get a copy of your citation in full and am looking at it now. But I was not able to find any evidence it was ever employed to actually predict or model anything under falsifiable conditions.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
If there are dozens of models that have been verified emperically and shown to be able to accurately predict climate conditions using historical data... not merely "they'll predict things in the future when I am dead"... then cite one.
You say it is so easy... then you don't do it. When you ask me to do easy things, I do them. Because it is easy. Saying you're not going to bother because it is too easy is just posturing and obvious posturing at that.
As to what I find offensive, you don't know me well enough to offend me. As I said at the start, your faction is so buys projecting images of demons on your rivals that you don't actually know anything about them. I am a cartoon to you. A cartoon that isn't even accurate to a caricature of myself.
I clearly didn't find your comparison to an oil shill to be offensive. Did you note that? I said rather that I'd happily cash the check. Contrary to offending me, it was something I happily embraced without any fussing about it.
Does that fit your model of someone like me? Here you might be thinking I am really that cartoon demon your ideology likes to paint over all its rivals. I'm not. I'm just not someone that takes your world view especially seriously.
I come from a different philosophical tradition then you. One that is if anything a good deal more ancient and complicated then your own. This continuing attempt to gain the moral or intellectual high ground is futile. I know where I stand and I know where you stand.
But because I don't think you realize it yet, I want you to engage in a frank discussion without further pretense. In doing this, I hope that I can if only for a moment breach the cognitive dissonance that shields your mind from enlightenment.
I await your choice. I am not stupid and I am not a fool and I am not a demon. Let us talk.
As to a model of what, clearly a model of your mother having sex with me last night.
You deserve that response for asking a completely fucking stupid question. Obviously a climate model. Ask more offensively stupid questions and I'll respect with proportional contempt.
As to being an oil shill, I wish. Then I would still say what I believe and get paid for my trouble.
Let us not pretend there are a lot of people on the pro side that would say what they're saying for free... but they are getting paid... aren't they? Yes they are. From the scientists that exist in climate change departments that wouldn't have a tenth of the funding without AGW hysteria to the activists that support a life style parasiting off of donations, to the politicians that get votes and campaign contributions for saying things you want to hear, to the various financial interests that sell products that support your green economy.
Both sides get paid. I'm just sad I don't. I'd totally cash that check.
As to Europe cutting emissions, they're also in a deep recession. So... that's fucking shocking.
As to cynical libertarians, sure... and communists step into to make sure the market does the right thing too... they're probably cynical libertarians too.
Radical islamists that kill children are probably just cynical progressives. Right?
As to Russia boardering on Fascism, facism is typically left wing actually.
National Socialists were facist after all... and they were also socialists.
Can we dispense with existing political definitions? They've been twisted and perverted by too many corrupt people to make any logical sense any more.
Why don't you say what you believe, and I'll counter with what I believe.
Tabula Rasa. For the purposes of this discussion, you're not a crypto communist using environmental issues to achieve long term political an ideological goals. And I'm not whatever the hell you think I am.
As to guns in faces, if I ignore your policies what are you going to send after me? The police? And what will they do?
You threaten my people with bondage to your laws and death:
http://youtu.be/QkWS9PiXekE?t=...
We can have a good discussion. But if your policies rely on coercion rather then concensus and cooperation... then I'm going to label them as such. Your policies require and justify violence against people.
And what you do not grasp is that your ability to actually threaten me or the rest of the planet with such violence is empty. You can't even threaten me anymore credibly. Your policies are collapsing in the US. And beyond our national political spheres, your policies are a joke that the leaders of those lands play along with as an adult plays along with the games of a child.
They take you not seriously at all. Because you can't credibly threaten them.
The only reason you have gotten as far as you have in our societies is that you can credibly threaten many of us. But we are no less intelligent or powerful then you. And you can't keep that gun pressed against our head 24 hours a day. The barrel slips to the right or the left for a moment and we're gone. Which is why the Keystone pipeline is getting built.
That is what happens when your policies are based on threats of violence. You either convince us and speak to us as one man speaks to another in friendship. Or you are an enemy to be outwitted and outlasted.
Choose. Are you so addicted to threats of violence that you can truly see no other options besides pointing guns at people? If so... you make me sad.
Validated means it is tested under empirical falsifiable conditions and found to be able to accurately either model or predict climate conditions.
As to pro or anti... I'd prefer for things to not be political which would mean the pro and anti would go away. But people refuse to put their fucking politics away so I'm going to poor water on any fire I see. The people that seem most interested in making this politcal are the Pro side. They want to exclude all criticism and suppress all contrary opinion. They presume to morally judge rather then scientifically argue against anyone that contradicts them.
And for that reason, counter political arguments must be brought to bear to shut such arguments down.
I don't like doing it... there is just no other option. I keep getting told "a majority of these people agree" which is not a scientific argument. I also get told "who are you" which is not a scientific argument. And then I get "you're only disagreeing because you want to support a rival political faction" which is also not a scientific argument.
And to all these things I have to respond with a political counter point. When told that "x people agree" I point out the political and financial entanglements. I also point out that much of their opinion is filtered and approved by politicians. When asked "who am I" I counter by asking who they are themselves? After all, if I am unworthy then why are they worthy? And when told I only say a thing to support a political faction, I point out that the same can be leveled at the opposition as easily leading to mutual political annihilation. Mutually Assured Destruction is something communists have always respected. Still works against their Diet and Lite equivalents.
Also you really should compare Mars to earth at equal pressures.
If you go up about 30km in earth's atmosphere you get about to the same temperature I think. I'd have to look at the graphs again. But at around that level the temperature swings between about 1 F in the sun and about -200 F at night. On mars, the temperatures swing from about 1 F in the day and about -170 F at night.
See a fucking pattern? It is atmospheric density that dictates temperature to a far greater degree then just about anything else. The chemical composition of that atmosphere does not appear to especially matter.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/...
You apparently don't know how to read that graph.
The gray line on that graph is 1 atmosphere of pressure. The orange line is 98 degrees F.
They're not 50km apart. They're 50km from the surface. I never said that Venus had an earth like environment at its surface. I said it had an earth like temperature at around 1 atmosphere.
Keep in mind, Venus is also a good deal closer to the Sun. If it matched earth temperature at 1 atmosphere then it would mean contrary to warming the planet, your mix of gases would be cooling the planet.
The point I was making is that all these worlds including Mars enjoy temperatures NEAR earth's atmospheric norms at one atmosphere and the biggest contributor beyond that appears to be their proximity to the star.
The CO2 doesn't appear to be doing anything to make Venus hotter then it would be if it had any other mix of gases. A nitrogen oxygen atmosphere would probably be all but identical if were as dense as Venus' and were as close to the star.
That was my point. People on your side like to point at Venus and say "that is what the earth would be like with run away global warming"... and its bullshit. Venus has a much denser atmosphere. That is why it is why it is so much hotter. Not because of CO2 and methane.
If ISIS were the only example you'd have a point. But then its all over the place.
And I'll note further that the elements in Turkey, Kurdistan, and Egypt that are fighting against these people agree with me that Islam needs to reform.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
I am in good company with facts at my back. You've got nothing on me.
I didn't say the Indians were mellow. I said to the contrary that the Hindus had HAD IT with islam. They're not alone.
Islam is on poor terms with literally ALL of its neighbors.
No one that lives next to an islamic country has good relations with them. Find me exceptions and even if you do find an exception, I will show it is the exception that proves the rule.
From Africa, to Europe, to west Asia, to middle asia, to east asia... problems with everyone.
I dare you to contradict me. Double dog dare with mustard on top. Do it.
The most successful Islamic society is Turkey.
That country's current government was founded by a fellow by the name of Ataturk. And he agrees with both me and the Egyptian president.
I am not a bigot. I stand with evidence behind me and the good consenting opinion of prominent statesmen from within their society.
What do you have behind you?
Nothing.
You are the bigot. You are the one that is prejudiced. You prejudge ME. You can't accept that your world view is wrong and so you're going to just run around labeling people like me as Heretics, unbelievers, and infidels.
Open your little beady eyes. This is reality. I don't like it anymore then you do. But it is here and it is real.
Deal with it.
Alright Mr AC, lets talk about it.
As to your claim that all radicalism is the fault of western imperialism, that is kind of cool. So what you're saying is that the reason they are the way they are is because we made them that way.
Dos that little theory go both ways? Because we did nice things for South Korea. Can we assume that all their modernity and accomplishments are really ours? Like... could I go to South Korea and tell them to bow down to the awesomeness of my country because we gave them everything they have?
Or does your stupid little theory only flow one way? Bet it does. I bet it only is kept in place so long as to blame us for things and then the instant the same theory might show we did nice things for someone you'll hypocritically and arbitrarily use a different standard.
Guess what, we're not responsible for their radicalism. Look at Eastern Europe. Similar situation and yet not so much suicide bombing and death to the infidel... right? So your little idea is garbage.
Clean the shit out of your head and try again.