I was very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very clear that this was not something you would use in a court case but rather something you'd use for military intelligence in a war zone or intelligence operation.
So... how much more very clear do I have to be about that to avoid you saying "for the record" after I was so VERY clear?
Give me a break please. I was so very fucking clear.
Actually many geo engineering options have been suggested. Its just that the alarmists are so busy strawmanning, demonizing, ad homineming, and other associated fallacies that in all likelihood you have no idea what so ever what their opposition believes if you only listen to one side.
The "denial" name for example is a name assigned to us by those same people to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers... which basically means they've invoked Godwin's law... That's how far up their own asses they are on this issue.
The side that compares you to hitler in a scientific discussion is probably not arguing in good faith... don't you think?
As to whether I would geoengineer the planet to stop the warming... why? The change in sea levels is not happening quickly. Some coastal cities might be effected eventually but so what? That isn't a global problem. That's a coastal city problem. The world is not a few coastal cities. I'm not interested in wasting resources on this project. We have bigger problems.
I already contradicted that claim with my own citation.
I can show you the dutch tide tables, the New York tide tables... etc.
You're just repeating something I already slapped down.
As to being boorish, all you've done is try to win the argument by being condescending. I am merely returning your pathetic rhetorical tactic back at you. If you find it obnoxious then you would find yourself to be obnoxious.
Hypocrisy is to be expected from sophists. What is more, stoics don't respond to claims that they're boorish. One of the biggest proponents of the stoic school was Diogenes.. who literally urinated on people like you... or spat in their self important faces.
Your opinions of me mean nothing to me. Nothing.
My school of philosophy created science. I care more about being right than scoring meaningless social status points. That's all sophists care about. They grope for power and status and favor. But the truth means nothing to people like you.
Have the discussion or don't. You're hardly signaling your sophisticated grasp of the issue by citing a wikipedia article a child could find.
Try harder. If you're looking for an excuse to run away... some social mistake on my part that gives you the right to be offended and thus bow out of the discussion without losing face... just ask and I'll say the thing that you feel justifies you walking away without making an argument and making a lot of stupid claims. Seriously. Your obsession with such things is what is actually tedious. You have no business being in a scientific discussion at all with your mentality.
Either engage or bail. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion of any value if you won't defend your position with more than stupid insults.
I am very happy to have a rational discussion about this... but we're going to talk about the issue. Not your endless logical fallacies.
Don't be obtuse... I said no such thing. I was referring to people that are not native to the area engaging in terrorism. This was something we saw with some consistency in Afghanistan where we often had fighters operating from totally different countries in Afghanistan. People from Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc. Simply being able to identify population groups rapidly can help you get a good idea of where to look if you suspect that the trouble is being imported or otherwise coming from outside the country. Typically when acts of terrorism happened it was some sort of infiltrator from another group. It could even be a different tribe in the same country but rarely would you get something like that from that tribe within that tribe's territory. You don't shit where you sleep after all.
What is more, specifically in the Osama case... the interest was in a particular bloodline. And the reason that was of interest was that it was assumed that if you found a blood relation somewhere there might be other blood relations there as well... and possibly the man himself.
Nepotism is a common human trait. If you have a genetic signature for the target then you can identity his close family relations and they're likely to have some kind of contact.
Search and Destroy.
As to how DNA samples are collected... in the case of Osama, the CIA was using blood samples from free vaccinations in Pakistan.
We're in the age of portable DNA sequencers. Its a sensor... and like any sensor it can be applied to any purpose. Eyes, ears, smell, taste, touch... The DNA sequencers are obviously going to be applied to offensive tasks just as any other sensor we have already has been. High resolution optics. Infrared cameras. backscatter radiation scanners, seismic scanners applied to detecting nuclear testing, hydrophones... the list goes on.
So you say... your argument basically boils down to this "I'm right. I don't have to prove I'm right. I'm intellectually superior. I don't have to justify that. You're stupid. I don't have to substantiate that."
Well, claims such as that can be struck down as easily as they are made.
I negate your opinion by casting an opposing one. There you go. Your position is null.
As I said, try harder. Or leave it where it stands... your position being null.
David Duke says he's not a white supremacist. Do you believe him?
Not everyone is what they say they are... and those with distasteful shameful and frankly destructive ideologies typically hide their true nature from others. They misrepresent themselves in an effort to be given a chance to do what they want to do.
If you were a marxist... would you tell people you were a marxist? In most cases, no. Its not in your interest to be honest on that point. That category of ideologies has had its name justifiably or not... shamed.
As such, most marxists are crypto marxists... secret marxists.
And while you'll doubtless say "that's absurd" or something... I'll point to Mr Duke again. People that have belief systems that won't be accepted by mainstream society do not advertise their ideologies to people unless they're very very stupid.
A radical Jihadi will not declare his intent to slay the infidel at customs.
A white supremacist will not declare his intention to create some sort of racially pure whatever when running for general office even in Louisiana.
And your average marxist in most of the Western world will use code words or virtue signaling to identify himself to his comrades whilst generally operating unnoticed by most people.
So, no marxist has run for office? Not openly. However, we do have an awful lot of politicians that are interested in redistributing wealth, creating equality of outcome (not opportunity) situations... restricting individualism... increasing collectivism... stamping out religions that have historically been hostile to marxism...
There's a certain systematic nature to it all.
Do you know the origin of the term "politically correct"... it is a term literally out of the Soviet Union. And the term infuses our modern culture. How many people have gotten inside the moral calculations of our society. Determining what is good or bad for everyone else... literally dictating morality.
So... while there are very few open marxists there are fucking tons of closeted ones. Very easy to spot if you know how to get them to stand at attention. People lie and conspiracies do happen. Want me to go through a long list of verified conspiracies that happened? Revolutions... coups... Laws rushed into effect after secret meetings and enacted on Christmas or some other moment when no one would be paying attention for one reason or another.
I know I know... anyone that cites a plot by anyone must be insane. Because after all... humans don't scheme or plot... do they? Humans don't lie or misrepresent? Naturally. Everything is known and everything is transparent.
Right?
Come now. Some things are true and some things are false. Discounting anything out of hand absent information to the contrary is prejudicial.
Really? Shall I show how many predictions laid out have failed to come to pass?
I grant that the most conservative and vague claims have not been touched... but they're not what you base your position upon. It is not those claims you use to scaremonger people into giving you money and power.
You call me an idiot... but I made statements which can be discussed scientifically. You've just hurled insults.
Is this the basis you wish to imply scientific superiority over me? Your disinterest in empirical analysis and interest rather in name calling?
your argument relies on a flawed application of a laboratory experiment to an altered context in the atmosphere.
Did your experiment with CO2 in a controlled lab experiment include water vapor in the chamber or was it desecrated?
What is more, given the way convection works the transfer of energy from one part of the atmosphere to another is not so magically locked as your theory would require.
Air mixes. And the CO2 is really only concentrated in the lower atmosphere. The heat will and does transfer via many means.
As to the specialness of CO2, I see nothing about CO2 that makes it especially relevant in the atmosphere. You note that the concentration of CO2 has doubled. I don't contest that. I rather contest the relevance. I also question you general trend lines because I can look at preindustrial trends to now and find little to support your position that we've caused a change.
Look at the Dutch sea level charts. They go back farther than anyone's actively recorded charts and they are quite accurate because they needed them to be accurate to know the rate at which they must raise their dikes. Those charts show no relevant change in the delta. The rate of change is consistent. Which argues against your thesis.
What is more, all but the most vague predictions from the climate lobby that intersect with the current years have failed to occur. Hanson said that New York city would be half under water at this point. It isn't.
Your faction makes many predictions and call anyone that disagrees with you idiots. Yet when the year rolls around when the doom should have happened... and it didn't... do you admit that the people you called idiots were right and you were wrong? Never. No, you forget that you said that and just roll along as if you've never made a mistake.
Well, the mistakes are cataloged. And being arrogant and dismissive is no defense against it. It is rather an intellectual retreat into sophistry.
If you wish to discuss the issue we can go through your premise. Any browbeating attempts will be answered in kind.
Inbreeding is vastly more common in many other places in the world actually. I also think you mean west Virginia... that's where the banjos are more likely to play. Or possibly in the bayou portions of the Louisianan. That's especially common amongst the remaining french population out there. Its done in part to preserve their culture. Rather impressive to have maintained their old french heritage through all these years.
Of course, unlike the British that largely have good respectful relations with the angosphere, the French have this tendency to look down their noses at anyone not from Paris. They wonder why they failed as empire builders... The mystery is not so illusive.
Regardless being able to rapidly and covertly screen DNA can be useful when dealing with terrorists since the genetics of the terrorists are often distinct from the general population. Terrorists like to blend in... They adopt the local dress of the natives and who can say who knows whom?
Its important to keep in mind that this doesn't stop at top enemy commanders. You could screen for Saudis in Pakistan... Iranians in Israel... Russians in Washington.
Again, not anything you can take to court. Its not a legal tool. Its a military tool. When the marching orders are search and destroy... this facilitates that objective.
If we go through every planet in our solar system which have very different chemistries... and factor for distance from the sun AND air pressure... you can estimate the temperature at that pressure and distance within a reasonable margin of error. This suggests the chemistry isn't especially important. We've sent space probes to these worlds. How do you explain this?
Venus is as hot as it is because its atmosphere is very much denser and the planet is closer to the sun. Both qualities increase temperature. Factor for both and the temperature falls to something you wouldn't find unusual on earth despite having an atmosphere almost entirely composed of "greenhouse" gases.
We can go over the theories in detail but I am familiar with the science and the equations. I have found precious few would be sages on this issue that actually understand the science in any real detail. Most of them repeat political blogs or quote abstracts without understanding how anything is actually being calculated.
There are many problems with the fundamental theory much less the data. I am not a child. An explanation that involves cartoons and no actual explanation of methodology is not acceptable.
Again, the world is warming and the oceans are rising. No question. But they were doing that before the industrial revolution.
I'm not giving you trillions of dollars and dictatorial control over global industry on this basis. Try again.
They had a duel use vaccination project in pakistan where they gathered blood samples for DNA analysis. The DNA was scanned for similarities to Osama bin Ladin. The notion was that if they found a cluster of people with genetic similarities they would find him... blood relations etc.
The value to the CIA would be identifying people and associations of blood. It will also reveal unusual genetics in the population... people that might appear outwardly similar might contain genetic markers from a different population and that could give a hint as to someone to watch.
That is the idea in any case.
This is military intelligence work... not a legal investigation. The point is to find something that can give you a hint as to what is going on. Not to convict beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I mean really... That said, it would be interesting to see how this "wobble" effects the distribution of thermal energy on the planet. I suspect that we're going to get a few people saying "look at the climate change!'... ignoring that maybe the earth has tilted one way or the other slightly which could account for changes in climate in parts of the world.
Whatever... everything is climate change and everything would be improved if we just put the Marxists in power... just ask the Marxists. *rolls eyes*.
Where is your data coming from? Every data set I check shows no change in the Delta UP... besides some pacific island that are honestly probably just eroding.
I've checked the Dutch sea level charts (to determine how high the dike's must be raised), several of the English sea level charts (kept for naval purposes), as well as a few other sources throughout the world. They show no acceleration.
I think Nye merely is projecting his ambitions on a situation. Positive thinking... The stats on belief in climate change show a trend towards skepticism. So his claim that he's winning the political struggle is not supported by data.
His claim that new generations are changing the dynamic has the problem that what someone believes when they're 20 is not actually that informed and is quite likely to change over time. Whilst an opinion held by someone that is 40 or something is likely to be better informed and less likely to change. I mean, how many years has a 20 year old had to form an opinion about something like that? 5 maybe? At what age would we start crediting someone's opinion about a geopolitical or scientific subject? 5,10,15,20? What's the magic year. And how many years of knowledge would that year actually include?
He's basically crowing about having the least informed people agree with him. Its sort of funny.
Okay... so show me the scientific consensus absent the politics.
Because it doesn't exist.
Once I strip away the politicians, the international political organizations, the lobbying groups, and the advocacy groups... you just have people. And first off, the predictions are VASTLY less extreme from the scientists than what is suggested by lobbyists. And there is lots of room for debate and contrary theory.
What is more, the peer review process itself has been repeatedly shown over the last few years to not be definitive. Getting something published doesn't mean it is valid. And getting something rejected by a publication doesn't mean it is invalid.
Who is reviewing these papers is often a secret. This is done for "reasons" but those reasons do not change the fact that who is actually auditing these things is not known. Being judged by a man in a mask is not something that fills me with confidence in the legitimacy of the trial.
I'm a much bigger fan of the open peer review process. Where in anyone can publish anything and then everyone can judge for themselves if something is sensible or not.
Your open with a tautology that everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. A religious fanatic could make the same argument about non-believers in his faith.
I am a little amused by all the people that presume to be more scientific and rational that are not making scientific or rational arguments. Look at your statement and tell me if it is scientific. It isn't. Look at Bill Nye's argument and tell me if it is scientific? It isn't.
This is sophistry. Make scientific arguments. I did in my first post. I know what science is and what it is not. I am not a sophist. I don't care if you believe me or agree with me about anything. I care merely if I am right. In the end, my own position + reality wins every time in science. You can have as many likes on facebook as you want. You can have all of them. Reality doesn't care how many times you've been friended and followed on social media.
You say I dismiss facts and say I proved one thing or another true or false... but don't cite your argument. Do you believe being vague is a shield against criticism? Do you think that if you're incoherent that I won't be able to find the logical and factual contradictions in your position? This is a tactical error. I will rather simply point at the vagueness of your positions and the fact that you're making claims that can't be audited. My claims can be be audited. I made claims that can be checked. You have not.
Which of the two of our arguments is more likely to come from a sophist or a stoic? The one that can be either true or false or the one that is so vague that it can't be verified?
You are obviously the one making sophistic arguments because you're the one making statements that can't be proven true or false. Sophists like arguments like that. It lets them continue to spin bullshit because they can be disproven because their statements can't be audited.
I'm assuming that you're going to be wise enough to know that if you actually give me anything that can be audited, I will rip your argument to shreds. So I'm assuming you're going to stay vague to protect yourself from audit. As you please. Your aversion to inquisition however speaks to your nature. When you chicken out... I'll know you know what you are.;-)
Dave, this statement from you is a great example of why you can't have a civil discussion about any issue that touches on your politics. You're so tribalistic that its laughable. All you're doing is shaking a spear at me and claiming I am an insult to your various gods.
You say I'm angry... but you're the one spazing out.
*yawn*
Lets do an inventory of my feelings... I am a little sleepy... and I should probably make dinner soon... Oh... and I find you to be very boring.
Full inventory of my feelings right now. No anger. Anger requires fear. Anger is linked to the flight or fight response. You'd have to be a threat to me for me to be angry. I don't fear you, Dave.
What is funny, is that you're trying to claim that you're imposing somehow via the sideways argument of saying that I am angry... and thus in your implication feel threatened by you... and thus you attempt to argue fear through anger.
You're not smart enough to actually pose a real problem for me. Your childish ploys are transparent and rather sad. Has to be said.
Sure. Well, if the temperature is not being relevantly effected by variable X then how are you going to change the system by manipulating variable X?
See... man isn't doing this... then why would man not doing something result in any change in the climate?
See the problem?
Now if you're an advocate for direct applied geo-engineering. Then we can talk about that. What is your plan for changing the global climate... excluding manipulating trace amounts of CO2 which I frankly don't think matter.
1. The old Dutch data is probably pretty good actually.
2. As to quadratic increases, the rate has been consistent over time. So... it doesn't correlate with recent events.
3. As to us never seeing such rapid increases in temperature. Would you cite what you think the temperature delta is and I'll see if I can find contrary information for you. If you don't cite the Delta you're basing that statement on then it won't be possible to respond to your statement factually.
4. As to IR and what is and is not a greenhouse gas... if you examine the other planets in our solar system that have very different chemistries to Earth, you'll find that their temperatures do not vary based on the chemistry but rather their proximity from the star and the density of the atmosphere. The chemistry appears to be all but irrelevant. We can go over that if you like. Look at Venus at 1 atmosphere. Look at Jupiter at 1 atmosphere. Look at Neptune at 1 atmosphere. You can even compare the Earth to Mars if you grab the Earth temperature at martian pressure. And so on. Planets nearer the star are warmer and planets farther away are cooler. Variations beyond that are predictable within a reasonable margin of error entirely with air pressure. So... I don't think there is anything special about CO2 when worrying about planetary temperature.
5. As to what scientists do or don't do... they're not the only ones in this debate. Bill Nye for example isn't a scientist. He's a media personality. And Al Gore is a politician. And once I've stripped away all the people that aren't actually scientists doing science everything becomes a great deal more open to conjecture. Which is fine. That's how science is supposed to work. I'm not saying you're wrong about everything. I'm saying merely that the discussion is valuable and the science requires that people be open to the discussion. If you're not then science isn't going to happen. The cultish behavior of many on this point is not productive.
6. I will not listen to anyone merely on who they say they are... I will listen to the argument. Science doesn't care who you are. The "do you know who I am" argument out of people that presume to represent science is just sophistry. That is not a scientific argument. You can't cite on a paper "this is right because I have a degree". So why would I accept that as evidence? If you think science works by name dropping and degree citing... then you don't know how science works. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you. It doesn't matter what your degree is. It doesn't matter if some guy or other likes you. None of that is relevant in science. You were demonstrably educated in this subject by sophists because you are not using scientific arguments. I don't think you're doing that on purpose. I don't think you're a liar. I do however think you were mislead as to how science works. Science is not politics. And your arguments have been largely political.
Any gas that is a gas is a green house gas because any gas can absorb and retain thermal energy and can absorb a portion of the EM spectrum.
Define greenhouse gas, please. And then I'm going to go through the chemical compositions of other planets in our solar system and show that their temperatures are not actually effected by the varying chemistry of their atmopsheres.
Here is what effects temperature in an atmosphere.
1. The energy output of the star. 2. The distance from a planet from that star. 3. The air pressure of the atmosphere you're going to measure. 4. Any additional energy inputs such as nuclear fission or fusion... typically natural and typically only in larger gas giants.
And after you've accounted for that, you should be able to estimate the temperature within a reasonable margin of error.
Have you ever made a study of the temperatures of our neighboring planets? I really doubt it. if you did, you'd see that the chemistry doesn't seem to matter much to the temperature.
Venus for example is so hot because the atmosphere is a great deal denser than it is on earth... added to which it is closer to the star. Jupiter or Neptune are not nearly as cold as you might think once you've reached 1 atmosphere in their atmosphere. Accounting for distance from the star the temperatures in either planet are analogous to the Earth despite having very different atmospheric chemistries.
You can do that in Venus as well... rather than measuring Venus at ground level, measure it at 1 atmosphere. Its hotter than Earth's atmosphere even at 1 atmosphere. But accounting for the closer distance to the star it isn't outside of what you'd expect if Venus any other chemical composition in its atmosphere.
One of the many things you're not taking into consideration is TIME. All these planets are in the oven all day and all night for millions of years.
What you're ultimately arguing is that you're not going to freeze to death in the snow if you wear a good jacket. Well... depends on how long you're out there doesn't it? The jacket will slow down the process... but ultimately you are going to reach the external temperature of the environment. You will hit baseline unless that jacket is just f'ing amazing. And the CO2 is not significant enough to bias the system that that extent. It might slow down or speed up a process but if the system is already in equilibrium then its like saying you're going to speed up something that is already done. It can't be sped up more than that. Its done.
As to sea levels, we have good records going back in a few places on earth. I have looked at Dutch sea level rise charts that go back as far as they've kept records which is farther than anyone else has done with accuracy. They show a consistent sea level rise between the beginning of their record keeping and now. We can also see similar charts in New England. Manhattan for example was something that Hanson claimed would be half underwater by now. Well... it isn't. And the historic charts on Manhattan's sea levels show over time change in the Delta.
As to majorities of papers... Science is not a democracy. It doesn't work by voting. Your argument is ad populum and is a dead give away that you rely on sophistic thinking. I don't say that to suggest you are a liar. Rather, I think you have been educated in how to think by sophists and simply don't know what you're doing wrong.
You're attempting to argue science with politics. Don't do that.
As to the term "denier" you do know that term was coined to conflate questioning climate change theory with Holocaust Denial, right? Its basically argumentum ad Hitlarium... or Godwin's law. I'd prefer if you used the term skeptic or anything that wasn't transparently crafted to insult the opposition. I could just refer to the pro-we're-all-going-die faction as sophistic alarmists in their raw designation. Would that be agreeable to you?
As to people being inclined to do things that are novel and shocking... you mean like the heading figures of your position making novel and shocking claims that turn out to be false? Yes. That was my point. New York is not half under water. Is it? Shall I list all the predictions of the climate lobby that turned out not to happen?
We've been going back and forth on this issue for a long time now. And that means I can pull claims your faction has made from the beginning of this discussion. The things they said would happen should have happened by now in their own words. Basically none of their predictions have come true. And yet you expect to lose no face despite being unable to predict, model, or describe anything with actual accuracy? That isn't how science works.
As to you doubling down on the Himalayan glaciers... Allow me to take what remains of your undeserved credibility in a stroke then. http://www.theguardian.com/env...
They've already conceded the point. They have already admitted to making a mistake and being "wrong".
You made a false claim on sea levels. You used ad populum You used godwin's law - I'll give you a pass on that one because its so commonly done that you probably don't realize you did it. You used a double standard with the shocking and novel comment. You failed to grasp that this has been going on long enough that we can just look at predictions that were made at the start and see if they happened. They haven't. And then you doubled down on the Himalayan thing.
And then you presume to high hat me and say but 'I'm not going to lower myself to going through the details with a filthy peasant like you'... Okay then. Don't. What do you have to offer to the discussion that would be of value in the first place? By the above display, I'm going to assume little to nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I was very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very clear that this was not something you would use in a court case but rather something you'd use for military intelligence in a war zone or intelligence operation.
So... how much more very clear do I have to be about that to avoid you saying "for the record" after I was so VERY clear?
Give me a break please. I was so very fucking clear.
Apparently it would be entirely scientifically consistent for me to discount your position without even considering it.
And according to you that's not prejudicial.
Sweet.
I see why you like this system... its very efficient.
Actually many geo engineering options have been suggested. Its just that the alarmists are so busy strawmanning, demonizing, ad homineming, and other associated fallacies that in all likelihood you have no idea what so ever what their opposition believes if you only listen to one side.
The "denial" name for example is a name assigned to us by those same people to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers... which basically means they've invoked Godwin's law... That's how far up their own asses they are on this issue.
The side that compares you to hitler in a scientific discussion is probably not arguing in good faith... don't you think?
As to whether I would geoengineer the planet to stop the warming... why? The change in sea levels is not happening quickly. Some coastal cities might be effected eventually but so what? That isn't a global problem. That's a coastal city problem. The world is not a few coastal cities. I'm not interested in wasting resources on this project. We have bigger problems.
sure, marxism is all about individualism and is nothing about collectivism...
are you for real?
I already contradicted that claim with my own citation.
I can show you the dutch tide tables, the New York tide tables... etc.
You're just repeating something I already slapped down.
As to being boorish, all you've done is try to win the argument by being condescending. I am merely returning your pathetic rhetorical tactic back at you. If you find it obnoxious then you would find yourself to be obnoxious.
Hypocrisy is to be expected from sophists. What is more, stoics don't respond to claims that they're boorish. One of the biggest proponents of the stoic school was Diogenes.. who literally urinated on people like you... or spat in their self important faces.
Your opinions of me mean nothing to me. Nothing.
My school of philosophy created science. I care more about being right than scoring meaningless social status points. That's all sophists care about. They grope for power and status and favor. But the truth means nothing to people like you.
Have the discussion or don't. You're hardly signaling your sophisticated grasp of the issue by citing a wikipedia article a child could find.
Try harder. If you're looking for an excuse to run away... some social mistake on my part that gives you the right to be offended and thus bow out of the discussion without losing face... just ask and I'll say the thing that you feel justifies you walking away without making an argument and making a lot of stupid claims. Seriously. Your obsession with such things is what is actually tedious. You have no business being in a scientific discussion at all with your mentality.
Either engage or bail. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion of any value if you won't defend your position with more than stupid insults.
I am very happy to have a rational discussion about this... but we're going to talk about the issue. Not your endless logical fallacies.
If you want to be obtuse then that's your prerogative...
Don't be obtuse... I said no such thing. I was referring to people that are not native to the area engaging in terrorism. This was something we saw with some consistency in Afghanistan where we often had fighters operating from totally different countries in Afghanistan. People from Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc. Simply being able to identify population groups rapidly can help you get a good idea of where to look if you suspect that the trouble is being imported or otherwise coming from outside the country. Typically when acts of terrorism happened it was some sort of infiltrator from another group. It could even be a different tribe in the same country but rarely would you get something like that from that tribe within that tribe's territory. You don't shit where you sleep after all.
What is more, specifically in the Osama case... the interest was in a particular bloodline. And the reason that was of interest was that it was assumed that if you found a blood relation somewhere there might be other blood relations there as well... and possibly the man himself.
Nepotism is a common human trait. If you have a genetic signature for the target then you can identity his close family relations and they're likely to have some kind of contact.
Search and Destroy.
As to how DNA samples are collected... in the case of Osama, the CIA was using blood samples from free vaccinations in Pakistan.
We're in the age of portable DNA sequencers. Its a sensor... and like any sensor it can be applied to any purpose. Eyes, ears, smell, taste, touch... The DNA sequencers are obviously going to be applied to offensive tasks just as any other sensor we have already has been. High resolution optics. Infrared cameras. backscatter radiation scanners, seismic scanners applied to detecting nuclear testing, hydrophones... the list goes on.
eyes peeled, ears cocked, and nostrils flaring...
So you say... your argument basically boils down to this "I'm right. I don't have to prove I'm right. I'm intellectually superior. I don't have to justify that. You're stupid. I don't have to substantiate that."
Well, claims such as that can be struck down as easily as they are made.
I negate your opinion by casting an opposing one. There you go. Your position is null.
As I said, try harder. Or leave it where it stands... your position being null.
Your choice.
David Duke says he's not a white supremacist. Do you believe him?
Not everyone is what they say they are... and those with distasteful shameful and frankly destructive ideologies typically hide their true nature from others. They misrepresent themselves in an effort to be given a chance to do what they want to do.
If you were a marxist... would you tell people you were a marxist? In most cases, no. Its not in your interest to be honest on that point. That category of ideologies has had its name justifiably or not... shamed.
As such, most marxists are crypto marxists... secret marxists.
And while you'll doubtless say "that's absurd" or something... I'll point to Mr Duke again. People that have belief systems that won't be accepted by mainstream society do not advertise their ideologies to people unless they're very very stupid.
A radical Jihadi will not declare his intent to slay the infidel at customs.
A white supremacist will not declare his intention to create some sort of racially pure whatever when running for general office even in Louisiana.
And your average marxist in most of the Western world will use code words or virtue signaling to identify himself to his comrades whilst generally operating unnoticed by most people.
So, no marxist has run for office? Not openly. However, we do have an awful lot of politicians that are interested in redistributing wealth, creating equality of outcome (not opportunity) situations... restricting individualism... increasing collectivism... stamping out religions that have historically been hostile to marxism...
There's a certain systematic nature to it all.
Do you know the origin of the term "politically correct"... it is a term literally out of the Soviet Union. And the term infuses our modern culture. How many people have gotten inside the moral calculations of our society. Determining what is good or bad for everyone else... literally dictating morality.
So... while there are very few open marxists there are fucking tons of closeted ones. Very easy to spot if you know how to get them to stand at attention. People lie and conspiracies do happen. Want me to go through a long list of verified conspiracies that happened? Revolutions... coups... Laws rushed into effect after secret meetings and enacted on Christmas or some other moment when no one would be paying attention for one reason or another.
I know I know... anyone that cites a plot by anyone must be insane. Because after all... humans don't scheme or plot... do they? Humans don't lie or misrepresent? Naturally. Everything is known and everything is transparent.
Right?
Come now. Some things are true and some things are false. Discounting anything out of hand absent information to the contrary is prejudicial.
Really? Shall I show how many predictions laid out have failed to come to pass?
I grant that the most conservative and vague claims have not been touched... but they're not what you base your position upon. It is not those claims you use to scaremonger people into giving you money and power.
You call me an idiot... but I made statements which can be discussed scientifically. You've just hurled insults.
Is this the basis you wish to imply scientific superiority over me? Your disinterest in empirical analysis and interest rather in name calling?
*yawn*...
try harder.
your argument relies on a flawed application of a laboratory experiment to an altered context in the atmosphere.
Did your experiment with CO2 in a controlled lab experiment include water vapor in the chamber or was it desecrated?
What is more, given the way convection works the transfer of energy from one part of the atmosphere to another is not so magically locked as your theory would require.
Air mixes. And the CO2 is really only concentrated in the lower atmosphere. The heat will and does transfer via many means.
As to the specialness of CO2, I see nothing about CO2 that makes it especially relevant in the atmosphere. You note that the concentration of CO2 has doubled. I don't contest that. I rather contest the relevance. I also question you general trend lines because I can look at preindustrial trends to now and find little to support your position that we've caused a change.
Look at the Dutch sea level charts. They go back farther than anyone's actively recorded charts and they are quite accurate because they needed them to be accurate to know the rate at which they must raise their dikes. Those charts show no relevant change in the delta. The rate of change is consistent. Which argues against your thesis.
What is more, all but the most vague predictions from the climate lobby that intersect with the current years have failed to occur. Hanson said that New York city would be half under water at this point. It isn't.
Your faction makes many predictions and call anyone that disagrees with you idiots. Yet when the year rolls around when the doom should have happened... and it didn't... do you admit that the people you called idiots were right and you were wrong? Never. No, you forget that you said that and just roll along as if you've never made a mistake.
Well, the mistakes are cataloged. And being arrogant and dismissive is no defense against it. It is rather an intellectual retreat into sophistry.
If you wish to discuss the issue we can go through your premise. Any browbeating attempts will be answered in kind.
Inbreeding is vastly more common in many other places in the world actually. I also think you mean west Virginia... that's where the banjos are more likely to play. Or possibly in the bayou portions of the Louisianan. That's especially common amongst the remaining french population out there. Its done in part to preserve their culture. Rather impressive to have maintained their old french heritage through all these years.
Of course, unlike the British that largely have good respectful relations with the angosphere, the French have this tendency to look down their noses at anyone not from Paris. They wonder why they failed as empire builders... The mystery is not so illusive.
Regardless being able to rapidly and covertly screen DNA can be useful when dealing with terrorists since the genetics of the terrorists are often distinct from the general population. Terrorists like to blend in... They adopt the local dress of the natives and who can say who knows whom?
Its important to keep in mind that this doesn't stop at top enemy commanders. You could screen for Saudis in Pakistan... Iranians in Israel... Russians in Washington.
Again, not anything you can take to court. Its not a legal tool. Its a military tool. When the marching orders are search and destroy... this facilitates that objective.
If we go through every planet in our solar system which have very different chemistries... and factor for distance from the sun AND air pressure... you can estimate the temperature at that pressure and distance within a reasonable margin of error. This suggests the chemistry isn't especially important. We've sent space probes to these worlds. How do you explain this?
Venus is as hot as it is because its atmosphere is very much denser and the planet is closer to the sun. Both qualities increase temperature. Factor for both and the temperature falls to something you wouldn't find unusual on earth despite having an atmosphere almost entirely composed of "greenhouse" gases.
We can go over the theories in detail but I am familiar with the science and the equations. I have found precious few would be sages on this issue that actually understand the science in any real detail. Most of them repeat political blogs or quote abstracts without understanding how anything is actually being calculated.
There are many problems with the fundamental theory much less the data. I am not a child. An explanation that involves cartoons and no actual explanation of methodology is not acceptable.
Again, the world is warming and the oceans are rising. No question. But they were doing that before the industrial revolution.
I'm not giving you trillions of dollars and dictatorial control over global industry on this basis. Try again.
They had a duel use vaccination project in pakistan where they gathered blood samples for DNA analysis. The DNA was scanned for similarities to Osama bin Ladin. The notion was that if they found a cluster of people with genetic similarities they would find him... blood relations etc.
The value to the CIA would be identifying people and associations of blood. It will also reveal unusual genetics in the population... people that might appear outwardly similar might contain genetic markers from a different population and that could give a hint as to someone to watch.
That is the idea in any case.
This is military intelligence work... not a legal investigation. The point is to find something that can give you a hint as to what is going on. Not to convict beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I mean really... That said, it would be interesting to see how this "wobble" effects the distribution of thermal energy on the planet. I suspect that we're going to get a few people saying "look at the climate change!'... ignoring that maybe the earth has tilted one way or the other slightly which could account for changes in climate in parts of the world.
Whatever... everything is climate change and everything would be improved if we just put the Marxists in power... just ask the Marxists. *rolls eyes*.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/a...
Where is your data coming from? Every data set I check shows no change in the Delta UP... besides some pacific island that are honestly probably just eroding.
I've checked the Dutch sea level charts (to determine how high the dike's must be raised), several of the English sea level charts (kept for naval purposes), as well as a few other sources throughout the world. They show no acceleration.
I think Nye merely is projecting his ambitions on a situation. Positive thinking... The stats on belief in climate change show a trend towards skepticism. So his claim that he's winning the political struggle is not supported by data.
His claim that new generations are changing the dynamic has the problem that what someone believes when they're 20 is not actually that informed and is quite likely to change over time. Whilst an opinion held by someone that is 40 or something is likely to be better informed and less likely to change. I mean, how many years has a 20 year old had to form an opinion about something like that? 5 maybe? At what age would we start crediting someone's opinion about a geopolitical or scientific subject? 5,10,15,20? What's the magic year. And how many years of knowledge would that year actually include?
He's basically crowing about having the least informed people agree with him. Its sort of funny.
Okay... so show me the scientific consensus absent the politics.
Because it doesn't exist.
Once I strip away the politicians, the international political organizations, the lobbying groups, and the advocacy groups... you just have people. And first off, the predictions are VASTLY less extreme from the scientists than what is suggested by lobbyists. And there is lots of room for debate and contrary theory.
What is more, the peer review process itself has been repeatedly shown over the last few years to not be definitive. Getting something published doesn't mean it is valid. And getting something rejected by a publication doesn't mean it is invalid.
Who is reviewing these papers is often a secret. This is done for "reasons" but those reasons do not change the fact that who is actually auditing these things is not known. Being judged by a man in a mask is not something that fills me with confidence in the legitimacy of the trial.
I'm a much bigger fan of the open peer review process. Where in anyone can publish anything and then everyone can judge for themselves if something is sensible or not.
Your open with a tautology that everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. A religious fanatic could make the same argument about non-believers in his faith.
I am a little amused by all the people that presume to be more scientific and rational that are not making scientific or rational arguments. Look at your statement and tell me if it is scientific. It isn't. Look at Bill Nye's argument and tell me if it is scientific? It isn't.
This is sophistry. Make scientific arguments. I did in my first post. I know what science is and what it is not. I am not a sophist. I don't care if you believe me or agree with me about anything. I care merely if I am right. In the end, my own position + reality wins every time in science. You can have as many likes on facebook as you want. You can have all of them. Reality doesn't care how many times you've been friended and followed on social media.
You say I dismiss facts and say I proved one thing or another true or false... but don't cite your argument. Do you believe being vague is a shield against criticism? Do you think that if you're incoherent that I won't be able to find the logical and factual contradictions in your position? This is a tactical error. I will rather simply point at the vagueness of your positions and the fact that you're making claims that can't be audited. My claims can be be audited. I made claims that can be checked. You have not.
Which of the two of our arguments is more likely to come from a sophist or a stoic? The one that can be either true or false or the one that is so vague that it can't be verified?
You are obviously the one making sophistic arguments because you're the one making statements that can't be proven true or false. Sophists like arguments like that. It lets them continue to spin bullshit because they can be disproven because their statements can't be audited.
I'm assuming that you're going to be wise enough to know that if you actually give me anything that can be audited, I will rip your argument to shreds. So I'm assuming you're going to stay vague to protect yourself from audit. As you please. Your aversion to inquisition however speaks to your nature. When you chicken out... I'll know you know what you are. ;-)
Dave, this statement from you is a great example of why you can't have a civil discussion about any issue that touches on your politics. You're so tribalistic that its laughable. All you're doing is shaking a spear at me and claiming I am an insult to your various gods.
You say I'm angry... but you're the one spazing out.
*yawn*
Lets do an inventory of my feelings... I am a little sleepy... and I should probably make dinner soon... Oh... and I find you to be very boring.
Full inventory of my feelings right now. No anger. Anger requires fear. Anger is linked to the flight or fight response. You'd have to be a threat to me for me to be angry. I don't fear you, Dave.
What is funny, is that you're trying to claim that you're imposing somehow via the sideways argument of saying that I am angry... and thus in your implication feel threatened by you... and thus you attempt to argue fear through anger.
You're not smart enough to actually pose a real problem for me. Your childish ploys are transparent and rather sad. Has to be said.
Sure. Well, if the temperature is not being relevantly effected by variable X then how are you going to change the system by manipulating variable X?
See... man isn't doing this... then why would man not doing something result in any change in the climate?
See the problem?
Now if you're an advocate for direct applied geo-engineering. Then we can talk about that. What is your plan for changing the global climate... excluding manipulating trace amounts of CO2 which I frankly don't think matter.
1. The old Dutch data is probably pretty good actually.
2. As to quadratic increases, the rate has been consistent over time. So... it doesn't correlate with recent events.
3. As to us never seeing such rapid increases in temperature. Would you cite what you think the temperature delta is and I'll see if I can find contrary information for you. If you don't cite the Delta you're basing that statement on then it won't be possible to respond to your statement factually.
4. As to IR and what is and is not a greenhouse gas... if you examine the other planets in our solar system that have very different chemistries to Earth, you'll find that their temperatures do not vary based on the chemistry but rather their proximity from the star and the density of the atmosphere. The chemistry appears to be all but irrelevant. We can go over that if you like. Look at Venus at 1 atmosphere. Look at Jupiter at 1 atmosphere. Look at Neptune at 1 atmosphere. You can even compare the Earth to Mars if you grab the Earth temperature at martian pressure. And so on. Planets nearer the star are warmer and planets farther away are cooler. Variations beyond that are predictable within a reasonable margin of error entirely with air pressure. So... I don't think there is anything special about CO2 when worrying about planetary temperature.
5. As to what scientists do or don't do... they're not the only ones in this debate. Bill Nye for example isn't a scientist. He's a media personality. And Al Gore is a politician. And once I've stripped away all the people that aren't actually scientists doing science everything becomes a great deal more open to conjecture. Which is fine. That's how science is supposed to work. I'm not saying you're wrong about everything. I'm saying merely that the discussion is valuable and the science requires that people be open to the discussion. If you're not then science isn't going to happen. The cultish behavior of many on this point is not productive.
6. I will not listen to anyone merely on who they say they are... I will listen to the argument. Science doesn't care who you are. The "do you know who I am" argument out of people that presume to represent science is just sophistry. That is not a scientific argument. You can't cite on a paper "this is right because I have a degree". So why would I accept that as evidence? If you think science works by name dropping and degree citing... then you don't know how science works. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you. It doesn't matter what your degree is. It doesn't matter if some guy or other likes you. None of that is relevant in science. You were demonstrably educated in this subject by sophists because you are not using scientific arguments. I don't think you're doing that on purpose. I don't think you're a liar. I do however think you were mislead as to how science works. Science is not politics. And your arguments have been largely political.
Any gas that is a gas is a green house gas because any gas can absorb and retain thermal energy and can absorb a portion of the EM spectrum.
Define greenhouse gas, please. And then I'm going to go through the chemical compositions of other planets in our solar system and show that their temperatures are not actually effected by the varying chemistry of their atmopsheres.
Here is what effects temperature in an atmosphere.
1. The energy output of the star.
2. The distance from a planet from that star.
3. The air pressure of the atmosphere you're going to measure.
4. Any additional energy inputs such as nuclear fission or fusion... typically natural and typically only in larger gas giants.
And after you've accounted for that, you should be able to estimate the temperature within a reasonable margin of error.
Have you ever made a study of the temperatures of our neighboring planets? I really doubt it. if you did, you'd see that the chemistry doesn't seem to matter much to the temperature.
Venus for example is so hot because the atmosphere is a great deal denser than it is on earth... added to which it is closer to the star. Jupiter or Neptune are not nearly as cold as you might think once you've reached 1 atmosphere in their atmosphere. Accounting for distance from the star the temperatures in either planet are analogous to the Earth despite having very different atmospheric chemistries.
You can do that in Venus as well... rather than measuring Venus at ground level, measure it at 1 atmosphere. Its hotter than Earth's atmosphere even at 1 atmosphere. But accounting for the closer distance to the star it isn't outside of what you'd expect if Venus any other chemical composition in its atmosphere.
One of the many things you're not taking into consideration is TIME. All these planets are in the oven all day and all night for millions of years.
What you're ultimately arguing is that you're not going to freeze to death in the snow if you wear a good jacket. Well... depends on how long you're out there doesn't it? The jacket will slow down the process... but ultimately you are going to reach the external temperature of the environment. You will hit baseline unless that jacket is just f'ing amazing. And the CO2 is not significant enough to bias the system that that extent. It might slow down or speed up a process but if the system is already in equilibrium then its like saying you're going to speed up something that is already done. It can't be sped up more than that. Its done.
As to sea levels, we have good records going back in a few places on earth. I have looked at Dutch sea level rise charts that go back as far as they've kept records which is farther than anyone else has done with accuracy. They show a consistent sea level rise between the beginning of their record keeping and now. We can also see similar charts in New England. Manhattan for example was something that Hanson claimed would be half underwater by now. Well... it isn't. And the historic charts on Manhattan's sea levels show over time change in the Delta.
As to majorities of papers... Science is not a democracy. It doesn't work by voting. Your argument is ad populum and is a dead give away that you rely on sophistic thinking. I don't say that to suggest you are a liar. Rather, I think you have been educated in how to think by sophists and simply don't know what you're doing wrong.
You're attempting to argue science with politics. Don't do that.
As to the term "denier" you do know that term was coined to conflate questioning climate change theory with Holocaust Denial, right? Its basically argumentum ad Hitlarium... or Godwin's law. I'd prefer if you used the term skeptic or anything that wasn't transparently crafted to insult the opposition. I could just refer to the pro-we're-all-going-die faction as sophistic alarmists in their raw designation. Would that be agreeable to you?
As to people being inclined to do things that are novel and shocking... you mean like the heading figures of your position making novel and shocking claims that turn out to be false? Yes. That was my point. New York is not half under water. Is it? Shall I list all the predictions of the climate lobby that turned out not to happen?
We've been going back and forth on this issue for a long time now. And that means I can pull claims your faction has made from the beginning of this discussion. The things they said would happen should have happened by now in their own words. Basically none of their predictions have come true. And yet you expect to lose no face despite being unable to predict, model, or describe anything with actual accuracy? That isn't how science works.
As to you doubling down on the Himalayan glaciers... Allow me to take what remains of your undeserved credibility in a stroke then.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
They've already conceded the point. They have already admitted to making a mistake and being "wrong".
As to you not going over points... I think this clip sums up my opinion of that:
https://youtu.be/z2mXrndt1ZI?t...
You made a false claim on sea levels.
You used ad populum
You used godwin's law - I'll give you a pass on that one because its so commonly done that you probably don't realize you did it.
You used a double standard with the shocking and novel comment.
You failed to grasp that this has been going on long enough that we can just look at predictions that were made at the start and see if they happened. They haven't.
And then you doubled down on the Himalayan thing.
And then you presume to high hat me and say but 'I'm not going to lower myself to going through the details with a filthy peasant like you'... Okay then. Don't. What do you have to offer to the discussion that would be of value in the first place? By the above display, I'm going to assume little to nothing.
Nothing you're saying even addresses my argument. You say I'm missing something but you're not talking about what I was talking about.
As to the science not being settled. Good. Then drop any arguments that ultimately rely on that as a position - Full stop.