First, I am quite good at providing citations and references. (There's one here [principia-scientific.org].).
Well, the post I replied to had no references. And I don't get the impression that the source you link here is exactly neutral; from their site:
Principia Scientific International (PSI) was originally conceived in 2010 after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ The two-volume publication is the world’s first and only detailed refutation of the greenhouse gas effect.
If there really is only one such refutation, and less than two dozen experts, I'm probably not going to drastically adjust my personal estimate of the number of expert skeptics. Of course being a minority doesn't prove them wrong, but maybe slightly less likely to be right, a prima facie.
Second, I did not state the experts were "wrong"... I wrote that there is a strong indication that there was something amiss about their science. Two very different things.
Yes, I am pretty sure you did, in fact you mentioned exactly how much they were "wrong". And not wanting to seem obtuse, I honestly can't see "something amiss about their science" as anything but a special case of "they're wrong". Maybe that's just me.
Third, I consult "the experts". When it's a question of physics, for example, I look to references from physicists, not climatologists. After all, physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics.
My point exactly, doesn't it make sense for us non-experts to rely on climatologists with questions about the climate? Am I misunderstanding your statement here?
But for some topics this just doesn't work, because one side of the argument is basically insane and/or risible. I think that's why the more thoroughly unhinged individuals like creationists (and scientologists, remember those?) seem to stay away these days; no contest.
But the question is: do you count this as one of those topics?
Not at all. I believe many of those who downplay or deny the potentially grave consequences of climate change might have entirely rational reasons for doing so. But I do suggest that these reasons might be somewhat short-sighted and self-interested, i.e. squarely against the best interests of the majority of those affected long-term.
I keep asking: what's wrong with my basic premise: that if your measurements are shown to be off by 100%, there's something wrong with your science?
Your reference for this 100% figure seems to be that 23 year old AR1 report. Certainly not the present story I suppose, which TFS marks as "half". Well, among so many measurements (predictions, I guess we might rather mean) and over such a long period of time and additional research, I am not sure it is actually at all surprising that a few or even many of those are off by quite a margin.
But either way, given that their conclusions still boil down, or so it seems to me, to "danger will robinson" I would argue that we'd do well to err on the safe side. Conversely, why resist cleaning things up a bit, surrendering perhaps just a bit of trivial convenience like having to charge your car slowly versus filling up quickly -- despite the fact that we're way less than 100% sure that things will end in tears? Surely there are lots of things we can do short of dismantling society and regressing to the stoneage, which is what some (but not necessarily you of course) seem to think is what is being proposed.
That was my point. I am waiting for anybody to actually refute it, rather than indulging in name-calling and histrionics.
Well name-calling certainly never was my intention, sorry if you feel otherwise. I do value these discussions, for what it's worth, if I didn't I wouldn't bother participating.
Except that Jane Q Public wasn't stating an opinion (at least as I read it) but unsubstantiated facts:
their big report reducing warming projections by half -- and now raising total accumulated warming by 100%
Which is not nearly what that report says and not nearly what TFS says.
I don't believe that climate scientists are flawless, just that they are probably the best have we have to go on. Certainly I'm likely to take them more seriously than reference-less posts on/.
You are suggesting there has been this unending stream of scandals and duplicity. Clearly there has been some of that, but to the best of my knowledge nothing really significant -- as in, affecting the conclusions -- after that one department of some UK uni. I'd love to find out otherwise, if you've got credible sources.
The fact that I have suspicions of privately funded organizations might be unfounded or paranoid. Certainly there is no lack of publically funded debacles. But at least we find out about those, sometimes.
Am I a political activist? If you say so, yeah I guess. But you can't start out saying that I disallow JQP's opinion only to finish off by disallowing mine.
I'm not sure why you are insisting on making this personal by mentioning my name several times. Your ACness prevents me from returning the favour.
Careful, some might accuse you of crisis mongering.
Yes, and others stand accused of crisis whitewashing. What is your point?
Vague declarations of doom are not a rational basis on which to surrender all of one's economic freedom and much of one's standard of living.
I wouldn't call the IPCC reports "vague declarations of doom". They are quite concrete declarations of doom. There is a bit of a spectrum of options between fingers-in-ears and surrendering all economic freedom (whatever that means) and standard of living -- unless perhaps you're Koch, BP, and so on.
Some people just can't stop looking for a Messiah, a Prophet to simultaneously fill them with fear and then promise to deliver them from that fear.
You invoke an image of some sectarian cult. This is not an accurate description of the position of a large majority of climate scientists. Sure, it is a relatively young field. But that's still better, warts and all, than no science. Not to mention the anti-science punted by vested interests.
My sentiments exactly. I tend to stay away from fora where everything remains one-sided. I find/. reasonably balanced, on many topics. And it remains more or less polite usually, unlike say the depressing comments section of a certain video host I could mention.
But for some topics this just doesn't work, because one side of the argument is basically insane and/or risible. I think that's why the more thoroughly unhinged individuals like creationists (and scientologists, remember those?) seem to stay away these days; no contest.
every vendor who rises above a certain level of market share is going to be 'asked' to install backdoors in their networking and infrastructure gear.
I can't say how I know this, but I know this. I'm pretty sure I know this...;)
its not just cisco. its all networking gear that the US gov would want to buy and operate.
Well, supposing I don't just take your word for that... I'll still be basically convinced by now that your statement is true. I don't think your assertion surprises many at this point. The question is, will these economic bottom-line implications succeed where public outrage so far failed to materialize, and curb this outrageous level of policing the nation/world?
That would be so bitter sweet. And an entirely typical way for America to do the right thing for the wrong reasons...
In most cases I would agree. The problem here is that, if the vast majority of climatologists are even remotely on the right track, we do not have the luxury of "sitting back" until things settle down.
I guess for me it boils down to this: if there is a nonzero probability X that future generations will suffer devastating consequences of our pollution, we should do everything we can to mitigate that. This is true even for small X because the scale of consequences are potentially very large.
But more to the point, even though you are right that this science is new, I put more value on the statements of experts in the field, rather than some random person on the Interwebs who, for all I know, just refuses to take it seriously because the implications might inconvenience her slightly.
The energy captured in coal, gas and oil is the result of many millions of years of sunshine. I just can't reasonably expect there to be no significant effects to our releasing that in a matter of a few decades.
Are you a climatologist? Your keep making these accusations without any references, citations... What exactly makes you so sure the experts are wrong?
On the one hand we have these publically funded (and therefore to some extent accountable) scientists saying that, yes, there is very likely an enormous problem. On the other hand we have privately funded "thinktanks" like Heartland and some flaky websites saying, variously (and sometimes simultaneously)
-- AGW is not happening. -- AGW may be happening but there's nothing we can do about it. -- AGW is happening but we should not try to do anything about it because the suggested courses of action are just Marxist plots to sap and impurify our precious bodily bodily fluids.
Funny thing about "oversight". On the one hand it means some mechanism to keep tabs on some process making sure it doesn't run amok. On the other hand it also means to neglect something.
Seems to me the NSA oversight is more like the latter, except not by accident.
Don't worry -- at least half a dozen of your friends are working hard to make sure you are not forgotten (posting and tagging fotos, marking "I know this person from..." questions, etc.)
JavaScript != Java indeed. I'm still amazed at the silliness of the choice.
I've actually seen a newbie developer paste a snippet of one into the other... Finally I had an occasion to use the phrase "that's not even wrong" in an actual conversation.
Incarceration rates should parallel immigration rates, especially in Europe.
I have a hard time parsing this is anything other than xenophobe troll. But I hope I'm wrong, so at the risk of feeding... Why should incarceration rates parallel immigration rates? And why especially in Europe?
Don't bother replying if your answer is "all immigrants are criminals" or something silly like that.
Personally I believe the privatization of justice has a lot to do with these figures. Otherwise I can't explain the fact that these incarceration rates were growing all through a major drop in crime rates over the same period.
And I said that it was treason for snowden to talk about our LEGAL OPERATIONS against the rest of the world
Whether or not operations are legal is orthogonal to the question of whether or not they are in the best interests of the US citizens, who are paying for all this.
Heck, all of the leaders know that we do this. Germans knew it. They have been doing it to us and others.
If you have any evidence for your statement that German intelligence was tapping Obama's personal phone I'd love to hear about it.
Secondly, the NSA said that less than 2% (.2%?) of Americans had been spied on BY THE NSA
The NSA says huh? Well that settles it then.
And I doubt that you understand how snowden feels.
I also doubt I understand how Snowden feels. Which is why I wrote about what he actually did. The part of my post that is speculation on my part was clearly marked as such.
yeah, so few ppl do not realize that outing information about spying on Americans was whistle-blowing, while spilling information about our actions on other nations (which was legal per US law), turned him into a traitor.
So... Here we have a government agency, which is funded by taxpayers, going completely off the rails and spends fortunes on snooping potential terrorists like the leaders of Germany, France, Spain -- not to mention entire countries which are supposedly allies. And you are saying it is not in the interests of the US citizens to know this?
I see the distinction you make, I really do. But this is still whistleblowing, by my reckoning; it is public money being spent on ludicrous targets.
Besides, I am convinced that if the US public had reacted to the first batch of leaks (you know, the one which you did still consider "proper" whistleblowing) with anything more than the shameful apathy now on display, Snowden might not even have released any more.
His goal is to put a stop to the NSA's operating beyond its brief (to put it mildly). When US citizens, in whose name this is all allegedly done, refuse to do something about that -- well, I don't fault Snowden for trying to put some international pressure on it.
I don't have any illusions to the effect that Apple are valiantly defending my privacy... But one major difference, it seems to me, is that you get to disallow *parts* of the permissions an app requests. And you get to do it dynamically, yourself.
So for example I use Google maps because last time I checked Apple's still suck. But I only allow Google maps app access to my location when I actually am navigating, and otherwise I don't allow the app this access. There may be ways around that for the savvy dev, of course. But if so that'll be considered a bug and hopefully be fixed at some point.
On Android, you give blanket permission to everything the app requested in its manifest, or you can't install it. And after that there is no way for me to deny subsets of those permissions temporarily. Sure some apps may present you with some configuration to not use feature X, and maybe they respect that setting. But the app, at the level of its interfacing with the device, does have the permission and there's little I can do about that other than uninstalling.
Other than opinion of Showgirls I think we agree. I don't think *only* Dutch people see his critical tone, by the way (and yes, I am Dutch as well). But it's kind of clever. Those who are looking for more layers in his films will find them, while those looking for superficial entertainment are not disappointed.
Showgirls was utter crap, no argument there. I liked Basic Instinct slightly better, albeit mostly because I was 14 at the time and, well, nekid girls and all that.
But Verhoeven has a history of embedding criticism on polticis, corporatism and individualism into his films. Total Recall and Robocop come to mind.
Don't worry, he won't. Streissand effect will make sure if that.
But, although I hate to defend this guy (obviously a first class ahole)... If he weren't famous for other reasons than this odd nazi fetish, these images would have never received as much attention.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I am quite good at providing citations and references. (There's one here [principia-scientific.org].).
Well, the post I replied to had no references. And I don't get the impression that the source you link here is exactly neutral; from their site:
Principia Scientific International (PSI) was originally conceived in 2010 after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ The two-volume publication is the world’s first and only detailed refutation of the greenhouse gas effect.
If there really is only one such refutation, and less than two dozen experts, I'm probably not going to drastically adjust my personal estimate of the number of expert skeptics. Of course being a minority doesn't prove them wrong, but maybe slightly less likely to be right, a prima facie.
Second, I did not state the experts were "wrong"... I wrote that there is a strong indication that there was something amiss about their science. Two very different things.
Yes, I am pretty sure you did, in fact you mentioned exactly how much they were "wrong". And not wanting to seem obtuse, I honestly can't see "something amiss about their science" as anything but a special case of "they're wrong". Maybe that's just me.
Third, I consult "the experts". When it's a question of physics, for example, I look to references from physicists, not climatologists. After all, physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics.
My point exactly, doesn't it make sense for us non-experts to rely on climatologists with questions about the climate? Am I misunderstanding your statement here?
But for some topics this just doesn't work, because one side of the argument is basically insane and/or risible. I think that's why the more thoroughly unhinged individuals like creationists (and scientologists, remember those?) seem to stay away these days; no contest.
But the question is: do you count this as one of those topics?
Not at all. I believe many of those who downplay or deny the potentially grave consequences of climate change might have entirely rational reasons for doing so. But I do suggest that these reasons might be somewhat short-sighted and self-interested, i.e. squarely against the best interests of the majority of those affected long-term.
I keep asking: what's wrong with my basic premise: that if your measurements are shown to be off by 100%, there's something wrong with your science?
Your reference for this 100% figure seems to be that 23 year old AR1 report. Certainly not the present story I suppose, which TFS marks as "half". Well, among so many measurements (predictions, I guess we might rather mean) and over such a long period of time and additional research, I am not sure it is actually at all surprising that a few or even many of those are off by quite a margin.
But either way, given that their conclusions still boil down, or so it seems to me, to "danger will robinson" I would argue that we'd do well to err on the safe side. Conversely, why resist cleaning things up a bit, surrendering perhaps just a bit of trivial convenience like having to charge your car slowly versus filling up quickly -- despite the fact that we're way less than 100% sure that things will end in tears? Surely there are lots of things we can do short of dismantling society and regressing to the stoneage, which is what some (but not necessarily you of course) seem to think is what is being proposed.
That was my point. I am waiting for anybody to actually refute it, rather than indulging in name-calling and histrionics.
Well name-calling certainly never was my intention, sorry if you feel otherwise. I do value these discussions, for what it's worth, if I didn't I wouldn't bother participating.
Except that Jane Q Public wasn't stating an opinion (at least as I read it) but unsubstantiated facts:
their big report reducing warming projections by half -- and now raising total accumulated warming by 100%
Which is not nearly what that report says and not nearly what TFS says.
I don't believe that climate scientists are flawless, just that they are probably the best have we have to go on. Certainly I'm likely to take them more seriously than reference-less posts on /.
You are suggesting there has been this unending stream of scandals and duplicity. Clearly there has been some of that, but to the best of my knowledge nothing really significant -- as in, affecting the conclusions -- after that one department of some UK uni. I'd love to find out otherwise, if you've got credible sources.
The fact that I have suspicions of privately funded organizations might be unfounded or paranoid. Certainly there is no lack of publically funded debacles. But at least we find out about those, sometimes.
Am I a political activist? If you say so, yeah I guess. But you can't start out saying that I disallow JQP's opinion only to finish off by disallowing mine.
I'm not sure why you are insisting on making this personal by mentioning my name several times. Your ACness prevents me from returning the favour.
Careful, some might accuse you of crisis mongering.
Yes, and others stand accused of crisis whitewashing. What is your point?
Vague declarations of doom are not a rational basis on which to surrender all of one's economic freedom and much of one's standard of living.
I wouldn't call the IPCC reports "vague declarations of doom". They are quite concrete declarations of doom. There is a bit of a spectrum of options between fingers-in-ears and surrendering all economic freedom (whatever that means) and standard of living -- unless perhaps you're Koch, BP, and so on.
Some people just can't stop looking for a Messiah, a Prophet to simultaneously fill them with fear and then promise to deliver them from that fear.
You invoke an image of some sectarian cult. This is not an accurate description of the position of a large majority of climate scientists. Sure, it is a relatively young field. But that's still better, warts and all, than no science. Not to mention the anti-science punted by vested interests.
My sentiments exactly. I tend to stay away from fora where everything remains one-sided. I find /. reasonably balanced, on many topics. And it remains more or less polite usually, unlike say the depressing comments section of a certain video host I could mention.
But for some topics this just doesn't work, because one side of the argument is basically insane and/or risible. I think that's why the more thoroughly unhinged individuals like creationists (and scientologists, remember those?) seem to stay away these days; no contest.
every vendor who rises above a certain level of market share is going to be 'asked' to install backdoors in their networking and infrastructure gear.
I can't say how I know this, but I know this. I'm pretty sure I know this... ;)
its not just cisco. its all networking gear that the US gov would want to buy and operate.
Well, supposing I don't just take your word for that... I'll still be basically convinced by now that your statement is true. I don't think your assertion surprises many at this point. The question is, will these economic bottom-line implications succeed where public outrage so far failed to materialize, and curb this outrageous level of policing the nation/world?
That would be so bitter sweet. And an entirely typical way for America to do the right thing for the wrong reasons...
In most cases I would agree. The problem here is that, if the vast majority of climatologists are even remotely on the right track, we do not have the luxury of "sitting back" until things settle down.
I guess for me it boils down to this: if there is a nonzero probability X that future generations will suffer devastating consequences of our pollution, we should do everything we can to mitigate that. This is true even for small X because the scale of consequences are potentially very large.
But more to the point, even though you are right that this science is new, I put more value on the statements of experts in the field, rather than some random person on the Interwebs who, for all I know, just refuses to take it seriously because the implications might inconvenience her slightly.
The energy captured in coal, gas and oil is the result of many millions of years of sunshine. I just can't reasonably expect there to be no significant effects to our releasing that in a matter of a few decades.
Sigh, +4 Insightful.
Are you a climatologist? Your keep making these accusations without any references, citations... What exactly makes you so sure the experts are wrong?
On the one hand we have these publically funded (and therefore to some extent accountable) scientists saying that, yes, there is very likely an enormous problem. On the other hand we have privately funded "thinktanks" like Heartland and some flaky websites saying, variously (and sometimes simultaneously)
-- AGW is not happening.
-- AGW may be happening but there's nothing we can do about it.
-- AGW is happening but we should not try to do anything about it because the suggested courses of action are just Marxist plots to sap and impurify our precious bodily bodily fluids.
I have read some stuff about "chilling effects" of certain government programs. Maybe these programs should not be dismantled but rather refocused?
Funny thing about "oversight". On the one hand it means some mechanism to keep tabs on some process making sure it doesn't run amok. On the other hand it also means to neglect something.
Seems to me the NSA oversight is more like the latter, except not by accident.
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of the Streisand Effect.
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of 1984.
I am pretty sure they have heard of it. In fact it's almost as if they use it for inspiration. That, and all Kafka, of course.
Solution : don't have friend ;).
Faraway cage?
lucky there's ghostery available that stops such tracking.
IIRC ghostery was acquired by a marketing firm, which should make you at least question the product.
JavaScript != Java indeed. I'm still amazed at the silliness of the choice.
I've actually seen a newbie developer paste a snippet of one into the other... Finally I had an occasion to use the phrase "that's not even wrong" in an actual conversation.
The dev didn't last at our company.
Incarceration rates should parallel immigration rates, especially in Europe.
I have a hard time parsing this is anything other than xenophobe troll. But I hope I'm wrong, so at the risk of feeding... Why should incarceration rates parallel immigration rates? And why especially in Europe?
Don't bother replying if your answer is "all immigrants are criminals" or something silly like that.
Sorry to say that, yes, this is true. The BBC article spiralx mentioned is a good summary. More numbers:
American incarceration rate
List of countries by incarceration rate
Personally I believe the privatization of justice has a lot to do with these figures. Otherwise I can't explain the fact that these incarceration rates were growing all through a major drop in crime rates over the same period.
And I said that it was treason for snowden to talk about our LEGAL OPERATIONS against the rest of the world
Whether or not operations are legal is orthogonal to the question of whether or not they are in the best interests of the US citizens, who are paying for all this.
Heck, all of the leaders know that we do this. Germans knew it. They have been doing it to us and others.
If you have any evidence for your statement that German intelligence was tapping Obama's personal phone I'd love to hear about it.
Secondly, the NSA said that less than 2% (.2%?) of Americans had been spied on BY THE NSA
The NSA says huh? Well that settles it then.
And I doubt that you understand how snowden feels.
I also doubt I understand how Snowden feels. Which is why I wrote about what he actually did. The part of my post that is speculation on my part was clearly marked as such.
yeah, so few ppl do not realize that outing information about spying on Americans was whistle-blowing, while spilling information about our actions on other nations (which was legal per US law), turned him into a traitor.
So... Here we have a government agency, which is funded by taxpayers, going completely off the rails and spends fortunes on snooping potential terrorists like the leaders of Germany, France, Spain -- not to mention entire countries which are supposedly allies. And you are saying it is not in the interests of the US citizens to know this?
I see the distinction you make, I really do. But this is still whistleblowing, by my reckoning; it is public money being spent on ludicrous targets.
Besides, I am convinced that if the US public had reacted to the first batch of leaks (you know, the one which you did still consider "proper" whistleblowing) with anything more than the shameful apathy now on display, Snowden might not even have released any more.
His goal is to put a stop to the NSA's operating beyond its brief (to put it mildly). When US citizens, in whose name this is all allegedly done, refuse to do something about that -- well, I don't fault Snowden for trying to put some international pressure on it.
I don't have any illusions to the effect that Apple are valiantly defending my privacy... But one major difference, it seems to me, is that you get to disallow *parts* of the permissions an app requests. And you get to do it dynamically, yourself.
So for example I use Google maps because last time I checked Apple's still suck. But I only allow Google maps app access to my location when I actually am navigating, and otherwise I don't allow the app this access. There may be ways around that for the savvy dev, of course. But if so that'll be considered a bug and hopefully be fixed at some point.
On Android, you give blanket permission to everything the app requested in its manifest, or you can't install it. And after that there is no way for me to deny subsets of those permissions temporarily. Sure some apps may present you with some configuration to not use feature X, and maybe they respect that setting. But the app, at the level of its interfacing with the device, does have the permission and there's little I can do about that other than uninstalling.
Other than opinion of Showgirls I think we agree. I don't think *only* Dutch people see his critical tone, by the way (and yes, I am Dutch as well). But it's kind of clever. Those who are looking for more layers in his films will find them, while those looking for superficial entertainment are not disappointed.
Showgirls was utter crap, no argument there. I liked Basic Instinct slightly better, albeit mostly because I was 14 at the time and, well, nekid girls and all that.
But Verhoeven has a history of embedding criticism on polticis, corporatism and individualism into his films. Total Recall and Robocop come to mind.
shallow, apathetic, short-sighted, greedy, ignorant, intellectually-lazy, self-centered assholes like you
bovine-brained, shallow, greedy, materialistic, worthless, self-centered, narcissistic and intentionally-oblivious herd-instinct piece of amphibian shit
Whoah there, easy on the adjectives, young Padawan.
Why does he get special privacy?
Don't worry, he won't. Streissand effect will make sure if that.
But, although I hate to defend this guy (obviously a first class ahole)... If he weren't famous for other reasons than this odd nazi fetish, these images would have never received as much attention.
Well, they have been treating the public at large like little kids for a while now. And pretending to think of them.
All right, I see your point. But actually the nationalism bit in my post was triggered more by these nuggets on the part of GP:
Ah yes. I love when British or Aussie wankers like you post that. Allow me to educate you out of your ignorance.
If the US cared about it at all, and we do not, we would own the entire world in the sport. I have zero doubt about that.
Not that I am particularly offended by any of this, mind you.