Yes, and he is right if you follow his belief that proprietary software should be fought and if possible extinct. He defends the freedom of the user, not the freedom of the programmer, and those freedoms are conflicting many times.
You may think so, but I wouldn't dismiss his ideas so lightly. He was pretty accurate in his predictions about what is happening today, when he made then 40 years ago and was laughed at as paranoid.
He does not oppose the tool. He opposes the use of tool as a replacement to another tool that has a more restrictive license that prevents companies from using open source software to minimize the costs of their proprietary software. By using such a tool you are stimulating its existence, and by its success the existence of many more tools under the same license. So he is just telling to people that have similar position to his own that using such a tool and helping it to become mainstream is counterproductive to their objectives
Depends on how much danger you think these enemies represent, and he may have some reason in his assumptions here. After all those scandals about the US government gathering all kinds of illegal data about its citizens and forcing private companies to put backdoors into their proprietary software you start to wonder where all of this madness is going...
This comes from his belief that proprietary closed source software is dangerous and should be fought. So he is just being consistent. You may disagree with his assumption (I disagree at least with part of his ideas as well), but you can't say that his posture is inconsistent with his beliefs.
There will always be chemical energy to burn. Well, at least as long as there is life in the planet to absorb and convert sun light...
Fossil fuels are just the most viable now. If the reserves other options, as alcohol will become viable and will have about the same properties the GP refers to.
Unless you have a few hundred backup earths to run control experiments on, it's just in the nature of the field that there's no repeatability.
And exactly because of that we have poorer results, poorer ways to check those results, and can take much more modest conclusions from these results. That is unless you are an irresponsible alarmist.
(as an engineer, you should be familiar with errors of margin, measurement precision and all that
Considerably more familiar than you, and still you feel the need to talk bullshit to me about it...
, the conclusions aren't jumped to, but the results of very extensive analysis, and so on and so forth.
Sorry, but the conclusions are jumped to, don`t necessarily follow the data, and are completely irresponsible, regardless of what you may believe with religious fervor.
So is fluid dynamics.
You obviously doesn't have a clue about fluid mechanics. No Fluid Mechanics is not a chaotic system. Some problems in fluid mechanics (as weather forecasting, for example) are chaotic, though, as problems in other fields. That said, chaotic systems are very hard to model and any forecasting based on them is highly unreliable, because you can't control the variables and their effect in the real world.
Not without a major paradigm shift in science.
Yes, and without anything of the sort. It can happen even by chance. Someone can have an idea, make an equation and it can model perfectly some natural phenomena.
Science is always wrong. All its answers are temporary, until someone comes up with a better one.
Not necessarily. Even in science someone can come with an absolute right answer for something at some point. You can`t discard this possibility.
No, I think of you as dishonest because you trust science in every field in your life except one cherry-picked choice.
Oh, I do not trust anything blindly. Even because there is not a monolithic thing called "Science" to be trusted. There are many scientific theories in which we can have limited trust because they were tested, have good repeatability and as far as we know approximate reality well. On the other hand there are theories based on vague data with no repeatability, made jumping to conclusions, and trying to predict chaotic systems in which some people, like you believe so religiously.
I am proud to say that I am very skeptic and have little trust regarding the latter, albeit I am pretty comfortable with the former, being an engineer and all.
You fail to understand the point. The point is not if our activity alters the composition of the atmosphere, but how much effect, our meddling with a gas that is currently 0.038% of the atmosphere composition can have regarding climate alterations, how significant and nocive will be these alterations and if it is better to adapt to them than trying to prevent them even if they are significant.
None of these questions has been properly answered because the data and the models we have are not sufficient to answer them. But by all means keep with believing alarmist propaganda. We will talk again in a few decades and you will feel exectly like the guys that believed on this:
"Do these skeptics have any hard data about what the human contribution is and what greenhose effect it should have?"
Oh we have exactly the same data the alarmists do, but unlike them we prefer not to jump to conclusions that can`t really be asserted from this data. If you decide to religiously believe in something and take conclusions from dogmatic assertions it is your problem and well within your right, but don't try to impose such behavior on me, my friend.
I am happy you think you know what is happening in the next century, and don`t let the fact that you are probably completely wrong about it get in your way...
I do understand that and I answered a similar claim to another poster above. It is irrelevant if humans didn't exist in the last billion years. The important point here is that the world changed alone, without our interference (even because we were not there yet) to much more extreme highs and lows of temperature than we have today and chances are that it will l do it again and again.
This variance is in relation to a much more simplified model. If you take into consideration the factors you exposed it gets much much worse, to the point of making the "prediction" totally useless.
Nah, it may always be wrong, it doesn't necessarily need to be.
And I am quite sure you think me "dishonest" because I don't blindly agree with your dogmas, which are as unscientific as they could be.
You are desperately in need of a mirror. People like you, who preach their "scientific" beliefs as religious dogmas are those that are dishonest, and those who are utterly corrupting science.
Exactly, and that is why the number of people defending a theory means nothing. The arguments and the data should stand on their own, and in this case they fall very short of doing that.
My claim is that no one was able to make a model that can quantitatively predict the actual results of releasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is very true.
>
And no 99% is not moderate unanimity, especially because the 99% of the scientists and articles you cite do not say the same things, do not make the same predictions (many do not make predictions or try to take conclusions at all), and many are inconsistent with each other. Most of the conclusions do not follow from the articles you cite and are mainly the result of intellectual dishonesty of people trying to use insufficient data to take conclusions that couldn`t be taken from this data.
Oh and the distinct scientists are VERY existent. This is just a small list of the most prominent:
Sure, but anyone who claims something without outstanding evidence cannot be considered a skeptic...
And even those guys you mention, or at least a good part of them, decided to believe in the other equally distinct scientists that say that most of what we hear about climate changes is alarmist. That some scientists are saying wrong stuff is clear as there is no unanimity in the matter. If it is because they are lying or just equivocated is irrelevant.
I am a skeptic. I do not assume anything. I won`t believe that we are in a crisis until I have enough evidence that we are, and this evidence has not been provided in my view.
First, yes, most scientists were wrong for a time, with the available data, and as proven later by other scientists.
And considering that their theories are still internally inconsistent, they are likely to be wrong yet once again.
Given the chaos (mathematically speaking) of the system, our predictions are fucking great.
Which is a nice way of saying: "They are horrible and not reliable at all."
When scientists say "estimate", they often mean a precision that's equivalent to measuring the distance between New York City and Los Angeles to one millimeter.
Which is not even close to the case here, and that is why saying that there is a good estimation in this case is intellectual and scientific dishonesty.
I am not suggesting such a thing. What I am suggesting is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows how much effect men has over the climate, and that global warming and cooling is a cyclic process on Earth.
So the question is not if we can live or not in a given environment, but what can we do to prevent or compensate a situation that would put us in an environment where we cannot live, a situation that can come as a result of our impact in the environment or even naturally as far as we know, and the cost to take these measures. And the best way to do that responsibly is by fully understanding the problem (and if there is a problem) before taking random decisions about it.
Science is not democracy. 99% of the scientists can and have been often wrong in human History. There is no real scientific model that is able to predict climate changes. All we have are conjectures and giving the weight of fact to them is irresponsibility.
The answer is that you don't need to argue that the world is not getting warmer. The world got warmer and colder multiple times in the last billion year, and glaciers advanced and receded multiple times during this period. Still here we are.
Skeptics do not contend that there are climate changes, they defy the notion that human factors are as significant as the alarmists say, and the theory that what is happenign now is outside the bounds of what already happened to Earth many many times.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and he is right if you follow his belief that proprietary software should be fought and if possible extinct. He defends the freedom of the user, not the freedom of the programmer, and those freedoms are conflicting many times.
You may think so, but I wouldn't dismiss his ideas so lightly. He was pretty accurate in his predictions about what is happening today, when he made then 40 years ago and was laughed at as paranoid.
He does not oppose the tool. He opposes the use of tool as a replacement to another tool that has a more restrictive license that prevents companies from using open source software to minimize the costs of their proprietary software. By using such a tool you are stimulating its existence, and by its success the existence of many more tools under the same license. So he is just telling to people that have similar position to his own that using such a tool and helping it to become mainstream is counterproductive to their objectives
Depends on how much danger you think these enemies represent, and he may have some reason in his assumptions here. After all those scandals about the US government gathering all kinds of illegal data about its citizens and forcing private companies to put backdoors into their proprietary software you start to wonder where all of this madness is going...
This comes from his belief that proprietary closed source software is dangerous and should be fought. So he is just being consistent. You may disagree with his assumption (I disagree at least with part of his ideas as well), but you can't say that his posture is inconsistent with his beliefs.
There will always be chemical energy to burn. Well, at least as long as there is life in the planet to absorb and convert sun light...
Fossil fuels are just the most viable now. If the reserves other options, as alcohol will become viable and will have about the same properties the GP refers to.
Unless you have a few hundred backup earths to run control experiments on, it's just in the nature of the field that there's no repeatability.
And exactly because of that we have poorer results, poorer ways to check those results, and can take much more modest conclusions from these results. That is unless you are an irresponsible alarmist.
(as an engineer, you should be familiar with errors of margin, measurement precision and all that
Considerably more familiar than you, and still you feel the need to talk bullshit to me about it...
, the conclusions aren't jumped to, but the results of very extensive analysis, and so on and so forth.
Sorry, but the conclusions are jumped to, don`t necessarily follow the data, and are completely irresponsible, regardless of what you may believe with religious fervor.
So is fluid dynamics.
You obviously doesn't have a clue about fluid mechanics. No Fluid Mechanics is not a chaotic system. Some problems in fluid mechanics (as weather forecasting, for example) are chaotic, though, as problems in other fields. That said, chaotic systems are very hard to model and any forecasting based on them is highly unreliable, because you can't control the variables and their effect in the real world.
Not without a major paradigm shift in science.
Yes, and without anything of the sort. It can happen even by chance. Someone can have an idea, make an equation and it can model perfectly some natural phenomena.
Science is always wrong. All its answers are temporary, until someone comes up with a better one.
Not necessarily. Even in science someone can come with an absolute right answer for something at some point. You can`t discard this possibility.
No, I think of you as dishonest because you trust science in every field in your life except one cherry-picked choice.
Oh, I do not trust anything blindly. Even because there is not a monolithic thing called "Science" to be trusted. There are many scientific theories in which we can have limited trust because they were tested, have good repeatability and as far as we know approximate reality well. On the other hand there are theories based on vague data with no repeatability, made jumping to conclusions, and trying to predict chaotic systems in which some people, like you believe so religiously.
I am proud to say that I am very skeptic and have little trust regarding the latter, albeit I am pretty comfortable with the former, being an engineer and all.
You fail to understand the point. The point is not if our activity alters the composition of the atmosphere, but how much effect, our meddling with a gas that is currently 0.038% of the atmosphere composition can have regarding climate alterations, how significant and nocive will be these alterations and if it is better to adapt to them than trying to prevent them even if they are significant.
None of these questions has been properly answered because the data and the models we have are not sufficient to answer them. But by all means keep with believing alarmist propaganda. We will talk again in a few decades and you will feel exectly like the guys that believed on this:
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/e...
"Do these skeptics have any hard data about what the human contribution is and what greenhose effect it should have?"
Oh we have exactly the same data the alarmists do, but unlike them we prefer not to jump to conclusions that can`t really be asserted from this data. If you decide to religiously believe in something and take conclusions from dogmatic assertions it is your problem and well within your right, but don't try to impose such behavior on me, my friend.
I am happy you think you know what is happening in the next century, and don`t let the fact that you are probably completely wrong about it get in your way...
I do understand that and I answered a similar claim to another poster above. It is irrelevant if humans didn't exist in the last billion years. The important point here is that the world changed alone, without our interference (even because we were not there yet) to much more extreme highs and lows of temperature than we have today and chances are that it will l do it again and again.
This variance is in relation to a much more simplified model. If you take into consideration the factors you exposed it gets much much worse, to the point of making the "prediction" totally useless.
Apparently you have a very hard time with the present tense, but fear not, you can fix it here:
http://www.grammarbook.com/
Science is always "wrong".
Nah, it may always be wrong, it doesn't necessarily need to be.
And I am quite sure you think me "dishonest" because I don't blindly agree with your dogmas, which are as unscientific as they could be.
You are desperately in need of a mirror. People like you, who preach their "scientific" beliefs as religious dogmas are those that are dishonest, and those who are utterly corrupting science.
Exactly, and that is why the number of people defending a theory means nothing. The arguments and the data should stand on their own, and in this case they fall very short of doing that.
Nope. You?
My claim is that no one was able to make a model that can quantitatively predict the actual results of releasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is very true.
>
And no 99% is not moderate unanimity, especially because the 99% of the scientists and articles you cite do not say the same things, do not make the same predictions (many do not make predictions or try to take conclusions at all), and many are inconsistent with each other. Most of the conclusions do not follow from the articles you cite and are mainly the result of intellectual dishonesty of people trying to use insufficient data to take conclusions that couldn`t be taken from this data.
Oh and the distinct scientists are VERY existent. This is just a small list of the most prominent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
I am sure you will dismiss them or try to ad hominem them in some way, but that is irrelevant to me. Their arguments are sound and consistent enough.
Sure, but anyone who claims something without outstanding evidence cannot be considered a skeptic...
And even those guys you mention, or at least a good part of them, decided to believe in the other equally distinct scientists that say that most of what we hear about climate changes is alarmist. That some scientists are saying wrong stuff is clear as there is no unanimity in the matter. If it is because they are lying or just equivocated is irrelevant.
I am a skeptic. I do not assume anything. I won`t believe that we are in a crisis until I have enough evidence that we are, and this evidence has not been provided in my view.
First, yes, most scientists were wrong for a time, with the available data, and as proven later by other scientists .
And considering that their theories are still internally inconsistent, they are likely to be wrong yet once again.
Given the chaos (mathematically speaking) of the system, our predictions are fucking great.
Which is a nice way of saying: "They are horrible and not reliable at all."
When scientists say "estimate", they often mean a precision that's equivalent to measuring the distance between New York City and Los Angeles to one millimeter.
Which is not even close to the case here, and that is why saying that there is a good estimation in this case is intellectual and scientific dishonesty.
I am not suggesting such a thing. What I am suggesting is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows how much effect men has over the climate, and that global warming and cooling is a cyclic process on Earth.
So the question is not if we can live or not in a given environment, but what can we do to prevent or compensate a situation that would put us in an environment where we cannot live, a situation that can come as a result of our impact in the environment or even naturally as far as we know, and the cost to take these measures. And the best way to do that responsibly is by fully understanding the problem (and if there is a problem) before taking random decisions about it.
Science is not democracy. 99% of the scientists can and have been often wrong in human History. There is no real scientific model that is able to predict climate changes. All we have are conjectures and giving the weight of fact to them is irresponsibility.
The answer is that you don't need to argue that the world is not getting warmer. The world got warmer and colder multiple times in the last billion year, and glaciers advanced and receded multiple times during this period. Still here we are.
Skeptics do not contend that there are climate changes, they defy the notion that human factors are as significant as the alarmists say, and the theory that what is happenign now is outside the bounds of what already happened to Earth many many times.
Sure it does. It limits through regulations. Thanks to that seldom there is more than one or two of them physically serving the same area.