You fucking moron. All youre doing is spreading that myth that because there was more in 2013 than 2012, that it is growing. 2012 was the LOWEST EVER, PERIOD, breaking all expectations. 2013's minimum was higher then 2012, BUT IT WAS STILL THE 6TH LOWEST EVER RECORDED.
Just fuck off. Seriously, Skeptical science is actual science backed by actual fucking measurements. You are just a cherry picking asshole who wished he had as much "legitimacy" as Natural News.
No one is fighting to keep anything secret you fucking idiot. I just gave you the fucking links to the fucking data. It's in the fucking open, where anyone who knows how to google can find it.
But now you're pulling the "its all lies" card, and claiming "I already read it". No you fucking didn't sweetcheeks.
How do I know? Because in those links is the actual measurements recorded around the world by various methods, both satellite and ground station. Data files full of brain dizzying numbers and locations.
Which is EXACTLY the fucking data you asked for. You havent read actually read it; rather your full of shit and no longer worthy of anyones attention.
I didn't say science is -never- overturned. I said said it's -rarely- overturned.
As I alluded to originally when I paraphrased Asimov's essay originally. Your ignorance is that you can't tell the difference between refinement and disprovement. It is that difference that you and others like you seem incapable of understanding, and in this way it is -YOU- who has an insufficient understanding of science.
Gravity is settled. We don't know all there is to know about it yet, but we know an awful fucking lot about it. No one is actively pushing theories that seek to overturn. It's settled. All work is going into refining our knowledge of it.
Overturning is done between competing theories, typically on the edge of the known. Refinement is what's done to the old established theory are we discard competing theories.
Well established theories like gravity, evolution, global warming, radiocarbon dating, etc, are in little danger of ever being overturned at this juncture. The mountain of evidence is of sufficient height that in order to actually disprove and overturn one of theories your mountain of contrary evidence would have to be even bigger.
And yet -no such contrary mountains exist, nor any clues that they might-.
All further knowledge gains are going in the support pile, not the disprove pile. Even as we chip away at the edge of the known boundaries, the base theories are sufficiently established that the word settled can be applied.
You yourself use the word revision, referencing recent discoveries in the last 100 years.
Such as say....relativity from when Einstein refined Newton. Note that he didn't disprove Newton, he revised him. He refined him. And he and his colleagues began developing quantum (again, i mentioned this stuff before). And again: it wasn't a disproving of what came before, but a revision, a refinement.
What you need to learn is that revision is synonymous with refinement, not with disproving.
Seriously, read the essay "Relativity of Wrong". It would really benefit your understanding of science.
When have government ever gotten science right? Really? The fact you would even ask that shows your ignorance.
Setting aside crank politicians who pass laws saying "abortion is reversible", or bring snowballs to show and tell on the floor of the Senate, the answer is "nearly always". The majority of research in this country is backed by the government in some way.
We know how and why aircraft fly because of extensive research by NACA (and no, it's not that stuff you were taught in school about Bernoulli), who then became NASA. the same NASA that then perfected spaceflight, put us on the moon, and is even responsible for a large share of the research and data gathering on climate thanks to their extensive collection of science satellites.
There's the National Institute of Health, the CDC, and other medical research entities of the government.
There's the Pie in the Sky crazy projects division we know as DARPA. That would be the same DARPA responsible for the internet you are now using, space based data sensors to monitor the planet, GPS, nuclear launch detection, extensive material science breakthroughs, and computer science, and a few thousand other things we now take for granted. In fact, a large portion of the science and engineering occurring even in private industry in the 70's occurred as a result of a "brain drain" from DARPA, when many of its engineers and researchers left the agency as a result of budget cuts; those people went on to push the limits at Bell Labs, Xerox, 3M, and others.
Really, the list is HUGE.
Airplanes, cancer, space, lasers, computers, networking, cryptography, robotics, cars, agriculture, genetics, climate science, physics, chemistry, materials science, artificial intelligence, molecular biology, archaeology, medical imaging, data storge methods....and I've probably only covered less than 1% of the achievements of government led research.
Government rarely gets science right you say? No son, Government rarely gets it wrong.
And when it does, it's usually because of undue influence and meddling like this here "secret science" bill. ---
Congratulations, you apparently passed the class titled "How to lie with accurate data."
Specifically the chapter titled "Cherry Picking your comparison points".
Meanwhile the actual facts about the Arctic include tidbits like "volume of ice is only 29% of what it was in 1979", "average age of ice is only 1-2 years, where it used to be 10+", and other fun factoids that prove you to be an idiot.
And he pulled the "The Civil War was not about slavery" myth card.
It was about preserving the union huh?
Q: Why did the union need preserving? A: Because the South wanted to leave it.
Q: Why did the South want to leave? A: Because they felt their State's Rights were being violated.
Q: Why did they feel their State's Rights were being violated? A: Because the Government was pushing to abolish slavery and prevent slavery in the new territories and states.
Is there ever anything that comes out your mouth that isn't more appropriate coming out the south end of a northbound cow? Your stupidity and insistence on repeating the same myths seems to know no bounds.
Yep. Cause companies were doing just fine on their own and didn't need forcing with the Clean Air and Water Acts right? Because companies are right now willingly installing filters on power plants to reduce emissions, instead of suing the government to delay having to do so? Because companies are not right now at this very minute exploiting the current loophole in EPA water regulations to dump into non-navigable water bodies without repercussion?
And assuming we did get your dream world of a full nuclear implementation, I suppose companies would again be perfect actors and not cut corners and endanger people, by saying building substandard reactors where they can be hit by tsunami waves? Or improperly dispose of waste?
That's blind stupidity, and willful ignorance of actual history.
The market can do a lot, but it's not perfect and it has repeatedly needed to be beat with a government stick to prod it in the right direction.
I like how they say he should "stick to moral issues", when one of the first things said in the Bible (and then repeated throughout it) is that this world was given to us by God and we are to take care of it. I'm paraphrasing, but the concept is there.
Business very much DO exist because the consumer needs their services, and specifically because in order to obtain those services they are willing to give businesses $$$$$. Businesses aren't doing anyone a favor by existing, though that's what you and your kind imply. Their existence is wholly and completely dependent on the fact that there are people willing to give them money in exchange. That's why they came into exist: they want that money.
Your view is the view that businesses are doing consumers (and employees too) a favor, that consumers exist to buy things from businesses.
You are the poster child of the stupid "libertarian". I work with some actual libertarians (as well as about a dozen stereotypical "libertarians"), who actually deserve the term without quotes. Even they think you're an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about. Hell, I'm more libertarian than you (albeit of the Left Libertarian flavor, similar to Bill Maher and a few others).
At this point I'm more inclined to think you're not just a troll, but a Deep Cover Liberal, the things you say are so idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
You fucking moron. All youre doing is spreading that myth that because there was more in 2013 than 2012, that it is growing. 2012 was the LOWEST EVER, PERIOD, breaking all expectations. 2013's minimum was higher then 2012, BUT IT WAS STILL THE 6TH LOWEST EVER RECORDED.
Here are the real trends:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...
It melts and regrows every year.
Minimum is reached in roughly mid-september.
Maximum in about mid-March.
The problem is its melting more, and regrowing less, every year.
Which is its thinner and younger, and lost significant volume.
And here's just a month ago:
2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record (NASA)
https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...
Just fuck off.
Seriously, Skeptical science is actual science backed by actual fucking measurements.
You are just a cherry picking asshole who wished he had as much "legitimacy" as Natural News.
No one is fighting to keep anything secret you fucking idiot.
I just gave you the fucking links to the fucking data.
It's in the fucking open, where anyone who knows how to google can find it.
But now you're pulling the "its all lies" card, and claiming "I already read it".
No you fucking didn't sweetcheeks.
How do I know? Because in those links is the actual measurements recorded around the world by various methods, both satellite and ground station. Data files full of brain dizzying numbers and locations.
Which is EXACTLY the fucking data you asked for.
You havent read actually read it; rather your full of shit and no longer worthy of anyones attention.
I think a group of chimpanzees on speed throwing feces at a keyboard would generate a more coherent though than the one you just wrote.
I didn't say science is -never- overturned.
I said said it's -rarely- overturned.
As I alluded to originally when I paraphrased Asimov's essay originally. Your ignorance is that you can't tell the difference between refinement and disprovement. It is that difference that you and others like you seem incapable of understanding, and in this way it is -YOU- who has an insufficient understanding of science.
Gravity is settled. We don't know all there is to know about it yet, but we know an awful fucking lot about it. No one is actively pushing theories that seek to overturn. It's settled. All work is going into refining our knowledge of it.
Overturning is done between competing theories, typically on the edge of the known. Refinement is what's done to the old established theory are we discard competing theories.
Well established theories like gravity, evolution, global warming, radiocarbon dating, etc, are in little danger of ever being overturned at this juncture. The mountain of evidence is of sufficient height that in order to actually disprove and overturn one of theories your mountain of contrary evidence would have to be even bigger.
And yet -no such contrary mountains exist, nor any clues that they might-.
All further knowledge gains are going in the support pile, not the disprove pile. Even as we chip away at the edge of the known boundaries, the base theories are sufficiently established that the word settled can be applied.
You yourself use the word revision, referencing recent discoveries in the last 100 years.
Such as say....relativity from when Einstein refined Newton. Note that he didn't disprove Newton, he revised him. He refined him. And he and his colleagues began developing quantum (again, i mentioned this stuff before). And again: it wasn't a disproving of what came before, but a revision, a refinement.
What you need to learn is that revision is synonymous with refinement, not with disproving.
Seriously, read the essay "Relativity of Wrong".
It would really benefit your understanding of science.
Read and become educated.
The Relativity of Wrong, by Isaac Asmiov:
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersi...
Ok since the mods wants to mod up idiots today and mod down call outs of bad information, here:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/art...
Again: your understanding of the scientific method has not progressed beyond the oversimplified version you learned in the 2nd grade.
No, it is not always reproducible.
Reproduction is simply one possible avenues of peer review, but not the only one.
I see my mod stalker has points again.
Because global warming is a lie and the GOP are going to call out the dems on this.
No it's not, and youre an idiot for saying it is.
The overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists and not engaged in a global conspiracy for some god ony knows reason.
If global warming is only true because of secret data then it probably isn't true.
Then today is your lucky day.
Because There is no secret data.
It's a myth.
Here, let me google that for you .
Oh there it is, on the very first page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
tell that to fracking companies.
Well then you're in luck!
Because it is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
There is no secret data.
Here, let me google that for you .
Oh there it is, on the very first page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
When have government ever gotten science right?
Really? The fact you would even ask that shows your ignorance.
Setting aside crank politicians who pass laws saying "abortion is reversible", or bring snowballs to show and tell on the floor of the Senate, the answer is "nearly always". The majority of research in this country is backed by the government in some way.
We know how and why aircraft fly because of extensive research by NACA (and no, it's not that stuff you were taught in school about Bernoulli), who then became NASA. the same NASA that then perfected spaceflight, put us on the moon, and is even responsible for a large share of the research and data gathering on climate thanks to their extensive collection of science satellites.
There's the National Institute of Health, the CDC, and other medical research entities of the government.
There's the Pie in the Sky crazy projects division we know as DARPA. That would be the same DARPA responsible for the internet you are now using, space based data sensors to monitor the planet, GPS, nuclear launch detection, extensive material science breakthroughs, and computer science, and a few thousand other things we now take for granted. In fact, a large portion of the science and engineering occurring even in private industry in the 70's occurred as a result of a "brain drain" from DARPA, when many of its engineers and researchers left the agency as a result of budget cuts; those people went on to push the limits at Bell Labs, Xerox, 3M, and others.
Really, the list is HUGE.
Airplanes, cancer, space, lasers, computers, networking, cryptography, robotics, cars, agriculture, genetics, climate science, physics, chemistry, materials science, artificial intelligence, molecular biology, archaeology, medical imaging, data storge methods....and I've probably only covered less than 1% of the achievements of government led research.
Government rarely gets science right you say?
No son, Government rarely gets it wrong.
And when it does, it's usually because of undue influence and meddling like this here "secret science" bill.
---
Government's Greatest Achievements of the Past Half Century: http://www.brookings.edu/resea...
Why Do Basic Research: http://publications.nigms.nih....
The High Return on Investment for Publicly Funded Research: https://www.americanprogress.o...
No, it is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
There is no secret data.
Here, let me google that for you .
Oh there it is, on the very first page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
The point is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
Here, let me google that for you .
Oh there it is, on the very first page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
Congratulations, you apparently passed the class titled "How to lie with accurate data."
Specifically the chapter titled "Cherry Picking your comparison points".
Meanwhile the actual facts about the Arctic include tidbits like "volume of ice is only 29% of what it was in 1979", "average age of ice is only 1-2 years, where it used to be 10+", and other fun factoids that prove you to be an idiot.
Here's a buncha graphs which all show a downward trend:
https://sites.google.com/site/...
Here's some actual science and analysis on Arctic Ice:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
it takes about 8 extra button pushes to obtain an apostrophe on this phone.
im too lazy to spent that much time for one additional character.
and hes still an idiot.
And he pulled the "The Civil War was not about slavery" myth card.
It was about preserving the union huh?
Q: Why did the union need preserving?
A: Because the South wanted to leave it.
Q: Why did the South want to leave?
A: Because they felt their State's Rights were being violated.
Q: Why did they feel their State's Rights were being violated?
A: Because the Government was pushing to abolish slavery and prevent slavery in the new territories and states.
Ergo: IT WAS BLOODY ABOUT SLAVERY YOU IDIOT.
Maybe you should think a bit before posting. Perhaps study a bit on what you are posting about.
And you really need to start taking your own advice.
Being true to your name again.
I've covered before how your second grade understanding of science is insufficient.
Please do go back and review the lesson again.
Is there ever anything that comes out your mouth that isn't more appropriate coming out the south end of a northbound cow?
Your stupidity and insistence on repeating the same myths seems to know no bounds.
Yep.
Cause companies were doing just fine on their own and didn't need forcing with the Clean Air and Water Acts right?
Because companies are right now willingly installing filters on power plants to reduce emissions, instead of suing the government to delay having to do so?
Because companies are not right now at this very minute exploiting the current loophole in EPA water regulations to dump into non-navigable water bodies without repercussion?
And assuming we did get your dream world of a full nuclear implementation, I suppose companies would again be perfect actors and not cut corners and endanger people, by saying building substandard reactors where they can be hit by tsunami waves? Or improperly dispose of waste?
That's blind stupidity, and willful ignorance of actual history.
The market can do a lot, but it's not perfect and it has repeatedly needed to be beat with a government stick to prod it in the right direction.
I like how they say he should "stick to moral issues", when one of the first things said in the Bible (and then repeated throughout it) is that this world was given to us by God and we are to take care of it. I'm paraphrasing, but the concept is there.
Moron.
Business very much DO exist because the consumer needs their services, and specifically because in order to obtain those services they are willing to give businesses $$$$$. Businesses aren't doing anyone a favor by existing, though that's what you and your kind imply. Their existence is wholly and completely dependent on the fact that there are people willing to give them money in exchange. That's why they came into exist: they want that money.
Your view is the view that businesses are doing consumers (and employees too) a favor, that consumers exist to buy things from businesses.
You are the poster child of the stupid "libertarian". I work with some actual libertarians (as well as about a dozen stereotypical "libertarians"), who actually deserve the term without quotes. Even they think you're an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about. Hell, I'm more libertarian than you (albeit of the Left Libertarian flavor, similar to Bill Maher and a few others).
At this point I'm more inclined to think you're not just a troll, but a Deep Cover Liberal, the things you say are so idiotic.
youre an idiot.
There is that whole bit about "I give this world to you, with stewardship and dominion over it", etc etc.
Would be rather rude to trash God's gift of creation.