I don't think I've ever read a study concluding that homosexuality is genetic in nature.
There have been numerous studies that found birth order to be influential. I believe the leading theory is it's a developmental alteration not a genetic one.
Especially considering it's unlikeliy to be hereditary for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure what the latest thinking is, but there has been plenty of research indicating that homosexuality has at least a partially genetic origin (50% according to some twins studies). It is not intuitive but there are good reasons why the condition may be inherited: for example if some feminine characteristics make males more attractive to females, then they may be selected for even if they result in some gay offspring that do not have children.
Of course some homosexuals do have children. The repression of homosexuality of the past century or two would is likely to have actually increased the number of homosexuals by encouraging them into marriages of convenience through which their genes would have been passed on.
Well, if the climate models could re-create the last 1000 years
It's not too difficult to construct a model that simulates past events, because you know exactly what behaviour it should have.
I would just have a lot more faith in the models if they were open source. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not sure - some of them may be available),
No offence, I notice the qualifiers, but I suspect you're not well up on how the (academic) scientific world works.
First, you should note the difference between a scientific model and a computer model. Generally the scientific model is the theory and the computer model simply an implementation of it in program form (though some have argued that a computer model *is* a scientific model, but let's not confuse things).
Anyway, the theory is certainly not kept secret -- it's published in papers and discussed and argued over. That's the whole point of science!
The computer model though is generally not kept secret either. There's no need. The scientific theory is the key, and it doesn't harm the scientists to let others play with their model. Many programs used (I would guess) are open source or public domain. Even if not explicitly so, researchers will often supply copies of the code on request. If the code is not supplied, it's probably because the scientists haven't got around to it yet, or because no one needs it, or because the code involved is trivial.
but apparently it's more important that researchers keep their competitive advantages away from other researchers than to allow people to replicate their results.
I don't know where you've got this idea from, but this doesn't really happen. Researchers may keep ideas quiet until they publish to avoid someone else claiming the glory, but after they publish it's in their interests for as many people to use their work as possible. If people replicate their results, then that's independent verification of their results -- wonderful! If people build on their model to produce a better one, they get cited and gain influence -- great! The difficulty for researchers is actually the opposite problem -- getting people to notice and user their work. I'm sure there are counter examples, but that has been my experience.
Good call. I remember reading a review of Half-Life 2 Episode 2, where the reviewer described one puzzle where the objective is to get over the tilted bridge with the car. One of the coolest puzzles in the game, and the reviewer described the solution. Definitely an unwelcome spoiler for me.
My understanding of cancer (IANAO and I may not entirely know what I'm talking about here) is that there is no "mechanism" as such -- it's simply uncontrolled cell growth. Generally it occurs when a cell's genes that limit its growth or cause apoptosis get corrupted.
And just how to you propose to regulate, police and enforce the production of Linux distributions?
Persuasion? Maybe by arguing in well-respected (*cough*) internet forum like/.?
Seriously, I do find all this complaining about people stating opinions about where free software is going wrong rather precious. If you don't like the opinion expressed, you're free to argue back or ignore it.
Those are a few of the inventions that have come from fundamental research into a new type of catalytic antimicrobial. It can be incorporated into just about any type of polymer, which means it can be put into just about any kind of implant. We're now working with a company that will apply our technology to ceramic and metal implants. The dental sealants are scheduled for worldwide release on May 1st of this year. I'd suggest you get in line by April.
That actually sounds quite interesting. I'm a bit sceptical but I'll see what the science says:)
Show me the model that tells me what the average global temperature is going to be next year given X carbon output, and whatever other variables, and we'll see. I haven't seen it. If you can find it, it will convince me.
Sorry, my answer wasn't very helpful. For a retrospective prediction, see Hansen's 1988 prediction. I think the graph is quite impressive (he predicted Scenario B as the most plausible, but see the remarks in the article about the effect of Pinatubo).
That's still off by at least an order of magnitude. The earth is something like 4.5 billion years old and ice age cycles are something like 100,000 years in duration.
Aren't you contradicting yourself there? If you don't think our temperature records are accurate, how can you have confidence in our knowledge about ice ages?
I have a BIG problem with people saying "(hot|cold)est year on record" when accurate records just do not go very far back.
These things have to be qualified of course. A proper scientist will say something like "hottest century in the last 1,000 years". And "accurate" is a relative term; with any physical system, you never have perfect measurements. You have to do the maths and work out what results you can get from them and how confident you can be in those results. And the maths has been done, and the answer is "confident enough".
My computer has a display problem (never buy a Mac Mini, they suck), and I didn't catch the error, I meant to say 10000.
10,000 is just as arbitrary a figure as 1,000. If it went back 10,000 years, you'd insist on 20,000 years, or 100,000. You haven't looked at the models and worked out how many years of data we need to get decent figures out.
The overwhelming majority of climatologists say whatever they need to to get funding.
Any evidence for this or just random abuse?
I can't imagine that they get much money from private companies.
Nope, they spend it on lobbyists instead.
Taking an unpopular position risks becoming an outcast.
But on the other hand, if you're proved right you get the glory. It's not always perfect, but the scientific process gets there in the end. It's possible that someone will figure out that all the models are wrong, and if their sums are correct, they *will* get published. It's just highly unlikely by now, and getting more unlikely as time goes on.
You can't make that argument with the vast majority of experiments, only the ones that have n=1.
It's obviously not ideal. An extra Earth or 20 would be nice to check the models against. But we only have one, so do you believe the best models our best experts can produce, or just take a random position?
Show me the model that tells me what the average global temperature is going to be next year given X carbon output, and whatever other variables, and we'll see. I haven't seen it. If you can find it, it will convince me.
Sorry, don't know. I've read a little of the literature, but not enough to be that specific. I suspect that 1 year predictions wouldn't be that good, and you'd be better off looking at at least 10 year predictions.
I can't be convinced by conceited bluster. The scientific establishment has been wrong or stuck in their ways too many times to put total faith in it.
I disagree. Individual scientists often make cock ups, but science as a whole generally gets it right. There have been a few mistakes, true. A little scepticism is good, particularly with new theories, but who else are you going to believe?
the idea of trying to definitively say that man causes global warming seems like trying to repair a car engine while driving down the highway, or like doing major surgery on yourself in the middle of a triathlon.
No one said it was easy.
If you actually want to convince someone, appeal to their logic or their emotions. You have attempted to appeal to logic while simultaneously personally insulting the person you would convince. This does not work, unless your opponent can calm down enough to see what is happening, which I wasn't until just now. In fact, I don't think you wanted to convince anyone but yourself, with that little flamefest of yours.
Yes, I admit it. I wasn't trying to convince you; I didn't think there was any hope of a rational argument with someone who declared that "Seriously, any scientist who tells you that humans cause global warming, or says that the current warming trend isn't part of a natural cycle isn't acting like a scientist". I do find these unjustified attacks on groups of professionals (and by implication, practically science itself) offensive, so no apologies for teh flaming.
Dendrochronology only goes back a few hundred years, a thousand at most, while ice cores only record climate at the poles, assuming you can derive significant climactic information in that manner (not a geoscientist). Give me a time period of 1000 years, and we'll talk.
So you say dendrochronology goes back a thousand years, and you want something that will give you a record of 1,000 years? Yes, I can see why you might fantasise about yourself as a scientist -- you're clearly not a mathematician.
Just because political appointees say that humans cause global warming doesn't make it so. There is room for discussion.
Oh good grief. It doesn't matter what any political appointees say, it's the overwhelming majority of experts in climatology that are persuasive.
Whatever you say, troll boy. Let me know what you think next time you have a family member not die from an infected catheter, or when you never get cavities or other tooth decay again because of my anti-microbial sealant, or when your girlfriend doesn't get cancer from her breast implants..
Ha ha ha ha. Oh, you're one of those. Sorry to break it to you, but Mickey-mouse inventions aren't science. I suppose you've got a mail-order PhD and a few vanity-published papers.
I've had lots of family members not die from infected catheters, and my girlfriend doesn't have breast implants. As for tooth decay, well I'll look forward to seeing it eradicated from the world by a "sealant". I wait with bated breath...
You can, but you can easily manipulate those conclusions to fit with your pre-conceived world view. When there isn't enough data, you can't even tell when you yourself are being biased, much less when someone else is.
You could make that argument against any conclusion you don't like. The sums have been done, and the peer-reviewed conclusion from thousands of man-years of research is that there is enough data and that it is conclusive. I believe in the scientific method.
There's not enough data to draw real conclusions on global warming. The only thing we can do is build models and see if they predict the future. If we manage to make one that gets it right more than 50% of the time, then we can look at hte variables and see if it's humanity's fault or not.
We do have models that seem to be predicting the future quite well. But you don't even need to predict the future to be confident in your conclusions. If you have a known model and no other serious explanation for your measurements, you can be pretty confident.
OK, bored now. You wouldn't be convinced by any intelligent argument.
And we have detailed records of temperature worldwide for how far back?
Quite far back. Read up on dendrochronology, ice cores, etc.
Seriously, any scientist who tells you that humans cause global warming, or says that the current warming trend isn't part of a natural cycle isn't acting like a scientist.
Absolute bollocks. And I speak as a scientist.
What we have here is a single, highly complex system.
Yes!
No controls, with n=1.
True.
If I tried to do an experiment under such circumstances, I'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community when I reported my results.
Probably true, if this is an example of your critical thinking skills.
The fact is that without controls, and without multiple subjects, you can't say ANYTHING for sure.
You can't say anything for sure even with multiple subjects and controls, but you can often draw some pretty convincing conclusions.
All you can do is report your observations.
Entirely wrong. I don't think I've ever read a scientific paper that didn't have a conclusions section.
We don't even have good observations going back 100 years, much less a thousand or a hundred thousand or a hundred million.
False, see above.
How is anyone supposed to draw conclusions from what is essentially a single data point?
We have vast amounts of data about the climate. Or are you seriously trying to argue that we can't draw conclusions because we only have one Earth? If so, presumably you think we can't infer anything about the Big Bang because there was only one of them.
IAAS (I am a scientist).
I'm a scientist. You're a fantasist if you're not a troll.
Maybe there's some sort of "natural cycle" where the sun sometimes shines on the car, and sometimes doesn't. Certainly the sun couldn't be causing it, it's so far away!
Of course, that could be happening. It's a reasonable hypothesis. The problem is that the evidence shows that it's wrong. I take it you didn't read the paper I linked to.
I have a problem with ALL of them at this point, the simply don't include enough data points or enough processes in their analysis.
Which processes do you think that are missing should be included? And what data points do you think are missing, and how many do you think would be enough to believe the models? Sorry, but if you'll have to provide specific data if you want me to believe you rather than the enormous body of scientific literature that points in the other direction. Extraordinary claims require evidence.
To take those results and claim that the sky is falling and that we are all doomed is foolhardy and sensationalist, it does no one any good least of all the reputation of climatologists.
But what if the sky *is* falling? The climatologists aren't claiming we're all doomed, but they are saying we're heading for a catastrophic fuck-up.
Would you believe a doctor if he said you had cancer, or would you call him a doomsayer?
Guess what the latest photos of the Sun show - NO sunspots.
Temperatures have also been going down, not up recently.
I tie an onion to my belt loop and I have never had piles.
Analogy time. If you're trying to optimize code for speed you want to work on the region of code where you're spending the most time in already. It's the same as with temperature on the earth. The biggest input is the Sun. If the Sun cools down, as it apparently does periodically (periodic ice ages are fairly well documented and proven), then things get colder.
If one was *really* concerned about Global Warming, one would want a thermostat applied to the Sun. No one has suggested that.
Sorry to break it to you, but you are not the first to consider this. This has been well studied, and the conclusion is that whilst the sun may well have some effect on the climate, it hasn't had a significant effect on the global warming phenomenon. Here's a link to a Nature paper, if you want to read the research:
I'll leave it to someone else to provide a car analogy.
OK, you're in a car with a group of friends and it's getting uncomfortably hot. Some of you say the extra heat is because of the running engine, others say the sun is producing more heat. One of your friends has a PhD in physics, does the sums and works out the extra heat is from the engine, and also points out that the weather hasn't changed. Another friend suggests that whilst working out the cause is interesting, the solution is the same: opening a window. SL Baur decides not to believe in the science, decides against opening a window, and suggests trying to apply a thermostat to the sun instead.
For every scientist that says "WE'RE ALL DOOMED!" another one says "Erm... No we're not." Just like "video games causes violent behaviour" and "video games don't cause violent behaviour".
Scientists generally don't say "WE'RE ALL DOOMED!", though the media sometimes spin it that way. Also, if you think scientists are equally split on the issue of climate change, you are sadly deluded.
It's also very hard to take to any talk of global warming that seriously when a large chunk of the northern hemisphere is freezing its ass off.
Please look up the difference between "climate" and "weather".
Then there's the United Kingdom. The Roman's used to grow grapes there. Now if people grew grapes there today folk would say "Look, global warming! There's your proof." Only this occurred hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution...
Grapes have been grown in the UK for hundreds of years, and they are grown there now. Except historically they were grown in the south of England, and now they are being grown in Wales. Global warming is making wine making more viable in the UK.
I think we are getting to much the same thing with climate models, they put in their handful of datapoints and tweak the model till it conforms then they run it for x years in the future and claim that is somehow a prediction for future conditions.
Since you've just slammed an enormous body of scientific research, and slandered the reputation of a huge number of experts in climatology, perhaps you'd at least like to say which models you have issues with and what you think is wrong with them?
If one of my writing students had created that headline, I'd have flunked him.
"...claimed not superior to..."?
I consider myself an excellent technical writer with several published papers to my name, and I don't see anything wrong that headline. What aspect of it are you objecting to?
I've purchased games I wanted through Steam instead of pirating them simply because it was easier to get it through Steam.
Yep, absolutely. Consider the differences:
1) Buy a hard copy of the game. Inconveniences: Finding a shop with the game, paying for the game, storing the media, working around or submitting to the DRM, inputting CD keys, downloading updates
2) Pirate the game. Inconveniences: trying to find it (e.g. a torrent), downloading it, possibly installing cracks or using some weird version, probably missing some content, risking malware, keeping track of the downloaded data
3) Steam it. Inconveniences: paying for it, downloading it
Convenience to me is Steam > Pirate > Buy a hard copy. (As a student when I could hardly afford games, piracy would have been a bit higher; now that's much less of an issue, and the convenience is worth the cash).
I was sceptical of Steam at first, but it actually seems to work very well. If I do have a complaint, it's that games are a bit expensive. If they were cheaper, I'd buy more and they'd probably make more more money overall. If they do get around to sorting out a Linux client and getting some native games on it I will spontaneously ejaculate.
That's not what I understand to be functional programming. The basic rule of functional programming is "no side effects", so the same input(s) will always produce the same output. Or, to put it another way, a function doesn't maintain state between invocations. This isn't incompatible with loops. For example, you could write a function to calculate the fibonacci series up to n which internally used a loop, and still call it functional.
Now I am wondering which ISP to move to. Obviously anyone with Phorm is right out (BT, for instance), as is anyone with a strict download cap. Any suggestions?
How strict is strict?
I've found the UK Free Software Network, UKFSN, to be pretty good provided you can mostly sort your own techy problems out. Plus they're specifically anti-Phorm and all profits go towards funding Free Software, if you like that sort of thing.
A true environmentalist SHOULD be skeptical about a body of law explicitly allowing developing nations to pollute. This is an incredibly stupid thing to do, because there is not in fact any real benefit to it.
Developing nations produce far less CO2 per capita than develolped countries. Why shouldn't they be allowed to increase their CO2 output a little?
That's great, and I'm sure there is an effect. But any visible measures being taken today are mostly at the individual consumer level... cutting vehicle emissions 20% will reduce total carbon release, what, 1%? It's probably not even measurable.
On the other hand, even a 1% reduction would help, it would improve air quality locally, and save everyone money.
On a similar note, I was talking to my girlfriend (who was at home) on IM and she hadn't responded for a while, so I ssh'd to my box and executed "beep; beep; beep" a few times. Scared her a lot, but it almost backfired: she nearly pulled the plug out of the machine, thinking it was about to explode. Luckily she decided to call me instead:)
"beep" by the way is a very handy app, and my contribution to this discussion. I know there are a few ways to activate the speaker, but it's handy to just have a command for it.
E.g.: $./script-that-will-take-a-long-time-to-finish; beep => will beep when the script completes.
And then there's the explanation for it, involving mosquitos trapped in amber, frog DNA spliced in, and all the rest, which is simply ridiculous.
Why is that so ridiculous? I think it's a really good idea. We know it wouldn't work because of how fast DNA degrades, but IMO you're allowed a certain amount of "what-if" in sci fi, particularly in the central idea. Maybe he should have left out the "filling in the blanks with frog DNA" bit (wasn't it crocodile DNA?) and either assumed it was complete, or said it was completed with genetic engineering, or something. It's better than ignoring it -- it would have been a gaping plot hole much bigger than the many others in the book.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I've ever read a study concluding that homosexuality is genetic in nature.
There have been numerous studies that found birth order to be influential. I believe the leading theory is it's a developmental alteration not a genetic one.
Especially considering it's unlikeliy to be hereditary for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure what the latest thinking is, but there has been plenty of research indicating that homosexuality has at least a partially genetic origin (50% according to some twins studies). It is not intuitive but there are good reasons why the condition may be inherited: for example if some feminine characteristics make males more attractive to females, then they may be selected for even if they result in some gay offspring that do not have children.
Of course some homosexuals do have children. The repression of homosexuality of the past century or two would is likely to have actually increased the number of homosexuals by encouraging them into marriages of convenience through which their genes would have been passed on.
Well, if the climate models could re-create the last 1000 years
It's not too difficult to construct a model that simulates past events, because you know exactly what behaviour it should have.
I would just have a lot more faith in the models if they were open source. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not sure - some of them may be available),
No offence, I notice the qualifiers, but I suspect you're not well up on how the (academic) scientific world works.
First, you should note the difference between a scientific model and a computer model. Generally the scientific model is the theory and the computer model simply an implementation of it in program form (though some have argued that a computer model *is* a scientific model, but let's not confuse things).
Anyway, the theory is certainly not kept secret -- it's published in papers and discussed and argued over. That's the whole point of science!
The computer model though is generally not kept secret either. There's no need. The scientific theory is the key, and it doesn't harm the scientists to let others play with their model. Many programs used (I would guess) are open source or public domain. Even if not explicitly so, researchers will often supply copies of the code on request. If the code is not supplied, it's probably because the scientists haven't got around to it yet, or because no one needs it, or because the code involved is trivial.
but apparently it's more important that researchers keep their competitive advantages away from other researchers than to allow people to replicate their results.
I don't know where you've got this idea from, but this doesn't really happen. Researchers may keep ideas quiet until they publish to avoid someone else claiming the glory, but after they publish it's in their interests for as many people to use their work as possible. If people replicate their results, then that's independent verification of their results -- wonderful! If people build on their model to produce a better one, they get cited and gain influence -- great! The difficulty for researchers is actually the opposite problem -- getting people to notice and user their work. I'm sure there are counter examples, but that has been my experience.
Good call. I remember reading a review of Half-Life 2 Episode 2, where the reviewer described one puzzle where the objective is to get over the tilted bridge with the car. One of the coolest puzzles in the game, and the reviewer described the solution. Definitely an unwelcome spoiler for me.
My understanding of cancer (IANAO and I may not entirely know what I'm talking about here) is that there is no "mechanism" as such -- it's simply uncontrolled cell growth. Generally it occurs when a cell's genes that limit its growth or cause apoptosis get corrupted.
And just how to you propose to regulate, police and enforce the production of Linux distributions?
Persuasion? Maybe by arguing in well-respected (*cough*) internet forum like /.?
Seriously, I do find all this complaining about people stating opinions about where free software is going wrong rather precious. If you don't like the opinion expressed, you're free to argue back or ignore it.
Those are a few of the inventions that have come from fundamental research into a new type of catalytic antimicrobial. It can be incorporated into just about any type of polymer, which means it can be put into just about any kind of implant. We're now working with a company that will apply our technology to ceramic and metal implants. The dental sealants are scheduled for worldwide release on May 1st of this year. I'd suggest you get in line by April.
That actually sounds quite interesting. I'm a bit sceptical but I'll see what the science says :)
Show me the model that tells me what the average global temperature is going to be next year given X carbon output, and whatever other variables, and we'll see. I haven't seen it. If you can find it, it will convince me.
Sorry, my answer wasn't very helpful. For a retrospective prediction, see Hansen's 1988 prediction. I think the graph is quite impressive (he predicted Scenario B as the most plausible, but see the remarks in the article about the effect of Pinatubo).
That's still off by at least an order of magnitude. The earth is something like 4.5 billion years old and ice age cycles are something like 100,000 years in duration.
Aren't you contradicting yourself there? If you don't think our temperature records are accurate, how can you have confidence in our knowledge about ice ages?
I have a BIG problem with people saying "(hot|cold)est year on record" when accurate records just do not go very far back.
These things have to be qualified of course. A proper scientist will say something like "hottest century in the last 1,000 years". And "accurate" is a relative term; with any physical system, you never have perfect measurements. You have to do the maths and work out what results you can get from them and how confident you can be in those results. And the maths has been done, and the answer is "confident enough".
My computer has a display problem (never buy a Mac Mini, they suck), and I didn't catch the error, I meant to say 10000.
10,000 is just as arbitrary a figure as 1,000. If it went back 10,000 years, you'd insist on 20,000 years, or 100,000. You haven't looked at the models and worked out how many years of data we need to get decent figures out.
The overwhelming majority of climatologists say whatever they need to to get funding.
Any evidence for this or just random abuse?
I can't imagine that they get much money from private companies.
Nope, they spend it on lobbyists instead.
Taking an unpopular position risks becoming an outcast.
But on the other hand, if you're proved right you get the glory. It's not always perfect, but the scientific process gets there in the end. It's possible that someone will figure out that all the models are wrong, and if their sums are correct, they *will* get published. It's just highly unlikely by now, and getting more unlikely as time goes on.
You can't make that argument with the vast majority of experiments, only the ones that have n=1.
It's obviously not ideal. An extra Earth or 20 would be nice to check the models against. But we only have one, so do you believe the best models our best experts can produce, or just take a random position?
Show me the model that tells me what the average global temperature is going to be next year given X carbon output, and whatever other variables, and we'll see. I haven't seen it. If you can find it, it will convince me.
Sorry, don't know. I've read a little of the literature, but not enough to be that specific. I suspect that 1 year predictions wouldn't be that good, and you'd be better off looking at at least 10 year predictions.
I can't be convinced by conceited bluster. The scientific establishment has been wrong or stuck in their ways too many times to put total faith in it.
I disagree. Individual scientists often make cock ups, but science as a whole generally gets it right. There have been a few mistakes, true. A little scepticism is good, particularly with new theories, but who else are you going to believe?
the idea of trying to definitively say that man causes global warming seems like trying to repair a car engine while driving down the highway, or like doing major surgery on yourself in the middle of a triathlon.
No one said it was easy.
If you actually want to convince someone, appeal to their logic or their emotions. You have attempted to appeal to logic while simultaneously personally insulting the person you would convince. This does not work, unless your opponent can calm down enough to see what is happening, which I wasn't until just now. In fact, I don't think you wanted to convince anyone but yourself, with that little flamefest of yours.
Yes, I admit it. I wasn't trying to convince you; I didn't think there was any hope of a rational argument with someone who declared that "Seriously, any scientist who tells you that humans cause global warming, or says that the current warming trend isn't part of a natural cycle isn't acting like a scientist". I do find these unjustified attacks on groups of professionals (and by implication, practically science itself) offensive, so no apologies for teh flaming.
Dendrochronology only goes back a few hundred years, a thousand at most, while ice cores only record climate at the poles, assuming you can derive significant climactic information in that manner (not a geoscientist). Give me a time period of 1000 years, and we'll talk.
So you say dendrochronology goes back a thousand years, and you want something that will give you a record of 1,000 years? Yes, I can see why you might fantasise about yourself as a scientist -- you're clearly not a mathematician.
Just because political appointees say that humans cause global warming doesn't make it so. There is room for discussion.
Oh good grief. It doesn't matter what any political appointees say, it's the overwhelming majority of experts in climatology that are persuasive.
Whatever you say, troll boy. Let me know what you think next time you have a family member not die from an infected catheter, or when you never get cavities or other tooth decay again because of my anti-microbial sealant, or when your girlfriend doesn't get cancer from her breast implants..
Ha ha ha ha. Oh, you're one of those. Sorry to break it to you, but Mickey-mouse inventions aren't science. I suppose you've got a mail-order PhD and a few vanity-published papers.
I've had lots of family members not die from infected catheters, and my girlfriend doesn't have breast implants. As for tooth decay, well I'll look forward to seeing it eradicated from the world by a "sealant". I wait with bated breath...
You can, but you can easily manipulate those conclusions to fit with your pre-conceived world view. When there isn't enough data, you can't even tell when you yourself are being biased, much less when someone else is.
You could make that argument against any conclusion you don't like. The sums have been done, and the peer-reviewed conclusion from thousands of man-years of research is that there is enough data and that it is conclusive. I believe in the scientific method.
There's not enough data to draw real conclusions on global warming. The only thing we can do is build models and see if they predict the future. If we manage to make one that gets it right more than 50% of the time, then we can look at hte variables and
see if it's humanity's fault or not.
We do have models that seem to be predicting the future quite well. But you don't even need to predict the future to be confident in your conclusions. If you have a known model and no other serious explanation for your measurements, you can be pretty confident.
OK, bored now. You wouldn't be convinced by any intelligent argument.
And we have detailed records of temperature worldwide for how far back?
Quite far back. Read up on dendrochronology, ice cores, etc.
Seriously, any scientist who tells you that humans cause global warming, or says that the current warming trend isn't part of a natural cycle isn't acting like a scientist.
Absolute bollocks. And I speak as a scientist.
What we have here is a single, highly complex system.
Yes!
No controls, with n=1.
True.
If I tried to do an experiment under such circumstances, I'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community when I reported my results.
Probably true, if this is an example of your critical thinking skills.
The fact is that without controls, and without multiple subjects, you can't say ANYTHING for sure.
You can't say anything for sure even with multiple subjects and controls, but you can often draw some pretty convincing conclusions.
All you can do is report your observations.
Entirely wrong. I don't think I've ever read a scientific paper that didn't have a conclusions section.
We don't even have good observations going back 100 years, much less a thousand or a hundred thousand or a hundred million.
False, see above.
How is anyone supposed to draw conclusions from what is essentially a single data point?
We have vast amounts of data about the climate. Or are you seriously trying to argue that we can't draw conclusions because we only have one Earth? If so, presumably you think we can't infer anything about the Big Bang because there was only one of them.
IAAS (I am a scientist).
I'm a scientist. You're a fantasist if you're not a troll.
Maybe there's some sort of "natural cycle" where the sun sometimes shines on the car, and sometimes doesn't. Certainly the sun couldn't be causing it, it's so far away!
Of course, that could be happening. It's a reasonable hypothesis. The problem is that the evidence shows that it's wrong. I take it you didn't read the paper I linked to.
I have a problem with ALL of them at this point, the simply don't include enough data points or enough processes in their analysis.
Which processes do you think that are missing should be included? And what data points do you think are missing, and how many do you think would be enough to believe the models? Sorry, but if you'll have to provide specific data if you want me to believe you rather than the enormous body of scientific literature that points in the other direction. Extraordinary claims require evidence.
To take those results and claim that the sky is falling and that we are all doomed is foolhardy and sensationalist, it does no one any good least of all the reputation of climatologists.
But what if the sky *is* falling? The climatologists aren't claiming we're all doomed, but they are saying we're heading for a catastrophic fuck-up.
Would you believe a doctor if he said you had cancer, or would you call him a doomsayer?
Guess what the latest photos of the Sun show - NO sunspots.
Temperatures have also been going down, not up recently.
I tie an onion to my belt loop and I have never had piles.
Analogy time. If you're trying to optimize code for speed you want to work on the region of code where you're spending the most time in already. It's the same as with temperature on the earth. The biggest input is the Sun. If the Sun cools down, as it apparently does periodically (periodic ice ages are fairly well documented and proven), then things get colder.
If one was *really* concerned about Global Warming, one would want a thermostat applied to the Sun. No one has suggested that.
Sorry to break it to you, but you are not the first to consider this. This has been well studied, and the conclusion is that whilst the sun may well have some effect on the climate, it hasn't had a significant effect on the global warming phenomenon. Here's a link to a Nature paper, if you want to read the research:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
I'll leave it to someone else to provide a car analogy.
OK, you're in a car with a group of friends and it's getting uncomfortably hot. Some of you say the extra heat is because of the running engine, others say the sun is producing more heat. One of your friends has a PhD in physics, does the sums and works out the extra heat is from the engine, and also points out that the weather hasn't changed. Another friend suggests that whilst working out the cause is interesting, the solution is the same: opening a window. SL Baur decides not to believe in the science, decides against opening a window, and suggests trying to apply a thermostat to the sun instead.
For every scientist that says "WE'RE ALL DOOMED!" another one says "Erm... No we're not." Just like "video games causes violent behaviour" and "video games don't cause violent behaviour".
Scientists generally don't say "WE'RE ALL DOOMED!", though the media sometimes spin it that way. Also, if you think scientists are equally split on the issue of climate change, you are sadly deluded.
It's also very hard to take to any talk of global warming that seriously when a large chunk of the northern hemisphere is freezing its ass off.
Please look up the difference between "climate" and "weather".
Then there's the United Kingdom. The Roman's used to grow grapes there. Now if people grew grapes there today folk would say "Look, global warming! There's your proof." Only this occurred hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution...
Grapes have been grown in the UK for hundreds of years, and they are grown there now. Except historically they were grown in the south of England, and now they are being grown in Wales. Global warming is making wine making more viable in the UK.
I think we are getting to much the same thing with climate models, they put in their handful of datapoints and tweak the model till it conforms then they run it for x years in the future and claim that is somehow a prediction for future conditions.
Since you've just slammed an enormous body of scientific research, and slandered the reputation of a huge number of experts in climatology, perhaps you'd at least like to say which models you have issues with and what you think is wrong with them?
If one of my writing students had created that headline, I'd have flunked him.
"...claimed not superior to..."?
I consider myself an excellent technical writer with several published papers to my name, and I don't see anything wrong that headline. What aspect of it are you objecting to?
I've purchased games I wanted through Steam instead of pirating them simply because it was easier to get it through Steam.
Yep, absolutely. Consider the differences:
1) Buy a hard copy of the game. Inconveniences: Finding a shop with the game, paying for the game, storing the media, working around or submitting to the DRM, inputting CD keys, downloading updates
2) Pirate the game. Inconveniences: trying to find it (e.g. a torrent), downloading it, possibly installing cracks or using some weird version, probably missing some content, risking malware, keeping track of the downloaded data
3) Steam it. Inconveniences: paying for it, downloading it
Convenience to me is Steam > Pirate > Buy a hard copy. (As a student when I could hardly afford games, piracy would have been a bit higher; now that's much less of an issue, and the convenience is worth the cash).
I was sceptical of Steam at first, but it actually seems to work very well. If I do have a complaint, it's that games are a bit expensive. If they were cheaper, I'd buy more and they'd probably make more more money overall. If they do get around to sorting out a Linux client and getting some native games on it I will spontaneously ejaculate.
That's not what I understand to be functional programming. The basic rule of functional programming is "no side effects", so the same input(s) will always produce the same output. Or, to put it another way, a function doesn't maintain state between invocations. This isn't incompatible with loops. For example, you could write a function to calculate the fibonacci series up to n which internally used a loop, and still call it functional.
I'm sorry, but heroin is not on the same level as oral opium or even smoking opium
Why do you say that? Heroin is a bit more potent than opium, but their effects are pretty much the same. See this paper:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PHYSIOLOGICAL AND SUBJECTIVE EFFECTS OF HEROIN AND MORPHINE ADMINISTERED INTRAVENOUSLY IN POSTADDICTS
I grabbed the pirate version but didn't install it
Is that the equivalent of not inhaling? :)
Now I am wondering which ISP to move to. Obviously anyone with Phorm is right out (BT, for instance), as is anyone with a strict download cap. Any suggestions?
How strict is strict?
I've found the UK Free Software Network, UKFSN, to be pretty good provided you can mostly sort your own techy problems out. Plus they're specifically anti-Phorm and all profits go towards funding Free Software, if you like that sort of thing.
A true environmentalist SHOULD be skeptical about a body of law explicitly allowing developing nations to pollute. This is an incredibly stupid thing to do, because there is not in fact any real benefit to it.
Developing nations produce far less CO2 per capita than develolped countries. Why shouldn't they be allowed to increase their CO2 output a little?
That's great, and I'm sure there is an effect. But any visible measures being taken today are mostly at the individual consumer level... cutting vehicle emissions 20% will reduce total carbon release, what, 1%? It's probably not even measurable.
On the other hand, even a 1% reduction would help, it would improve air quality locally, and save everyone money.
On a similar note, I was talking to my girlfriend (who was at home) on IM and she hadn't responded for a while, so I ssh'd to my box and executed "beep; beep; beep" a few times. Scared her a lot, but it almost backfired: she nearly pulled the plug out of the machine, thinking it was about to explode. Luckily she decided to call me instead :)
"beep" by the way is a very handy app, and my contribution to this discussion. I know there are a few ways to activate the speaker, but it's handy to just have a command for it.
E.g.: $ ./script-that-will-take-a-long-time-to-finish; beep
=> will beep when the script completes.
And then there's the explanation for it, involving mosquitos trapped in amber, frog DNA spliced in, and all the rest, which is simply ridiculous.
Why is that so ridiculous? I think it's a really good idea. We know it wouldn't work because of how fast DNA degrades, but IMO you're allowed a certain amount of "what-if" in sci fi, particularly in the central idea. Maybe he should have left out the "filling in the blanks with frog DNA" bit (wasn't it crocodile DNA?) and either assumed it was complete, or said it was completed with genetic engineering, or something. It's better than ignoring it -- it would have been a gaping plot hole much bigger than the many others in the book.