I beg your pardon, phantomfive, you are in fact my interlocutor. I should perhaps not have given you such short shrift, but that impertinence (in both senses of the word) was calculated to stop me reading another line. However since we are apparently in conversation...
As you your point three, there are 2 lines of evidence, both of which are fairly convincing on their own. Firstly there is the carbon audit (for and interesting discussion see the beginning of this talk. Secondly, there is the isotopic smoking gun (ie C12/C13 ratios), which demonstrate that the increase in C02 concentration is largely the result of the combustion of biogenic (ie. land clearing and fossil fuels) sources. As I have to run, I'll leave it to you to pursue that yourself.
I know this might be a bit far out there, but a) you did qualify with a big "if", and b) there may be (and I don't know being unilingual, and sometimes I'm not so good in that language, either) a colloquialism or idiom in Russian that translates poorly into English.
Not being monolingual and being accutely aware of how badly Google translation munges stuff I wrote (in the message you are responding to) "insofar as the Google translation is correct." Apparently you missed that.
Basically, you said, "if I'm right, I'm right, no?"... But that's just a strawman
Had I "basically" written that, I did not, it would be a tautology, not a strawman.
Then again, even should we grant you the big assumption...
Which big assumption?
you're tearing down their argument based on an interesting combination of ad hominem
I agree with you my objection to Mr Delingpole (or Ms Divine from the SMH) is ad hominem. But allow me to explain. There are some authors attached to (semi-)reputable journals such as the Telegraph, and other's I may read from time to time, whose work has proven to be so scandalously poor that I have made a conscious decision never to reward them with clicks. This is my right. When Delingpole's page came up I felt violated.
...and appeal to authority ("orthodox scientists").
Here I cannot agree, what I wrote was not an appeal to authority and your saying so leads me to question whether you understand the fallacy you are citing.
Moreover, while argumentum ad verecundiam might strictly speaking be a lgoical fallacy, ie. X is not True because A says so, Science is, as I am constantly reminding people, largely based on authority. ie. A is more likely than I to know whether X is True or not. Authority tells me that cars can hurt human bodies, as a result I avoid walking in front of them.
Secondly a statement implying that scientific orthodoxy accepts AGW as highly likely, is in no way an appeal to authority, it is a simple statement of fact.
Sure, wouldn't it be great if there were a peer reviewed article somewhere that also looked at the Siberian data to see if it was accurate?
You won't have to wait long, in press now... Esper J, Frank DC, Büntgen U, Verstege A, Hantemirov RM, Kirdyanov AV, 'Trends and uncertainties in Siberian indicators of 20th century warming'. Global Change Biology.
Now, I'm not saying global warming is a hoax, but...
Great! I don't have to write you off as a nutty conspiracy theorist then.;)
I agree that that quote doesn't paint Dr Jones in a good light, but I there are two things I would point out.
Firstly, in context the quote seems less evil, though I agree, still not what one would hope for from a peer reviewer. Jones is responding to an email asking whether he had seen "this piece of crap by Esper" (an earlier "piece of crap" that is, not the one cited above). It appears that both scientists in this conversation genuinely think the paper is not good. Quoting from the same email just above your quote:
Jan [Esper] doesn't always take in what is in the literature even though he purports to read it. He's now looking at homogenization techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as well.
Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren't that close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature varies an awful lot from year to year.
Recently rejected two papers...
Similarly, it is just possible that Jones genuinely believed that the papers he rejected were not worthy of publication. That's actually how peer review works.
Secondly, even being less generous to Jones, --and it is undoubtedly bad luck to draw the chief of the institute whose work you are criticising as one of your reviewers or stupidity for submitting it to a journal where they are on the review board, take your pick -- Science, and the peer review process, is bigger than one biased reviewer (or even a nest of biased reviewers). As the publication of the Esper paper I cited above demonstrates.
... if anyone comes up arguing from an appeal to authority instead of an appeal to evidence...
Nice to have the luxury of expertise and time to examine all the evidence, but in practice Science relies largely on authority. I cannot spend years arguing or denying that the floating point processor on this box works as it should. I take it on authority from Intel engineers, and if another expert can come out and conclusively demonstrate that it doesn't, I expect them to fix it. Well actually that's not true, this is an AMD...:?
Because I can explain special relativity in terms simple enough that anyone can understand, and climate science is no more complex than that.
I think you are wrong. It's way more complex and far less certain. Unfortunately the uninformed denialism (as opposed to the informed skepticism of your Lindzen's and Pielke's) has somewhat masked the uncertainties, as climatologists are constantly led to defend the relative certainties.
He links to the original Russian story. He's just reporting what the Russian experts say.
On what basis do you accept that this site is the work of Russian "experts?"
I think you need to excercise a modicum of scepticism. Their description, insofar as the Google translation is correct, of orthodox scientists, (whether they are correct or not), as "proposed supporters of climate alarmism" ought to ring the warning bells, no?
I don't think that that is the way science works. You don't get to declare a default positions based on intuition alone (the important word being alone).
(note that this is only a minor nitpick about your use of the phrase "scientific default position which I think is incorrect)
Indeed, where there is not already a strong body of evidence, the "scientific default position" (aka null hypothesis) would have to be there is no difference.
IN OTHER NEWS... Conroy announces Net Filtering legislation will introduced in Parliament early next year, while everyone is distracted preparing submissions for an R18+ games classification.;)
We have had extreme violence in movies for years, there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release.
Can movies not cause "cathartic release?"
I would anticipate that the counter argument would run something like, "the significant difference is that with movies viewers are passive audience members, whereas with games, players are entrained as actors."
Yes, not matter what one thinks of Obama, he has at least given all Americans the winning line in arguments like this. (Or rather a majority of Americans gave it to themselves).
I'm certain porting between Obj C and C++ is faster then porting between Obj C and Java.
I really doubt that porting from C++ would give you much more joy than porting from Java. It's not the syntax of the language that is the problem, it's NextStep (or Cocoa, Cocoa Touch). True Cocoa Apps are supposed to obey the MVC model, but even in the controller most of the stuff you are working with is from NS frameworks. Frameworks which ObjC (but not Java or C++) specifically address.
And I'm not sure where you've got the "liberal" part from, since it wasn't in my OP.
Well the 'liberal' part usually goes with liberal-democratic, so as to distinguish it from "democratic" as it is used in the sense the "German Democratic Republic" or the "Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea," 'liberal,' in this context referring to the support of private property rights and markets.
That being said, I agree with you almost completely when you write:The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be. Though I would stress that limitations are imposed by whatever the terms of the "social contract" under which that government obtains its legitimacy may be. Practically this usually means it is subject to constitutional limitations as to legislative power.
Where I strongly agree is that the "role of a (liberal)-democratic government" is not what some particular citizen (or even some foreign "thinker") defines the role of government to be in their personal philosophy in opposition to the right of the majority to determine that role. A society must be free to chose a way to organise itself even at the expense of offending a particular citizen's ideological purity.
Now what I'm wondering is, how can I know what age someone I'm talking to is?
If they tell you they are 13 you are on notice.
Let's remember on the facts of this case 1) He was told by his interlocutor that she was a minor and 2) the conversations were of a sexual nature. Now I have not read the actual judgment, but it appears from TFA that what the court found was that neither an actual IRL encounter, nor the intent that such an encounter takes place at some time in the future are essential elements of this offence.
Moreover, since in the present case the accused agreed that the conversations were of a sexual nature, anything the court said about general non-sexual conversation with children (the subject of the \. post) is, strictly speaking, obiter.
Do they have to announce their age before I have to stop talking to them, or am I supposed to find other means?... I ask this because I know a lot of kids that sound more mature than a majority of the 'adults' I chat to online, although a few things give them away.
This, of course, depends on what the statute along the curial relevant curial authority in whichever particular jurisdicitions apply actually says. But I imagine that, almost universally, an element of such an offence must be that the accused has actual knowledge that they are communicating with a minor.
These practices all need to die. Do you want to understand me? Get to know me.
I had a psych lecturer who said: "I don't believe in the power of Astrology to fortell the future, but I do believe in the power of Astrology to influence the way others perceive you." So what he had done is "change" his star-sign every year so that people getting to know him one year would think him a Leo and react accordingly, people getting to know him the next would think him a Sagittarian etc etc.
IANAL doesnt apply to you then? Wow, i thought it applied to everyone on slashdot.
Yes, amongst other things, IAAL (nor the only one who reads here), but I can say IANAAL (last 'A' for American). And note that what I said it that it was the exact opposite of what I was taught at Law School. I would not presume to tell OP he is wrong in regard to in his own jurisdicition. But in my jurisidiction there are instances where an implied permission to enter property and premises will be presumed. For example, we are allowed to knock on people's doors (unless a sign explicitly negates the legal presumption of implied permission to enter), and where I live, we also have a Fire Service who regularly enter premises without the explicit permission of the occupiers and pull them out to safety (though they probably have, in addition, a statutory right to do so).
But getting back on topic, this isn't an actual housebreaking. It's a housebreaking HOWTO.
It's only an example of code that could be created by malicious persons.
Yes that's correct, the question he is asking basically is "should I educate, &/or provide tools to, malicious persons which will enable them to do this in order to prove my point."
Purpose is to show people that there is stupid "Linux is 100% secure" thinking among UNIX users and that security needs to be improved there too (or admins should run something like SELinux).
Yes. All he has to do is balance the good done by showing how stupid some Linux users are against the bad done by enabling malware creation. Which is what he's asking us, collectively, to do for him.
How do we know that AGW is happening? Oh yeah, we've got all this data that clearly supports it
.
Correct.
oh, wait, we don't. THEY(tm) won't let us see the raw data and have admitted that THEY(tm)'D rather delete it than reveal it. [emphasis added]
RTFA. Hint: it's about the public availability of the raw data. Out of the 3000+ climatologists who trying to commuinicate reality to your are you perhaps referring to one or two scientists working at a single research institute? Wouldn't you prefer to be reasonable?
Why do you think that is?
Dunno. Some people have the quaint notion of ownership over what they produce with their own labour? Any nubmer of reasons. If I were not sane I should probably believe it is evidence of some world-wide conspiracy to deceive the public about I don't know what. And I-don't-know-what, because being sane, I lack the requisite deliusional system to fill that in, but I'm sure you could help me out there.
All paranoia aside, CRU have agreed to publish all raw data, so we will be able to see if it is in agreement with the preponderance of evidence with unequivocably establishes AGW.
Now a question for you. Why do you choose to reject very clear science (and survival) in favour of denialist disinformation? Are you stupid? (You don't seem it). Batshit crazy? Ideologically predisposed to disbelieve Science? Just easily taken in by that kind of propaganda? What is your excuse for still not having come to terms with reality?
Well not enough of their raw data unfortunately. Which is why so much of the damn stuff still exists out there to corrupt the young! And now it's available on the internets!
So, you're saying, "Cut off funding for anyone who questions the official position that this is an urgent global crisis that demands massive government intervention"?
Say what?
I was saying tip the funding balance away from researching what we already know to be happening and towards fixing it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted he isn't referring to our two parties
My own explanation of your (US) parties as viewed from a distance ...
Republican: Someone who is constitutionally unable to tell the truth.
Democrat: A dissembling Republican.
I am definitely not stuck in a basement writing code.
Same here! I'm stuck on the 12th floor, writing code.
I beg your pardon, phantomfive, you are in fact my interlocutor. I should perhaps not have given you such short shrift, but that impertinence (in both senses of the word) was calculated to stop me reading another line. However since we are apparently in conversation ...
As you your point three, there are 2 lines of evidence, both of which are fairly convincing on their own. Firstly there is the carbon audit (for and interesting discussion see the beginning of this talk. Secondly, there is the isotopic smoking gun (ie C12/C13 ratios), which demonstrate that the increase in C02 concentration is largely the result of the combustion of biogenic (ie. land clearing and fossil fuels) sources. As I have to run, I'll leave it to you to pursue that yourself.
OK, let me explain to you simply the climate science behind global warming.
And you are ...? Permission denied.
I know this might be a bit far out there, but a) you did qualify with a big "if", and b) there may be (and I don't know being unilingual, and sometimes I'm not so good in that language, either) a colloquialism or idiom in Russian that translates poorly into English.
Not being monolingual and being accutely aware of how badly Google translation munges stuff I wrote (in the message you are responding to) "insofar as the Google translation is correct." Apparently you missed that.
Basically, you said, "if I'm right, I'm right, no?" ... But that's just a strawman
Had I "basically" written that, I did not, it would be a tautology, not a strawman.
Then again, even should we grant you the big assumption ...
Which big assumption?
you're tearing down their argument based on an interesting combination of ad hominem
I agree with you my objection to Mr Delingpole (or Ms Divine from the SMH) is ad hominem. But allow me to explain. There are some authors attached to (semi-)reputable journals such as the Telegraph, and other's I may read from time to time, whose work has proven to be so scandalously poor that I have made a conscious decision never to reward them with clicks. This is my right. When Delingpole's page came up I felt violated.
Here I cannot agree, what I wrote was not an appeal to authority and your saying so leads me to question whether you understand the fallacy you are citing.
Moreover, while argumentum ad verecundiam might strictly speaking be a lgoical fallacy, ie. X is not True because A says so, Science is, as I am constantly reminding people, largely based on authority. ie. A is more likely than I to know whether X is True or not. Authority tells me that cars can hurt human bodies, as a result I avoid walking in front of them.
Secondly a statement implying that scientific orthodoxy accepts AGW as highly likely, is in no way an appeal to authority, it is a simple statement of fact.
Sure, wouldn't it be great if there were a peer reviewed article somewhere that also looked at the Siberian data to see if it was accurate?
You won't have to wait long, in press now ... Esper J, Frank DC, Büntgen U, Verstege A, Hantemirov RM, Kirdyanov AV, 'Trends and uncertainties in Siberian indicators of 20th century warming'. Global Change Biology.
Now, I'm not saying global warming is a hoax, but ...
Great! I don't have to write you off as a nutty conspiracy theorist then. ;)
I agree that that quote doesn't paint Dr Jones in a good light, but I there are two things I would point out.
Firstly, in context the quote seems less evil, though I agree, still not what one would hope for from a peer reviewer. Jones is responding to an email asking whether he had seen "this piece of crap by Esper" (an earlier "piece of crap" that is, not the one cited above). It appears that both scientists in this conversation genuinely think the paper is not good. Quoting from the same email just above your quote:
Jan [Esper] doesn't always take in what is in the literature even though he purports to read it. He's now looking at homogenization techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as well. Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren't that close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature varies an awful lot from year to year. Recently rejected two papers ...
Similarly, it is just possible that Jones genuinely believed that the papers he rejected were not worthy of publication. That's actually how peer review works.
Secondly, even being less generous to Jones, --and it is undoubtedly bad luck to draw the chief of the institute whose work you are criticising as one of your reviewers or stupidity for submitting it to a journal where they are on the review board, take your pick -- Science, and the peer review process, is bigger than one biased reviewer (or even a nest of biased reviewers). As the publication of the Esper paper I cited above demonstrates.
Nice to have the luxury of expertise and time to examine all the evidence, but in practice Science relies largely on authority. I cannot spend years arguing or denying that the floating point processor on this box works as it should. I take it on authority from Intel engineers, and if another expert can come out and conclusively demonstrate that it doesn't, I expect them to fix it. Well actually that's not true, this is an AMD ... :?
Because I can explain special relativity in terms simple enough that anyone can understand, and climate science is no more complex than that.
I think you are wrong. It's way more complex and far less certain. Unfortunately the uninformed denialism (as opposed to the informed skepticism of your Lindzen's and Pielke's) has somewhat masked the uncertainties, as climatologists are constantly led to defend the relative certainties.
If you'd bothered to read past the byline
I would have loved to, but the window closed the moment I saw the guy's name. :) So thanks for the link.
He links to the original Russian story. He's just reporting what the Russian experts say.
On what basis do you accept that this site is the work of Russian "experts?"
I think you need to excercise a modicum of scepticism. Their description, insofar as the Google translation is correct, of orthodox scientists, (whether they are correct or not), as "proposed supporters of climate alarmism" ought to ring the warning bells, no?
Oh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph ...
Yes as soon as I saw the TFA, my first reaction was, "isn't there any more reliable source from this other than James Delingpole?"
So if is there any reputable source that is publishing a story about this, could a link please be posted in the original submission.
I don't think that that is the way science works. You don't get to declare a default positions based on intuition alone (the important word being alone).
(note that this is only a minor nitpick about your use of the phrase "scientific default position which I think is incorrect)
Indeed, where there is not already a strong body of evidence, the "scientific default position" (aka null hypothesis) would have to be there is no difference.
IN OTHER NEWS ... Conroy announces Net Filtering legislation will introduced in Parliament early next year, while everyone is distracted preparing submissions for an R18+ games classification. ;)
We have had extreme violence in movies for years, there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release.
Can movies not cause "cathartic release?"
I would anticipate that the counter argument would run something like, "the significant difference is that with movies viewers are passive audience members, whereas with games, players are entrained as actors."
Have you looked at our president this year?
Yes, not matter what one thinks of Obama, he has at least given all Americans the winning line in arguments like this. (Or rather a majority of Americans gave it to themselves).
I'm certain porting between Obj C and C++ is faster then porting between Obj C and Java.
I really doubt that porting from C++ would give you much more joy than porting from Java. It's not the syntax of the language that is the problem, it's NextStep (or Cocoa, Cocoa Touch). True Cocoa Apps are supposed to obey the MVC model, but even in the controller most of the stuff you are working with is from NS frameworks. Frameworks which ObjC (but not Java or C++) specifically address.
iPhone apps are written in Objective C, Android Apps are written in Java with a completely different runtime library.
Android has been able to use apps written in C++ since 1.5 and that was two releases ago ...
Relevance?
Being an anti-astroturf PR pro is altogether more comfortable.
Yeah, you get promoted to serving burgers at the golden arches.
And I'm not sure where you've got the "liberal" part from, since it wasn't in my OP.
Well the 'liberal' part usually goes with liberal-democratic, so as to distinguish it from "democratic" as it is used in the sense the "German Democratic Republic" or the "Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea," 'liberal,' in this context referring to the support of private property rights and markets.
That being said, I agree with you almost completely when you write:The role of a democratic government is precisely what the voting citizens define it to be. Though I would stress that limitations are imposed by whatever the terms of the "social contract" under which that government obtains its legitimacy may be. Practically this usually means it is subject to constitutional limitations as to legislative power.
Where I strongly agree is that the "role of a (liberal)-democratic government" is not what some particular citizen (or even some foreign "thinker") defines the role of government to be in their personal philosophy in opposition to the right of the majority to determine that role. A society must be free to chose a way to organise itself even at the expense of offending a particular citizen's ideological purity.
Now what I'm wondering is, how can I know what age someone I'm talking to is?
If they tell you they are 13 you are on notice.
Let's remember on the facts of this case 1) He was told by his interlocutor that she was a minor and 2) the conversations were of a sexual nature. Now I have not read the actual judgment, but it appears from TFA that what the court found was that neither an actual IRL encounter, nor the intent that such an encounter takes place at some time in the future are essential elements of this offence.
Moreover, since in the present case the accused agreed that the conversations were of a sexual nature, anything the court said about general non-sexual conversation with children (the subject of the \. post) is, strictly speaking, obiter.
Do they have to announce their age before I have to stop talking to them, or am I supposed to find other means? ... I ask this because I know a lot of kids that sound more mature than a majority of the 'adults' I chat to online, although a few things give them away.
This, of course, depends on what the statute along the curial relevant curial authority in whichever particular jurisdicitions apply actually says. But I imagine that, almost universally, an element of such an offence must be that the accused has actual knowledge that they are communicating with a minor.
These practices all need to die. Do you want to understand me? Get to know me.
I had a psych lecturer who said: "I don't believe in the power of Astrology to fortell the future, but I do believe in the power of Astrology to influence the way others perceive you." So what he had done is "change" his star-sign every year so that people getting to know him one year would think him a Leo and react accordingly, people getting to know him the next would think him a Sagittarian etc etc.
IANAL doesnt apply to you then? Wow, i thought it applied to everyone on slashdot.
Yes, amongst other things, IAAL (nor the only one who reads here), but I can say IANAAL (last 'A' for American). And note that what I said it that it was the exact opposite of what I was taught at Law School. I would not presume to tell OP he is wrong in regard to in his own jurisdicition. But in my jurisidiction there are instances where an implied permission to enter property and premises will be presumed. For example, we are allowed to knock on people's doors (unless a sign explicitly negates the legal presumption of implied permission to enter), and where I live, we also have a Fire Service who regularly enter premises without the explicit permission of the occupiers and pull them out to safety (though they probably have, in addition, a statutory right to do so).
But getting back on topic, this isn't an actual housebreaking. It's a housebreaking HOWTO.
There is no implied permission to enter private property, only explicit.
That is the exact opposite of what I was taught at Law School.
Negative. Unless I specifically give permission then you still cannot enter.
Surely implied permission will suffice in certain circumstances.
It's only an example of code that could be created by malicious persons.
Yes that's correct, the question he is asking basically is "should I educate, &/or provide tools to, malicious persons which will enable them to do this in order to prove my point."
Purpose is to show people that there is stupid "Linux is 100% secure" thinking among UNIX users and that security needs to be improved there too (or admins should run something like SELinux).
Yes. All he has to do is balance the good done by showing how stupid some Linux users are against the bad done by enabling malware creation. Which is what he's asking us, collectively, to do for him.
How do we know that AGW is happening? Oh yeah, we've got all this data that clearly supports it
.
Correct.
oh, wait, we don't. THEY(tm) won't let us see the raw data and have admitted that THEY(tm)'D rather delete it than reveal it. [emphasis added]
RTFA. Hint: it's about the public availability of the raw data. Out of the 3000+ climatologists who trying to commuinicate reality to your are you perhaps referring to one or two scientists working at a single research institute? Wouldn't you prefer to be reasonable?
Why do you think that is?
Dunno. Some people have the quaint notion of ownership over what they produce with their own labour? Any nubmer of reasons. If I were not sane I should probably believe it is evidence of some world-wide conspiracy to deceive the public about I don't know what. And I-don't-know-what, because being sane, I lack the requisite deliusional system to fill that in, but I'm sure you could help me out there.
All paranoia aside, CRU have agreed to publish all raw data, so we will be able to see if it is in agreement with the preponderance of evidence with unequivocably establishes AGW.
Now a question for you. Why do you choose to reject very clear science (and survival) in favour of denialist disinformation? Are you stupid? (You don't seem it). Batshit crazy? Ideologically predisposed to disbelieve Science? Just easily taken in by that kind of propaganda? What is your excuse for still not having come to terms with reality?
These scientists who discarded their raw data
Well not enough of their raw data unfortunately. Which is why so much of the damn stuff still exists out there to corrupt the young! And now it's available on the internets!
So, you're saying, "Cut off funding for anyone who questions the official position that this is an urgent global crisis that demands massive government intervention"?
Say what?
I was saying tip the funding balance away from researching what we already know to be happening and towards fixing it up.