I think the problem is that science has become emotional, politicized, and suppressed on BOTH sides of the aisle.
Both sides? Please have, even just a cursory, look at a good scientific abstracting service. You'll find there is no debate, there are no two sides of the aisle. The science is unambigious, the planet is warming. Moreover, I challenge you to find current papers published in a reputable peer-reviewd journal which pruport the notion that human activity is unrelated to the increasing atmopsheric C02, or that increasing atmospheric C02 is unrelated to the observed warming.
Before you comment on the emotionality, politicisation etc. of science, you should have some familiarity with that science. Since you are under the impression that there is something controversial here, it is clear that you are more familiar with the political rather than the scientific debate.
In the strictest sense of the term at least, it is not science (on either side). Science deals in that which is falsifiable, observable and repeatable. Climatology deals primarily in two things that are not falsifiable, observable, and repeatable
That's just argument by definition. Eg. lets define science as those disciplines whose name start with the letter 'D' and above; climatology starts with 'C', therefore climatology is not a science.
Science cannot be defined in terms of what is falisfiable, observable and repeatable, since that would a) exclude what is properly regarded as science (eg. much of modern physics proceeds mathematically not experimentally) and b) include that which isn't properly science (eg Astrology). I doubt you have studied science at a tertiary level and I'm pretty sure if you have, you haven't studied philosophy of science. As someone who has done both, take it from me (false appeal to authority), Karl Popper (and Falsificationism) is not the final word in defining science. It's a bit like "I know science when I see it, be damned if I can define it though." Climatology is most definitely science.
Beside which, the claims made in regard to greenhouse forcing are eminently falsifiable, since it is logically possible for global mean temperature to decrease with increasing atmospheric CO2. Similarly Climatology does deal with observables and, if you have a spare array processor lying about, you can repeat the modelling upon which predicitons are based for yourself.
The facts as I understand them suggest that the earth is getting warmer (since we do have evidence that it was colder recently), but that human activity is not responsible (since it is a very small emitter of only one of many greenhouse gases, and one of probable insignificance compared to the others).
Your understanding is flawed. Firstly we emitt more than one greenhouse gas, human activity causes at least NO2, CH4 and H20 vapour to be emitted in addition to CO2. Secondly some hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 cannot fairly be called a "very small" amount. Could you please let me know which "other" source emits as much, and explain why that source lay dormant until the industrial revolution?
The better view is that human activity has been a major contributor to increasing atmospheric CO2. To find any other view expressed, you will have to look outside the reputable scientific journals to find it. You would have to rely on something like the article under discussion, which despite appearances, and here I agree with you, is not science.
Even though I remain to be convinced that you are correct, thankyou for making a post with citations that I would actually bother to follow up and read.
According to page 66 of the 2001 compendium of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC)...
This is where I'm having problems, the IPCC's Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report which I downloaded only goes to page 34, and the IPCC report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, (Technical Summary of Working Group I Report), does not discuss these figures on p66. So if you could help me out and tell me which IPCC report you mean and (given their confusing page numbering system) perhaps which section it is being discussed under.
While I'll keep an open mind till I read the relevant section of the cited IPCC report, it seems at first gloss, that you may be confusing apples with oranges. What is described by the "greenhouse effect" is not how much irradiation is occuring, but how much is being trapped in the atmosphere upon reflection (though clearly the amount originally radiated will affect this). In other words, I'm not sure how you are relating levels of irradition (measure in power/area) , to the observed increases in temperature (measured simply as temperature).
Seems pretty clear to me that this is a political issue first and a scientific debate second.
You're absolutely right about that at least, the debate is political. If you defer to the currently accepted scientific view, you accept that global warming is happening and that anthropogenic causes are most likely a significant contributor. There really is no debate among scientists about these basics anymore. To find the debate, (and to find the denialists), you have to enter the poltical arena, where the clear science suddenly becomes a "controversial issue." It's pretty much the Evolution 'debate' all over.
whatever action we need to talk to 'fix' the environment has to be done slowly and careful, because our (humanity's) track record on this issue isn't stellar. Just look at the number of rabbits in Australia if you don't believe me.
I think your example is particularly poorly choosen. Surely mixy has proven a fairly good way to control rabbits, without other untoward ecological effects?! (You are not saying that rabbits were introduced as an ecological 'fix,' surely!)
You would make your point better by writing "... look at the number of cane toads in Australia..."
Still, it's pretty clear that the Pentateuch was originally written in Hebrew, and that the Greek and Latin (and Early Modern English) were derived from it
While that is true, the earliest complete copy (even of the Pentateuch let alone the entire OT) of the Hebrew we have, dates from around the year 1000, whereas the Septuagint (ie the original Greek translation), dates from somewhere in the first three centuries before Christ.
By comparing passages from ancient Hebrew texts (dead sea scrolls) we can see that occasionally at least the Greek is a more accurate rendition than the Masoretic text. In this particular instance, of course, it would pay to know what the Hebrew as well as the Greek say.
In any case, whether your translation says 'kill' or 'murder,' and indeed whether the same distinction between ratsah and harag was drawn in classical biblical Hebrew as it is in modern Hebrew, it is clear from context (ie. because the Pentateuch so often prescribes a capital sentence for transgressions and because YHVH commanded His people to exterminate the indigenous people of Canaan), that the commandment only has unlawful killing in mind and not killing per se.
>Yet he has no training in climatology.
This is also false. Climatology is also actually a multidisciplanarian field; relying in part on the disciplines of anthropology and biology for gathering its evidence.
From which it does not follow that anyone trained in biology or anthropology can automatically claim to "have training in climatology." OP is quite correct in stating that Crighton has no training in climatology.
There is no authority in science. Only data.
That is naive on two levels, firstly intepretation of data is not either uncontroversial or a matter of individual preference. Authority in Science consists mainly of the outcomes of debates conducted in scholarly journals, and unlike debates conducted in other fields (such as politics) these debates do yield definitive outcomes. Unless you can bring some original work as a conference or journal paper challenging that authority, you are in no position (scientifically) to disagree.
Secondly, data does not exist in isolation from scientific authority. What is measured, or what measurement even means are themselves subject to the scientific authority of the day.
The sad fact is, much as we like to think we can be knowledgible about absolutely everything, in reality we are not expert scientists, jurists, philosophers or whatever, and most of what we (as non-experts) have to say is just so much junk. This is why I no longer argue the science of GW with anyone, I tell them to go find a good scientific abstracting service.
Any high school student has the right challange my assertions that gravity is an accelerative force. In fact, I demand that my students make every attempt to gather data on their own in order to disprove the allegation.
Call me old-fashioned (I am), but I think you are doing your students a disservice by importing this kind of liberalism into science. This kind of attitude is the reason so many people have a difficulty with scientific authority. This is why people think they are entitled to draw their own conclusions in regard to topics like GW. But in assuming they have the wherewithall to draw any sensible conclusion, they are deceiving themselves. I know this is a big call, but the only conclusions the lay public should entertain are conclusions drawn by experts in the field, who have both the knowledge and the analytical ability to do so.
When I did my science degree I was basically told to shut up and learn, anything I could say while I was still an undergraduate not conducting original work, would simply be impertinent. Tough, illiberal, but basically true.
You have eliminated almost the entire field of climatology in one swell foop
Now this is the point where I tell you to find a good scientific abstracting service...
A LOT of people cite the movie, and even propose legislation based on it.
Well I haven't seen the movie, so I won't comment on how accurately it reflects the underlying science, but these people would make their point better (from a scientific point of view, perhaps using the movie scores better in the political arena), if they simply cited the published research which the movie claims to portray. I mean there is such an abundance of good scientific work to cite from here, that you don't need to cite a doco, or a piece of fiction. Only the denialists need to resort to tactics like that, surely.
What do the opinions of the editorial staff of unnamed periodicals have to do with demonstrating facts?
I'm wondering whether you are responding the the wrong post here? Who said anything about the "the opinions of the editorial staff of unamed periodicals"? I might suspect that you have no idea of what a peer reviewed journal actually is, but it would be ungenerous to presume so great a level of ignorance on your part.
Is your stance that certain unidentified editors and or publishers are infallible judges of truth.
Clearly not! And nothing I said could possibly be intepreted that way by anyone of sound mind. Again I must presume that you are responding to the wrong post.
Why don't you name those individuals so that we could worship them?
Come again?
What a ridiculous superstition grips your medieval mind
How very post-modern of you to refer to Science as a "superstititon!"
As far as describing my, or anyone else's, mind as "medieval," that is a pure ad hominem, and given the very large target you make in that regard, that is probably not a window you would want to open.
and to be honest the second one did look like it was run by some kooky Mormons...
Yup the first one is incredibly deceptive at first glance, and then when you look around its like....ohmigod what planet have I landed on?!
I never said, nor do I belive that a huge nuclear exchange would not have a global affect on weather - only that the original nuclear winter scenarios touted by Carl Sagan were hugely overblown, and the affects would not be quite so prolonged.
Actually I agree with you. Also as far as I'm concerned the mere mention of the name Carl Sagan (or on the other side of the fence Michael Crichton), is enought to cast doubt on most any claim.:P I note that most of Sagan's writings on this issue appeared in fora other than science journals.
After Googling more, I see that (of course!) politics have gotten into this debate.
Yes, Americans especially (it seems to this non-American, sorry if this is mere prejudice) have a tendency to politicise what should be strictly scientific issues. Indeed that was precisely why I flew off the handle when you cited political sources to disprove a scientific hypothesis. Sorry 'bout that, I've calmed down now.
I must have missed when someone on this thread supported the idea of nuclear winter with a peer-reviewed scientific article.
Probably because there is some general acceptance of the idea. But that wasn't my point anyway, my point was citing disreputable sources does nothing to bolster one's arguments.
In any case that deficiency is easily addressed:
Turco RP, Toon OB, Ackerman TP, Pollack JB, Sagan C (1983) 'Nuclear winter: global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions', Science 222:1283-1292
Covey C (1987) 'Protracted climatic effects of massive smoke injections into the atmosphere', Nature 325:701-703
Warner F, and collaborators (1987) 'Severe global-scale effects of nuclear war reaffirmed', Environment 29:4-5 & 45
A B Pittock, K Walsh and J S Frederiksen (1989) 'General circulation model simulation of mild nuclear winter effects', Climate Dynamics Vol 3 No 4 pp 191-206
If on the other hand you want something that doesn't necessarily support the idea (at least not to the extent proposed by Turco et al, here a review of the literature that forms the chapter of a book:
William A. Kerr (1999), 'Nuclear winter, possible environmental effects', in Environmental Geology, Springer Verlag, p448-449
From the abstract to that chapter:
While the environmental effects of nuclear war were discussed in the 1970s (National Academy of Sciences, 1975) and early 1980s (Crutzen and Birks, 1982), the concept of 'nuclear winter' stems from the work of Turco et al. (1983) popularized by Sagan (1983). While the theory's main premises are generally accepted, there has been considerable debate regarding the assumptions for and sophistication of the underlying models used to predict climatic change (see for example Covey et al., 1984; Teller, 1984; Robock, 1984; Penner, 1986; Sagan and Turco, 1991).
I believe the nuclear winter scnenario as you describe it has long been disproven.
If it has neither of the references you provide demonstrate that fact. They are not to peer reviewed articles in scholarly scientific journals, not do they even reference such articles. Instead both are right-wing extremist propaganda sites which deal exclusively in disinformation.
Please note, this does not mean that I personally accept nor endorse the nuclear winter scenario. My point rather, is that you would be more pursuasive if you brought scientific arguments to the table rather than extremist political ideology. In fact, seeing that these particular sites deny the reality of 'nuclear winter,' I might have to review my long-standing scepticism toward the scenario.
Anyone who needs evidence science is an inexact science need only remember Carl Sagan and his wrong prediction...
Sagan's prediction was hardly science. It was merely something a scientist said more or less on the spur of the moment. This is to be contrasted with the debate between scientists as researched and published in peer-reviewed journals. Global Warming is a good example of how science actually works, disputes about the reliability of the historical temperature record were raised by scientists disputing the reality of warming. Others went back, assessed the criticims and where they were valid worked out methods by which the problems that were raised could be accounted for and solved. As a result of at least two decades of intensive work on this (not a general spur of the moment prediction), we now know that the planet is indeed warming.
That is not to say, that such science is infallible. There is much that is still to be learned about climate and models can only incorporate current knowledge. Until recently, for example, it was believed that soil re-uptake of C02 was much stronger than we now know it is. It is clear now that the models of warming have systematically underestimated the rate of warming and that we are seeing effects (such as the level of deglaciation), which were not expected to take place until decades from now.
In any case, the utterance of a single scientist (especially if this scientist is not an expert in the field), doth not a science make.
If you 'invest' in a book, make sure that it covers at least python 2.2... You don't want a 1.6x book which will leave you in the dark about new style classes, scoping rules etc. (ie. if you get the O'Reilly Learning Python book, make sure it is 2nd Ed.)
Having said that I'm going to totally contradict myself by pointing you in the direction of Instant Python. (Actually I'm warning you that this is out of date, it's just such a quick hand up that it's still worth a look at.) More generally a list of on-line python tutorials can be found here.
who would benefit by finding evidence for global warming
Exactly the same people who would benefit from finding evidence for gravity.
C'mon give it up already, no sane and informed person any longer denies that global warming is occuring, even the Bush Whitehouse now concedes a significant anthropogenic contribution. The conservative position at this point in time is that eliminating the use of fossil fuels would impact too greatly on the economy and we have to tech our way out of the problem (eg. sequestration) rather than cut consumption. Get with the program!
Well, guess what, there is no difference between a republic and a representative democracy, those are just different words for the same thing.
Yes exactly and have you noticed that the someone going into a tirade is invariably (well almost) a Republican? I'm sorry, but when I hear the words "The US is not a democracy but..." coming from the mouths of people who want to argue away the evidence of electoral fraud, my cynicism switch gets thrown.
Ah but you see we've managed to spin that one too. The US "is not a democracy," no, no, it is "a Republic founded on democratic principles." Being non-core, these democratic principles can (and should) be overridden if it is necessary to keep the government in safe hands during times like these when the US is threatened with imminent destruction from the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
While that may or may not be so (in point of fact pretexting appears to be 'standard practice'), it really doesn't answer the question. What would you (as a CEO) do? Presumably as the CEO you are not a professional investigator and (even if you had previously been one) you are not going to conduct the investigation personally. It's a question of management, not a quetion of investigatorial technique.
Unfortunately, Dunn's version of events is that she hired someone to obtain confidential phone records, she received and made use of the phone records but is now amazed after the event to find that they'd been unethical in getting them.
No, Dunn's version of events is that she told HP's General Counsels Office to investigate the matter and that she didn't know until a full month after the fateful board meeting that confidential phone records had been used, which she claims only to have found out from one of Perkins' emails.
Just because a journalist is "goes out of [his] way" to put both sides of a story doesn't mean he is actually being fair (and how fair was the previous piece)? After all we wouldn't want to loose access to that yacht we are writing a book about, would we?
What this person did is just totally inexcusable and they came out looking like a total dimwit on top of it.
What exactly die she do that was so wrong? She wanted to fix a leak and apparently went about it in the most proper way imaginable. From the article:
[Dunn] wanted to know the leaker's identity, but she would not supervise an investigation herself.
Dunn referred the matter to HP's general counsel. In turn, that office contracted out the investigation to security experts who recruited private investigators who then took the extraordinary step of spying on the phone records of all the directors (including Dunn), as well as journalists (including the CNET reporter).
How would you have proceeded agains the leaker? Wouldn't you have the right to assume that your general cousel would carry out your instructions in a lawful manner?
She claims not to have known until June this year that pretexting was being used. That claim is either true or it isn't. Given that the investigation was being conducted at an arm's length (well two arms actually), and that she herself was a victim of pretexting, I don't think this claim is entirely implausible. What evidence contradicts this claim?
Of course there's the question of whether she "intentionally avoided knowing about the details," or whether she is actually too busy to micromanage all the tasks she has delegated.
In any case the more one thinks about it (or reads beyong the headlines), the less "totally inexcusable" her behaviour appears. I'm not entirely convinced that the media scrutiny directed at her would be so intense if she were a he, but maybe it's just because the investigators made the mistake of pretexting journalists.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem is that science has become emotional, politicized, and suppressed on BOTH sides of the aisle.
Both sides? Please have, even just a cursory, look at a good scientific abstracting service. You'll find there is no debate, there are no two sides of the aisle. The science is unambigious, the planet is warming. Moreover, I challenge you to find current papers published in a reputable peer-reviewd journal which pruport the notion that human activity is unrelated to the increasing atmopsheric C02, or that increasing atmospheric C02 is unrelated to the observed warming.
Before you comment on the emotionality, politicisation etc. of science, you should have some familiarity with that science. Since you are under the impression that there is something controversial here, it is clear that you are more familiar with the political rather than the scientific debate.
In the strictest sense of the term at least, it is not science (on either side). Science deals in that which is falsifiable, observable and repeatable. Climatology deals primarily in two things that are not falsifiable, observable, and repeatable
That's just argument by definition. Eg. lets define science as those disciplines whose name start with the letter 'D' and above; climatology starts with 'C', therefore climatology is not a science.
Science cannot be defined in terms of what is falisfiable, observable and repeatable, since that would a) exclude what is properly regarded as science (eg. much of modern physics proceeds mathematically not experimentally) and b) include that which isn't properly science (eg Astrology). I doubt you have studied science at a tertiary level and I'm pretty sure if you have, you haven't studied philosophy of science. As someone who has done both, take it from me (false appeal to authority), Karl Popper (and Falsificationism) is not the final word in defining science. It's a bit like "I know science when I see it, be damned if I can define it though." Climatology is most definitely science.
Beside which, the claims made in regard to greenhouse forcing are eminently falsifiable, since it is logically possible for global mean temperature to decrease with increasing atmospheric CO2. Similarly Climatology does deal with observables and, if you have a spare array processor lying about, you can repeat the modelling upon which predicitons are based for yourself.
The facts as I understand them suggest that the earth is getting warmer (since we do have evidence that it was colder recently), but that human activity is not responsible (since it is a very small emitter of only one of many greenhouse gases, and one of probable insignificance compared to the others).
Your understanding is flawed. Firstly we emitt more than one greenhouse gas, human activity causes at least NO2, CH4 and H20 vapour to be emitted in addition to CO2. Secondly some hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 cannot fairly be called a "very small" amount. Could you please let me know which "other" source emits as much, and explain why that source lay dormant until the industrial revolution?
The better view is that human activity has been a major contributor to increasing atmospheric CO2. To find any other view expressed, you will have to look outside the reputable scientific journals to find it. You would have to rely on something like the article under discussion, which despite appearances, and here I agree with you, is not science.
Even though I remain to be convinced that you are correct, thankyou for making a post with citations that I would actually bother to follow up and read.
According to page 66 of the 2001 compendium of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) ...
This is where I'm having problems, the IPCC's Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report which I downloaded only goes to page 34, and the IPCC report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, (Technical Summary of Working Group I Report), does not discuss these figures on p66. So if you could help me out and tell me which IPCC report you mean and (given their confusing page numbering system) perhaps which section it is being discussed under.
While I'll keep an open mind till I read the relevant section of the cited IPCC report, it seems at first gloss, that you may be confusing apples with oranges. What is described by the "greenhouse effect" is not how much irradiation is occuring, but how much is being trapped in the atmosphere upon reflection (though clearly the amount originally radiated will affect this). In other words, I'm not sure how you are relating levels of irradition (measure in power/area) , to the observed increases in temperature (measured simply as temperature).
Seems pretty clear to me that this is a political issue first and a scientific debate second.
You're absolutely right about that at least, the debate is political. If you defer to the currently accepted scientific view, you accept that global warming is happening and that anthropogenic causes are most likely a significant contributor. There really is no debate among scientists about these basics anymore. To find the debate, (and to find the denialists), you have to enter the poltical arena, where the clear science suddenly becomes a "controversial issue." It's pretty much the Evolution 'debate' all over.
whatever action we need to talk to 'fix' the environment has to be done slowly and careful, because our (humanity's) track record on this issue isn't stellar. Just look at the number of rabbits in Australia if you don't believe me.
I think your example is particularly poorly choosen. Surely mixy has proven a fairly good way to control rabbits, without other untoward ecological effects?! (You are not saying that rabbits were introduced as an ecological 'fix,' surely!)
You would make your point better by writing "... look at the number of cane toads in Australia ..."
Still, it's pretty clear that the Pentateuch was originally written in Hebrew, and that the Greek and Latin (and Early Modern English) were derived from it
While that is true, the earliest complete copy (even of the Pentateuch let alone the entire OT) of the Hebrew we have, dates from around the year 1000, whereas the Septuagint (ie the original Greek translation), dates from somewhere in the first three centuries before Christ.
By comparing passages from ancient Hebrew texts (dead sea scrolls) we can see that occasionally at least the Greek is a more accurate rendition than the Masoretic text. In this particular instance, of course, it would pay to know what the Hebrew as well as the Greek say.
In any case, whether your translation says 'kill' or 'murder,' and indeed whether the same distinction between ratsah and harag was drawn in classical biblical Hebrew as it is in modern Hebrew, it is clear from context (ie. because the Pentateuch so often prescribes a capital sentence for transgressions and because YHVH commanded His people to exterminate the indigenous people of Canaan), that the commandment only has unlawful killing in mind and not killing per se.
>Yet he has no training in climatology. This is also false. Climatology is also actually a multidisciplanarian field; relying in part on the disciplines of anthropology and biology for gathering its evidence.
From which it does not follow that anyone trained in biology or anthropology can automatically claim to "have training in climatology." OP is quite correct in stating that Crighton has no training in climatology.
There is no authority in science. Only data.
That is naive on two levels, firstly intepretation of data is not either uncontroversial or a matter of individual preference. Authority in Science consists mainly of the outcomes of debates conducted in scholarly journals, and unlike debates conducted in other fields (such as politics) these debates do yield definitive outcomes. Unless you can bring some original work as a conference or journal paper challenging that authority, you are in no position (scientifically) to disagree.
Secondly, data does not exist in isolation from scientific authority. What is measured, or what measurement even means are themselves subject to the scientific authority of the day.
The sad fact is, much as we like to think we can be knowledgible about absolutely everything, in reality we are not expert scientists, jurists, philosophers or whatever, and most of what we (as non-experts) have to say is just so much junk. This is why I no longer argue the science of GW with anyone, I tell them to go find a good scientific abstracting service.
Any high school student has the right challange my assertions that gravity is an accelerative force. In fact, I demand that my students make every attempt to gather data on their own in order to disprove the allegation.
Call me old-fashioned (I am), but I think you are doing your students a disservice by importing this kind of liberalism into science. This kind of attitude is the reason so many people have a difficulty with scientific authority. This is why people think they are entitled to draw their own conclusions in regard to topics like GW. But in assuming they have the wherewithall to draw any sensible conclusion, they are deceiving themselves. I know this is a big call, but the only conclusions the lay public should entertain are conclusions drawn by experts in the field, who have both the knowledge and the analytical ability to do so.
When I did my science degree I was basically told to shut up and learn, anything I could say while I was still an undergraduate not conducting original work, would simply be impertinent. Tough, illiberal, but basically true.
You have eliminated almost the entire field of climatology in one swell foop
Now this is the point where I tell you to find a good scientific abstracting service ...
A LOT of people cite the movie, and even propose legislation based on it.
Well I haven't seen the movie, so I won't comment on how accurately it reflects the underlying science, but these people would make their point better (from a scientific point of view, perhaps using the movie scores better in the political arena), if they simply cited the published research which the movie claims to portray. I mean there is such an abundance of good scientific work to cite from here, that you don't need to cite a doco, or a piece of fiction. Only the denialists need to resort to tactics like that, surely.
could you tell us who peer-reviewed Gore's movie
The point is that you wouldn't cite that movie, you'd cite the scientific literature.
Proper tags for this article may include "Diebold" "voting machines" "Maryland"
Surely you can think of some more useful tags like "electoral fraud", "corruption," "cronyism" ...
What do the opinions of the editorial staff of unnamed periodicals have to do with demonstrating facts?
I'm wondering whether you are responding the the wrong post here? Who said anything about the "the opinions of the editorial staff of unamed periodicals"? I might suspect that you have no idea of what a peer reviewed journal actually is, but it would be ungenerous to presume so great a level of ignorance on your part.
Is your stance that certain unidentified editors and or publishers are infallible judges of truth.
Clearly not! And nothing I said could possibly be intepreted that way by anyone of sound mind. Again I must presume that you are responding to the wrong post.
Why don't you name those individuals so that we could worship them?
Come again?
What a ridiculous superstition grips your medieval mind
How very post-modern of you to refer to Science as a "superstititon!"
As far as describing my, or anyone else's, mind as "medieval," that is a pure ad hominem, and given the very large target you make in that regard, that is probably not a window you would want to open.
and to be honest the second one did look like it was run by some kooky Mormons...
Yup the first one is incredibly deceptive at first glance, and then when you look around its like ....ohmigod what planet have I landed on?!
I never said, nor do I belive that a huge nuclear exchange would not have a global affect on weather - only that the original nuclear winter scenarios touted by Carl Sagan were hugely overblown, and the affects would not be quite so prolonged.
Actually I agree with you. Also as far as I'm concerned the mere mention of the name Carl Sagan (or on the other side of the fence Michael Crichton), is enought to cast doubt on most any claim. :P I note that most of Sagan's writings on this issue appeared in fora other than science journals.
After Googling more, I see that (of course!) politics have gotten into this debate.
Yes, Americans especially (it seems to this non-American, sorry if this is mere prejudice) have a tendency to politicise what should be strictly scientific issues. Indeed that was precisely why I flew off the handle when you cited political sources to disprove a scientific hypothesis. Sorry 'bout that, I've calmed down now.
I must have missed when someone on this thread supported the idea of nuclear winter with a peer-reviewed scientific article.
Probably because there is some general acceptance of the idea. But that wasn't my point anyway, my point was citing disreputable sources does nothing to bolster one's arguments.
In any case that deficiency is easily addressed:
Turco RP, Toon OB, Ackerman TP, Pollack JB, Sagan C (1983) 'Nuclear winter: global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions', Science 222:1283-1292
Covey C (1987) 'Protracted climatic effects of massive smoke injections into the atmosphere', Nature 325:701-703
Warner F, and collaborators (1987) 'Severe global-scale effects of nuclear war reaffirmed', Environment 29:4-5 & 45
A B Pittock, K Walsh and J S Frederiksen (1989) 'General circulation model simulation of mild nuclear winter effects', Climate Dynamics Vol 3 No 4 pp 191-206
If on the other hand you want something that doesn't necessarily support the idea (at least not to the extent proposed by Turco et al, here a review of the literature that forms the chapter of a book:
William A. Kerr (1999), 'Nuclear winter, possible environmental effects', in Environmental Geology, Springer Verlag, p448-449
From the abstract to that chapter:
I believe the nuclear winter scnenario as you describe it has long been disproven.
If it has neither of the references you provide demonstrate that fact. They are not to peer reviewed articles in scholarly scientific journals, not do they even reference such articles. Instead both are right-wing extremist propaganda sites which deal exclusively in disinformation.
Please note, this does not mean that I personally accept nor endorse the nuclear winter scenario. My point rather, is that you would be more pursuasive if you brought scientific arguments to the table rather than extremist political ideology. In fact, seeing that these particular sites deny the reality of 'nuclear winter,' I might have to review my long-standing scepticism toward the scenario.
Anyone who needs evidence science is an inexact science need only remember Carl Sagan and his wrong prediction ...
Sagan's prediction was hardly science. It was merely something a scientist said more or less on the spur of the moment. This is to be contrasted with the debate between scientists as researched and published in peer-reviewed journals. Global Warming is a good example of how science actually works, disputes about the reliability of the historical temperature record were raised by scientists disputing the reality of warming. Others went back, assessed the criticims and where they were valid worked out methods by which the problems that were raised could be accounted for and solved. As a result of at least two decades of intensive work on this (not a general spur of the moment prediction), we now know that the planet is indeed warming.
That is not to say, that such science is infallible. There is much that is still to be learned about climate and models can only incorporate current knowledge. Until recently, for example, it was believed that soil re-uptake of C02 was much stronger than we now know it is. It is clear now that the models of warming have systematically underestimated the rate of warming and that we are seeing effects (such as the level of deglaciation), which were not expected to take place until decades from now.
In any case, the utterance of a single scientist (especially if this scientist is not an expert in the field), doth not a science make.
If you 'invest' in a book, make sure that it covers at least python 2.2 ... You don't want a 1.6x book which will leave you in the dark about new style classes, scoping rules etc. (ie. if you get the O'Reilly Learning Python book, make sure it is 2nd Ed.)
Having said that I'm going to totally contradict myself by pointing you in the direction of Instant Python. (Actually I'm warning you that this is out of date, it's just such a quick hand up that it's still worth a look at.) More generally a list of on-line python tutorials can be found here.
who would benefit by finding evidence for global warming
Exactly the same people who would benefit from finding evidence for gravity.
C'mon give it up already, no sane and informed person any longer denies that global warming is occuring, even the Bush Whitehouse now concedes a significant anthropogenic contribution. The conservative position at this point in time is that eliminating the use of fossil fuels would impact too greatly on the economy and we have to tech our way out of the problem (eg. sequestration) rather than cut consumption. Get with the program!
Sheeesh! Eybler didn't finish K. 626 (he tied and gave up), as every schoolkid knows, it was Süssmayr.
Well, guess what, there is no difference between a republic and a representative democracy, those are just different words for the same thing.
Yes exactly and have you noticed that the someone going into a tirade is invariably (well almost) a Republican? I'm sorry, but when I hear the words "The US is not a democracy but ..." coming from the mouths of people who want to argue away the evidence of electoral fraud, my cynicism switch gets thrown.
Yeah! What he said ...
In a democracy, accurate polls are essential ...
Ah but you see we've managed to spin that one too. The US "is not a democracy," no, no, it is "a Republic founded on democratic principles." Being non-core, these democratic principles can (and should) be overridden if it is necessary to keep the government in safe hands during times like these when the US is threatened with imminent destruction from the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
For 'CEO' read 'Chairperson'
Standard practice (that I am aware of) is ...
While that may or may not be so (in point of fact pretexting appears to be 'standard practice'), it really doesn't answer the question. What would you (as a CEO) do? Presumably as the CEO you are not a professional investigator and (even if you had previously been one) you are not going to conduct the investigation personally. It's a question of management, not a quetion of investigatorial technique.
Unfortunately, Dunn's version of events is that she hired someone to obtain confidential phone records, she received and made use of the phone records but is now amazed after the event to find that they'd been unethical in getting them.
No, Dunn's version of events is that she told HP's General Counsels Office to investigate the matter and that she didn't know until a full month after the fateful board meeting that confidential phone records had been used, which she claims only to have found out from one of Perkins' emails.
Just because a journalist is "goes out of [his] way" to put both sides of a story doesn't mean he is actually being fair (and how fair was the previous piece)? After all we wouldn't want to loose access to that yacht we are writing a book about, would we?
What this person did is just totally inexcusable and they came out looking like a total dimwit on top of it.
What exactly die she do that was so wrong? She wanted to fix a leak and apparently went about it in the most proper way imaginable. From the article:
How would you have proceeded agains the leaker? Wouldn't you have the right to assume that your general cousel would carry out your instructions in a lawful manner?
She claims not to have known until June this year that pretexting was being used. That claim is either true or it isn't. Given that the investigation was being conducted at an arm's length (well two arms actually), and that she herself was a victim of pretexting, I don't think this claim is entirely implausible. What evidence contradicts this claim?
Of course there's the question of whether she "intentionally avoided knowing about the details," or whether she is actually too busy to micromanage all the tasks she has delegated.
In any case the more one thinks about it (or reads beyong the headlines), the less "totally inexcusable" her behaviour appears. I'm not entirely convinced that the media scrutiny directed at her would be so intense if she were a he, but maybe it's just because the investigators made the mistake of pretexting journalists.