Well, climate prediction can not predict the weather - what a surprise. More importantly it can't predict the Arctic Oscillation - but it can predict that even when the AOI becomes strongly negative, overall it will become warmer. Guess what the last couple of weeks were?
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Well it takes more than repeating easily debunked platitudes and specious arguments.
I get the impression that the deniers actually try to prove that their view is scientific by being easily falsifiable.
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Now to get this clear: this was one question out of "several gathered from climate sceptics". And you can see that it was asked in a very specific way, that could be answered truthfully like Prof. Jones did, or in some other way. And the Daily Mail, known mouthpiece of British denialists promptly posted one of the two prepared articles. The other BTW would have been titled: "Climategate II: Prof. Jones caught lying again."
And if you fucking have to ask why that's a gross misrepresentation of what Jones said (a denier would call lesser things "a lie") - you have no function discussing what's for dinner, let alone climate change.
You forgot: 4) many names on the list are obviously fake, and nobody knows how many non-obvious ones are on the list - because they never bothered to even check against the address list they SPAMed the petition out to.
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Easy: if we go through a century with zero human carbon emissions and we still get the obvious warming we get today, its not man-made.
So get the hell out of science's way, and allow this simple test, science hater.
It's not people that jailbreak their iPhones that are being blocked from the app store, it's the people that make the software to jailbreak iPhones that are being blocked.
Or that is what they claim - the message they get is the same one gets when somebody has tried to login with the wrong password too many times. Gee, what are the chances that giving out your email adress (which happens to be your Apple ID) among a group of hackers could lead to one of the guys trying to hack your account?
The Mac II came out March 1987, Apple offered a card that at least matched VGA in specs, you could buy even better graphics cards for the Mac II from several other vendors, you could put 6 of them into the Mac II and drive 6 monitors with them, fully supported by the OS.
IBM introduced the VGA card in April 1987, it could only be used in their new PS/2 range of PCs with the new Micro Channel Architecture bus. VGA compatible cards with ISA bus came much later, and you could only use one at a time (unless you used specially written apps that could handle one color card and one mono card).
I cannot believe Apple did not learn this lesson the last time in the 80s. They were in the drivers seat with the PC and they refused to let anyone develop any software for it.
A piece that pretends it wasn't Apple who ultimately made the Music Industry drop DRM, says there are "uncertainties" about iPad DRM and you take that as proof for your claim the iPad is "DRM riddled"? With a name like "Etrias" we can expect your posts to be just random prejudices strung together.
You don't need to. There is zero meaningful information in it that is not included in the summary.
Yes, there is: ""So, it's not like I sit there and feel the same way I did with iPhone where I say, 'Oh my God, Microsoft didn't aim high enough.'" Take that from Bill, Balmer.
I ask because there's lots of evidence that the LIA affected North America as well as Europe. (In 1776, Major Hamilton was able to drag the guns of Fort Ticonderoga across the frozen Hudson River to New York; by 1830, that would have been impossible.)
Well, that's odd, because the LIA supposedly lasted until 1850. So your argument for the LIA not being a local event is that "it" ended in North America long before it ended in Europe?
I take it you haven't read the emails from East Anglia? Obfuscation, "hide the decline," discussion of how to destroy the careers of those who disagree with them, and subvert legal FOIA requests. Hardly the behavior of people who want to go on public record.
According to a report by Associated Press today (appended
below), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was elected as Chair of the
IPCC at a plenary meeting in Geneva. As you would be aware
from our earlier SSI alerts of the past several weeks, this
follows on from intense lobbying of the US government by the
fossil fuel industry to remove Dr. Robert Watson as Chair.
Although reports from Geneva are still sketchy, our sources
on the ground tell us that there was intense behind-the-
scenes lobbying by Saudi Arabia, with assistance from Don
Pearlman -- a well known oil and gas lobbyist with strong
connections to industry-backed organizations opposed to
climate change mitigation. Through their maneuvering, the
co-chair compromise approach -- comprised of former chair
Dr. Robert Watson and Dr. Pachauri -- was not considered.
As a result of this election, there is considerable concern
in the climate science and environmental communities --
reinforced by the intensive lobbying from fossil fuel
interests on this decision -- that the Bush Administration's
lack of support for former IPCC Chair Dr. Robert Watson
signals a more general lack of support for the IPCC as a
credible international scientific assessment process that
provides governments with sound information on climate
science, impacts, and solutions.
By supporting Dr. Pachauri for primarily political purposes,
the Bush Administration has seriously threatened the
scientific credibility of the IPCC process. The conservative
fossil fuel interests should be exposed for their role in
influencing the US government's stance on this issue, and
the IPCC process must remain a scientifically credible and
non-politicized process.
The next IPCC Climate Change Assessment is due out in five
years, and it is the chair's role to oversee this complex
process. The scientific community's voice is important in
this issue to ensure that the IPCC process remains strong
under the leadership of Dr. Pachauri and that the Bush
Administration does not erode the effectiveness of this
important international body.
Since you take the emails as quoted by your sceptic-overlords as gospel, you will have to agree that almost 8 years ago, several climate scientists predicted that Dr. Pachauri, pushed as head of the iPCC by President Bush, would put a bad light on the IPCC report. Their prediction turned out to be true - just that the plan of the sceptics cabal was actually a little more refined than they assumed.
AGW skeptics don't ignore long-term trends like the Early Medieval Warm or the Little Ice Age in setting up models. Skeptics don't select a small number of tree-ring samples that Just Happen to fit their ideas while discarding the majority that don't. Skeptics don't add arbitrary, ad hoc adjustments to their data to hide the fact that the data doesn't fit their theory. That's what the alarmists do, and have been caught doing, repeatedly.
Yeah, instead skeptics pretend the MWP and LIA are more than local events. And the bit about "Skeptics don't add arbitrary, ad hoc adjustments to their data to hide the fact that the data doesn't fit their theory"? Are you fucking serious? Even if we ignore non-scientists like Monckton aka Sir Münchhausen with his host of completely made-up graphs - how about the papers from Friis-Christensen and Lassen? Here's one paper that not only rips them apart, mostly by showing where they manipulated and ignored data that didn't fit their theory: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf The funny-sad part is, even after they have exposed a hoax, they are still widely touted as the truth (TM) by all skeptics.
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of
the Ground
Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, climate prediction can not predict the weather - what a surprise. More importantly it can't predict the Arctic Oscillation - but it can predict that even when the AOI becomes strongly negative, overall it will become warmer. Guess what the last couple of weeks were?
Well it takes more than repeating easily debunked platitudes and specious arguments.
I get the impression that the deniers actually try to prove that their view is scientific by being easily falsifiable.
Ok, but 2009 wasn't and 2000-2009 wasn't. Don't believe me, believe Phil Jones.
Sure. And Phil says: yup, is so. Oh you mean Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995? Oh, why don't we look at what he actually said?
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Now to get this clear: this was one question out of "several gathered from climate sceptics". And you can see that it was asked in a very specific way, that could be answered truthfully like Prof. Jones did, or in some other way. And the Daily Mail, known mouthpiece of British denialists promptly posted one of the two prepared articles. The other BTW would have been titled: "Climategate II: Prof. Jones caught lying again."
And if you fucking have to ask why that's a gross misrepresentation of what Jones said (a denier would call lesser things "a lie") - you have no function discussing what's for dinner, let alone climate change.
You forgot: 4) many names on the list are obviously fake, and nobody knows how many non-obvious ones are on the list - because they never bothered to even check against the address list they SPAMed the petition out to.
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Easy: if we go through a century with zero human carbon emissions and we still get the obvious warming we get today, its not man-made.
So get the hell out of science's way, and allow this simple test, science hater.
Ermm what? You asked what risk a jail broken IPhone poses to yourself. Live with it.
You==wrong&&youknowit
Although, I am curious what a security risks a jail broken phone poses in a download only app/community.
http://www.tipb.com/2009/07/03/jailbroken-iphones-security-risk/ Ask Jonathan Miller - but what does he know, pft.
It's not people that jailbreak their iPhones that are being blocked from the app store, it's the people that make the software to jailbreak iPhones that are being blocked.
Or that is what they claim - the message they get is the same one gets when somebody has tried to login with the wrong password too many times. Gee, what are the chances that giving out your email adress (which happens to be your Apple ID) among a group of hackers could lead to one of the guys trying to hack your account?
The Mac II came out March 1987, Apple offered a card that at least matched VGA in specs, you could buy even better graphics cards for the Mac II from several other vendors, you could put 6 of them into the Mac II and drive 6 monitors with them, fully supported by the OS.
IBM introduced the VGA card in April 1987, it could only be used in their new PS/2 range of PCs with the new Micro Channel Architecture bus. VGA compatible cards with ISA bus came much later, and you could only use one at a time (unless you used specially written apps that could handle one color card and one mono card).
But the Mac II was the closed system - Mkay...
Gee, I wonder why you quoted an article almost a year old...
So you are telling me that people who pirate games want to pay for DLC? You must mean "one out of the group, and the rest gets it for free", right?
Of course Android is doing better than the iPhone. It's not like the iPhone had a headstart of several years or anything.
Less than a year between announcements, a little over three months between introduction of the App Store and availability of the first Android phone.
I cannot believe Apple did not learn this lesson the last time in the 80s. They were in the drivers seat with the PC and they refused to let anyone develop any software for it.
Errm, what?
Well, I'm from Florida, and this was certainly news to me.
Not a fan of the Panthers then?
Don't forget; without a keyboard! Seriously, who wants a computer without a keyboard?
http://images.apple.com/ipad/design/images/accessories_20100127.jpg
Pad Keyboard Dock
The Keyboard Dock combines a dock for charging your iPad with a full-size keyboard.
A piece that pretends it wasn't Apple who ultimately made the Music Industry drop DRM, says there are "uncertainties" about iPad DRM and you take that as proof for your claim the iPad is "DRM riddled"? With a name like "Etrias" we can expect your posts to be just random prejudices strung together.
Yeah, and some of the points they claim we already know are completely bogus, like "Still dependent on AT&T's 3G service", so ...
You don't need to. There is zero meaningful information in it that is not included in the summary.
Yes, there is: ""So, it's not like I sit there and feel the same way I did with iPhone where I say, 'Oh my God, Microsoft didn't aim high enough.'" Take that from Bill, Balmer.
At 14:52 UTC on the 15th of Febuary 2010, Microsoft became sentient. One hour later, WW3 still hasn't started - WTF?
Twitter: "For people too fat to fly or type more than 140 characters."
Hey, that's what those stupid birds are for, then.
I ask because there's lots of evidence that the LIA affected North America as well as Europe. (In 1776, Major Hamilton was able to drag the guns of Fort Ticonderoga across the frozen Hudson River to New York; by 1830, that would have been impossible.)
Well, that's odd, because the LIA supposedly lasted until 1850. So your argument for the LIA not being a local event is that "it" ended in North America long before it ended in Europe?
I take it you haven't read the emails from East Anglia? Obfuscation, "hide the decline," discussion of how to destroy the careers of those who disagree with them, and subvert legal FOIA requests. Hardly the behavior of people who want to go on public record.
I take you haven't actually read even the 4 emails that keep getting quoted by the sceptics? How about this one (that doesn't get as much press): http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270
According to a report by Associated Press today (appended below), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was elected as Chair of the IPCC at a plenary meeting in Geneva. As you would be aware from our earlier SSI alerts of the past several weeks, this follows on from intense lobbying of the US government by the fossil fuel industry to remove Dr. Robert Watson as Chair. Although reports from Geneva are still sketchy, our sources on the ground tell us that there was intense behind-the- scenes lobbying by Saudi Arabia, with assistance from Don Pearlman -- a well known oil and gas lobbyist with strong connections to industry-backed organizations opposed to climate change mitigation. Through their maneuvering, the co-chair compromise approach -- comprised of former chair Dr. Robert Watson and Dr. Pachauri -- was not considered. As a result of this election, there is considerable concern in the climate science and environmental communities -- reinforced by the intensive lobbying from fossil fuel interests on this decision -- that the Bush Administration's lack of support for former IPCC Chair Dr. Robert Watson signals a more general lack of support for the IPCC as a credible international scientific assessment process that provides governments with sound information on climate science, impacts, and solutions. By supporting Dr. Pachauri for primarily political purposes, the Bush Administration has seriously threatened the scientific credibility of the IPCC process. The conservative fossil fuel interests should be exposed for their role in influencing the US government's stance on this issue, and the IPCC process must remain a scientifically credible and non-politicized process. The next IPCC Climate Change Assessment is due out in five years, and it is the chair's role to oversee this complex process. The scientific community's voice is important in this issue to ensure that the IPCC process remains strong under the leadership of Dr. Pachauri and that the Bush Administration does not erode the effectiveness of this important international body.
Since you take the emails as quoted by your sceptic-overlords as gospel, you will have to agree that almost 8 years ago, several climate scientists predicted that Dr. Pachauri, pushed as head of the iPCC by President Bush, would put a bad light on the IPCC report. Their prediction turned out to be true - just that the plan of the sceptics cabal was actually a little more refined than they assumed.
AGW skeptics don't ignore long-term trends like the Early Medieval Warm or the Little Ice Age in setting up models. Skeptics don't select a small number of tree-ring samples that Just Happen to fit their ideas while discarding the majority that don't. Skeptics don't add arbitrary, ad hoc adjustments to their data to hide the fact that the data doesn't fit their theory. That's what the alarmists do, and have been caught doing, repeatedly.
Yeah, instead skeptics pretend the MWP and LIA are more than local events. And the bit about "Skeptics don't add arbitrary, ad hoc adjustments to their data to hide the fact that the data doesn't fit their theory"? Are you fucking serious? Even if we ignore non-scientists like Monckton aka Sir Münchhausen with his host of completely made-up graphs - how about the papers from Friis-Christensen and Lassen? Here's one paper that not only rips them apart, mostly by showing where they manipulated and ignored data that didn't fit their theory: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf The funny-sad part is, even after they have exposed a hoax, they are still widely touted as the truth (TM) by all skeptics.
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.