But, at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.
Ahh. Yes. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, who released a paper named Reliability of Ice Core Records for Climatic Projections in 1996 was fired because of this from an institute he left in 1990. Who are you trying to fool here?
The "Mongol's caused the decline of muslim empire" was propaganda by the Christian armies to justify the crusades, and the further destruction of Islamic empire literature.
Actually, by the time of the conquest of Baghdad, the Crusades were mostly over. However, the Mongols were supported by Christian troops, and the Christian inhabitants of Baghdad were spared.
Of course, perhaps to Slashdot and the media they've "entered", because they seem to have some distorted idea that the mobile phone market consists of Apple in the lead, with the only competition being from Blackberry and Android. The reality is nothing of the sort. (E.g., this random page I found gives Nokia at 35%, Samsung 2nd at 31%, basically a whole load of companies who virtually never get Slashdot coverage - and Apple, who get Daily Iphone Slashvertisements, at 4% - and that's one of the higher estimates I've seen for Apple.)
Well,let's ignore that this page is about the European market, and instead mention that it is about all mobile phones, and not (as you put it) "most". Oh and it also mentions Apple's share amongst smartphones: 24%.
No I don't complain about Apple, I just choose avoidance. Avoiding anything with their logo on it is a lot easier than getting upset every time they treat their customers poorly.
That leaves me puzzled how you managed to post here.
They'll move onto the next platform. It's cheap to pay these guys to port.
Two things will kill people like this on Android. User Ratings and User Comments. Once a scam like this is noticed all this persons applications will be relegated into one star hell with enough "this is a scam" comments to ward off any potential visitors. One developer or even a group of developers will have a hard time going up against the entire community.
Wait a sec - you are telling us that on the Android marketplace anyone can rate any app any way they like? Gee, I have a feeling this could be easily exploited by astroturfers for and against any app.
To be fair, when a developer gets their app accepted they don't normally write a blog and then submit it to Slashdot.
Heck, if they did, Slashdotters would start babbling about "Slashvertisement" and "all those positive Apple stories".
Not to mention that many if not most apps that got huge publicity for being rejected have since been accepted - how many stories have there been about that?
The beautiful irony is that Apple will reject an app that duplicates the functionality of the device, but they're happy to let in several hundred apps that do the same stuff.
And I thought the beautiful irony was that if Apple rejected an app for "doing the same stuff" as an other app, you'd complain about that too.
PS: In case you want a quote from the article: "We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period—in agreement with previous similar studies".
The "hockeystick is an invention of the denialists (which you so skillfully prove by linking to them). And even when quoting the the article you completely ignore the information that the article gives: that from the 1990s on, temperatures have been warmer than they have been during the MWP. Fucking get that into your skull.
Oh, let's talk about how you made data (aka words) disappear, to "hide the decline" of your argument, shall we? The article continues:
The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.
If anybody cares, that sea temperature data also shows a warming trend.
Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.
IOW, they want to make publicly available the data that the CRU wasn't allowed to unhide.
The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.
Which is pretty much what the deniers wanted to avoid in the first place.
On that same blog you link to, there is an "Update":
Read the comments below. It's been pointed out to me that there's a later version of code in the archive in which similar correction code is not commented out. Details and link below.
Well, then it should be easy to find the published plot coming from exactly that file. I'm waiting. Or is it harder to find published data than "hidden data"?
The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data.
This has nothing to do with the data being 'properly calibrated' and everything to do with the faulty assumption that ring width strong correlates with temperature, which is the assumption they use for pre-1960 data. They sold you another lie to explain the first, my friend.
For year people have been telling us that more CO2 can't be bad, because it makes plants grow faster - now suddenly CO2 making trees grow faster "proves" that warmth doesn't. Isn't that just convenient.
As Charles Hapgood pointed out in 1966 in Maps of the Ancient Kings, long before this debate began,
See, even ignoring the validity of the map (or even the fact that you deniers keep bringing up dubious material as fact) - what makes you think the debate about AGW started after 1966, let alone "long after"? That is the biggest problem with the denier community - most believe this debate was started (by some large spanning conspiracy of rich anti-Capitalist no less) sometime in the 80s if not later. http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx
Now please prove that the retreat of glaciers in North America was caused by cavemen driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels and not by some unknown natural phenomenon.
So what is the "unknown natural phenomenon" that is causing it now? Because all claims of the deniers to know the unknown have been wrong so far. About the only thing left are aliens, god, or "CO2 is a greenhouse gas - who would have guessed".
The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number
of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, First total cloud cover and then only low clouds,
and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the
scientific as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed
a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support
solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by
an incorrect handling of the physical data. Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading
character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview. Especially, I want
to caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing
the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
My Findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such
links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention
to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.
Gee, where is the uproar about this Sungate from 2003?
So what happens when you don't use any tree-ring proxies? Yup, you still get the "Hockeystick" - because we have fucking Global Warming. I wonder why Steve "Bad Math" McIntyre doesn't mention that, even when it's plain visible in what he calls the 'WMO diagram without "Mike's Nature trick" ' which "I think the graph speaks for itself, see especially "Keith's series" (green)." - Gee, Stevie, look at the fucking graph that speaks for itself: note the Hockeystick that is still there?
Slashdot Mirror
But, at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.
Ahh. Yes. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, who released a paper named Reliability of Ice Core Records for Climatic Projections in 1996 was fired because of this from an institute he left in 1990. Who are you trying to fool here?
The "Mongol's caused the decline of muslim empire" was propaganda by the Christian armies to justify the crusades, and the further destruction of Islamic empire literature.
Actually, by the time of the conquest of Baghdad, the Crusades were mostly over. However, the Mongols were supported by Christian troops, and the Christian inhabitants of Baghdad were spared.
Of course, perhaps to Slashdot and the media they've "entered", because they seem to have some distorted idea that the mobile phone market consists of Apple in the lead, with the only competition being from Blackberry and Android. The reality is nothing of the sort. (E.g., this random page I found gives Nokia at 35%, Samsung 2nd at 31%, basically a whole load of companies who virtually never get Slashdot coverage - and Apple, who get Daily Iphone Slashvertisements, at 4% - and that's one of the higher estimates I've seen for Apple.)
Well,let's ignore that this page is about the European market, and instead mention that it is about all mobile phones, and not (as you put it) "most". Oh and it also mentions Apple's share amongst smartphones: 24%.
No I don't complain about Apple, I just choose avoidance. Avoiding anything with their logo on it is a lot easier than getting upset every time they treat their customers poorly.
That leaves me puzzled how you managed to post here.
Two things will kill people like this on Android. User Ratings and User Comments. Once a scam like this is noticed all this persons applications will be relegated into one star hell with enough "this is a scam" comments to ward off any potential visitors. One developer or even a group of developers will have a hard time going up against the entire community.
Wait a sec - you are telling us that on the Android marketplace anyone can rate any app any way they like? Gee, I have a feeling this could be easily exploited by astroturfers for and against any app.
Have you actually seen the iPhone app store? There's like 50 different fart button apps.
Funny that, look at this list of exactly 50 fart apps for Android.
To be fair, when a developer gets their app accepted they don't normally write a blog and then submit it to Slashdot.
Heck, if they did, Slashdotters would start babbling about "Slashvertisement" and "all those positive Apple stories".
Not to mention that many if not most apps that got huge publicity for being rejected have since been accepted - how many stories have there been about that?
Paper at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1388248109003889 The capacity of the prototypes was very small, but they are hoping to acchieve 10 Ah/g.
So how much is that in potato batteries?
And steel rusts like a bitch in training.
We could use stainless steel, but that would be more expensive than pure copper, I think.
But we are not likely to run out of it in the near future - which in case you missed it was the point about copper in the first place.
The beautiful irony is that Apple will reject an app that duplicates the functionality of the device, but they're happy to let in several hundred apps that do the same stuff.
And I thought the beautiful irony was that if Apple rejected an app for "doing the same stuff" as an other app, you'd complain about that too.
PS: In case you want a quote from the article: "We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period—in agreement with previous similar studies".
The "hockeystick is an invention of the denialists (which you so skillfully prove by linking to them). And even when quoting the the article you completely ignore the information that the article gives: that from the 1990s on, temperatures have been warmer than they have been during the MWP. Fucking get that into your skull.
That paper does not support a hockeystick - did you even read it?
Yes it does. The fact that you don't realize that means you are an denialist idiot. Case closed.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MobergEtAl2005.pdf - so now cite a peer-reviewed paper saying the MPW was warmer than today. Not warmer than in the 70s, but today.
The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.
If anybody cares, that sea temperature data also shows a warming trend.
Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.
IOW, they want to make publicly available the data that the CRU wasn't allowed to unhide.
The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.
Which is pretty much what the deniers wanted to avoid in the first place.
On that same blog you link to, there is an "Update": Read the comments below. It's been pointed out to me that there's a later version of code in the archive in which similar correction code is not commented out. Details and link below.
Well, then it should be easy to find the published plot coming from exactly that file. I'm waiting. Or is it harder to find published data than "hidden data"?
You make the erroneous assumption that temps are going up right now.
There is no "unknown natural phenomenon" required as nothing interesting is happening in terms of temp.
The rest of your post is baseless personal spewing and is justifiably ignored.
You are making the erroneous assumption that temps are going down right now. I'm not.
Let me guess: it's not commented out in ~/test/, and ~/backup/ ?
The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data.
This has nothing to do with the data being 'properly calibrated' and everything to do with the faulty assumption that ring width strong correlates with temperature, which is the assumption they use for pre-1960 data. They sold you another lie to explain the first, my friend.
For year people have been telling us that more CO2 can't be bad, because it makes plants grow faster - now suddenly CO2 making trees grow faster "proves" that warmth doesn't. Isn't that just convenient.
Much of this has to do with the fact that "Climate Science" has ceased to be meaningful science.
Yeah, all those experts like McIntyre have made a mockery out of it. Or rather their work.
As Charles Hapgood pointed out in 1966 in Maps of the Ancient Kings, long before this debate began,
See, even ignoring the validity of the map (or even the fact that you deniers keep bringing up dubious material as fact) - what makes you think the debate about AGW started after 1966, let alone "long after"? That is the biggest problem with the denier community - most believe this debate was started (by some large spanning conspiracy of rich anti-Capitalist no less) sometime in the 80s if not later. http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx
Yeah, obviously hand drawn graphs showing a big hump during the MWP based on "they grew fucking wine in England!!!1!eleven!" are much more reliable.
Now please prove that the retreat of glaciers in North America was caused by cavemen driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels and not by some unknown natural phenomenon.
So what is the "unknown natural phenomenon" that is causing it now? Because all claims of the deniers to know the unknown have been wrong so far. About the only thing left are aliens, god, or "CO2 is a greenhouse gas - who would have guessed".
The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, First total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scientific as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data . Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview. Especially, I want to caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
My Findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.
Gee, where is the uproar about this Sungate from 2003?
So what happens when you don't use any tree-ring proxies? Yup, you still get the "Hockeystick" - because we have fucking Global Warming. I wonder why Steve "Bad Math" McIntyre doesn't mention that, even when it's plain visible in what he calls the 'WMO diagram without "Mike's Nature trick" ' which "I think the graph speaks for itself, see especially "Keith's series" (green)." - Gee, Stevie, look at the fucking graph that speaks for itself: note the Hockeystick that is still there?