Repeating your earlier statement doesn't really answer what I wrote.
It's easy to pretend you're perfect (or, indeed, pretty much anything) when posting anonymously online.
Given the nature of CP laws, I'd have to believe whatever the poster actually did wasn't very serious. Wouldn't have taken much for a real violation to land him in prison.
First of all, a person's background is a pretty good indicator as to whether he or she is engaging in fraud by calling him- or herself a "climatologist". Yes, sometimes people will lie about credentials, but I think you can usually get to the bottom of it.
Second, when 90% of climatologists who are worth the name believe something, I'd say there's pretty good reason to think they likely have it right. Not always, of course. But if you're looking for who to trust, playing the odds is probably a good place to start.
Some people have been putting political opinion ahead of a belief and trust in science for a very long time now. It's been getting worse, but I don't see this particular stolen emails incident as particularly catalytic.
In the AGW debate, the publicized emails create the appearance that powerful people in the scientific community stifled the dissent, open debate, and peer review that might cast doubt on their views.
Perhaps "excerpts from a few cherry-picked stolen emails, sometimes taken out of context" might be a more accurate description.
The reason that climate change has been resisted and argued by so many, for so long, is exactly this. We do not trust the people interpreting this for us at the national level.
I wish. What I see instead is a large number of credulous people who believe whatever certain pundits tell them is the best way to screw with liberals.
Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with much of this (depressing as it is). It's awful hard to find "common ground" with people who aren't interested in science; rather, they're interested in doing and saying whatever their mentally-ill talking heads tell them is the best way to screw with liberals.
That was a pretty genius stroke by energy companies, enlisting one half of the two political poles as allies. It basically ensured the entire debate couldn't take place on scientific grounds. And it's done a vast disservice to those who really DO question the science from a scientific standpoint, as well. How do you present a creditable case when the guys next to you are babbling some nonsense conspiracy theory about socialism?
Every one of the links above details what's wrong with the "petition". Or, if you lack the courage to visit anything that forces you to think, try the petition itself:
The 30,000 "scientists" are people with at least a Bachelors of Science in some field, including computer science and other non-research science degrees. They signed a petition back in 1998 saying that they did not believe in Global Warming. Many of them are dead now.
Nothing to do with Gore, and many (most?) aren't "scientists." Oh, and there's no lawsuit, either, just in case you believed that part, too.
Given the fact that the people who received this vaccine should now have immunity to the normal flu, it stands to reason their chances of getting normal flu would not be boosted.
If, on the other hand, people who get the vaccine tend to be people at high risk of getting flu in general due to occupational risks, travel habits, etc., or they tend to engage in more risky behavior because they've had the regular flu vaccine, a correlation with an increased incidence of the novel H1N1 simultaneously makes sense.
To me, the most logical explanation is that people who tend to get regular flu vaccines (e.g. teachers, etc.) are generally at higher risk of contracting the flu in the first place due to occupational risk factors, etc.
Seconded regarding the "junk" comment. Taubes' stuff has been ripped apart (I mean thoroughly) by world-class nutritionists like Alan Aragon, who recently wrote a treatise on the topic. Even so, if you read Taubes' comments carefully, he does get down to energy balance being what matters, but the path he takes there is full of hokum.
You know, if Taubes' repackaged paleo diet stuff works for you, that's great. Results are what counts, and if doing what he recommends leaves you with a caloric deficit, you're in good shape.
If you're going to recommend his stuff to others, however, you should know that he's considered a bit of a quack by nutritionists whose stuff is largely not backed up by actual nutrition research.
Not that simple I'm afraid. Or rather, it is in the literal sense. But practically speaking, your body adjusts to the amount of available fuel - if you're starving yourself, then what will happen is your body will conserve energy so you can live as long as possible. What will happen then, is you find yourself exhausted and listless, and using very little energy, so not actually losing weight, despite cutting back on your intake.
This isn't quite true. While severe caloric restriction can trigger changes in the body that result in slower consumption of calories, those changes don't stop weight loss, just slow it.
If this weren't the case, then people who starve themselves wouldn't end up dying emaciated, etc.
It's not really about self discipline at all - any more than anorexia is a good way to lose weight - it's all about getting enough food and nutrients to have your body working efficently, and... oddly enough, that is pretty much what dietician will suggest as a 'balanced' diet.
Actually, if weight loss is your only goal, then anorexia is a damned good way to do it. Anorexics prove that all the time.
Of course, if healthy weight loss is the goal, then that's another story entirely.
I'm losing weight at the moment - and am actually eating _more_ than a 'normal' amount each day, because I'm working out quite a lot. It's much easier to maintain a 500 calorie deficit if your daily usage is 4000 or so, than if it's the 2500 'no exercise' average.
This in no way contradicts the basic "energy balance" observation and its relation to weight loss. I've lost some 50 pounds and put on 10 deliberately and precisely, all through calorie control. It really does work, but precise, honest calorie counting really helps.
How did this get modded insightful? Did people just want someone to stand up for low-carb?
I guess it got modded "insightful" for the same reason the quack diet industry seems to be big business (judging by the number of people who have quack diets to sell).
AFAIK carbohydrates in any form are not required nutrients. At least, there are plenty of documented cases of people living long, happy, healthy, productive lives without ever tasting them. The Inuit, for instance, used to regard plants as unfit for human consumption, and would never touch them unless they were starving. OTOH there is evidence that excessive carbohydrates (or possibly the wrong kind) can gradually bring about insulin resistance, obesity, and eventually diabetes.
The best comment I've ever read on so-called "paleo" diets came from Alan Aragon:
"Paleo nuts will insist that ancestral eating patterns were optimal. This is just as speculative as insisting that their hygiene habits were optimal, too."
Again, there is ample evidence to show that some people (as in many thousands) have consumed well under 2000 calories a month for decades, in the form of carbohydrates, while doing hard physical work - and wound up grossly obese. Just as others (usually much wealthier) have eaten far more than 2000 calories a day for years, while doing little or no physical work, and remained lean and fit.
Body weight is determined by energy balance (calories in vs. calories burned). Are there some people so small that 2000 calorie diets are way over budget, even with exercise? You bet. That doesn't change the equation. Here's the state of research on the topic:
Some things in nutrition science are unknown or controversial. This isn't -- except among quacks and people with books to sell.
As far as carb restriction and weight loss, you should know the recent research on the topic shows no difference between carb restriction and non-carb-restriction, once energy balance is controlled.
Consider, if it's not too challenging, the possibility that human bodies treat different nutrients in different ways. Ask yourself why - if constant weight can be maintained only by making sure that "energy in equals energy out" - most human beings (and other animals) keep their weight within a pound or two for decades on end.
It seems to me you're confusing "simple" with "easy". Body weight and energy balance are indeed simple things. Keeping energy balance where you want it isn't. In fact, even among people who count calories, studies say there's a tendency to grossly underestimate calories consumed (20% or more).
Yes, that's right - join the bulk of the scientific, medical, and political establishments - and the big food manufacturers who fund them - and blame the victims.
And yet you swallow the junk nutrition myths from people with books to sell you hook, line and sinker.
You seem to have little understanding of scientific research, disclosure of bias and how to deal with it, etc.
If you're facing an entity with the resources of a government who is investigating you over time without your knowledge, you're probably not going to come out on top.
Commodity PC hardware just isn't designed to resist that kind of thing, thus, Truecrypt can't be designed to resist it.
I would imagine the same goes for Safeboot and all the other full-disk encryption programs out there.
We get stories like this every time MS releases a new OS.
And every time we get these stories, we also hear "we get these stories every time MS releases a new OS," along with predictions that the new OS will see just as high an adoption rate as the most successful of MS's OS releases.
I recall the exact same predictions for Vista (which you yourself note was a flop). Honestly, I think success is a little less than certain at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
Repeating your earlier statement doesn't really answer what I wrote. It's easy to pretend you're perfect (or, indeed, pretty much anything) when posting anonymously online.
I always have to wonder whether people who post comments like these would be the first to complain if their own foibles were at issue.
Given the nature of CP laws, I'd have to believe whatever the poster actually did wasn't very serious. Wouldn't have taken much for a real violation to land him in prison.
First of all, a person's background is a pretty good indicator as to whether he or she is engaging in fraud by calling him- or herself a "climatologist". Yes, sometimes people will lie about credentials, but I think you can usually get to the bottom of it. Second, when 90% of climatologists who are worth the name believe something, I'd say there's pretty good reason to think they likely have it right. Not always, of course. But if you're looking for who to trust, playing the odds is probably a good place to start.
Some people have been putting political opinion ahead of a belief and trust in science for a very long time now. It's been getting worse, but I don't see this particular stolen emails incident as particularly catalytic.
Perhaps "excerpts from a few cherry-picked stolen emails, sometimes taken out of context" might be a more accurate description.
I wish. What I see instead is a large number of credulous people who believe whatever certain pundits tell them is the best way to screw with liberals.
Theories remain theories, period.
That would be a truly welcome change.
Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with much of this (depressing as it is). It's awful hard to find "common ground" with people who aren't interested in science; rather, they're interested in doing and saying whatever their mentally-ill talking heads tell them is the best way to screw with liberals.
That was a pretty genius stroke by energy companies, enlisting one half of the two political poles as allies. It basically ensured the entire debate couldn't take place on scientific grounds. And it's done a vast disservice to those who really DO question the science from a scientific standpoint, as well. How do you present a creditable case when the guys next to you are babbling some nonsense conspiracy theory about socialism?
And your blind dismissal of anything based on the fact that it's posted on dKos makes you an irrational fool. Plain and simple.
...where you can see 1) many of those on the petition are not scientists and 2) the petition mentions nothing about Al Gore.
Tell you what, genius. If you're afraid to visit dKos and fairly consider what's posted there, try these:
http://www.desmogblog.com/search/node/oregon%20petition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
http://ezinearticles.com/?Debunking-the-Oregon-Petition-Project&id=1675285
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
Every one of the links above details what's wrong with the "petition". Or, if you lack the courage to visit anything that forces you to think, try the petition itself:
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
I know, I know. Facts have a liberal bias. Sucks to be you.
No, they haven't. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/20/806300/-30,000-Scientists-Sue-Al-Gore-for-Fraud From the link:
Nothing to do with Gore, and many (most?) aren't "scientists." Oh, and there's no lawsuit, either, just in case you believed that part, too.
I'm good with that description.
True, that. It's been a while since I took my first science classes, but I also don't recall any patent requirements.
Given the fact that the people who received this vaccine should now have immunity to the normal flu, it stands to reason their chances of getting normal flu would not be boosted. If, on the other hand, people who get the vaccine tend to be people at high risk of getting flu in general due to occupational risks, travel habits, etc., or they tend to engage in more risky behavior because they've had the regular flu vaccine, a correlation with an increased incidence of the novel H1N1 simultaneously makes sense.
To me, the most logical explanation is that people who tend to get regular flu vaccines (e.g. teachers, etc.) are generally at higher risk of contracting the flu in the first place due to occupational risk factors, etc.
Seconded regarding the "junk" comment. Taubes' stuff has been ripped apart (I mean thoroughly) by world-class nutritionists like Alan Aragon, who recently wrote a treatise on the topic. Even so, if you read Taubes' comments carefully, he does get down to energy balance being what matters, but the path he takes there is full of hokum.
You know, if Taubes' repackaged paleo diet stuff works for you, that's great. Results are what counts, and if doing what he recommends leaves you with a caloric deficit, you're in good shape. If you're going to recommend his stuff to others, however, you should know that he's considered a bit of a quack by nutritionists whose stuff is largely not backed up by actual nutrition research.
This isn't quite true. While severe caloric restriction can trigger changes in the body that result in slower consumption of calories, those changes don't stop weight loss, just slow it. If this weren't the case, then people who starve themselves wouldn't end up dying emaciated, etc.
Actually, if weight loss is your only goal, then anorexia is a damned good way to do it. Anorexics prove that all the time. Of course, if healthy weight loss is the goal, then that's another story entirely.
This in no way contradicts the basic "energy balance" observation and its relation to weight loss. I've lost some 50 pounds and put on 10 deliberately and precisely, all through calorie control. It really does work, but precise, honest calorie counting really helps.
I guess it got modded "insightful" for the same reason the quack diet industry seems to be big business (judging by the number of people who have quack diets to sell).
The best comment I've ever read on so-called "paleo" diets came from Alan Aragon:
"Paleo nuts will insist that ancestral eating patterns were optimal. This is just as speculative as insisting that their hygiene habits were optimal, too."
You might be interested in some actual historical review on this topic as well: http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~gowlett/GowlettCJNE_13_03_02.pdf
Body weight is determined by energy balance (calories in vs. calories burned). Are there some people so small that 2000 calorie diets are way over budget, even with exercise? You bet. That doesn't change the equation. Here's the state of research on the topic:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/wecan/learn-it/balance.htm
Some things in nutrition science are unknown or controversial. This isn't -- except among quacks and people with books to sell.
As far as carb restriction and weight loss, you should know the recent research on the topic shows no difference between carb restriction and non-carb-restriction, once energy balance is controlled.
It seems to me you're confusing "simple" with "easy". Body weight and energy balance are indeed simple things. Keeping energy balance where you want it isn't. In fact, even among people who count calories, studies say there's a tendency to grossly underestimate calories consumed (20% or more).
And yet you swallow the junk nutrition myths from people with books to sell you hook, line and sinker.
You seem to have little understanding of scientific research, disclosure of bias and how to deal with it, etc.
If you're facing an entity with the resources of a government who is investigating you over time without your knowledge, you're probably not going to come out on top. Commodity PC hardware just isn't designed to resist that kind of thing, thus, Truecrypt can't be designed to resist it. I would imagine the same goes for Safeboot and all the other full-disk encryption programs out there.
"Company denies its robots feed on the dead". Fun times. Ah, well -- they say there's no such thing as bad publicity.
I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've ever heard someone suggest the idea of a black hole being anyone's bitch.
And every time we get these stories, we also hear "we get these stories every time MS releases a new OS," along with predictions that the new OS will see just as high an adoption rate as the most successful of MS's OS releases. I recall the exact same predictions for Vista (which you yourself note was a flop). Honestly, I think success is a little less than certain at this point.