If it doesn't have anything to do with any deity, the text should probably be changed to something that doesn't impose a certain ideological view on people...
You are expecting things to happen right away. It's only natural. Instant gratification is what we crave today. But these things take a long time to develop fully. It's been under development for a long time already, and a couple of more years to work out the kinks is basically what one might expect. I don't think there's something wrong with the LHC as such, or that it's taking longer than it should. It's that we are expecting things to happen with the snap of a finger, and that's just not how it works.
What "actual scientific articles and graphs"? As you may have noticed, denialists always distort those. They are often difficult to read for people who aren't deeply involved in the field, and require you to pay for access. The sites I link to contain simple explanations, much like TalkOrigins contains simple, straightforward responses to creationist bullshit.
The reason it failed is likely a lack of marketing. That, and it was rather expensive. And it wasn't even possible to use it in some places because you need to buy a phone from your operator, right?
Anyway, hasn't this exact story been posted several times on Slashdot? This is definitely not the first "Nexus One failed" post. Why do we keep discussing it? Time to move on, perhaps?
I have no idea if carbon credits are a scam. I'm basically not interested in those things. My "interest" in AGW only reaches a certain point, and I used to be equally indifferent (and ignorant) about AGW. The only reason I know something about AGW is because Climategate compelled med to educate myself. You see, denialists seemed to act an awful lot like creationists in debates, and that's the part I'm interested in: Blatant anti-science propaganda. If climate science had not been under intense attack by anti-science loons, I wouldn't have even bothered learning anything about AGW.
And again, you are simply repeating the same old denialist talking points, such as the silly CO2 lags temperature nonsense.
The sites accurately and nicely refute the good old denialist talking points. The sites (or articles) do not pretend to be more than what they are: Lists of responses to denialist propaganda. Just like TalkOrigins and other sites contain lists of responses to creationist propaganda. If you feel like a victim because your old and tired talking points are being met with lists that refute those common talking point, then that's your problem. You still aren't a victim!
A serious theory I have never seen discredited (other than saying people are a crackpot for suggestion it) is that the cause of warming is basically the excess heat from burning (think of the atmosphere as your house and all the fossil fuel as your heater).
Do you really think scientists are this fucking stupid? That they don't take these things into account? Christ.
If you believe in anything because the majority of scientists do, then you are an idiot.
You are getting it all wrong. You don't believe. You accept the scientific consensus because the scientific consensus has turned out to be the best way to understand the world. As such, you don't need to blindly believe anything. You can simply look at the fact that accepting the scientific consensus is very useful indeed.
My single article of evidence shows glaring issue with most scientific venues that compete for funding.
The question was: "Please explain the mechanism. How could a research grant affect the outcome of the research? Do you have any concrete examples."
A research grant can't affect the outcome because it needs to be independently verified by other scientists. The whole scientific process is created to catch cheating. To cheat, you would need to get thousands upon thousands of scientists from all over the world to enter into a major conspiracy, bigger than anything else in the history of the world. That's just crazy talk.
This planet has endured many different trials/catastrophes, yet it is still here and thriving.
Wait, what? Did you miss the parts where life nearly went extinct several times because of said catastrophies? Do you know what ended the reign of the dinosaurs?
Yes, humanity is thriving right now, but you seem to suffer under the delusion that everyone would survive a global catastrophe. That is simply not possible. And while humanity might well survive a global catastrophe, it will be vastly reduced, and most people you know and love will probably be dead!
So just because we are thriving now doesn't mean that we can ignore any catastrophes! Because even though humanity might survive, it will definitely not be pleasant for the few possible survivors!
Now, people believe they have some "new, fresh, and exciting" intelligence and information and all they can come up with is that CO2 is the cause of environmental "problems".
No, this is nothing new. Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect for nearly 200 years. It was first discovered in 1824, then experimented on in 1858, and then Arrhenius did his thing in 1896. Seriously, are you really this ignorant?
The same molecule that all manner of mammal(and many non-mammal) produce and that all manner of plant life consumes is causing this problem.
Water causes problems too. Floods are lethal. And yet, water is absolutely essential for life. Just because something is important or essential doesn't mean that it is good in too large quantities.
The same fucking molecule that has existed on this plant for almost as long as the planet has existed, yet it is only a problem now.
It is not only a problem now. It has always been a greenhouse gas. Seriously, are you really this thick?
Even though we humans do not produce five percent of the CO2 that exist on this planet, we are affecting natural functions of a huge fucking planet?
Yes, we are indeed. Because the system is in a delicate balance which we are now disturbing. Fuck, this is kindergarten material. Do I really have to educate you about basic stuff like this? Your entire line of argument is insane!
Sigh. The same old denialist talking points. For example, scientists never said that we were going into a new ice age in the 1970's. Some newspaper claimed that they did, and made everyone believe that it was the case. But the actual scientists never said anything of the sorts.
The disputed points are that human-produced carbon dioxide is or is not a significant factor,
This is not disputed in the actual scientific research.
that Al Gore does or does not have any clue what he's blabbing about
Al Gore is irrelevant. He is not a scientist. What he has to say does not change the scientific facts.
and that the green movement does or does not constitute anything more than lies and snake oil.
The green movement is irrelevant. They are not scientists. What they have to say does not change the scientific facts.
The people who support (or object to) AGW by chanting an entrenched position over and over, and the people selling us snake oil as a "fix" are NOT helping.
"The people who support (or object to) the theory of evolution by chanting an entrenched position over and over are not helping"? What do you expect scientists to do when denialists keep lying through their teeth?
There is far too much money being pushed at those that are proponents of AGW
Quit being a hypocrite. You know as well as everyone else that the oil industry has vast resources at its disposal, and has been caught using them to lie about global warming.
Denialist hypocrites always say "follow the money", but fail to do so in practice.
Frankly, it scares the shit out of me, how easily duped the public has been on this
The ones doing the duping are the liars in the denialist propaganda machinery.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: Follow a site like that, and get your head filled with misinformation.
So you are saying that there is no warming cycle, and that there is no documented natural cycle over millions of years?
If it doesn't have anything to do with any deity, the text should probably be changed to something that doesn't impose a certain ideological view on people...
It might be a legal term, but that doesn't make it all right as a legal term. The law shouldn't be referring to God.
You are expecting things to happen right away. It's only natural. Instant gratification is what we crave today. But these things take a long time to develop fully. It's been under development for a long time already, and a couple of more years to work out the kinks is basically what one might expect. I don't think there's something wrong with the LHC as such, or that it's taking longer than it should. It's that we are expecting things to happen with the snap of a finger, and that's just not how it works.
What "actual scientific articles and graphs"? As you may have noticed, denialists always distort those. They are often difficult to read for people who aren't deeply involved in the field, and require you to pay for access. The sites I link to contain simple explanations, much like TalkOrigins contains simple, straightforward responses to creationist bullshit.
...has said its last "Moo". Dead as a... cow.
The reason it failed is likely a lack of marketing. That, and it was rather expensive. And it wasn't even possible to use it in some places because you need to buy a phone from your operator, right?
Anyway, hasn't this exact story been posted several times on Slashdot? This is definitely not the first "Nexus One failed" post. Why do we keep discussing it? Time to move on, perhaps?
What does this have to do with Google, exactly?
What does this have to do with an individual doing something on his own behalf, not Google's? How is Google defending anything?
And again, you are simply repeating the same old denialist talking points, such as the silly CO2 lags temperature nonsense.
The sites accurately and nicely refute the good old denialist talking points. The sites (or articles) do not pretend to be more than what they are: Lists of responses to denialist propaganda. Just like TalkOrigins and other sites contain lists of responses to creationist propaganda. If you feel like a victim because your old and tired talking points are being met with lists that refute those common talking point, then that's your problem. You still aren't a victim!
Do you really think scientists are this fucking stupid? That they don't take these things into account? Christ.
The writers that can churn out the most inane, stupid crap with a catching headline will make a lot of money?
The evidence clearly shows that global warming is man-made. You are obviously denying that fact because of your political ideology. Shame on you.
Heh.
No information in that Wikipedia article is being ignored. What on earth have you been smoking?
And as a response to your other retarded comment: How conceited must a virus be in order to come to the conclusion that it can kill a human being?
Why do you insist on misrepresenting the science?
In other words, an anti-science denialist?
Yep, just what I thought. The same old denialist bullshit talking points.
You are getting it all wrong. You don't believe. You accept the scientific consensus because the scientific consensus has turned out to be the best way to understand the world. As such, you don't need to blindly believe anything. You can simply look at the fact that accepting the scientific consensus is very useful indeed.
Are you going to respond to Vintermann's comment or what?
The question was: "Please explain the mechanism. How could a research grant affect the outcome of the research? Do you have any concrete examples."
A research grant can't affect the outcome because it needs to be independently verified by other scientists. The whole scientific process is created to catch cheating. To cheat, you would need to get thousands upon thousands of scientists from all over the world to enter into a major conspiracy, bigger than anything else in the history of the world. That's just crazy talk.
Wait, what? Did you miss the parts where life nearly went extinct several times because of said catastrophies? Do you know what ended the reign of the dinosaurs?
Yes, humanity is thriving right now, but you seem to suffer under the delusion that everyone would survive a global catastrophe. That is simply not possible. And while humanity might well survive a global catastrophe, it will be vastly reduced, and most people you know and love will probably be dead!
So just because we are thriving now doesn't mean that we can ignore any catastrophes! Because even though humanity might survive, it will definitely not be pleasant for the few possible survivors!
No, this is nothing new. Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect for nearly 200 years. It was first discovered in 1824, then experimented on in 1858, and then Arrhenius did his thing in 1896. Seriously, are you really this ignorant?
Water causes problems too. Floods are lethal. And yet, water is absolutely essential for life. Just because something is important or essential doesn't mean that it is good in too large quantities.
It is not only a problem now. It has always been a greenhouse gas. Seriously, are you really this thick?
Yes, we are indeed. Because the system is in a delicate balance which we are now disturbing. Fuck, this is kindergarten material. Do I really have to educate you about basic stuff like this? Your entire line of argument is insane!
Sigh. The same old denialist talking points. For example, scientists never said that we were going into a new ice age in the 1970's. Some newspaper claimed that they did, and made everyone believe that it was the case. But the actual scientists never said anything of the sorts.
This is not disputed in the actual scientific research.
Al Gore is irrelevant. He is not a scientist. What he has to say does not change the scientific facts.
The green movement is irrelevant. They are not scientists. What they have to say does not change the scientific facts.
"The people who support (or object to) the theory of evolution by chanting an entrenched position over and over are not helping"? What do you expect scientists to do when denialists keep lying through their teeth?
Quit being a hypocrite. You know as well as everyone else that the oil industry has vast resources at its disposal, and has been caught using them to lie about global warming.
Denialist hypocrites always say "follow the money", but fail to do so in practice.
The ones doing the duping are the liars in the denialist propaganda machinery.
In other words: Fact's don't matter. Go with your gut feeling?
Oh, the hypocrisy... Why do you insist on denying the scientific facs exactly? Is that your definition of "open mind"?